No amount of retrofitting done to a Gen4 aircraft will enable it to overcome its inherent design limitations to make it comparable to the overall capabilities and effectiveness of the F-35 package. "Lipstick on a pig" comes to mind regardless of how many ++++++++++ you append to legacy jet.
F-35 Multirole Joint Strike Fighter
- Thread starter SABRE
- Start date
- Status
the road runner
Active Member
I dont know how people can compare the JSF to other programs.The 3 forces all having their own specifications for a plane,with common parts across "most" of the fleet.
I trend to see the JSF as a program that has no precedent.No one has ever made a plane for all three services(that i can think of)that uses a number of common parts for all 3 versions.The only A/C that i can think of that had a troubled history as much as JSF,would be the F-111 program.(2 versions one for Navy and one for Air Force)
As a number of people here have stated,the "A" Version is the cheapest and most mature of the JSF series.I still dont understand why people dis regard that fact and talk about the short comings of the "B" and "C" version.
Most partner nations are purchasing the "A" version ,that seems to be the least problematic of the 3.I assume the "biggest problems" with the JSF is that LM is to "open" in providing info on the JSF project.
I trend to see the JSF as a program that has no precedent.No one has ever made a plane for all three services(that i can think of)that uses a number of common parts for all 3 versions.The only A/C that i can think of that had a troubled history as much as JSF,would be the F-111 program.(2 versions one for Navy and one for Air Force)
As a number of people here have stated,the "A" Version is the cheapest and most mature of the JSF series.I still dont understand why people dis regard that fact and talk about the short comings of the "B" and "C" version.
Most partner nations are purchasing the "A" version ,that seems to be the least problematic of the 3.I assume the "biggest problems" with the JSF is that LM is to "open" in providing info on the JSF project.
The red mist warning is getting a second airing.
The next personal attack will result in a short holiday for the offender.
Grip it up. It's the internet,
A general note. The quality of the thread will decline if the arguments continue to be based on the platform without understanding that modern warfare is a systems event.
Quite frankly, I expect to see better performance from senior members - even if you have opposing philosophies.
The last thing that should be happening is an argument centered on platforms and procurement when a fundamental lack of understanding of systems warfighting is blindingly visible.
pause before posting
The next personal attack will result in a short holiday for the offender.
Grip it up. It's the internet,
A general note. The quality of the thread will decline if the arguments continue to be based on the platform without understanding that modern warfare is a systems event.
Quite frankly, I expect to see better performance from senior members - even if you have opposing philosophies.
The last thing that should be happening is an argument centered on platforms and procurement when a fundamental lack of understanding of systems warfighting is blindingly visible.
pause before posting
Beatmaster
New Member
For the most part i was quoting the official government webpage and that info is 100% accurate.
In regards to the APA pages yes that has been covered as they are BS.
However JSFNieuws.nl has no connection to APA and is providing info that APA does leave out from their tekst.
As after the claims by the guys here on the forum i did compare the APA site to the JSFNieuws.nl site and i found that large parts of tekst where just " deleted or not posted" or even tekst added.
So i agree with you that some of the tekst might be not 100% accurate however JSFNieuws.nl does offer a wealth of accurate info.
Having that said, in regards to the costs it has been covered on Dutch National news by Minister Hans Hillen who is THE man when it comes to the JSF project here in the Netherlands that the JSF project went up 4.2 times (due serious sit-backs in the program and resources cost increase) to be exactly since the first prize indication.
I offered the official source for it in my post so that has been proven beyond the doubt.
Next to that if you believe i am wrong then please explain why you feel i am wrong and please provide sources.
However before you do so, please note that i wrote my reply from a Dutch perspective as here in the Netherlands the JSF program is causing havoc.
So i obviously cannot speak for other nations other then what has been said by Hans Hillen.
Cheers
Beatmaster
New Member
Alright if you sau so then i will take your word for it, but after reading this page:
source i believe that some of the systems you are putting up here are being called different on the G-NG Who is btw already operational during " training dog fights" in the UK and Hungary.
So not saying you are right or wrong just asking you to check as i honestly am not familiar with specific systems.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Several things here. First, the Gripen NG is not yet flying. IIRC a Gripen D airframe was or is in the process of being modified to serve as a sort of prototype for the Gripen NG, but IMO that is more a sort of a technology demonstrator than an actual prototype, since there are only a few minor airframe changes that can be made before the entire airframe has to be rebuild and re-tested. At which point, you need to retest for airframe integrity, airworthiness, etc.
Some of the proposed avionics systems for use in the Gripen NG are planned for testing on the modified Gripen D, which was sort of the point of modifying it. Having said that, unless the Gripen NG is significantly more ambitious than so far revealed, the F-35 will still have a sensor, data fusion and SA advantage, and this is not even including the LO nature of the F-35.
Take EODAS for instance. That is an F-35 system of EO systems distributed around the F-35 airframe to provide an all-around electroptical sensor capability. This give the aircraft and pilot the potential to detect hostile aircraft and missiles that are outside the arc of the radar. Also given that it is a EO system, it is a 'passive' system which means that EODAS can detect an inbound or target without needing to emit, allowing detection and targeting without revealing that has done so. Unless the Gripen NG is planning on including a system like this, then the Gripen NG's onboard sensors are not going to over all arcs.
