F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

[eaglemmoomin]

Stuffy the USN would be ok they are purchasing F18E/F/G to replace some the more clapped out airframes so could extend their buy

The USMC and USAF would be a bit more stuffed as the F35 is more tied to their concept of operations and they are replacing several types of airframes with the JSF and cutting manpower by going single seat (I don't know if weapon officers would be phased out or if they will just 'get' a JSF as it were as I guess the retraining burden for BFM and all the other stuff would be fairly costly).

[Mach Two]

As usual, the JSF acolytes read things the way they want them to be. The ITAR agreements are worded very precisely - note the repeated use of the word "certain". In the case of F-35 and all the associated equipment and programmes this one will be no different to any that went before. IF any of you are suggesting here that JTO's (JustThisOnce) points in his post concerning security issues all go away as a result of ITAR legislation, you are sadly mistaken and clearly do not understand how these things work with the USA. They are, quite rightly, extremely guarded about the release of technology and, in particular, intel generated data and software.

Partners at various levels will have massive restrictions on access (already do, but that's outside the scope of this forum). Working within these limitations are usually quite acceptable and need not necessarily impinge on operational effectiveness. You just have to accept that the US will always hold the knobs and levers. A few, embedded personnel will have additional clearances and access where required, but for the most part, the rest will get only what they need in terms of information and access.

As to the technology that other nations get on their aircraft, be that F-35 or anything else, you are unlikely ever to know what the differences really are - especially if your only source of information is the internet.

Again, I am amused by your over-defensive responses to anything good anyone has to say about any platform other than the focus of your blind faith and wishful thinking.

And, by the way, JSFfanatic, there isn't always a link to an internet site to back-up everything says that you don't like. Tough.

[APG63]

I agree with the above. Well said. It's an immovable object so learn to live with it. The technology that really will be guarded will be in the radar and defensive aids. That's if they ever get the radar to work properly, which is providing a massive challenge at the moment. It's nowhere near the spec that some early assumptions were based upon.

I was thinking of updating my username, but APG63 (plus various "Vs") seems quite comfortable for now.

[Courtney Mil]

Moomin,

I have to agree with Stuffy in the main, but I do take your point that the USMC would also be screwed. Let's hope it doesn't come to that.

I have to throw my lot in with the others on the security firewall (or "garden wall", which is rather a neat expression) discussion. Some that I know, that are involved, are in the usual position with that. It's not a show-stopper for them, but this programme is clearly no different to any other - as someone here said, quite rightly.

[eaglemmoomin]

Mach 2, what I'm sugesting is that it's suprising to me that being able to connect a RAID to the data processor in a JSF post mission via fibre and pulling off recorded imagery from the sensors is not supported which is what was implied. I'd have thought that you would want to be able to do that for many reasons. Taking that FMV and meta data and sticking it into an IA workstation and exploiting it again seems to be something you would reasonably expect to be able to do. I don't see how UK armed forces use of that would be breaking ITAR rules if standard NATO formats were used , more so if Lockheed were the ones supplying the workstations and transfer kit as opposed to them giving the interface and control specifications to a UK subcontractor as that would neccesitate transfering IP.

Seems like a bit of an unfortunate problem.

[Mach Two]

You would be absolutely right, eaglemoomin, to expect that customers would want that capability. However, I think it's obvious that non-US users will have to live within the limitations. The real question is where the garden wall sits and what levels of data will be able to be made available. You certainly won't get the answer to that here and it would probably be foolish to try to go into that one any further.

Before JSFfan jumps in with some more of his links and quotes from glossy brochures about how great the aircraft is and what is can do, this is not about what the system can do, it's what foreign users will be allowed to do. Sorry if it turns out not to be what you want it to be, but I'm sure you'll eventually find some tenuous link to an online document that refutes everything you don't like. Something for you to do when you're back from your paper round.

[eaglemmoomin]

You are right Mach2 it's a subject that does fascinate me. But it is what is.

I'll stop asking about that before I get the rozzers round and tea with no biscuits.

