F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Ah yes - the wonderful F-111B for the USN! What an expensive folly that was.
Conflicting RAF / RN requirements also helped to kill the P1154. No loss though - I don't think that aircraft would ever have proved successful.
As for the F-35B.........
Conflicting RAF / RN requirements also helped to kill the P1154. No loss though - I don't think that aircraft would ever have proved successful.
As for the F-35B.........
SS
I don't think it's grammar-pedantry to point out what words mean.
As for LM: I have had the great good fortune to talk face-to-face with the people who made the U-2, SR-71, F-117 and F-16 happen. None of them still works for Lockheed Martin, which no longer resembles (IMHO) the Lockheed or General Dynamics of the past.
I'm sure that there are talented and diligent people there, but I don't think that there's anyone who would (for example) point-blank refuse to brief a swing-wing F-X (F-15 competitor) to Wright-Pat, on the grounds that it made no sense whatsoever.
You question my attitude to LM (and may I add that since I lost my favorite Rotring my pens are from Costco) but you seem to have exactly the same attitude to Dassault and Eurofighter. I've provided chapter, verse and citations for LM claims that I see as over-the-top...
Concorde comparison: I think that there may be a parallel between the Pentagon's pursuit of an all-stealth force, 1985-2015, and the SST history. It was expensive, it resulted in compromised aircraft (small and range-limited) and in the end it wasn't right for the operational requirements that emerged (quieter airplanes and sybaritic B-class cabins). I'll admit that is a big, squishy idea and that many people will disagree.
The best things that came out of Concorde were some basic technology (mostly avionics), a trained workforce and (I am only half joking) an Airbus program that was founded on looking at how things were done on Concorde and doing exactly the opposite.
TSR2, MRA4 - The plug should have been pulled earlier in both cases, but neither could or should have continued. MRA4 (as has been detailed here) was unsound. TSR2 was at best on the same trajectory as F-111 (the RAF Historical Society review is excellent). The difference was that the US could afford to build 250+ deficient F-111As and F-111Ds, and still build Es and Fs.
I don't think it's grammar-pedantry to point out what words mean.
As for LM: I have had the great good fortune to talk face-to-face with the people who made the U-2, SR-71, F-117 and F-16 happen. None of them still works for Lockheed Martin, which no longer resembles (IMHO) the Lockheed or General Dynamics of the past.
I'm sure that there are talented and diligent people there, but I don't think that there's anyone who would (for example) point-blank refuse to brief a swing-wing F-X (F-15 competitor) to Wright-Pat, on the grounds that it made no sense whatsoever.
You question my attitude to LM (and may I add that since I lost my favorite Rotring my pens are from Costco) but you seem to have exactly the same attitude to Dassault and Eurofighter. I've provided chapter, verse and citations for LM claims that I see as over-the-top...
Concorde comparison: I think that there may be a parallel between the Pentagon's pursuit of an all-stealth force, 1985-2015, and the SST history. It was expensive, it resulted in compromised aircraft (small and range-limited) and in the end it wasn't right for the operational requirements that emerged (quieter airplanes and sybaritic B-class cabins). I'll admit that is a big, squishy idea and that many people will disagree.
The best things that came out of Concorde were some basic technology (mostly avionics), a trained workforce and (I am only half joking) an Airbus program that was founded on looking at how things were done on Concorde and doing exactly the opposite.
TSR2, MRA4 - The plug should have been pulled earlier in both cases, but neither could or should have continued. MRA4 (as has been detailed here) was unsound. TSR2 was at best on the same trajectory as F-111 (the RAF Historical Society review is excellent). The difference was that the US could afford to build 250+ deficient F-111As and F-111Ds, and still build Es and Fs.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 52
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ORAC
The lesson learnt is that the common airframe concept was a disaster
The RAFALE however seems to have done it as it was intended to be, basically the same frame with very similar performances and weights, tons of commonality and a truely allround fighter/attack platform, discipline seems to be the keyword here.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that there may be a parallel between the Pentagon's pursuit of an all-stealth force, 1985-2015, and the SST history.
"The pentagon's pursuit of an all stealth force?" Where do you guys come up with this stuff? "All stealth" MIGHT be true for USAF, but even they said they intend to keep the non-stealth F-15 flying for another two or three decades. And USN has yet to get a single stealth aircraft and even after they do, they'll have many more non-stealth aircraft than stealth aircraft for the foreseeable future.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course they were not right ! - any 9 year old spotter could have told them that LOL
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
Last edited by KenV; 9th Jul 2015 at 15:44.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Neverland
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thank you.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 52
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: London, Monte Carlo and Bermuda (I wish!)
Age: 80
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Australia Abandons Proposal To Order F35B | Defense content from Aviation Week
Dated 8 Jul 15
http://airheadsfly.com/2015/07/09/au...ump-jet-plans/
Dated 9 Jul 15
http://www.afr.com/news/politics/pms...gi6qxj?stb=twt
Dated 1 Jul 15
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...
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.
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.
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."
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."
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...
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.
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.
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
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 52
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F35 numbers under review
Dunford Says F-35 Fleet Size Under Review; Supports F-35 Buy « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary
Proverbial first cracks in the armor???
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.
......
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???
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...
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...
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Typhoon will be "backbone" of future European air power - 7/7/2015 - Flight Global
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
[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.
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.
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.