Fórum Defesa Brasil

Plinio Jr escreveu:

cb_lima escreveu: Sim, porque logo logo (2010) eles entregam o último dos 183 e a linha para de produzir certos componentes em 2009. Então a idéia é que já que o F-35 'não existe', que atrase para que verbas sejam destinadas para o F-22.

Eu fico imaginando o pessoal com as fotos da esquadra russa e os Tu-160 fazendo visita ao Chavez sendo entregues para um mundo de gente nos corredores do Lobby do pentágono junto com um chaveiro dizendo...

"- Em breve, perto de você!"

[]s
CB_Lima

Pensando friamente, os EUA tem em operação na USAF e ANG centenas de F-15A/Cs que necessitam de substituição, 183 F-22s é muito pouco e com os atrasos no programa F-35s, algo natural vide os demais, a pressão interna por F-22s é algo igualmente natural.

Mas o orçamento de onde sai o dinheiro para a aquisição de F-22 é o mesmo que financia a aquisição do F-35A... Se a USAF conseguir a aprovação para a aquisição de mais Raptors, receberá menos F-35A na proporção de 1 F-22 para 1,5 ou mesmo 2 Lightning II. Como é que isto se conjuga com a declaração do novo Comandante em Chefe da USAF de que tenciona voltar ao nivel de produção de 110 JSF por ano ao invés dos planeados 48/ano é que é a questão!
Entretanto a frota de Eagles e Vipers está a "comer" horas de vôo a velocidades alarmantes (Afeganistão e Iraque)...
O próximo Secretário de Estado da Defesa Norte Americano tem ali um problema bicudo para resolver.

P44 escreveu:upssss

Australian Air Force jet purchase slammed

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A United States think tank has declared the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft that Australia is set to buy is inferior to the Russian-made Flanker jets used by China and Indonesia.

The RAND Corporation's experts compared jets in a war game and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Radio Australia's parent company, has obtained the results.

In bad news for the Australian Air Force, the report says the F-35 has inferior acceleration, climb, turn capacity and a lower top speed than Russian and Chinese fighters.

In short, it says the Joint Strike Fighter cannot climb and cannot run.

It says the US fighter which could outdo the Russian-made Flankers is the F-22 Raptor.

But the United States bans these from foreign sales.

The fighters' defenders argue it is not designed for close combat.

The RAND Corporation says a 'Plan B' is necessary and points out that if the F-35 is seen or has to engage an enemy at close range, then it will be no match for the Flankers.

Earlier this week federal Opposition MP Dennis Jensen called on the Australian Government to scrap plans to buy the F-35, saying they could leave the country vulnerable.

"The problem is, if the perceived level of our capability is not very high some nation might think that it's worth the risk to take us on for some reason or another given the perceived benefit," he said.

A spokesman for Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon says he is convinced the Joint Strike Fighter is the best aircraft available, but the minister has not released the air combat capability review which studied the options.

http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/news/s ... tab=latest

Como disse, alguem esta mentindo descaradamente...nao me surpreenderia nada se o lobby australiano pro F-22 (Air Power Australia) estiver envolvido...

----------------------------------------------------
F-35 Criticisms - RAND Clarifies
Posted by Graham Warwick at 9/25/2008 4:30 PM CDT

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/de ... pAscending


We may now know where, if not yet exactly how, the Australian press's "clubbed like baby seals" smear against the F-35 originated. U.S. think tank RAND has just issued the following press release:

STATEMENT REGARDING MEDIA COVERAGE
OF F-35 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER

Andrew Hoehn, Director of RAND Project Air Force, made the following statement today:

“Recently, articles have appeared in the Australian press with assertions regarding a war game in which analysts from the RAND Corporation were involved. Those reports are not accurate. RAND did not present any analysis at the war game relating to the performance of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, nor did the game attempt detailed adjudication of air-to-air combat. Neither the game nor the assessments by RAND in support of the game undertook any comparison of the fighting qualities of particular fighter aircraft.”

Desdobramentos...

---------------------------------------------

Defence Minister loses top adviser
September 26, 2008
Patrick Walters, National security editor | September 26, 2008

JOEL Fitzgibbon has lost his most senior adviser and chief of staff just 10 months after becoming Defence Minister.

Daniel Cotterill, who joined Mr Fitzgibbon early last year after he became Labor's defence spokesman, has left Parliament House and will formally conclude his contract next month.

Mr Cotterill, 43, a former specialist defence journalist and defence industry expert, was seen as pivotal to Mr Fitzgibbon's ability to get on top of the detail of one of the most complex portfolios in government.

His departure comes at a crucial and hectic time for the Defence Minister and his department, which is midway through the drafting of a new defence white paper, due to be published by April next year.

Defence is also working on 10 companion reviews covering the broad sweep of departmental activities from financial management to capability development.

"I am very grateful for Daniel's contribution over a considerable period of time," Mr Fitzgibbon told The Australian last night. "There is no doubt in my mind that my success in Opposition was largely attributable to his good work. His experience in the portfolio was invaluable to me as I climbed a steep learning curve."

