Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

Old 9th Jul 2015, 13:45
  #6661 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 66
Posts: 1,954
The issue isn't whether the F35 is a good dogfighter, or not.
The issue is why the people in position used that position to talk rubbish to other people who aren't and who look upon them to honestly and rationally report the state of the program and its issues.
This is precious. The folks on this forum are able to easily see thru the "rubbish" LM is selling while hundreds of well paid experts from several different nations cannot. May I suggest looking up the word "hubris".
KenV is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2015, 13:54
  #6662 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 66
Posts: 1,954
Of course they were not right ! - any 9 year old spotter could have told them that LOL
Isn't that precious? 9 year olds can see what hundreds of experts from several nations cannot. And these guys insist on being taken seriously.

I do not need data to back up anything Ken - I have been an aircraft engineer for 40+ years and I know a Turkey when I see one
And you actually fantasize that your 40 years with zero data trumps the combined centuries of experience of engineers with mountains of data and hugely sophisticated simulation/modelling systems to process that data. And you insist on being taken seriously? Really? Apparently your four decades of experience neglected to include an understanding of the words arrogance and hubris.

Last edited by KenV; 9th Jul 2015 at 15:44.
KenV is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2015, 13:57
  #6663 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Neverland
Posts: 59
"hubris" could be defined as insisting that a product that has cost rather a lot to not yet be developed, that has taken rather an extended timeframe to not yet get to market despite not having any funding issues is a quote "world beater" or will ever be one.


Common sense suggests that said product is rather more likely to be a dud than a good un.


If the F35 was a purely commercial product, development being self funded by the company seeking to make a return on selling the product, it would have been canned long ago.
Anybody with a modicum of business savvy can understand that.


That fact in itself screams dud.
Snafu351 is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2015, 14:00
  #6664 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Originally Posted by KenV View Post
This is precious. The folks on this forum are able to easily see thru the "rubbish" LM is selling while hundreds of well paid experts from several different nations cannot. May I suggest looking up the word "hubris".
KenV I would like to read your opinion on the points raised on TurbineD's post #6660

thank you.
glad rag is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2015, 14:25
  #6665 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 49
Posts: 505
You might as well turn these kind of arguments around and wonder why all these experts from all these companies and all these countries never predicted/foresaw and anticipated all the big problems the whole JSF project encountered, why did they chose so many other faulthy, severely underperforming or hideously expensive defense projects in the past.

Same thing goes for so many other sectors in the past, present and undoubtly the future.
In 2007/2008 the vast majority of economists, bankers and affiliated experts never really foresaw the huge problems in the financial sectors and we all know what happened there, don't we?

The list of failed or underperforming defense projects is long and undistinguished, I'm not saying the F35 is already that bad but it certainly is sometimes heading that way.
If it will ever come online in the predicted numbers with all the different forces it will be eventually made to work(by the people in the field), I'm certain about that but at what expense, if we're lucky the future will be a lot like the post WWII era where we never have to use our weapons of war against a truely equal opponent and the F35 will do just fine but I'm willing to bet that a somewhat simpler , lighter and less expensive fighter (a true new LWF) would have been just as good and certainly more maintainable and affordable and most likely in bigger numbers.
kbrockman is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2015, 14:39
  #6666 (permalink)  
O-P
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Virginia
Posts: 192
It appears that Australia have just cancelled their F35B requirement. Story in Aviation week.
O-P is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2015, 15:02
  #6667 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: London, Monte Carlo and Bermuda (I wish!)
Age: 76
Posts: 119
Forwards or backwards to the future?

Every time young Cameron spouts off about defence expenditure and the two new carriers that are coming along, and shifty old Fallon mumbles on about the F-35 and its evolution I keep thinking, these people just never learn. One size fits all just doesn't work in the world of aircraft (except, perhaps for the esteemed Mosquito). Was it common sense to get rid of our well-established carrier/Harrier force before tried and tested replacements were ready and available. No it wasn't and now we face a great, big black hole in our national defences, and are locked into a massively risky and expensive F-35 development and production programme. As an interim measure I would either buy-back those Harriers and some AV8s so as to preserve our field expertise, and/or rent a few Rafales. By so doing we would at least be protecting our practical knowledge base, whereas at present we have nothing to show but loads of very expensive wind and waffle. Apart from our looney politicians, I hold the be-medalled and scrambled-egg covered members of our senior military responsible for this mess. They have acted incompetently and disgracefully.
Mr Oleo Strut is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2015, 15:13
  #6668 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tarn et Garonne, Southwest France
Posts: 5,283
Aviation Week seem to have the scoop. I can't say I'm entirely surprised, but I'd like to see the paper, if indeed it is published next month.
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2015, 15:26
  #6669 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 3,960
Australia Abandons Proposal To Order F35B | Defense content from Aviation Week

