A submarine that can’t sail the RAN’s mission, that make the Collins class look well built, that is half the number we need (not counting the one that burnt up) and that only became available to acquire seven years after a contract decision was needed for the Oberon replacement?
F-35 Multirole Joint Strike Fighter
- Thread starter SABRE
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
What the? 2002 Base Year Dollars apply to the deliverables that Lockheed are to supply for the F-35 program. They aren’t contracted to provide fuel!Hmm funny your not using LM 2002 then year dollars in this example!!:roll,
Do you know of any other fighter aircraft that can fly without jet fuel? They are all in this “death spiral” together…(You might want to check your figures) but you may be right, which is unfortunate for the JSF because they can't do anything about it, and ttherefore the JSF is doomed to be unaffordable, and that means severe cuts to the numbers, and a price death spiral..
Scorpion82
New Member
There are a lot of numbers without looking at what's included. On top of that there was never some kind of LRIP on the Eurofighter programme or other comparable programmesin Europe. You have rather stable prices throughout a much smaller production run (in comparison to the JSF) at much lower production rates.Compare the costs of the Typhoon over the years... From Wiki...
Well if you baseline the mission, take away the F-35's mission profile 100 Nm combat zone at full military power and 20,000 feet, take away the F-35's multiple combat engagements per mission and you start to see a lot less fuel burnt to reach that 590 NM KPI mission. Then since the F-35 is a weight stressed aircraft even a 6% reduction in takeoff weight has considerable fuel ramifications for the amount of reheat needed for takeoff and climb. Comparing a hi-mdm-hi strike mission with a hi-hi-hi CAP leads to all sorts of skewering.You must be extremely optimistic to believe that a 1000 nm figure is achievable, if the aircraft already struggles to reach 600 nm! Lesser weight of AMRAAMs vs JDAMs will certainly have an impact but you won't get some additional 400 nm by cutting ~1.5 t on weight and we're still talking about internal carriage don't we?
So LM can do better on their own can they? Develop technology, know how and production expertise they don't currently have and incorporate it into the design in less time for less cost that it has taken going to specialist companies around the globe?
I don't think so.
This project would have hit even more hurdles if so much of the work hadn't been offered to competitive bids, if there wasn’t the input from other companies and research organisations outside of LM, if there wasn’t funding from other countries etc.
Yes, they can.
Most of the high-tech stuff in there are US made already.
USA continues to have some good scientists and engineers, especially if they handpick "the best of the best"
Look at the majority of Nobel Laureates : Science is still an American discipline.
The ship might be sinking, but it takes a long time for such a big ship to go to the bottom.
To micro-manage all the needed parts of a F-35 is a logistic nightmare.
You'll wind up with endless discussions over quality, price and availability, sometimes with language barriers and misunderstandings : Lots of design changes are still to be carried out : 10.000 future changes before the design is mature was a number mentioned somewhere.
When an accidental fire closes one factory in Turkey, the production in Fort Worth grinds to a halt...
Last edited:
Scorpion82
New Member
The aircraft will certainly not use its afterburner to climb during a normal strike mission, at best on take off. And for the matter these figure presented were that for strike missions, not for Hi-Hi-Hi CAPs and are in fact described as Hi-Lo-Hi. Is there any source for the 100 nm on military power claim?Well if you baseline the mission, take away the F-35's mission profile 100 Nm combat zone at full military power and 20,000 feet, take away the F-35's multiple combat engagements per mission and you start to see a lot less fuel burnt to reach that 590 NM KPI mission. Then since the F-35 is a weight stressed aircraft even a 6% reduction in takeoff weight has considerable fuel ramifications for the amount of reheat needed for takeoff and climb. Comparing a hi-mdm-hi strike mission with a hi-hi-hi CAP leads to all sorts of skewering.
As to JWcook’s comment
“Hmm what happens to the Australian aircraft industry when it’s all over, you have been screwed over, you’re not getting the high value stuff that’s going to be in demand in 20 years, your industry was seduced by the thought of 3000+ jsfs and providing the plastic screw covers and warning stickers would earn more than writing source code or AESA dev.”
