F-35 Program - General Discussion

[the road runner]

Nah 17 Billion is the number to also support em to 2025.

Geeps we paid 600 Million upfront in 2002 man and we didnt get our first plane till what this year.

We left the Super seasprite project after dropping 1 billion into it with nothing to show



Lets put this in perspective
So Australia spends 154 billion dollars a year on welfare

And we spend 17 billion over 20 plus years on JSF
Whats that average out at ?..$800 odd million a year .... chook change for the Air Defense of Australia
Australian companies will be part of team JSF exporting good for this project!

The JSF is the best plane to fit into the system's that Australia already operates and will operate into the future... AWAC's ...P-8s ....Triton...Aegis .... the list goes on and on

Its the sum of all parts(The systems approach), and the JSF, is just part of the overall Team that we will field well into the 21st century.

Add to that every allie of Australia who flies a JSF will be a node in the system and will be able to communicate with one another ... Its a force multiplier in that respect

Its pretty easy to be an armchair general and say we are paying to much, but the price is the price and you have to pay to play. The JSF will eventually fall in price as production ramps up and economy's of scale kick in.

Distanstar you will tend to find any defence equipment that is purchased usually takes 10 years plus to field.... Its not like purchasing a Toyota and going into a showroom and buying one straight off the factory floor

As for 40 Growlers and 160 Gripens no thanks... 2 different logistic chains... spares ..training and doctrine plus paying the wages for 200 pilots a year let alone all the ground crew and major infrastructure needed for 200 planes !


Sure the JSF has had issues ,is costing us more than we would like ...but it is the best Plane out there for the RAAF

Cheers

 

[Distanstar]

We left the Super seasprite project after dropping 1 billion into it with nothing to show



Lets put this in perspective
So Australia spends 154 billion dollars a year on welfare

And we spend 17 billion over 20 plus years on JSF
Whats that average out at ?..$800 odd million a year .... chook change for the Air Defense of Australia
Australian companies will be part of team JSF exporting good for this project!

The JSF is the best plane to fit into the system's that Australia already operates and will operate into the future... AWAC's ...P-8s ....Triton...Aegis .... the list goes on and on

Its the sum of all parts(The systems approach), and the JSF, is just part of the overall Team that we will field well into the 21st century.

Add to that every allie of Australia who flies a JSF will be a node in the system and will be able to communicate with one another ... Its a force multiplier in that respect

Its pretty easy to be an armchair general and say we are paying to much, but the price is the price and you have to pay to play. The JSF will eventually fall in price as production ramps up and economy's of scale kick in.

Distanstar you will tend to find any defence equipment that is purchased usually takes 10 years plus to field.... Its not like purchasing a Toyota and going into a showroom and buying one straight off the factory floor

As for 40 Growlers and 160 Gripens no thanks... 2 different logistic chains... spares ..training and doctrine plus paying the wages for 200 pilots a year let alone all the ground crew and major infrastructure needed for 200 planes !


Sure the JSF has had issues ,is costing us more than we would like ...but it is the best Plane out there for the RAAF

Cheers

hmm so where to start... history of military malpractice seasprite but not F-35 interesting comparison... Value of Welfare vs F-35 yes well remember welfare actually gets spent into Australian economy, if you pulled it out the economy would collapse.... hmmm F-35 net vs EW complete denial of systems aka Growlers and Russia's new suite of ECM based on ground and Air and sea.

Put simply it all looks good but these systems are well know, hey the chinese have the plans right ? and Russian ECM systems are actually considered state of the art by respected sources such as JANE's etc.

Admin - baiting comments deleted. Theres not a lot of room in here for people who bait others or go driving in another lane - note the thread title. Leave off topic material for a thread of your own creation

 

[the road runner]

hmm so where to start... history of military malpractice seasprite but not F-35 interesting comparison...

Seasprite was an example to show you that the Government will axe program that they see as not in the best interest of Australia... You can read into it what you will

Value of Welfare vs F-35 yes well remember welfare actually gets spent into Australian economy, if you pulled it out the economy would collapse....

