Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Talk Of F-35 Project Being Scrapped!  
User currently offlineZkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4867 posts, RR: 10
Posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 22922 times:

Over the past few days there has been a lot of speculation that not just the F-35C but the entire F-35 project being scrapped. Apparently there are major design flaws meaning the C model can't do arrestor hook landings, the other models apparently lack the range, manoeuverability, speed, payload of their rivals, and the whole aircraft is not particularly stealthy especially to newly developed/deployed radar bands. Finally the biggest hurdle is the massive cost of each aircraft.

If the project is scrapped/changed here are some things I see happening:

1) F-22 production reinstated for at least another 100 birds (the F-22 is far more capable, is proven and costs about the same). Further development of the F-16 to make it last perhaps 10 years longer than planned in time for a new fighter.

2) USN to get more F/A-18 Super Hornets, as above a bit of ongoing development to stretch their life til the navy can get a dedicated aircraft.

3) A scaled back F-35B without all the fancy stuff shaving a lot of weight and cost off and improving several areas of performance in the process (obviously not some of the fancy tricks) for the USMC and RN. The RN would of course have to consider its options regarding its carriers, perhaps leasing some Rafales or Super Hornets in the mean time.


I do see an important need to have the best fighters and technology for the USA however it must be balanced with cost and overall capability in terms of numbers. UCAV etc are the future but for the next 30 years I still see the need for the first choice to be a manned fighter. I'm not so sure that the Super Hornet and F-16 aren't up to the task for at least another decade and of course the F-22 will still be the best for at least 10 years and able to foot it with the latest for another 10 years past that.


56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
275 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15845 posts, RR: 27
Reply 1, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 22823 times:

Quoting Zkpilot (Thread starter):
Over the past few days there has been a lot of speculation that not just the F-35C but the entire F-35 project being scrapped.

As critical as I have been of the fantasy that the JSF was, that would just be stupid. The money is all spent. Cancelling the program now means throwing all of that away and ending up with the same problems we had before but with less time to solve it. Any of the Navy brass that complain about the Super Hornet should be able to tell you that, because that is what they ended up with when they cancelled the A-12.

The USAF has some recourse in the form of a potential restart and future variants of the Raptor, but our allies would be hung out to dry.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12981 posts, RR: 25
Reply 2, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 22604 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 1):
As critical as I have been of the fantasy that the JSF was, that would just be stupid. The money is all spent.

We had the X-35 prototype flying ten years ago and the actual F-35 flying five years ago and that hasn't mattered much either.

I think you are missing the key points of the post, that the F-35 is not meeting its design goals, and the threat environment has changed to the point where its stealth features have been defeated. Add to that the massive cost, and it is hard to make a case for this airframe over its predecessors.

Wiki reports that in November 2011, a Pentagon study team identified the following 13 areas of concern that remained to be addressed in the F-35:

> The Helmet mounted display system does not work properly.
> The fuel dump subsystem poses a fire hazard.
> The Integrated Power Package is unreliable and difficult to service.
> The F-35C's arresting hook does not work.
> Classified "survivability issues", which have been speculated to be about stealth.[125]
> The wing buffet is worse than previously reported.
> The airframe is unlikely to last through the required lifespan.
> The flight test program has yet to explore the most challenging areas.
> The software development is behind schedule.
> The aircraft is in danger of going overweight or, for the F-35B, too heavy for VTOL operations.
> There are multiple thermal management problems. The air conditioner fails to keep the pilot and controls cool enough, the roll posts on the F-35B overheat, and using the afterburner damages the aircraft.
> The automated logistics information system is partially developed.
> The lightning protection on the F-35 is uncertified, with areas of concern.

Seems to be a very long road ahead for the F-35.

[Edited 2012-04-29 07:50:07]


Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineZkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4867 posts, RR: 10
Reply 3, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 22604 times:

Development money has been spent. The problem is that each aircraft was supposed to have cost about half what they are now likely to cost. Canada apparently wants out. The UK only needs them for its carriers (Rafale/Super Hornet will work for at least a decade) the RAF has the Typhoon. Australia will happily take the F-22 (which is more suited to their needs anyway), Japan also. That just leaves Israel pretty much and they have options as do any other operators.

The USMC is the only one that REALLY needs it for its VTOL capabilities.

All that development money isn't entirely wasted, a lot of information/lessons gained could be used in a future aircraft. One that isn't 3 planes in 1.



56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2197 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 22571 times:

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 3):
"All that development money isn't entirely wasted, a lot of information/lessons gained could be used in a future aircraft. One that isn't 3 planes in 1."

LOL what we learned is LM makes expensive planes. Maybey they should stick with skunkworks where the expense is more worth while.

Guess we should stick with un-stealthy planes an leave stealth to UAV's. Kidding of course.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 571 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 22535 times:

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 3):
Canada apparently wants out.

No, they don't.

I hope it does get scrapped so all these stupid F35 threads can stop cluttering this forum.


User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 22519 times:

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 3):
The USMC is the only one that REALLY needs it for its VTOL capabilities.

Or you could tell them Super Hornets or nothing.


User currently offlineZkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4867 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 22453 times:

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 6):
Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 3):
The USMC is the only one that REALLY needs it for its VTOL capabilities.

Or you could tell them Super Hornets or nothing.

except you can't operate them off VTOL ships...



56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1859 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 22415 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 2):

We had the X-35 prototype flying ten years ago and the actual F-35 flying five years ago and that hasn't mattered much either.

I think you are missing the key points of the post, that the F-35 is not meeting its design goals, and the threat environment has changed to the point where its stealth features have been defeated. Add to that the massive cost, and it is hard to make a case for this airframe over its predecessors.

Wiki reports that in November 2011, a Pentagon study team identified the following 13 areas of concern that remained to be addressed in the F-35:

> The Helmet mounted display system does not work properly.
> The fuel dump subsystem poses a fire hazard.
> The Integrated Power Package is unreliable and difficult to service.
> The F-35C's arresting hook does not work.
> Classified "survivability issues", which have been speculated to be about stealth.[125]
> The wing buffet is worse than previously reported.
> The airframe is unlikely to last through the required lifespan.
> The flight test program has yet to explore the most challenging areas.
> The software development is behind schedule.
> The aircraft is in danger of going overweight or, for the F-35B, too heavy for VTOL operations.
> There are multiple thermal management problems. The air conditioner fails to keep the pilot and controls cool enough, the roll posts on the F-35B overheat, and using the afterburner damages the aircraft.
> The automated logistics information system is partially developed.
> The lightning protection on the F-35 is uncertified, with areas of concern.

Seems to be a very long road ahead for the F-35.

Most of these issues have either been resolved or the fixes are underway.

