F-35 Multirole Joint Strike Fighter

[Gerry301]

quite frankly the last thing we want is the F-22. They have some looming nightmares coming up with through life integration into their 2014-2025 ewarfare plans - JSF has learnt from that lesson. (one of the many lessons learnt from the F-22 program)

I suspect that the US is also quite happy not to flog them off when they know what maint they have to endure themselves for he next 15-20 years. They'll be hoarding those parts like squirrels with a paucity of nuts for winter....

RAAF never wanted them no matter what the papers might try and spruik.

No doubt many lessons have been learned from the F-22 while building on technology for the F-35. (some have even been backfitted to the F-22) However, I don't believe electronic warfare is one of them. EW is constantly being upgraded and the F-22 has built in room for upgrades. Nor would be spare parts. The production lines are remaining open for spares as well as long lead items. These have been funded by the US congress. I suspect the suppliers will continue to produce as long as there is a possibility that foreign sales may occur in the near future.

This isn't the F-111 that the US congress saw early on as a "dog" and cut funding for, there by limiting any spares available.

 

[the road runner]

Not in the existing development partnership. All of the available tech sharing slots are gone - and that means any future buyers would be buyers only - as the techn sharing slots are fully committed. ie Israel, Japan, or India can only participate as customers.

One question that you may be able to answer ,if possible gf........
How(is) would profits be shared between the partner nations?

I would assume USA would get the lions share( as they should) of the profits,but would the partner nations share in profits?

This is where shades of grey come into my understanding of the JSF project.

I do understand that partner nations have won work to supply goods and services to the JSF coalition.Thats how partner nations will re-coupe,some of the money spent on joining the JSF team.

Say India and Japan were to purchase 100 JSF each.
Would Australia recieve a profit from these sales?

comments welcomed

 

[gf0012-aust]

This isn't the F-111 that the US congress saw early on as a "dog" and cut funding for, there by limiting any spares available.

I made the claim on parts and ewarfare integration issues, because I do have some indirect involvement in some of the projects over recent years.

The US will be silently hoping that this sudden rush by some congressmen collapses pretty quickly - we know that they don't have some spiral development opportunities because the JSF and the Shornets are included in some future ewarfare upgrades - the F-22 is not. There are some parts sets which cannot get an in-platform upgrade.

To integrate means virtually a change over of some core functionality - and that means fundamentally a new build with different systems. As a parallel analogy it's akin to comparing Hornet with SuperHornet as far as systems changes are concerned. That in particular is one of the positive lessons that JSF has picked up from the F-22 program.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I do understand that partner nations have won work to supply goods and services to the JSF coalition.Thats how partner nations will re-coupe,some of the money spent on joining the JSF team.

Can't answer as I don't know. I do know however that a few of the partners in the existing cohort of partners have contributed in a number of ways to various technology developments. we would expect that those developments would not be made available to non cohort partners as the IP is not communal. ie its developed by member countries, not by the builder. Likewise, the UK has veto over whether some of its own tech solutions could be included in a second tranche to countries that may not be regarded as safe, desirable, or demonstrating community goodwill etc... For india that would be a problem as there are some countries that take offence at the Indian demand that it get full tech sharing on any systems it buys. That's just not going to happen for some members. Some countries who have been long term allies of the US expect that if they've made concessions on IP sharing etc or ITARs caveated tech, then no dispensation should be made for India who has not invested anything be it money or IP into what is a common build weapons platform.

 

[IPA35]

I think my country should place an order of 40 F35A's soon.
Instead of 85, but Instead order an additional 60-65 Gripen NG's.
(Economical reasons, more usefull in full scale national defence...)

 

[Aussie Digger]

I think my country should place an order of 40 F35A's soon.
Instead of 85, but Instead order an additional 60-65 Gripen NG's.
(Economical reasons, more usefull in full scale national defence...)

Useful how?

How is it going to be economical to operate 2 fastjet types instead of one?

This argument does not make sense to me. I presume your Country currently operates the F-16?

Why does it make sense to expand to two completely different tactical fighters?

 

[IPA35]

Because the F-35 is more expensive to operate, fuel, buy and needs more personell.
It is however more advanced, has a longer range and can carry more.

The Gripen is cheaper to maintain, fuel and needs only few (lowtrained) personell to get it going.
And we only have 2 fighter bases, and since runways are first targets, the Gripen's capability too take of from roads+easy maintainace would make it the better fighter in such a situation.
It was designed to operate in conditions in which you don't have air superiority.
It is also more agile.

