STOVL F35's for RAN???

[Buster Hyman]

Push for air back-up on navy's new ships

Brendan Nicholson
July 11, 2008AN INFLUENTIAL defence group has urged the Federal Government to buy up to 12 short take-off versions of the Joint Strike Fighter that could operate from the navy's massive new amphibious landing ships.
The Navy League of Australia says those drafting the new defence white paper should exploit the capabilities of the landing ships and the new multi-role aircraft that is the likely choice to replace the RAAF's F-111 bombers and F/A-18 fighter bombers.
The Government is expected to decide early next year to buy up to 100 of the US-built Joint Strike Fighters (JSFs).
The navy is to get two Spanish Navantia landing ships, officially designated LHD (Landing Helicopter Dock), which can carry 1000 troops, six helicopters and 150 vehicles, including Abrams tanks.
They will be named HMAS Canberra and HMAS Adelaide, with the first to be in service by about 2012.
Some defence specialists have pointed out that the landing ships would be heavily protected by the navy's other new heavyweights, the air warfare destroyers.
But the Navy League says it would be a mistake to send the ships, laden with troops and equipment, overseas without air support.
"Landing uninvited in someone's country should not be done half-heartedly," it says in the latest edition of its magazine, The Navy.
"Experience has shown that land forces deployed without organic air support are extremely vulnerable from the ground and air.
"The inclusion in the JSF purchase of 12 of the short take-off and vertical landing version at present being built for the Royal Navy and the US Marine Corps would provide the Australian Defence Force with much needed options."
The Navy League says the new ships and aircraft would be in service for at least 30 years.
"It is impossible to forecast the contingencies the ADF may face between now and 2050. It is highly desirable that the ADF is equipped to handle all possible situations."
A flight of four to six Joint Strike Fighters, flown by RAAF pilots, could be placed on each landing ship, the Navy League suggests.
The Spanish Navy's landing ships are equipped to carry Harrier jump jets and are expected to be able to carry Joint Strike Fighters.
The Navy League stresses that equipping each of the new ships with a few Joint Strike Fighters would not turn them into aircraft carriers.
But at 25,790 tonnes, the new vessels will be bigger than Australia's last aircraft carrier, HMAS Melbourne, which was 20,000 tonnes fully laden.

:D

[Like This - Do That]

A flight of four to six Joint Strike Fighters, flown by RAAF pilots, could be placed on each landing ship, the Navy League suggests.

The Navy League author must have felt sickened writing that, but probably thought "if we suggest these aircraft were to be flown by Fleet Air Arm pilots the ALP would have conniptions" ......

[wessex19]

The FAA pilots were always of the opinion that the RAAF never really liked the navy having fighters, they were happy for them to jolly around in helos but leave the fast stuff for the boys in blue, I suppose the only difference now is that the number 1 boy in blue was an ex navy fighter pilot. On ya Binny:D
On another note, why are navy pilots required to complete the entire pilot course to the same standard as RAAF pilots whereby you will not fly fixed wing!!! If all the navy has is helo's, why aren't navy pilots doing the same training as the army guys. The navy have had a number of Mids scrubbed right at the end of 2FTS for elements of the programme they will never use in the FAA whereas the army cadet would not of been tested on this and hence got his wings. If navy pilots are still graduating to RAAF standards, then they could step up to the F35:ugh: Thats my two cents

[Trojan1981]

The navy have had a number of Mids scrubbed right at the end of 2FTS for elements of the programme they will never use in the FAA whereas the army cadet would not of been tested on this and hence got his wings. If navy pilots are still graduating to RAAF standards, then they could step up to the F35 Thats my two cents
You would think so. I think the RAN is going to have trouble crewing the ships and aircraft they have on order, let alone new aircraft.

I spoke to a bloke at a local flying school the other day who intends leaving the RAN to persue a civilian flying career. He appeared to be a very switched on sort of person but he was adamant he will not learn to fly through the Navy. The attrition needs to be slowed before they can ad any more capabilities. That said, it sounds like a good idea.

[dsham]

Navy pilots, unlike their Army counterparts, fly in single pilot operations. The Observer is trained to take over and ditch in case of emergency - that's it. That's why they require a higher standard of initial training.

[wessex19]

You sure about that?? Sea King has 2 pilots, its replacement will have 2 pilots(s-70B is flown with an observer in the left seat) , as for the army, They have had years of single pilot operations, Kiowa, Tiger, Porter and I think the Nomad could be flown single pilot.
Originally navy pilots were trained to RAAF standard because they could fly a full range of aircaft, single pilot thing sounds strange!!

[Buster Hyman]

The Observer is trained to take over and ditch in case of emergency
I guess it doesn't take much to shout MayDay on the radio...:uhoh:

[scran]

Wessex:

NAVY pilots do the full bit (well - it was explained to me this way anyway) becasue when they enventually arrive on operational aircraft, they could/will be conducting blue water ops without divert airfields etc or the ability to just "put it down anywhere". Requires a more comprehensive set of skills that those for Army.

[Arm out the window]

Probably also stems from the good old days when the Navy used to throw their Trackers and Skyhawks onto decks. Bloody shame they don't still do that kind of stuff - maybe we'll see it again now.
I'd've loved to have seen Harriers in Aussie service.

[Deaf]

Gather the problem with Harriers now is they can carry heavy and expensive BVR missiles OK in the North Atlantic but can't do the vertical landing bit with them in hot conditions. Would be a bit limiting for us.

[Brian Abraham]

wessex, just for info the Trackers were single pilot with an Observer in the RHS.

[westausatc]

When I was going through my aborted attempt at 2FTS, this issue raised its head and the SNO (Senior Naval Officer) said that flying choppers in the Navy required a much higher instrument flying proficiency than BFTS provided graduates with. Looks like it is all about being able to fly on the clocks....

As to the proposal, how effective are 6, yes a full SIX, JSFs going to be on each ship? Wouldn't imagine much effect would be achieved with crew duty, maintenance, etc. all dragging down the ability to drop bombs on targets. At least not enough of an effect to warrant the cost....

[wessex19]

Brian Abraham, correct you are. Although I think the US navy flew them with 2 pilots

[Mr Bomb]

1. You can't do 24 hour CAP ops with only six aircraft.
2. You can't do CAP and strike at the same time with only six aircraft.

Therefore you need AWACS to tell you when the bad hats are coming and thus when to launch your aircraft.

So now we need wedgetail, and thus protection for that asset. Not looking too good now...

[Brian Abraham]

Wessex, correct you are as well re US. We did as well initially, but for some reason, now long foregotten, we went single pilot.

[wessex19]

sketch of RAN F-35 of 805 SQN on Wikipedia!!!
Someone has way too much spare time

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4a/RAN_F-35.JPG

http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/fighter/f35/f35-6.jpg

http://uscockpits.com/Jet%20Fighters/F-35_Cockpit_(Simulator)-1.jpg

[Buster Hyman]

Gee that's one awkward looking aircraft. The Harrier was grace personified in comparison.

[Gnadenburg]

1. You can't do 24 hour CAP ops with only six aircraft.

The air warfare destroyers would be the primary defence against air attack.

Could a stealth fighter, with long range missiles and in conjunction with Wedgetails ( if in range ), provide flexible offensive and defensive air to air capability against potential, moderately capable foes ?

2. You can't do CAP and strike at the same time with only six aircraft.

There are a myriad of scenarios where a token airborne strike capability ( beyond scout helicopters ) would be useful.

Ships move. How many ground attack sorties could be generated by 6-12 aircraft in 24 hours, off Dili say, versus a Tindal based squadron?

What about off Fiji?

If these things work it makes sense that the RAAF buy them to enhance the capabilities of the expeditionary forces we are developing for regional operations.

Inter-service rivalries granted. This is a chance for the RAAF to justify its high numbers of JSF's.

If the RAN gets cruise missiles for its submarines and air warfare destroyers. Some of those JSF numbers won't be justified.

[Mr Bomb]

Gnadenburg,
The issue isn't how many strike sorties could be generated from a ship off Dili. It is how to counter the 40+ Indon aircraft that would have been coming your way if we had have struck targets around Dili.

6-12 aircraft on 1-2 ships makes that ship a floating target (much like tanks... but I digress). The ONLY place this would be useful is where the good guys (us and our friends) have absolute total air superiority.

I guess the X factor is how much better the good old JSF will be vs whomever we are likely to go up against. If it is as good as the F22 at stealth (and it should be) then yes it may make my points above moot and 6 - 12 aircraft could defeat any number of conventional agressors (until they run out of BVR missiles...)

Another often overlooked point is ROE also comes into it and the pollies in their infinite wisdom may make a positive visual ID necessary before being able to shoot thus negating the Stealth capability... but again I digress and wax lyrical...)

Just a few points and I do tend to agree with what you have written.