Now without a doubt, the F-35 programme has been an expensive one, but name a bleeding edge technology programme which was not, at the time it was bleeding edge.
What various nations need to decide is what they can afford to spend, what capability do they need, and what capability can they afford to not have. Also, when speaking of cost, one must remember to keep in mind the type of and time of cost. For instance, if one were to take current LRIP pricing and then convert that into 2020 dollars, a very different figure would result than the expected 2020 full rate production cost of F-35. By the same token, a full rate production cost in 2020 dollars would be higher than if it were in 2012 dollars, by virtue of inflation. What generally seems to happen when people are critical of the F-35 purchase cost, is that there is generally a mix up with Future Dollar vs. current dollar amounts, and/or LRIP vs. full rate production pricing. Sometimes that mix up is accidental and the person throwing numbers around is ignorant of the differences, other times the person is very much aware that the wrong figures are being used, but they have an agenda which is better served making things appear worse than they are.
So with specific respect to a RNLAF F-35 buy there are several things which are important to keep in mind when considering what the price is. The first is what is the split between LRIP and full rate production aircraft being purchased? Secondly, when is the purchase being anticipated? The is relevant both because there is the potential for price/cost reductions as the full rate production is under way, and also depending on when the purchase occurs, that determines what the Future Dollar year is. Thirdly, what does the F-35 purchase package include?
If the purchase package includes any spiral development upgrades, munitions, maintenance and training, then that would naturally be more expensive than the purchase price of a clean aircraft/airframe and engine. As a basic but reasonably accurate rule, the 'flyaway' aircraft purchase cost, meaning the minimum amount to purchase a 'flyable' aircraft is typically somewhere around only a third to half the purchase cost when dealing with US aircraft, the rest covers extras required to deliver a useful capability from a combat aircraft. This is one of the other areas where programme costs can be deceiving. It is one thing to compare programme costs, but if those programmes do not provide similar capabilities then any comparison between costs is irrelevant.
Anyway, that is it for me. For now anyway.
Sorry that I was not specific enough. The Gripen NG Demo is flying and has some of the final avionics on board. I meant that the final hardware config was not finished and flying.
While some of the systems on the final NG serve the same function as those on the F-35, there are in no way "matched" to the F-35.
Without going into too much detail, here are some examples:
1. The radar is larger, more powerful, and has a higher level of maturity.
2. EODAS (the F-35's MAWs) is passive and can detect & track not only missiles, but also other aircraft, AAA, and ground targets. It also serves to guide HOBS missile shots without the need of the pilot to line up a shot using his HMD.
3. The F-35's datalinks are called MADL and are directional & LPI. This means that the only way to detect that one F-35 is talking to another is to be in a straight line between them. Traditional datalinks (like the one on the NG) broadcast a signal in all directions. In the battlefield that is emerging, ever-growing EW capabilities of the enemy will increase the likelihood that this can be detected and could be used to launch a missile against the broadcaster.
4. Target ID - Here is a quote from recent testimony
I could go on, but you get the point.
The key thing to remember is not to get trapped in the "my radar is better than yours", or "mine can do a cobra", etc. In real-life battlefields the key is to think of the system as a whole and not get trapped looking at just one aspect of it.
Let me give an example of a sensor system I was involved in trialling recently.
Traditional sensors trade as a bubble, ie its litterally the equiv of cutting a ball in half and thats the sensor emission and detection footprint
the system I dealt with was linear, IOW to be able to detect it you would need to break the link and then you would have to try and establish source - on a constantly moving pair of assets, tracking and targetting to kill would be a feat of significance and would require a string of supporting assets up in the air to complement the track/targetting solution.
the 4th gen aircraft to 5th gen argument often ignores the simple reality that you can add as many bells and whistles you like to that 4th gen platform, but unless you also have the rest of the target/track management construct in place, then you still have a dated system supporting the capability of your aircraft
the other reality which seems to elude many, is that you cannot just add 5th gen or fused system capability into an older platform and then consider it competitive. That is just plain unmitigated rubbish.
the sooner we get beyond the discussion about the oft professed benefit of the platform in isolation, the sooner people understand that 5th gen LO is more than just inherent capability within the platform (built for that purpose) and that the warfighting construct is about complimentary systems enhancing those platforms beyond inherent capability - well at that point we will make progress on this thread
we haven't been in a c2 mindset for decades but the debate on how competive a rebuilt 4th gen can be when compared to a 5th gen purpose built seems to me to indicate that there is limited analysis being shown on the reality of how modern forces intend to fight.
rebadging, rebuilding and reintegration of old technology and attempting to proffer the argument that it's just as competitive as a LO purpose built solution is ignoring some basic engineering issues - and is certainly ignoring all the analysis coming out of the JEW. C4ISR, GIS and INT shops on how to best deter, distract, delink, deconstruct, disrupt and destroy the enemy at a time and place of your choosing
Love the "Lipstick on a pig" line, very apt as the nick name for the F-111 in Australia was pig and adding lipstick was pretty much what APA was proposing.:devil
Wolf_of_Siberia
New Member
While the APA was trying to make the F-111 into something its not, it still would have had a massive range and payload advantage over the F-35. The F-35 may have stealth, but it can't carry much ordinance and it can't carry it very far. I think the F-111 still has a place, maybe not in its original role, but it definitely still has a place.