Australia has dropped consideration of buying the short takeoff and vertical landing (stovl) version of the Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning for its two largest assault ships, a defense source says. The decision was made during preparation of a defense white paper that may be published next month. Deploying stovl fighters, proposed last year by Prime Minister Tony Abbott, would have required costly modifications to the two ships, says the Australian Financial Review newspaper, which first...
Dated 8 Jul 15

http://airheadsfly.com/2015/07/09/au...ump-jet-plans/

Australia has dropped plans to buy Lockheed Martin F-35B Short Take Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) fighter aircraft for its Landing Helicopter Ships HMAS Canberra and HMAS Adelaide, various sources report on Thursday 9 July.

Plans to operate the F-35B from both ships first emerged last year and were even confirmed by Defense minister David Johnston. Those plans have now been quietly ditched, the apparent reason being the large number of modifications needed to both brand new ships.

Australia therefore will only operatie the standard F-35A variant, of which 72 are on order and two are currently used for training in the US. The first Royal Australian Air Force pilots are learning to fly the F-35A at Luke Air Force Base, Arizona.
Dated 9 Jul 15

http://www.afr.com/news/politics/pms...gi6qxj?stb=twt

Prime Minister Tony Abbott's proposal to put F-35 fighter jets on the Navy's two 27,000-tonne troop transport assault ships has been quietly dropped ahead of the government's defence white paper after it was found the ships would require extensive reworking and the project was too costly.

Mr Abbott asked defence planners in May last year to examine the possibility of putting up to 12 of the short-take-off and vertical-landing F-35 Bs on to the two ships – the largest in the Navy – which carry helicopters and are likely to be primarily used to transport troops and equipment to war or disaster zones.

The first of the assault ships was completed last year and commissioned into the Navy in November as HMAS Canberra.

But defence officials conceded to a Senate estimates committee late last year that the jump-jet proposal would involve extensive modifications to the ships, including new radar systems, instrument landing systems, heat-resistant decking, restructuring of fuel storage and fuel lines, and storage hangars.

Defence sources have told The Australian Financial Review that the proposal was "still in the white paper mix" up until some weeks ago.

But one source close to the white paper was emphatic on Tuesday that "it will now not make the cut".

"There were just too many technical difficulties involved in modifying a ship which takes helicopters to take fighter jets and it is also very expensive," the source said. "You can safely say it has been dropped."

'BETTER WAYS TO SPEND THE MONEY'

The white paper, which lays down the Abbott government's 20-year vision for defence – including a $275 billion-plus weapons wishlist – is expected to be released next month.

The Prime Minister's proposal would have brought Australia into line with the United States, Britain and a number of other nations that plan to operate F-35s from their assault ships.

The F-35B version of the joint strike fighter is being built for the US Marines and British forces to replace their British-built Harrier jump jets.

The Spanish Navy's version of the troop transport assault ship, which utilises the same underlying design as the Royal Australian Navy's troop assault ship, is equipped to carry Harrier jump jets.

Mr Abbott announced in April last year that Australia would buy an additional 58 conventional take-off and landing versions for the Royal Australian Air Force at a cost of $12 .4 billion, bringing the number of orders to 72.

But the RAAF version was not suitable for the troop transport assault ships, which would have required the purchase of extra fighters to equip the ships. And the radar-evading stealth fighter program has been plagued by delays and cost overruns, as well as software issues with the F-35B – the worst-afflicted version of the aircraft.

In an independent report on the jump jet proposal, defence think tank the Australian Strategic Policy Institute warned that the purchase of aircraft and ship modifications would involve "multibillions of dollars".

Analysts Richard Brabin-Smith and Dr Benjamin Schreer also warned in the report that the cost was unjustified and could also "raise unrealistic expectations" that Australia was adopting a "much more muscular strategic posture" in the region.

"The cost-benefit analysis is not in favour of developing [the assault ship-jump jet proposal]," the paper said.

"The scenarios in which the capability would be realistically required and make an important impact are operationally vague at best.

"The 2015 defence white paper should not announce a decision or intention to acquire jump jets for the ADF… there are likely better ways to spend the money."
Dated 1 Jul 15
Lima Juliet is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2015, 15:35
  #6670 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tarn et Garonne, Southwest France
Posts: 5,283
It's been a while since this forum got into the fatuous arguments about which report or source is valid and which is invention or propaganda, but you guys are certainly making up for it now. Too much attacking other programmes to justify this one. Too much legacy jet X didn't have these problems so why does this one.