Cheers
Mr B

[Going Boeing]

Mr Bomb, you make some good points if the fleet is used in isolation, but I could envisage a mixed force operation whereby land based F-35A's with tanker & Wedgetail support would fly the CAP, while ship based F-35B's would fly the attack sorties (with a much higher ROE compared to land based aircraft). The extra fuel capacity of the F-35A makes them better suited to the CAP role than the F-35B.

I always thought that the LHD acquisition was a thinly disguised plan for the RAN to re-acquire Aircraft Carrier capability. :)

[Gnadenburg]

The issue isn't how many strike sorties could be generated from a ship off Dili. It is how to counter the 40+ Indon aircraft that would have been coming your way if we had have struck targets around Dili.

It is an issue in certain realistic scenarios. And just having shipborne fighters can prove a deterrence in some operations the ADF may face.

40+ Indon fighters? To operate, maintain, train and co-ordinate in wartime, such a large force would involve serious national investment by Indonesia. They are unlikely to have those funds in the medium term.

China caused a hoo-hah recently. The managed to co-ordinate a regiment sized force of fighters for the first time with early 90's style Western command and control.

So realistic numbers please. And Dili and Fiji were just geographic examples- 1) Land based air in range 2) land based air not in range

6-12 aircraft on 1-2 ships makes that ship a floating target

These ships will always be targets. But they move. And with overlapping capabilities and weaponary they will give Australia a very effec tive expeditionary capability in the region.

If JSF works buy it. And buy long range land attack misslies for the fleet and submarines too.

(much like tanks... but I digress).

Armor saves infantry lives.

And as you are not as proponent of VTOL naval fighters you would be relying on scout helicopters for air support of Australian troops when land based air too far away or too slow to react due distance?

Attack helicopters are proving to be the most vulnerable assets in recent conflicts. Far more so than main battle tanks.


positive visual ID necessary before being able to shoot thus negating the Stealth capability.

So our air warfare destroyers will have to wait to visually ID an aggressor? Doesn't make sense to me.

If an air warfare destroyer can shoot beyond visual range, so could a JSF I gather.

[Like This - Do That]

Armor saves infantry lives.

Gnads for PRESIDENT!!!!!

[Shot Nancy]

That's El Presidente to you.

[Going Boeing]

positive visual ID necessary before being able to shoot thus negating the Stealth capability.

I agree with Gnads in that it is not always necessary to have a visual ID prior to engagement, however, the F-35 does come equipped with a very good visual enhancement suite - ie way beyond the Mk1 eyeball. Radar may detect the bogie early but the visual systems will (in good weather) assist in identification way beyond normal range.

[DBTW]

ROE and modern sensors enable BVR ID. The F35 in all its marks will have multiple ID sensors and a link system meaning it will be able to engage bandits autonomously under most ROE. Luckily for our modern fighter pilots (including F18s), Vis ID is a very restrictive part of history in most of the likely scenarios.

The "how many shipboard aircraft is right?" question relates to politics and money. How much are we prepared to pay and how important is it politically? That may be another debate in a different thread? I am new here.

The RAN currently has no long or medium range air defence capability so the fleet should not go outside the combat radius of the fighters at its nearest friendly fighter base. Or at the least it must operate with a friendly Navy who has some fighter cover, decent ship based radars and area defence missiles. NB: the RAN does not even have an Air Warfare Destroyer at present. To summarise, right now we have an inshore Navy being asked to act like a blue water fleet. We actually value our Navy personnel so little that we send them out without top cover. With the best will in the world, close in weapon systems and poorly supported (in a radar sense) FFG launched Standard missiles will not protect our people from a determined airborne attack.

Definitely, the enhancement of the RAAF F35 fleet with a sensible number of F35Bs will be beneficial overall. The ability to embark a small squadron of 6-8 fighters makes a fleet infinitely more secure/survivable, and makes it several magnitudes more threatening to our potential aggressors. The truth is, Tindal and Willy based fighters are for defence and the primary mission of the Navy has always been to take the fight forwards where the fighters will find it hard to go.

AEW and AAR are all good. They are a part of the picture to bring land based assets forward and when employed as such they will certainly enhance the battle space around the fleet.

You can actually man a 24 hour 2 over 2 airborne CAP using 6-8 ship based aircraft. Many smaller navies do it/have done it. The question needing to be answered is how many land based fighters, tankers and AEW would be needed to man a 24 hour CAP ahead of the fleet? In my experience it is something more than everything the RAAF has, and remember fleet air protection comes way down the list of priorities in the RAAF directive. Without air cover our fleet may well be targets. With air cover they are a very formidable offensive weapon.

[Going Boeing]

http://www.asd-network.com/data_news/ID19130_150.jpg

(Washington, January 21, 2009) -- Decisions about the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and F-22 Raptor aircraft programs are expected early in President Barack Obama's administration.

The F-35 program manager said Jan. 15 he sees strong support for the F-35 from the services, allied partners and, so far, on Capitol Hill.

Based on initial indications and inquiries from President Obama's administration, Maj. Gen. Charles R. Davis said he's confident the F-35 program begun during the Clinton administration will continue, even if budget restraints force scale-backs. General Davis made the comments here as keynote speaker at a Brookings Institution forum, "The Joint Strike Fighter and Beyond."

"Support throughout what appears to be three administrations has been relatively consistent," he said. "As of yet, we see no reason that that support is going to change. There is nobody on Capitol Hill who has said they want to cancel the Joint Strike Fighter."

That doesn't mean, he acknowledged, that the program to develop the next-generation strike aircraft weapon system for the Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and allied countries might not get scaled back.

General Davis conceded he gets many questions about the F-35's cost -- expected to be $80 million to $90 million, depending on the variant -- and delivery schedule. And if fewer aircraft are built, each will cost even more.

"We lose two airplanes in our [fiscal 2009] appropriation, and every other one of the airplanes being bought in that year goes up $3 million," he said.

Another consideration, he said, is the cost of maintaining the aging legacy fleets the F-35 would replace if production is cut.

Earlier yesterday, William Lynn, President Obama's deputy defense secretary nominee, told the Senate Armed Services Committee it would be "very difficult" for the Defense Department to keep all its weapons systems development programs on track in tight budget times.

Mr. Lynn said at his confirmation hearing he'll push for a speedy Quadrennial Defense Review to set priorities through fiscal 2015, and expects the tactical aviation force modernization issue to play heavily in those considerations.

In written responses submitted to the committee, Mr. Lynn recognized the capabilities of both the F-22 and F-35 aircraft -- particularly when considered together.

"The F-22 is the most advanced tactical fighter in the world and, when combined with the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, will provide the nation with the most capable mix of fifth-generation aircraft available for the foreseeable future," he said.

The F-22, to replace the legacy F-15 fleet, brings "tremendous capability" and is a critical element of the department's overall tactical aircraft force structure, Mr. Lynn said. The F-35, on the other hand, "will provide the foundation for the department's tactical air force structure."

The F-35 is the first aircraft to be developed within the Defense Department to meet the needs of three services, with three variants being developed simultaneously.

It will replace the legacy F-16 aircraft for the Air Force and the F/A-18 and AV-8 aircraft for the Navy and Marine Corps, as well as numerous legacy aircraft for the international partners participating in the F-35 program, Mr. Lynn told the Senate committee.

So the big question, he said, is determining the appropriate mix between the two aircraft. "If confirmed, I would expect this to be a key issue for the early strategy and program-budget reviews that the department will conduct over the next few months," he said.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has made no secret of his interest in reaching a decision and moving forward. During a June visit to Langley Air Force Base, Va., he told Airmen at Air Combat Command the new administration will have to determine the proper balance between the two aircraft.

"End the debate, make a decision and move on," Secretary Gates said. "'Start getting stuff built' is just so important.'"

Secretary Gates told the Airmen he had allocated enough money to keep the F-22 production lines open so the next administration could make its decision. He did not know at the time that he would be part of that decision-making process.

General Davis told the Brooking Institution audience Jan. 15, "support from all three services has never been stronger" for the F-35 program.

The Marine Corps, slated to receive the "B" variant that has a vertical-lift capability, has been "the most vocal, avid and fervent customer," General Davis said. The Marine Corps leadership expects the F-35 to become "the most effective air platform they have ever had," he said. "Looking at their history of how they have used airplanes, that is quite a bold statement."

Similarly, the Navy, to receive the aircraft's "C" variant designed for carrier launches, "has never been more supportive of the program," General Davis said. He noted that the Navy has been "fighting aggressively" to keep its aircraft carriers fully outfitted.

In addition, the Air Force recognizes the need for a complementary mix of aircraft to meet its mission requirements, he said. Its "A" variant of the F-35 will provide conventional take-off and landing capabilities.

Meanwhile, nine partner nations continue to support the program, with other countries considering signing on, too, General Davis said. The F-35 program represents the first time in military procurement history that the United States has partnered with another nation to build an aircraft from the ground up.

"We believe that the coalition that was put in place when they signed up for this program is probably stronger than ever now," General Davis said.

This partnership, he said, brings the concept of coalition integration to a whole new level. In addition to funding and developing the F-35 together, the partners plan to use a single system to sustain it -- sharing spares and repair capabilities to reduce costs.