I certainly do not have the knowledge or the will to get into an internal Australian debate about what is or is not in the best interests for Australia but on the issue of international cooperation, with the US and with others I think I might have some insight.
The trend in both large military and civilian circles is to go international and in doing so to establish long term relationships for very good and practical reasons. When Boeing contracts with the Japanese or other international partners to build critical parts of the 787 it does not just make a design and put it out for bid. Its partners co-design the parts, they do their own R & D and develop their own manufacturing process that would be very costly to duplicate. Boeing co-designs and as the senior partner has the final responsibility for the product it produces and carries its name but its suppliers are far more than just contractors but are long term partners.
Could Boeing acquire all of the skills and manufacturing processes necessary to do it all by its self; money permitting? Yes it could for it has the resources. And if it was really necessary, like if one of its partners cannot live up to their commitments, it would have too, it's the senior partner. But then the costs would go up, the development time would get stretched and often the final product in the end is less capable.
Boeing will continue to work with the same partners in the future as long as they have first rate technology, are reliable, and are cost effective. Establishing good working partnerships is neither easy nor is it cheap as the difficulty with the 787 has shown. To get deselected as a favored critical supplier requires that you screw up in some way.
What goes for commercial projects goes even more for military ones. Military projects have fewer potential partners to begin with and establishing sufficient security and working arrangements are even harder. As long as there is not some unforeseen political development, the incentive to maintain them is even greater and they are not just one time wonders.
“Hmm what happens to the Australian aircraft industry when it’s all over, you have been screwed over, you’re not getting the high value stuff that’s going to be in demand in 20 years, your industry was seduced by the thought of 3000+ jsfs and providing the plastic screw covers and warning stickers would earn more than writing source code or AESA dev.”
I certainly do not have the knowledge or the will to get into an internal Australian debate about what is or is not in the best interests for Australia but on the issue of international cooperation, with the US and with others I think I might have some insight.
The trend in both large military and civilian circles is to go international and in doing so to establish long term relationships for very good and practical reasons. When Boeing contracts with the Japanese or other international partners to build critical parts of the 787 it does not just make a design and put it out for bid. Its partners co-design the parts, they do their own R & D and develop their own manufacturing process that would be very costly to duplicate. Boeing co-designs and as the senior partner has the final responsibility for the product it produces and carries its name but its suppliers are far more than just contractors but are long term partners.
Could Boeing acquire all of the skills and manufacturing processes necessary to do it all by its self; money permitting? Yes it could for it has the resources. And if it was really necessary, like if one of its partners cannot live up to their commitments, it would have too, it's the senior partner. But then the costs would go up, the development time would get stretched and often the final product in the end is less capable.
Boeing will continue to work with the same partners in the future as long as they have first rate technology, are reliable, and are cost effective. Establishing good working partnerships is neither easy nor is it cheap as the difficulty with the 787 has shown. To get deselected as a favored critical supplier requires that you screw up in some way.
What goes for commercial projects goes even more for military ones. Military projects have fewer potential partners to begin with and establishing sufficient security and working arrangements are even harder. As long as there is not some unforeseen political development, the incentive to maintain them is even greater and they are not just one time wonders.
Ah but there is a fundamental difference, one is still being developed and numbers to be purchased still to be worked out, others are actually in service.What the? 2002 Base Year Dollars apply to the deliverables that Lockheed are to supply for the F-35 program. They aren’t contracted to provide fuel!
Do you know of any other fighter aircraft that can fly without jet fuel? They are all in this “death spiral” together…
Which ones do you think is the most vunerable? ;-)
I'll stay out of most of this as it's being extremely well rebutted by others, however screw covers and warning stickers?Hmm what happens to the Australian aircraft industry when its all over, you have been screwed over, your not getting the high value stuff thats going to be in demand in 20 years, your industry was seduced by the thought of 3000+ jsfs and providing the plastic screw covers and warnining stickers would earn more than writing source code or AESA dev.
Name the high tech high value work Australia has won and put it in $$$ values.
You need to check out a company named Quickstep Technologies. The stuff they are doing is pretty much leading edge - and the technology they have developed has
many more applications than aerospace alone.
