F-35 Multirole Joint Strike Fighter

[kato]

Where those not made by the Dutch Fokker North Group? and the rest by Fiat Italy?

Fiat only built the F-104S. North Group built the F-104G, with assembly of the various parts spread over the Netherlands and Germany (Fokker, Aviolanda, HFB, Focke-Wulf, Weser-Flugzeugbau and others). There was also West Group building F-104G (Germany/Belgium).

Ohh wait you say lockheed lobby right? was that not the big scandal where one of our royals was bribed to push the sale?

That one was for the F-16 iirc? (vs Mirage 2k?)

 

[Beatmaster]

That one was for the F-16 iirc? (vs Mirage 2k?)

That was before my time thats why i ask you.

 

[swerve]

Fiat only built the F-104S. North Group built the F-104G, with assembly of the various parts spread over the Netherlands and Germany (Fokker, Aviolanda, HFB, Focke-Wulf, Weser-Flugzeugbau and others). There was also West Group building F-104G (Germany/Belgium).


That one was for the F-16 iirc? (vs Mirage 2k?)

No, it was for the F-104G.

BTW, the F-16 wasn't competing with Mirage 2000 (which didn't yet exist then) for the sale to the Netherlands (& Belgium, Norway & Denmark), but Viggen, & an uprated & slightly stretched Mirage F.1, with the M53 engine. When the Mirage F1-M53 wasn't selected, it was cancelled in favour of the Mirage 2000. Only a prototype had been built.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Stay on topic.

Lets ignore the commercial competitive issues of bribery and corruption as no one will come out clean and it serves no point in the long run in this debate

 

[the road runner]

Lock Martin have released some footage of 2 F-35C flying in formation.Dated 18th April 2012.

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sqtigrDJJk&feature=g-u-u"]F-35C Formation Flight - YouTube[/nomedia]



Seems like the more JSF that get airborne the more the punters come out from the wood work to put crap on it.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Seems like the more JSF that get airborne the more the punters come out from the wood work to put crap on it.

which is a good thing.

the more they stand their ground the more that people understand that its about an indecent obsession and personal fundamentalism.

they'll be around in 10 years time and still trotting out the same pseudo aeronautical babble generated on their sinclair 80's, acorns and commodore 64's

 

[Air Force Brat]

which is a good thing.

the more they stand their ground the more that people understand that its about an indecent obsession and personal fundamentalism.

they'll be around in 10 years time and still trotting out the same pseudo aeronautical babble generated on their sinclair 80's, acorns and commodore 64's

This should gladden your heart then gf, Air Combat Command Chief, Gen. Mike Hostage, told AFA's D. W. Steele Chapter, in Arlington, Virginia, Thursday 4/26/12 that "We have a woefully tiny F-22 fleet, and we won't be getting any more," "the F-35 is "Meeting all its parameters" for performance." and latter in the same meeting. "The F-35 concurrency issues are "getting smaller" as fewer bugs are discovered in testing and fewer changes need to be made". He made a very forcefull case for the F-35, stating beyond 2018 the fourth gen fighters would need the F-35 to survive in a combat environment. This from AFM's "daily report". 4/27/12. Cheers Brat

 

[SpudmanWP]

Here is the article.

The F-35 or Bust: The Air Force simply can't do without the F-35 strike fighter, and buying new fourth generation fighters to maintain inventories is a bad solution to F-35 delays, said Air Combat Command chief Gen. Mike Hostage Thursday. He told a luncheon of AFA's D.W. Steele Chapter in Arlington, Va., that "beyond 2018, our fourth generation fleet can't fight without fifth generation fighters" to back them up and becoming an ever-larger share of the force. "We have a woefully tiny F-22 fleet, and we won't be getting any more," he continued, and the F-35 is "meeting all its parameters" for performance. After the "painful-agony-of-concurrency" problems have been shaken out, Hostage said he has no doubt the F-35 will be a world-beater. "I have every reason to believe" the F-35 will be up to the job, and do it better than any other aircraft, "but I need all 1700-plus," he said during his April 26 address. Without the F-35 in sufficient numbers, the F-15 and F-16 fleet "can't survive" the murderous environment of anti-access, aerial-denial systems no matter how tricked-out with upgrades they are, he said. The F-35 concurrency issue is "getting smaller" as fewer bugs are discovered in testing and fewer changes need to be made to the early production jets, but "it's a fact of life," said Hostage, and the same kind of issues plagued all previous fighters. He thinks the F-35 is doing better at this stage of production and test than any previous airplane, however.
—John A. Tirpak

 

[PO2GRV]

The Jet That Ate the Pentagon - By Winslow Wheeler | Foreign Policy

an article from Winslow Wheeler describing the "calamity" of the F35 program

he finishes the article with this stinger

It's time for Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, the U.S. military services, and Congress to face the facts: The F-35 is an unaffordable mediocrity, and the program will not be fixed by any combination of hardware tweaks or cost-control projects. There is only one thing to do with the F-35: Junk it. America's air forces deserve a much better aircraft, and the taxpayers deserve a much cheaper one. The dustbin awaits.

