The USA has grounded its entire fleet of F-35 fighter jets

[RDKirk]

That was a good reply where I was wondering when I wrote my previous post if I should have said much the same thing.

For countries such as Australia, New Zealand and probably England they will undoubtedly never see massed infantry forces trying to invade, but with my earlier example where I referred to some possible aggression by a rogue Indonesian general who has at his hands fighter aircraft that are more superior to our future F-35's, they could easily be tempted to keep Australian mining outside of marine regions that they deem to be theirs. They would be well aware that our proposed F-35's would be no match for their future purchases of the Russian Tupolev T-50 fighter; if they deem that our air deterrent capabilities are of little value then they could certainly start acting tough with Australia.

As for Europe, even though the US is certainly trying to force a conflict with the Russian Federation, I doubt that the land forces of the US and NATO would have the capability to seriously threaten Russia as the Russian forces seem to be superior at this point of time.

I would keep in mind, however, that air superiority is not merely a matter of fighter versus fighter, but a matter of the entire Air Force capability, including essential intangibles like command and control, maintenance and logistics (is the capacity of the air force able to keep its fleet in the air under the duress of constant combat activity?), and realistic and frequent training. I've seen Aussie pilots in air combat training flying "old" planes, and I'll testify that those mad rascals are scary good.

 

[Armoured]

I've seen Aussie pilots in air combat training flying "old" planes, and I'll testify that those mad rascals are scary good.

Ever seen our stunt pilots? The Roulettes do stuff in little prop driven PC-9s that I doubt the Thunderbirds would try.

 

[Biblicist]

I would keep in mind, however, that air superiority is not merely a matter of fighter versus fighter, but a matter of the entire Air Force capability, including essential intangibles like command and control, maintenance and logistics (is the capacity of the air force able to keep its fleet in the air under the duress of constant combat activity?), and realistic and frequent training. I've seen Aussie pilots in air combat training flying "old" planes, and I'll testify that those mad rascals are scary good.

Under comparable conditions where both forces were fighting with equal tactical support by ground and aerial radar etc, then I would say that you have raised a good point, though in the early days of the Korean war US pilots were regularly outgunned during dogfights by the Soviet pilots and their MIG 15's up until the US could employ their superior F86 Sabres.

If the Indonesians were to decide to enforce a no-fly zone around say the Timor Sea (North West of the Australian mainland) where they were to pit their Russian T-50's against our vastly inferior American F-35's, from what I've been reading so far it is doubtful that our potentially superior technical resources would be able to compensate for the poor performance of the F-35. One of the great disadvantages of the F-35 is with its poor combat range when compared to that of the Sukhoi T-50, where the T-50 has a far greater combat range and I believe that some versions of the T-50 (future Indonesian variant?) also has the ability for fighters to refuel other fighters while in flight.

As our forces would probably have to rely on air-refueling aircraft, it would not be difficult for a T-50 with its longer missile range to knock out a refueling plane while remaining outside of the combat range of the F-35.

 

[RDKirk]

Under comparable conditions where both forces were fighting with equal tactical support by ground and aerial radar etc, then I would say that you have raised a good point, though in the early days of the Korean war US pilots were regularly outgunned during dogfights by the Soviet pilots and their MIG 15's up until the US could employ their superior F86 Sabres.

If the Indonesians were to decide to enforce a no-fly zone around say the Timor Sea (North West of the Australian mainland) where they were to pit their Russian T-50's against our vastly inferior American F-35's, from what I've been reading so far it is doubtful that our potentially superior technical resources would be able to compensate for the poor performance of the F-35. One of the great disadvantages of the F-35 is with its poor combat range when compared to that of the Sukhoi T-50, where the T-50 has a far greater combat range and I believe that some versions of the T-50 (future Indonesian variant?) also has the ability for fighters to refuel other fighters while in flight.

As our forces would probably have to rely on air-refueling aircraft, it would not be difficult for a T-50 with its longer missile range to knock out a refueling plane while remaining outside of the combat range of the F-35.

Well, first, Indonesia doesn't have T-50 (nor has the US deployed the F-35, much less has Australia purchased it.

The maintainability of the T-50 has yet to be demonstrated. That's something that civilians never, ever think about, but in the intelligence business we pay close attention to it. What really matters is what gets into the air and stays in the air, day after day. "Turning" aircraft is no small deal: "Operations wins battles; logistics wins wars."

 

[Biblicist]

Well, first, Indonesia doesn't have T-50 (nor has the US deployed the F-35, much less has Australia purchased it.

The maintainability of the T-50 has yet to be demonstrated. That's something that civilians never, ever think about, but in the intelligence business we pay close attention to it. What really matters is what gets into the air and stays in the air, day after day. "Turning" aircraft is no small deal: "Operations wins battles; logistics wins wars."

Even though I have never been involved within the various intelligence communities, as a new youthful recruit within the RAAF, one of my first jobs back in the 70's was with compiling the Maintenance documentation for the then new F-111 at Victoria Barracks here in Melbourne. Later on I served in the Supply area where I procured parts for the VIP fleet at Fairbairn and for a time with the Maritime Squadron over at Edinburgh RAAF Base in Adelaide, so I do have at least some exposure to the maintenance of front line aircraft, though it hardly makes me a specialist in the field.

As our P-35 Orion Maritime Squadron aircraft were always on the go we of course spent a lot of time making sure that we had the necessary parts on hand. At Squadron level in those days this was undertaken without the assistance of computers which were at that particular time only being used within our Supply Squadrons.

 

[A3M0N]

Last month we held our International Air Show at Avalon here in Australia. Sadly for those who wanted to view the first appearance of the F-35 was that it was not allowed to fly due to some nearby lightning that the F-35 organisers were concerned about at the F-35 apparently cannot fly near lightning as the piece of junk could very easily fall out of the sky.

If its an American unit, we don't fly any unnecessary sortie in weather with lightning. Its not a capability issue, its a safety issue.

 

[Biblicist]

If its an American unit, we don't fly any unnecessary sortie in weather with lightning. Its not a capability issue, its a safety issue.

No, the reason why they would not fly the F-35 when lightning is around is that Lockheed-Martin have acknowledged that some specific systems in the F-35 are prone to malfunction when it is flying near static electricity.

My friend who attended the Australian International Air Show informed me that the organisers very kindly towed the F-35 along the runway so that the visitors could get a look at it. Of course, every other aircraft was able to fly as they had no problem with lightning or any other form of static electricity.

It was reported by a major news provider here in Australia way back in in Feb 2013 that the US Air Force acknowledged that:

"Australia's JSF aircraft can't fly in lightning storms

US Air Force Lieutenant General Chris Bogdan, who heads the US military's $16 billion JSF program, admits the F-35 Lightning II jet can't fly within 40km of a lightning storm because its fuel tanks could ignite". news.com.au​

 

[Don Maurer]

The rain in Spain fell mainly on a plane called the F35 and it is still flying.

 

[The Gryphon]

From what I have read I'm not surprised.