F-35 Multirole Joint Strike Fighter

[Bonza]

Beatmaster:

I do not care if that APA page is faulty

If you have no interest in the credibility of a page, then please don't quote it as a source. I'm not having a go at the rest of your post as I think I see what you're trying to say (even if I disagree), but I think it'd be a good idea to get a feel for what sources are out there that provide decent commentary before quoting them, and Air Power Australia is anything but. It's not your fault for not knowing that, but please take it on board. Cheers mate.

 

[Beatmaster]

@admk2

Aha, so with 25% of the 7000+ flight tests in the program done, 80% of the software completed and flying today, with the static load testing completed, the radar cross section testing completed and all the sensor and EW systems in testing on production aircraft now (radar, EOTS, DAS, EW etc) and weapons testing in it's esrly stages, not to mention fixed price contracts being signed there is no "clear data" for this aircraft available to customers eh?

Fixed costs?
(Novum) - Minister van Defensie Hans Hillen is boos over de gestegen kosten van de Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). Hij heeft de Amerikaanse ambassadeur laten weten dat hij 'grote moeite' heeft met de kostenoverschrijding van twintig procent die vorige week bekend werd. Dat zei hij woensdag in de Tweede Kamer.

"Hier staat een boze afnemer", zei Hillen. Hij sluit niet uit dat de gestegen kosten kunnen leiden tot de aanschaf van minder dan de voorgenomen 85 toestellen. Het besluit daarover is nog niet genomen. Hillen gaat de Kamer komend voorjaar informeren over het verdere verloop van het project rond de aanschaf van een nieuw gevechtsvliegtuig.

Premier Mark Rutte liet vrijdag tijdens zijn wekelijkse persconferentie al weten dat Nederland 'niet met de JSF getrouwd is'. Rutte zei geen spijt te hebben dat zijn kabinet heeft ingestemd met de aanschaf van een tweede testtoestel. Maar dat betekent niet dat de JSF automatisch de F-16 gaat vervangen.

20% extra costs on top of the fixed prize contracts....right...nfloorl:
Short said the data is not clear cut and is still changing.

Perhaps that's why they appointed a serious person to that job, Adm Venlet, under whom the project has stabilised enormously and is delivering real results in testing and production at an increasing rate.

Great fantastic....and i honestly hope that it will be sorted and i hope that the program and the end product is going to be a smashing success.
But for now Adm Venlet has enough changes to make to root out all the problems.

Some might say those people are counting chickens before they've hatched too. Given the near daily update of new testing, new airframes getting into the air for the first time, new bases and squadrons turning up and so on, it looks like the project is proceeding full steam ahead to me.

Failed? I didn't know it had even been completed...

Alright i redraw my words as i said before in the previous reply that i did not know that AVA is a " bad" page.
But can we agree upon the fact that the Debate around the JSF is growing and that doubts are rising?

US, UK, Netherlands, Turkey, Italy, Israel and Australia have already signed contracts for the JSF. That is 7 out of the 11 current nations committed to JSF. The rest have committed to it in favour of other types.

This "bulk of the nations have second thoughts" idea of yours is just wrong. Utterly and completely wrong.

Partly true, the Netherlands only bought 2 test birds and did not make a final deal yet.
As minister Hans Hillen said: If the Netherlands would redraw now from the JSF project it would only cost 260 million and options to other consortium's will be open again it did not sign a final contract.
And if i remember correctly some other nations did not sign a final contract either.

 

[Beatmaster]

Beatmaster:

I do not care if that APA page is faulty

If you have no interest in the credibility of a page, then please don't quote it as a source. I'm not having a go at the rest of your post as I think I see what you're trying to say (even if I disagree), but I think it'd be a good idea to get a feel for what sources are out there that provide decent commentary before quoting them, and Air Power Australia is anything but. It's not your fault for not knowing that, but please take it on board. Cheers mate.

Sorry buddy, i wrote that in the heat of the topic.
I honestly did not know that the APA page is bad and for that i am sorry.
And yes i do care about if a source is credible.

 

[Air Force Brat]

QUOTE=Cadredave;243113]Please who are the potential buyers that have been scared away? and since when have you seen the Classified data that those countries Airforces / Navies have had access too.

Uhhmmm who said i have seen classified data? Not me.
About those potential buyers JSFNieuws.nl
Or would you prefer the official dutch government webpage?
As that one is even more skeptic about the JSF. Infact the advise has been given to drop the whole JSF project......and the Netherlands is not the only nation who seriously has question marks with the whole JSF thing as is being pointed out in official government letters who are public accessible .

So whats so different between this bird and the developmental F22, could say the same thing about the A400M having the same problems with poor management which has been fixed now for both aircraft.

Personally i hope the JSF problems get fixed thats not the argument here.


And who are these some (APA, Aviation weekly) Saab, EF, Rafael, Boeing?

So what you are saying? everyone is wrong you are right?
I do not care if that APA page is faulty (Which i did not know btw) but i assume that where smoke is is fire, and yes there are skeptic hawks left and right i will not deny that but if i look purely here in the Netherlands the amount problems around the JSF that is being released and the huge debate that is going on about the JSF programs costs, delivery and technical specifications then its not unreasonable to say that Saab, EF, Rafael might make a move again to sell their product if the JSF program keeps failing and keeps causing doubts.
As you probably know the first 2 JSF's have been delivered to the Netherlands and they are being tested as we speak and so far it seems that the JSF does not even come close to what is promised, and that is the biggest issue next to the increasing costs.
And this is exactly the point why its such a huge debate here in the Netherlands.
So are you right? and I am wrong? Or vice Versa does not matter here....


To back up your argument you have used the laughing stock of Australia have you really bothered to read what APA has written im a soldier but even I can see the major flaws in there argument and dont ask me to point out which one as there are so many to start with.