"There is something very unique that Joint Strike Fighter offers that other programs I have seen do not," he said.

The big challenge for now, General Davis said, is to take advantage of the latest manufacturing processes to get the production line moving ahead.

"Even the manufacturing lines for some of our newest fighters, the F-22, started in the late '80s and early '90s," he said. "We have progressed almost two decades in manufacturing technology, but we have never really tried it out on a full-scale program."

Source : US Air Force

[Slackjaw]

Although a fleet air arm would be great for prestige, we simply don't have a navy large enough to support a carrier. A carrier on it's own is a sitting duck, Consider our nearest potential threat has ordered Kilo class subs as well as Korean type 209s with vastly superior lethality.

In the air our fleet air arm we will be facing Sukoi and MiG 4th generation fighters that from all reports have far more energy (energy = life) than our 18's. JSF is only marginally superior and it was designed as an F-16 (3rd generation) replacement.

We need the Raptor and we need it now. You can scour the web for the 10-15 F15's vs raptor scenarios, in two words air dominance.

The US will give us raptors, it is a vastly superior platform that can cover distances the size of Australia.

Considering you need conventional JSF's, STOVL JSFs AND a fleet air arm this is beyond economics.

Raptors will keep the air firmly on Australia's side so Helo's and other tactical aircraft can operate without heavy losses.

You need to counter a 4th generation fighter threat with fifth generation dominance not a stop gap. JSF vs SU30's and MiG 25's would be marginal, considering our adversaries ability to field larger numbers we would not be able to secure air superiority which from every lesson in every war is vital.

Without the air our MBTs would be vulnerable as would our troops and our seaborne operations. We'd need vast amounts of extra resources to try and defend. If we concentrate our efforts on a carrier group imagine what the devastation would be if we lost her. There is no doubt in my mind that enemy would make that the first task on the to do list.

we need the Raptor and we need it now

[Runaway Gun]

Has the US agreed to the idea of supplying Raptors to ANY country? Even Australia?

[DBTW]

It is excellent to see such enthusiasm! There is merit in the argument as well! If the Raptor was available for sale, the long cry from the RAAF about their inability to retain trained fighter pilots would be solved! You'd only need a couple to man the few afforded. Also, training would be cheaper/easier because complicated formations/tactics would be a thing of the past...the Raptor up threat would probably be on his/her own!

Although a fleet air arm would be great for prestige, we simply don't have a navy large enough to support a carrier. A carrier on it's own is a sitting duck, Consider our nearest potential threat has ordered Kilo class subs as well as Korean type 209s with vastly superior lethality.

This is always an emotive line. If carriers are such targets, how come so few have been sunk for real? The number is none since WW2? And if something moving around with loads of onboard self defence systems as well as associated systems on accompanying escorts is vulnerable, what of the completely undefended (by comparison) RAAF bases? Last time I checked they were in a fixed, well published position and had no CIWS or SAMs, and they are completely dependent on just a few Army owned Manpads! (and maybe they still have some old Rapier?)

The concept that the Navy just float around waiting to get sunk by submarines is frivolous. Ships can fight back either independently, or as a part of a fleet, and they can operate offensively. RAN also have submarines, and they also work with the fleet. Do a realistic threat reduction on how often these local hoards of Kilos and 209s get out to sea (let alone submerge) and the picture changes.

Cost is the issue and what the country can afford is the only real argument. Alongside capability and affordability, the other factor in favour of the F35 is the operational flexibility offered by the F35B.

[Trojan1981]

A/C Carriers have not been used in high intensity, high threat combat since WWII. They have done a fine job serving as mobile bomber bases against third-world countries with no major air or naval threat and where air superiority is already largely established. A small fleet of shipbourne aircraft could provide a small outer layer air defence (in conjunction with AWDs) and CAIRS capability. I don't believe we need it, however.

We are only facing SU-27/30s in small numbers locally, with larger numbers further afield in Asia. We cannot possibly hope to match the air forces of China and India. Whatever the RAAF ends up with, I think they should focus on the logistical support and manning issues facing defence (perpetually). This is where it all comes crashing down. There is not much point in having 100 JSFs if there are only 70 pilots and only 50 A/C are servicable due to a shotage of maint. staff and spares.

[wessex19]

Tojan, Australia's defence budget is about the same as India's, the only difference is we do not buy aircraft with palm oil!!!

[Trojan1981]

Yes, I agree. They don't pay or feed their people as well either.
We will never match the IAFs 230 SU-30 MKI Flankers, 40 Mirage 2000s, 60 Mig-29s + the 30 odd Mig 29Ks and 14 Harriers in service with the Indian Navy.
Half of India is starving and they still buy large numbers of fighters. They also face a much larger and closer threat from china than we do.
Our govt has enough trouble trying to keep our health system afloat while maintaining the forces we have now. I just think it is probably a bit unrealistic for Australia.

[Chief Wiggam]

I’m with back-door81

How about we address the obvious fundamental issues plaguing the ADF first, before we get all worked up over policing the region with sub-standard resources.

Unfortunately the only thing defending us at the moment is our geographical location - certainly not our obese combat ready 5000 or so personnel. Donuts be afraid!

Now might be a good time for the ADF to start a recruiting drive while there are makings of a loose workforce. Sign them up and then RETAIN them.

[Hempy]

YouTube - F-35 "Casero" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLTxjCk10dM)

[Captain Sand Dune]

A very interesting debate here, with some good points on both sides. However as long as we have a Labour government in power, it's all rather academic really.
Unfortunately the only thing defending us at the moment is our geographical location - certainly not our obese combat ready 5000 or so personnel. Donuts be afraid!
Yeah, that's a little embarrasing isn't it!:eek:
I'm not making excuses, but a this reflects what's going on in wider society. Plenty of non-military tubbies roaming (or should I say "waddling") the streets out there too.
Some of our younger recruits are sporting some serious "condition". I reckon I'm in better shape then some half my age.
However the ADF is hamstrung by all sorts of rules which essentially require it to pussy-foot around the issue, rather than call a spade a spade and make some of these people "shape up or ship out".

[Buster Hyman]

Not sure about the ADF or other Emergency services, but the CFA recruits need to be physically fit & are conducted through "beep" tests prior to being accepted for training.

Once you are in though, that's it, you can go to pasture all you want and believe me, they do!!!:eek:

Now, I'm no oil painting, but would it/could it be feasible to include a minimum fitness level for these types or organisations?

(Bit od a drift there...sorry)

[Trojan1981]

Thread drift for clarification:
The ADF does have reasonably high fitness standards. The initial test is fairly easy but expectations (at least in the Army) increase as you progress through your training and are posted to your first unit.
There is a readyness standard (AIRN) that must be met annually and part of this is a basic fitness test appropriate to age. People who have been injured during their ADF service are usually granted a waiver from parts of this test that they are unable to complete, but the emphasis remains on rehabilitation.

Unfortunately, people who have allowed their lifestyle to ruin their health (too much KFC) have also managed to be granted waivers and seem never to recover:rolleyes:. One member of my former Sqn failed his fitness test and was not allowed to deploy to Timor on my rotation as a private, gained a waiver, was promoted and deployed to the MEAO as a corporal. The same person is now a WO2 and has not passed the fitness test in ten years!
End thread drift.

[4Greens]

Point of clarification the STOVL F35 would probably not be suitable for the projected RAN ships. The VTOL F35 is needed. The thread does not seem to differentiate between the two.
On another matter, in the Falklands, the Argentinan aircraft carrier was a non event due to the presence of RN nuclear submarines.

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

Point of clarification the STOVL F35 would probably not be suitable for the projected RAN ships. The VTOL F35 is needed. The thread does not seem to differentiate between the two.
On another matter, in the Falklands, the Argentinan aircraft carrier was a non event due to the presence of RN nuclear submarines.

Further point of clarification - there is no "VTOL" F-35, the STOVL is the Short Take Off & Vertical Landing variant which is actually capable of vertical take offs.

[Slackjaw]

Your point is what I mean, no you can't just waltz up and sink a carrier because of the destroyer screen etc, You have to tie up vast amounts of hardware just to protect the carrier.

Ask around and you'll hear about how our Collins has sunk the USA's pacific fleet carrier more than once. You may only be able to sink the carrier 5% of the time, but name a country that would carry that risk?

I remember last year F/A22 was not only a possibility it was offered to Australia. We have received much tech in advance of Japan and other nations because of how well we are trusted by the USA.

Our Collins is a case in point, we received Raytheon’s: CCS AN/BYG-1 v8 CCS (Combat Control System) from the US Navy’s SSN-744 Virginia Class (http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/nssn/) submarines for our Thales sonar array.

