F-35 Multirole Joint Strike Fighter

[t68]

Great, then I won't feel sorry for ya'll anymore if ya got what you want, I guess I felt like we let you down.

I think the only area you may have let us down is not sinking the money into FB-22 medium bomber, I think you guys would have had Russell offices lusting over the replacement for F-111.

FB-22 Fighter Bomber

Looks like USAF has given up on the medium bomber and is developing another long range strike/ISR platform.


Quote from wiki not reliable,
“In March 2011, the Air Force intended to purchase from 80 to 100 of the aircraft. The Global Strike Command has indicated that one requirement upon the bomber is to carry a weapon of similar effect to the existing Massive Ordnance Penetrator. The service still plans to procure 100 bombers as of February 2012. In addition to the strategic bombing, tactical bombing, and prompt global strike roles typical for a long-range bomber, the new aircraft will be a part of a family of systems to be responsible for ground surveillance and electronic attack. The Obama administration in its 2012 budget request asked for $197 million and a total of $3.7 billion over five years to develop the bomber which would include modular payload options for intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance (ISR), electronic attack (EA), and communications. The bomber is to be nuclear capable, but will not be certified for the role until the current bomber force is due for retirement.”

Pity the talking price is somewhere north of USD 550 million per copy

 

[gf0012-aust]

I think you guys would have had Russell offices lusting over the replacement for F-111.

they still wouldn't have been remotely interested.

nothing in the scenarios would justify screwing up overall light blue. let alone purple force balance.

for the RAAF - a woftam
for the ADF - a woftam
for the US - they've already moved on

 

[t68]

they still wouldn't have been remotely interested.

nothing in the scenarios would justify screwing up overall light blue. let alone purple force balance.

for the RAAF - a woftam
for the ADF - a woftam
for the US - they've already moved on

Interesting I would have thought that the RAAF would have fought tooth and nail to keep a strategic medium range bomber in its inventory with a large LO aircraft, able drop a significant load and could self escort considering our distance. But then again it’s not the 1960’s with the reds under the beds to the north anymore.

 

[aussienscale]

Interesting I would have thought that the RAAF would have fought tooth and nail to keep a strategic medium range bomber in its inventory with a large LO aircraft, able drop a significant load and could self escort considering our distance. But then again it’s not the 1960’s with the reds under the beds to the north anymore.

If IF the RAAF, DOD or Government were interested in such a capability, then APA would be rolling in the cash and Pete and Carlo would be "Kings of the World" :ar15

FB22 was never anything more than a pipe dream, why would the US even look at building it, when they already have ....... ?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Interesting I would have thought that the RAAF would have fought tooth and nail to keep a strategic medium range bomber in its inventory.

But the RAAF hasn't had such capability. Despite the propaganda the F-111C was never a strategic platform and never a medium bomber. It was a strike aircraft and the F-35A will replicate its capability for bombs on target at range and with far higher survivability.

 

[Tasman]

But the RAAF hasn't had such capability. Despite the propaganda the F-111C was never a strategic platform and never a medium bomber. It was a strike aircraft and the F-35A will replicate its capability for bombs on target at range and with far higher survivability.

Even the F-111's predecessor the Canberra was only a light bomber. When the US offered 24 B-47s as an interim bomber pending delivery of the F-111C it was quickly turned down and the far more suitable F-4E acquired instead. The F-35A will perform the strike role far better than anything the RAAF have had before with the added advantage of being able to double up in the air superiority role.


Tas

 

[Air Force Brat]

I think the only area you may have let us down is not sinking the money into FB-22 medium bomber, I think you guys would have had Russell offices lusting over the replacement for F-111.

FB-22 Fighter Bomber

Looks like USAF has given up on the medium bomber and is developing another long range strike/ISR platform.


Quote from wiki not reliable,
“In March 2011, the Air Force intended to purchase from 80 to 100 of the aircraft. The Global Strike Command has indicated that one requirement upon the bomber is to carry a weapon of similar effect to the existing Massive Ordnance Penetrator. The service still plans to procure 100 bombers as of February 2012. In addition to the strategic bombing, tactical bombing, and prompt global strike roles typical for a long-range bomber, the new aircraft will be a part of a family of systems to be responsible for ground surveillance and electronic attack. The Obama administration in its 2012 budget request asked for $197 million and a total of $3.7 billion over five years to develop the bomber which would include modular payload options for intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance (ISR), electronic attack (EA), and communications. The bomber is to be nuclear capable, but will not be certified for the role until the current bomber force is due for retirement.”

Pity the talking price is somewhere north of USD 550 million per copy

Yes, this will be more interesting drama, oddly, I'm not sure I've even seen any engineering proposals? Drawings etc? 550 per eh?

 

[Vivendi]

ParlInfo - Parliamentary Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade : 07/02/2012 : Department of Defence annual report 2010-11

What on earth is this!? A hoax?

