F-35 Multirole Joint Strike Fighter

[gf0012-aust]

People will keep doubting its capabilties until they actually see it. whats needed is to put the aircraft out there at shows like Farnborough and dubai/Singapore. maybe make a mix f-22/f-35 show of force at red flag show people its capabilites then you will get silence.

seriously? you think that militaries make their procurement decisions based on airshows - and on what the general public think?

we employ professionals because they know their craft.

if we went the general public route we've had an absolute force mismatch and a capability more useful for warhammer rather than considered warfighting

 

[jack412]

GF, I think you misread the meaning, I think concerned meant that that the critics will desist when the plane is demonstrated

concerned, I think they will just shift their focus, they have backed themselves into a corner and invested a sense of self into their writings, it would be like cutting off an arm to acknowledge anything different



Lockheed Martin will address the Joint Standing Committee today and should be worth watching
5:45PM - 6:45PM AEDT
Watch Parliament – Parliament of Australia

 

[gf0012-aust]

GF, I think you misread the meaning, I think concerned meant that that the critics will desist when the plane is demonstrated

can't see it myself. the zealots have been so rabidly opposed that they have no exit option.

the general public can be clueless on issues like this. eg look at the letters to the editor in the australian today. sigh sigh and sigh

concerned, I think they will just shift their focus, they have backed themselves into a corner and invested a sense of self into their writings, it would be like cutting off an arm to acknowledge anything different

yep, CREF above.

the project is not without criticsim, but there is a paucity of balanced criticism from the zealots.

and then they wonder why they're regarded as diehard loons

 

[Milne Bay]

The features that the F-35 has that make it so attractive to professional analysts and to the militaries that have ordered it, will not be visible at an air show.
Neither will they be spoken about.
For Joe public, the F-35 may well look inferior at an airshow, as it can't do the lie on its back trick of the Sukhoi, and doesn't have thrust vectoring.
It won't go supersonic at an airshow so won't display supercruise. It won't be loaded with external weaponry, so looks meek compared to macho designs with 13 wing hardpoints armed to the hilt etc etc

Having said all that, I would love to see one at an airshow.

 

[StobieWan]

You can't win on the pylons thing - if you take one to an airshow and hang pylons on it, the cry of "see, no stealth" will come up. If you leave the pylons off, it'll be "see, no weapons".

As Gf says, we're at the entrenched position where even if it goes into service ticking all the boxes, it'll still be a failure.

For an example, Boyd, Sprey et al were giving interviews just before Desert Storm 1, in which they were vividly describing how the coalition fighters were too heavy, too complicated, using unreliable weapons and how the casualty figures would look like a cast list of extras at a Cecille B DeMille flick.

History records the US led coalition totally stomped Iraq flat despite the massive handicap of all those complicated F15's and stuff. Did the Boyd/Sprey crowd shut up? Nope, they're still there today, saying the same crap about the F35.

Doesn't matter what you do and engaging them is pointless.

 

[the concerned]

i thought that airshows like ''farnbourough and ''dubai'' are buyers markets not jo public airshows so it would be a different kind of person looking at the system.

 

[gf0012-aust]

i thought that airshows like ''farnbourough and ''dubai'' are buyers markets not jo public airshows so it would be a different kind of person looking at the system.

they are dog and pony shows. irrespective that the first 3 days are defence and trade only and the gates open up later

the only time they get serious is when they have to respond to the statements of work and requirement in an RFT

airshows are just car shows where the cars have wings and rotors

 

[SpudmanWP]

I missed the last AU meeting at:

[20/03/2012 5:45PM - 6:45PM AEDT Joint Standing Committee: Foreign Affairs, Defence & Trade (Department of Defence annual report 2010-11)]

Did anyone get the transcripts or recording?

 

[jack412]

the transcripts will be released soon, mostly it was our local naysayers [APA etc.] getting slapped
LM said in effect that they are sorry they couldn't answer some of Dr Jensen's questions because of security and it was up to the Gov/ADF to give a confidential briefing to him
All the data has been provided to the partners

One new thing to me was that with 4 blue/8 red, the LER has been adjusted from 3:1 to 6:1/6 red 1 blue, due to more being known and the results of system sims and piloted sims, which all the partners participate in with future threats.
Although LM couldn't name the threats, it would be naive to think the system event didn't include su-35/pak/j-20 they said

 

[SpudmanWP]

Thanks - Did they say what the Reds were composed of?

