F-35 Multirole Joint Strike Fighter
- Thread starter SABRE
- Start date
- Status
F-35's 1st air show appearance will be ...
By
Stephen Trimble
on April 21, 2011 11:04 PM
maybe later this year, says Adm David Venlet, F-35 program executive officer, who briefed reporters this morning at Joint Strike Fighter headquarters on the 6th floor of a a typically non-descript office building in Crystal City.
After dispensing with questions about cost overruns, schedule delays and technical problems (you know, the usual), I asked Venlet about the air show possibilities.
I know the flight test jets are spoken-for through at least 2016, but perhaps the first two low-rate initial production jets about to be delivered to the US Air Force could be spared for an air show appearance.
Thinking the Paris Air Show was out of the question, I asked if the LRIP jets might be dispatched to the Dubai Air Show in November or to Farnborough in July 2012.
Venlet's response: Maybe.
(Apologies for the lack of a proper quote. I agreed to delete my recording after Venlet surprised me by walking us into the JSF "war room" as we chatted. I was using my flip-cam as an audio recorder, thereby breaking about a dozen security rules as soon as I stepped inside the F-35's visually-sensitive "war room". For details about the room's contents, I can firmly deny the vicious rumors about the presence of a dartboard adorned with a picture of an F/A-18E piloted by Bill Sweetman.)
Anyway, Venlet said the production jets would be at the disposal of the chief of staff of the air force, Gen Norton Schwartz. If he sees fit to deploy the F-35As to an air show, that's his call, Venlet says.
Let's start the wagering, shall we? The bets are on Dubai, Singapore or Farnborough.
1. Will we see a boring flyby? or will we get to see the jet push the envelope?
2. What do you think the routine will look like?
3. Whats your guess on the 1st airshow appearance?
By
Stephen Trimble
on April 21, 2011 11:04 PM
maybe later this year, says Adm David Venlet, F-35 program executive officer, who briefed reporters this morning at Joint Strike Fighter headquarters on the 6th floor of a a typically non-descript office building in Crystal City.
After dispensing with questions about cost overruns, schedule delays and technical problems (you know, the usual), I asked Venlet about the air show possibilities.
I know the flight test jets are spoken-for through at least 2016, but perhaps the first two low-rate initial production jets about to be delivered to the US Air Force could be spared for an air show appearance.
Thinking the Paris Air Show was out of the question, I asked if the LRIP jets might be dispatched to the Dubai Air Show in November or to Farnborough in July 2012.
Venlet's response: Maybe.
(Apologies for the lack of a proper quote. I agreed to delete my recording after Venlet surprised me by walking us into the JSF "war room" as we chatted. I was using my flip-cam as an audio recorder, thereby breaking about a dozen security rules as soon as I stepped inside the F-35's visually-sensitive "war room". For details about the room's contents, I can firmly deny the vicious rumors about the presence of a dartboard adorned with a picture of an F/A-18E piloted by Bill Sweetman.)
Anyway, Venlet said the production jets would be at the disposal of the chief of staff of the air force, Gen Norton Schwartz. If he sees fit to deploy the F-35As to an air show, that's his call, Venlet says.
Let's start the wagering, shall we? The bets are on Dubai, Singapore or Farnborough.
1. Will we see a boring flyby? or will we get to see the jet push the envelope?
2. What do you think the routine will look like?
3. Whats your guess on the 1st airshow appearance?
F-15 Eagle
New Member
F-35 airshow already?
Thats would be awesome!!!!
EDIT: If they do and thats a big IF I want to see them put the F-35 to the test and show off what they can really do with the F-35 so people know the F-35 will be fast and agile and they are not wasting billions on a jet that does not work.
Thats would be awesome!!!!
EDIT: If they do and thats a big IF I want to see them put the F-35 to the test and show off what they can really do with the F-35 so people know the F-35 will be fast and agile and they are not wasting billions on a jet that does not work.