And by your metric, we should have canceled this aircraft as well, which according to the GAO, had major issues with engine stalls, could not restart its engine in mid-air, had an excessive taxi speed, was suffering delays, had limited internal space for upgrades, and was increasingly vulnerable and expensive:
http://www.gao.gov/products/PSAD-77-41


User currently offlinesphealey From United States of America, joined May 2005, 378 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 22305 times:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...jet_that_ate_the_pentagon?page=0,1

Articles like that don't just appear in publications such as "Foreign Policy"; this is a shot across the bow to some power group from some other power group. Who is which, and what their motives are, is entirely obscure (at least to me). But that isn't just another 1200 word'er dashed off by a writer who needs to make a car payment this month.

sPh


User currently offlineDevilfish From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4952 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 22307 times:

Quoting Zkpilot (Thread starter):
I'm not so sure that the Super Hornet and F-16 aren't up to the task for at least another decade and of course the F-22 will still be the best for at least 10 years and able to foot it with the latest for another 10 years past that.
Quoting bikerthai (Reply 4):
Guess we should stick with un-stealthy planes an leave stealth to UAV's. Kidding of course.

No kidding.....maybe it's time serious attention is given to this.....   

http://www.flightglobal.com/Assets/GetAsset.aspx?ItemID=44298
http://www.flightglobal.com/Assets/GetAsset.aspx?ItemID=44298

What it couldn't handle, you let the F-22 take care of.



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12185 posts, RR: 51
Reply 11, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 22303 times:

Yes, a lot of money has been spent on the F-35 program. But a lot more money is needed just to fix it. I say we cancel it now, reopen the F-22 program with the US buying about 950 more of them (including a Navalized version), sell it to our allies, buy the F-15SE as an interium replacement, and the F/A-18E/F.

The USMC already bought the British Harriers, but the UK is now without an aircraft to replace it. Perhaps they can fit normal steam cats to the CVFs? The RN and RAF can always accept the F/A-18E/F or the Rafales


User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15845 posts, RR: 27
Reply 12, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 22274 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 2):
I think you are missing the key points of the post, that the F-35 is not meeting its design goals,

The design goals were a fantasy.

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 3):
Canada apparently wants out. The UK only needs them for its carriers (Rafale/Super Hornet will work for at least a decade) the RAF has the Typhoon.

If the other countries want out that would change the calculus a bit. But still, we'd force the Navy to fly more Super Hornets, which I really don't have too much of a problem with. If they don't like it they can thank Dick Cheney for cancelling the A-12.

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 3):
Australia will happily take the F-22 (which is more suited to their needs anyway), Japan also.

I'm sure they would, but we won't give them any.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineAWACSooner From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1988 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days ago) and read 22166 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 1):
The money is all spent.

No...it is not...it keeps being spent...and more and more military personnel are cut to fund this money pit!


User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15845 posts, RR: 27
Reply 14, posted (2 years 8 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 22124 times:

Quoting AWACSooner (Reply 14):
No...it is not...it keeps being spent...and more and more military personnel are cut to fund this money pit!

Just think how much more will need to be spent in order to modernize the force the way the F-35 was supposed to. Cancel the program and you still have the same problem and less time to solve it.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3892 posts, RR: 27
Reply 15, posted (2 years 8 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 22105 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 15):
and less time to solve it.


this argument always puzzles me.. Is there some impending deadline we don't know about other than the synthetic retirement of easily extended current model a/c (other than the Harrier). Do the Marines really need a plane? Do we really need the Marines?.. forget tradition, what do they really provide that the Army, Navy and Air Force can't.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1859 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (2 years 8 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 22060 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 12):
Yes, a lot of money has been spent on the F-35 program. But a lot more money is needed just to fix it. I say we cancel it now, reopen the F-22 program with the US buying about 950 more of them (including a Navalized version), sell it to our allies, buy the F-15SE as an interium replacement, and the F/A-18E/F.

Even more money will have to be spent on F-22, which has major issues of its own. And it is an in service aircraft. The real issue is the avionics; it's still locked to i860 processors running ADA and its questionable whether there is sufficient cooling and processing capability to support the any future needed upgrades without costly upgrades.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 13):
If the other countries want out that would change the calculus a bit. But still, we'd force the Navy to fly more Super Hornets, which I really don't have too much of a problem with. If they don't like it they can thank Dick Cheney for cancelling the A-12.

The Navy doesn't want to buy more Super Hornets; notice that the most recent acquisitions are for the Growler, not the regular Super Hornet? And also note that the Navy refuses to fund a number of upgrades, such as steathy weapons pods. They don't think Super Hornet will be survivable as a platform in the near future.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 13):
The design goals were a fantasy.

EVERY tactical fighter design has a ton of compromises in it. There is no "perfect" design. It depends on what compromises you are willing to accept that's the issue. Obviously, the Air Force, Navy, and Marines think the compromises are doable for the F-35.

Personally, what I DON'T see in this forum are arguments dominated by actual engineers, ground crew, and pilots, some of the latter of whom may wind up with their lives actually depending on the F-35 doing what it's supposed to. They seem not to be worried. The UK, having already been burned by the cancellation of the Rolls-Royce/GE alternative engine, found themselves unwilling to pay to convert their carriers to CATOBAR and discussed cancelling their F-35C purchase...but are discussing no replacement option other than the F-35B! They don't seem to be worried about the performance of even the shortest-ranged, lowest payload, lowest g-rated of the three variants. Japan, no slouch in high tech, have added themselves to the customer list. They don't seem to be worried about anything but the possibility of cost overruns. Israel, probably more dependent on their air forces for their very survival than any other nation on earth, doesn't seem worried.

Quoting kanban (Reply 16):
this argument always puzzles me.. Is there some impending deadline we don't know about other than the synthetic retirement of easily extended current model a/c (other than the Harrier). Do the Marines really need a plane? Do we really need the Marines?.. forget tradition, what do they really provide that the Army, Navy and Air Force can't.

The current fleet is getting worn out and increasingly obsolete. There are major structural issues affecting the entire F-15, F-16, and F/A-18 fleet that could lead to fleet-wide permanent groundings, and it is increasingly not cost effective to continue upgrading and refurbishing these aircraft.


User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15845 posts, RR: 27
Reply 17, posted (2 years 8 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 22051 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 16):
Is there some impending deadline we don't know about other than the synthetic retirement of easily extended current model a/c (other than the Harrier).

That is the deadline. The current planes won't last forever and the capabilities of the 20th century will only go so far in the 21st.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 17):
The Navy doesn't want to buy more Super Hornets;

They didn't want the Super Hornet in the first place but they didn't stop Cheney from cancelling the A-12 so that's what they got. Frankly, I don't feel too sorry for them having blown their chance at a low observable strike capability.

I'm not okay with it because it's a good option. I'm okay with it because the Navy screwed up and should lie in the bed they've made. If they'd not cancelled the A-12, the F-35 may never have started.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 17):
EVERY tactical fighter design has a ton of compromises in it. There is no "perfect" design.