Last i checked Australia did not make fighter planes ... we make parts for the JSF.. C-130 ect that bring revenue into australia and help us with our own aeronautical industry . The 17 billion price tag for the JSF is for Life of Type costs for JSF .. a good part of that money will be spent in Australia .. on maintaining the JSF... base upgrades ..paying pilots ,ground staff ect

hmmm F-35 net vs EW complete denial of systems aka Growlers and Russia's new suite of ECM based on ground and Air and sea.

JSF and Growler will compliment one another ... but JSF will be able to fight in a different manner than Growler dose

Growlers are great ..Australia is the only other country other than the US to be flying them ,that says alot in how close Australia and the US are on identical systems ...
Refer my previous post regarding the RAAFs other toys... P-8...Triton...Wedgetails ..Aegis

With JSF and Growlers Australia will truly have a cutting edge Air force.... would you agree?

Put simply it all looks good but these systems are well know, hey the chinese have the plans right ? and Russian ECM systems are actually considered state of the art by respected sources such as JANE's etc.

They Chineses may have the plans ... having plans and having the technical know how ..on how to produce certain materials ,electronics..systems are 2 different things..

The USA is a few generations ahead when it comes to Low Observable aircraft

The Russians make some great kit ..so do the Chinese ... but the ADF is a mix of US and European Systems and that's just the way it is...

As for Janes being a respects source ...sure they are ,,, but you will find this site actually has serving and ex defence members who's wealth of knowledge in their field puts them a few notches above Janes..

Don't be surprised if they call you out on what you think is right !

Cheers

 

[ADMk2]

I get some of that, but you have to admit as you say, its final performance is unproven .... and namely in all the areas where its value is supposed to be.

The thing is if you look back we didnt get what was promised... actually more than that, we didnt get what was contracted. Plus the US let most of the plans fall into chinese hands so the compedative edge is going to be a lot less than it was supposed to be.

I note many in the US suggest the F/A 18 growler is still going to be needed. I wonder what a good 4th generation with growler support could achieve?? ie 40 Growlers and 160 Gripens vs 71 F-35's it will be very interesting to see that one come out.

Why bother? We're going to see what Growlers in support of 5th Generation can achieve...

Because we have bought Growlers too, you know...

 

[Distanstar]

Why bother? We're going to see what Growlers in support of 5th Generation can achieve...

Because we have bought Growlers too, you know...

Well if we buy grippens we dont get all this (sorry F-35 fanboys)

A 2015 Pentagon report found these issues:[190]

The Joint Program Office is re-categorizing or failing to count aircraft failures to try to boost maintainability and reliability statistics;
Testing is continuing to reveal the need for more tests, but the majority of the fixes and for capability deficiencies being discovered are being deferred to later blocks rather than being resolved;
The F-35 has a significant risk of fire due to extensive fuel tank vulnerability, lightning vulnerability and an OBIGGS system unable to sufficiently reduce fire-sustaining oxygen, despite redesigns;
Wing drop concerns are still not resolved after six years, and may only be mitigated or solved at the expense of combat maneuverability and stealth;
The June engine problems are seriously impeding or preventing the completion of key test points, including ensuring that the F-35B delivered to the Marine Corps for IOC meets critical safety requirements; no redesign, schedule, or cost estimate for a long-term fix has been defined yet, thereby further impeding g testing;
Even in its third iteration, the F-35’s helmet continues to show high false-alarm rates and computer stability concerns, seriously reducing pilots’ situational awareness and endangering their lives in combat;
The number of Block 2B’s already limited combat capabilities being deferred to later blocks means that the Marine Corps’ FY2015 IOC squadron will be even less combat capable than originally planned;
ALIS software failures continue to impede operation, mission planning, and maintenance of the F-35, forcing the Services to be overly reliant on contractors and “unacceptable workarounds”;
Deficiencies in Block 2B software, and deferring those capabilities to later blocks, is undermining combat suitability for all three variants of the F-35;
The program’s attempts to save money now by reducing test points and deferring crucial combat capabilities will result in costly retrofits and fixes later down the line, creating a future unaffordable bow wave that, based on F-22 experience, will add at least an additional $67 billion in acquisition costs; and
Low availability and reliability of the F-35 is driven by inherent design problems that are only becoming more obvious and difficult to fix.

Normally as programs go along the problems decrease; an admittidly brief review show problems actually increasing in number and scope and lack of capability, over the last 5 years although this may be because of the previous lack of transparency from the contractors and all involved in this mess

 

[John Fedup]

Bwaah ha hah
To have some say in the development of the program my rear end. Our 71 plane influence vs US 3000+ plane influence fat chance.. The 600m was to make it too expensive to leave.

It will be very interesting to see what Canada ends up with.

Whatever Canada comes up with will be late in coming, that's the only certainty. Junior has declared no F-35.

 

[barney41]

I get some of that, but you have to admit as you say, its final performance is unproven .... and namely in all the areas where its value is supposed to be.

The thing is if you look back we didnt get what was promised... actually more than that, we didnt get what was contracted. Plus the US let most of the plans fall into chinese hands so the compedative edge is going to be a lot less than it was supposed to be.

I note many in the US suggest the F/A 18 growler is still going to be needed. I wonder what a good 4th generation with growler support could achieve?? ie 40 Growlers and 160 Gripens vs 71 F-35's it will be very interesting to see that one come out.

LO is as advertised and possibly even better than on the proven F-22 . Avionics, radar, engine and other key tech are enhancements on systems proven on the F-22. The jet can work wIth Growlers ala US Navy and without Growlers ala US Air Force. The jet is new but in an early real-world test leading up to IOC four USMC F-35s rather easily defeated nine opposing jets. So there is a sound basis for confidence that the jet will deliver as promised.

Have you even given any thought to what it would cost to buy, operate and support 40 Growlers and 160 Gripens?

 

[Distanstar]

LO is as advertised and possibly even better than on the proven F-22 . Avionics, radar, engine and other key tech are enhancements on systems proven on the F-22. The jet can work wIth Growlers ala US Navy and without Growlers ala US Air Force. The jet is new but in an early real-world test leading up to IOC four USMC F-35s rather easily defeated nine opposing jets. So there is a sound basis for confidence that the jet will deliver as promised.

Have you even given any thought to what it would cost to buy, operate and support 40 Growlers and 160 Gripens?

yep about 17 billion same cost for 72 F-35's to year 2025
That 17 Billions is our Aussie Budget office not the bull suggested by the suppliers.

I look forward to the F-35 being a good piece of kit as we are stuck with it, but there are some real big issues.

 

[barney41]

Deleted

 

[Volkodav]

In Budgetry parameters do you mean "bleed us dry".

17 Billion for 72 aircraft and by the way;

Air Marshal Geoff Brown, the Chief of Air Force (Australia) , has said that "anything less than 100 JSFs severely limits the options available to government and only provides a boutique capability"

So its fail again!! cost = lack of capability= why bother ?

Ok, the F/A-18F was sold during the 2007 election campaign as 24 gen 4 aircraft for $10 billion and you are complaining about getting three times as many, much, more capable aircraft a decade later? Not exactly and apples for apples thing but it gets the message across.

 

[vonnoobie]

Ok my 2 cents, The F-35 is far from being the aircraft it has been advertised as and still has a long way to go, That being said it is not so bad that it is a hopeless case.

Likely event is it may take longer to bring into use but either way once it reaches FRP the cost will go down so your whole debate against the price is of no consequence when the per unit price will start to match other aircraft on the market.

In any case we are not in a dire situation, In a worst case scenario in which our Classic hornet's start to fall apart before we can acquire the F-35 (in a reasonable time frame) then it is more then likely we will be looking at another 12 - 24 SH's as an extended stop gap and 'possibly' more Growlers depending on how well the RAAF finds them (They may or may not turn into a C-17 situation in which we cant get enough of them).

As to proposal of 40 Growlers and 160 Gripen's, Why would we attain two separate families of aircraft when we could also attain the Growlers and Super Hornets? Exact same supply chain creating more efficiency. Hell since you go into cost so much 2013 fly away price of the SH was $60.9 million, The Gripens 2006 fly away cost was $68.9 million .. You propose to acquire an aircraft that we are not set up to sustain at a more costly price then an aircraft we already have experience and knowledge on?

