F-35 Fantasy or Fake F-35 Discussions Debunked

[F-15 Eagle]

Gates says funding for new long range bomber in 2011.

After being delayed it looks like I have some good news regarding the new longer bomber that will get funding in 2011.

Gates says the F-35 stands at 2400 to 2500 jets as well so no cuts.

Link: Gates sees funding for new bomber in fiscal 2011 | Reuters

 

[localhost127]

can anyone quote on f-35 simulators?

or provide any insight to comparison of legacy platforms? how far have simulators come? i understand combat/flight training is happening before the platforms are in serial production, but has it always been like this? or is this a new approach (maybe due to technological advances in the simulation sector).

are simulators being provided to all tier 1 partners, or further down the list?
what about maintanence training and things of that nature.

just how much readiness and preparation (pilots and crew) can be accomplished before the aircraft is actually produced?

 

[Sea Toby]

whats wrong with that? to spend taxpayers money on social security is far better than spending it on Arms! i belive any HUMAN would agree!

Read American history. After the Civil War the US allowed its navy to rot! After more than twenty years of not building a new warship, yes twenty years-a liberal's dream, three of our obsolete wooden hulled square rigged steamers sunk in Apia, Samoa during an incident with the German Pacific fleet . Hard to believe, but its true, those where the only three US navy ships in the Pacific.

At that time, and after building a navy large enough to win the Civil War, the US concentrated on its army winning the west with a policy of Manifest Destiny. But twenty years later our navy wasn't much of a navy. While we had wooden hulled ships, other nations navies were more modern with steel hulled ships... Frankly those three ships weren't up to the task....

It didn't take long before there were cries from the US west coast, where is our navy? No need to tell you after the Samoan debacle the US started to build a steel navy, the steel navy which won the Spanish-American war ten years later.

Morale of story. If we couldn't go twenty years during the late nineteenth century without building modern ships and allowed our ships to become obsolescent, why do you think we can do so in the twenty-first century?

The first priority of any government is to maintain a defense capable of defending the USA.... before any other priority.... Liberals don't believe with this priority, although moderates and conservatives do....

 

[F-15 Eagle]

Sea Toby hit the nail in the head, its true what he says.

 

[fltworthy]

whats wrong with that? to spend taxpayers money on social security is far better than spending it on Arms! i belive any HUMAN would agree!

None of us who actually work with this kind of hardware necessarily want to spend our lives preparing machines intended to kill someone. I really wish the world was a different place than it is. But it's not. There are a whole line of crazy meglomaniacs out there that would like nothing more than to see the US lay down its arms so that they could march across their little corner of the globe. That little incident on September 11th? That's only a taste of what they'd do to us if they could. None of us has to like it. But pretending it isn't so is not going to put a stop to them. Like it or not, providing for our national defense is a necessity - not a luxury.

 

[Sea Toby]

To make a long story short, the US among other nations build their forces and government from the ground up. There are reasons why we support the sizes of our armed forces. One can't just dream up a number to fit, the numbers were built up with sound reasoning. With the navy we start with two ocean fleets, since the Samoan debacle and Spanish-American war.

To deploy one ship abroad, the navy operates three ships, with its peacetime rotation policy of three to one. One can easily argue what is wrong with a two to one ship policy, but there wouldn't be too many sailors left in the navy. As it is sailors spend six months deployed out of eighteen months, to drive that to nine months out of eighteen will result in many fewer reenlistments. On the other hand these sophisticated ships lose capabilities the longer they are deployed too. They lose their edge and require a maintenance period.

So between balancing maintenance with crew morale, two thirds of the navy aren't deployed at any given time. Lately, we have swung ships into the Indian Ocean, which requires more than a three to one policy considering the long range of their voyages. Thus the number of ten, three for the Atlantic, three for the Pacific, and four for the Indian generally speaking. Because one of the nuclear propelled carriers is in a nuclear refueling maintenace period, we get to the number of eleven.

The rest of the fleet is built up to follow the carriers for escorts, supply, etc. To cut the fleet by two carriers means we can't deploy one carrier to the three oceans at any given time. Instead of having a carrier nearby, one may have to come from the homeland USA.... which could take up to a month. Doing so would mess up the three to one policy considerably....

Of course any government can change this policy, but at the moment it is our policy supported by the Congress.

 

[OpinionNoted]

The bulk of the F-35's new capability lead is in its "electronics", and it's been the lions share of the R&D too. The F-35 is miles ahead of the competition in this respect, and the fact is avionics are the most readily upgraded element of the platform i.e. the F-35 is miles ahead of the competition and this lead is not entrenched in the design. It CAN and WILL be upgraded constantly. Just look at the evolution of the F-16 family, it still offers avionics options that even the Typhoon and Flanker family do not. I doubt anyone will "catch up" ever.