The JSF sure sounded like one. Strike, vertical takeoff, stealth, dogfighting with the best of them, and the latest electronics all in a package cheaper than the F-22? That's a fantasy cooked up by bureaucrats.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 17):
Japan, no slouch in high tech, have added themselves to the customer list. They don't seem to be worried about anything but the possibility of cost overruns. Israel, probably more dependent on their air forces for their very survival than any other nation on earth, doesn't seem worried.

What other options would either of those two have? Both are rather concerned about threats at the moment too.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinechecksixx From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1142 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (2 years 8 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 22026 times:

Quoting Zkpilot (Thread starter):
Over the past few days there has been a lot of speculation that not just the F-35C but the entire F-35 project being scrapped. Apparently there are major design flaws meaning the C model can't do arrestor hook landings, the other models apparently lack the range, manoeuverability, speed, payload of their rivals, and the whole aircraft is not particularly stealthy especially to newly developed/deployed radar bands. Finally the biggest hurdle is the massive cost of each aircraft.

Quote a source for all this speculation that you talk about. Have not heard even a peep of that.

Thanks,

Check


User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7856 posts, RR: 5
Reply 19, posted (2 years 8 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 21805 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 12):
Perhaps they can fit normal steam cats to the CVFs? The RN and RAF can always accept the F/A-18E/F or the Rafales

They can't, since they aren't nuclear powered that don't have the ability to generate lots of steam. They need EMALS, it's the only option.

A couple of weeks ago the Norwegian press started running stories about the govt cutting the F-35 purchase by about 25%, the loss of frames will be made up by more time spent in advanced simulators.


User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4093 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (2 years 8 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 21794 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 20):

Our last large aircraft carriers weren't nuclear powered either, and they had steam catapults.

All you need is a boiler, and that can be electrically heated.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 21, posted (2 years 8 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 21673 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 17):
Personally, what I DON'T see in this forum are arguments dominated by actual engineers, ground crew, and pilots, some of the latter of whom may wind up with their lives actually depending on the F-35 doing what it's supposed to. They seem not to be worried.
Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 17):
Japan, no slouch in high tech, have added themselves to the customer list.

Who have cut their firm purchase from, I believe, 42 to 4. Italy has cut purchase back to about 90, UK to about 100. Israel wants financing assistance on their purchase (read: gift, since the Israelis never actually pay for anything). That's now, wait until the actual cost of this goat comes out. Canada likely to cut back to about 40 or so given the government's stated "official" cost, notwithstanding the Auditor-General or the Parliamentary Budget officer's reports. In fact, I think if the air force brass hats were given the choice of 40 F-35s or 75-80 Super Hornets, they'd likely choose the latter.

As for arguments "dominated by actual engineers yadda yadda", many of the people to whom you might want to refer are prohibited from commenting in a public forum on this topic and are anyway strongly biased in a particular direction.

Once again I try to make the point, as I have tried to do with my American colleagues, you can only have the military you can afford. We can't afford the total F-35 package price.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7856 posts, RR: 5
Reply 22, posted (2 years 8 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 21651 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 21):

Our last large aircraft carriers weren't nuclear powered either, and they had steam catapults.

All you need is a boiler, and that can be electrically heated.

Yes they were designed with boilers and the steam was a free side effect which allowed for steam catapults, the CV doesn't have a boiler room and according to what I have read fitting boilers for steam catapults isn't possible.


User currently offlineZkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4867 posts, RR: 10
Reply 23, posted (2 years 8 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 21647 times:

Quoting checksixx (Reply 19):

Quote a source for all this speculation that you talk about. Have not heard even a peep of that.

Thanks,

Check
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalk...call-in-us-foreign-policy-journal/
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition...fighter-jet-of-the-future-1.363626
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...ighter-japan-idUSTRE82001I20120301
http://www.defencetalk.com/will-the-...aft-that-can-replace-jsfail-41889/

Also here is a very detailed indepth paper taking a look at the F-35
http://www.scribd.com/doc/88946660/W...SN-and-USMC-Shouldn-t-Buy-the-F-35

[Edited 2012-04-30 08:08:16]


56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4093 posts, RR: 4
Reply 24, posted (2 years 8 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 21650 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 23):
Yes they were designed with boilers and the steam was a free side effect which allowed for steam catapults, the CV doesn't have a boiler room and according to what I have read fitting boilers for steam catapults isn't possible.

No, it doesn't have a boiler room, but I don't accept that space cannot be found for a modern linear boiler system dedicated to the catapult system - its nowhere near the capacities required for ship propulsion, so a dedicated boiler is nowhere near the same space hog as that of ages gone by.