I didn't even think about pilot retention for F/A22 but that's a fantastic observation, pilots would stay for the Raptor probably fly for free if it came to a pinch! It outclasses all others by a significant margin, that's why it is considered a fifth generation fighter where eurofighter, SU30 and MiG 29 is considered 4th gen. JSF is around 4.5, you can't argue that JSF is far better than the F22 it simply is not

Account of Red Flag exercise score 144-0 (rumoured) maybe 144-1 with unrealistic regenration parameters. I know it may be just propaganda, but there is much evidence to suggest that these kill ratios are realistic for Raptor. These figures were obtained vs F-16's and F-15's. Not F-18 superduds, real combat fighters like F-15's that have never been downed in real combat (air superiority versions), Hell 15's have landed with 1 wing shot off and scored 104-0 in real combat (half by Israel). YET they can't even scratch a Raptor in exercises.

F-22 near perfect in combat exercises - Air Force News, news from Iraq - Air Force Times (http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2007/07/airforce_raptor_070730/)

Sorry but i guess you can see I really disagree with the whole F-18 thing, not a decent stopgap vs MiG 29. A wasted opportunity when we had the coin to get better. Now we might not but F22 is still in the matrix.

Underestimating your enemy's capability is a classic mistake, i.e they have Kilos and are getting 209s but can't operate/maintain them. You could say the same about RAN or the RAAF. You could say the Collins is a dud (I don't think so, just my humble opinion) You could say we haven't got the skill base to keep our F-18 Superduds or Helos in the air, but you could also be wrong.

Oh yeah if Kilos and 209s aren't regarded as a real threat why are we acquiring more subs in response?

Subs are deadly lethal and we are very vulnerable to a blockade being an island, What deters that is our very capable fleet of sudden, hidden undetected death lurking under the surface of our sovereign coast (swelling with national pride). It's worth protecting and it's worth having sharp teeth in the sea, air and on the land. Even our current administration knows that the olive branch is held in a chain mail fist, no peace without a credible armed force.

We need a better land army (if what you guys say is true about our soldiers), we deserve and will get M1 Abrahms, there can never be enough subs and we need Raptor.

[FlexibleResponse]

We have suffered a huge hole in Australia's naval warfare capabilities ever since the loss of our seaborne fixed wing capability.

This is a threat to the survivability of our naval ships. Strategically, it is a threat to Australia's ability to defend itself and prevents Australia from making its influence and presence felt in fields afar.

Any project that goes towards addressing our deficiencies in medium and long-range Fleet Defence and Naval Force Projection should be encouraged.

Naval aviators are specialists in their field and should belong to the Navy. There is no fundamental problem with the Airforce Fighter Conversion Unit providing training for Naval Aviators to become fighter pilots.

[Cap'n Bunghole]

I remember last year F/A22 was not only a possibility it was offered to Australia

Not true. Would love to know your source on that one.

pilots would stay for the Raptor probably fly for free if it came to a pinch

Again not true. Pilots would love to get their hands on it for sure, but after a couple of years dominating everything all the time it would get a bit tedious. All pilots like a challenge, fighter pilots especially so. This jet doesn't give it to them. Guys won't stay any longer than they currently do.

Not F-18 superduds, real combat fighters like F-15's that have never been downed in real combat

How many F-18s have been defeated by an airborne threat?

F-18 is not a decent stopgap vs MiG 29

Rubbish. The Super Hornet will challenge SU-27/30 series fighters. There is more to life than kinematics. That said you can never have too much thrust.

[Slackjaw]

Not true. Would love to know your source on that one."
Yeah you're right near as offered

But defence analysts say that if Washington changes its mind, Japan and Australia could be among the first to get access to the type. Lockheed is also keen to keep its Raptor production line openAustralia to weigh Lockheed Martin F-22 against Russian fighters (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/01/10/220724/australia-to-weigh-lockheed-martin-f-22-against-russian-fighters.html)

I can't find another article that had even stronger words in it along the lines that an Australian (cut down) version of F22 was already designed for Australia. But you get the point if we asked we might get it. In fact get on board and get KR to ask, forget JSF it's rubbish, Australia deserves Raptor.

Again not true. Pilots would love to get their hands on it for sure, but after a couple of years dominating everything all the time it would get a bit tedious. All pilots like a challenge, fighter pilots especially so. This jet doesn't give it to them. Guys won't stay any longer than they currently do.Well obviously not the pilots the RAAF really needs. Going Mach 2 or going Mach 0.82. Pick a career seriously, one is about negating all risk and the other is risking your life in defence of your country. Raptor is a highly capable dogfighter too, there are old school combat skills to hone.

Rubbish. The Super Hornet will challenge SU-27/30 series fighters. There is more to life than kinematics. That said you can never have too much thrust.
You know there's not, superior training will not outgun more energy. Have a talk to our guys in 18's vs Malaysian MiG 29's, running out of energy sucks balls.

They may challenge but they will not dominate and that's the point when we can only field smaller numbers.

The F-15 is superior to the 18 by a wide margin (18's are nowhere near as capable as F-15's i.e 104-0 in real combat, amongst the kills are MiG 25's, 21's and 23's as well as FIVE MiG 29's for zero losses)

Given that the SU27 is considered an F-15 eagle equivalent and given that SM Su-27's will have AMRAAMs superior to our AIM 120s (Russian AAMs aren't the rubbish manual clock things they used to be either, SM standard Su-27s can be equipped with R-77 AMRAAMs which outclass AIM-120 AMRAAMs) any 18 even the 18 superdud is outclassed by threats our immediate neighbors will have in a few short years.


(I refuse to put F in front of the 18 anymore as it is too compromised to be called a fighter)

KR Raptor us, Raptor us now!

How many F-18s have been defeated by an airborne threat?During the first Persian Gulf War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War), two U.S. Navy F/A-18s were destroyed with the loss of their pilots.[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-18#cite_note-Jenkins-13) On 17 January 1991, the first day of the war, Lieutenant Commander Scott Speicher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Speicher) of VFA-81 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VFA-81) was shot down and remains listed as missing in action (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_in_action). The other F/A-18, piloted by Lieutenant Robert Dwyer (who was officially listed as killed in action, body not recovered (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killed_in_action)), was lost over the North Persian Gulf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Gulf) after a successful mission to Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq).F/A-18 Hornet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-18#Into_combat)

And I am going for this version of events

An unclassified summary of a 2001 CIA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Intelligence_Agency) report states that Speicher's aircraft was shot down by a missile fired from an Iraqi aircraft, a pilot on the same mission reveals "I'm telling you right now, don't believe what you're being told. It was that MiG that shot Spike down."[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Speicher#cite_note-CIA_summ-2) most likely a MiG-25 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MiG-25).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Speicher#cite_note-nyt121495-0)

But respect! if you like the superdud, you can and that's fair enough.

The interesting thing to me is Raptor is it is a game changer. Sure it has excellent kinematics (MTOW is FULL fuel and weapons to give you some idea). Vectored thrust, low observables etc. But it's sensor array and supercruise which is just plain AWESOME.

If you get close to a Raptor you won't outfly one but chances are you will never see it coming. It operates at high altitude (hence the name Raptor) if you do spot it, by the time you climb to intercept it would have found you with it's passive embedded sensor array and dispatched you, by the time you reached intercept because of low observables and supercruise it's not there, if by some miracle you get close enough F22 has not neglected basics it will outfly you.

F-22 is it's own AWACS. It is also massively networked, squadrons of Raptors can light you up or locate your beam and fire each others missiles to knock you out. You can not only see your own targets but the rest of your squadron's as well.

The systems are more friendly so that you can concentrate on flying and not managing aircraft systems, in short it's a far more efficient air superiority machine.

That's of course assuming the whole time you detected it in the first place with it's low observables i.e STEALTH (hate that word)

Airframes in the latter stages of 3rd generation design were slower for a reason, BVR missiles were assumed, and rocketry had progressed in leaps and bounds, the airframe didn't need to accelerate the AAM anymore but basic fundamental kinematics (love that word) i.e basic air warcraft was still needed. A large powerful radar was needed for BVR engagement.

F22 can do that well but it's a game changer in it doesn't need to. Light it up with your 3rd gen radar (and low observables makes this really hard) and it will send an AMRAAM down your own beam. Go and intercept and it's not there, It will use it's whole squadron of missiles in the most efficient manner and if it runs out of AAMs to fire it will outfly you and take you out with guns.

[DBTW]

I reckon someone needs to keep up with the news about subs...and not simply read all the glossy brochures. On sub invulnerability, whilst the exercise reports always play up how many carriers have gone down today, no-one seems to listen to the ASW guys. It's funny when you talk to them they always tell you about all the subs they have sunk! Indeed, every major submarine battle in history has been won by surface or above surface forces. NB: Nearly winning, or nearly bringing a country to its knees is not the same as actually winning.

Not sure why a cut down version of the F22 would be so great either? It would probaby be nearly as capable as an F35, but at only 3 times the cost instead of 4 times. With the small number affordable, a single well placed explosive device can take out a runway (notwithstanding what it could do to an aeroplane on the ground) and then an F22 can be theoretically as fast and capable as you like, but it's still stuck on the ground just looking pretty. A fighter stuck on the ground is useless. Ask the Yugoslavian Air Force about what happened in 1999. They had Mig 29s! So did the Iraqi Air Force in 1991-2003! By no means were the F15s solely responsible for the air domination involved in each case.