I believe he qualifies as one of those punters coming out of the woodworks? here's another gem

This grotesquely unpromising plan has already resulted in multitudes of problems -- and 80 percent of the flight testing remains. A virtual flying piano, the F-35 lacks the F-16's agility in the air-to-air mode and the F-15E's range and payload in the bombing mode, and it can't even begin to compare to the A-10 at low-altitude close air support for troops engaged in combat. Worse yet, it won't be able to get into the air as often to perform any mission -- or just as importantly, to train pilots -- because its complexity prolongs maintenance and limits availability. The aircraft most like the F-35, the F-22, was able to get into the air on average for only 15 hours per month in 2010 when it was fully operational. (In 2011, the F-22 was grounded for almost five months and flew even less.)

 

[SpudmanWP]

"mediocrity" coming from the man who did not want a radar on the F-16

"The dustbin awaits" - so do the cemeteries for the pilots, soldiers, and Marines who would die because Wheeler wants a less capable, non-stealthy replacement for the F-35

 

[AegisFC]

His ideal plane is a F-5 with a pair of wingtip missles and no on board sensors.

He is even worse than those APA retards.

 

[the road runner]

which is a good thing.

the more they stand their ground the more that people understand that its about an indecent obsession and personal fundamentalism.

I just hope that Governments take note of these people who come up with such silly ideas and blacklist them from other defence projects.Its good to have an opinion on something but when that "opinion," dose not relate to "fact," its time to start culling the heard.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I just hope that Governments take note of these people who come up with such silly ideas and blacklist them from other defence projects.Its good to have an opinion on something but when that "opinion," dose not relate to "fact," its time to start culling the heard.

well, i can't recall any project in the last 12 years needing their "expertise"

prev senior RAAF wouldn't go near them, and the savvy newgen RAAF geeks certainly regard them as hysterical spoilers.

real ewarfare geeks in DSTO and friendly equivs certainly know the limits of their claims to expertise. theres no shortage of "in" jokes from the propeller heads

 

[ADMk2]

I just hope that Governments take note of these people who come up with such silly ideas and blacklist them from other defence projects.Its good to have an opinion on something but when that "opinion," dose not relate to "fact," its time to start culling the heard.

Well RAAF has faced extensive questioning and answered via the head of AIR-6000 - Vice Air Marshall Kym Osley in March this year on opinions submitted by a bunch of amateur airpower enthusiasts.

It seems even from the outside, when you read between the lines of their polite but firm public comments, that the ADF 'headsheds' are well aware of the limitations on the insight these sorts of people have in relation to modern warfare and what it takes to not only survive but dominate.

Fortunately RAAF doesn't seem to agree that playing Harpoon 3 in anyway equates to what they see at Red Flag, Bersama Lima, Afghanistan, Iraq and so on in relation to air power.

And the Government has agreed with them on this point since at least 2002...

 

[Eeshaan]

OK I just have to bring the following up :

A virtual flying piano, the F-35 lacks the F-16's agility in the air-to-air mode and the F-15E's range and payload in the bombing mode, and it can't even begin to compare to the A-10 at low-altitude close air support for troops engaged in combat.

What the hell is this ?

Seriously, is this guy for real ? Can he actually back that statement up with hard facts & statistics ?

Because if he can't then he should simply not be allowed to have his articles published. If he can, then may god have mercy on the F-35 pilots...

 

[Cadredave]

OK I just have to bring the following up :



What the hell is this ?

Seriously, is this guy for real ? Can he actually back that statement up with hard facts & statistics ?

Because if he can't then he should simply not be allowed to have his articles published. If he can, then may god have mercy on the F-35 pilots...

Dont get to up set by this person as AD & others have stated he has been ignored by those who opinions count.

 

[ADMk2]

That he chooses such an easily played game shows how much his opinion is worth.

