gee, welcome to the world of US procurement. I'm surprised you guys are seeing this as new news, It's understandable that the jurno doesn't know and even some of the politicians, but IOT&E concluding in 2018 for full production in 2019 has been known for quite some time.
Also if that jurno thinks the costs he reported are the only IOT&E costs for the dutch, he has some more surprises coming

The issue must be that computing power evolves at a faster rate than aircraft design & procurement - and in the case of the F-35 the basic shape will be 15 years old before the plane is in service

Computing power will be enormously more effective and costs will be a lot lower (which is more than you can say for the F-35) so the "stealth" we're hoping for just won't be there

Fine if you intend to bomb Chad but against the Red Hordes it could look pretty sick

That was not the point I was trying to make, it is an indication of how controversial the JSF has become in the mainstream media lately and an indication how it probably will lead to the entire cancellation of the whole program.

BTW today it was again an important story in the most important news programs.

"an indication how it probably will lead to the entire cancellation of the whole program."

why do I feel like this is just a eurocanard's fanboy dream?
there is plenty the media can complain about, I have a few gripes myself...but love it or hate it, the f-35 is what a dozen and more countries will be flying
at this stage the SDD wraps up in 2016, the design is locked in 2017 and final IOT&E 2018 for FRP 2019

@harry, if you think the f-35 will be in bad shape in the future, just imagine how much worse off the 4.5gen will be

I have no problem admitting that a European alternative would be better but in the case of Holland, a choice for the F18 or F16 NG aircraft would also be very sensible.
I bet they'll have much more to say and a substantially bigger part in design/production of more vital high end parts or maybe even complete systems iso being a simple parts producer without even the slightest input on vital and technologically advanced parts of the program, call it an investment for the future aeronautics industry.

The way I see it the best would be, one of the Eurocanards>F16V or F18SSH>nothing>........>JSF.

Besides if anyone here deserves the title "Fanboy" I suggest you qualify before basically everybody else ;) (all in good gest)

it's unaffordable for one country....europe tried a joint team to keep up and showed they couldn't organise a nookie in a brothel. The plan to 'vastly' improve on the f-15,16,18 failed, coming up with the typhoon which I thought would be the best of the 3 ...only to be let down by poor development funding like the rafale has.
it's even the same story with choppers.

Here (Google Translate is your friend) is the Dutch defense ministry letter:

http://www.ftm.nl/upload/content/fil...20Defensie.pdf

Basically, here's the story:

2008 - Cloggies decide to buy two JSFs that will be delivered by 2013 in time to support IOT&E for Block 3, which they are told will start in 2013.

2008-12 - Various opposition pols attempt to kill buy on the grounds of delays and cost increases. Defense ministry assures them that all is well. AN-1 is rolled out at Fort Worth and flies, no delivery.

2013 - Defense ministry admits that IOT&E will not start until 2015 (absolute earliest) and that the two jets (total cost over a quarter of a billion dollars) may be stuck in a hangar until then.

Oh, and from 2009...

http://www.jsfnieuws.nl/wp-content/D...ripen_2009.pdf

LO, good presentation there from SAAB. I look forward to JSFobsessive addressing all of that.

JFSfan, your rantings might have slightly more credability here if you didn't always make out that the F-35 programme is absolutely perfect and the answer to everyone's problems. Your posts reflect a total refusal to see any problems. Perhaps the LockMart pension is so good that you feel happy doing this. You are becoming a fanatic.

perhaps it would help if you read my posts?
"there is plenty the media can complain about, I have a few gripes myself..."

I have been reading.

JSFfan,

While I'm somewhat reluctant to stick my head into the buzzsaw that this thread has become (will it still be running in 2018?) I feel I must respond to the comments you made in reply to kbrockman's "update from Holland".

While you may despair of people who aren't fully "in the know", or are even misinformed, you would do well to remember that all military procurement decisions in the western world are ultimately made by politicians, who, while they are briefed by their military advisors, generally themselves are well short of being "in the know".

Politicians just see cost increases and overruns, delays in delivery, and subsequent bad press, often when they are trying to get re-elected, cut budgets, and justify military expenditure to an electorate more interested in tax cuts, better schools, hospitals, etc. In USA politics may keep programmes alive that should be cut, to preserve jobs, the aerospace industry, etc - but export customers may well look elsewhere as costs rise, deadlines slip, and the project attracts bad press with comments about "capability reductions", etc....


"love it or hate it, the f-35 is what a dozen and more countries will be flying
at this stage the SDD wraps up in 2016, the design is locked in 2017 and final IOT&E 2018 for FRP 2019" ... only time will tell whether or not your prediction comes true, but it may ulimately have very little to do with the technical capabilities the aircraft finally delivers.

it's the way US procurement works and I can't see it changing, our fa-18 doubled in price and was late, the f-111 was even a bigger mess-up...it's a bit silly blaming the plane.

Look elsewhere? australia needs a new plane now, it's just costing money refitting old hornets and buying gap filling super hornets and growlers
without being too platform centric because it's ultimately the system what counts ... I can't see anything else the west has worth buying as a next gen systems strike fighter to last till 2050...any ideas?
please don't say a eurocanard, the swiss leak showed they aren't even much better than their old hornet

JSFfan
 

'The lady doth protest too much, methinks.' Hamlet, Act III, scene II.

