this is the current costs wait out more to come
F-35 Fantasy or Fake F-35 Discussions Debunked
- Thread starter djpav
- Start date
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Not one program partner has pulled out of the F-35 program and orders for the F-35 are being taken.
No they haven't. The USAF and USN requirements for F-35 remain as they always have been.
It is not doomed, nor is it getting that way. It has survived Nunn-McCurdy, the flight testing rate is improving and even the F-35C model is conducting high speed taxi tests, the last ones before it too, will be flying...
Doomed? Hardly. The program is in better shape now than it was 12 months ago...
why why why
[why in the world if this is an intelligent talking points forum would ever have talk starting out with "the f35 is doomed??" what sense does it make? and who are making these wild claims? The f35 is not intended to out maneuver all of the planes in the world and if it does its a bonus. its role is short take off, vertical lift, full awareness with sensor fusion, integrated weapons and heads up displays and intelligence back to the battlefield in a blink of and eye and a radar signature that is very unique and still top secret except for those working on it! so my question is unless this forum contains all the top brass of the military and lock heeds employees and scientists and physicists then why the ridiculous thread? It stirs up animosity against the the peace process and its negative to boot and with all the financial world in trouble we don't need this thread to stir up this anti US garbage!
[why in the world if this is an intelligent talking points forum would ever have talk starting out with "the f35 is doomed??" what sense does it make? and who are making these wild claims? The f35 is not intended to out maneuver all of the planes in the world and if it does its a bonus. its role is short take off, vertical lift, full awareness with sensor fusion, integrated weapons and heads up displays and intelligence back to the battlefield in a blink of and eye and a radar signature that is very unique and still top secret except for those working on it! so my question is unless this forum contains all the top brass of the military and lock heeds employees and scientists and physicists then why the ridiculous thread? It stirs up animosity against the the peace process and its negative to boot and with all the financial world in trouble we don't need this thread to stir up this anti US garbage!
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Try reading the thing before going off half-cocked. All the issues you have raised have been addressed time and time again.
I like to think it is a reasonably intelligent forum. So far you haven't contributed one iota to that.
Instead of preaching, try illuminating if you have such a great insight as to be able to instruct others...
weasel1962
New Member
Technically correct only up to Oct 2001 (at MoU stage). Prior to Oct 2001, it was 2,852 (USAF:1,763, USN: 480, USMC: 609) back to 1997. At program start, it was 2,978 (USAF:2,036, USN: 300, USMC: 642) which was the original requirement.
Source on 2,852: See page 4
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10478t.pdf
Source on 2,978: See page 12
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05519t.pdf
Interesting to note that full rate production decision will only be taken at year 2016.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Technically, prior to October 2001, there was NO requirement for the F-35 JSF. There was a requirement to replace F-16, F/A-18, A-10 et al, but it wasn't necessarily with JSF. The JSF program was only given the official go-ahead on October 26, 2001...
JSF.mil > History > F-35 Acquisition
However JAST etc did exist, so what you say is true enough. Still the official requirement for JSF by America has been locked in for 9 years now and hasn't yet changed...
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Actually I think he might be referring to the revised CAPE estimates which should be released in the beginning of this month. I can't figure if it's the lowest, highest or 50/50 estimate though. I'll wait till more info comes out.
I any case, CAPE may be setting themselves up for a ride, as their estimates are badly challenged by reality.
F-15 Eagle
New Member
With a price tag of $382 billion I hope this program does not get cut.
They need the F-35 as a matter of national security to replace current tactical aircraft.
They need the F-35 as a matter of national security to replace current tactical aircraft.
Come to think about it...Have ANY US military aviation project after the
teens been on time, on budget and delivered the planned numbers?
Science and Techology is still there, but Administration / Management
seems to be lacking.
Looking in the rear mirror, I don't see any shining beacons :
F-22, B-2, B-1A/B-1B, V-22 all had bad births....Politics....Changed tactics...
completly new technologies, sure, that might explain some of the problems.
But not all.
F-117 might be an exeption, but as only 65 was produced and at a very slow
speed to keep it in the shadow, it deviates too much to be in the comparison.
F-22 : 650 planned, 187 delivered
B-2 Spirit : 132 planned, 21 delivered
B-1A : 240 planned, 100 B-1B delivered
F-117 : 20 planned, 65 delivered
V-22 Osprey : 547 planned , 126 delivered so far...
So it's no big surprise really that the F-35 would follow the same pattern, especially
since the targets for the project changed when the F-22 was cancelled.
Now, I'm sure it will be alright in the end, but at what cost and in what numbers
time will have to tell.