Quote:
A virtual flying piano, the F-35 lacks the F-16's agility in the air-to-air mode and the F-15E's range and payload in the bombing mode, and it can't even begin to compare to the A-10 at low-altitude close air support for troops engaged in combat.

The F-15E? It lacks the agility of the F-16 in the air to air mode and can't even begin to compare to the close air support capability of the A-10.

The A-10? It lacks the range, payload and performance of the F-15E in the bombing mode and can't even begin to compare to the F-16 in the air to air role.

See what I did there? It is the stupidest most puerile argument there is to compare horses for courses or apples to oranges.

Of course the F-35 can't compare to those particular aircraft in their particular roles. Just as the F-15E, F-16 and A-10 aren't much good at the LO strike fighter role and as the USAF says repeatedly, nothing short of the F-35 or F-22A is going to be of much use in such non-permissive air environments until the advanced theats within those environments are supressed.

That this sort of rubbish comprises the totality of his contribution to the defence debate, shows why he has zero impact on defence decisions, no matter how widely published he might be.

Same goes for the clowns in APA. They tell us ad nauseum how advanced the threats we are facing are and then propose we address these threats with a 50+ year old aircraft design...

Absolutely farcical and anyone who thinks this idea is credible absolutely needs their head read.

 

[Volkodav]

It’s a tried and proven tactic that works in most situations; knock, undermine and discredit all alternatives until time has run out and your option is the last one standing.

It doesn't matter that your option is the worst by a long shot at the start of the process so long as it is the only one left at the end, you don't need to prove your baby is the best, just that it is better than nothing after you have worn everyone else out through constant mud slinging and criticism. In fact it is best to leave your joke of an alternative out of site until the others have fallen by the way.

 

[Eeshaan]

I got to add, there have certainly been concerns regarding the air-to-air capability of the F-35, but they seem to have been adressed. Regardless of that, this will be a controversial topic until the F-35 actually proves itself in air-to-air combat in a real battle, non-testing environment.

In 2008 it was reported that RAND Corporation conducted simulated war games in which Russian Sukhoi Su-35 fighters defeated the F-35.[111] As a result of these media reports, then Australian defence minister Joel Fitzgibbon requested a formal briefing from the Australian Department of Defence on the simulation. This briefing stated that the reports of the simulation were inaccurate and did not actually compare the F-35's flight performance against other aircraft.[112]

The Pentagon and Lockheed Martin added that these simulations did not address air-to-air combat.[113][114] A Lockheed Martin press-release points to USAF simulations regarding the F-35's air-to-air performance against potential adversaries described as "4th generation" fighters, in which it claims the F-35 is "400 percent" more effective. Major General Charles R. Davis, USAF, the F-35 program executive officer, has stated that the "F-35 enjoys a significant Combat Loss Exchange Ratio advantage over the current and future air-to-air threats, to include Sukhois".[114] The nature of the simulations, and the terms upon which the "400 percent" figure have been derived remains unclear. Regarding the original plan to fit the F-35 with only two air-to-air missiles, Major Richard Koch, chief of USAF Air Combat Command’s advanced air dominance branch is reported to have said that "I wake up in a cold sweat at the thought of the F-35 going in with only two air-dominance weapons."[115] However the Norwegians have been briefed on a plan to equip the F-35 with six AIM-120D missiles by 2019.[116]

Former RAND author John Stillion has written of the F-35A's air-to-air combat performance that it “can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run”, but Lockheed Martin test pilot Jon Beesley has countered that in an air-to-air configuration the F-35 has almost as much thrust as weight and a flight control system that allows it to be fully maneuverable even at a 50-degree angle of attack.[117]

 

[Volkodav]

I got to add, there have certainly been concerns regarding the air-to-air capability of the F-35, but they seem to have been adressed. Regardless of that, this will be a controversial topic until the F-35 actually proves itself in air-to-air combat in a real battle, non-testing environment.

Don't really have a lot of time for Rand; having seen first hand how they conduct research for their reports.

They were assessing the capability of an organisation to conduct a certain type of work and as part of this process distributed a questionaire, the trouble is the wording and structure of this questionaire suggested an insufficient level of background knowledge to be assessing this particular capability in the particular environment at all. They did not appear to have sufficient knowledge of the local qualification structure to be able to accurately assess the competence or capability of thoses surveyed through a questionaire alone but that is exactly what they did. End result they found the local work force lacked the required level of qualifications and experience to do the job on their own. Doh!