[Trojan1981]

Ask the Yugoslavian Air Force about what happened in 1999. They had Mig 29s! So did the Iraqi Air Force in 1991-2003! By no means were the F15s solely responsible for the air domination involved in each case.

Another point is that these Mig 29s were early models, operating (in some cases) even without servicable radars. The F-15 has a great record, again, against third world countries with inadequate training, spares and support for their fighter forces. As far as I am aware an F-15 (or any other modern western fighter) has never entered into combat with a Russian or Chinese Sukhoi, apples with apples please.
If you saw the state of Iraq's Migs in 2003 you would know that they were never going to put up a fight of any kind.

Regardless of CK and his followers, we will probably end up with F-35 as a cost effective, supportable solution.

[Gnadenburg]

Biggest threats at the moment are a budget deficit and the Chinese making a play for Rio Tinto.

Another 24 Super Hornets and a possible extension of the current classic fleet should do the trick. That makes more economic sense.

The RAAF's desire for a 100 aircraft tactical fighter fleet. To fight an unrealistic defense of the continent, with a concurrent capability of fighting two different foes on two fronts, is predictably now pie in the sky!

Who are we supposed to be fighting with a huge fleet of fighters?

1) China. Our biggest trading partner? Sure, they are investing in more force projection. But their biggest investment is internal force projection in these economic times.

2) India? Sorry, they're on our side. They will naturally align with the West over the next decade.

3) Indonesia? Always a threat. Economic hardship will once again have them skip a generation of force projection.

What is operational now, in service with our allies and can be integrated with ease? Super Hornet. But do we really need more dual seaters?

If it is good enough to defend a carrier it must be good enough for the RAAF.

[mcgrath50]

I have read the biography of Speicher's life and the mission. According to this source it was most likely a MiG that shot the Hornet down but mostly out of luck. I can't remember the details but due to a combination of aircrew not using SOPs and ROE the MiG was able to slip through and fire before many people could react.

It was not the airframes shortcomings.

[Slackjaw]

Where do I get my hands on a submarine brochure?

ASW vs subs? if you like there might be a "brochure" somewhere out there on how our Oberons did ferret runs into very hostile countries.

With modern ASW out there the French and British collided because they didn't tell each other where they were.

There may also be a "brochure" out there of why we were so sucessful in Timor and why Indonesea will not let it happen again hence the purchase of Kilo's and 209s.

Proposing anything but a balanced force Air Sea and land is silly, but if you don't own the air you are in a highly compromised position. STOVL? Really? how compromised an aircraft is that? Range? Payload? both of which JSF is struggling to meet it's targets for. This is a big brown land you know or are we going back to hauling it on vulnerable surface ships?

It reminds me of how we got 18s in the first place to replace our F-111s AND our mirages. 111s still flying because 18s can't fill that role. Jack of all trades master of none.

No SU27 vs F-15s beacause they are evenly matched. No Western country would want more than likely losses. JSF might fare ok against Su-27 but maybe not, F-22 is a whole generation ahead.

I will agree that if we did get F-22 we would need adequate funds to operate them, but even the less stealthy less capable JSF is going to be expensive, if you read Boeing's spiel then F22 costs less and needs less to field than F-15.

Now do you want our brave pilots to head out there in his STOVL JSF against Su-27SMs with a little bit of an advantage or out there in an F-22 knowing he owns the sky?

It took the USSR 12 years (Su27 inroduced 1984, F-15A 1972) to catch up with the F-15. Thats the kind of advantage I would rather Australia have.

As for F-15 vs the world the score is 104-0 regaredless of what other types participated in whatever campaign. The Iseralis went to guns a lot beause they were that confident of the advantage they had over their advesaries (MiG21s and 23s).

Here we go again with the untrained pilots. There are accounts of how much respect the Israelis had for the battlecraft of some of there advesaries, they still shot them down with their superior F15s on guns.

18s went to deliver bombs and got shot down, With an battleforce as large as the US they can have a bomber for delivering loads off carriers, we need a fighter for Air Defence.

Underestimating your opponent and trusting they won't be able to operate their fighters etc is a gamble and not sound defence policy. To say confidently they don't have the coin to train a fighting force that they are heavily investing in is a huge gamble with Australia's defence.

The F22As would still posses most of the passive sensor arrays but probably not as much of the battlegroup network coms as it is useless in our hands anyway. Maybe less stealthy? probably down to the level of JSF. So no loss there. It would still have PW F119s x2 so massive amounts of kinematic advantage in a conventional dogfight.

It would still outclass a JSF especially STOVL JSF.It would still be far better than an F-15 which is better than an 18.

It's in bad eceonomic times that nations go crazy and invade each other. Is China or India our friend? Tell you what if one or the other backs Indonesia we wish would we had F22s

[mrdeux]

Yep, let's buy 15 F22s. That should just about cover all of our needs (as needs are always adjusted to fit the available budget), and we can make even more savings on the reduction in the RAAF's personnel numbers that would go with a force that size.

I've played ASW, and submarines, even nuclear ones, get themselves killed. It's nowhere near as one sided as some would like us to believe.

Actually, do we need any fighters at all? Perhaps a few 747s. Equip them with their own AWACs style radar, and rotary launchers with a couple of hundred of whatever missile takes your fancy.

[Dragon79]

1. I swear Michael Phelps is amongst us and posting here.
2. Wikipedia is not valid reference source, ever. Nerds and spotters writing it on the internet does mot make it fact.
3. Anyone see that KRud is handing out billions, and the economy is heading south. No way could we afford the F22 even if it was offered.
4. Quantity has its own quality.
5. So if Joel wants to get me on the dog and bone, what would I say.

Sort out the procurement process, no more cock ups, before they even think about any more major projects.
Make sure we can deploy what we have got, now. (Thats means helo support for our troops now, not some far off fantasy fighters, and frankly this is a bit embarshing that the only thing we can deploy is 33%(2) of the Chook force at anyone time, to where they are needed)
Order another 24 super bugs (with some growlers) and delay the JSF. Let the early adoptors iron out the kinks for us.
First introduction of the JSF should be the B, nothing wrong with enhancing the capability of the LHDs.

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

Slackjaw - back to the fanboy forums with you and don't let the door hit you on the arse on your way out...:*

Meanwhile, back in reality land, word on the streets is there's a Growler announcement imminent... :ooh:

[Going Boeing]

FoxAlpha, my source says 4 Growlers included in the original order for 24 - can you confirm?

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

I've heard 4-6 jets will be wired for but not fitted with Growler gear, and that a decision on whether to buy the gear will be made downstream...

Confirmed that 12 will be wired for Growler gear with a decision on whether to pursue EA-18Gs to be made at a later date.

[Trojan1981]

$35m to be spent rewiring Super Hornets - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/02/27/2502964.htm)


The Federal Government says it will spend $35 million upgrading half of the RAAF's still-to-be-delivered F/A-18F Super Hornets with the capacity to enable an upgrade of their electronic warfare capabilities.

But a final decision to upgrade the planes, which would cost $300 million, will not be made until 2012.

The Government purchased 24 of the multi-role fighters several years ago to maintain the RAAF's strike capabilities after the F-111 strike aircraft are retired.

Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon says the upgrades will turn the RAAF Super Hornets into the electronic-warfare capable Growler variant.

"It will allow the aircraft to take out the electronic components of opposing aircraft," he said.

"In addition, in a counter-terrorism sense, the Growlers have the capacity to take out the ground communications systems of terrorist cells and indeed take out the triggering devices terrorists rely upon."

Mr Fitzgibbon blamed the former government for not originally allowing for the option when it ordered the planes in 2006.

"They missed the opportunity to wire some of the Hornets as Growlers while they were on the production line," he said.

But he has backed the fighter planes as a good choice.

"I'm convinced that the Super Hornet provides all the capability that Australia needs to see us through for the coming decades but the investment proposed today will again significantly upgrade that capability," he said.

In 2006 the previous government announced it was buying 24 Super Hornets to replace the F-111s until the F-35 Joint Strike Fighters were ready.

The Super Hornets are expected to be delivered next year.

The Howard government ordered 100 of the F-35s at a cost of $16 billion before they had ever been flown.

However the Government is yet to officially sign off on the deal after concerns were raised over their capability.

Mr Fitzgibbon is expected to make a decision on the deal when the Defence White Paper is released later this year.

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

Navy??? :bored:

Ahhh, no!

Mods? Haven't you guys been checking IDs again? :=

[Explicitus]

I'm not sure why submarines feature so prominently in a discussion of about the F35; and I'll probably regret poking my nose in, but in view of where some of these posts are going:

I'd just like to mention that back in my day, 92 Wing and the Australian Submarine Squadron got along quite well. It was always a complete pain to organise to get a submariner on a sortie or to get aircrew to searide in a boat - but when we went to the effort it was always incredibly worthwhile. Much easier were the visits to Platypus and Edinburgh - but they were always good.

