Jump to content

F-35 - Another News Article - NO politics Please !


Tiger331

Recommended Posts

Well the first 2 RNoAF F35A's have been delivered for flight crew training and I agree with previous posts that the countries will be tied in and it would cost them a hell of a lot to get out of it and I think the last price quoted was $80 million per aircraft and there are 100+ of them out there now.

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Norway---Air/Lockheed-Martin-F-35A/2735181/L/&sid=b2d302b84de7e05206e52837e84d698e

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Norway---Air/Lockheed-Martin-F-35A/2735182/L/&sid=b2d302b84de7e05206e52837e84d698e

Graham

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't really know who or what to believe, the USMC seem to be getting on with them, or have I missed a good article in Air Forces Monthly? But if the stealth is not really stealthy, then what would be the point of carrying on, despite money already spent? I guess airforces go back to pure performance/radar,supercruise etc, and there are a lot of good aircraft already available to build in numbers. New Super Harriers? What would cost less, changing the carriers again, or up-grading a tried and tested workhorse? Must be the Harriers? I do think they were retired way too early, but I know new Harriers will never happen :weep:

And if the F-35 is so detectable, what does that mean for the F-22?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

$80 million each? Try $113 million plus engines*

*

For example, the unit cost of an F-35B has fallen from $113 million in LRIP lot 5 to $104 million in LRIP lot 7,
excluding the cost of the engine, according to “F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program",Congressional Research Service, RL20563, 29 April 2014, table 1"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

£5 billion is a lot but if its not right we could walkaway its not unheard of. We spent £1 billion on Nimrod AEW back when £1 billion was a lot, we also spent £800 million on Nimrod MR4 only to throw it all away.

The US Army once spent $7 Billion on the Comanche only to walkaway.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apropos of nothing, there are now more F-35s in service in the US than Rafales in France. :D

Could be true, most of the Rafales are in service outside of France.

With some of them operating from an aircraft carrier, a routine of more than ten years now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

F-35 is a total waste of money. It's been known for years that VHF radar can pick up stealth and the F-35 is vulnerable to detection by it. It's almost certain the aircraft has no on board active jamming either, as what's the point? To use active jamming you have to be certain you've been detected, otherwise you just telegraph your approximate position to every radar that can pick you up.

I'd be building more F-18 and F-15, along with more Growlers and EW aircraft. Stealth does have a place on the battlefield, but I don't think the F-35 is it.

Detection is not the same as obtaining a firing solution or engaging an adversary. VHF radars suffer from very poor altitude resolution, while the location accuracy isn't great. Also VHF radars are large and cumbersome, making them ideal targets for stand-off cruise missiles. In short, your objection is entirely spurious.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me that it is a disappointing aircraft, every time I see a video or article on it where the F-35 performed poorly or had another setback there are loads of F-35 apologists coming to it's defence which always suggest to me that they know it's not that good hence the avid defence of the yet unproven and unsold aircraft.

The price is an issue too, but that is also why they can't just walk away from it because heads will roll for that size of failure.

Ultimately I agree with the view that Stealth has a place on the battlefield for certain mission profiles (like the F-117 against an integrated air defence network) but the US seem to want to apply stealth technology to everything nowadays to the detriment of the aircraft's capabilities. When you see the types of conflict that aircraft are going into today, why the need for the stealth capability, bombing countries like Iraq, Syria and Libya, which don't have any capable air defence against current aircraft that adequately perform their roles, can carry more weapons further with less air to air refuelling operations etc you have to ask why the need for such an expensive aircraft with a stealth capability when cheaper more capable options are already available like the F/A-18E/F, F-15E and so on which can arguably perform the strike/attack role better.

Stinks of failure to me, but lets see how much more money they waste on it before a defence secretary finally comes out and admits it's a disappointment and is being scrapped.

Rich

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, in one way I applaud the size of the order - if - they see it through. It does mean we can have two air wings at sea at the same time.

However, we have seen large orders in the past, only for them to be cut or cancelled entirely.

I still believe a proven airframe in the same numbers would have been a better option. Two engines are always preferable, especially over water, and 2 seats are often better in the attack role.

Belligerents these days seem to be of the insurgent variety, who don't carry sophisticated radar sets with them, or have air to air capability.

