Same to you mate!

They are just give us more parts lol

Jesse Davidson Couldn't agree more. The mighty F-111 has always been my favourite, right from when I was a kid and always will be

The Rhino smashes it!!!

same here my uncle roger flew f/111 for the USAF . F/A18 is a great multi role aircraft but its not as good at low level map of the earth bat out of hell flight that the f111 did

Robert Gutheridge we loved them but like all things they get old they were like our current air craft these and F35s etc nuclear capacity we have 9 nuclear reactors we may or may not have nukes but we have a shit load of weapons grade plutonium hypersonic missel tech lol don’t think we can’t make nukes

Toph Beifong thanks mate! 😎 right back at ya 🇺🇸🇦🇺💪🏼

Toph Beifong MO

You are obviously.....NOT....a pilot.

" close to double" Great in theory. In practice we don't have the infrastructure ( pilots , ground crew, hanger space , pretty much everything that comes with maintaining the aircraft) to operate any more aircraft than what we have ordered. It's either x amount of Rhinos or X amount of F-35's ( or a combination of both totalling the same number) The VLO aspect is critical for not only offense but defense also, there isnt a scenario where having a LO aircraft is a bad thing. The range on internal fuel is pretty much the same. The F-35 while slower than a naked Rhino, is MUCH faster when both aircraft are carrying the same amount of ordinance. The SA the F-35 provides is second to none, while the Rhino is certainly no slouch in that department, it's really not even comparable to the F-35. The F-35 while armed ( and remember, thats the important thing here, you dont fight naked) is actually MORE maneuverable than the Rhino. While not designed to do so the F-35 is capable of a short dash (150 nmi) above Mach 1 without reheat. It's not the current definition of super cruise but it technically is, a sight better than the Hornets anyway. Cost, granted, the project has blown up, unforgivable but you get what you pay for, costs will decrease as more are built, they always do. The Rhino is a decent aircraft , the F-35 is a better aircraft, no doubt at all.

Antifaith29 Good post, Thanks. Not sure if I'm speaking to a Canadian or an Australian, hard to tell but anyway, you mentioned that there isn't a scenario where having a LO aircraft is a bad thing. Well, yes, actually there is because you don't need stealth all the time and when you have it as an integral basis to the design of the aircraft, you're automatically at a disadvantage because you've sacrificed so much already. Your flaps and ailerons are terribly small and right then and there you've lost the edge right at the merge. There is no way to even keep up with an F-16 in close combat. Keep in mind, we're not talking about the F-22. Now there was a design that was close to perfect. Notice the huge wings, huge flaps and ailerons and huge rudders on the dual canted V-stabs? That platform doesn't rely solely on stealth to fight at BVR which is what the F-35 is betting the house on. And the Joint Nations are buying the A model which along with the super plagued, mangy dog in the F-35B is one of the two with tiny wings and tiny movable surfaces. Only the US Navy insisted on the F-35C to be larger bodied with larger wings. If there's any one of those 3 that has a remote chance it's the C model and not the others. Here's another problem that Canada and Australia have - the reliability of a single engine aircraft with land masses that bear the size of continents. 1 engine fails, plane fails. With 2 engines and 1 fails (since both engines failing at once is rare), the plane is saved. That is such a HUGE necessity with such large countries. This is the #1 complaint of the F-35 from former pilots. Notice this other critical element accounted for in the F-22 and obviously a HUGE necessity for naval aircraft such as the F/A-18 and other successful aircraft such as the F-4, F-14 and F-15? Another disadvantage - You can mount a few in-flight-refueling set-ups right on a Super Hornet and use that same aircraft to support refueling missions with such large landscapes while nothing of the sorts with the F-35 Turkey. The other thing is look at all the people from both nations that have objected vehemently at the F-35, they're mostly former pilots and top brass. So it's not some little quirky thing that's going on. It's a very legitimate issue. With the way LM has put all its marbles in the capabilities of the F-35's avionics and they're thinking it's going to revolutionize the art of air combat where it'll be restricted to only BVR engagements, then they haven't considered for a minute how that has failed since Vietnam and that every single air to air incident taken place to date since the advent of BVR missiles has, in fact, been within visual range. And the discounting of the advancement of L-band radars is unfathomable. Imagine the scenario where stealth actually becomes ineffective, then what are you left with? Interoperability? Hell, you could even hook up a biplane to be interoperable. What about that big, gaping bung-hole in that nozzle and the heat signature that'll produce? Notice the extent they went to in the Raptor to give it a low heat signature to increase it's stealthiness? It's putting too many eggs in a basket with shaky handles. I'm betting both nations will end up with a mixed batch of the two, at least Australia seems to be heading in that direction. Sorry for the long post.