Well limiting this response to Typhoon vs F-35 for the sake of brevity I would say the Typhoon is far more vulnerable to the impact of rising jet fuel costs.Ah but there is a fundamental difference, one is still being developed and numbers to be purchased still to be worked out, others are actually in service.
Which ones do you think is the most vunerable? ;-)
The US is NOT going to abandon their tactical fighter force because of jet fuel inflation. While Carter and Congress may get excited about the potential long term impact of inflation and make a few good headlines there is far too much political capital and military necessity tied up in the F-35 now to worry about something outside the control of the US military budget in the year 2065. Further the US has since WWII determined how much is to be spent on the military based on need rather than capacity and been quite happy to wrack up huge debts to sustain this spending.
However the British and German Governments, principal partners in Typhoon, have demonstrated over the past 10-20 years (or 54 years in the case of GB) that their military capability is entirely beholden to their financial capacity year by year. If the cost of fuel continues to skyrocket then these Governments will not hesitate to disband fighter units even after having spent billions on buying new fighters. Said aircraft will be sold overseas, mothballed or trashed.
There are many other points to consider like how the US expects that the F-35 will reduce fuel consumption compared to legacy forces, is actively testing oil alternatives and so on. But really if this is the best the anti F-35 crusade can actually come up with: the rising cost of fuel; then the program is in a lot better shape than some people would like to think.
So is the JSF program funding the R&D here for the OZDIRCM??On the Australian jobs front, one of the leading contenders to produce the F-35's DIRCM (first one on a production fighter) is Australian (Google OZDIRCM).
Cheers
Once again where did the tech come from, is the research for the process an LM product?I'll stay out of most of this as it's being extremely well rebutted by others, however screw covers and warning stickers?
You need to check out a company named Quickstep Technologies. The stuff they are doing is pretty much leading edge - and the technology they have developed has
many more applications than aerospace alone.
Or did Oz win that contract on merit too?.
Obviously "Google OZDIRCM" is too hard for some...So is the JSF program funding the R&D here for the OZDIRCM??
So here is a link to Julian Kerr's excellent article about the project:
ADM: OZDIRCM emerges
Since following this link may be too hard as well here are some crucial snipets:
"miniature directed infrared countermeasures (DIRCM) system for aircraft, under development by Tenix Defence Systems in Adelaide"
"under development for the past two years, funded by the New Air Combat Capability Office" (2008 article)
"system uses the MURLIN (Multi-band Research Laster Infra-red) solid-state laser utilised in DIRCM research carried out jointly by the DSTO and Tenix Defence"
"Tenix had already had discussions with Lockheed Martin about the possibility of fitting OZDIRCM to the Joint Strike Fighter from Block 5"
I am acutely aware of it, which way is the technology flowing?cookie, it seems you are unaware that many techs and IP from different countries and companies is going into the making of the f-35, Its far from being LM only
My point was technology is not flowing into Australia, we have world beating companies and were giving access to that technology via the JSF program. The JSF program is benifitting from our expertise.
Heck even Eurofighter gave design work to Australian companies, purely on merit, including Design of CFT, Design of Electrical system, Design of Ballast and stres analysis work, and they didn't ask for $15,000,000 to join in..
I bet there are no restrictions on the DIRCM technology, no little black boxes that the US can't see into (they are not content with a trust us).
Quickstep has developed its own processes from memory (I did some due dilligence before purchasing shares in the company18 months ago). The technology is now being licenced in Europe where the auto manufacturers are very interested.Once again where did the tech come from, is the research for the process an LM product?
Or did Oz win that contract on merit too?.
Don't know if it was won on merit or whether LM dangled the contract as a 'pat on the head' for Australia climbing on board. Don't really care either, I'm going to make some money methinks on those shares.
Good! I glad you'll make money and invested in an Australian company too.Quickstep has developed its own processes from memory (I did some due dilligence before purchasing shares in the company18 months ago). The technology is now being licenced in Europe where the auto manufacturers are very interested.
Don't know if it was won on merit or whether LM dangled the contract as a 'pat on the head' for Australia climbing on board. Don't really care either, I'm going to make some money methinks on those shares.
(I hope metalstorm wins a contract soon too..)
Cheers
- Status
- Not open for further replies.