Electronics are a critical part of "stealth". LPI sensors/comms and countermeasures are just as important to maintaining an F-35 information dominance as airframe materials and plan form alignment. Anyway the F-35 of 2030 WILL have a smaller RCS than the F-35 of 2015 simply throught improvements in signature management tech.

Sorry for this late post in regards to this post but im making my way through this thread.

In regards to avionics optoins that even typhoon and flanker do not offer and you doubt anyone will catch up ever, i take it your refering to F35?>
Id just say that even with 1/4 the economic wealth per head of population,that both china and india will be able to match the US in R&D.
Now if and when economic parity is reached by either of thoses nations then each will be able to expend 1/4 the monnies to realize the same R&D budget of the US(per head of population)so its only a matter of time before both can over take the US in the tech stakes.

 

[Todjaeger]

Sorry for this late post in regards to this post but im making my way through this thread.

In regards to avionics optoins that even typhoon and flanker do not offer and you doubt anyone will catch up ever, i take it your refering to F35?>
Id just say that even with 1/4 the economic wealth per head of population,that both china and india will be able to match the US in R&D.
Now if and when economic parity is reached by either of thoses nations then each will be able to expend 1/4 the monnies to realize the same R&D budget of the US(per head of population)so its only a matter of time before both can over take the US in the tech stakes.

Perhaps. Then again, perhaps not.

At present, the US seems to have the overall lead in both technology and R&D for military applications, as well as one of the largest (if it is not still the largest) economies and civilian/consumer tech bases in the world. With the latter assisting in development as well as funding the former.

According to current demographic projections, China and/or India will in the near (not immediate) future surpass the US in terms of economic strength, which then leads some to the belief that those countries will also surpass the US in terms of technology as well.

If either/both countries reach the point of economic 'superiority' if you will, and are able to maintain that for a period of time, then yes, it is likely these countries will be able to surpass US technology.

Simply having larger economies however, does not automatically ensure such technological domination. For starters, money/effort still needs to be expended on R&D. If China and/or India has a larger economy than the US, but only spends $10 billion per annum on R&D, while the US spends $20 billion per annum, neither country could reasonably expect to reach technological overmatch, particularly with the US starting with a technological edge.

It might not be possible for either country initially to begin matching the level of resources the US allocates towards R&D, once they have overtaken the US economically. After all, one of the reasons it seems likely that the economies of both countries will eventually overtake the US economy is because the two countries collectively have ~ 33% of the worlds total population, or each having roughly 3-4 x the US population. This also means that after initially assuming the larger economy, the nations' per capita will still be ~1/4 to 1/3 the per capita income of the US, which means that one should not automatically assume that it will be easy to fund the needed budget level.

Additionally, people often forget that the US does not stop conducting R&D, that the US technology base is not static. Therefore in order for a nation to achieve parity, a given nation would not only need to develop the technology the US already has, it also needs to be able to keep pace with future US developments. In order to achieve overmatch, not only does all this need to be accomplished, but then whatever nation also needs to be able to achieve technological breakthroughs at a faster pace than the US. Once the technological edge has been achieved, the given nation would then at a minimum need to match the pace of US R&D in order to maintain a technological edge.

Is such a situation possible? IMO certainly, but to achieve such an outcome is going to be the work of years, if not a generations.

-Cheers

 

[PeterCrisp]

The problem is that once a technology has been invented it's much easier for another nation to invent it themselves as even with the most secure of systems information will leak out. I think a lot of people on here know a fair bit about how stealth works for instance even if only from unclassified sources so I don't think it would take that long for any nation to work out how the F-22 does what it does and make a similar product if the money was available.
The US and Europe don't have a monopoly on great designers and as most of our products are manufactured in China they certainly have the manufacturing capability.
Yes the US has the lead now but who knows what will happen in the next 20 years as no country stays the most powerful forever.

 

[Feanor]

Generations? Maybe two generations. At the current course. Granted the "current course" never lasts very long. To be honest there are too many variables that go into predicting this sort of thing. Realistically any broad predicitions more then 10 years into the future are guesswork.

And to be honest this is quite off topic. The current situation is that nothing matches the F-35. The F-35 also comes from the country with the only operating 5th generation fighter jet, and the worlds most powerful airforce. So given the 1) experience of operations, 2) technological superiority and 3) international confidence in the program, there is hardly going to be any overmatch on the part of India, China, and Co.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

In regards to avionics optoins that even typhoon and flanker do not offer and you doubt anyone will catch up ever, i take it your refering to F35?>

I was just referring to "electronics" technology in general.