Government sources said last night that not all of Mr Fitzgibbon's personal staff were comfortable with Mr Cotterill's brusque management style. He is also understood to have had a combative relationship with senior defence officials, including defence force chief Angus Houston and the secretary of the department, Nick Warner.

Mr Cotterill is expected to return to the defence area as a consultant or journalist.

Mr Fitzgibbon's acting chief of staff is Davina Langton, who has served as deputy chief of staff since Labor took office late last year. Ms Langton is a former adviser to NSW Labor premiers Morris Iemma and Bob Carr.

Mr Fitzgibbon recently expressed frustration at how he was briefed by his department on key policy issues, including the politically sensitive $16 billion Joint Strike Fighter project.

On Wednesday, Mr Fitzgibbon said that he had not been satisfied with an earlier departmental brief he had received on the capabilities of the JSF.

Mr Fitzgibbon was commenting on press reports that the JSF had performed poorly in simulated exercises against fourth-generation Russian fighters.

"There were a number of questions posed by the media more generally that I didn't think were properly addressed in the original two-page unclassified report I initially received," Mr Fitzgibbon told ABC TV.

"I welcome the fact that Defence has since come forward with a classified version, a more comprehensive explanation, and I am satisfied that, again, the data from that exercise had been misrepresented," he said.

Se a quantidade de F-35 diminuir muito, o custo vai aumentar de forma proporcional por aeronave.

[ ]´s

O F-35 tá com cara que vai ser o maior mico.

[]'s

A RAND que se decida, afinal o tal relatório sempre existe, as tais avaliações "inexistentes" acerca da capacidade WVR do F-35 sempre existem e o cenário de Taiwan que a imprensa Australiana mencionou, e que foi negado pela LM e pela JSF Team sempre existe e foi avaliado...

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-d ... r-pow.html

Não é nada meigo com o F-35

Can´t turn, can´t climb, can´t run

Chega a parecer a documentação do Carlo Koop

PRick escreveu:Se a quantidade de F-35 diminuir muito, o custo vai aumentar de forma proporcional por aeronave.

[ ]´s

Os camaradas McCain e Obama já se reuniram ou vão se reunir com o Bush II para afiar a tesoura, vão contar tudo que não for importante. Afinal, cobrir os rombos de centenas de bilhões dos bancos vai sair bem caro e todos tem que pagar, de alguma forma, mesmo os não americanos. E como será que fica o F-35 nessa brincadeira, hein???

Santiago escreveu:

P44 escreveu:upssss
http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/news/s ... tab=latest

Como disse, alguem esta mentindo descaradamente...nao me surpreenderia nada se o lobby australiano pro F-22 (Air Power Australia) estiver envolvido...

----------------------------------------------------
F-35 Criticisms - RAND Clarifies
Posted by Graham Warwick at 9/25/2008 4:30 PM CDT

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/de ... pAscending


We may now know where, if not yet exactly how, the Australian press's "clubbed like baby seals" smear against the F-35 originated. U.S. think tank RAND has just issued the following press release:

STATEMENT REGARDING MEDIA COVERAGE
OF F-35 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER

Andrew Hoehn, Director of RAND Project Air Force, made the following statement today:

“Recently, articles have appeared in the Australian press with assertions regarding a war game in which analysts from the RAND Corporation were involved. Those reports are not accurate. RAND did not present any analysis at the war game relating to the performance of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, nor did the game attempt detailed adjudication of air-to-air combat. Neither the game nor the assessments by RAND in support of the game undertook any comparison of the fighting qualities of particular fighter aircraft.”

Afinal...

Mas o que interessa se a Rand diz isto ou aquilo? Pelos vistos disse mesmo...


Mas o importante é que os dados são verdade, só o Santiago não enxerga, o F/A-35 é um bomb truck.


[[]]'s

Download infamous RAND air power briefing (hint: the "baby seals/F-35" report)
By Stephen Trimble on September 26, 2008 11:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)
This blog has obtained the RAND briefing described in so many reports this week. You can download it here by scrolling on the image below (thank you, Apture).

[via Apture]


After a long review, I can understand why the heads of the program were mystified at how this briefing was used as the basis to attack the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The F-35 is mentioned only in passing [CORRECTING:] is described as "double-inferior" to Russian fighters on one back-up slide (#80), and but RAND's analysts make no attempt to deconstruct the aerodynamic performance of any of the aircraft involved in the wargame.

At the same time, the briefing does not back up this remark by Maj Gen Charles Davis : "The exercise involved basing capacity around the Pacific Rim. It was a logistics and deployablility exercise, not a battle."

That's not quite fair either. RAND's analysis shows that a Taiwan Straits air war in 2020 exposes alarming concerns about the limits of US reliance on stealth, forward basing and beyond visual range combat. (Spoiler alert: the Chinese win.)

The analysts assume Kadena is wiped out by short-range ballistic missiles within the first minutes of the conflict. [ed: Bummer. I'm Kadena HS alum, class of '93.] That leaves Andersen, in Guam, to launch a counter-attack.