The F-111 hasn't had a place for 10+ years - ever since they established that it could not go into highly contested or complex space without an assist. ie without a hornet riding shotgun.
its 2012 - its no longer Libya from 22 years+ ago
long range strike is not about aircraft range
Last edited:
If we went on this logic we'd still be driving around in old HQ commodores, there have been lengthy discussions on this. Why put yourself in danger using "dumb bombs" when you can hit a target 200km away with little chance of being detected? "can't carry much ordinance" - is 18,000lbs not enough?
t68
Well-Known Member
HQ Kingswood, as Ted Bullpitt would say not the Kingswood.
Ahh nostalgia, 1st car was HQ 2 door Monaro 308 the joys of unrestricted excitement on your P plates.
Sorry for the off topic a wave of excitement from years gone by.
Another thing to consider is that the F-111 was designed to carry LOTS of mostly dumb bombs while the F-35 can carry up to 18k lbs of mostly smart bombs.
The F-111 had to drop MANY bombs to have a good PK while the F-35 can drop ONE bomb to have the same PK.
There is a big "force multiplier" issue at work here.
The F-111 had to drop MANY bombs to have a good PK while the F-35 can drop ONE bomb to have the same PK.
There is a big "force multiplier" issue at work here.
The point many seem to miss is it doesn't matter what the combat radius or the war load is if you can not get through the defences to get to the target.
A Boeing B-29 with updated avionics would probably still work ok over Afghanistan where an optioned up Silent Eagle / SU-34 / SU-35 would likely struggle getting through Israel’s or even Iran’s defences.
The other analogy I can see is arguing the RAF should have cancelled the Spitfire and Hurricane and persisted with the Gladiator / Gauntlet, Fury and Bulldog. Based on the logic of some criticising the F-35 today the same faulty thinking would have had the RAF updating their tried and proven Bristol Fighters, SE-5s and Sopwith Snipes rather than wasting money on those new fangled monoplanes that were so obviously too expensive, lacking in manoeuvrability as well as being to complex to maintain and difficult to repair.
A Boeing B-29 with updated avionics would probably still work ok over Afghanistan where an optioned up Silent Eagle / SU-34 / SU-35 would likely struggle getting through Israel’s or even Iran’s defences.
The other analogy I can see is arguing the RAF should have cancelled the Spitfire and Hurricane and persisted with the Gladiator / Gauntlet, Fury and Bulldog. Based on the logic of some criticising the F-35 today the same faulty thinking would have had the RAF updating their tried and proven Bristol Fighters, SE-5s and Sopwith Snipes rather than wasting money on those new fangled monoplanes that were so obviously too expensive, lacking in manoeuvrability as well as being to complex to maintain and difficult to repair.
the road runner
Active Member
Post deleted
Last edited:
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I could be mistaken but I believe you are interested in an 'Oz' specific example. If that is the case, then perhaps a discussion on Vigilaire and related systems in the RAAF thread, or perhaps in the general ADF discussion thread might be worthwhile. That way the material can be discussed without derailing the F-35 thread.
-Cheers
well I don't know where they think it has gone up over 4 times the price when the current projected SAR full rate production URF is $71-73m, as per http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/a...news-discussions-updates-6007-210/#post242426
If you want to learn about the f-35 and how it will function, on SDL the interviews with those in the program would be a very good start
it's better to use this google search for their site, you are welcome to add or delete keywords to it
f-35 sdl - Google Search
According to Norwegian newspapers, the average average flight time per year per a/c will be reduced from 225 to 175.
The MoD says advanced simulators reduce the needs for actual flight hours and will save millions each year.
Google Oversetter
Funding of the new fighters will affect other areas like health, schools, etc.
Google Oversetter
Norway has after all quite robust economy, it will be interesting to see how other European countries will deal with this. I guess by cutting in the number of a/c, and the number of flight hours, just like in Norway, but some may have to cut harder than others.
The MoD says advanced simulators reduce the needs for actual flight hours and will save millions each year.
Google Oversetter
Funding of the new fighters will affect other areas like health, schools, etc.
Google Oversetter
Norway has after all quite robust economy, it will be interesting to see how other European countries will deal with this. I guess by cutting in the number of a/c, and the number of flight hours, just like in Norway, but some may have to cut harder than others.
In a practical sense when you consider load out, the ONLY advantage the F-111 had over the F-35 is unrefuelled range.
Given the F-111 was only capable of exploiting this range in uncontested airspace without being escorted, this range is irrelevant.
RAAF can go further now with Hornet, Super Hornet, KC-30A and JASSM / JSOW than it could with F-111 alone in reality.
F-35 improves upon that.
- Status