25 GDB : ....Which goes to show there is nothing new under the sun. F-22 IIRC had a long and often difficult gestation. Never mind fast jets, so did the C-17!
26 kanban : conveniently missing is buying new updated versions of these a/c. a substantial percentage of these people are forbidden to comment either by company
27 LMP737 : Yes I know you can't that is kind of my point.
28 ThePointblank : Conveniently missing is the massive lead time and limited production capabilities of the current generation aircraft; you do realize it takes 3 years
29 checksixx : Just as I thought...nothing...except an article from a year ago. There is nothing there about actually cancelling the F-35. Just opinions. When you h
30 kanban : still beats waiting 8 years for a maybe plane the maybe will live up to it's hype. production lines can be added if needed. it's all relative to the
31 Ozair : I don't think you have thought that out correctly. If you gave the RAAF the option of any current fighter jet in the world the F-22 would be the last
32 Post contains links ThePointblank : Indeed, not to mention a complete maintenance headache. F-35 is designed to be way more user friendly in terms of maintenance. Take for example the s
33 Max Q : Why not call it 'the F35' What is the point of abbreviating it so ?!
34 rwessel : And the F-22 was promised to be more reliable and easier to maintain than an F-15.
35 Post contains links and images FVTu134 : Well I think the USN ought to look at a certain aircraft type that already operated from the Truman I think it was... The hook is at the right distanc
36 Flighty : Of course the F-35 should have been cancelled many years ago. It went way off goals years ago. It is very beneficial to cancel programs that are off
37 spudh : Old Chinese saying: No matter how far you've gone down the wrong path TURN BACK! But I think with the F-35 the wrong path may have gone right round th
38 KC135TopBoom : No, the A=12 program was canceled for costs overruns, just like the F-35 program is in now. Then your RCAF is in real trouble today, as their CF-18s
39 Powerslide : I've seen the CF-18 run circles around a Super Hornet in A/A combat. It was a joke really. Along with that, we did just fine with our "less capable"
40 Post contains images Revelation : It'd be nice to see an independent source say that. It'd be nice if all those fixes weren't driving up the cost. And, as below, only 20% of the fligh
41 spudh : A Hornet pilot who flew numerous side-by-side comparison flights with F/A-18E/F SuperHornets said: "We outran them, we out-flew them and we ran them
42 Post contains images bikerthai : LOL. Do you mean the the similar way an A-4 will run circles around an F-14? Queue Mr. Kenny Loggins. bt
43 BMI727 : And there is a lesson to be learned: you have to work through the schedule and budget overruns to end up with the right capabilities. Running away an
44 Post contains images bikerthai : Why? We would run out of able bodies people to fight our wars for us. Moderator, you can delete my post as appropriate. I just could not resist a pol
45 sphealey : "Work through" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence. I've done a lot of systems design, software, and implementation work/management over
46 Post contains links kanban : Well we'll see how much longer Canada will stick to this since they are going to reevaluate the program and their needs. http://www.flightglobal.com/b
47 Revelation : I guess you are presuming all designs, including this "fantasy" (your words) will converge rather than diverge especially given infinite money. I'll
48 checksixx : That would be a tremendous mistake...the goal is to move forward, not backward, with stealth and capabilities. I would call Dassault fighter aircraft
49 ThePointblank : When you are working with first generation stealth technology, things don't go as well as you expect. The B-2's skin is likewise difficult to maintai
50 rwessel : First generation? The F-22 program specifically promised that the large issues with maintaining the prior generation aircraft's (F-117, B-2) stealth
51 moo : You aren't seriously suggesting that the USN are buying aircraft today (MYP III - 2011 to 2013 delivery), with the intention of withdrawing them from
52 Ozair : That is not an accurate statement. The RFPs for the ATF program were released in 1985, three years before either the F-117 or the B-2 were formally a
53 moo : With over 350 aircraft delivered between 2007 and 2013, would that not be one of the youngest fleet retirements ever?
54 AWACSooner : No...here's what needs to happen. CANCEL this program, and then the DOD needs to go to ALL the manufacturers and their respective subsidiaries and sa
55 Post contains images Flighty : People are slacking and raising kids off this program. They have meetings, thousands of meetings, year after year. My workplace is not so different (
56 SSTeve : That's a solid sunk cost argument. Consider the program cancelled. Consider all the money already spent as gone, but consider what we have for it fre
57 BMI727 : The F-35 will converge to a fine aircraft that will be a good successor to the F-16 and work for the Navy and our allies. It won't be the world beate
58 Post contains links ThePointblank : Indeed, and there has been a lot of lessons learned in regards to stealth technology. Curing the stealth coating into the skin instead of applying it
59 Max Q : What an incredible bad joke. We are now planning on transitioning to a tiny force of F22's, what 180 or so, out of which maybe half will be servicable
60 Post contains links RickNRoll : Australia to defer the JSF program for two years. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-0...w-due-in-2013/3987042?WT.svl=news1 "The delivery of the RAAF'
61 stealthz : My best reading of most reports and the govt releases is that deliveries are being realligned with US deliveries, really a non story, Aust is not so
62 Post contains links Bthebest : Thats exactly what the USAF are doing with the KC-46. Quite a good article about how they're managing that program and not taking any crap. http://ww
63 AngMoh : If they all say no, and the government does not budge, are the big defence companies going to shut down? Boeing has proven with the F15 that they are
64 BMI727 : They'll get fat off foreign sales and wait for the government to cave and either buy old planes or fund new ones. The risk and cost for the F-15SE an
65 Flighty : Hard to say... with such a large customer funding base, business would cater to it in some fashion. In any case, government is offering this peculiar
66 ThePointblank : For something that's essentially COTS, you better bet risks and price can be managed better than a completely developmental design that has never exi
67 Flighty : Maybe I would if I were in that business. In human history, people have developed a lot of technology in their garages and self funding through start
68 ThePointblank : Take a look at the people backing these companies. Scaled Composites was founded by a subsidiary of Raytheon, a large defense contractor and is curre
69 stealthz : Not so positive about that, have seen comments from Def Minister Smith in recent months that if carefully scrutinised between the lines could almost
70 Post contains links ThePointblank : Well, the Australian Defence Minister said on May 3rd when they made the decision that they will think their current fleet of Hornets and Super Horne
71 AngMoh : In other words: nobody is willing to take the risk because they don't believe it is achievable in the first place. In that case: kill the program and
72 ThePointblank : Unfortunately, if you limit price, you limit capabilities. F-35, like practically every fighter developed previously, has had systems and missions ta
73 connies4ever : Very interesting article in the current display copy (May, so info is recent) of "AIR International" on the F-35. 2 pager by Robert Dorr, repleat wit
74 Post contains links and images Devilfish : Too bad Boeing is not more serious with this..... . http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lqe9v0bQUf1qhagdx.jpg Has Finmeccanica finally agreed to service t
75 connies4ever : Pretty sure they've dug in on this one. They feel they've been screwed over. So if/when FWSAR goes ahead, they'll be new builds to my mind.
76 Post contains images Powerslide : I didn't know that Robert influenced Canadian National Defense policy. Like I said before, regardless of all the whining the Canadian media does, the