Operating from Andersen, RAND says that only six F-22s carrying a maximum of 48 air to air missiles can remain on station above Taiwan at any one time.

Chinese respond by launching three air regiments -- 72 SU-27s carrying 912 air to air missiles -- across the straits.

For the purposes of discussion, RAND assumes the most optimistic outcome: Every missile fired by the F-22s find their mark, and none of the Chinese missiles shoots down an F-22.

Still, enough SU-27s escape the F-22 screen to attack and shoot down the F-22's orbiting tankers. The F-22s now lack missiles and fuel, and have no hope of landing at a friendly base.

The Chinese win.

The F-35s are mentioned only one slide and as an excursion. I'd be interested to read your opinions, but their involvement doesn't appear to change the odds of success. More US aircraft are simply lost.

ha ha ha ri-me muito com todas estas mentiras,

A apresentação da RAND para download:

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-d ... r-pow.html

soultrain escreveu:Mas o que interessa se a Rand diz isto ou aquilo? Pelos vistos disse mesmo...


Mas o importante é que os dados são verdade, só o Santiago não enxerga, o F/A-35 é um bomb truck.

[[]]'s

Mas um "Bomb Truck" francamente perigoso...

Sem duvida, Sintra concordo em absoluto, pelo menos na teoria.

Já leste a apresentação toda? Aconcelho vivamente a quem se interessar pelo FX2

[[]]'s

Apesar de ter dados bastante distorcidos pra reforçar a visão da "falha" do F35. Tem dados bem interessantes que faz se pensar o futuro do stealth por exemplo.

Como continuar a ideia do stealth (que na ideia atual ta chegando ao limite) contra os sensores que tiveram uma revolução e deverão detectar até mesmo os F22.

tb é hilario as situações de combate do f22. Todos os misseis dele acertam, nenhum dos inimigos acerta . (Fora outros handcaps pros flankers) Assim realmente da pra abater 48 flankers e sair vivo

E gostei muito da "lição de historia" mostrando o quão dificil é conseguir uma simples vantagem de 3:1 no quesito quantidadextecnologia mostrando que aviões antigos não devem ser subestimados. (nem a ideia dos "decoys" pra fazer o cara gastar missel em aviões que tem a unica função de recebe-los ).

Sintra escreveu:

Santiago escreveu:[

Sintra e Soultrain,

A Rand desmentiu que houvesse feito qualquer alguma avaliacao comparativa baseado em simulacoes ou exercicio. Desmentido correto.

Andrew Hoehn, Director of RAND Project Air Force, made the following statement today:

"Recently, articles have appeared in the Australian press with assertions regarding a war game in which analysts from the RAND Corporation were involved. Those reports are not accurate. RAND did not present any analysis at the war game relating to the performance of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, nor did the game attempt detailed adjudication of air-to-air combat. Neither the game nor the assessments by RAND in support of the game undertook any comparison of the fighting qualities of particular fighter aircraft."

Essas duas telas da apresentacao dedicadas ao F-35 chegam a ser hilarias pela superficialidade. Os dados foram tirados do Janes! Dados publicos (hoje isso eh a minoria das informacoes, quando o assunto eh F-35). Alias esses dados estao disponiveis em qq supertrunfo sobre cacas. E escondem muitos outros fatores, alguns classificados outros nao (ver resposta da LM que parece ter sido feita expecificamente para rebater esse tipo de argumento). Comparam apenas 2 parametro de forma superficial (grafico). Digo superficial porque nao levam em conta o arrasto aerodinamico de cargas externas nos cacas convencionais, nao levam em conta a sustentacao extra gerada por configuracoes aerodinamicas especiais alem da asa e o mais grave, nao levam em conta os sistemas de cada caca, talves o fator mais decisivo no combate atual. Alem disso a maior parte das informacoes sobre o F-35 ainda eh classificada, uma vez que o mesmo ainda se encontra na fase inicial de ensaios de voo.
Estranho vcs se agarrarem a este tipo de informacao superficial para chegar a alguma conclusao sobre as capacidades do F-35.

OBS. 1: Ha ate um grafico que parece ser de Carlo Kopp (pagina 18).


O que o Powerpoint da Rand deixa claro eh um no estrategico, baseado na matematica do cenario: inferioridade numerica e carencia de bases proximas ao TO, podem nao ser compensadas com tecnologia stealth ou misseis mais sofisticados. Creio que algumas premissas estao exageradas. Mas, pode ser perigoso apostar tudo em poucos fatores. O que me parece ser correto. Sente-se tb um certo clima de histeria contra os "ovnis de combate" russos e chineses. Eh o lobby pro-F-22 atuando forte.

Esse ppt possui partes dignas dos relatorios que apontaram o Arsenal de armas de destruicao em massa no Iraque.

Esse eh um problema e dilema americano e europeu. Ainda mais em tempos de restricoes financeiras.

Vamos aguardar os DACT entre os Eurocanards e o F-35.

[]s