Be operated 2 types until 1992...
F-104 1962-1983
NF-5 1969-1992
F-16 1979>

It happened before that one fleet had to be grounded because of technical problems, so it is good to have 2 types in case 1 type is not available.

 

[Crusader2000]

Because the F-35 is more expensive to operate, fuel, buy and needs more personell.
It is however more advanced, has a longer range and can carry more.

I've seen nothing to suggest the Gripen NG will require less personal to operate than a Lightning II............are you making an assumption??? Maybe you have a source???

The Gripen is cheaper to maintain, fuel and needs only few (lowtrained) personell to get it going.

Even if true the F-35 is vastly more capable and will be in service with far more countries than the Gripen.

Sorry, cheaper is not necessarily better.......

And we only have 2 fighter bases, and since runways are first targets, the Gripen's capability too take of from roads+easy maintainace would make it the better fighter in such a situation.
It was designed to operate in conditions in which you don't have air superiority.

If, Norway is so worried about its two runways being attacked. It could select the STOVL F-35B. Which, could take-off from almost any location.

BTW A capability that the Gripen NG does not have...........

It is also more agile.

Again I see nothing to support such a claim. Further, while its possible the Gripen NG is more agile clean. In the real world with external fuel and weapons. I highly doubt a combat loaded Gripen NG is more agile than a clean F-35.

Be operated 2 types until 1992...
F-104 1962-1983
NF-5 1969-1992
F-16 1979>

It happened before that one fleet had to be grounded because of technical problems, so it is good to have 2 types in case 1 type is not available.

Considering the number to be acquired and the budgets available. I don't believe you can make a case for "two" tactical fighters........IMO

 

[IPA35]

The numbers...
Ok, but I think it is a bit few and 100 fighters would be ideal.

How come the NG will not have that capability?
The B could take of from road, yes, but it would still require alot of highly trained personell.
And it is even more expensive an complex.

It is not something that is being dicussed or something, but it is as I would like to see it.

 

[Crusader2000]

The numbers...
Ok, but I think it is a bit few and 100 fighters would be ideal.

It clearly would be more expensive to operate two types vs one.....

How come the NG will not have that capability?
The B could take of from road, yes, but it would still require alot of highly trained personell.
And it is even more expensive an complex.

The Gripen needs a longer road or runway to operate. The F-35B does not and would be vastly harder to target.....

Further, I think you are assuming the Gripen is far easier to support than the Lightning. Which, may not be true..........As a matter of fact the F-35 can self diagnose problems mid-air and communicate with maintenance personal back on the ground. Which, could have replacement parts available even before the aircraft lands. This would give the F-35 a quick repair and turn around time. Another option the Gripen does not have compared to the Lightning II.

It is not something that is being dicussed or something, but it is as I would like to see it.

You lost me on that part??? Maybe you could rephrase the question???

 

[localhost127]

The Gripen is cheaper to maintain, fuel and needs only few (lowtrained) personell to get it going.

can you define/cite "low trained" ?

 

[Crusader2000]

can you define/cite "low trained" ?

Funny, on how advance and capable the Gripen NG is. Yet, in only requires "low trained" personal to operate it???


BTW Go Red Wings!

 

[IPA35]

Gripen - The wings of your nation - Proven High Reliability

Can't find the part about the lower trained GROUND personel...
Yet ik can be operated by a ground crew of 5...

But lets not make this a VS thread.

 

[energo]

Because the F-35 is more expensive to operate, fuel, buy and needs more personell.
It is however more advanced, has a longer range and can carry more.

The Gripen is cheaper to maintain, fuel and needs only few (lowtrained) personell to get it going.
And we only have 2 fighter bases, and since runways are first targets, the Gripen's capability too take of from roads+easy maintainace would make it the better fighter in such a situation.
It was designed to operate in conditions in which you don't have air superiority.
It is also more agile.

You can not ignore that your country concluded - like the Norwegians - that the F-35 will be both cheaper to own and operate, as well the the only candidate able to carry out the full specter of required missions, including air-to-air combat.