I am way out of touch; but I can't imagine any real submariners not being deeply worried by maritime patrol aircraft or of anyone from 92 Wing thinking that submarines are easy to find. I can't remember anyone I ever met from the Australian Submarine Squadron or from 92 Wing who thought like that.

[wessex19]

fitted for but not with!!! I remember the entire RAN fleet was like that under Bob Hawke

[mrdeux]

If I remember correctly HMS Sheffield was fitted for, but not with, a point defense system (Goalkeeper?).

And Slackjaw, you really should stay on the medication.

[Point0Five]

It's great to see Labor reviving it's traditional Defence policy of: fitted for, but not with.

Perhaps next we can see a return to Defence of Australia? :hmm:

Tell you what though, that Defence Minister of ours sure knows how to draw a crowd:
http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/fitzgibbon/gallery/20090227/20090227raaf8526970_0044_lo.jpg

Also, he's a handy guy to know if you need a new battery installed in your car... but I probably wouldn't bother seeking his assistance in sorting out matters of pay and conditions :ouch:

[Going Boeing]

(Fort Worth, Texas, February 25, 2009) -- Lockheed Martin's [NYSE: LMT] second short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) F-35B Lightning II accomplished its first flight on Wednesday, Feb. 25. The aircraft, known as BF-2, joins a conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) F-35A and another STOVL F-35B that already have logged a combined total of 84 flights.

During its flight on Wednesday, BF-2 went through a series of maneuvers to assess its subsystems and basic handling qualities, and to check on-board instrumentation. Subsequent missions will take the aircraft higher and faster, in a structured series of flights. All F-35 test aircraft to date have been powered by the Pratt & Whitney F135 turbofan, the most powerful engine ever to fly in a jet fighter.

"The F-35 program is now entering a period of greatly accelerated flight testing, as aircraft are delivered to the flight line at an ever-increasing rate," said Dan Crowley, Lockheed Martin executive vice president and F-35 program general manager. "Each aircraft that rolls off the assembly line fulfills a unique verification objective and moves us closer to our customers' initial operational capability dates."

BF-2 is on schedule to deploy to Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md., later this year. It will remain in Fort Worth for the next several months to conduct a series of ground-test events, instrumentation calibrations, powered hover-pit testing (simulating flight) and airworthiness flights, including STOVL-mode operation. Initial flights will be in conventional mode.

BF-2 is essentially identical to the first STOVL jet, BF-1. The major difference lies with the instrumentation - the two aircraft have different roles during flight testing. BF-2 will conduct flutter envelope expansion, air-refueling testing, high angle-of-attack testing, performance and propulsion testing, weapons testing and radar-signature testing. BF-1 will concentrate on initial STOVL flight operations such as short takeoffs, hovers and vertical landings, and will conduct ship-suitability and gun-integration testing. BF-1's first vertical landing is planned for the middle of 2009.

The F-35 is a supersonic, multi-role, 5th generation stealth fighter. Three F-35 variants derived from a common design, developed together and using the same sustainment infrastructure worldwide will replace at least 13 types of aircraft for 11 nations initially, making the Lightning II the most cost-effective fighter program in history.

Source : Lockheed Martin

[Point0Five]

Interesting point, some of our newer buys will corrode before they fatigue to death :)

[Going Boeing]

http://www.asd-network.com/data_news/ID19807_600.jpg

(March 18, 2009) -- On a visit to Washington, Defence Secretary John Hutton has today announced the decision to purchase three Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) test aircraft - the UK's next generation of supersonic stealth fast jets.

This deal marks a significant milestone in the UK's commitment to the Joint Strike Fighter project. Acquisition of JSF will provide the UK with an unrivalled "fifth-generation" tactical air system, designed with stealth characteristics and advanced sensors, and will afford the UK a 'step change' in capability. UK military personnel will work alongside their US counterparts in an initial operational test and evaluation programme for the aircraft.

Defence Secretary John Hutton said:

"The Joint Strike Fighter will form an essential part of our Future Combat Air Capability.

By purchasing three aircraft for testing, we will secure access to the development of the programme. Working alongside their US colleagues, our pilots will gain an unrivalled understanding of this awesome aircraft and its capabilities.

This is a vital programme for UK Defence both for the military and for industry, with over 100 UK companies involved in the programme."

JSF is the aircraft of choice to fulfil MoD's Joint Combat Aircraft requirement and will fly off the two new Royal Navy Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers. The purchase of three test aircraft will enable MOD to move forward in developing the Carrier Strike capability.

MoD is a partner in the JSF programme and is investing GBP2Bn to develop the aircraft. The prime contracts for these aircraft will be placed in the US but the decision to place an order for UK aircraft is equally good news for UK industry. There is significant UK industrial interest in the JSF Programme with over 100 companies involved in the programme, ranging from major UK JSF industrial partners down to lower tier suppliers of composite materials. The potential UK return on investment is substantial.

Source : UK MoD

Three aircraft - that's the order size that you'd expect the NZ Govmint to make!

[Going Boeing]

http://www.asd-network.com/data_news/ID20240_600.jpg

Hover-Pit Ground Tests Validate Propulsion System and Aircraft Response

(Fort Worth, Texas, April 23, 2009) -- The F-35B Lightning II short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) variant has demonstrated during testing that it produces excess vertical thrust - more than required to carry out its missions. The tests, conducted on a specially instrumented "hover pit," also validated the performance of aircraft software, controls, thermal management, STOVL-system hardware and other systems.

"The performance level measured was absolutely exceptional," said J.D. McFarlan, Lockheed Martin F-35 Air Vehicle lead. "We demonstrated 41,100 pounds of vertical thrust against our requirement of 40,550 pounds.This means we will deliver excellent margin for the vertical landing and short takeoff performance we've committed to our STOVL customers," he said. Those customers include the U.S. Marine Corps, the United Kingdom's Royal Navy and Royal Air Force, and the Italian Navy and Air Force.

The F-35B is powered by a single Pratt & Whitney F135 engine driving a Rolls-Royce lift fan. The F135 is the most powerful engine ever flown in a jet fighter.

During hover-pit testing, the aircraft is anchored to a metal grate 14 feet above a sloped concrete floor, separating the jet from ground effect and enabling it to simulate free-air flight. Sensors measure thrust and the aircraft's response to pilot inputs. The testing also demonstrates control of the doors associated with the STOVL propulsion system: engine auxiliary inlet, fan inlet, fan exit, roll posts, and doors that open to enable the Rolls-Royce three-bearing swivel duct to articulate and vector engine thrust. In other tests, metal plates are installed atop the hover-pit grate, enabling engineers to observe and chart the outflow of gases from the propulsion system.

The testing demonstrates functional operation of all systems required for vertical flight, and measures the installed forces and moments on the aircraft during STOVL operations.The hover-pit tests are the final series of ground tests before airborne STOVL testing begins.

"We've demonstrated critical performance such as inlet pressure recovery, pitching moment, rolling and yawing moment, effective vector angles of the exhaust, and control-input response time," said Doug Pearson, vice president of the F-35 Integrated Test Force. "Each of these measurements correlates extremely well with our computer models. The outstanding STOVL performance gives us plenty of confidence to begin in-flight transitions to STOVL-mode flight and ultimately our first vertical landing at the Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md., this summer."

The F-35B is the first aircraft to combine stealth with short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) capability and supersonic speed. The F-35 is a supersonic, multi-role, 5th generation stealth fighter. Three variants derived from a common design, developed together and using the same sustainment infrastructure worldwide, will replace at least 13 types of aircraft for 11 nations initially, making the Lightning II the most cost-effective fighter program in history.

Company Center : Lockheed Martin Corporation (NYSE: LMT)

[Going Boeing]

http://www.asd-network.com/data_news/ID20280_600.jpg

(Fort Worth, Texas, April 27, 2009) -- After a three-week ocean voyage, a static-test version of the Lockheed Martin [NYSE: LMT] F-35 Lightning II, also known as the Joint Strike Fighter, has arrived in the United Kingdom. The F-35A conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) variant aircraft, called AG-1, will undergo testing in the Structural and Dynamic Test facility at BAE Systems' site in Brough, East Yorkshire, England.

Mick Ord, BAE Systems' managing director of the F-35 Lightning II business said, "This is another major milestone in the F-35 program and we're delighted to take delivery of the full-scale static testing airframe. BAE Systems is a principal subcontractor to Lockheed Martin on the F-35 program and brings military aircraft expertise that is critical to the F-35 Lightning II airframe and systems. We lead on several work share areas, of which structural testing is one."

AG-1 began its travels on March 27 at Lockheed Martin's Fort Worth, Tex., plant. It was shipped overland to the Texas coast, where it was placed aboard a U.K.-bound cargo ship. AG-1 is one of six static test airframes constructed for the System Development and Demonstration phase of the F-35 Lightning II program, which is developing and validating all of the aircraft's systems and manufacturing techniques. Another 13 F-35s are dedicated to flight testing.