***** Ok, thanks for the post but I'm going to apologize ahead of time because what I'm about to say can be taken in an insulting way, but that's not my intention, for sure. So, disclaimer! With all due respect, the problem is not my logic but rather your simplistic outlook and rather ill-advised claim. The disclaimer was in lieu of that latter statement because of the last line in your comment. You're telling me to "just wait and see, I guarantee you the F-35 really is that good and will prove you F-35 haters wrong". So many things wrong with such a bold (and honestly, pretty condescending) remark! First of all, you're assuming I'm simply a hater and that I have nothing viable to support my belief. That's rather lame and if you read my last post to Antifaith29, I hope that proves the point. Second is that when you say you have news for me as a hater of the F-35 (and since we've established that was a rather prematurely inaccurate description of myself) and then follow it up with another completely presumptuous guarantee that it'll be a great airplane and we'll all be proven wrong, is another huge mistake by you since there is absolutely no way on this green earth that you, as a YT aviation enthusiast could possibly ever know that with such certainty. Even if you're not just a regular KZfaqr/military aviation enthusiast/regular guy and you're some kind of expert, there's a counter to that because you probably aren't. Not because of other comments in the rest of your post that discredit that notion, but mainly that the Rhino was the airframe that lost to the F-16 in the LWF competition. That couldn't be further from the truth because even the legacy F-18 Hornet was vastly improved on from the YF-17 (which was the prototype in that competition) in so many ways that it almost looked like a different aircraft once it went into production and on top of it, we're not talking about something that was developed in the late seventies but rather the Super Hornet which is a much different and newer version put into service since basically 2006. So with that, you couldn't possibly be anyone with any more credentials than any one of us. Just a KZfaqr who happens to be a military aviation enthusiast and nothing more. That being said, you could NEVER, and I would suggest that you never make such an audacious and rather ill-informed statement that this dog will be anything other than what we all see and hear with our own ears and eyes and that we should just wait and see. There is so much professional literature out there that would destroy that in a second! I'll only give you one thing to support that: They lowered EVERY SINGLE targeted testing standard on this airplane just to move that disaster of a program along. Every single unattainable testing standard was lowered, just to so they could be met and to give it some semblance of success. If that isn't a huge blow to this aircraft then I don't know what is. So please, for your own sake, try not to give that guarantee again and if I was you, I would wait to see if there's any semblance of success to that thing before announcing anything with confidence. I did apologize at the beginning! :)

***** Didn't you read what he wrote? Only the C variant of the F-35 is suppose to be more maneuverable than the Super Hornet. You're probably right. The USAF has never lost a single F-15 (at least not that I know of) to an enemy aircraft mostly because they encountered planes with less powerfull BVR abilities than them. L band radars cannot be placed in fighters. I don't know what an L band radar is. Yeah if the advanced DIRCM system turns out to be reliable it will give a significant advantage to the F-35 in a dogfight. Morale: I wish I could desing an Iron Man suit so that our head of defense wouldn't have to deal with all that BS.

***** I think the Aussies have it right. Although the F-35 is a capable aircraft, I feel the cost to benefit ratio isn't prudent - specifically considering the core of the aircraft's advantage is its stealth capability. Considering rapid advances in stealth detection (eg. EADS's stealth detecting passive EM radiation radar systems) - the F-35 could turn into a very expensive and flashy, ordinary purchase. Also taking into account the size of Australia - more aircraft does make sense. Unlike the US, Australia doesn't have a monetary policy of using the World Bank as an endless slush fund for military research ;)

hahahaha

+AeroNevin oh boy, time will tell.

+youreale I'm sure they will do just fine if it comes to it is a highly capable jet and our aircrew are among the top on the planet I would be worried if I were a foreign Su pilot facing these and the upgraded classic has rents across the divide.

Well it was a really good plane. An unarmed F-111 was even known for bringing down an Iraqi Mirage F1 during the First Gulf War.

Ugh I know right... You were going to have F-16s from the US before one of your prime ministers fucked the NZ air force

+nh6central i know last i heard you guys wear using hunter hawkers as your main fighter aircraft

+nh6central The problem with buying 2nd hand aircraft is that it generally means it's outdated (or about to be), spare parts may be harder to find and it may have more problems than a newer aircraft. That said, it's probably better if the RNZAF buys a newer aircraft like the F-16C/D Block 52, F-16C/D Block 60 or the F/A-18E/F Advanced Super Hornet.

+nh6central The problem with buying 2nd hand aircraft is that it generally means it's outdated (or about to be), spare parts may be harder to find and it may have more problems than a newer aircraft. That said, it's probably better if the RNZAF buys a newer aircraft like the F-16C/D Block 52, F-16C/D Block 60 or the F/A-18E/F Advanced Super Hornet.