B. Bolsøy
Oslo

 

[IPA35]

It is because they alreadyhave spent alot of money in the project and because of the mighty JSF lobby.
And it is not cheaper, far from.
That is true (although I hope they will be able to equippe it with the METEOR ASAP).
But the F-35 cannot operate from a road and it needs more personel.
And it is more expensive.
BTW I hope they make the F-35 ALARM compatible, then you have your full spectrum.
40 F-35 and 60 Gripen NG, IMO better tham 85 F35 when a REAL war breaks out (over here).

But someone said the NG version can't take off from very short strips, I need more info on that. (Ill post in the Gripen thread)

 

[Crusader2000]

It is because they alreadyhave spent alot of money in the project and because of the mighty JSF lobby.
And it is not cheaper, far from.
That is true (although I hope they will be able to equippe it with the METEOR ASAP).
But the F-35 cannot operate from a road and it needs more personel.
And it is more expensive.
BTW I hope they make the F-35 ALARM compatible, then you have your full spectrum.
40 F-35 and 60 Gripen NG, IMO better tham 85 F35 when a REAL war breaks out (over here).

But someone said the NG version can't take off from very short strips, I need more info on that. (Ill post in the Gripen thread)

Well, the experts seem to disagree with your accessment........Regardless, we are not going to see a mixed force of Gripens and Lightnings in any Air Force. Really, at this stage we don't even know if the Gripen NG will be exported. As it hasn't won any orders as of yet.

 

[energo]

It is because they alreadyhave spent alot of money in the project and because of the mighty JSF lobby.
And it is not cheaper, far from.
That is true (although I hope they will be able to equippe it with the METEOR ASAP).
But the F-35 cannot operate from a road and it needs more personel.
And it is more expensive.
BTW I hope they make the F-35 ALARM compatible, then you have your full spectrum.
40 F-35 and 60 Gripen NG, IMO better tham 85 F35 when a REAL war breaks out (over here).

But someone said the NG version can't take off from very short strips, I need more info on that. (Ill post in the Gripen thread)

This is a well meaning advice.Instead of posting empty claims, try to back up your arguments with tangible facts. This is not a forum for conspiracy theories.

Last time I checked, the Gripen NG could operate from short runways -- as little as 600 meters. That's most likely less than the F-35, but recall last years A/B take off by John Beesley at about 1000 meters with 18500 punds of fuel and ordnance on a fairly hot day.

B. Bolsøy
Oslo

 

[IPA35]

I'll post my reaction in the Gripen NG thread.

 

[Aussie Digger]

It is because they alreadyhave spent alot of money in the project and because of the mighty JSF lobby.
And it is not cheaper, far from.
That is true (although I hope they will be able to equippe it with the METEOR ASAP).
But the F-35 cannot operate from a road and it needs more personel.
And it is more expensive.
BTW I hope they make the F-35 ALARM compatible, then you have your full spectrum.
40 F-35 and 60 Gripen NG, IMO better tham 85 F35 when a REAL war breaks out (over here).

But someone said the NG version can't take off from very short strips, I need more info on that. (Ill post in the Gripen thread)

Well the JSF hasn't been tested from roadways, that is true, but Singapore operates F-16's on roadway takeoffs and they are generally not considered "capable" of taking off from roadways.

RSAF have shown innumerable times that the F-16 is indeed capable of this. What makes you think the Lightning couldn't do it too, if needs be? It's P:W is greater than F-16 variants, it's acceleration has already been demonstrated to be superior on multiple occasions and it's aerodynamics ARE going to be better, due to internal weapons, sensor and fuel carriage.

As to the "short space" requirements. No Gripen will ever match the short takeoff capability of the F-35 B STOVL aircraft, which as others have suggested could be an option if the short takeoff requirement is as great as suggested.

 

[gf0012-aust]

It is because they alreadyhave spent alot of money in the project and because of the mighty JSF lobby.

Sorry, evaluations are done by pilots and civilian procurement personnel. Its the air force that sets the criteria, and its the airforce that makes a technical assessment about a platforms suitability and capability against their selection criteria.

Lobby groups have only so much clout. They have no technical participation - and they have NO involvement in any of the determinations as platforms are evaluated.

The comment that lobby groups determine national weapons purchases has a very very insignificant scintilla of truth.

As the swedish defence minister said re RNAF - he understood why Gripen was not selected based on capability and performance criteria. The implication was that maybe, just maybe, SAAB had not responded appropriately to the tender requirements and made assumptions.

That's not unique, I've been involved in any number of programs and projects where a vendor assumed that they had a final contender, and stuffed up their submission completely.