Or was Mr. Goon and his friends really invited to a Hearing in Australia?

Meanwhile, in the real world:

March 5 (Reuters) - Norway's No. 2 defense official said he was more upbeat about the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program than in a long time after visiting a test site in California last week and meeting with the eight other partners on the program.

Defense State Secretary Roger Ingebrigsten said on Monday that Norway was finalizing its plans to buy "approximately 50 fighters," but did not expect any significant cost increases to its order.

Lockheed Martin Corp is developing three variants of the radar-evading, supersonic fighter jet for the United States and eight partner countries - Canada, Britain, Australia, Turkey, Denmark, Norway, Italy and the Netherlands.

Senior U.S. officials last week met with partner countries and sought to reassure them that Washington remains committed to the program, despite its own plans to postpone orders for 179 planes for five years.

That decision, driven by U.S. budget pressures, could delay cost savings that will be realized once production is ramped up.

"We think that we are going to pay close to what we said we would in 2008," Ingebrigsten told Reuters by telephone after returning from his U.S. visit. "The main approach will be the same as it has been since 2008."

He declined to provide details ahead of the Norwegian government's submission to parliament in two weeks. Previous plans called for Norway to buy 56 aircraft for 61 billion Norwegian crown ($10.89 billion), in undiscounted 2011 crowns, or 72 billion crowns when a greater contingency is counted.

"I can't say we're going to do exactly what we said in 2008 but our plan is to procure approximately 50 fighters," he said.

The slowdown in U.S. orders and budget constraints at home have prompted some of the partners to rethink their own orders. Italy last month cut its planned buy of 131 planes by 30 percent and others may follow suit.

U.S. officials insist Washington still plans to spend $382 billion to buy a total of 2,443 fighters for the Air Force, the Navy and Marine Corps, the costliest weapons program ever.


TEST SITE, FIRST FLIGHT

Ingebrigsten led a Norwegian delegation to Edwards Air Force Base in California last week to visit one of two key test sites for the new fighter.

"I haven't been so optimistic related to the F-35 ... for a long time," Ingebrigsten said.

He said Friday's meeting of officials from the Pentagon, Lockheed, and the eight partner countries was useful, with all sides citing their continued support of the program. Canada hosted the meeting at its embassy in Washington.

Norway upbeat on F-35; Florida test flight set | Reuters

Funny that Australia is still supporting the program after the "evidence" presented by Goon et al -- must be a conspiracy!

 

[SpudmanWP]

Laws being the way they are in the AU, anyone can speak if they are registered.

 

[jack412]

and anyone can register to speak.
What is going to be interesting is that the ADF is going to respond on the 16th of this month.
Whilst being constrained to be polite and considerate, they are going to slap them silly.

 

[Air Force Brat]

and anyone can register to speak.
What is going to be interesting is that the ADF is going to respond on the 16th of this month.
Whilst being constrained to be polite and considerate, they are going to slap them silly.

Well, as I said the drama continues, however, upon reading the whole transcript, some of what Mr.Goon and company presented to the committee is true, more precisely the role of ATF and JSF as the Hi/Lo, that is in truth the design supposition made as these aircraft were designed and brought to production. It will be interesting to see the ADFs response, thanks for posting the links.

 

[Andrew McL]

That transcript is really hard going - I just glaze over when the "warts and cankers" comments start flowing...

They were asked three times what is the alternative, and couldn't answer!

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Well, as I said the drama continues, however, upon reading the whole transcript, some of what Mr.Goon and company presented to the committee is true, more precisely the role of ATF and JSF as the Hi/Lo, that is in truth the design supposition made as these aircraft were designed and brought to production.

No that’s BS. As meaningless to the aircraft’s specification and design as the F-15 having “not a pound for air to ground” (it had a full bombing capability and was really good at it outscoring the F-111 and A-7 in accuracy). The F-35 was designed to meet a primary and several secondary missions. None of which had a F-22 present or some over aircraft to do its air to air dirty work. The F-35 was designed to be exportable but that doesn’t mean worse it just means that the technology used to build it will (supposedly) not compromise American leads and strategic capabilities.

 

[jack412]

That transcript is really hard going - I just glaze over when the "warts and cankers" comments start flowing...

They were asked three times what is the alternative, and couldn't answer!

Although inaudible to the scribe and as such didn't make the transcript, I think they said something about shovels and how they will have to charge more at the end of this paragraph

"Our view, quite simply, is that there has been a lot of work done, a lot of good work done, in pulling together the wherewithal to build the new air combat capability, not only for America but for its allies in the West and its close allies in Asia. There is a great production line there at Lockheed Martin at Fort Worth and their mile-long plant. There has been a lot of political capital expended, a lot of money expended. There has been a lot of effort in pulling together this great collaborative goodwill and industry network. The only trouble is that we are building the wrong aircraft. (then something about shovels and how they will have to charge more)

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Although inaudible to the scribe and as such didn't make the transcript, I think they said something about shovels and how they will have to charge more at the end of this paragraph

It says it all. Everyone else in the world wants the F-35’s capability; they want its survivability, its lethality, its information network, its sustainment network. What they don’t want is the project that has been delivered which is late, over budget, etc.