Ohh sorry? well in that case try the official dutch government web page if it makes you feel better, or Reuters I am sure that you will find several sources that are credible enough for your liking....i am not even going to bother with this..


Wheres the Official withdrawal from these back room projects are you part of them because you seem to be talking with some authority.

Again do not twist my words, and please leave the " you seem" as i seem nothing.
Just read what i said.

And officially most partners (regardless of level) still supporting the project but most of them have second thoughts about the program and even talk in the back rooms about either redrawing from the project.
And yes amongst the JSF partners there is serious debate going on.
And because i do not know which web page is crap and which page is solid so i limit my comments to the data that comes from our dutch government. (As its credible enough for me) and there the internal notes and official letters are being published and are online available also the news itself is pretty clear with the conclusions about the JSF program.


These are all known faults everyone acknowledges that what your not acknowledging is the core changes to project management etc that have got this project back on track.

Thats bull m8.
As i said before the JSF will be one evil bird and i hope things get sorted.
However the JSF program is hanging in the balance here.
Do you not read the news? Personally i would not know if the JSF is just as hot topic in the US as it is here in the Netherlands but i can tell you this that here in the Netherlands there is a real debate going on about the JSF and its short comings and Minister Hillen has asked its US counter part to explain himself as even our dutch JSF fan mister Hillen (As he has been a JSF friend from the start) even he seems not able anymore to justify the JSF anymore....
Now that is a fact...

And here another news link

Again have a look at the developmental history of the F22 or more recent how about the A400M.

True yes i will not deny that.
Every program has problems.
But fact remains that the JSF is bigger, more partners involved, more risks and thus in a league of its own, and cannot be compared to the F-22.


So which one is it one hand your running the programme down and the next you think it will be a evil bird.?

I do not run the program down, i just limit myself to the facts.
(Lvl 2 partner) The Netherlands releases official data on their official webpages so those pages are verified sources agree?
Its all there.......


naturally as there is a big difference between a 4 gen fighter and a 5 gen like F35/F22.

Yes there is a big difference and i never said it was not.
However in the beginning it was said that the JSF would offer all kinds of goodies that others did not, But now a couple of years later this is not true anymore.
And i do not want to claim that the JSF is good or bad here but the info available indicates that those technical details from the JSF are not as good as the JSF was believed to be: Source

I have yet to see any of those countries Air Forces or Navies come out and say STOP this is not the right aircraft for us lets stay with our 4 gen aircraft.

True till this moment, but you cannot deny that there is debate going about the JSF.

Really So the RAAF,RAF,USAF,USMC,USN, JASDF, IDF, just to name a few are going to stay with a legacy platform and Saab, Rafael, & EF are going to get another crack at it Beat your true colours have shone thru ive heard alot of Politician’s trying to point score but not one of the subject matter authorities in all those countries has come out to endorse what you are saying and to be honest I think ill believe what they have to say over you.

If you think my tone is sarcarstic then your be right your post is directly out of the APA 101 play book getting tired of the same OLD argument being trotted out as fact.

Dude. you on crack? (Kidding)
I am not a politician and god forbid i never will nfloorl:
My true colors? lmao first of all i am not against the JSF, and if my country where to get it then so be it as its a good bird.
But you and me cannot deny the fact that the JSF program and its organization has failed time after time again.
You have to understand that i am sure that in time all the problems with the JSF will be fixed and that the end product will be just as good as it is claimed to be.

And if i have to limit myself to at least one solid source then ill put my money on my own governments webpages and news releases regarding the JSF.
But the latest releases about the JSF are not very promising.
And do not expect me to link all the notes and official releases from the official dutch government page as it would make the topic HUGE.
But i guarantee that IF the Netherlands would redraw from the JSF project as the " Eerste Kamer" has advised then more will follow and the other consortium's will probably try to sell their product again (SAAB, EF, Rafale)
(Ps i am not saying that the Netherlands are going to redraw but at this very point its being discussed and virtually everyone is against the JSF within the dutch government or is shifting towards the NO side.
However minister Hillen seems to keep the project alive.
And he did ask the danish and Norway to enter the program as well.
Now if the dutch government would vote against the JSF (Which is still a serious thing as no final verdict has been given yet about the JSF (Will happen probably next term) then others might drop out as well.
Now i am sorry about the APA 101 playbook page i did not know it was a NOT-Credible source.


And on a personal note, i do understand what you are trying to say and forgive me if i did give you the " wrong" idea here and to some degree i can agree to your points.
But that does not change the fact that the latest releases of news and data seem to be very negative about the JSF.
And what the reason for this is i do not know as on paper its a good bird.
But the many doubts about the program, costs, delivery and so on seem to be a major factor of all the problems.
And this might cause the whole project to fail in the long run, denying that or putting that risk away is just unreal and short sighted imo.
CD

First off Beat welcome aboard, glad to have you on this thread, very interesting discussions at times. As you have noted there remains a great concern about the F-35 and its costs and capabilities, and it seems that you stepped into the "stuff" right up front as did I. I sincerly hope you stick around as there remains a lot to be learned. In fact the Air Force Magazine posted some comments from retired Air Force Chief of Staff, Gen Ronald Fogleman as he addressed the AFAs Mitchell Institute for Airpower Studies, in Arlington, Virginia on Wednesday, 11 April, 2012, this quote from their daily report, 12 April, 2012.

