GeeRam

True - but I have a feeling that was an example of industry and MOD mismanagement that went rather beyond the normal scale involved in most programmes delays.

TSR-2, MRA4, AFVG, SR.A/1, SR.53, SR.177, Avro 720/730, AW.681, HS P.1154..........

I won't list the rest, a fair few are in Project Cancelled. You might claim that most were cancelled due to the Duncan-Sandys review. I'd counter that a major factor behind that was the financial crises of the time, and point out that we are in a time of similar crises and defence cuts, proportionally more savage than at that time.

Glad Rag - apart from the Test Pilots (BAES have more qualified F-35 pilots than MOD) there are also the Flight Test Engineers & Field Service Engineers etc who have been working on F-35 for several years. Their knowledge and experience is already being used to support other projects in the UK, particularly the new carriers predictably.

New manufacturing techniques, investment in tooling and ground testing and all the assosciated jobs at the BAES sites. Assuming the programme continues and FMS sales continue (price tag depending) the amount of work done by BAES will be massive. I'm sure it's available online but you might be surprised to see how much of every single jet (A, B and C variant) is built in the UK.

But the Stealth crown jewels and mission systems: most of the UK specialists in these areas who have been granted access by the US still wear uniform. But won't forever...

WO - I would be careful about saying anything like "cost neutral to the UK".

BAE has a large share but the most valuable part of it is not UK-domiciled, nor does UKG control the technology. RR has a big share now, with LiftSystem development and production, but there is little indication that it will continue once Marine and RN orders have been filled.

So the biggest UK piece is tin bashing, which is important but with an important caveat: it does not bring a lot of support business. That massive share of the program remains under US control.

So what is the UK-based share of the LCC of an F-35? I would guess single digits.

Sorry I should have made it clear that IMHO the costs/timescales were wailed about with so many aquistions that actually happened in the end.

True, JF, but the more recent record in the US is that many programs have not made it through the Valley of Death without being cancelled or procured in tiny quantities, and the time to play the game is running out. By 2030, even if all goes to plan, half the USAF's fighters will be 40 years old or more.

so are you are suggesting is that US cancels the f-35, with the par for the course procurement system....spends another ~20 years and ~$50b developing a 'new' plane. when it's been in production for 10 years by 2045, even if all goes to plan, half the USAF's fighters will be 55 years old or more.

Its just over 20% (excluding the LliftFan I believe). At least 90% of that will go straight back into the UK taxpayers coffers

Have you ever sat down with a calculator and worked out what that figure is? Its huge, its going to a profit center for the UK.

The UK owns a large part of the Intellectual property of the F-35 (20%?). Lockheed said BAE can't be replaced as they own so much of the design


There is a chart somewhere showing time to accelerate for the F-16, F-18, F-35, Typhoon and others. The Hornet distinguished itself by being exceptionally slow.

From: http://www.nps.edu/Academics/Institu...%20fighter.pdf

2009 Chart for 'peter we': http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l2...rmance2009.jpg Click Thumbnail

I hope I am not included in the so-called "anti-JSF crowd" or the "JSF bashers". Please let me know if I am. As the potential future, primary platform for RAF and FAA ops, I want it to as successful as it can be.

Two points now. One is "can it crack it in various scenarios? " The other is, why do those that are a so fanatically pro-JSF have to feel that any conversation or challenge about the tactical application of JSF is automatically a challenge to its suitability to meet our future requirement?

4.5g? Yeah. Give me that!

In my earlier post, I offered a scenario that MIGHT expose some weaknesses in the design concept that is highly relient on LO. Maybe exposing the weaknesses in on other areas; doubts in my mind due to the poor kinetic properties that make the jet far less manoeuvrable than most third generation fighter/bombers.

The opposition will be feilding aircraft with similarly excellent LO characteristics AND good energy manoeuvrability.

If I am "outright hilarious" for offering a possible scenario, then I would ask to tell me why.

As for the attack on being able to reposition a phased array I can offer only this. Why the hell would you not want the extra scan width? Answers on a postcard please.

CM - "The opposition will be feilding aircraft with similarly excellent LO characteristics AND good energy manoeuvrability."

Because they have not been constrained by the short fat design due to the need to fit the STOVL variant onto an LHD lift. It worries me a tad too - lets hope tactics, avionics and the support packages can help compensate.

You would put me into the 'Pro' JSF camp, but I am not blind to its faults and limitations. Why the pro crowd get annoyed is that by and large the 'anti' JSF crowd seemingly cannot find a single redeeming characteristic to the design, and the degree of misinformation and speculation being propagated by some is nothing short of incredible. That combined with the calls that the sky is falling every time a fault grounds the airframe (remember it still has 'training wheels' fitted). Apparently no other airframe has ever had an issue when being developed! That is then usually followed by claims that either we need to:

1. Put the F-22 back into production (difficult, expensive and time consuming and ignores the requirements of navy and marines).

2. Or just order more of the existing 4th to 4.5gen designs (which is why the potential adversaries are developing 5th gens - gee these people are keen to send out OUR pilots to the gunfight armed with a knife).