We would have been better off letting Uncle Sam do and pay for all he spade work, to see if this dog really hunts, before making an 'informed decision'. Far easier to have built as CATOBAR from the outset, then you have all the options. We could have leased legacy jets in the interim, and purchased the best option at the end of the day.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yawn. This is an utterly predictable part of every major defence procurement. I remember the development of the F-18: everyone said it wasn't half as good as the good old 20-year-old A-7 and something else (F-4?) it was replacing. Now people are making out that the 20-year-old F-18 is absolutely the best thing since sliced bread and far better than any old rubbish that might be coming along to replace it (I concede the point that the F-18E/F is much more capable than the F-18A.) I remember the development of the Tornado: too expensive, too complex, would never work, etc, etc. Now it's a reliable old friend.

Notwithstanding the compromises forced on them by a Treasury that understands the value of nothing and politicians who care about no more than the next election (cf the carrier/F-35B fiasco), I don't believe that all those involved in defence procurement arte necessarily completely stupid.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, its a bigger order than I expected.

Will be interesting to see if the Govenrment also perform the expected u-turn to keep Trache 1 Typhoons for QRA duty in order to boost the number in UK service to 150+. Maybe they have finally woken up to the situation the world is in.

Need to see an announcement about Nimrod replacements and a committment to 20+ T26 frigates and an 8th Astute before I start hanging the bunting though.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our problem stems from design decisions made 15 or more years ago when the carriers specs were first brought up. If we'd gone nuclear from the start there would have been no problem fitting CATOBAR from the outset, giving the carrier a HUGE range of options for the aircraft that could operate from it. However, in those days "nuclear" was a swear word for the politicians of that time so they went for turbine powered. Result: no steam available for catapults.

Adding this capability turned out to be ruinously expensive, even though it was SUPPOSED to have been designed in from the start. Result: aircraft carriers that can't fly proper aircraft from their decks.

Forget the F-35, what about all the other aircraft a "proper" a/c carrier can carry and operate, eg AWACS, supply, anti submarine, Electronic warfare... its not just fighters that need to be launched from an a/c carrier. Trying to fulfil those roles with helicopters is a ridiculous premise. We're screwed whatever happens - this country will not have an adequate Naval based air capability for the next generation or more, if ever!

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting story has emerged this week on the ongoing F-35 fiasco. Unnamed senior US sources (operating under Chatham House rules AT Chatham House) have indicated that the USAF have approached industry to cost the upgrade or new production of F-15 Eagles, F-16s or even F/A-18E/Fs for the AIR FORCE !. Evidently the on going cost overruns and budgetary challenges with the delivery of Tranche 1 F-35s (let alone the follow on orders) into USAF service has now become 'unacceptable' and they wish to review alternatives if the USAF is to retain a credible number of combat aircraft into the immediate future.

So I assume you're just reading from this article:

http://aviationweek.com/defense/us-considers-72-new-f-15s-or-f-16s?NL=AW-05&Issue=AW-05_20151120_AW-05_723&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_2&utm_rid=CPEN1000000925509&utm_campaign=4309&utm_medium=email&elq2=696100567d34420d8afdd263b2892e45

Its usual Bill Sweetman BS. How did this come out as "unacceptable" now?

I'll be perfectly honest, there are two realities about this project. there is the one that almost everybody reads in the media about costs overruns, poor performance and massive delays. Then there is the professionals within the military and services who see a vastly different picture. Read these remarks by Frank Kendal, who is the chief of acquisitions for the DoD.

http://www.defense.gov/News-Article-View/Article/604756

We're continuing to execute to the [2011 F-35 Technical Baseline Review]and we're exceeding our expectations on cost and performance and were close to our projections on schedule.

So over the past four years, the project has hit its milestones year after year. The costs are declining as predicted... and that's before the upcoming three year block buy. Because of the production scale, the F-35A is cheaper than every single option available.... save for maybe stripped down F-16s.

Perhaps the part that few people truly understand is where the F-35 really excels. People focus here on traditional metrics for planes: speed, turn performance ect. All of that is useful, and the F-35 is pretty good when you actually do proper like to like comparison: its a mix of the F-16 and F/A-18. But what truly sets it apart is how it operates on an electronic battlefield. Its no longer about searching around with a 4 pack and engaging in a fur ball over Hanoi: now we're talking about vast distributed networks with different platforms pooling their increasingly raw sensor data, which a fighter must be a part of to be relevant.

For the US Navy for example has the Cooperative Engagement Capability: the F-35C will be a forward reconnaissance and battlefield platform: it will feed targeting data to other capabilities, and even have the ability to launch shipboard missiles if required. You're seeing this type of capability start to emerge everywhere.

At the same time, the new Canadian Government are also looking very closely at the implications of ditching the F-35 and have shortlisted four types, including the F/A-18E/F, Typhoon, Rafale or Gripen to replace the ageing CF-188A/B fleet.