Gen Fogleman stated he's worried that "the Air Force has placed all its eggs in one basket" by embracing the F-35 Strike Fighter "so completely." "I have no doubt that someday the F-35 will be a marvelous airplane." But "I don't think our Air Force can wait" until then. He said he doesn't think the Air Force will ever buy the F-35 in the numbers it has planned {the program of record is for 1,763]."Thats the first thing that nobody will admit, but its kind of a universal truth," he said." "As soon as F-35 unit reductions come, the aircrafts price is going to go crazy" asserted Fogleman. "By the time it becomes obvious in about eight to ten years that the F-35 plan, won't play out, "then it will be to late," and the production lines for "several pretty good legacy fighters- the F-15, F-16, and F/A 18E/F-will be shuttered.The Super Hornet should be in the potential mix even though "heaven forbid, the Air Force would ever buy a Navy airplane, said Fogleman.

He had more to say, and I believe the Air Force Magazine has a link to his full speech on their site.

 

[SpudmanWP]

That kind of attitude generates a self-fulfilling prophesy: F-35 numbers are going to be reduced, so we should buy more F-18s, F-15s, etc now, which will lead to F-35 numbers being reduced, which means we should buy more F-18s, F-15s, etc now, which will lead to F-35 numbers being reduced, and so on and so on.......

4th gen is no longer valid in tomorrow's battlefield. It's time to let them go.

 

[Cadredave]

QUOTE=Cadredave;243113]Please who are the potential buyers that have been scared away? and since when have you seen the Classified data that those countries Airforces / Navies have had access too.

Uhhmmm who said i have seen classified data? Not me.
About those potential buyers JSFNieuws.nl
Or would you prefer the official dutch government webpage?
As that one is even more skeptic about the JSF. Infact the advise has been given to drop the whole JSF project......and the Netherlands is not the only nation who seriously has question marks with the whole JSF thing as is being pointed out in official government letters who are public accessible .

So whats so different between this bird and the developmental F22, could say the same thing about the A400M having the same problems with poor management which has been fixed now for both aircraft.

Personally i hope the JSF problems get fixed thats not the argument here.


And who are these some (APA, Aviation weekly) Saab, EF, Rafael, Boeing?

So what you are saying? everyone is wrong you are right?
I do not care if that APA page is faulty (Which i did not know btw) but i assume that where smoke is is fire, and yes there are skeptic hawks left and right i will not deny that but if i look purely here in the Netherlands the amount problems around the JSF that is being released and the huge debate that is going on about the JSF programs costs, delivery and technical specifications then its not unreasonable to say that Saab, EF, Rafael might make a move again to sell their product if the JSF program keeps failing and keeps causing doubts.
As you probably know the first 2 JSF's have been delivered to the Netherlands and they are being tested as we speak and so far it seems that the JSF does not even come close to what is promised, and that is the biggest issue next to the increasing costs.
And this is exactly the point why its such a huge debate here in the Netherlands.
So are you right? and I am wrong? Or vice Versa does not matter here....


To back up your argument you have used the laughing stock of Australia have you really bothered to read what APA has written im a soldier but even I can see the major flaws in there argument and dont ask me to point out which one as there are so many to start with.

Ohh sorry? well in that case try the official dutch government web page if it makes you feel better, or Reuters I am sure that you will find several sources that are credible enough for your liking....i am not even going to bother with this..


Wheres the Official withdrawal from these back room projects are you part of them because you seem to be talking with some authority.

Again do not twist my words, and please leave the " you seem" as i seem nothing.
Just read what i said.

And officially most partners (regardless of level) still supporting the project but most of them have second thoughts about the program and even talk in the back rooms about either redrawing from the project.
And yes amongst the JSF partners there is serious debate going on.
And because i do not know which web page is crap and which page is solid so i limit my comments to the data that comes from our dutch government. (As its credible enough for me) and there the internal notes and official letters are being published and are online available also the news itself is pretty clear with the conclusions about the JSF program.


These are all known faults everyone acknowledges that what your not acknowledging is the core changes to project management etc that have got this project back on track.

Thats bull m8.
As i said before the JSF will be one evil bird and i hope things get sorted.
However the JSF program is hanging in the balance here.
Do you not read the news? Personally i would not know if the JSF is just as hot topic in the US as it is here in the Netherlands but i can tell you this that here in the Netherlands there is a real debate going on about the JSF and its short comings and Minister Hillen has asked its US counter part to explain himself as even our dutch JSF fan mister Hillen (As he has been a JSF friend from the start) even he seems not able anymore to justify the JSF anymore....
Now that is a fact...

And here another news link

Again have a look at the developmental history of the F22 or more recent how about the A400M.

True yes i will not deny that.
Every program has problems.
But fact remains that the JSF is bigger, more partners involved, more risks and thus in a league of its own, and cannot be compared to the F-22.


So which one is it one hand your running the programme down and the next you think it will be a evil bird.?

I do not run the program down, i just limit myself to the facts.
(Lvl 2 partner) The Netherlands releases official data on their official webpages so those pages are verified sources agree?
Its all there.......


naturally as there is a big difference between a 4 gen fighter and a 5 gen like F35/F22.

Yes there is a big difference and i never said it was not.
However in the beginning it was said that the JSF would offer all kinds of goodies that others did not, But now a couple of years later this is not true anymore.
And i do not want to claim that the JSF is good or bad here but the info available indicates that those technical details from the JSF are not as good as the JSF was believed to be: Source

I have yet to see any of those countries Air Forces or Navies come out and say STOP this is not the right aircraft for us lets stay with our 4 gen aircraft.

True till this moment, but you cannot deny that there is debate going about the JSF.

Really So the RAAF,RAF,USAF,USMC,USN, JASDF, IDF, just to name a few are going to stay with a legacy platform and Saab, Rafael, & EF are going to get another crack at it Beat your true colours have shone thru ive heard alot of Politician’s trying to point score but not one of the subject matter authorities in all those countries has come out to endorse what you are saying and to be honest I think ill believe what they have to say over you.