Swampfox157
New Member
Believe me, if an F-35 demo team showed up at my local AFB (we already have had Raptors 
), lots of people would be pretty happy and impressed. Said AFB is actually joint (we have USN,USA,USMC,USAF and foreign personnel.) so it would be a theoretically great first domestic stop for an F-35 demo. The jet probably is going to end up at some of the foreign airshows first, but us regular Americans need to be kept happy too!
), lots of people would be pretty happy and impressed. Said AFB is actually joint (we have USN,USA,USMC,USAF and foreign personnel.) so it would be a theoretically great first domestic stop for an F-35 demo. The jet probably is going to end up at some of the foreign airshows first, but us regular Americans need to be kept happy too!I have always asserted the same thing as quoted below. I also asserted that the costs involved with the JSF since 2002 have balloned, including the first batch of gap filler F18E/F and now the possibility of another batch or life extension for the original F18.
I have been previously told to 'trust' in the judgement of the procurement team, I doubt they would ever publish all the costs incured with the JSF with any of the 2002 alternatives - it must be close to $10 Billion extra by going with the JSF.
I love the quote from the AVM saying that its all still within budget allocation (what the budget is is secret and I bet doesn't include bridging aircraft)
On this forum its been quite a pro JSF choice but with the resent spate of bad news from the JSF program I wondering if you now feel that trust has been misplaced, or if you think there may have been hidden influences that team are working under to get such a counter intuative result, or does the attitude remain the same as defence?
Cheers
Read more: Fighter jet plan 'faces death spiral'
I have been previously told to 'trust' in the judgement of the procurement team, I doubt they would ever publish all the costs incured with the JSF with any of the 2002 alternatives - it must be close to $10 Billion extra by going with the JSF.
I love the quote from the AVM saying that its all still within budget allocation (what the budget is is secret and I bet doesn't include bridging aircraft)
On this forum its been quite a pro JSF choice but with the resent spate of bad news from the JSF program I wondering if you now feel that trust has been misplaced, or if you think there may have been hidden influences that team are working under to get such a counter intuative result, or does the attitude remain the same as defence?
Cheers
Read more: Fighter jet plan 'faces death spiral'
The budget isn’t secret. The Defence Capability Plan has made clear for years the forward planning for what Australia expects to spend to acquire F-35. As for it and the cost of the bridging aircraft if you want to make a comparison to any other alternative you need to factor in the amount of years this will provide the RAAF with capable air combat platforms.
Since one assumes you are complaining about this cost in comparison with some other platform you need to address what happens when the effectiveness life of this non 5th generation platform expires. For example and using indicative figures if you were to buy 100 Typhoons and it could remain in service from 2010-2030 as a frontline fighter what do you do come 2030 when you have to replace it? Compared to buying 24 Super Hornets for 2010-2020 and then 72 F-35s for 2020-2050 as front line fighters?
Finally the ‘ballooning’ of cost is far from being as significant as detractors make out. Additions in cost for the development program don’t apply to Australia, we’ve already paid our slice. Much of the addition in cost to the production programs is via inflation and for Australia is somewhat offset by significant increase in the value of our foreign exchange.
The only significant problem the F-35 has inflicted is a delay to the schedule. But this is only around five years. Obviously no one would like this delay but it’s not the end of the world. The capability advantages of the F-35 compared to anything else that is available are so significant it is worth the wait.
LOL. Conspiracy theorist! Most of the critics also believe the F-35 is not a combat effective platform. This belief is based on a long series of false and misleading analysis using made up and cherry picked pseudo facts. Sure it’s a great disappointment that the project is not proceeding to schedule but it’s almost a compulsory situation across all post modern government activity. The F-35 will bring immense combat power to the masses and there is nothing in service or in development (including the PAK-FA and J-20) that can challenge it.
LOL. One guy says “I think…” the other guy says “we know…” who should you believe?
t68
Well-Known Member
I was under the impression the A model was humming along nicely ever since they restructured the program a few years ago, it is the B model that is causing all the dramas at the moment.
Didn’t they come out a while ago and state that Australia’s F35A aircraft would be quarantined from needing an injection of capital from the F35B/C model’s of the aircraft and Australia is expected to pay approximately between 65/75 million per aircraft.
Didn’t they come out a while ago and state that Australia’s F35A aircraft would be quarantined from needing an injection of capital from the F35B/C model’s of the aircraft and Australia is expected to pay approximately between 65/75 million per aircraft.
If Australia want the JSF this decade the price is more than $75m and you'll be lucky to get any change from $120m
The latest news was it wasn't meeting the KPP in range, and that a bit of modification may be required to cram a few dozen litres of extra tank space in to scrape it across the line.
Its due to the extra bleed air from the engine for electrical and cooling requirements that pushed it into the red.
But that small push is in addition to a 15% reduction in range that was originally promised at the start, perhaps the models are not as accurate as they would have you believe.
Cheers
Last edited:
Air 6000 is ~A$16 Billion??? Hmmm
100 JSF's x $120m = $12 Billion (I'm being kind here)
The usualy through life costs are ~$12 Billion
Plus gap aircraft $4 Billion +support costs possibly another additional purchase of F18 or extend the classic hornet. so anywhere between $500m and $6 Billion more.
I got to +$30 Billion before I gave up...
For thast sort of money you could have developed your own aircraft.
I also note the old story was 100 JSF's now its minimum of 72
I think they are changing numbers again.That is exactly what you have done with the F18E/F's so its a null point really
Really?? its not even finished development, its not meeting its promised KPP at present, its not meeting its schedule (pick any schedule), or its promised price - yet you assert its better than anything else available??:eek
The only thing it has started is the building of Production aircraft :lol3
Talking about those that know - In a study (admittedly conducted by Eurofighter GmbH) it was found that four Typhoons with AWACS support could defeat 8 attacking JSF's in stealth configuration 85% of the time.
Does that make the JSF worth the wait?, the price?, the additional gap aircraft or the "extra"capability that is defeated 85% of the time by 4th generation fighters?.
I think your on pretty shakey ground with your unsupported assertions.
Cheers
wow cookie, thats just about straight out trolling, well done
in yr 2008$ 75m URF and about 135-140m aussie spec APUC
I havent seen a PAUC including all support costs, eg the 6 billion for the 24 SH over 10 yrs
if we had a 100 SH, it would be 24 billion for 10 yrs, plus another 20 yr costs with 50% less capability than the f-35 with some missions totally off the table
it doesnt seem a bargan to me
Oh and the 50% more capable is an official source, not some klownklub on a home computer
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04900.pdf
2004
the Joint Strike Fighter F-35C is expected to be approximately nine
times more capable than the AV-8B Harrier aircraft, about five times more
capable than the F-14D and F/A-18 A+/C/D aircraft, three times more
capable than the first version of the F/A-18 E/F aircraft, and 50 percent
more capable than the second version of the F/A-18E/F.
in yr 2008$ 75m URF and about 135-140m aussie spec APUC
I havent seen a PAUC including all support costs, eg the 6 billion for the 24 SH over 10 yrs
if we had a 100 SH, it would be 24 billion for 10 yrs, plus another 20 yr costs with 50% less capability than the f-35 with some missions totally off the table
it doesnt seem a bargan to me
Oh and the 50% more capable is an official source, not some klownklub on a home computer
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04900.pdf
2004
the Joint Strike Fighter F-35C is expected to be approximately nine
times more capable than the AV-8B Harrier aircraft, about five times more
capable than the F-14D and F/A-18 A+/C/D aircraft, three times more
capable than the first version of the F/A-18 E/F aircraft, and 50 percent
more capable than the second version of the F/A-18E/F.
From my reading of the matter,that is not correct.
Even if everything goes to plan it will be more likely 7 to 8 years "late" and even then the block 5 software will be years after that?
Also the thing is not built for A2A, that is the job of the F22.
Surely the PAK-FA and J20 are built to counter the F22, and therefore will be superior to the F35 in A2A.
Ahh through life support (TLS) cost is not included in Australian acquisition price costings beyond the initial purchase of spares (usually four years that come as part of the unit). So you’ve completely pulled $30 billion out of your arse in comparing it to the DCP costings. Any other major goal posts you’d like to move to support your argument?
The total AIR 6000 and BACC platform costs are under $20 billion for 120 aircraft, that is assuming the third tranche of AIR 6000 is F-35s and the Government has kept this open for a possible alternative though AIR 6000 is instructed to cost for them as F-35s.
The additional $3 billion in support costs for the Super Hornet include a massive arsenal of weaponry and a double spend on TLS costs. This was because the initial accounting had all of the F-111 TLS migrating to support F-35 from 2010-12. Since we won’t have F-35s in this timeframe this money actually won’t be spent. But it was programming in case and made public because the Howard Government was tyring to talk up how much they were spending on defence.
LOL. Again much of it is fantasy money. And yes for $20 billion we could have developed our own 4th generation fighter and built 100 of them. But it probably wouldn’t be as good as the Hornets they were replacing and certainly no where near F-35 capability.
No such thing. Since day one AIR 6000 has talked about initial tranches of 72 F-35s followed by a much later tranche of 24 F-35s or ‘something else, like a UCAV’. The decision of the final tranche to be made AFTER the F-35 was in service.I also note the old story was 100 JSF's now its minimum of 72
Unmitigated bullshit. You are really showing your complete ignorance of how AIR 6000 was structured around the F-35. The RAAF always planned to maintain a squadron in service with a legacy platform until all of the initial tranches of F-35 (first 72) were introduced into service. Originally this was going to be 1 Squadron converted to F/A-18A/B. But because of the BACC program it will now be 1 Squadron with the F/A-18F Blk. 2. Then the Government has the option of replacing these aircraft with F-35s, UCAVs, something else or with the F/A-18F upgrade and life extension.
How this compares to an entire force of alternative to F-35 aircraft ordered during the early 2000s to replace the F-111 and F/A-18A/B which is the alternative is beyond me. Under this model the air force would have almost completed its conversion to the Typhoon/Rafale/F-16 Blk 60/F/A-18E/F Blk 1/2 as were offered as F-35 alternatives. Such a force would require replacement from 2030 for airframe not to mention capability obsolescence. The most likely replacement would be the F-35. The upgrade of A/B Hornets and the acquisition of Super Hornets at only $4 billion is peanuts compared to the cost of 100 Typhoons et al. And that is without factoring in the huge capability loss in the 2020s and 2030s such an obsolescent fleet would provide us. These decades by the way being when the RAAF will face the most challenging potential threat from the likes of China.
The F-35 has far more combat power than any alternative. That it is behind schedule and off its radius KPP by 2% doesn’t change that.
What total bullshit. The assumptions built into such an argument are so totally loaded it is pointless. Like the F-35s not having any of their own AEW&C and continuing on dead plum courses letting the Typhoons manoeuvre into a kill. Force on force eight F-35s configured for strike will wipe the floor with four Typhoons configured for ATA.
Besides what Eurofighter GmbH don’t know about signature management and networked warfare is extensive. What they know about bribing Saudi Princes, Indian bureaucrats and providing all of their dated technology to anyone who has cash is extensive.
What isn’t supported? Ohh that’s right you subscribe to a conspiracy where any claim about the F-35’s capability by the Forces or Lockheed is considered just lies and marketing spin.
What everything I said? Please be more specific. Otherwise you just look like an idiot.
We are discussing the RAAF’s schedule. The F-35 program has so many different schedules because it has multiple versions and multiple customers. The only schedule in question is RAAF initial operating capability (IOC) on F-35. Which is one squadron of Blk III F-35As.
That is a total falsehood. The F-35 is designed for every mission the F-22 is. Because it lacks the F-22’s supercruise mission its defensive combat air patrol requires two F-35s to match the same airspace coverage as a single F-22. Considering the REAL cost differences this is not such a bad ratio.
The common claim that the F-35 is no good at ATA is a total fiction unsupported by real capabilities. It will be a highly lethal ATA aircraft introducing new attack and defensive capabilities never seen before. It will be effectively transformational.
LOL. All things being equal between Russian, Chinese and American aerospace technology sure. But they aren’t equal so NO they will not.
Funny how you treat LM's word as Gospel and Eurofighter GmbH as Total Bullshit, I gather from this your in the "The answer is JSF, now what was the question?" camp.