Id just say that even with 1/4 the economic wealth per head of population,that both china and india will be able to match the US in R&D.

Now if and when economic parity is reached by either of thoses nations then each will be able to expend 1/4 the monnies to realize the same R&D budget of the US(per head of population)so its only a matter of time before both can over take the US in the tech stakes.

Tod has already dealt with the industrial element, so i'll just touch on the economics.

It appears you think that it is a sure thing that India or China will achieve economic superiority over the US? Which projections claim that either will reach the US in GDP, even in PPP terms? If you think the current rate of growth in China is anything close to sustainable I'd suggest you read a little more on the subject.

Let’s just say it's a very uncertain thing that either China or India will ever reach parity with the US in terms of GDP. There are massive developmental constraints in both nations that will not only limit per capita and aggregate GDP growth but cause significant social instability. Certainly I don’t think it’s a realistic outcome in the foreseeable future.

Additionally it is important to consider per capita GDP in addition to aggregate GDP when determining the amount of economic resources that can be put towards R&D; per capita GDP determines the government’s ability to tax. For example if China and Japan were to reach the same level of aggregate GDP Japan's budget would likely be virtually double that available to Beijing. If you compare Indonesia and Australia you will see the same thing (Indonesia has a larger GDP but less than half the budget).

Again that’s just the economic comparison. Then you have to consider the competitive advantage the US holds in this industry, the US dominates commercial electronic R&D currently and has an unparalleled R&D base. Even IF India or China reach economic parity they will still be at a disadvantage.

 

[DEFENCEMASTER05]

Sorry for this late post in regards to this post but im making my way through this thread.

In regards to avionics optoins that even typhoon and flanker do not offer and you doubt anyone will catch up ever, i take it your refering to F35?>
Id just say that even with 1/4 the economic wealth per head of population,that both china and india will be able to match the US in R&D.
Now if and when economic parity is reached by either of thoses nations then each will be able to expend 1/4 the monnies to realize the same R&D budget of the US(per head of population)so its only a matter of time before both can over take the US in the tech stakes.

To OpinionNoted, Yes I believe you are right in what you posted to me, the F35 JSF is a superior fighter to anything that is out their at present, even the F22 Rapture. But the defence industry must be patient with the development of the JSF and I believe the US won't cancel this program, to many nations have invested into this program.

Fully agree with you concerning China and India, these nations are moving to become a military power and will be a concern to Australia's defence security in the not to distant future. The US is no longer the major world power, China, Russia, India, and even the EU when they combine their military resources will be a major threat. Defence is no longer a regional concern for Australia but a Global concern. Australia can no longer rely on the US for protection, which they have been very passive about over the years in just expecting the US to help Australia. The Howard government with the ADF had begun setting the rebuilding of the ADF in the right direction. But still the ADF needs to make further steps in improving the ADF capabilities and capacities, not just equipment but personnel numbers. The Australian Government needs to recruit future personnel from the unemployment lines and train them in different trades that the ADF does offer as well as training them as soldiers.

I have also seen footage of the F/A 18 F Super Hornet and this aircraft is also a very impressive a highly capabile aircraft, the JSF and the Super Hornet will ad more dimension to Australia's Air Defence in the future..

 

[gf0012-aust]

To OpinionNoted, Yes I believe you are right in what you posted to me, the F35 JSF is a superior fighter to anything that is out their at present, even the F22 Rapture. But the defence industry must be patient with the development of the JSF and I believe the US won't cancel this program, to many nations have invested into this program.

F-22 = Raptor.

The JSF is the aviation equiv of the USN concept for a 1000 ship navy. Its not going away.

Fully agree with you concerning China and India, these nations are moving to become a military power and will be a concern to Australia's defence security in the not to distant future. The US is no longer the major world power, China, Russia, India, and even the EU when they combine their military resources will be a major threat.

Sorry, thats just rubbish. The US combined service footprint has far greater capability than all other militaries combined. IN fact, we had a briefing the other day where it was clearly pointed out that all other militaries combined in annual procurement do not equal US procurement power. This notion that the US is on a military and economic backfoot just does not stand up to clinical rigour.

Defence is no longer a regional concern for Australia but a Global concern. Australia can no longer rely on the US for protection, which they have been very passive about over the years in just expecting the US to help Australia.

where in aust defence procurement over the last 20 years has there been any indication on US reliance for capability? we have an alliance with over 26 other countries - we have a relationship with the US because culturally and socially we have far more in common than we have in differences. This concept of passive participation exists where? DO you actually realise how much day to day significant military engagement we have with the US? and I am NOT talking about warfighting events, I am talking about real day to day intelligence and tech exchange.

The Howard government with the ADF had begun setting the rebuilding of the ADF in the right direction. But still the ADF needs to make further steps in improving the ADF capabilities and capacities, not just equipment but personnel numbers.

well, in actual fact no.. Howard has caused more problems because instead of going through staged procurement we drifted into ad-hoc pucrhases where the raise train and sustain budgets were not allocated properly. The reason why we are expected to save $20bn over the next 10 years is due to a failure in governance. Buying pretty toys and having visibility does not equate to effective procurement.

The Australian Government needs to recruit future personnel from the unemployment lines and train them in different trades that the ADF does offer as well as training them as soldiers.

I spent 2 years as the state manager for defence force recruitment in one of the States. If you think that we get the best bang for buck by recruiting people via Centrelink backwash then you are absolutely dreaming. More than 80% of them were woftams. It cost us more money trying to vet these people rather than profile the effective ones. Its been an absolute stuff up since Howard outsourced DFR to "save money". DFR and Garrison Support outsourcing have been one of the stellar stuff ups of the prev govt, unfort its too expensive and impractical to wind it back.

 

[B3LA]

Navy and their soon-to-be F-35Cs

Looks like Peter Goon has received new fuel for his (un)holy crusade :

Navy F-35 study has fueled new speculation in the defense industry | News | News from Fo...

The Navy's threat to bail out has to be taken seriously, knowing their history of
going their own way, and I guess their F-18s should be in a some what better shape
than the aging F-15s and F-16s of the Air Force?

But what are in reality their alternatives here ?
Mix a very limited number of F-35s, dedicated for deep strikes only, with more
SHornets for daily use ?
Develop something brand new as they have done before ?

 

[Aussie Digger]

Looks like Peter Goon has received new fuel for his (un)holy crusade :

Navy F-35 study has fueled new speculation in the defense industry | News | News from Fo...

The Navy's threat to bail out has to be taken seriously, knowing their history of
going their own way, and I guess their F-18s should be in a some what better shape
than the aging F-15s and F-16s of the Air Force?

But what are in reality their alternatives here ?
Mix a very limited number of F-35s, dedicated for deep strikes only, with more
SHornets for daily use ?
Develop something brand new as they have done before ?

That study has already been dismissed by:

1. USN.

2. USAF.

3. L-M.

I'm sure Peter Goon will react all hysterically to it, as per usual and fill his comments with the usual "dark hints" but I very much doubt anyone will care...

At best it might garner him an extra 50-60 cents worth of hits on his propaganda page...

 

[B3LA]

Well, I'm not at all surprised that L-M dismissed it...
Question is if the Navy leaked the study on purpose as a first indicator that they want to bail out.
Navy pilots don't want to bath and the F-35 has too few engines.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Well, I'm not at all surprised that L-M dismissed it...
Question is if the Navy leaked the study on purpose as a first indicator that they want to bail out.
Navy pilots don't want to bath and the F-35 has too few engines.

Too few for what?

The X-47B UCAS-D only has a single engine. Apparently that doesn't concern the Navy too much...

F-16 has only one engine and is demonstrably the safest aircraft in the USAF.

2 engines equals twice as many things that can go wrong, in my book...

 

[AegisFC]

Well, I'm not at all surprised that L-M dismissed it...
Question is if the Navy leaked the study on purpose as a first indicator that they want to bail out.
Navy pilots don't want to bath and the F-35 has too few engines.

What? The USN has happily used single engined jets in the past. Go look up the A-7 and its cousin the F-8 Crusader, both had good safety records.

I wouldn't put too much faith in that article, they quote someone from APA.

 

[Kilo 2-3]

In regards to the single engine issue.

If I recall correctly the Navy was initially somewhat reluctnant to accept a single-engine design on the JSF, but L-M did some studies showing the reliabilty of the design, mean time between failures etc. and the eventually Navy accepted it.

Aegis, I don't remember the F-8 as having a particularly good safety record. It apparantly was a bugger to land, and the long fuselage and pilot's positioning near the nose made it prone to ramp and tailstrikes. (I recall reading something about this in John Sherwood's The Fast Movers.)

However, your point on the safety of single engine designs still stands, since most of the Crusader losses weren't related to engine failures. (The only Crusader engine failure I can remember off the top of my head was due to fuel starvation).

The single-engine A-4 was also fairly safe by most accounts.

 

[AegisFC]

I
Aegis, I don't remember the F-8 as having a particularly good safety record. It apparantly was a bugger to land, and the long fuselage and pilot's positioning near the nose made it prone to ramp and tailstrikes. (I recall reading something about this in John Sherwood's The Fast Movers.)

I haven't heard that, interesting. Did the A-7 (based on the F-8) have the same problems since it had the same fuselage length and pilot position?