If you think my tone is sarcarstic then your be right your post is directly out of the APA 101 play book getting tired of the same OLD argument being trotted out as fact.

Dude. you on crack? (Kidding)
I am not a politician and god forbid i never will nfloorl:
My true colors? lmao first of all i am not against the JSF, and if my country where to get it then so be it as its a good bird.
But you and me cannot deny the fact that the JSF program and its organization has failed time after time again.
You have to understand that i am sure that in time all the problems with the JSF will be fixed and that the end product will be just as good as it is claimed to be.

And if i have to limit myself to at least one solid source then ill put my money on my own governments webpages and news releases regarding the JSF.
But the latest releases about the JSF are not very promising.
And do not expect me to link all the notes and official releases from the official dutch government page as it would make the topic HUGE.
But i guarantee that IF the Netherlands would redraw from the JSF project as the " Eerste Kamer" has advised then more will follow and the other consortium's will probably try to sell their product again (SAAB, EF, Rafale)
(Ps i am not saying that the Netherlands are going to redraw but at this very point its being discussed and virtually everyone is against the JSF within the dutch government or is shifting towards the NO side.
However minister Hillen seems to keep the project alive.
And he did ask the danish and Norway to enter the program as well.
Now if the dutch government would vote against the JSF (Which is still a serious thing as no final verdict has been given yet about the JSF (Will happen probably next term) then others might drop out as well.
Now i am sorry about the APA 101 playbook page i did not know it was a NOT-Credible source.


And on a personal note, i do understand what you are trying to say and forgive me if i did give you the " wrong" idea here and to some degree i can agree to your points.
But that does not change the fact that the latest releases of news and data seem to be very negative about the JSF.
And what the reason for this is i do not know as on paper its a good bird.
But the many doubts about the program, costs, delivery and so on seem to be a major factor of all the problems.
And this might cause the whole project to fail in the long run, denying that or putting that risk away is just unreal and short sighted imo.
CD

mate your whole argument would of been taken seriously by us if you had of provided credible sources and using APA to justify your POV that post did not help your case.

Im a soldier I dont care to much about air power until I have to call it in, however I can see when a platform like this comes along it is going to be a game changer so either your country gets on the bus or gets left behind.

And i will say it again no current Head of Air Force or Navy involved with this aircraft is saying to there respective Governments to pull out. Take the senate hearings that were held by Australia which are in this thread posted by others,

There are multiple post on here for those for or against those for have acknowledged that the programme start and early years was a unmitigated disaster no hidding the truth about that, but those against keep bringing up the same tired arguments exactly like you have to justify why this programme should be killed off and those against like APA have hidden agendas to push same with Politians from those same 11 countries involved.

Now how long do you think those 4 gen aircraft are going to survive in the latter half of this century now your country has every right to withdraw but I dont see that ocurring but if they did those slots will be taken up by others pretty quickly.

im not going to reply point for point as I can see you wrote it when the red mist was before your eyes I did exactly the same on another thread last night end of story.

CD

 

[Cadredave]

First off Beat welcome aboard, glad to have you on this thread, very interesting discussions at times. As you have noted there remains a great concern about the F-35 and its costs and capabilities, and it seems that you stepped into the "stuff" right up front as did I. I sincerly hope you stick around as there remains a lot to be learned. In fact the Air Force Magazine posted some comments from retired Air Force Chief of Staff, Gen Ronald Fogleman as he addressed the AFAs Mitchell Institute for Airpower Studies, in Arlington, Virginia on Wednesday, 11 April, 2012, this quote from their daily report, 12 April, 2012.

Gen Fogleman stated he's worried that "the Air Force has placed all its eggs in one basket" by embracing the F-35 Strike Fighter "so completely." "I have no doubt that someday the F-35 will be a marvelous airplane." But "I don't think our Air Force can wait" until then. He said he doesn't think the Air Force will ever buy the F-35 in the numbers it has planned {the program of record is for 1,763]."Thats the first thing that nobody will admit, but its kind of a universal truth," he said." "As soon as F-35 unit reductions come, the aircrafts price is going to go crazy" asserted Fogleman. "By the time it becomes obvious in about eight to ten years that the F-35 plan, won't play out, "then it will be to late," and the production lines for "several pretty good legacy fighters- the F-15, F-16, and F/A 18E/F-will be shuttered.The Super Hornet should be in the potential mix even though "heaven forbid, the Air Force would ever buy a Navy airplane, said Fogleman.

He had more to say, and I believe the Air Force Magazine has a link to his full speech on their site.

I believe Gen H. Norman Schwarzkopf said it best:

"I feel that retired generals should never miss an opportunity to remain
silent concerning matters for which they are no longer responsible for."

it becomes very easy for these retired Gentlemen to offer a POV but usallly they have been out of the loop so long that technology, tactics, doctrine has moved on since there time.

I dont trust ex Generals as they are usually in the pay packets of some Multi National Company whose in direct competion with the emcumbent provider.

Personally myself there is coming a time when the USAF/USN/USMC legacy jets will have to be replaced and if they are not going to buy the full quota F35 now then what will replace that gap UAV? using a unmanned version of F35.

 

[ADMk2]

@admk2
20% extra costs on top of the fixed prize contracts....right...nfloorl:
Short said the data is not clear cut and is still changing.

What data? The size of the airframe? It's load carrying capability? It's internal fuel load? The size and power of it's electrical system?

What is it that's not clear cut?

RAAF's project officer, Vice Air Marshal Kym Osley testified to the Australian Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Defence Foreign Affairs and Trade on 16 March 2012, and advised that we are currently receiving 11,000 pages worth of data a month from the JSF program as the System Design and DEVELOPMENT phase of the JSF program continues.