I would submit to you that LM would be doing exactly the same in reverse, the only difference is that you swallow it hook line and sinker.
If LM claims were true we would have a $50m IOC ready JSF ready for delivery in 6 months, thats a demostatable proof that LM is and continues to be wrong.
Cheers
You continue to reduce things down to gross simplifications. It’s no wonder that you have no idea when you destroy so much data in slashing the resolution.
I outlined to you in reasonably precise terms why I dismissed Eurofighter’s claims. They had a dummy scenario for dummies.
It’s not all about Lockheed. That you think it is shows just how little you know. Lockheed don’t own the F-35. The US Department of Defense owns it. Lockheed don’t decide on the data to be released or even generate most of it, the US DoD does.
This attempt to defame the F-35 is based on three items of data, two of which are wrong. Lockheed didn’t make those claims. The US DoD did. The $50m flyaway price is in then year dollars from 2002. The price has grown about 20% but its now nine years later. If only the RAAF had such excellent price growth for the F-111 and F/A-18 (hint: they didn’t).
The capability of the F-35 has been backed by every professional assessment with access to detailed information. It can also be supported by unprofessional assessment using open source information via understanding of the fundamental inputs into air combat capability rather than grandstanding.
But if you are going to make such an assertion without any evidence that ‘Lockheed’ must be wrong on capability claims (because they were wrong on the schedule claims) then I can dismiss that claim without any evidence (Hitchens, 2003).
PS I refuted all seven of the claims in your post before last but you only responded to two of them here. What about the other 5 out of 7? Or do you concede that you have a 71% full of crap rate?
LM had a powerpoint presentation in 2002, it was a dummy senario as the present situation unquestionably highlights, Unfortunatley the "Dummies" bought into it.
Hell I'd be embarresed to say I cocked up a multibillion decision. Your asserting that Eurofighter GmbH are full of it in regard to an in service aircraft, and that LM's data to the US DoD for an aircraft in development has a much better fidelity and is fundamentaly more honest!!
nfloorl:This is a program that is struggling, LM would be using every trick in the book to hide the bad news( hell they have even invented a few new ones), the JSF and the F-22 are tracking the same( are you worried now?), I don't see much reason to be optimistic, the old chestnut about virtual testing is no longer being bandied about by LM (this was supposed to be the most tested aircraft ever before it left the drawing board) yet it still run into the usual problems and a couple of unusual ones.And where prey do the US DoD get their data from??
there not exactly working in a vacuumLM provided the data to the US DOD, or do you think the US DoD is just making stuff up?. Even the Australian AVM has hinted the JSF has reached its elastic funding limit in Australia.
Firstly where is this performance information coming from that these assements are made from? oh its LM with its yet to be demonstrated capability...
Eurofighter has done a "professional assesment", they have access to "detailed information" and their findings did not back the JSF, therefor your assertion is (once again) false, you can whine all you like about it but its from the horses mouth.
That would assume that you must accept the claim when evidence is produced!!.( On previous form I'm not hopeful)
SAR baseline was 690 nautical miles
Quote from the pitch to Norway
Current estimates are its 584 nautical miles, now they were either wrong on capability claims or lying, so which is it? source http://www.fas.org/man/eprint/F-35-SAR.pdf
Also note these figures are yet to be demonstrated, and the figures are going backwards as development continues.
I feel I'm in the presence of a master, and can only aspire to the dizzying heights of the 99% crap your spruiking, I have got the answer I wanted - You have the same attitude as Defence. -The JSF is the answer independant of the question, it doesn't matter what I say to you and not the sort of reasoned discussion I was looking for.
Cheers
The official source - Ah as calculated by the contractors panel of experts for carrier ops which assumed the same performance of the CV and assigned it to the the STOVL varient, and moved the carriers nearer to the targets to "help".
:BTW they did other studies which change the capability score but didn't keep the paperwork!! I'm sure they musta been the better ones for the JSF
independant disspassionate analysis???.
OK i'm off to bed and plan to to do heaps of landscaping in the morning.
Good night.
- Status