77 Post contains links ThePointblank : And the fixes are being finalized on the helmet: http://www.defensenews.com/article/2...odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE
78 Post contains links connies4ever : I never knew you could be so jejeune. The author is presenting an opinion based on discussions with political figures, as well as the well known tech
79 Powerslide : I wasn't saying he was Canadian. I don't see how his credentials pertain to fighter jets, but I guess everyone is an expert on this program. I hope L
80 ThePointblank : You know what, I'm going to have to very blunt here. When you are pushing the edge in technology or inventing something new, there are bound to be gl
81 connies4ever : Any 6th gen a/c will be unmanned, bet on it, and development will not start before 2030. Which would, given the fiasco that the F-35 is, indicate a 2
82 Post contains links and images Powerslide : Enough of the pointless drivel. Back on topic, program update as of the 8th. http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/new...508ae_f-35_update-flight-test.html
83 connies4ever : Software design for complex systems is not "pointless drivel", unlike your statement. The beast still has only achieved a small fraction of the requi
84 Powerslide : There are monthly articles on the F35 and how troubled the program is, etc, etc. Even with known defense cuts the F-35 hasn't even had any total numb
85 Post contains links ThePointblank : Funny, the senior brass of the USAF and USN has re-affirmed support for the F-35: http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123301477 And we are in that ri
86 kanban : should apply to 21-25 yr old's who challenge everyone else's credentials while never presenting their own.. This program needs some serious oversight
87 Powerslide : And drive the price up even more. Great idea.
88 kanban : stopping building hundreds of test only planes before all the bugs are discovered saves far more in rework/repair costs than continued production save
89 Post contains links Powerslide : They stopped building "test only" aircraft months ago. http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/new...510ae_f-35bs-ferried-to-eglin.html
90 connies4ever : But due to the power of "concurrency" they will have to go back and fix all the bugs uncovered during test flying by both test and "production" aircr
91 kanban : Who are these nameless "we"... surely neither of you fan boys work for LM or the US military... That's the point I was making, but forgetting the aud
92 Post contains images Powerslide : You mean do what's been done with every single fighter aircraft ever produced? How dare Lockheed follow SOP's! You know, the people who's job it is t
93 connies4ever : There's a difference between test flying - exploring the flight envelope, and flying to achieve IOC. Production aircraft are often, but not always, q
94 TheCol : Depends on the outcome of the next election. The Harper government has no intention of backing out, regardless of the political mudslinging over the
95 connies4ever : In the 1970s the CF wanted the F-4 Phantom. Government of the day decided we couldn't afford it so the CF got the F-5,much less capability. You get t
96 BigJKU : I think any talk of the F-35 program being in serious danger is quite silly. I can see a few marginal buyers like Canada backing out of the deal on th
97 kanban : The point is today we do not have the resources to continue bad policy of the past. When one looks at the list of structural problems and realize the
98 BigJKU : Is it really a cost savings? What are you going to do with all the assembly line workers? Fire them and then rehire new people and retrain them later
99 connies4ever : I agree. Arrow was the last time we attempted this and it almost ate the entire procurement budget of the day. And this is really the Achilles heel o
100 BigJKU : Yes, but at assuredly an increased cost for anyone purchasing the aircraft. You won't be saving much money buying Eurofighter vs buying F-35 in a cou
101 kanban : This is one of those heart wrenching ploys used all to frequently by industry .. "please allow us to keep producing crap, smog, hazardous waste becau
102 TheCol : Again, that depends heavily on who wins the next election. No it doesn't make any sense. When Canada buys hardware, it has to be good for 25+ years.
103 BigJKU : Umm...from a practical standpoint what can the any of your other platforms do that the F-18E can't do other than possibly the F-15SE which does not e
104 connies4ever : Didn't say that, I said the initial build of the F-16 met then then requirement for a light-weifht fighter. Nothing more. Which I think will happen,
105 Post contains images mffoda : Maybe we should rename this thread to: "Talk Of Canadian F-35 Being Scrapped!" While that is a possibility? The other is unlikely...
106 connies4ever : Perhaps that would be a good title for a new thread. Oz too. As for the whole program, it's election year so I don't think anything drastic will occu
107 Post contains links and images Devilfish : Here is a change..... http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...5-officials-swap-positions-371877/ Quote: "Two senior US Air Force officials leading the
108 Post contains images Oroka : Second hand voodoos... sure, but how do you figure the hornets were obsolete when we bought them? It took at least 5 years from initial delivery in 1
109 Post contains links connies4ever : Saw that on the Flightglobal site this AM. Interesting comment that retired flag officers can't think of a reason for the change. The USAF official l
110 Post contains links moo : A few points with this little comment... "Just now getting ready"? The RAFs FGR4, operational in 2008, has full multirole capability and was dropping
111 Post contains links BigJKU : For the RAF only who funded it under a different contract than everyone else. Tranch 2 Aircraft started rolling in 2008 but I don't buy that the RAF
112 Post contains links moo : Yup, the first attacks were designated by a Tornado, however the Typhoon soon adjusted to self-designation and carried out the majority of its strike
113 BigJKU : It is a EF that can drop LGB's. Does it have any standoff weapon capability yet? Can it fire AGM's yet? Can it fire ARM's yet? There is a lot more in
114 ThePointblank : The F/A-18 had a very difficult gestation during development. You must be too young to remember when the F/A-18A/B was being developed. It was highly
115 connies4ever : Except that it's not, it's three different aircraft, unless what you mean is everyone gets the same version of a given version (A, B, or C). Furtherm
116 kanban : Odd choice of words since according to your profile you weren't born yet either. You tend to ignore two points 1) because past programs had problems
117 sweair : One thing I don't get, how would a F35 replace A10 in CAS? Its too fast for strafing runs?!
118 USAF336TFS : Interesting thread for speculation, but not dealing with the realities of the 21st century. I don't have access to the classified data about the desig
119 BigJKU : Feel free to sign up to pilot the A-10 on strafing runs in anything but the most benign SAM environment. I think it has been accepted for some time t
120 SSTeve : Even the -B?
121 connies4ever : Given the US austere financial situation, likely to persist for quite some time, and per Kanban's comments quoted above (Pentagon budget reduced $500
122 USAF336TFS : But they haven't yet, have they? I'll take that bet. Steak dinner, your choice in restaurants in Manhattan. The DoD will have no choice but to take a
123 kanban : they are however deferring actual orders and remaining on MOU's... there is a big gap between what has been funded and 2000+... Congress will decide
124 sweair : The A-10 has shown its use in every conflicts since gulf war 1, its really good at CAS once you control the battle field, that will cost a lot more to
125 BigJKU : I am not saying the thing is not useful. What I am saying is that it was designed for a different mission than what it now does for the most part. I
126 connies4ever : The operative word being yet. It's become a big political furball up here. If the feds have to go back to a competition they first have to define an
127 Powerslide : Until you put that number into context, it means nothing. Show me the total life-cycle cost of the F-15, F-16, F-18A/B/C/D/E/F/G and A-10, add them a
128 connies4ever : As does the continued assertion that this thing will defeat anything around. It might, but that remains to be seen. Once/if it ever completes test fl