Totally and utterly untrue: They've shortlisted nothing, as the process hasn't even started yet. Actually the new government really is in a bind about what to do about the program: It made its campaign promises on really faulty information (like what you're quoting in the press) and are now aware of the actual nature of the capability and cost.

I also happen to know the Norwegians are also having serious misgivings about the F-35 and their potential buy was even bigger than that of Canada.

What about us ?..What do you think ?

NO Politics PLEASE

Ah, Norway was going to buy ~50 aircraft, Canada 65... so that's wrong. And I guess you know better than the Norwegian government itself...

http://aviationweek.com/defense/norways-f-35-commitment-reportedly-still-firm

They are actually flying their first fighters now at Luke and pilots reports are glowing.

http://blogg.regjeringen.no/kampfly/2015/11/20/a-fly-f-35-erfaringer-fra-den-forste-uka/

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Stealth works, and is fairly future proof, plus if it can be packed with targeting pods, weapons, IFR etc that all current jets have, and do as good a job in day to day ops (mostly ground support right now), and is at some point deemed reliable enough for continuous ops wherever and whenever, to meet very different wartime scenarios (...) then it'll do!!! Navy get their VSTOL capability back, 2 rather significant carriers plus all the capabilities that come with that, etc, etc. Hope it works out, getiing a bit fed up with all these gaps in our defences, getting embarrassing!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me that it is a disappointing aircraft, every time I see a video or article on it where the F-35 performed poorly or had another setback there are loads of F-35 apologists coming to it's defence which always suggest to me that they know it's not that good hence the avid defence of the yet unproven and unsold aircraft.

The price is an issue too, but that is also why they can't just walk away from it because heads will roll for that size of failure.

Ultimately I agree with the view that Stealth has a place on the battlefield for certain mission profiles (like the F-117 against an integrated air defence network) but the US seem to want to apply stealth technology to everything nowadays to the detriment of the aircraft's capabilities. When you see the types of conflict that aircraft are going into today, why the need for the stealth capability, bombing countries like Iraq, Syria and Libya, which don't have any capable air defence against current aircraft that adequately perform their roles, can carry more weapons further with less air to air refuelling operations etc you have to ask why the need for such an expensive aircraft with a stealth capability when cheaper more capable options are already available like the F/A-18E/F, F-15E and so on which can arguably perform the strike/attack role better.

Stinks of failure to me, but lets see how much more money they waste on it before a defence secretary finally comes out and admits it's a disappointment and is being scrapped.

Rich

Following this logic, the RAF in 1936 should have developed only the kind of aircrafts that had been used in combat for the previous 15 years, that is light support types capable of dropping small bombs on lightly armed tribesmen as part of colonial policing operations. And yet for some reason the RAF decided to develop high performance fighters capable of fighting and eventually winning a war against enemies capable of fielding the most advanced possible weapons. In this way when the Luftwaffe attacked they were met by Spitfires and not by Lysanders...

Any type entering service in 2016 will have to be able to fight for at least 30 years. While today's wars are against enemies with no advanced air defence systems, it would be utterly foolish to field types not capable of fighting against the best that any possible enemy could have in the next decade or two.

Edited by Giorgio N
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, its a bigger order than I expected.

Will be interesting to see if the Govenrment also perform the expected u-turn to keep Trache 1 Typhoons for QRA duty in order to boost the number in UK service to 150+. Maybe they have finally woken up to the situation the world is in.

Need to see an announcement about Nimrod replacements and a committment to 20+ T26 frigates and an 8th Astute before I start hanging the bunting though.

Not holding my breath. Something will have to go in order to pay for it. In any case, how long will it be before they are even in service? 2020 was it. What is of more concern is the "war footing for a generation" comment. With regard to the actual review, I do not expect to see any firm commitments to anything. What we WiLL get is more fudge and waffle than you'd find in a sweet shop together with a whole load of conditional phrases and clichés adding up to a review which says plenty but actually tells us nothing.

Allan

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So we now have the aircraft for the carriers but not a thing to protect them ...ASW assets still not decided yet ?

C130 /P8 or P1....needs sorting out sooner rather than later .

Andy

The carrier group will be quite well protected, the first upgraded Merlin HM2 have been delivered for ASW work, and will also have the plug-in-and-play `Crowsnest` set for AEW, in development.

I take it you mean a MPA replacement for Nimrod, which IS shockingly missing from the inventory of an island state such as ours- rumour is rife, we`ll see tomorrow.

Cheers, Ian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be extremely surprised if the entire project did collapse, the repercussions can be massive both political and economic. Even if it does turn out the F-35 is pants, you only have to look back at all of the "lemons" that were produced and yet still entered operational service.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...