With the tight budget under the Obama administration, no one can be sure
of anything. Soon the US will loose it's only ride to space and will have to start
buying tickets from the Russians. That's just plain embarrasing for the nation
that declared that it won the space race. (No offence to the Russians)
teens been on time, on budget and delivered the planned numbers?
Science and Techology is still there, but Administration / Management
seems to be lacking.
Looking in the rear mirror, I don't see any shining beacons :
F-22, B-2, B-1A/B-1B, V-22 all had bad births....Politics....Changed tactics...
completly new technologies, sure, that might explain some of the problems.
But not all.
F-117 might be an exeption, but as only 65 was produced and at a very slow
speed to keep it in the shadow, it deviates too much to be in the comparison.
F-22 : 650 planned, 187 delivered
B-2 Spirit : 132 planned, 21 delivered
B-1A : 240 planned, 100 B-1B delivered
F-117 : 20 planned, 65 delivered
V-22 Osprey : 547 planned , 126 delivered so far...
So it's no big surprise really that the F-35 would follow the same pattern, especially
since the targets for the project changed when the F-22 was cancelled.
Now, I'm sure it will be alright in the end, but at what cost and in what numbers
time will have to tell.
With the tight budget under the Obama administration, no one can be sure
of anything. Soon the US will loose it's only ride to space and will have to start
buying tickets from the Russians. That's just plain embarrasing for the nation
that declared that it won the space race. (No offence to the Russians)
F-15 Eagle
New Member
I think the obama administration wants to increase funding for the F-35 actually, and the US can't afford to let the F-35 numbers be cut like other aircraft, those 2457 jets are need to replace the current fighter inventory.
Lockheed Sketches a Few F-35B Problems
By JOHN REED
Published: 2 Jun 2010
Lockheed Sketches a Few F-35B Problems - Defense News
Lockheed Martin has clarified reports by a senior Pentagon official June 1 that the Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing version of the F-35 Lighting II Joint Strike Fighter continues to encounter difficulties in flight testing.
While the Bethesda, Md.-based company has discovered several problems with the STOVL version of the jet during flight testing, none has caused the test schedule to slip, a senior Lockheed official said.
The Pentagon official told reporters that STOVL problems had helped cause the program's breach of the Nunn-McCurdy statute that caps per-unit cost growth on weapons.
The problems include ones that affect the lift fan doors and jet engine actuator nozzle. A packaging problem bent pins in the rudder pedals as they were shipped to Lockheed, according to the official.
The official would not elaborate on these "discoveries" or the fixes that have been developed for them.
"When you do flight test, the desire is" to discover any possible problems with the aircraft, the official said June 2. "We've done well and we're ahead of plan; so you try to discover as many things as you can, so it's really a tribute to the test program to exercise the jet in a manner where you could discover anything that could be improved."
He reiterated Lockheed's claims that the program is back on track following this spring's restructuring of the program that came in the wake of the Nunn-McCurdy breach.
The program has completed 93 test flights in 2010, three more than planned, the official said.
Numerous problems that arose during the development of the STOVL jet contributed to what eventually became a two-year delay in the jet's development program. The restructuring cut this delay by half.
By JOHN REED
Published: 2 Jun 2010
Lockheed Sketches a Few F-35B Problems - Defense News
Lockheed Martin has clarified reports by a senior Pentagon official June 1 that the Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing version of the F-35 Lighting II Joint Strike Fighter continues to encounter difficulties in flight testing.
While the Bethesda, Md.-based company has discovered several problems with the STOVL version of the jet during flight testing, none has caused the test schedule to slip, a senior Lockheed official said.
The Pentagon official told reporters that STOVL problems had helped cause the program's breach of the Nunn-McCurdy statute that caps per-unit cost growth on weapons.
The problems include ones that affect the lift fan doors and jet engine actuator nozzle. A packaging problem bent pins in the rudder pedals as they were shipped to Lockheed, according to the official.
The official would not elaborate on these "discoveries" or the fixes that have been developed for them.
"When you do flight test, the desire is" to discover any possible problems with the aircraft, the official said June 2. "We've done well and we're ahead of plan; so you try to discover as many things as you can, so it's really a tribute to the test program to exercise the jet in a manner where you could discover anything that could be improved."
He reiterated Lockheed's claims that the program is back on track following this spring's restructuring of the program that came in the wake of the Nunn-McCurdy breach.
The program has completed 93 test flights in 2010, three more than planned, the official said.