129 Powerslide : Completely avoiding the question again I see, seems to be common, saying the F35 is expensive without drawing comparisons. No one said it "will defea
130 rwessel : IIRC, the Russians have ~250 active Su-25s, and a couple hundred more are in service with other users. So total numbers in service are in the same ba
131 Oroka : They also dont roll in the gas, maintenance, and insurance costs over the projected lifetime into the price the quote you for a car. You would think t
132 Post contains links ThePointblank : With all 3 variants of F-35, when a decision is made to integrate a weapon on F-35, everyone gets the same upgrade, whether or not one chooses to eve
133 kanban : you and powerslide sound like a company spokespeople reading from the prepared text... the same over and over and this customer isn't buying it. many
134 Post contains images TheCol : Which doesn't work for us. The Maritime Helicopter Project taught us all about that kind of procurement. We don't have the time to argue back and for
135 SSTeve : They're still more of a wannabe superpower, which is more dangerous.
136 Post contains images sweair : F35 is a dream, its one aircraft to fill 3 roles with one frame. It will always be a compromise in every role. The F22 was cancelled due to price..wel
137 BigJKU : I agree. The issue is that decision needed to be made by all parties 10 years ago. The F-35 won't be the worlds best air superiority fighter, that mu
138 Post contains images connies4ever : For all of the above, it's a nice thought. The Turks want to integrate their own cruise missile into the total F-35 package, which requires access to
139 BigJKU : I would guess the US trust Israel very little in that regard. There is not a great track record there really.
140 Aesma : Yeah, we all know there is no politics involved when selling/buying arms.
141 connies4ever : A fair point. It has been pointed out more than once that the biggest security threat to the USA is not China or Russia, but it's "ally" Israel. Thor
142 Post contains links ThePointblank : The source code issue is a complete red herring. You really only need the source code if you are doing very deep tinkering or there is something seri
143 connies4ever : Actually no. Access to the source is important, addition of new weapons and/or capabilities may require serious changes. Standards are important for
144 Post contains links ThePointblank : However, with F-35, the heavy usage of interface standards means that 99% of the time, a user will never have to tinker with the source code to add n
145 BigJKU : I would not say that it is just the fact that Israel is a major exporter of weapons systems to places the US would rather not see them. In their posi
146 Powerslide : Who says you have to? It's like trying to convince religious people that god doesn't exist. You can only offer up so many facts but if the person is
147 Flighty : You're stating the original sales pitch for the program. Yes, in theory it makes sense, if you ignore why the program was probably doomed from the be
148 bennett123 : Will this issue of source codes be a greater problem for a non NATO country, like Israel?.
149 ThePointblank : No, because they won't need access to source codes. Furthermore, the Israeli's and the US have an agreement where if the Israeli's require any additi
150 kanban : there are three issues on the table which should be separate however someone and his brother seem to think both deserve the same answer 1) will the F
151 Powerslide : Based on what evidence? China doesn't even have a fighter capable of taking out a F35, let alone a drone that A: is capable of flight and B: able to
152 Zkpilot : maybe not a single fighter as of right now (then again the F-35 isn't active yet), but China will have approx 3-4 (maybe more) fighters for every F-3
153 ThePointblank : The stealth coating is built into the skin of the aircraft, not as a coating as with previous stealth aircraft. The skin is extremely durable (Lockhe
154 Post contains images Powerslide : Just like Russia will have thousands of T-50's, right? Predicting that China will be able to produce something that comes anywhere close to the F35 o
155 Flighty : Seems like you made your decision prior to anything else. Guess my amateur point was that (a) building a drone to do something is cheap; (b) China ha
156 ThePointblank : I take the point of view that every developmental program will have issues. It's natural and expected. Its the extreme level of scrutiny, some of it
157 Zkpilot : considering the F-35 has less stealth than the F-22 and that it is completely visible to L-band radar then your assertion is wrong. Even if the likes
158 Post contains links ThePointblank : 1. The comparison being made is a small bird to a marble. Still very small. 2. L-band radars are primarily a early warning type of radar; while they
159 ebj1248650 : It's funny to me that some a.netters scream that the F-35 ought to be scrapped but, meanwhile, new build airplanes are being delivered to Eglin AFB,
160 BigJKU : Drones are so far nowhere near being ready for a air to air combat. The first UCAV that will be totally on their own to complete a mission will be, i
161 spudh : At the risk of boring people with yet another historical reference the capability to carry of 4 or 6 or 12 AAM is a red herring. Outside of a computer
162 XT6Wagon : Wrong, The A-10 in Gulf 1 operated in the highest threat areas outside of bagdad itself. It did anti-sam missions itself. The doctrine for the A-10 h
163 BigJKU : Look, I am taking nothing away from the A-10 but the environment in a high opposition situation just is not conducive to their operation. You are rig
164 Post contains links ThePointblank : I think everyone needs to check their expectations of the F-35 programme in terms of delays, problems and pricing increases. No aircraft program will
165 Max Q : It may have been shot up, but it nearly always made it home. XT6 hit the nail on the head, the A10 is, simply invaluable. The 'gold plated' joke that
166 BigJKU : Ok, lets just cut to the chase here. All aircraft have myths that surround them and the A-10 at this point is no exception. Here is the truth, from o
167 Post contains images Powerslide : It's okay, you don't have to be afraid of new technology.
168 Post contains links Powerslide : Meanwhile, F35 pilot training is gaining momentum. http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...adre-starts-jsf-transition-372258/ Nope, doesn't look like i
169 Zkpilot : I would say that the A-10 likely did a heck of a lot more low-level flying which is inheirently dangerous (even in a no-threat environment) which cou
170 BigJKU : I am not sure how that is really relevant. And if you read my reply you will see the A-10's were put up to higher altitude just like all other craft
171 Oroka : The F-14 was a great aircraft, but the mission it was created for has passed. The A-10 is a great aircraft, but the mission is was created for has pas
172 SSTeve : How so? Just smarter munitions now?
173 BigJKU : The A-10 was designed and placed into service when the AGM-65 Maverick was still a maturing weapon that used visual cuing. It was conceived and first
174 Max Q : Neither of those statements is true. The F14, especially the -D model was the best fighter the US Navy ever had, the F18 doesn't even come close, the
175 XT6Wagon : The mission it was created for is gone. All the other missions that can't be done by any other aircraft in the inventory are still there. Sure we don
176 Oroka : It was designed to fight hordes of soviet tanks. While it did find uses in the post soviet world, its specific mission never occurred (which is a ver
177 BigJKU : The F-16's did not fly many air superiority missions in Gulf War I at all really. Again, I feel I stand on pretty firm ground with my assessment here
178 Flighty : Would Iran be so different? What is the world class enemy we would be conquering... please don't say China.
179 BigJKU : Yes, Iran would be drastically different than Afghanistan. Night and day different right now with what they have now. Let alone what may be out there
180 Max Q : It also was never defeated in aerial combat, shot down Libyan Migs, was capable of defeating F15's after being re-engined, and had the ability to dro
181 Powerslide : The F-14 was also a maintenance disaster, highly over rated and is long gone, it's time people stop living in the 60's. Funny how only the "greatest"