If that is what you mean by data not being clear enough, well that might just be what you have to live with when you sign on to a developmental program. How exactly can anyone provide "clear data" when that "clear data" is still being established through testing?

I'm quite certain the Dutch are as well informed as any partner nation (and probably moreso given their first aircraft - AN-1 has already rolled off the production line).

Code One Magazine: First RNLAF F-35 Rolls Out

Great fantastic....and i honestly hope that it will be sorted and i hope that the program and the end product is going to be a smashing success.
But for now Adm Venlet has enough changes to make to root out all the problems.

There are problems to be fixed, there's no denying that. But the problems aren't greater than other similar development programs in recent years. Want to know what the common feature of the Typhoon, Gripen, SU-35 and F-22A development projects were?

All of them had crashed aircraft. So far F-35 has not lived up to that standard, but imagine the howls of outrage if it did?

Alright i redraw my words as i said before in the previous reply that i did not know that AVA is a " bad" page.
But can we agree upon the fact that the Debate around the JSF is growing and that doubts are rising?

Why? Will that make you happy? Fulfill some dream of yours perhaps?

APA have criticised the aircraft from the moment it was chosen by RAAF in preference to the proposal submitted by the founders of APA - Peter Goon and Carlo Kopp, which was for RAAF to upgrade existing and acquire additional F-111 aircraft, which Peter Goon's company - Australian Flight Test Services - AFTS, would upgrade (through the use of sub-contractors) and to acquire F-22's to meet our air to air combat requirement.

Since that decision effectively ended any further business opportunities for AFTS, it's safe to say Goon and Kopp have had a grudge against the aircraft ever since.

That bias is why they cannot be relied upon to give an accurate assessment of the F-35. That and their lack of access to the aircraft program.

Partly true, the Netherlands only bought 2 test birds and did not make a final deal yet.
As minister Hans Hillen said: If the Netherlands would redraw now from the JSF project it would only cost 260 million and options to other consortium's will be open again it did not sign a final contract.
And if i remember correctly some other nations did not sign a final contract either.

No nation has signed a "final" contract for the F-35. No nation has signed a "final" contract for the Eurofighter Typhoon either. Does that make it a failure too?

All of those Countries I mentioned earlier have committed to F-35 and have signed acquisition contracts. Yes, they will have to sign more before they've purchased enough aircraft to meet their requirements, but short of the entire program being cancelled there is little chance of them not proceeding with the program.

You need to start looking at what is actually being done in terms of introducing new capability, production contracts, actual testing and delivery of aircraft and related systems, rather than relying on what mass media are saying about the program.

They can write that the sky is pink for all I care, but when I look outside and see that it's blue, it doesn't really matter what they have written does it?

 

[colay]

That kind of attitude generates a self-fulfilling prophesy: F-35 numbers are going to be reduced, so we should buy more F-18s, F-15s, etc now, which will lead to F-35 numbers being reduced, which means we should buy more F-18s, F-15s, etc now, which will lead to F-35 numbers being reduced, and so on and so on.......

4th gen is no longer valid in tomorrow's battlefield. It's time to let them go.

More so now that we know the LRIP Recurring Flyaway Costs e.g. F-35A. $83.4M which compare favorably with legacy jets while providing a whole new level of capabilities. Buying less capable jets that will be hard- pressed to survive in future conflicts and cost more to operate and sustain..,where's the sense in that?

 

[rand0m]

No nation has signed a "final" contract for the F-35. No nation has signed a "final" contract for the Eurofighter Typhoon either. Does that make it a failure too?

All of those Countries I mentioned earlier have committed to F-35 and have signed acquisition contracts. Yes, they will have to sign more before they've purchased enough aircraft to meet their requirements, but short of the entire program being cancelled there is little chance of them not proceeding with the program.

Does this mean that Australia could turn around after the first 24 aircraft have been delivered and say "Sorry this isn't the aircraft for us" and look elsewhere?

 

[ADMk2]

Does this mean that Australia could turn around after the first 24 aircraft have been delivered and say "Sorry this isn't the aircraft for us" and look elsewhere?

Yep, though we aren't even committed to 24x aircraft yet. We are only contractually obliged for 14x aircraft at present.

Even in a worse case scenario where the F-35 program collapses and production cancelled after the 130 or so currently contracted production aircraft are delivered we would still be in a position where our financial exposure is limited and our budget for NACC (Next Generation air combat capability) remains largely intact.

Even in such an extreme scenario I can see Government at least approving the acquisition of another 10 or so aircraft to allow us to operate F-35 in 1 and 6 squadrons as we are doing now with Super Hornet, with something else to fill out our legacy Hornet squadrons.

RAAF would be more capable with 4 squadrons of F-35 but if the worst were to happen then I would be more than comfortable with RAAF operating a force of 3 operational Super Hornet / Growler squadrons and 1 operational F-35 squadron.

But I don't think the worst is going to happen and we will see RAAF equipped as it has long planned with 4 operational F-35 squadrons and 96-100x F-35's in-service overall.

 

[Beatmaster]

What data? The size of the airframe? It's load carrying capability? It's internal fuel load? The size and power of it's electrical system?

What is it that's not clear cut?
RAAF's project officer, Vice Air Marshal Kym Osley testified to the Australian Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Defence Foreign Affairs and Trade on 16 March 2012, and advised that we are currently receiving 11,000 pages worth of data a month from the JSF program as the System Design and DEVELOPMENT phase of the JSF program continues.

If that is what you mean by data not being clear enough, well that might just be what you have to live with when you sign on to a developmental program. How exactly can anyone provide "clear data" when that "clear data" is still being established through testing?

I'm quite certain the Dutch are as well informed as any partner nation (and probably moreso given their first aircraft - AN-1 has already rolled off the production line).