Numerous problems that arose during the development of the STOVL jet contributed to what eventually became a two-year delay in the jet's development program. The restructuring cut this delay by half.
intresting read from an artical dated 1st June 2010
F-35 orders remain a matter of debate, but current plans call for the US and UK to purchase approximately 2,600 aircraft. The US Air Force originally planned for 2,036 F-35A aircraft but reduced its requirement to 1,763 in 1997. This total remains the offical requirement though the Air Force has unofficially indicated its order will be reduced to between 1,000 and 1,300 aircraft. Some number of these may also be F-35B models as the Air Force has expressed a requirement for up to 250 STOVL aircraft for close air support missions. Such a purchase would likely assist in reducing unit cost and improving the stability of the STOVL program, which has often been targeted for possible cancellation.
The US Navy and Marine Corps have also begun closer joint operations of their combat aircraft wings in part to reduce the need for new aircraft. The Marines originally requested 642 F-35B models while the Navy planned for 300 F-35C variants. In 1997, these figures were refined to 609 for the Marines and 480 for the Navy for a total of 1,089 F-35 aircraft. As of 2004, that total had been reduced to 680 aircraft including 350 F-35B variants and 330 F-35C models. The services have yet to determine how those aircraft will be allocated since the Marines may recieve a mixture of both CV and STOVL aircraft.
Likewise, the Royal Navy may split its order between the F-35 STOVL and F-35 CV models since the F-35C models could potentially be operated aboard the UK's large aircraft carriers due to enter service in the 2010s. The total UK order has shrunk from 150 to 138 to 50 aircraft and will now only be purchased for the Royal Navy to operate on a single aircraft carrier. The Royal Air Force has opted to replace the Harrier with Typhoons rather than the F-35.
In addition to US and UK orders, the potential exists for over 2,000 F-35 sales to export customers. The international partners currently involved in the program have so far expressed tentative plans for nearly 600 aircraft. Italy is interested in up to 131 planes (including 22 F-35B models for the Navy), Turkey is considering 116, Australia 100, the Netherlands 85, Canada 60, and Denmark and Norway may buy 48 apiece. None of these countries have officially placed orders so far, but the F-35 program is encouraging international partners to commit to firm orders as soon as possible. Convincing the partners to do so may prove difficult, however, given past development delays that have driven up costs and pushed service entry back from 2011 to 2013. These delays may cause international partners to instead order competing aircraft like the Gripen or Eurofighter Typhoon that are already in production. Norway has already threatened to pull out of the program over workshare concerns, and Israel's involvement was suspended for several months in retaliation for possible technology transfer
F-35 orders remain a matter of debate, but current plans call for the US and UK to purchase approximately 2,600 aircraft. The US Air Force originally planned for 2,036 F-35A aircraft but reduced its requirement to 1,763 in 1997. This total remains the offical requirement though the Air Force has unofficially indicated its order will be reduced to between 1,000 and 1,300 aircraft. Some number of these may also be F-35B models as the Air Force has expressed a requirement for up to 250 STOVL aircraft for close air support missions. Such a purchase would likely assist in reducing unit cost and improving the stability of the STOVL program, which has often been targeted for possible cancellation.
The US Navy and Marine Corps have also begun closer joint operations of their combat aircraft wings in part to reduce the need for new aircraft. The Marines originally requested 642 F-35B models while the Navy planned for 300 F-35C variants. In 1997, these figures were refined to 609 for the Marines and 480 for the Navy for a total of 1,089 F-35 aircraft. As of 2004, that total had been reduced to 680 aircraft including 350 F-35B variants and 330 F-35C models. The services have yet to determine how those aircraft will be allocated since the Marines may recieve a mixture of both CV and STOVL aircraft.
Likewise, the Royal Navy may split its order between the F-35 STOVL and F-35 CV models since the F-35C models could potentially be operated aboard the UK's large aircraft carriers due to enter service in the 2010s. The total UK order has shrunk from 150 to 138 to 50 aircraft and will now only be purchased for the Royal Navy to operate on a single aircraft carrier. The Royal Air Force has opted to replace the Harrier with Typhoons rather than the F-35.
In addition to US and UK orders, the potential exists for over 2,000 F-35 sales to export customers. The international partners currently involved in the program have so far expressed tentative plans for nearly 600 aircraft. Italy is interested in up to 131 planes (including 22 F-35B models for the Navy), Turkey is considering 116, Australia 100, the Netherlands 85, Canada 60, and Denmark and Norway may buy 48 apiece. None of these countries have officially placed orders so far, but the F-35 program is encouraging international partners to commit to firm orders as soon as possible. Convincing the partners to do so may prove difficult, however, given past development delays that have driven up costs and pushed service entry back from 2011 to 2013. These delays may cause international partners to instead order competing aircraft like the Gripen or Eurofighter Typhoon that are already in production. Norway has already threatened to pull out of the program over workshare concerns, and Israel's involvement was suspended for several months in retaliation for possible technology transfer
news paper report from holland dates 3rd june
The Dutch parliament voted last night by 79 votes against 71 to cancel the order for the first F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and to end Dutch participation in the program's Initial Operational Test and Evaluation phase.