182 Post contains links tommytoyz : It has been shown that this repeated statement of yours is totally false. Why do you keep making it? I'll once again, name you just one very precise
183 Post contains links ThePointblank : Looking at what technical experts are saying rather than brochures are saying about radars is more telling: http://books.google.ca/books?id=j7hd...r&
184 tommytoyz : The 1st book you linked to is 8 years old, the second one is 25 years old and the 3rd source doesn't mention L-Band what so ever. These are your sour
185 ThePointblank : All of the sources are very relevant as the basic physics haven't changed significantly since the development of radar back in the late 1930's. You c
186 sweair : The whole F35 is a big compromise between its three different roles, you cant get past that, some seem to hold a religious belief about it... It will
187 tommytoyz : Basic physics haven't changed since the beginning of time. But the ability to make L-Band radars very accurate has changed, as evidenced in the Boein
188 Post contains links connies4ever : One of the principal justifications for the goat, er, F-35, was Arctic patrol. Now this: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rctic-surveillance/art
189 Powerslide : Famous last words. Anything else you would like to predict? Drones along WITH F35's would make sense, since drones can't intercept other aircraft. Dr
190 Ozair : Tommy, if you are going to make claims about the performance of a radar system them please provide details. The link you have provided, has absolutel
191 tommytoyz : Nothing was quoted. Just links to books were posted - that's it. Please quote the passage that you were so impressed by from the books, thanks - rele
192 Ozair : I don't need to read the books. My academic history and having read Stimson's Airborne Radar from cover to cover is enough to know that what PointBla
193 tommytoyz : You mean you've read, "Introduction to Airborne Radar" last updated in 1998? OK, just quote the relevant portions for us. If you and PointBlank consta
194 ThePointblank : AESA is not an cure all for resolution or accuracy, the basic difference is that it is a different antenna. The main advantages AESA systems have ove
195 Post contains links tommytoyz : AESA allows all radars to be smaller yet much more powerful, accurate and jam resistant - not just L-Band Radars. Ignoring this new radar development
196 sweair : Why has there not been a fighter UAV done yet? Is it technical or other things holding it back? With no Pilot it could be a bit smaller and lighter? I
197 connies4ever : Indeed I would: over the course of your life you'll be shown to be wrong on this. It's as likely that the Russians will come over the Pole (a capabil
198 connies4ever : A fighter UAV would be a UCAV (Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle). UCAVs currently are conceptual and/or proof-of-concept only. Likely requires a step forw
199 ThePointblank : You have been suckered by Boeing and Northrop Grumman marketing to think of that, along with APA. We've had ground based AESA and PESA radars for a f
200 connies4ever : The USAF recently assembled a true supercomputer in the AFRL. Blinding speed. It consists of 12 Playstation IIIs. Cost about $10k in material. Need I
201 ThePointblank : Its the sheer volume of data that needs to be processed and sorted through from all of the sensors that is the issue. The human brain is incredible i
202 connies4ever : Which is what is driving technology to produce faster and faster machines: speed enables processing huge amounts of data. There is no doubt that curr
203 tommytoyz : I never said that nor anything approaching that. What I did say was: The AN/FPS-117 fist came out, what, 20 years ago or more. It is not the latest t
204 BigJKU : I think this needs to be addressed because it speaks to a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of radar systems and what they do. Wedgetail is a very
205 tommytoyz : If money is no object, then yes. However, if there is a limited budget, then maybe not, depending on how expensive and productive the LO aircraft act
206 sweair : The F22 tooling was to be stored, but how long would it take to set up that line again IF the Air force and Pentagon had a change of mind in the futur
207 connies4ever : Different topic, same concept: the Avro Arrow was cancelled way back when because it was "crowding out other essential weapons". It was the service c
208 Post contains links connies4ever : F-35 proponents and opposers may find this little piece from CASR to be germane regarding how we got into this situation in the first place. Also appl
209 BigJKU : Once it is in full rate production the F-35 won't really be all that more expensive than many 4.5 generation aircraft so I don't really see how that
210 connies4ever : And again I will state that there are only so many dollars, even for the USA, and they are shrinking given the current economic environment. Somethin
211 BigJKU : Ok, but that would mean fewer of any other aircraft as well would it not? That is not really an F-35 issue but a budget issue is it not? I mean is th
212 connies4ever : Probably true re fewer of other things. But I would say that in the ISTAR realm, for example, there is likely a minimum cutoff point in terms of plat
213 BigJKU : The F-35's $1.5 trillion dollar lifetime cost would represent something like 0.2% of US GDP over the next 50 years and 0.8% of the Federal Budget ove
214 sweair : I read that the F35 is at F22 prices now, but it should go down with the numbers of frames? The F22 being much more capable as a fighter, they should
215 sovietjet : What are you talking about??? They are the largest country on Earth, their air force is second only to the USA and only the USA can rival Russia in n
216 tommytoyz : Asked and answered many times over. Please read this thread for your answer. 1. They do not have to radiate, as they are linked to others 2. They can
217 connies4ever : The point is, though, that the bulk of DoD spending is for human infrastructure: salary, housing, benefits, training, the physical plant. The F-35 pr
218 Post contains images sweair : So some Canadians here want to go for more F18s? Or maybe the Swedish museum piece Gripen Good look with the PAK FA...
219 Post contains links SSTeve : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ies_by_level_of_military_equipment (You can sort by the various columns-- spending is of course an order of mag
220 connies4ever : Actually, Gripen NG, which is what is currently on offer, is not a museum piece. Your own air force will probably purchase it. In any event, there is
221 tommytoyz : I agree with you on that point. So if these types of long range stand off weapons, launched from air and sea, are so effective, then why would we eve
222 TheCol : Are we going around in this circle again? The PAK-FA and J-20 will be available to anyone who wants it, not just the big players. You can bet Iran wi
223 kanban : Maybe the real question is who wants to go to a major war for either the US or Canadian lands yes some countries start conflicts because someone insu
224 connies4ever : That mindset assumes we want to do an expeditionary war again, of course as part of a "coalition of the willing". With NATO starting to fracture and
225 Ozair : The F-35 already has a full weapons load, stealth configuration Hi-LO-LO-Hi strike mission range of 590nm. That is twice that of an F-18E/F, 1.5 time
226 ThePointblank : Not likely. Sweden will probably opt for an upgrade of their existing Gripens. And for what the Swedes plan to do with the Gripen (mainly sovereignty
227 Post contains links connies4ever : You are assuming that NATO will continue to be a viable on-going entity. I don't. Geez, basically NATO has lost their war in Afghanistan. I'll conced
228 sweair : I don't think Sweden could afford the Gripen NG, as this would eat all of the defence budget for many years. Its already a very meager defence force i
229 connies4ever : It's getting somewhat off-topic, but I rather disagree with the notion that there is a leftist wave in the west. Au contraire I think the right-winge
230 connies4ever : My just-delivered AIR International, Vol 82, Number 6, pg7: Fair use quote: "Sweden is planning to acquire between 60 and 80 new Gripen NGs". Switzer
231 tommytoyz : Why do you need to engage mobile SAMS if many cruise missiles slip past them at low altitude? So yes I am ignoring it, because It's pointless to enga