 

[jack412]

you are too quick for me , I did an edit while you were posting

edit, i will clean it up more, the full transcript should only be a couple of days

 

[SpudmanWP]

I do not think that the Pak-Fa and J-20 were included because, for the save of intellectual honesty, not enough is known about them.

 

[jack412]

It was a systems event, I guess US defense think know more than we think they do or have publicly said, I don't know what US does, but I think australia forecasts in 20 yr blocks as to what is termed future.
it wasn't a 4 vs 8 dogfight and going by SLD interviews with USMC, AEGIS will do some offboard shooting too

 

[B3LA]

GAO-12-525T, Mar 20, 2012

I think the GAO sums it up pretty good :

U.S. GAO - Joint Strike Fighter: Restructuring Added Resources and Reduced Risk, but Concurrency Is Still a Major Concern

That only 4% of the software has been verified so far is alarming.
Our boys will be flying around for years in hardware that can't fully
be used as it was designed to...

 

[SpudmanWP]

That was designed that way. The SDD program was designed from the start to run concurrently with development, training, and operations.

btw, 4% verified is not the same as 4% written as flight tests are verifying more code every time they go up.

 

[jack412]

I think the GAO sums it up pretty good :

U.S. GAO - Joint Strike Fighter: Restructuring Added Resources and Reduced Risk, but Concurrency Is Still a Major Concern

That only 4% of the software has been verified so far is alarming.
Our boys will be flying around for years in hardware that can't fully
be used as it was designed to...

mate, you misread what the 4% is, would you like to reread and correct your post?

 

[B3LA]

mate, you misread what the 4% is, would you like to reread and correct your post?

My apology. Here is the text from the report :

"Management and development of the more than 24 million lines of software code continue to be of concern and late software releases have delayed testing and training. Development of the critical mission systems that give the JSF its core combat capabilities remains behind schedule and risky. To date, only 4 percent of the mission system requirements for full capability has been verified."

 

[jack412]

Thanks for that but no need for an apology to me, it just gave a false impression to the forum on what was said, becuase as to "all software", I think it's 80%

I don't know about the "Our boys will be flying around for years in hardware that can't fully be used as it was designed to" because it then said...
"Testing of a fully integrated JSF aircraft is now expected in 2015 at the earliest."

 

[Air Force Brat]

GF it's great for Australia that the currency situation helped to cushion the price increase. My concern, however, is centered upon the actual cost for the 2,374 the US is planned to purchase. The average projected unit flyaway is now $120 million, as shown in the current FY13 Budgets. The A's are $112 million.

Now frankly if the cost is the same $67 million (I'll assume REC) for Australia as projected 5 years ago that's great but for the US the cost has risen very considerably. It's a matter of debate if the current cost projections will impact the overall buy and I'd argue probably not. The issue is the future cost increase. At some point price will impact the total buy assuming we're not there already.

The other area of concern is the decade old USAF 1,763 total buy. That's not going to happen given current and future force structure reductions together with the certainty that one or more USAF strike wings will be flying a fighter sized UCAS instead of the F-35. The numbers will be far closer to 1,300 for 12 wings and could fall as low as 1,100 for 10. It's difficult to see the cost for the US for the A's to not end up north of $120 million unit flyaway.

My other comments on supporters of the program being critical were not aimed at anyone in particular. There does seem to be a tendency to lump all criticism into the crazy camp which is amplified on various discussion forums.

I would agree, and when Admiral Ventlet states the cost will suck the wind out of your lungs, as the program director thats not really how you pick up sales, his concern is valid, especially given the delayed buys which will drive up everyones cost, hes trying to give us all a heads up!

 

[jack412]

I would agree, and when Admiral Ventlet states the cost will suck the wind out of your lungs, as the program director thats not really how you pick up sales, his concern is valid, especially given the delayed buys which will drive up everyones cost, hes trying to give us all a heads up!

What cost was he referring too?
How many of the partner and FMS planes will be bought during this announced delay buy period?