[JSFfan]

eaglem, I thought I was clear when I said
"although UK/AU have people embedded with the core system that stays inhouse, no nation gets the code of the core system and only UK/BAE had a real whinge about that"

Mach Two, RE ITAR, spaz's link should be clear enough for an overview

[LowObservable]

Some very interesting stuff emerges here, mostly above the comprehension level of the shills.

And the "walled garden" is defended by paranoid flying rottweilers...

[Mach Two]

Originally Posted by JSFfan

Mach Two, RE ITAR, spaz's link should be clear enough for an overview

Thanks for trying to teach grandma to suck eggs. It's part of my job.

As you raise it, I'll demonstrate what I meant and what you have accidentally overlooked as it obviously doesn't live up to your wishes.

• Certain combined military and counter-terrorism operations;
• Certain cooperative security and defense research, development, production, and support programs;
• Certain Mutually agreed security and defense projects where the end-user is the Government of the United Kingdom or the Government of Australia; or
• Certain U.S. Government end-use.

Just so can see the way these are worded. You should pay more attention to your reading and writing classes.

[Courtney Mil]

You make your points as elequently as ever, Mach Two. But I do have to admit that you do make them and, sometimes, they are valid.

I've not heard much about the radar recently, does anyone have any open source on the progress there? I know about the cooling issue, but would be interested to know if that's the main issue. Again, maybe not something we can expect too much detail on here, but any unclass news from those in the know would be good to hear.

[APG63]

Not too much detail CM for obvious reasons. Some progress, but it's a train of events with loud echoes of the Eurofighter programme. I think it's safe to say that cooling is a publicly-known problem (A la Eurofighter in the early days) and the narrow band 'radome', which is there for good reasons, is limiting. But the bigger issues persist. There is a lot of good work going on and fingers are crossed.

Sorry if that's vague. Don't give up hope on the current fit, but equally don't hold your breath for upgrades. Do remember, it was never supposed to be air dominance.

[Courtney Mil]

Thank you. I see where you're coming from. We did overcome some of the problems on EF, but it's always a shame when the core design turns out to be the biggest issue; the problems that can be worked around, but not fixed. As you say, not air dominance, and I guess thet may be why that part of the system has never been simulated. We may have to wait a long time before we know what the real kill ratio is.

Fingers crossed for improvements.

[LowObservable]

APG63...

Do remember, it was never supposed to be air dominance.

But what about...

U.S. Air Force analyses show the Lockheed Martin [NYSE: LMT] F-35 Lightning II is at least 400 percent more effective in air-to-air combat capability than the best fighters currently available in the international market. (emphasis added)

Lockheed Martin · pr_aero_SettingRecordStraightonF-

Please tell us that we are not being told porkies. That would be upsetting.

[Courtney Mil]

I'm sure he must be wrong then. Those F-22 guys must feel pretty silly now.

Mind you, that 6:1 kill ratio must have them worried. Remind me again what the F-15 kill ratio is?

[JSFfan]

It must be a conspiracy by the US and allied air forces in their quest for globalism

The Air Force's standard air-to-air engagement analysis model, also used by allied air forces to assess air-combat performance, pitted the 5th generation F-35 against all advanced 4th generation fighters in a variety of simulated scenarios. The results were clear: the F-35 outperformed the most highly evolved fighters in aerial combat by significant margins.

[Courtney Mil]

OK, go ahead and explain exactly what those two lines mean in aircrew terms and in in tactical terms.

[Mach Two]

Not a hope! How about explaining what the parameters were in that evaluation and, what the adversaries and weapons loads were and where the actual results of the trial were posted in the public domain.

Edited to add: Remember I was a part of the original trials.

[Courtney Mil]

Even more to the point, tell us what the

Originally Posted by JSFfan

standard air-to-air engagement analysis model, also used by allied air forces to assess air-combat performance

is exactly. Just something you read or something you actually know about?

Edited to add: Remember that simulation was my job for three years. Not as current on it as M2, but you'll have to deal with that.

[JSFfan]

It was a quote from LO's link that I thought you would like to see, from past experience here, opening links isn't a priority