232 Ozair : Did you actually read what you quoted above? The difference is 5nm, not 100nm. That equates to a less than one percent reduction and that reduction i
233 connies4ever : If you do a little fact checking on your own, the originally-stated op requirement for the F-35 was 690 nm, not 590. When project people realised the
234 Post contains links Ozair : I have done fact checking and have provided a link to a document that clearly indicates that the USAF was seeking a range of between 450-600nm for th
235 Post contains links ThePointblank : More precisely, there were two goals, a objective goal (the best case scenario), and the threshold goal (the absolute minimum). 690nm was the objecti
236 autothrust : Tha'ts not really an achievement. Even the Rafale has more composite by weight, the Typhoon 70%. That remains to be seen until now it was non the cas
237 connies4ever : And a plan being formulated to extend the airframe lifetime to 10,000 hours plus. Because the USN knows they're going to need the Bug for quite some
238 autothrust : Couldnt' agree more. Let's wait for some more news from the GAO a source i trust.
239 Post contains links connies4ever : There you go: http://www.defensenews.com/article/2...35-s-Range-Falls-Short-Predictions A requirement or a goal, it was advertised as being capable o
240 kanban : it was butt ugly would have gotten a name that made "warthog" a prom queen shouldn't a new report be due out this summer? looking at the combat radii
241 powerslide : I'd like to see an audit report comparing the costs of what it took to operate the F-15, F-16, A-10 etc vs the F35's projected costs. That is fantasy
242 Post contains images sweair : For some even mig21 would be enough
243 connies4ever : Fair enough and I'd accept that report. I am an ISO-certified auditor, after all. Still kind of hard to get a firm grasp on F-35 costs, but probably
244 Ozair : A requirement and a goal are two very different things, especially within the systems engineering/project management world! Your link also clearly st
245 tommytoyz : Here are comparable combat radiuses: * F-35A 751nm * Super Hornet 816nm * GripenC 502nm * Eurofighter 747nm * Rafale 896nm * Su-30MKI 728nm All with
246 ThePointblank : Use the correct metric please. Some of the 'ranges' you listed aren't correct; some of them are combat radii, not range. Combat radius is the distanc
247 autothrust : Utter nonsense. The X-32 was tested and designed that way it would been cheaper to produce, and showed better agility( also thanks to the 2-D Thrust
248 BigJKU : You do realize that the Pentagon, not LM, drives the requirements and adjust them accordingly right? You are right, range was traded for certain sens
249 tommytoyz : Is English not your 1st language? If not, radiuses is the same as radii. In English, it can be spelled both ways and that is the metric used in the c
250 BigJKU : This is great, except that it is factually untrue. If we are going to compare total weapons carriage capability then we should include external store
251 tommytoyz : It is factually correct that the F-35 only carries 4,000lbs of bombs (2,000lbs for the B) in stealth. Why do you keep insisting that it is not true,
252 BigJKU : I have never said that is not true. What I have said is that it is not really a relevant comparison. You can't compare the internal capacity of the F
253 Max Q : How slow is the already incredibly slow F35 when you load it up with external fuel tanks and weapons then ?
254 Oroka : Why not compare apples to apples? IIRC the F-117A also had a 4000lb internal payload, what is the F-22 capable of? What was the F-117A able to carry e
255 BigJKU : Incredibly slow? Any fighter is going to be slow if you load the thing down with weapons including every single one on that list. I doubt any of them
256 tommytoyz : Really? Remember this? Do you want to be taken seriously? [Edited 2012-06-07 21:05:37]
257 ThePointblank : I would add with the proliferation of MANPAD's, high end AAA, the universal adoption of look down, shoot down radar on fighters, flying low and fast
258 tommytoyz :
259 Ozair : So Tommy, if that is what you really believe provide some evidence. Can you name a conflict in the last 25 years when flying low and fast was more ef
260 BigJKU : As constructed your statement is at best intellectually dishonest because you are comparing stealthy carriage with non-stealthy carriage to make what
261 tommytoyz : F-15? Rafale? Just to name two. But I guess they're in a different class on different missions? The extent of defending the F-35 is amusing. I am not
262 powerslide : Divorced from reality is right. The reality is the F35 will be a great and successful fighter just like the F-15, 16, and the 18 were, regardless of
263 spudh : Ironic that you should chose the Tornado to 'elucidate' your point, because despite your sarcasm the Tornado actually is the absolute best in its cla
264 tommytoyz : I never said it wouldn't. If you are referring to me, you too are reading things, which I in fact did not write. What I did say is: The degree of F-3
265 Post contains links tommytoyz : Look at the long long long list of predictions, forecasts and promises both LM and the DoD have made, in regards to the F-35 - which have been wrong.
266 Post contains links Ozair : I'd say the F-111 but that is probably splitting hairs as they were both terrific aircraft. And yet as spud has stated that is the way western nation
267 spudh : No real argument there Ozair, the Tornado was only an F-111-lite but I thought you Aussies had retired the last F-111's so I was thinking about curre
268 Ozair : Indeed, all gone now and only one operational sortie in RAAF service to show for 37 years.[Edited 2012-06-08 17:14:11]
269 tommytoyz : Spud is not a source. In whatever manner the non stealth planes have been operated, they have been very successful, even on day 1. Have they not? Eve
270 tommytoyz : Out of 109,876 sorties....pretty good. You will never get it down to zero in war.
271 Post contains links Ozair : A statement like that is pretty poor considering even though I have asked you on a number of occasions you haven't provided sources for any of the cl
272 tommytoyz : Regardless of what I did or did not do, it doesn't change the fact that Spud is not a source. Are you still looking at the sales brochures? Technique
273 Ozair : Spud was referencing a trend that has been clear with western air forces since GW1. It does not need a source. You are right they are not, techniques
274 moo : Seems to be the order of the day on this thread, from all sides of the argument. Arguments and positions repeated ad nauseum and the topic not really
275 Post contains links tommytoyz : By that metric, the F-35 is already going to be undeliverable, as it won't meet the range requirement. But of course that is not what happens. What h
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
What Are The Chances Of The B-1R Being Built? posted Wed Apr 26 2006 01:09:56 by 747400sp
Airbus A400m And F-35, A Waste Of Money? posted Sat Dec 3 2011 08:24:14 by B17GUNNER24
F-35 Structural Cracking Still Being Resolved posted Tue Sep 6 2011 11:20:26 by kanban
Spies Get Terabytes Of Info. On F-35 posted Mon Apr 20 2009 22:30:26 by Greaser
Cool Video Of The F 35 posted Fri Apr 25 2008 14:29:43 by Mortyman
Russia Pulling Out Of An-70 Project posted Sat Apr 8 2006 10:36:04 by EHHO
Large Number Of Backfires Being Destroyed.. posted Thu Feb 6 2003 23:55:44 by Keesje
McDonnell Douglas YC-15 (72-1876) Scrapped posted Wed May 16 2012 19:39:14 by avnut43
Music Video Showcasing The F-16 Of Norway posted Sun May 13 2012 05:46:23 by Mortyman
Great Video Of The F 16 In Norwegian Air Power Ann posted Fri May 11 2012 19:44:01 by Mortyman
What Are The Chances Of The B-1R Being Built? posted Wed Apr 26 2006 01:09:56 by 747400sp
Airbus A400m And F-35, A Waste Of Money? posted Sat Dec 3 2011 08:24:14 by B17GUNNER24
F-35 Structural Cracking Still Being Resolved posted Tue Sep 6 2011 11:20:26 by kanban
Spies Get Terabytes Of Info. On F-35 posted Mon Apr 20 2009 22:30:26 by Greaser
Cool Video Of The F 35 posted Fri Apr 25 2008 14:29:43 by Mortyman
Russia Pulling Out Of An-70 Project posted Sat Apr 8 2006 10:36:04 by EHHO
Large Number Of Backfires Being Destroyed.. posted Thu Feb 6 2003 23:55:44 by Keesje
McDonnell Douglas YC-15 (72-1876) Scrapped posted Wed May 16 2012 19:39:14 by avnut43
Music Video Showcasing The F-16 Of Norway posted Sun May 13 2012 05:46:23 by Mortyman
Great Video Of The F 16 In Norwegian Air Power Ann posted Fri May 11 2012 19:44:01 by Mortyman