+Livin up in New Zealand Kia Ora The F/A-18 C/D would cost $29 million USD new so if anything given New Zealand's low budget I would forget about the F/A-18s because they're simply too expensive, but rather purchase a dozen F-16s and a tanker for mid-air refueling. Maybe if you pool your resources you can get 1 F-35 hehe :D

+Andy Foster It's a handy little tip to know that almost every airplane within the last 40 years had a bad public opinion. F15 was bagged on for only being a one trick pony, as it was designed to be an interceptor, not a multi-role aircraft. It was also very expensive and heavy (not the best dog fighter). People quite hated it. But now it's regarded as the best and most proven 4th gen fighter. F16 was bagged on for only having one engine with very little glide capability. People were fearful of these aircraft because they assumed that it was going to be a death trap when the engine goes out. People quite hated it. Now it's to most requested aircraft being exported from the US. A10 was bagged on for being everything people thought a jet plane shouldn't be. People didn't like that it was very slow, and they didn't like how close it had to fly to the ground. Many people assumed this plane was going to have very high casualty rates because of how it performed CAS. (funny because before the A10, people wanted support aircraft to perform the role like the F35 will.) F22 was bagged on (and still is) for having high costs, and only being really effective at A2A. Which is comical because that is the same thing people said about the F15. F35 is bagged on because of it's low glide capability, and it's single (and what people assume is unreliable) engine. Of course cost factors in too. This is the same concept as the F16. So even though both the F15 and F16 defeated the odds of public opinion and became the most famous, and most proven aircraft of all time. People still seem to think that the new programs are something different. When in reality it's the same exact thing. The only difference is when they were making 4th gen aircraft, muckraking the planes every chance they could wasn't very common. I have no doubt in 20 years these planes will prove them selves worth. After all, It isn't the congressmen and media that should pick weapons of war, it should be the people using them.

+Murtsman1 Air Force chief rebuts F-35 haters, calls for more modernization. arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/09/air-force-chief-rebuts-f-35-haters-calls-for-more-modernization/

Rox Malar Rafale is a shit jet, and I would feel much safer being armed with an F-35, Lockheed martins makes top of the line jets. And that it's not the matter of choice of weapons dealer, it's the choice of the weapons itself.

its a long hard slog to get there. i wanted to do the same thing, but i realized at the end of school they wouldnt even let me in the front door because i get migraine headaches. Anyway, you will have to work hard for many years to get a shot at it and very hard when you do to stay in it. But, have you ever heard of a fast jet pilot that retires voluntarily? i never have. Its probably the best damn job in the world, something that rockstars and race car drivers wish they could do. If you want it, go for it full tilt. There's nothing worse than being in my situation. A few years ago my friend in the airforce took me on base and i got to sit in an f18 and walk under them and put my hand on them after my lifetime of wishing. I could only stare and wonder in solace what it would have been like to tear up the sky in one. So if you want it and you can do it, dont wait. start working towards it. there's nothing worse than missing your chance and wondering the rest of your life.

You become friends with your squadron mates.

+Bailey Bassett R.I.P Ground hugging radar... :[

Oh are you an Ace?

+rester97 except enlist in the air force?

+atter0 unless you're from NZ like myself and just have to suck it up and stick with YT lol :D Dreams are free, I'll stick with my job on the Railways :(

Christopher Carran You could still potentially have done it. One of our best fighter pilots is from NZ. He is an incredible pilot

Threatstodebts69 australia lol :) we have typhoons

Well America and Britain are allies with the Aussies and the typhoon isn't a Australian built aircraft soooo.

Threatstodebts69 on ur comment u said the hornet was recently introduced to britain and am saying no we dont have hornets here , we have typhoons.

Ah, that is my fault there just ignore my stupidity

Drones are too easy to jam don't you think?

Airforce (RAAF). They were supposed to be a stopgap while we waited for the F-35’s, but we quickly realised the full-time potential for the Super Hornets, and bought them outright. Augmented by a number of Growlers as well.

Not sure but the RAAF was never going to buy the F-15E. Much easier to transfer over to the Rhino from the legacy F/A-18.

That's correct...he did lol. I think he meant 6 billion lol

Have you made any decision yet?

baukiki kiki F-16

Super kicks its ass

you obviously haven't seen the sneaky snakes that like to fly, no joke the find a way

One of the guys, when he smiles reminds me of Jim Carrey the actor.