Code One Magazine: First RNLAF F-35 Rolls Out

Lol you are asking me? Well perhaps you should ask the political parties in the Netherlands and Minister Hans Hillen who have been involved in the JSF program since the very start.
I am not going to translate everything mister hillen said, but after he invited the Danish and the Norwegians into the JSF program, he said that if the JSF program in terms of capability, Costs, Delivery times and Information stream is going to remain the way it is which is ever changing then he has no other option then take the 286 million euro loss and seek a replacement for the JSF.
Does that make it clear enough?
Because he said literally that he would do everything he can to get the JSF and stay loyal and committed to the JSF however he also said i cannot buy something that does not want to be sold. (Dutch saying)

There are problems to be fixed, there's no denying that. But the problems aren't greater than other similar development programs in recent years. Want to know what the common feature of the Typhoon, Gripen, SU-35 and F-22A development projects were?
All of them had crashed aircraft. So far F-35 has not lived up to that standard, but imagine the howls of outrage if it did?

You tell me, fact however is that the Gripen and the EF are flying at this point and they are flying well while being upgraded everytime.
So one might say drop the JSF and go with for example the Gripen.
It might be not a 5gen, but its a damn good bird.

Why? Will that make you happy? Fulfill some dream of yours perhaps?

Pfff no comment bla bla bla ...

APA have criticised the aircraft from the moment it was chosen by RAAF in preference to the proposal submitted by the founders of APA - Peter Goon and Carlo Kopp, which was for RAAF to upgrade existing and acquire additional F-111 aircraft, which Peter Goon's company - Australian Flight Test Services - AFTS, would upgrade (through the use of sub-contractors) and to acquire F-22's to meet our air to air combat requirement.
Since that decision effectively ended any further business opportunities for AFTS, it's safe to say Goon and Kopp have had a grudge against the aircraft ever since.
That bias is why they cannot be relied upon to give an accurate assessment of the F-35. That and their lack of access to the aircraft program.

Agree bringing up the APA page by me was a bad one, honestly m8 i did not have a clue that the page would gimme bad info.
So please disregard that.

No nation has signed a "final" contract for the F-35. No nation has signed a "final" contract for the Eurofighter Typhoon either. Does that make it a failure too?
All of those Countries I mentioned earlier have committed to F-35 and have signed acquisition contracts. Yes, they will have to sign more before they've purchased enough aircraft to meet their requirements, but short of the entire program being cancelled there is little chance of them not proceeding with the program.

So you are actually saying that NO JSF has been sold yet (With the exception of training birds) , so you are also saying that every partner and potential buyer can redraw if they wish so.
And it seems that the Netherlands going to be the first to redraw as yesterday there was a news release that the opposition is going to scrap the JSF program in the next cuts which are being discussed in the " kats huis meeting" because the JSF is already 4 times more expensive then the Dutch signed up for.
Besides that the EF has already been sold, i believe to Switzerland if i remember correctly.
And what you need to understand is that the criticism from the dutch is not only based upon the prize or would you regard their comments and claims BS as well?
Now i am going to say this:
The JSF is a damn good program, with a even better product ok? And i am very sure that the JSF will have everything a self respecting nation could wish for in a multi role bird BUT, the program did endure so much problems in the beginning and there has been so much sitbacks and problems that it did raise doubts.
From the very start it was said that the JSF might be not so good as it was believed to be, now a couple of years later those who fought for the program are starting to turn their backs against it, and for example our own Mister Hillen was and is a hardcore JSF partner he has done more then most others to help it, and even he is starting to see serious cracks in his story.
Last time he asked his US counterpart to explain wtf was going on with the JSF program, as contracts (The promised counter offers) did have problems and so on...
Then he has received the internal US reports about the JSF and what does he see? that the JSF is again going to be another 20% more expensive per aircraft, and that delivery of additional " systems" have more delays
Anyway again forgive me for a dutch link but if you use a translator then you will be able to read it. LINK

You need to start looking at what is actually being done in terms of introducing new capability, production contracts, actual testing and delivery of aircraft and related systems, rather than relying on what mass media are saying about the program.

They can write that the sky is pink for all I care, but when I look outside and see that it's blue, it doesn't really matter what they have written does it?

You are right but you have to place things into perspective.
Netherlands, Turkey, Great Britain Australia they all have doubts or problems with the JSF as has been stated by minster Hans Hillen who did meet most of them during the last visit. Also Danmark, and Norway have expressed doubts.
They do not want sweet talks and its going to be alright, they want solid facts.
They want to know when the bird is ready and how much it exactly is going to cost.
And if the agreed options that the JSF would bring will be delivered ....
Which is not the case here a direct quote:

Met de stijgende prijs en onderhoudskosten per toestel, minder kwaliteit en capaciteiten dan aanvankelijk werd beloofd, is de JSF niet meer het 'beste toestel voor de beste prijs'. Terwijl veel van de deelnemende landen hun wensen aan het terugschroeven zijn – Italië gaat 30 procent minder JSF’s kopen, Groot-Brittannië wil pas in 2015 beslissen over de definitieve aankoop, Turkije heeft de aanschaf van twee toestellen tot nader orde uitgesteld en Australië krabbelt ook terug

Translated: Ever Increasing costs and maintenance costs per bird, less quality en capacity then initially agreed and promised, the JSF is not the best aircraft for the best prize anymore, While partner nations are lowering their wishes from the JSF:
Italy is going to buy 30% less JSF's, UK wants to decide in 2015 if they are going to buy the JSF for real. Turkey has halted the order of 2 aircraft till further notice, and Australia is having second toughs.