"The work BAE Systems is performing on AG-1 highlights just one of the United Kingdom's many indigenous industrial capabilities that this program relies upon," said Tom Burbage, Lockheed Martin executive vice president and general manager of F-35 Program Integration. "We are conducting the largest-ever test program for a fighter, and the BAE Systems structural test facilities expand our bandwidth and help us maintain our schedule."

Ord added, "BAE Systems is responsible for carrying out a large percentage of the structural and fatigue testing required to qualify all three of the F-35 variants. Some testing has been carried out on smaller components, but this will be among the first of the full airframe tests to be carried out."

The Structural and Dynamic Test Facility at Brough is BAE Systems' center of excellence for structural testing, responsible for providing evidence that airframes meet the design requirements for structural strength and durability.

The F-35 airframe will be connected to a highly complex test rig in which 165 hydraulic actuators will replicate the loads the aircraft would see in flight. The data from the test will be captured by 4,000 sensors bonded to the airframe.

The test rig itself weighs around 365 tons and has approximately 53 miles (85km) of wiring spread around it to connect all the systems and sensors. The computing power available to control the load applications is roughly the equivalent of 25 high-specification personal computers.

Testing is planned to begin in late July and will take about 15 months, certifying the strength of the airframe and its components and contributing to the aircraft's flight envelope expansion requirements. Upon completion of its static testing program, AG-1 will be shipped back to the U.S.

The F-35 is being built in three variants: conventional takeoff and landing, short takeoff/ vertical landing (STOVL) and carrier variant (CV). CTOL and CV durability airframe tests will also be undertaken at BAE Systems Brough site. Static testing of other F-35 airframes is under way at Lockheed Martin's Fort Worth facility.

In March, the U.K. Ministry of Defence announced it intends to order three instrumented STOVL F-35 Lightning II test aircraft and associated support equipment for Operational Test and Evaluation purposes.

Company Center : Lockheed Martin Corporation (NYSE: LMT)

[Going Boeing]

http://www.asd-network.com/data_news/ID20276_600.jpg

(Eglin AFB, Fla., April 27, 2009) -- The F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter test aircraft arrived here April 21 to educate the base and local community about the Department of Defense and world's newest fighter.

The arrival of the test F-35, called AA-1, kicked off a week full of events to showcase the aircraft at Eglin Air Force Base.

"We are very proud to host these JSF events," said Col. Arnold Bunch, the Air Armament Center vice commander. "We hope everyone has a chance to see the aircraft, ask questions and get a better understanding of its importance. This is the future of Eglin and of the Air Force."

Along with the aircraft, Lockheed Martin brought a cockpit demo, simulators and subject matter experts to give the base and community leaders a firsthand look at the cockpit and what it would feel like to fly the fifth generation fighter.

"What starts at Eglin, will change the world," said Dan Crowley, a senior Lockheed Martin.

Those in attendance here had an opportunity to see the $44 million fighter take flight over the base and local area during a sortie April 23. It cruised in the sky with two F-16 Fighting Falcon chase aircraft before passing over the runway for some touch-and-go maneuvers. Afterward, it was parked by the McKinley Climatic Lab for viewing on base.

Marine Brig. Gen. David Heinz, the program executive officer for the JSF program, stressed the importance of the aircraft to troops on the ground.

"The warfighters, the best and brightest of all our nations called to duty and asked to stand out on the very edge -- the pointy edge -- they are relying on us to deliver a safe, effective and affordable product," the general said.

Nine countries and three U.S. services have orders for the new aircraft and they all will pass through Eglin AFB to learn to fly the F-35.

The 33rd Fighter Wing will transition from an operational fighter unit into a joint training unit in October to educate and train the pilots. The first of the new fighters are scheduled to arrive here in March 2010.

Company Center : US Air Force

[Going Boeing]

(May 12, 2009) -- The Minister for Defence, the Hon. Joel Fitzgibbon MP, today reinforced the strategic importance of the Navy's Fleet Air Arm at HMAS Albatross, and foreshadowed a substantial increase in infrastructure investment on the base following the release of the 2009 Defence White Paper.

Mr Fitzgibbon toured the base and met with aircrew and maintainers from 817 Squadron, who are planning for the impending retirement of the ageing fleet of six SK-50 Sea King helicopters, which will be replaced by six advanced new MRH-90 multi-role helicopters in 2011.

During his visit, Mr Fitzgibbon observed that construction had commenced on the building of dedicated new hangers and maintenance facilities ahead of the arrival of the first of the new MRH-90s.

"This $38 million investment will ensure that HMAS Albatross has first-class facilities to operate and maintain these advanced new MRH-90s, and the construction phase will also create new job opportunities in the Nowra and Shoalhaven region," Mr Fitzgibbon said.

In recognition of the ongoing strategic importance of the Naval Air Station to Defence's future capability needs, the Government will invest $130 million into upgrading base infrastructure under the Albatross Stage 3 Redevelopment Project, which will commence in 2010.

While at HMAS Albatross, the Minister also toured 816 Squadron and spoke with the aircrew and maintainers of the current fleet of 16 S-70B Seahawk helicopters about the Government's plans to acquire a fleet of at least 24 new naval combat helicopters, as outlined in the 2009 Defence White Paper.

"The White Paper outlines the Government's commitment to rectify the shortfalls in Navy's current naval combat aviation as a matter of urgency. These 24 new aircraft will boost Navy's anti-submarine warfare capabilities while also possessing potent air-launched torpedoes and anti-ship missiles," Mr Fitzgibbon said.

"Albatross remains central to the Government's plans to rebuild and revitalize Navy's aviation capabilities after the difficult times that have fallen upon them in recent years. Today is as much about recognising and thanking the men and women of the Navy's Fleet Air Arm for their service, while reassuring them that they have a crucial role in our plans to build a stronger and more capable Defence Force for the 21st century," Mr Fitzgibbon concluded.

Source : MoD Australia

Nothing in that statement about STOVL F-35's for the two new "Aircraft Carriers"

[Going Boeing]

http://www.asd-network.com/data_news/ID22097_600.jpg

(Ft. Worth, TX., July 28, 2009) -- A ceremony today at Lockheed Martin's [NYSE: LMT] Fort Worth plant marked the rollout of the U.S. Navy's first-ever stealth fighter, the F-35C Lightning II. The aircraft will enable the Navy to possess 5th generation fighter capabilities at sea, extending America's reach and reducing the timeline from threat to response.

Top Navy leadership, signal flags and a crowd of employees, including reserve and retired Navy personnel, were on hand to celebrate the strike fighter's unveiling. Adm. Gary Roughead, the U.S. Navy's Chief of Naval Operations, welcomed the new aircraft to the fleet.

"The JSF will show the world that our Sailors will never be in a fair fight because this airplane will top anything that comes its way," Roughead said of the F-35. "It will give our Sailors and pilots the tactical and technical advantage in the skies, and it will relieve our aircraft as they age out."

Tom Burbage, a former Navy test pilot and the executive vice president and general manager of F-35 Program Integration for Lockheed Martin, thanked Navy leadership for being fully engaged in the F-35's development and "actively working to define joint and coalition tactics that will exploit this platform in ways we've never envisioned. We at Lockheed Martin are both proud and humbled by the trust the U.S. Navy has placed with us to lead the development and introduction of the Navy's newest stealthy, supersonic strike fighter."

The first F-35C, known as CF-1, will undergo a wide-ranging series of ground tests before its first flight, scheduled for late 2009. CF-1 is the ninth F-35 test aircraft to be rolled out, and joins a fleet of F-35A (conventional takeoff and landing) and F-35B (short takeoff/vertical landing) variants that have logged more than 100 flights.

The F-35C is on schedule to meet the Navy's Initial Operational Capability in 2015, and represents a leap in technology and capability over existing fighters, combining stealth with supersonic speed and high agility. The Lightning II employs the most powerful and comprehensive sensor package ever incorporated into a fighter.

The F-35C possesses uncompromised carrier suitability and low-maintenance stealth materials designed for long-term durability in the carrier environment. The Lightning II's operational and support costs are forecast to be lower than those of the fighters it will replace.

The F-35 and F-22 are the world's only 5th generation fighters, uniquely characterized by a combination of advanced stealth with supersonic speed and high agility, sensor fusion, network-enabled capabilities and advanced sustainment. The F-35 is a supersonic, multi-role, 5th generation strike fighter. Three F-35 variants derived from a common design, developed together and using the same sustainment infrastructure worldwide, will replace at least 13 types of aircraft for 11 nations initially, making the Lightning II the most cost-effective fighter program in history.

Lockheed Martin is developing the F-35 with its principal industrial partners, Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems. Two separate, interchangeable F-35 engines are under development: the Pratt & Whitney F135 and the GE Rolls-Royce Fighter Engine Team F136.

Source : Lockheed Martin Corporation (NYSE: LMT)

[Buster Hyman]

Is that a bulge near the intake...or is the Admiral just happy to see it?

[Going Boeing]

http://www.asdnews.com/data_news/ID24058_600.jpg

"The F-35 is the only multi-role fighter designed for survivability in the highest-threat environments"

(Seoul, South Korea, October 23, 2009) -- The Lockheed Martin [NYSE: LMT] F-35 Lightning II program is the only fighter program delivering 5th generation capabilities internationally, a Lockheed Martin executive said Tuesday at the Seoul Air Show.

"The F-35's 5th generation capabilities, including Very Low Observable stealth, integrated sensor fusion, net-enabled operations and advanced sustainment, make it the premiere fighter of the future," said Stephen O'Bryan, vice president of F-35 Business Development and Customer Engagement. "The F-35 is the only multi-role fighter designed for survivability in the highest-threat environments, and it provides superior capability at comparable 4th generation fighter costs."

The theme of O'Bryan's presentation, "Global Partners Building Global Security," reflects the high level of international participation and cooperation on the Joint Strike Fighter program. The F-35 will replace more than 13 aircraft types and enable allies to conduct seamless, integrated operations. Throughout its lifecycle, the F-35 will create enduring industrial relationships, from the production and global delivery systems to worldwide operation and support via Autonomic Logistics Global Sustainment (ALGS).

F-35 ALGS, developed in parallel with the aircraft and its systems, defines the F-35's total life-cycle sustainment system. In combination with the F-35's high level of reliability, ALGS is designed to reduce support costs significantly over the aircraft types it will replace. This embedded aircraft support system simplifies and streamlines maintenance, providing prognostics and health management to keep the aircraft mission-ready, using a worldwide support network and infrastructure. Recently, the F-35 Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS) Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS) began monitoring BF-1, the first short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft, from the Lockheed Martin F-35 Sustainment Operations Center in Fort Worth, Texas. BF-1 is the first F-35 supported solely by ALIS.

The F-35 Lightning II is a 5th generation fighter, combining advanced stealth with fighter speed and agility, fully fused sensor information, network-enabled operations, and lower operational and support costs. Lockheed Martin is developing the F-35 with its principal industrial partners, Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems. Two separate, interchangeable F-35 engines are under development: the Pratt & Whitney F135 and the GE Rolls-Royce Fighter Engine Team F136.

Source : Lockheed Martin Corporation

[Going Boeing]

This 'drop test' is done to simulate a landing on an aircraft carrier
http://www.asdnews.com/data_news/ID27850_600.jpg
(Dallas, May 7, 2010) -- The anticipation was palpable as Vought engineers and our customer watched Lockheed Martin's F-35C Lightning II Carrier Variant dangle from its harnessed position just below the rafters in building 94 at the Jefferson Street site. When the wheels reached their 138 knot speed, the countdown began. 10, 9, 8, 7... The lanyard releasing the quick release safety latch was pulled and the jet was dropped. It was over in five brief seconds.

. As a fighter jet approaches the deck of a carrier, forty-six thousand pounds of airplane is traveling at 138 knots and hitting the deck with a thud, stressing the airframe and especially the jet's landing gear with thousands of pounds of pressure. Every part of the gear must withstand that tremendous stress time after time with no structural failure.

So how can we assure that the gear is suitable for carrier landings, and there won't be any catastrophic failures? How do we prove that the design engineering was correct? That's where Vought's Test Lab comes in. The lab is capable of lifting a fully-loaded, fullscale aircraft up to eleven feet above the floor ... and dropping it. Lockheed Martin has contracted with us to drop test the F-35C Lightning II Carrier Variant, a fifth-generation, single-seat, single-engine stealth fighter.

Hundreds of wires snake along the sleek lines of the light green jet, connected to an array of instruments that are streaming signals back to a computer for correlation to computer models that engineers spent many months designing. This data acquisition system is measuring every quiver, shudder, and pulse that is emitted from the test jet. Technically speaking, however, F-35 Drop Test Director Tom Foster says they are measuring strain, acceleration, deflection and load data. This is where the rubber meets the flight deck, so to speak.

There are 512 data channels connected to this aircraft. Twenty-five hundred data samples are gathered per second per channel during each drop test for this aircraft. Per Eric Moore, Test Control and Data Acquisition group lead, high speed video of each landing gear is simultaneously recorded at two thousand frames per second and synchronized with the aircraft test data for post-test, image-to-data correlation. In other words, each high speed video picture can be directly compared to the load and deflection data measured and recorded on each landing gear. This was not possible in the old days when high speed film-based cameras and analog recording equipment was used in this application.

Eventually, there will be about 53 landing gear drop tests at various aircraft roll, pitch and landing sync rates performed on this one jet. A stack of bombs in the corner of the room awaits their turn alongside a row of missiles to be loaded onto the jet to test for maximum landing weight conditions. Of course, they are dummy ordnance but they are fabricated to weigh in as a real load.

Today, Vought is one of only two test labs remaining in the United States that has full-scale carrier suitability drop test capabilities. The other is at Boeing, St. Louis. According to John Vaught, Test Lab Manager, the F-35 Drop Test Program in total represents a very high level of complexity generally not seen on previous drop test programs. "The ability and know-how to do these drop tests are very unique," he said.

With the level and type of test capabilities the labs possess, Vought has a long, and very reputable history of accomplishing carrier suitability testing for the Navy, said John. "We can go all the way back to the XC-142, F-8, A-7, S3A, and now the F-35. All of these legacy aircraft programs required fullscale drop testing to qualify for aircraft carrier operations. Full-scale dynamic tests of this nature present a very complex test set of problems to run," he said.

The F-35 tests at Vought should be completed within the next few months; then it will go back to Lockheed Martin for a series of additional tests. They estimate that the Carrier Variant F-35C will attain first flight in the second quarter of 2010.

Source : Vought Aircraft Industries

[WeeWinkyWilly]

The David Axe piece at War Is Boring Wary of Advertiser, Magazine Pulls Critic off F-35 Beat (http://www.warisboring.com/?p=5184) is good.

.

Aviation Week Grounds Top Critic of Gajillion-Dollar Jet (Updated) | Danger Room | Wired.com (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/05/aviation-week-grounds-top-critic-of-lockheed-jet/)

.

Updated: Aviation Week suspends Bill Sweetman from F-35 story - The DEW Line (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2010/05/aviation-week-suspends-bill-sw.html)

.

[Going Boeing]

The arrival is the first in a series that will increase the Edwards F-35 test fleet to at least eight aircraft
http://www.asdnews.com/data_news/ID28018_600.jpg
(Edwards AFB, Calif., May 17, 2010) -- Two Lockheed Martin [NYSE: LMT] F-35A Lightning II stealth fighters flew nonstop from their final-assembly site in Fort Worth, Texas, to Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., today, signaling a further expansion of F-35 flight test operations. The arrival is the first in a series that will increase the Edwards F-35 test fleet to at least eight aircraft.

U.S. Air Force Test Pilot Lt. Col. Hank "Hog" Griffiths and Lockheed Martin Chief Test Pilot Jon Beesley flew the jets, known as AF-1 and AF-2, nonstop in the first multi-ship, long-range F-35 flight.

"The ferry flight went very smoothly, and reflects how the Air Force and Lockheed Martin will work cooperatively as we enter long-term F-35 testing at Edwards," Beesley said. During the jets' deployment to Edwards, the F-35s will undergo ground- and flight-test activities for propulsion, aerial refueling, logistical support, weapons integration and flight-envelope expansion.

"Through rigorous flight testing we are developing dominant and lethal 5th generation fighter capability for America and her allies," said Doug Pearson, Lockheed Martin vice president of F-35 test and verification. "This historic moment at Edwards Air Force Base begins the planned expansion of F-35 flight test to a third permanent operating location. Lockheed Martin F-35A flight testing is a highly integrated partnership with the United States Air Force." Three F-35s are currently undergoing flight trials at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md., the primary test site for the F-35B short takeoff/ vertical landing variant and the F-35C carrier variant. F-35s have conducted more than 200 test flights, with six additional test aircraft scheduled to begin flying and deploying to the two test sites this year.

The F-35A conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) variant - designed to meet U.S. Air Force requirements - is also the primary export version of the Lightning II. The air forces of Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, Canada, Australia, Denmark and Norway will employ the F-35A.

F-35 test aircraft are supported by the F-35 Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS) and managed by the Lockheed Martin F-35 Sustainment Operations Center in Fort Worth. ALIS is the worldwide support system reporting and recording the prognostics and health of all F-35s around the globe to ensure mission readiness.

The F-35 Lightning II is a 5th generation fighter, combining advanced stealth with fighter speed and agility, fully fused sensor information, network-enabled operations, advanced sustainment, and lower operational and support costs. Lockheed Martin is developing the F-35 with its principal industrial partners, Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems. Two separate, interchangeable F-35 engines are under development: the Pratt & Whitney F135 and the GE Rolls-Royce Fighter Engine Team F136.

Source : Lockheed Martin Corporation (NYSE: LMT)