Personal views (or opinions, as they are sometimes called) seem to be dangerous things to express around here right now, but I'm going to do it anyway. In my opinion, this thread has too much squabbling about source, people's motivation for their position on the subject and way too much emphasis on the perceived polarisation of of every poster's (so called) position. Not everyone here needs to be a fan or a, what was the term? "Nay-sayer". Might be more educational for all of us is the extemists dropped their holier than thou stance and actually discussed, rather than counter-attacked the whole time.

If you don't think I have the right to say that, screw you.

Moving on...

Originally Posted by SSSetc
In my opinion, the stuff LM push out about capability is a country mile closer to the truth than the Eurofighter stuff that you appear to have swallowed hook, line and sinker. If you disagree, no hard feelings, we'll just have to agree to.
This is the first programme that has been run so fully in the public gaze - one of the reasons it has attracted so much criticism (warranted and unwarranted) from all quarters. The Eurofighter programme didn't do many press releases during the development phase (by comparison) and the various trials weren't so openly reported, so I really don't think there's much of a comparison. Cold War secrecy habits may have had some benefits after all.

Sorry, Leon. I overstepped your post there. I was not refering to you or your post.

Last edited by Courtney Mil; 9th Jul 2015 at 18:46. Reason: Apologies to Leon J
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2015, 15:50
  #6671 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Cold War secrecy habits may have had some benefits after all.
My thought also.
MSOCS is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2015, 16:18
  #6672 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 49
Posts: 505
F35 numbers under review

Dunford Says F-35 Fleet Size Under Review; Supports F-35 Buy « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary
Dunford Says F-35 Fleet Size Under Review; Supports F-35 Buy
By Colin Clark on July 09, 2015 at 9:30 AM
........
He also said the Pentagon is looking hard at just how many F-35 Joint Strike Fighters to buy.
......

Proverbial first cracks in the armor???
kbrockman is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2015, 16:43
  #6673 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,549
You might as well turn these kind of arguments around and wonder why all these experts from all these companies and all these countries never predicted/foresaw and anticipated all the big problems the whole JSF project encountered, why did they chose so many other faulthy, severely underperforming or hideously expensive defense projects in the past.

Good point. Although the fact that said experts are, as Ken said, "well paid" might explain a lot.

By the way, if the experts were always right, a few months ago we'd have seen the Queen, the Kaiser, the Tsar and the Arch-Duke get together to commemorate the centenary of the Christmas Armistice that ended the European War of 1914...
LowObservable is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2015, 16:47
  #6674 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,549
The prospective chairman calls the F-35 a “vital component of our effort to ensure the Joint Force maintains dominance in the air.” But there is a big but.

He likes big buts and he cannot lie?

He discloses that the requirement for the size of the fleet is being reviewed: “Given the evolving defense strategy and the latest Defense Planning Guidance, we are presently taking the newest strategic foundation and analyzing whether 2,443 aircraft is the correct number. Until the analysis is complete, we need to pursue the current scheduled quantity buy to preclude creating an overall near-term tactical fighter shortfall.”

This means less than it may seem, since most of those 2443 aircraft don't get funded for a decade or more. Rate is the big issue for the next decade.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2015, 17:14
  #6675 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 66
Posts: 1,954
Typhoon to be backbone of European air power

The blog post about the F-35's less than stellar in-close dog fight maneuverability has caused some on this thread to declare Europe doomed because they have committed themselves so deeply to the F-35, while USAF can fall back on the Raptor, and USN on the Super Hornet. I believe such gloom and doom to be unrealistic given that the Eurofighter Typhoon is destined to be the backbone of European airpower for the next few decades and France plans on keeping their Rafales for at least that long.

Typhoon will be "backbone" of future European air power - 7/7/2015 - Flight Global
KenV is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2015, 18:13
  #6676 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 66
Posts: 1,954
KenV I would like to read your opinion on the points raised on TurbineD's post #6660. thank you.
We used to call this customer dumping, the customer is alway at fault or wrong.
Hmmmm. The customer is the one who demanded industry produce a single airframe that could do CTOL, CATOBAR, and STOVL. Industry had no choice but to try to meet the customer's demands. It is YOU guys who insist that this approach was wrong if not utterly foolish. If what you guys claim is true (I'm not entirely convinced of that) then yes, it must be the "customer's fault".