+Kamal el debieky Which currency are you comparing this to, it was AU$6B, the US dollar is stronger thus meaning we have to pay more.

that's $4.6B US , Kuwait in 2016 negotiating for 28 Super hornet block II for $3B i don't know if training will cost that much of a difference

The U.S. gives so many types of aide to Kuwait and other middle eastern countries that it would stand to reason that the U.S. government would make Boeing sell their aircraft to them on the cheap to keep those countries in their pocket.

as far as i know Egypt and Israel are the only middle eastern countries receiving military aids

johnwxh30 And? There are many areas where the Super Hornet wins, and would be the better jet to be in.

The Superhornet is more potent and has multi role capability the F16 doesn't but the F16 is still a great plane.

"One airframe "designed" to do every role is just not practical." You do realize that the F/A-18 is a multi-role too, right? It can fulfill Air Dominance missions then switch to ground or naval attack at the push of a button. The F-35 is the same, though it incorporates stealth and more advanced avionics to the mix.

Except those aircraft are also american built.

plus some of your planes sit here in Australia as your country is tiny and your govt has its airforce in other countries

Чё ты сказал ?

انا كويتي وعندي مثل الهدف الحمد الله دولتنا مستورده من هل طراز

***** because they're great aircraft

Yeah no way we'd buy a commi made aircraft. Would not work out at all with our diplomatic relations with the US. And to be honest I'd rather have the US on our side than Russia

would you want your enemy making your war material? I think no.

They want to buy aircraft from NATO countries.

I don't think Australia would buy anything from Russia and in turn I doubt Russia would sell the Sukhois to Australia. I mean, Tony Abbot criticized Putin for his meddling in the Ukraine, a Russian built Buk Missile System shot down MH17 which killed 36 Australians and Australia's support for the US, Ukraine and EU regarding the crisis in Ukraine doesn't exactly make Australia Russia's #1 friend.

Private Duck Stating the obvious it wouldn't servive against the F-22, but then what would. But against a USN F-18 ok that one any day of the week. RAAF pilots often beat their US counterparts in excersises etc and considered (even by the US to be some of the best pilots in the world). So take on a USN F-18 pilot... lol happily.

Augmented with the F-35’s, of course.

These Super Hornets replaced the retired F111's while we waited for the F35. The RAAF already had 72 classic Hornets since 1984....they also have 11 EA18's....radar jamming Super Hornets. Australia is the only other country besides the US to have them.

More like Strailia.

more like stfu couse its an american plaaaaane

Sgt. Blackburn If only they could build cars like they build planes ;)

Well saying the F-35 isn't built for dogfighting it makes sense it's ass will get kicked... It's built around electronic warfare

Threatstodebts69 well in that case i suppose in a couple years time , the netherlands , norway , turkey , denmark , israel won't be able to maintain air superiority during warfare ? because these nations are replacing F16 with f35 ? I love the F35 i think its gonna be a fantastic aircraft

I feel it may be a fantastic aircraft but at range and out of sight BVR combat is the definitive design of the F35 however aircraft like the F18 and F16 could surpass it any day in WVR combat.

Threatstodebts69 they are putting so much emphasis on beyond visual range combat , if it works its gonna so amazing have you seen a documentary called dogfights of the future? the things that the f35 or f22 are predicted to do are so awesome

Do you even study Bro?

Doesn't count.

F16 has one engine, cant be carrier deployed, and isnt great at multi role. The F16 is really a CAP/Air-air aircraft. The F16 is more maneuverable, but is not really needed today. There are many more ground engagements then air nowadays and the F18 does a better job at that with the capabilities to also do decent at air-air.

It is an ugly plane!!!

Christo Gaybba F16 is beautiful

+ReactedDesert F-22, F-117, B-2 and B-1 all are not sell to any country. Include U-2 and SR-71 too

MississippiRebel it's funny how the people who criticize it have never even flown one before I think it's a fabulous jet and would love to fly one for the RAAF when I'm older

MississippiRebel F-35 has lost several simulated engagements with much older aircraft. Seeing how you’re clearly an armchair historian, no is taking you seriously anyway.

Greg Cunningham, that's because they've taken all the human factors out of it, the F-35 was not made to dogfight, but made to seek and kill in a stealthy way

You've never heard of sr-71 blackbird, and the super hornet originated from usa

Great planes, merica does make good planes, but this one is not one of them

Jacobe Ross Not sure if serious....

@jacobe ross: You're stupid, this airplane is American

This plane is like 50 years behind of what we secretly carry. So have fun with our "been there done that' little toy planes.

The US has mostly FA-18 too. And they're not really better, we upgrade them with new combat systems, ect.

In your dreams.

AUmarcus Homosexual?

Are you just fucked in the head? Get a new name you piece of immigrant shit!!