3. Or in light of the recent combat experiences in the sandpit that all we really need is a bunch of armed trainers for CAS. This conveniently ignores the fact that it is far smarter to gear up and train to fight a high intensity conflict, then amend tactics to fight an LIC, than to equip and train to fight a low intensity foe and then suddenly require a military to re-arm itself with a modern interceptor/strike force. The Kiwi's disbanded their fast jet force (albeit armed with obsolescent A-4k's) around a decade ago - People Who Know Things have pointed out that to reform the ability to maintain, train and operate fast jets (quite apart from the lead times from ordering to delivery of airframes) would be many years - possibly as many as 10 in peacetime.

"4.5g? Yeah. Give me that! "

you've stepped away from reality because you can't fly a 4.5 gen off your carrier and then there's that other thing called CONOPS

as to capability
ParlInfo - Parliamentary Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade : 16/03/2012 : Department of Defence annual report 2010-11
Airpower Australia and RepSim claim that the F35 will not be competitive in 2020. Airpower Australia's criticisms mainly centre around F35's aerodynamic performance and stealth capabilities. These are inconsistent with years of detailed analysis that has been undertaken by Defence, the JSF program office, Lockheed Martin, the US services and the eight other partner nations. While aircraft developments such as the Russian PAK-FA or the Chinese J20, as argued by Airpower Australia, show that threats we could potentially face are becoming increasingly sophisticated, there is nothing new regarding development of these aircraft to change Defence's assessment. I think that the Airpower Australia and RepSim analysis is basically flawed through incorrect assumptions and a lack of knowledge of the classified F-35 performance information.

With the F35s, given that they will have, I think, better situational awareness—and I think most people would agree with that—with the tactics that they use, and I do not want to go into detail, certainly what you are not going to do is charge in within digital range. The F35 will use its better situational awareness to work itself into a position and to manoeuvre around the area to present the best tactic for it. In simulations—and what you propose there is very similar to what would go on in a manned simulator event—the outcome of those, if the F35s are allowed to play to their strengths and use their better situational awareness and sensors, is that they can prevail in that situation and they do defeat that higher-end threat in those simulations.

Good Old Super Dog Squared
 

Old quote I know but someone in Oz does not think much of that SupaDupa...

Australia’s multi-billion dollar defence dilemma ABC TV 18 Feb 2008

The 7.30 Report - ABC

...“MARK BANNERMAN (ABC TV interviewer): ...Last year, the then Defence Minister Brendan Nelson made a decision to purchase 24 Super Hornet jet fighters. It left defence experts stunned. Last year, you effectively said this plane was a dog. Have you changed your view in any way about that?

PETER CRISS: I said it was a super dog and it's a super dog squared as far as I'm concerned. As we found out more and more about it, it's abysmal in every area that is so critical to buying a fighter strike type aircraft. It cannot perform.

MARK BANNERMAN: The former chief of Australia's operational Air Force isn't just worried about the choice of the Super Hornet that he believes is slower and more vulnerable than the plane it replaces, what really concerns Peter Criss most is that no one inside the Defence Force or the department was prepared to stand up and argue against the decision.

PETER CRISS: I know there's a bunch of them that know the Super Hornet is a dog, alright. They've told me, they've told acquaintances of mine, friends of mine that they are terribly concerned about it. But it was the decision taken by the Minister at very short notice for whatever reasons and foisted on them....”

I remember that 7:30 report episode ( the show can hardly be called a report ), Peter Criss described how he would run a large strike package with Super Hornets and all the man did was display a lack of knowledge of the aircraft and how to get yourself shot for negligence in wartime. He seamed very bitter that the F111 was being retired and that he no longer had a say in how the RAAF was run.

The 7:30 report also interviewed an RAAF pilot who had extensive experience on the Super Hornet. He had 55 minutes of positive comments and five minutes of negative comments. The ABC ran the five minutes of negative comments along with Peter Criss's diatribe as expert commentary. Luckily most Australians think the same of the ABC as Brits do of the BBC; left wing drivel.

Reach for the Sky Blurb 14 Feb 2013 but program not shown until the 18th

REACH FOR THE SKY - Four Corners

"The JSF project could cost Australian taxpayers tens of billions of dollars. Is this plane a super fighter or a massive waste of money?..."

This Four Corners website will make the program available soon after broadcast:

ABC iview

This would be the same Peter Criss that did that ridiculous hypothetical with Chris Mills on 4Corners ~5 years ago of F-111s going unescorted downtown to Jakarta... :ooh:

In fact, he very nearly did just that in 1999, hence why he's a "former" ACAUST! :hmm:

Speaking of 4Corners, looks like the ABC will be taking another crack at the F-35 tonight...pity SECDEF didn't have the nuts to put someone up from DMO/NACC to counter the disinformation... :rolleyes:

I saw an interview promo...I'm glad they didn't bother to fact check..they said we didn't buy the SH in 2005-7 to replace the obsolete f-111 in 2010, when the f-35 was then US IOC in 2015...it was because the f-35 was late... it's always good to be a historical revisionist that doesn't let facts get in the way

JSFfan,

"4.5g? Yeah. Give me that!" = 4.5 x 9.8067 metres per second squared=Acceleration in a turn. NOT generation 4.5.

What nonsense!

Also, just watched the Four Corners piece. In my view, quite a well-balanced programme. The words used by Ned Frith to describe the JSF project in 1996, and which resulted in his early 'retirement', were quite prophetic.

peter we, I am curious as to why the chart presented used the F-18C rather than the E/F as a comparison. :confused: