F-35 Multirole Joint Strike Fighter

[SABRE]

The Joint Strike Fighter, the JSF, is being developed by Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company for the US Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps and the UK Royal Navy. The stealthy, supersonic multi-role fighter is to be designated the F-35. The JSF is being built in three variants: a conventional take-off and landing aircraft (CTOL) for the US Air Force; a carrier based variant (CV) for the US Navy; and a short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft for the US Marine Corps and the Royal Navy. A 70 – 90% commonality is required for all variants.

The requirement is for: USAF F-35A –air-to-ground strike aircraft, replacing F-16 and A-10, complementing F-22 (1763); USMC F-35B – STOVL strike fighter to replace F/A-18B/C and AV-8B (480); UK RN F-35C – STOVL strike fighter to replace Sea Harriers (60); US Navy F-35C – first-day-of-war strike fighter to replace F/A-18B/C and A-6, complementing the F/A-18E/F (480 aircraft). In January 2001, the UK MOD signed a memorandum of understanding to co-operate in the SDD (System Development and Demonstration) phase of JSF and, in September 2002, selected the STOVL variant to fulfil the Future Joint Combat Aircraft (FJCA) requirement. Following the contract award, other nations signed up to the SDD phase are: Australia, Canada, Denmark, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Singapore and Turkey.

The Concept Demonstration Phase of the programme began in November 1996 with the award of contracts to two consortia, led by Boeing Aerospace and Lockheed Martin. The contracts involved the building of demonstrator aircraft for three different configurations of JSF, with one of the two consortia to be selected for the development and manufacture of all three variants.

In October 2001, an international team led by Lockheed Martin was awarded the contract to build JSF. An initial 22 aircraft (14 flying test aircraft and eight ground-test aircraft) will be built in the programs System Development and Demonstration (SDD) phase. Flight testing will be carried out at Edwards Air Force Base, California, and Naval Air Station, Patuxent River, Maryland. In April 2003, JSF completed a successful Preliminary Design Review (PDR). The Critical Design Review has been postponed from April 2004 to 2005. The first CTOL F-35A has begun airframe assembly and is scheduled for its first flight in August 2006. The STOVL F-35B first flight is set for 2007. The F-35A fighter is expected to enter service in 2008, the F-35B in 2012.

The Lockheed Martin JSF team includes Northrop Grumman, BAE Systems, Pratt and Whitney and Rolls-Royce. Final assembly of the aircraft will take place at Lockheed Martin's Fort Worth plant in Texas. Major subassemblies will be produced by Northrop Grumman Integrated Systems at El Segundo, California and BAE Systems at Samlesbury, Lancashire, England. BAE Systems is responsible for the design and integration of the aft fuselage, horizontal and vertical tails and the wing-fold mechanism for the CV variant, using experience from the Harrier STOVL programme.

DESIGN

In order to minimise the structural weight and complexity of assembly, the wingbox section integrates the wing and fuselage section into one piece. To minimise radar signature, sweep angles are identical for the leading and trailing edges of the wing and tail (planform alignment). The fuselage and canopy have sloping sides. The seam of the canopy and the weapon bay doors are sawtoothed and the vertical tails are canted at an angle.

The Marine variant of JSF is very similar to the Air Force variant, but with a slightly shorter range because some of the space used for fuel is used for the lift fan of the STOVL propulsion system. The main differences between the naval variant and the other versions of JSF are associated with the carrier operations. The internal structure of the naval version is very strong to withstand the high loading of catapult assisted launches and tailhook arrested landings. The aircraft has larger wing and tail control surfaces for low speed approaches for carrier landing. Larger leading edge flaps and foldable wingtip sections provide a larger wing area, which provides an increased range and payload capacity.

The canopy, radar and most of the avionics are common to the three variants.

WEAPONS

Weapons are carried in two parallel bays located in front of the landing gear. Each weapons bay is fitted with two hardpoints for carrying a range of bombs and missiles. Weapons to be cleared for internal carriage include: JDAM (Joint Direct Attack Munition), CBU-105 WCMD (Wind-Corrected Munitions Dispenser) for the Sensor-Fuzed Weapon, JSOW (Joint StandOff Weapon), Paveway II guided bombs, AIM-120C AMRAAM air-to-air missile; for external carriage: JASSM (Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile), AIM-9X Sidewinder and Storm Shadow cruise missile.

In September 2002, General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products was selected as the gun system integrator. The air force variant has an internally mounted gun. The Carrier and Marine variants can have an external gun pod fitted.



TARGETING
Lockheed Martin Missile & Fire Control and Northrop Grumman Electronic Sensors and Systems are jointly responsible for the JSF electro-optical system. A Lockheed Martin electro-optical targeting system (EOTS) will provide long-range detection and precision targeting, along with the Northrop Grumman DAS (Distributed Aperture System) thermal imaging system. EOTS will be based on the Sniper XL pod developed for the F-16, which incorporates a mid-wave third generation FLIR, dual mode laser, CCD TV, laser tracker and laser marker. BAE Systems Avionics in Edinburgh, Scotland will provide the laser systems. DAS consists of multiple infrared cameras (supplied by Indigo Systems of Goleta, California) providing 360º coverage using advanced signal conditioning algorithms. As well as situational awareness, DAS provides navigation, missile warning and infrared search and track (IRST). EOTS is embedded under the aircraft’s nose, and DAS sensors are fitted at multiple locations on the aircraft.

RADAR
Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems is developing the advanced electronically scanned array (AESA) AN/APG-81 multi-function radar. The AN/APG-81AESA will combine an integrated radio frequency subsystem with a multifunction array. The radar system will also incorporate the agile beam steering capabilities developed for the APG-77.

COUNTERMEASURES
BAE Systems North America will be responsible for the JSF integrated electronic warfare suite, which will be installed internally and have some subsystems from Northrop Grumman. BAE is developing a new digital radar warning receiver for the F-35.

AVIONICS SYSTEMS
The following will supply the F-35 avionics systems: BAE Systems Avionics - side stick and throttle controls; Vision Systems International (a partnership between Kaiser Electronics and Elbit of Israel) - advanced helmet-mounted display; Ball Aerospace - Communications, Navigation and Integration (CNI) integrated body antenna suite (one S-band, two UHF, two radar altimeter, three L-band antennas per aircraft); Harris Corporation - advanced avionics systems, infrastructure, image processing, digital map software, fibre optics, high speed communications links and part of the Communications, Navigation and Information (CNI) System; Honeywell - radar altimeter, inertial navigation/global positioning system (INS/GPS) and air data transducers; Raytheon - 24-channel GPS (Global Positioning System) with digital anti-jam receiver (DAR).


SYSTEMS

Other suppliers will include: ATK Composites - upper wing skins; Vought Aircraft Industries - lower wing skins; Smiths Aerospace - electronic control systems and electrical power system (with Hamilton Sundstrand), integrated canopy frame; Honeywell - landing system's wheels and brakes, onboard oxygen-generating system (OBOGS), engine components, power and thermal management system driven by integrated auxiliary power unit (APU); Parker Aerospace - fuel system, hydraulics for lift fan, primary flight control electrohydrostatic actuators (with Moog Inc), engine controls and accessories; EDO Corporation - pneumatic weapon delivery system; Goodrich - lift-fan anti-icing system; Stork Aerospace - electrical wiring.

PROPULSION

Early production lots of all three variants will be powered by the Pratt and Whitney afterburning turbofan F-135 engine, a derivative of the F119 fitted on the F-22. Following production aircraft will be powered by either the F135 or the F-136 turbofan being developed by General Electric and Rolls-Royce. Hamilton Sundstrand is providing the engine control system and gearbox.

On the F-35B, the engine is coupled with a shaft-driven lift fan system for STOVL propulsion. The lift fan has been developed by Rolls-Royce Defence. Doors installed above and below the vertical fan open as the fin spins up to provide vertical lift. The main engine has a three bearing swivelling exhaust nozzle. The nozzle, which is supplemented by two roll control ducts on the inboard section of the wing, together with the vertical lift fan provide the required STOVL capability.


To see the pics visit: http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/jsf/

So now USAF has F/A-22 for air superiority and F-35 as all purpose.

 

[SABRE]

Re: F-35 MULTIROLE JOINT FIGHTER

I saw this on BBC World (21/7/04)

Britain iss concerned over LockHead Martin's lack of response towards F-35 and more towards F/A-22

EDS goes back to drawing board to restart software for EF-2000

Dessault concerened after Mirage2000-5 pilot reports computerized glitchs. Glitch accoured in three different Mirage 2000-5 Jets when all three tried same battle tactic moves in the air. If the problem is in software all Mirage2000-5 sold to different countries will have to go under re-development of software.
The pilot said when the Jet was in super sonic speed it projected target at the wrong side and also projected Friendly Jets as target.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Re: F-35 MULTIROLE JOINT FIGHTER

I saw this on BBC World (21/7/04)

Britain iss concerned over LockHead Martin's lack of response towards F-35 and more towards F/A-22

I'm not sure why that would be so. Only four countries are deemed to be viable for F-22 selection, and only one of them can afford it (at this stage)

No one has pulled out of the F35, and the JSF is in all reality a cousin platform.

 

[Salman78]

JSF program is in some trouble at the moment because quite a few JSF partner nations are unhappy with the workshare. Norway is at the forefront and is threatening to abandon the programme and buy Typhoon or Gripen instead. similar concerns have been voice in recent months by denmark, and netherlands. All these 3 countries are level 3 partners in the programs with a minimum of $125 mil investment.

The stickeing point appears to be US concern about transferring sensitive technology abroad.

 

[gf0012-aust]

JSF program is in some trouble at the moment because quite a few JSF partner nations are unhappy with the workshare. Norway is at the forefront and is threatening to abandon the programme and buy Typhoon or Gripen instead. similar concerns have been voice in recent months by denmark, and netherlands. All these 3 countries are level 3 partners in the programs with a minimum of $125 mil investment.

The stickeing point appears to be US concern about transferring sensitive technology abroad.

Part of the issue of work sharing directly lies at fault with some of those countries. There has been an assumption that they automatically would be gifted with work. OTOH, those countries that went in hard and lobbied right from the outset have picked up quality work. To some extent (but not all) they are victims of their own inertia and political indolence. Buying a ticket to the dance doesn't guarantee that all the attractive girls are ready to dance with you. You still have to make effort, even if you have paid your money for entry. I've been through this issue with Australian companies who assumed that as we were considered a tier 1 ally, that we should automatically get the choice "cuts of meat". It doesn't work that way. IN Australia, those companies that quietly went in and lobbied vigorously picked up work - meanwhile the expectant "mothers" were still complaining as the pie was gradually eaten in front of them.

If they think that looking at the F-22 is an option then they are sorely misjudging things. The diff between the tech levels of the JSF to the F-22 is huge, and the 3 countries mentioned aren't part of the cohort deemed to be the most likely nations to be able to get access to F-22 when exports are considered.

As for the issue of tech transfer, the only nation that has exceptional accessare the Brits, and they distinctly paid for the pleasure of that. Again I'm not sure what they are really complaining about on tech transfer. Australia provides the US with Acoustic/Stealth sub Warfare management systems and even they don't get to see the whole datasets - its ours and we keep it - irrespective of the fact that they are our principle partner. The US accepts that. Just as we accept that not all the intricacies of weaps systems they own that we buy may be exposed to us.

 

[SABRE]

Re: F-35 MULTIROLE JOINT FIGHTER

Hmm. GF you are technicaly right but what Salman is saying is true. BBC world it self reported that. The partner nations are unhappy and r lookin 4ward to EF-2000 and Gripen. They have threatned to pull out. But this is not only because workshare but they along with Britian are saying that LockHead-Martin gives more importance to F-22 project than to F-35. Britain is the only country which does not want to see LockHead-M and any partner country loosing interest and parting the ways.
F-35 project is in trouble and might be delayed.

Meanwhile Gripen and typhoon have toped the list on european nations AFs.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Re: F-35 MULTIROLE JOINT FIGHTER

Hmm. GF you are technicaly right but what Salman is saying is true. BBC world it self reported that. The partner nations are unhappy and r lookin 4ward to EF-2000 and Gripen. They have threatned to pull out. But this is not only because workshare but they along with Britian are saying that LockHead-Martin gives more importance to F-22 project than to F-35. Britain is the only country which does not want to see LockHead-M and any partner country loosing interest and parting the ways.
F-35 project is in trouble and might be delayed.

Meanwhile Gripen and typhoon have toped the list on european nations AFs.

Personally I don't agree with the way the JSF process was done in Australia. We have had an orderly procurement process in the past. Considering the nature of our looming block obsolescence I would have thought that a staged introduction of type was better.

I would have liked to see a partial mix of F-15D's (AESA), Typhoons or Rafales for the strike role absorbed in line with the existing F-111 fleet (36 aircraft). That way we would have had mixed capability and not been restricted to one vendor. If the JSF is delayed (and the assumption with all aircraft development is that there will be a 20% slippage) then we still would have had Gen 4/4.5 capability. A late delivery would not impact so much. The JSF is part of the hi lo set for the F-22, so we need to consider our force mix on that basis.

Gripen doesn't meet our needs in a number of areas, so it was never a contender (and never factored in past the first cut of the consideration list)

There has been intermittent feedback that Australia (along with the UK, Israel and Japan) would be considered favourably if we wanted the F-22. I just think that for a country like us, the $$'s are better spent in another way.

Singapore in my view is taking a much more sensible approach.

 

[SABRE]

Re: F-35 MULTIROLE JOINT FIGHTER

I just dont understand. Australia is in no conflict zone. Mostly about 90% of the time they are out of any danger. Any attacks against Australian ppl happens in Indonaisa. Than y does Australia keep on building its army specially the air force. No western country will launch strike against Australia and no Eastern country has technology e.g: Careers to carry out strikes on Australia.
On the other hand Australia I think has started to make some enemies by sending its troops abroad. So why is Australia spending so much on defence?

If Australia needs Jets, then they should also get Tornados. More than half of the Australia is desert and Tornados are built to carry out strikes in desert region. Personaly I dont like the Jet but I think all the countries which have conflicts in deserted regions should buy it (I'll advice PAF to buy them aswell) but on the other hand JSF is said to better Jet to fight in desert region than Tornado (Its multi region fighter)

Country like Australia should have Jet technology of its own. Maybe a joint venture but they should hve a jet they can call it their own.

& GF what sensible approach has singpore taken. Please tell.

 

[SABRE]

Re: F-35 Multirole Joint Fighter

Another Problem arrives for JSF F-35


Weight worries push back F-35's first flight from late 2005 to no earlier than spring 2006


The F-35 joint strike fighter won't make its first flight in 2005 after all, Pentagon and Lockheed Martin officials concede, and a major rewrite of the program's timetable may be announced soon.

Months of work have failed to trim hundreds of unwanted pounds from the simplest of the three F-35 versions. So Pentagon officials have decided that more time is needed to solve the design challenges.

Lockheed spokesman John Kent confirmed Monday that the first flight of the F-35, which was to have occurred late in 2005, will not happen before spring 2006.

"A lot of that is the weight problems we're working with," Kent said.

In October 2001, when the team of Lockheed, Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems was awarded $19 billion to develop the F-35, Pentagon weapons chief E.C. "Pete" Aldridge expressed confidence that the first flight would occur by late 2005.

But the teams of engineers are having problems designing a family of aircraft to carry out three very different missions.

For nearly a year, Lockheed and its partners have been struggling to trim the weight of the aircraft to desired levels. An overweight aircraft is less maneuverable, has a shorter range and can carry less payload.

That means that the aircraft can't perform combat missions as well as expected.

The first flight isn't the only important milestone being delayed. A crucial design review scheduled for April, which was expected to result in approval of the majority of the aircraft's design work and decisions to begin building more parts and components, has been pushed back until spring 2005.

F-35 program spokeswoman Kathy Crawford said there will be an evaluation of how else aircraft weight can be reduced.

The development delays mean that fewer parts for prototype aircraft have been released for manufacturing, both in-house and by subcontractors, than originally planned, Kent said. "We're scrutinizing parts in more detail than before," looking for weight savings.

Lockheed, Northrop, BAE and key subcontractors employ more than 6,000 engineers and technicians, about 3,400 of them in Fort Worth, for the design work.

The Pentagon has said it expects to buy 2,600 F-35s over the next two decades, and many other countries are expected to order versions of the aircraft to replace their fighters. Britain has committed to buy at least 150.

Analysts say the JSF program still has solid support, both internally and politically, and is in no grave danger of being canceled. But schedule delays drive up the program's price.

In January, the Pentagon's budget office delayed by a year plans to buy the first F-35s and cut planned purchases for several years afterward to save $5 billion. The money was plugged into the development effort, which officials have said is about $7.5 billion over its original $33 billion budget.

Air Force Gen. Jack Hudson, the program director, is briefing senior Pentagon officials and leaders of the Air Force, Navy and Marines on the issues and discussing alternatives, Crawford said.

Options for restructuring the program include focusing on the Air Force's version of the F-35 first and putting off the Marine version, the most difficult, until later, Crawford said.

Engineers estimate that the Air Force version, the furthest along in the design process and the simplest to produce, is about 8 percent above its desired weight of 29,000 pounds, according to Lockheed spokesman Kent.

The other two versions are similarly overweight. The added weight means that the short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing version for the Marines, if built today, might not be able to fly as far as desired with a full load of fuel and weapons, according to Inside the Air Force, a defense newsletter.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Re: F-35 Multirole Joint Fighter

The Tornado is a bit old Saber, that's the problem we have with our air force at the moment, our newest combat platforms are 20+ years old. We prefer to acquire new aircraft rather than continualy upgrade old platforms, that's why we'll most likely be buying the F-35 JSF.

You are right we don't have any "direct" enemies, but it's a bit late once the shooting starts to go, "gee we could really use an airforce right about now"... The horse has already bolted as it were... The Australian Defence Force is maintained for the defence of Australia and possesses very little offensive capability. We don't spend all that much on defence either, btw. We only spend 1.9% of our GDP on defence. Much lower than many countries throughout the world...

Singapore has a requirement to replace it's A-4SU Skyhawks and F-5 Tigers, and has a project to replace same with either F-15E Strike Eagles, Eurofighter Typhoon or Dassault Rafale. Singapore is purchasing 20 or so within the next couple of years to replace the A-4's and will be making an additional purchase later on down the track to replace it's F-5's. This way it's capability is maintained by it's existing F-16's and F-5's while it's A-4's are being replaced. Australia is basically planning on replacing our whole fleet in "one fell swoop" A risky proposition to say the least...

 

[SABRE]

Re: F-35 Multirole Joint Fighter

The Tornado is a bit old Saber, that's the problem we have with our air force at the moment, our newest combat platforms are 20+ years old. We prefer to acquire new aircraft rather than continualy upgrade old platforms, that's why we'll most likely be buying the F-35 JSF.

You are right we don't have any "direct" enemies, but it's a bit late once the shooting starts to go, "gee we could really use an airforce right about now"... The horse has already bolted as it were... The Australian Defence Force is maintained for the defence of Australia and possesses very little offensive capability. We don't spend all that much on defence either, btw. We only spend 1.9% of our GDP on defence. Much lower than many countries throughout the world...

Singapore has a requirement to replace it's A-4SU Skyhawks and F-5 Tigers, and has a project to replace same with either F-15E Strike Eagles, Eurofighter Typhoon or Dassault Rafale. Singapore is purchasing 20 or so within the next couple of years to replace the A-4's and will be making an additional purchase later on down the track to replace it's F-5's. This way it's capability is maintained by it's existing F-16's and F-5's while it's A-4's are being replaced. Australia is basically planning on replacing our whole fleet in "one fell swoop" A risky proposition to say the least...

Read my previous link, F-35 just went into another problem. Do u think Australia should be eyeing a jet which keeps going into problems. You should get Typhoon, Gripen, Mirage2000-5,9,H,N or Rafale (At least for now).

You cant replace your entire 20 years old fleet in one sweep and that with just one jet F-35 its risky as u said. You are right abt Tornado but I think Typhoon or Gripen would give Ausi AF a gripping edge. Rafale would look good in Green and Yellow. BTW do u have mirage2000-5 or not I herd Australia was going to buy them.
(BTW what kind of AF NewZeland has?- its the only country that can easily strike Australia cause of its geograhic location, may be Indonesia too )

 

[gf0012-aust]

Re: F-35 Multirole Joint Fighter

The Typhoon could be considered but is unlikely due to embargo risk issues (France, Sweden and Germany have embargoed Australia in the past), the Gripen doesn't meet some of our performance parameters and the Rafale is unlikely as we have been subjected to embargoes by the French in the past. We would be unlikely to entertain the thought of buying a significant capital platform and be exposed again.

NZ has no combat fixed wing aircraft left. They sold some of their Skyhawks to Singapore, the rest ended up at Davis Monthan.

The problems that are being talked about for the JSF are really quite insignificant. If you take a look at the development history of the F4, F104, F111, F14, Tornado, Harrier (before the US bought the production rights), they had far greater teething problems and ended up as premier aircraft.

These gen 4.5 and gen 5 aircraft are far more complex and delays are expected. As I said before, we typically added 20% slippage to procurement processes - and that is normal in the west. Frances track record witrh the Rafale is actually worse, IIRC they are up to their 53rd significant change control - that's more control changes than aircraft in production.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Re: F-35 Multirole Joint Fighter

Australia currently only operates F-111's and F/A-18 A/B's in the air combat role. (We will also operate BAE Mk 127 Hawk's in a light strike/point air defence role once they are properly upgraded, though they won't be a frontline aircraft, more likely an "emergency" capability. They are currently only used for advanced lead in fighter training.) We've never acquired Mirage 2000-5, though we operated Mirage 111's prior to the introduction of our F/A-18's. Most of the Mirage's were sold to Pakistan. The rest in storage.

The powers that be (ie: the politicians) not the Airforce have decided that the F-35 is the jet Australia requires. Both sides of politics in Australia have publicly supported acquiring the F-35 JSF so the only real debate will seem to be the numbers, types etc. I'm aware of the problems with the F-35 and am far from convinced that it alone is the right and only choice for Australia, but the political decision seems to be made and that's pretty much it...

There IS starting to be a bit of talk about acquiring a mixed fleet of F-35A coventional take-off and landing JSF's and F-35B VSTOL JSF's to provide a bit more flexibility to our future force, but that may cause the usual hysterics about Australia and Aircraft carrier's (F-35B's could potentially operate off Australia's planned new 27,000 ton Amphibious warfare ships, so we'll have to wait and see about that.

Other than this, F/A-18's will be the main combat aircraft of the RAAF after 2010 (when the F-111 will be retired). Unless there is a major shift in our strategic circumstances or something dramatic happens to our existing fleet (ie: a previously unknown fault that permanently grounds the entire fleet for example...) Australia will not purchase another aircraft until F-35 JSF is ready. It has been considered that Australia would acquire F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets or F-15E Strike Eagles to fill in for our F-111's, but it was deemed too costly so we'll simply have to rely on the F-18 and hope no-one becomes angry with us... :help

New Zealand (NZ) would be the last Country to attack us, even if they wanted to. Their "socialist" Government decided that their fleet of 21 A-4 Skyhawks (their only combat aircraft) was a bit too warlike and scrapped the entire NZ air combat force!!! This leaves NZ with the only air defence capability in all of NZ as being 1x Battery (about 12 lanuchers) of Mistral, Very Short Range Surface to Air Missiles...

Incidentally this capability was only acquired when the United Nations told NZ in no uncertain terms it would have to provide it's own air defence in future after other countries had to protect New Zealand troops from air attack in Bosnia... NZDF now only operates P-3K Orions, C-130 Hercules, UH-1H Iroquois Helicopters, B-757 transporters and light training aircraft in it's "airforce" nowadays...

Indonesia could indeed strike Australia one day (though it lacks the capability to really do so at present) and would be the most likely reason for us to significantly upgrade our air force and indeed our defence forces overall. If Indonesia acquired it's planned 48 SU-30MK's and other capabilities such as air to air refuellers, stand-off attack missiles etc, you could well see further aircraft acquisitions by the RAAF to counteract this. Cheers.

 

[SABRE]

Re: F-35 Multirole Joint Fighter

Hmm. Now I believe that only country that can become threat to Australia is Indonesia cause of Australia's participation in east Timor's independence. But didnt Australia and Indonesia used to enjoy Friendly relationships. Dint u enjoyed close ties?
Why not rebuilt ties with Indonesia then wait for them to turn into even bitter enemies.

Also compare Indonesian AF capability with that of Australia. And will JSF put further pressure on Indonesia and Australia relation. Indonesia can see Australian army and AF's development as a threat.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Re: F-35 Multirole Joint Fighter

Hmm. Now I believe that only country that can become threat to Australia is Indonesia cause of Australia's participation in east Timor's independence. But didnt Australia and Indonesia used to enjoy Friendly relationships. Dint u enjoyed close ties?
Why not rebuilt ties with Indonesia then wait for them to turn into even bitter enemies.

Also compare Indonesian AF capability with that of Australia. And will JSF put further pressure on Indonesia and Australia relation. Indonesia can see Australian army and AF's development as a threat.

Sabre, Indonesias poor relationship with Australia has little to do with East Timor.

Australia has provided military training, military equipment, financial aide (we gave Indonesia $1bn to stabilise it's economy during the Asian financial crisis of the late 90's, we train their diplomatic staff at Australian Universities. We are at the moment providing Lawyers experienced in International and Constitutional Law to assist in rewriting their judicial system. In a twist of irony, both Indonesia current judiciary and Iraqs current senior adjudicators are rewriting or have rewritten their constitution by basing it on the Australian Constitution. We currently provide ethem with facilities to train them in proper modern forensics, we provide them with police training, and we assist in co-training Unit 81 of their Kopassus Special Forces. (Their CT unit). We have also donated this year $6m for establishing a modern immigration centre in the south to assist in dealing with refugee issues.

On the other hand, we also have a defence agreement with Malaysia and Singapore (along with the UK and NZ) to assist in protecting them as they have been attacked by Indonesia in the past.

We already liaise with every nation in our region (politically and militarily) about why we are buying and what we are buying - before we tell the Australian public. - No other nation in the world does that with it's regional neighbours

Preaching to us about how we should behave to the Indonesians is a bit rich when you look at the history between the 2 countries. I suggest that you read some history books. Or maybe speak to Awang Se about how Indonesia gets along with his country as well (a fellow islamic state which has not been able to realise the benefits of peaceful co-existence)

Iraq and Indonesia have the dubious honour of being Islamic regimes that have actually waged war on a fellow Islamic country. Australias role with respect to Indonesia has been to assist in the protection of fellow Commonwealth countries. Your comment about East Timor demonstrates that you have little knowledge of much more deeper historical issues.

No nation will abandon it's inherent right to protect itself - and when you consider the aide that has been provided to Indonesia by Australia - even in times of crisis, you can start to understand why some Australians are a little contemptuous of people who question our motives and our right to protect ourselves.

To say that Indonesia sees Australias military structure as a threat says more about the incompetence of their military analysis about our force structure than anything else. Only a fool and complete congenital idiot would see Australias ORBAT as offensive and capable of waging intercontinental war.

 

[SABRE]

Re: F-35 Multirole Joint Fighter

cool down mate, u miss understood me. U r right I dnt knw much abt Australia+Indonesia history. Its just that I have seen Australians being crtitcs towards Indonesia. Few words from John HArward on BBC that did not favor Indonesia.

Warwith Indonesia is nothing but bogus talk we r havin here. Its just that Aussi Digger said that Indonesia can strike Australia one day and that is also a pretended asumption.

Now lets stick to the topic JSF F-35 & Australia's interests init. Ok. Cool, Chill

 

[XEROX]

What is the view of John Howard, from the aussies in DEFENCETALK??

I have seen him talk on tv, he seems to be very arogant, then again im not australian and now dumpty about australian poitics!!

 

[gf0012-aust]

Re: F-35 Multirole Joint Fighter

cool down mate, u miss understood me. U r right I dnt knw much abt Australia+Indonesia history. Its just that I have seen Australians being crtitcs towards Indonesia. Few words from John HArward on BBC that did not favor Indonesia.

Warwith Indonesia is nothing but bogus talk we r havin here. Its just that Aussi Digger said that Indonesia can strike Australia one day and that is also a pretended asumption.

Now lets stick to the topic JSF F-35 & Australia's interests init. Ok. Cool, Chill

Sabre, I wasn't getting cranky at you - in fact I've just had a few days dealing with "lefty" analysts who seem to think that australians should go to Indonesia, give them all a big "hug" and everything will be fine. :? Plus I have some personal exposure to this as one of my cousins married an East Timorese, so I know what the Indon military and militia did to the local villagers and women. I have also seen maps provided by the locals where the Indon military had marked off the north of Australia as Indonesian territory - where they were hoping to forcibly move the Acehnese and Balinese. - It wasn't official, but official enough to be disturbing.

Politicians will usually make speeches to downplay any hostility - as they should and as is their job - to calm down any ruffled feathers and try to keep everyone happy and content. The reality is that if you poked most australian military personnel hard enough, they would start to acknowledge that the likelihood of Australian going to war with Indonesia is probably more inevitable than not. But, the conflict is not based on religion, it is however based on an emerging notion within some of their military that they can build a Javan Empire. As "wild" and outlandish as that may seem, it does unfortunately have some relevancy and currency.

The majority of our wargames are geared against an enemy that suspiciously looks and acts like Indonesia - we just don't use the "I" word in conversations.

Our force structure (including the JSF's) is designed to deal with the Su-30 and S-300 threat that may occur if Indonesia. It's why our forces are designed to be involved with long range strike, long range detection - it's also why when Konfrontassi and East Timor occurred, we would have bombed Jakarta and targets in their Western-most provinces if it was essential to sending a message to the rogue elements of the Indonesian military to "calm down".

The F-35 is definitely part of the long range strike capability we seek, and that is also why F-15D's and F-22's have never totally been factored out of the purchase equation either. Australia is one of the four nations that the US Govt has indicated it would listen "favourably" to if there was a fundamental requirement to obtain a version of the F-22.

But, as I said b4, I'm not having a shot at you, but I have little time for some "professional" arm chair analysts when they make comments and don't know the subject matter. If I was angry at you I wouldn't bother to try and make such a detailed explanation of the topic.

Believe me, when I'm getting cranky - you'll be able to work it out fairly quickly. :smokingc:

 

[umair]

I agree with AD, it's better to be prepared for anything.Afterall a penny's worth of prevention is worth more than a pound's worth of cure.
I really do think RAAF should have opted for the F-15 instead of the Hornets.The Eagles would have provided you with the best airdefence fighter in the world at that time(correct me if I'm wrong, but did'nt u'r hornet deliveries start in 1981-82).A wait of a few years (till 1988) would have then allowed you to replace the Ardvarks with early production Strike Eagles. These aircraft would not only have given you a long lasting edge in the region, but with continous upgrades be kept in service till 2015 or round about(till the JSFs came).But then again hindsight is a gift we enjoy not the guys who plan for the future.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Re: F-35 Multirole Joint Fighter

I myself have argued this very point Umair. As you say it's history now, but ADF planners felt the F-15 would be out of production in the future (and hence difficult to support...) and was too expensive. We began to receive our F/A-18's in 84/85 as I recall and had an IOC in 86/87 I think... The RAAF would have been far better off IMHO with F-15C/D and F-15E Strike Eagle rather than F-18/F-111, but it didn't happen... Hopefully things will improve with the acquisition of the F-35 JSF, but I doubt it...

Indonesia feels a strong sense of resentment towards Australia, but I'd like to ask what we did wrong? First of all Indonesia invaded East Timor about 25 years ago anyway in a similar set of circumstances to Iraq/Kuwait... When the world finally gets serious due to human rights attrocities committed by Indonesian forces against East Timorese people and demands Indonesia withdraws, pro-indo militia begin to wage civil war against their own people.

Australia leads an Indonesian supported (politically at least) UN "intervention" force, which was established at the UN's direction, to save the civilians from a very widespread slaughter which was to some degree tolerated if not outright supported by the Indonesian military and suddenly Australia is the bad guy? Excuse me if I don't understand what we did wrong...

Incidents such as the "border contact" between Australian and Indonesian forces were entirely Indonesian fault. The Indonesian military opened fire on soldiers of 2RAR because the Indonesian commanders were using maps dating back to the early 1950's, and didn't know where the border was!!! The Indonesian's "thought" Aussie troops were "invading" West Timor due to their outdated maps, yet it's our fault... (Btw, Indonesian military opened fire on Australian troops and copped the worse of the contact with 3 confirmed Indonesia KIA and numerous unconfirmed versus no Australian killed or wounded and again it's all Australia's fault!!!

Or you could mention the time that armed Indonesia F-16's intercepted unarmed Australian F/A-18's (in international airspace, mind you, something that USED to be considered an act of war) whilst the F/A-18's were enroute to Malaysia for an exercise!!! The Indonesian's had been notified of this and had given their understanding and approval (not that it was needed), but the local air force commander decided to intercept them anyway... Maybe that was Australia's fault as well? Lucky the F/A-18's weren't armed or things might have gone down hill...

I'm not an apologist for Indonesia at all. I have no beef with Indonesia other than their rather less than neighbourly attitude towards us and the acts they do towards us, but some people seem to think they can do no wrong. I don't understand this attitude...

I never said Indonesia "would" strike Australia, I meant that Indonesia was physically close enough to make it a potential "enemy" that "COULD" strike Australia. They DO currently have plans to acquire a strike capability that would possess sufficient ability to strike targets in Australia.