[quote]But, nobody forced the tiny little company, Lockheed-Martin, to take this big contract, did they?[/QUOT] Hmmm. If Lockheed had not competed, they would now have........nothing (well except an F-16 line that has very little future). McDonnell Douglas lost in the first round and without JSF they ended up getting bought my Boeing. What happened to Boeing when they lost JSF in the second round? All they have is F-15 with a bleak future and F/A-18 with an even more bleak future. Every US fighter manufacturer saw JSF as a "must win" project with the high probability of going extinct as a fighter manufacturer if they lost. So to dneclare that no one was "forced" to accept this project is to deny history.

Today's F-35 problems date back to how Lockheed ran or really may not have run the program. Did L-M really have the knowledge and experience to run a Concurrent Engineering program? (followed by blah blah blah of what concurrent engineering is and why its bad.
Maybe. Maybe not. But if not Lockheed, who did? Did Boeing? McDonnell Douglas? BAE? Dassault? Airbus? Concurrent engineering was another requirement imposed by the customer. The vendor was required to propose concurrent engineering and how they would accomplish it. And that proposal was evaluated by the customer. Lockheed won. Boeing lost.

If L-M ran the Concurrent Engineering program correctly, we would not still be only halfway through the development program and have over 100 development aircraft instead of a population of production aircraft.
Really? And you know this how? Your years and years of experience running a concurrent engineering program? And LtGen Bogdan can complain all he wants about Lockheed's approach to concurrent engineering, but what actual experience is that based on? None you say? Concurrent engineering is inherently risky. Designing an airplane that can do CTOL, CATOBAR, and STOVL is risky. Integrating stealth into all three versions is risky. Developing AND concurrently integrating all sorts of other new technology is very risky. And integrating requirements from multiple nations added even more risk. The customer(s) imposed all this risk on the vendor. Risk is not free. It costs money. Lots of money. And time. Lots of time. And now we're shocked and dismayed that the project is over budget and behind schedule? Really?

Finally, I have previously agreed that there is much to be sad about this project. The vast majority of the sadness is the fault of the customer who demanded all this risk AND strongly implied that whoever would not take on such risk would no longer build fighters for the US government.

And the bottom line is that NONE of this has absolutely ANYthing to do with a blog post about the F-35s close-in dog fight performance. NONE. You folks are so busy crying wolf, you are now crying out when a kitten crosses your path.
KenV is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2015, 18:21
  #6677 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 66
Posts: 1,954
By the way, if the experts were always right.....
For the record, I never stated nor suggested the "experts are always right." I DID suggest that the experts probably know a thing or two about close-in dog fighting, about the F-35's OVERALL air-to-air capability, and about the F-35's design mission set. And with that knowledge they have far less misgivings about a single blog post concerning F-35 maneuverability. You guys have strayed far from the topic I was discussing and then attributing my comments to those other topics.
KenV is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2015, 18:38
  #6678 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 66
Posts: 1,954
Proverbial first cracks in the armor???
a few comments:

1. The F-35 program has never had crack free armor. Folks have been taking pot shots at it and penetrating from day one.

2. The opening sentence in the cited article states: "WASHINGTON: The presumptive Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford, has told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the most pressing areas of concern for the US military are its cyber and space capabilities; modernizing its nuclear weapons and their delivery systems; and assuring that American forces can penetrate any set of defenses anywhere in the world."

Did you folks notice that close-in dog fighting is not on his list? But "penetrating any set of defenses" IS on his list? Was F-35 designed to do the former, or the latter? The latter you say? Then why all the handwringing about the F-35s close-in dog fight capability?
KenV is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2015, 18:49
  #6679 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 49
Posts: 505
KenV,

Just a question but who do you think came up with the one-size-fits-all, one-winner -takes-all concept next gen fighter, do you really believe that in a single client vs limited suppliers market, the suppliers have absolutely no say in the set-up of specs and ideas of entirely new fighter jet platforms ?

The Defence market is nothing like the free civil market with a number of suppliers going after contracts with a large number of potential buyers/clients
(I know I don't have to tell you this but for the sake of the argument...).

The idea that all this came out of the heads of some politicians without input from the defence contractors is just laughable IMHO.

Show me where LM beforehand ever stated that the whole idea of 1 size fits all is a bad idea and I'll gladly eat my words ,I've been wrong about more things before so I'm eagerly awaiting to be rectified.
kbrockman is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2015, 18:56
  #6680 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 49
Posts: 505
Originally Posted by KenV
Did you folks notice that close-in dog fighting is not on his list? But "penetrating any set of defenses" IS on his list? Was F-35 designed to do the former, or the latter? The latter you say? Then why all the handwringing about the F-35s close-in dog fight capability?
This is some kind of false dichotomy it's not 1 or the other, it's more like the former (WVR-fighting) is a necessary part of of the latter (penetration capabilities).
kbrockman is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.