John Farley – thanks for the compliment. Coming from you it means a lot


As a recently retired division director having worked in the proprietary defense area for a major contractor, I am well aware of the advances in both low frequency magnetic materials as well as the key advances in leading edge construction. The fact remains that in a fighter sized aircraft like the F-35 you will most likely be detected WELL in excess of 60 nm by the latest VHF radar systems especially when they can use both vertical and horizontal polarization.

And just for the record I do not believe that RF signature reduction is no longer relevant. Given modern design tools, adding signature reduction to the design process does not cost nearly as much in trade-offs or cost that it once did. I just believe it is some times over hyped.

Just to clarify, you made sense and that's all I needed...I was agreeing with you. I added Jorn HF OTHR and CNT to support what you said, being the limit of both ends that I know of. As I see it, VLO is just an enabler to get your system into play at a tactically significant range, it isn't pixie dust. Like yourself John makes sense and I read him with interest here and at another site.

It's the high reliance on stealth that worries me too. It is possible to achieve amazing RCS reduction using CNT-based material. However, we have to remember that RAM design is a trade-off between (frequency) bandwidth and RCS reduction (or, more correctly, reflection loss) even using multiple layer CNT material. Here's a set of graphs that illustrate my point. I should point out that the test material involved here IS a CNT layer, but is NOT that used in JSF. It's just illustrative of the properties.

http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image...004275-gr8.jpg

The point here is that we can (in this case) get a -25db change in reflectivity (which is a huge reduction), but only in relatively narrow frequency bands. Clearly, additional RCS reductions can be achieved by form design, ect, but even this tends to be quite directional (it varies with aspect angle). The upshot is that you design to minimize reflectivity in certain directions and at certain radar frequencies. You cannot put on a cloaking device that is effective at all frequencies, at all aspect angles.

So, we seem to have here an aircraft that should be able to use its stealth features at range to reduce significantly the probable detection range of an enemy fighter equipped with a conventional, current generation radar. The obvious tactical advantage here is to obtain first A-A launch before the enemy have a probability of detection. So far, so good.

By definition these will be relatively long range shots (maximizing first shot capability) and, therefore, not maximum Pk (especially as JSF isn't the best platform to accelerate and climb to maximize energy at launch) and may be expected to achieve a kill rate of, let's say 25% - highly dependent upon dozens of factors, but let's give it the benefit of the doubt and assume 25%the remaining shots defeated kinematically or by countermeasures. We've achieved 2 things, reduced enemy numbers and disrupted them, probably causing them to manoeuvre. (NOTE: it is possible to have a much higher first launch success rate, but it would require the enemy to be unaware that they had been targeted).

But what next? The JSFs either keep closing on the enemy to prosecute the attack or attempt to reset. In the former case, even after an f-pol manoeuvre, they are increasing their distance from the carrier (combat fuel) and decreasing range to the enemy (and, therefore, increasing the probability of detection). So, we are rapidly moving to a situation where JSF's LO advantage is being lost and it's lack of manoeuvre disadvantage is becoming much more crucial. As we reach the stage when they're exchanging high Pk shots, the airframe/engine/fuel combination could place JSF at a significant disadvantage.

The reset option can be dangerous as the enemy could still be closing in range and at some point the JSFs have to face up to them, costing energy and time and exposing themselves at aspect angles where the RCS may be considerably larger.

All highly hypothetical and this is just one scenario. I deliberately haven't tried to predict an outcome or compare performances with specific threat types. I could offer others that would look much worse, but I've gone on long enough.

My conclusion: we're putting an awful lot of faith in LO on a platform that can be outclassed in CERTAIN other areas even by SOME current generation fighters. LO may give them a great advantage for penetrating on day one, but will it be enough to ensure operational effectiveness thereafter?

Let's get this clear: We find that carbon nanotubes can be made into infinitely capable Super-RAM, light, thin and broadband. So the first thing we do, of course, is.... publish the whole damn thing on the monkey-fighting Internetz?

Needless to say the fans have had this incongruity pointed out to them before, and then they go and parrot it elsewhere.

CM - Very true, so much so that people have been fired for pointing it out. First-look, first-shot only works if the first shot works, so if your adversary concedes the first look, but denies you a high-Pk first shot outside mutual detection range, the value of first-look is much reduced.

Running in unseen and taking the first shot, but using all your shots to kill only a fraction of the adversaries, then finding yourself kinematically unable to avoid the WVR against faster, more agile and still lethal survivors, sounds like a classic "I'm not sure you thought your brilliant plan all the way through" move.

It's worse than that, LO, the hundreds of excellent papers on this (and closely-related topics) published on the interweb are brilliantly detailed; good enough to allow the enthusiast to knock some up in his garden shed. A lot of good stuff from Russia, China and India, so we should expect the opposition to be flying equally invisible platforms.

it's a nice picture that shows a base line reduction with 3 spikes left, which can be attenuated with a spoonful of physics rather the the bucket of it needed to reduce the baseline in the first place, the big one may be a resonant frequency but heck..it's all over my head
I guess they throw a patent on it for wide use. it's not secret, it isn't black tech that they want no one to know about..or it may even be an exercise in misinformation

No, these are peer reviewed, independent, scientific studies by the people that are developing this technology. To interpret the graphs, pick ONE colour and see what the effect on rf reflectivity is over a range of frequencies. As I said, huge reductions in the narrow band that is targeted and very little elsewhere. It's all to do with the dimentions of the inside of the nanotube. Result, radars at different frequencies will be affected to massively different degrees.

It's an easy matter to use a different frequency for, say, AI radar. The traditional band was due to historical physical limitations. Bad news for those relying on stealth.