Now call me crazy but i do not care how pro JSF you are and what arguments you bring up in this forum, but fact remains that the JSF program is in trouble and it will be a heavy duty job for the JSF lobby to keep the program running.
Now in regards to those 4-Gen Aircrafts, when the JSF was on the drawing table None of them did have the abilities that the JSF was suppose to have but now a couple of years later, it turns out that with the exception of stealth that the Gripen and EF can offer a serious replacement for the JSF, Due to the upgrades and maturing of their program.
Now it has been said that the JSF program and the JSF itself would be less expensive then the Gripen or EF but as for example the Dutch Rekenkamer (Finance calculation government department) Has pointed out beyond a reasonable doubt is that the Gripen NG at this point offers virtually the same capabilities (Except Stealth and Vstol) ...Ok lets say this: Virtually the same capabilities lets change that to acceptable capabilities for the sake of the argument.....
And the good thing? It has a fixed prize...no more catches no more headpain and so on.

Here :

Eijsink: Kandidatenvergelijking 2008 inmiddels volstrekt achterhaald

PvdA-er Angelien Eijsink verwoordde de vele veranderingen sinds december 2008. Toen werd de kandidatenvergelijking gepresenteerd. De JSF zou op alle fronten beter zijn dan de Saab Gripen NG en de F-16 advanced, aldus Defensie. De beoordeling vond plaats op de criteria: Prijs, kwaliteit en levertijd. Maar inmiddels weten we beter, betoogde Eijsink. De prijs is sterk gestegen en nog weten we het plafond niet, er zijn pagina’s met grote technische problemen en de levertijd is jaren uitgesteld. Kortom als je nu een kandidatenvergelijking houdt kan de uitslag wel eens heel anders zijn. Voordat in 2015 definitief besloten gaat worden is een nieuwe kandidatenvergelijking noodzakelijk. “Hoe zullen we anders ooit kunnen zeggen wat het beste toestel voor de beste prijs is”. Tijdens een recent werkbezoek aan de VS wees ze een generaal op de kritische geluiden van het GAO, de Amerikaanse Rekenkamer. Ze toonde zich geschrokken van het antwoord. Het GAO werd in de hoek gezet met “Dat zijn professionele criticasters”. Eijsink wees erop dat de informatie vanuit de Amerikaanse Defensie niet transparant is geweest, zelfs van het JPO niet waar een vertegenwoordiger van Nederland in zit. “Pas achteraf hoorden we dat het JSF project ontspoord was. De Kamer is in de maling genomen. We kunnen ons toch echt niet overleveren aan de goede bedoelingen die Panetta in een Valentijnsbrief aan Hillen schrijft. We hebben ons zelfs vastgezet. We zijn het enige land dat 4 MOU’s ondertekend heeft, maar we krijgen minder info dan anderen. En beloofde werkgelegenheid gaat niet naar Nederland, maar naar bedrijven in een andere landen. En Japan krijgt ook tegenorders, terwijl die van de plank kopen ”. Verder wees ze erop dat Hillen samenwerking met de Denen en Noren gestart is alleen gericht op de aanschaf van de JSF. “Dat is onjuist. Je zet je zelf nog meer vast door je te verbinden met andere landen. Er zal dan in 2015 weinig meer te kiezen zijn”.

Now finally i will say this: I am not against the JSF infact i would love to see them taking off here at my city (Living next to leeuwarden AB) ok?
But everyone is claiming how damn good the JSF and its program is, well i think that we can dismiss that as the US official JSF channels do not mention ANY word about partners thinking of redrawing from the project.
But in reality here in the EU there is a political storm going and the Netherlands seem to be the middle point of it (Perhaps because we are cheap and picky people lol) Non the less everything that the US did promise towards the Netherlands in regards to the JSF NON of it has been fullfilled yet while the Netherlands the only partner is who signed: 4 MOU's.
And thats what is bugging the Netherlands and others.
And on top of that the JSF program is not almost 360% more expensive then it was at the start for the netherlands who invested 3 times 800 million euro.
The first test bird was 91 million (Just the bird nothing else) the second bird is 130 million (Bare bird) and getting this same bird operational to the fullest would cost 190 million per bird according to our government. and thats 50 Million per bird more expensive then a fully ready to go Gripen NG.
Here is the debate letter from our government which tells you everything and which partners are having doubts and so on....
As i said before i am not talking BS here you got the summary of the high level talks that has been done at 8 feb 2012
And i ask you directly, does your US sources and official webpages mention the same problems? or is not convenient not being published?
And what about the 700 secret technical errors that the JSF has as they have been conveniently not being published by the US governement out of fear that the JSF program would blow up in their face ? And i am not talking about the 1300 documented bugs And what about the 14 JSF aircraft who are permanently grounded? 1 did stop in mid air, the other one did nearly blow up when the engine did malfunction and another one where the computer went nuts.....and note these where test aircraft ready to be sold....
Its all in the link i just gave you.
Its not a matter if i am a fan of the JSF and its not a matter of people have problems with the JSF is just all about the actual facts and the links i provided are directly from the 2de Kamer (Dutch Government) as here in the Netherlands everything is online accessible at overheid.nl
So how credible do you want it?
So you tell me.,..

 

[gf0012-aust]

Red mist clearing time folks

Beatmaster, can you also use the proper quote process and clean up your last (ie preceding post)

 

[Beatmaster]

Yep, though we aren't even committed to 24x aircraft yet. We are only contractually obliged for 14x aircraft at present.

Even in a worse case scenario where the F-35 program collapses and production cancelled after the 130 or so currently contracted production aircraft are delivered we would still be in a position where our financial exposure is limited and our budget for NACC (Next Generation air combat capability) remains largely intact.