The vote on a motion proposed by the Labor Party was based on the fact that price estimates made by Lockheed Martin in response to the Netherlands' original Request for Information and the Supplemental Request for Information of 2008 are not reliable.
However, Minister of Defense Eimert van Middelkoop said the vote was Labor Party “election rhetoric” prior to the June 9 general election and was quoted by Dutch News as saying that dropping out of the trials would still cost Dutch taxpayers €20 million, after having spent €800 million (some say more than €1 billion) to date.
The Netherlands has been run by a caretaker Labor/Christian Democrat government since the previous government lost a vote of confidence in February over the army's deployment in Afghanistan. Van Middelkoop said in a statement issued on May 20 that he was neither willing nor able to act on Parliament's vote as he believed the government's temporary status means it cannot take such irreversible decisions before the election.
But Labor MP Angelien Eijsink says it is irresponsible to continue with the JSF program. She cites delays, the Nunn-McCurdy cost breach, the 2-year delay of the IOT&E and poor progress in flight testing. She also mentioned that Parliament was still awaiting vital data on noise levels and said the industrial business case for JSF participation was no longer valid given the much lower than anticipated number of orders for the aircraft.
Labor says it wants to continue Dutch participation in the System Development and Demonstration (SDD) phase but other parties want to end it.
The Royal Dutch Air Force currently operates 90 F-16s, 18 of which are scheduled to be sold to Chile towards the end of this year. Originally the Netherlands was planning to buy 85 F-35s.
If the decision is implemented it won't exactly be a surprise. Dutch politicians have been rumbling for months that the JSF is far too expensive and the Netherlands' participation in the program is now in the hands of the electorate. But given the general economic doom and gloom in Europe right now, chances are high that the Dutch will vote for a party that is not going to be spending for something that many do not see the need for.
If the Dutch do withdraw could this be the encouragement other wavering European participants need to pull the plug too?
The Dutch parliament voted last night by 79 votes against 71 to cancel the order for the first F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and to end Dutch participation in the program's Initial Operational Test and Evaluation phase.
The vote on a motion proposed by the Labor Party was based on the fact that price estimates made by Lockheed Martin in response to the Netherlands' original Request for Information and the Supplemental Request for Information of 2008 are not reliable.
However, Minister of Defense Eimert van Middelkoop said the vote was Labor Party “election rhetoric” prior to the June 9 general election and was quoted by Dutch News as saying that dropping out of the trials would still cost Dutch taxpayers €20 million, after having spent €800 million (some say more than €1 billion) to date.
The Netherlands has been run by a caretaker Labor/Christian Democrat government since the previous government lost a vote of confidence in February over the army's deployment in Afghanistan. Van Middelkoop said in a statement issued on May 20 that he was neither willing nor able to act on Parliament's vote as he believed the government's temporary status means it cannot take such irreversible decisions before the election.
But Labor MP Angelien Eijsink says it is irresponsible to continue with the JSF program. She cites delays, the Nunn-McCurdy cost breach, the 2-year delay of the IOT&E and poor progress in flight testing. She also mentioned that Parliament was still awaiting vital data on noise levels and said the industrial business case for JSF participation was no longer valid given the much lower than anticipated number of orders for the aircraft.
Labor says it wants to continue Dutch participation in the System Development and Demonstration (SDD) phase but other parties want to end it.
The Royal Dutch Air Force currently operates 90 F-16s, 18 of which are scheduled to be sold to Chile towards the end of this year. Originally the Netherlands was planning to buy 85 F-35s.
If the decision is implemented it won't exactly be a surprise. Dutch politicians have been rumbling for months that the JSF is far too expensive and the Netherlands' participation in the program is now in the hands of the electorate. But given the general economic doom and gloom in Europe right now, chances are high that the Dutch will vote for a party that is not going to be spending for something that many do not see the need for.
If the Dutch do withdraw could this be the encouragement other wavering European participants need to pull the plug too?
OpinionNoted
Banned Member
If the Dutch do withdraw could this be the encouragement other wavering European participants need to pull the plug too?[/quote]
If they do then one would expect the ball will then most definately be in motion...the dominos are starting to lean and its looking like its not going to take too much more for the chain reaction to begin.