These guys on the other hand have no problem with the project they have a problem with the specification. They think the F-35 isn’t capable and they have the Harpoon games to prove it!

This idea that the F-35 will be fodder to FLANKERs is just ridiculous because it ignores the 20-30 odd years of weapons technology development that will enable the F-35 to wipe the floor with these jets that don’t match it in the key metrics of see first, kill first.

 

[gf0012-aust]

What on earth is this!? A hoax?

Or was Mr. Goon and his friends really invited to a Hearing in Australia?

If they are inferring that they were invited and have not added context, then the general view would be that someone is engaging in deceptive conduct.

The Aust Govt allows anyone to make submissions to Hearings such as this. ie you could do it and make a presentation as well.

they weren't invited as subject matter experts - if that indeed is what's attempting to be inferred. they were invited because they'd made a submission along with a fistful of other respondents.

fruitcakes and geniuses have the same rights of participation.

eg AustGov does the same open response process for the ADF Greenpaper

 

[Air Force Brat]

It says it all. Everyone else in the world wants the F-35’s capability; they want its survivability, its lethality, its information network, its sustainment network. What they don’t want is the project that has been delivered which is late, over budget, etc.

These guys on the other hand have no problem with the project they have a problem with the specification. They think the F-35 isn’t capable and they have the Harpoon games to prove it!

This idea that the F-35 will be fodder to FLANKERs is just ridiculous because it ignores the 20-30 odd years of weapons technology development that will enable the F-35 to wipe the floor with these jets that don’t match it in the key metrics of see first, kill first.

Well sir, me thinks thou dost protest too much, I was just stating the US military's plan, when they established both ATF and JSF, I'm not defending your buddies, but some of what they say is to affirm our 20+ years of fighter doctrine. That they abandoned that plan was politically, not operationally motivated, you should check out the AFA daily report. Try to be a better sport, I know the situation on the ground over here, I'm on here to get a perspective of the situation on the ground over there. I hope you are right when it comes to the F-35,because as others have noted, we seem to have painted our selves into a corner. In F-35 news, yesterday 3/6/12s first sortie out of the school house with an F-35A had to abort 15 minutes into a 90 minute mission. We do need to be flying this thing enough to get it sorted, it concerns me that we have all eggs in one basket.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I was just stating the US military's plan, when they established both ATF and JSF,

No you're not, there is no way one can reduce the acquisition plans for the ATF and JSF (which were source selected almost 15 years apart) to a 'hi-lo' mix strategy unless you are completely ignorant of events. Nor do you seem to have a coherent response to a series of different forum posts.

 

[the road runner]

After following this post for a while i have come to the conclusion that some (non informed)people see the JSF as the wrong Aircraft for the JSF Partners.So what Aircraft would do the job of the JSF? No one mentions (APA) what Aircraft should be bought in place of JSF. F-22 not for sale.So should we buy F-15,F-16,F-18 all these aircraft will cost alot more per man hour to operate than JSF with less capability. Stick with the JSF program,work all the bugs out and put it into full production.



Its easy to put crap on anything in life when you don't understand it.As a number of DEF PROs have pointed out,the JSF will "see first,and kill first!" Im sure this point will get lost on fly boys who see there country's asset as better than the JSF.Its funny how The US thru its air assets has owned the sky's since WW2.People dis regard this fact,and think the US is producing a lemon when building the JSF.

I have no inside info on JSF,but the Post i read regarding this aircraft, from people,who are privi to inside info,all point to a winner.I'll take their opinions over some jerno , APA , or fly boy NuTs any time.

Regards

 

[StobieWan]

Well sir, me thinks thou dost protest too much, I was just stating the US military's plan, when they established both ATF and JSF, I'm not defending your buddies, but some of what they say is to affirm our 20+ years of fighter doctrine. That they abandoned that plan was politically, not operationally motivated, you should check out the AFA daily report. Try to be a better sport, I know the situation on the ground over here, I'm on here to get a perspective of the situation on the ground over there. I hope you are right when it comes to the F-35,because as others have noted, we seem to have painted our selves into a corner. In F-35 news, yesterday 3/6/12s first sortie out of the school house with an F-35A had to abort 15 minutes into a 90 minute mission. We do need to be flying this thing enough to get it sorted, it concerns me that we have all eggs in one basket.

The Phantom did a similar abort on it's maiden flight, then went on to serve with distinction across the world. Go have a look at the history of aircraft development in the jet age and notice how many pilots previous programs had killed by now in their equivalent stage of development and testing.

F35 will be fine, I'm sure of it.