Even in such an extreme scenario I can see Government at least approving the acquisition of another 10 or so aircraft to allow us to operate F-35 in 1 and 6 squadrons as we are doing now with Super Hornet, with something else to fill out our legacy Hornet squadrons.

RAAF would be more capable with 4 squadrons of F-35 but if the worst were to happen then I would be more than comfortable with RAAF operating a force of 3 operational Super Hornet / Growler squadrons and 1 operational F-35 squadron.

But I don't think the worst is going to happen and we will see RAAF equipped as it has long planned with 4 operational F-35 squadrons and 96-100x F-35's in-service overall.

Btw thats a nice setup, seems you guys sweet deal.
So are these bough aircraft fully capable and ready to go? or are these just the bare production birds?

 

[Beatmaster]

Red mist clearing time folks

Beatmaster, can you also use the proper quote process and clean up your last (ie preceding post)

Done thanks for the warning i did not notice that the post was getting this long lol.

Cheers

 

[Marc 1]

(Finance calculation government department) Has pointed out beyond a reasonable doubt is that the Gripen NG at this point offers virtually the same capabilities (Except Stealth and Vstol)

Which is the same as saying: "It was a great football game - perhaps it would have been better if somebody had remembered the ball"

Stealth (sic) is the whole point here. There are plenty of faster aircraft, plenty with a longer range, quite a few with a superior weapon load, many can probably do the much vaunted by fanboi's 'cobra manouvre'. But none except the F-22 and B2 (out of production - not available to anyone else) offer LO tech. The Chinese and more probably Russians are closer, but still a long way back.

Good to hear your Finance Calculation department of your government feels qualified to select FRONT LINE FIGHTER/STRIKE AIRCRAFT, but I think I'm happier that people better qualified make those decisions for us.

I have a mate who used to work in an electrical superstore. He is also very experienced in matching high end audio systems for clients. He realized early on that there are customers who would listen to an expert (or were experts themselves), and those who were most impressed by the PMPO figure on the garish label. Those people could not understand why other people would spend tens of thousands of dollars on bland looking black boxes with brands like NAD, Klipsch, Ortofon, Sonus Faber etc, amps rated with as little as 40w RMS per channel, when you could get 1500W PMPO and lots of flashy led lights and chrome from LG!

My friend, your finance department public servants have just recommended the LG stereo. Good luck with that.

 

[Hoffy]

Yeah , Beatmaster , the game changer is VLO/LO plus "situational awareness".
There really is very little point having a superb 4th Gen aircraft without these 2 x factors as a comparison , because the lethality against conventional aircraft then becomes massive.

 

[Beatmaster]

Which is the same as saying: "It was a great football game - perhaps it would have been better if somebody had remembered the ball"

Stealth (sic) is the whole point here. There are plenty of faster aircraft, plenty with a longer range, quite a few with a superior weapon load, many can probably do the much vaunted by fanboi's 'cobra manouvre'. But none except the F-22 and B2 (out of production - not available to anyone else) offer LO tech. The Chinese and more probably Russians are closer, but still a long way back.

Good to hear your Finance Calculation department of your government feels qualified to select FRONT LINE FIGHTER/STRIKE AIRCRAFT, but I think I'm happier that people better qualified make those decisions for us.

I have a mate who used to work in an electrical superstore. He is also very experienced in matching high end audio systems for clients. He realized early on that there are customers who would listen to an expert (or were experts themselves), and those who were most impressed by the PMPO figure on the garish label. Those people could not understand why other people would spend tens of thousands of dollars on bland looking black boxes with brands like NAD, Klipsch, Ortofon, Sonus Faber etc, amps rated with as little as 40w RMS per channel, when you could get 1500W PMPO and lots of flashy led lights and chrome from LG!

My friend, your finance department public servants have just recommended the LG stereo. Good luck with that.

Our finance department does not recommend anything but here in the Netherlands if we do politics regarding things that cost money we always want to have a prize tag next to it..
And yes the Gripen might be a lower tech bird, but its still top tier in many ways and because the JSF is the only gen 5 bird available for sale there is no other alternative then Gripen, EF, Rafale and out of those 3 the Gripen did came out on top next to the EF (I believe Gripen 1, EF 2, Rafale 3) So if the JSF is going to fail (Lets assume then i am pretty sure that den Haag will make a call to saab.
Another thing is that the so called LG stereo happens to be not as bad as everyone thinks.
Infact 5 years later after the dutch comparison test (Which we have done twice as the only nation on the planet during the choice if we go for the JSF or Gripen) It has become clear that the later versions of the Gripen NG would be close to the JSF in every aspect (With the exception of Stealth and VStol) and some even said that it would exell in some aspects.

 

[Beatmaster]

Yeah , Beatmaster , the game changer is VLO/LO plus "situational awareness".
There really is very little point having a superb 4th Gen aircraft without these 2 x factors as a comparison , because the lethality against conventional aircraft then becomes massive.

Yes that should be the case, but as reports have been pointed out (Not sure if they are credible enough) But the Stealth abilities of the JSF are not that superior and the situational awareness is being matched by both Gripen and EF.
At least their latest reports claim so.
Which would mean that stealth and VSTOL are they only real aces that the JSF would have at this point.
However i do not have the info to back that up so perhaps one of the other forum members can give more info about this.

 

[colay]

Yes that should be the case, but as reports have been pointed out (Not sure if they are credible enough) But the Stealth abilities of the JSF are not that superior and the situational awareness is being matched by both Gripen and EF.
At least their latest reports claim so.
Which would mean that stealth and VSTOL are they only real aces that the JSF would have at this point.
However i do not have the info to back that up so perhaps one of the other forum members can give more info about this.

What "reports" are you referring to? Surely you can post a link let interested forum members decide for themselves if these reports "are credible enough"?