If they do then one would expect the ball will then most definately be in motion...the dominos are starting to lean and its looking like its not going to take too much more for the chain reaction to begin.
Last edited:
LT Col mitchell
Banned Member
a lot of conjecture without any experience and or scientific hands on knowledge
I love how all of you soldiers and airmen and so forth get on these forums and none of you sound very intelligent at all . I have flown the f18 super-hornet for the navy for years and this f35 was just introduced and people just go right along with the dumb-ass media . So I have been assigned to Lockheed Martin's facility in California to further test the aircraft. After Numerous flights, including stovl and ctol I realized that this aircraft has so much potential and my initial assignment is to test not fly, so I cannot say much but what I am authorized to say is everyone on this forum are completely wrong and have their facts based on pure media hype. We as naval pilots will have the greatest aircraft in the sky when all the upgrades to the f35 take place within the next 10 years. This aircraft is not going to see budget cuts but budget increases. Stop listening to the media , as it demoralizes the military. As a pilot I'm wondering why some are so misinformed! the issue about thrust to weight ratio is still not being released and the information is being washed over to stall the media. Its still classified as to the true thrust potential of the aircraft. No one will ever know except Lockheed and the Pilots.
Mod edit: Member permanently Banned after creating a nick in (yet another) failed attempt to circumvent a prior banning.
-Preceptor
I love how all of you soldiers and airmen and so forth get on these forums and none of you sound very intelligent at all . I have flown the f18 super-hornet for the navy for years and this f35 was just introduced and people just go right along with the dumb-ass media . So I have been assigned to Lockheed Martin's facility in California to further test the aircraft. After Numerous flights, including stovl and ctol I realized that this aircraft has so much potential and my initial assignment is to test not fly, so I cannot say much but what I am authorized to say is everyone on this forum are completely wrong and have their facts based on pure media hype. We as naval pilots will have the greatest aircraft in the sky when all the upgrades to the f35 take place within the next 10 years. This aircraft is not going to see budget cuts but budget increases. Stop listening to the media , as it demoralizes the military. As a pilot I'm wondering why some are so misinformed! the issue about thrust to weight ratio is still not being released and the information is being washed over to stall the media. Its still classified as to the true thrust potential of the aircraft. No one will ever know except Lockheed and the Pilots.
Mod edit: Member permanently Banned after creating a nick in (yet another) failed attempt to circumvent a prior banning.
-Preceptor
Last edited by a moderator:
Not meaning to doubt you (as there have been people on this forum before posing as f18 pilots) your input would be appreciated if you are who you say you are ? There are many Military and Civilian Defence professionals on this site who have verifiable and certified credentials as well as many past serving members. As you would well know then, any new military project will get much media attention both good and bad, many people will state their case for and against. And not just media reporter's, many defence professionals, ex defence chiefs and pilots will have differing opinions, with much political point scoring to boot. With such a huge project canvasing so many countries tied in with it there will be critics out there. I agree with your statement that the real tactical data will never be known, this is the case with all things military. But as with all things, some are under quoted and some are exagerated, it is not easy to pick out the true from false with all the noise and clutter. There are cost overuns, budget blowouts, delays etc etc, this is to be expected with such a project but regardless of the facts some governmets are getting nervous, public and parlimentary statements have been made. Based on fact or not these are real concerns for some countries, so any input that you can shed on the progress of the F35 is appreciated. I personally hope it is a success and that it will deliver as promised and hopefully not to far over budget as cost per unit makes a huge difference to how many airframes a country like Australia can afford, which then makes the government and the public think would we have gotten more bang for our buck with something else ?
That's my two cents
Just as a side note, you state you are a LT COL ? And fly FA-18 for the Navy ? Didnt think that rank was used in the Navy ? Only the USAF or USMC ? Just curious ?
Last edited:
OpinionNoted
Banned Member
So we should shut the hell up and take your word,Lockheed Martins and any other spokesmans,,,er supporters word of F35 huh...Well im not one for the blind leading the blind...anyways smacks of desperation your post so im definately not convinced that you are who you say you are,in fact i am very much of the mind that youve nothing to say to beef up the F35 programme so you post this desperate clap trap...People arent going to shut up because to do so would be to hand over an open cheque book.
POST EDIT-
and if you are to turn out as legit...2 words-VESTED INTEREST...so for you to post your comments as posted are hardly constructive to the F35 cause,just egging people on to question the programme as opposed to laying down in submitance to the wishes of Lockheed and co.
Last edited: