Thread: Should we be concerned about China's air capability?

the F111, was conceived in interesting times and the politics of the day having a big impact or influence. equal if not more so than operational requirements.

off the top of my head i will list some of these influences.

McNamaras one shoe one guy policy, actually delayed and created some issues in early development.

the US trying to overtake the British aerospace industry used politics, the F111 was a major influence on the dumping of the tsr 2. the f111 failed to meet cost and performance predictions made the the British government. the poms then had to procure and develops quickly a short turm fix and the developed the tornado to the same specs.

Australia geting F111, upset the Indonesian so much that they started a rearmament program, and attitude towards Australia the persists today. the F111 was able to drop a bomb on the Indonesian ministers house.

the f111 was the most advanced aircraft in the asia pacific region for its time. but politicly its long range was it political weak point. it was seem by Australia neighbours as aggressive more than defensive.

I don't believe there is an aeroplane flying today that could match it's range speed and payload.

......and it could have been easily upgraded to even better capability....with zero airframe.....for less than half the cost we are paying for the f35 program

Originally Posted by ramblingboy42

I don't believe there is an aeroplane flying today that could match it's range speed and payload.

......and it could have been easily upgraded to even better capability....with zero airframe.....for less than half the cost we are paying for the f35 program

ok so where is the tec and support comming from? thin air?

the F111s got to hang around for so long because of there overall performance ability. it had a major shortfall and that was or is it High maintenance hours to flight hours. this is not a new problem there are many historical aircraft that faded away because of the same problems. Tempest Typhoon. scraped within months of the end of ww2. corsair is another one, it out preformed the P51 and even the spit Mk22 etc in all aspects. but was dumped.

range is another issue. it is good that we are getting aircraft with a shorter range. as it is seen as a lesser threat and more defensive.
if extreme range is required then look at the forklands raid, so it is still possible to bomb the minister of Indonesia if ever required to do so.

payload. well bombs are smarter, so you need less bombs to do more damage. on the other hand TOT, time over target is exposure time. more bombs to drop = more targets = more exposure = more lossed aircraft.

the stealth bomber shot down over Sarajevo was shot down using ww2 tech MK1 eyeball predictors, german made pulled out of a war museum and dusted off. the bombs they drop are not stealth. flying faster than Mk.89 is not stealth. and they are not invisible. ( only to machines)

I agree with you 85 county but I am not 100% convinced that the f35 program is the way to go.
Perhaps get some other planes wile the f35 are resolved and the plane delivered?
How good are the French and Swedish offers to complement the f35?
Are they capable to compete against the Russian and Chinese jets?

Originally Posted by Chucaro

I agree with you 85 county but I am not 100% convinced that the f35 program is the way to go.
Perhaps get some other planes wile the f35 are resolved and the plane delivered?
How good are the French and Swedish offers to complement the f35?
Are they capable to compete against the Russian and Chinese jets?

in what role or sanerio are thay going to compete? give me an example and i will try to exsplane. no examples i could be going on for days

Well, we have to assume that countries invest in arms to be able to defend themselves or the allies in case of an hypothetical confrontation.
Just for the argument the hypothetical confrontation between Japan and China or what ever other conflict we like to speculate.
Which air force with which planes will be more effective?

Originally Posted by Chucaro

Well, we have to assume that countries invest in arms to be able to defend themselves or the allies in case of an hypothetical confrontation.
Just for the argument the hypothetical confrontation between Japan and China or what ever other conflict we like to speculate.
Which air force with which planes will be more effective?

see that's to bigger question. volume of aircraft, nature of attack IE limited or a prelude to invasion etc.

but say for example if you were to put an SU34 up against a euro fighter in an ols school dog fight with guns, i would give the SU34 the edge. but because of the tech on the euro fighter i doubt it would happen. but it may if you were to put 6 Su34s up against 1 euro fighter then i would suspect that it would end up as a one on one with guns.

having said that, with out ground supporting systems a mig 21,25 su 24,25, an English electric lightning, F104 all would out gun both a euro or f35 and out fly the missiles to get away. just they will run out of juice. so its not an as simple question

The biggest trouble with the F35 is they want it to do everything which means it won't do anything good,the other problem is we could have bought over 200 SAAB Gripens for the same amount we have spent on 50 or so F35's,the serviceability of the Gripen is over 70%,the F35 will be under 50%,so 170 against 20 if push comes to shove,and the Gripen because of it's technology and size is only a bit less stealthy than 5th generation stealth aircraft.One big problem with the F35 is they cannot fly between bases because of their lack of range,they don't have to be attacked directly,the opposition just waits for them to run out of fuel,another issue is weaponry,they have one gun with bugger all ammo capacity and two missiles,missiles are only 50% effective in combat,so they are not in any way an effective aircraft. Pat