Im glad the site has a new member but like my self you need to learn to become realistic in yours posts. Proposing an alternative aircraft is fine, But you need to make a good case for it which I'm afraid you have not. You also need to be realistic in number's that you are proposing, We at times have struggled to man the current fleet of fighters and yet you want to more then double the force.

 

[StobieWan]

yep about 17 billion same cost for 72 F-35's to year 2025
That 17 Billions is our Aussie Budget office not the bull suggested by the suppliers.

I look forward to the F-35 being a good piece of kit as we are stuck with it, but there are some real big issues.

I can't see 160 Gripen and 40 Growlers costing the same to run as 72 F35A. - where do those figures come from?

 

[t68]

I can't see 160 Gripen and 40 Growlers costing the same to run as 72 F35A. - where do those figures come from?

Agree how the hell do you expect to buy 160 Gripens and 40 Growlers with 17B AUD and have everything paid for out till 2025. And why would buy Gripens in the first place when you can have a near identical aircraft in the Rhino on the books to lower you logistical tail in the parts bin

 

[vonnoobie]

Agree how the hell do you expect to buy 160 Gripens and 40 Growlers with 17B AUD and have everything paid for out till 2025. And why would buy Gripens in the first place when you can have a near identical aircraft in the Rhino on the books to lower you logistical tail in the parts bin

Considering the Gripens and Growlers have similar cost's just in fly away costs (No spares, training, support etc) you would be looking in excess of $14 billion US or $20+ billion AUD and that is for acquiring one of the basic Gripens. If we were to acquire any Gripens in a hypothetical situation it would have to be the newest NG version (Shares common engine with the Rhino and Growler) but that again has driven the cost of it up to $113 million each though admittedly a low operating cost at $27,000 per hour.

Add in life time costs, base upgrade and the employment of extra personnel (Which would add a good billion to annual costs alone) and over the life time you wont get any change out of $75 billion (basic math's with a few guesstimates). And he wanted to do this with $17 billion?

 

[barney41]

. If we were to acquire any Gripens in a hypothetical situation it would have to be the newest NG version (Shares common engine with the Rhino and Growler) but that again has driven the cost of it up to $113 million each though admittedly a low operating cost at $27,000 per hour.

I wouldn't put much stock in comparative operating cost figures. The costs and assumptions that go into such computations can vary widely.

 

[ADMk2]

Well if we buy grippens we dont get all this (sorry F-35 fanboys)

A 2015 Pentagon report found these issues:[190]

The Joint Program Office is re-categorizing or failing to count aircraft failures to try to boost maintainability and reliability statistics;
Testing is continuing to reveal the need for more tests, but the majority of the fixes and for capability deficiencies being discovered are being deferred to later blocks rather than being resolved;
The F-35 has a significant risk of fire due to extensive fuel tank vulnerability, lightning vulnerability and an OBIGGS system unable to sufficiently reduce fire-sustaining oxygen, despite redesigns;
Wing drop concerns are still not resolved after six years, and may only be mitigated or solved at the expense of combat maneuverability and stealth;
The June engine problems are seriously impeding or preventing the completion of key test points, including ensuring that the F-35B delivered to the Marine Corps for IOC meets critical safety requirements; no redesign, schedule, or cost estimate for a long-term fix has been defined yet, thereby further impeding g testing;
Even in its third iteration, the F-35’s helmet continues to show high false-alarm rates and computer stability concerns, seriously reducing pilots’ situational awareness and endangering their lives in combat;
The number of Block 2B’s already limited combat capabilities being deferred to later blocks means that the Marine Corps’ FY2015 IOC squadron will be even less combat capable than originally planned;
ALIS software failures continue to impede operation, mission planning, and maintenance of the F-35, forcing the Services to be overly reliant on contractors and “unacceptable workarounds”;
Deficiencies in Block 2B software, and deferring those capabilities to later blocks, is undermining combat suitability for all three variants of the F-35;
The program’s attempts to save money now by reducing test points and deferring crucial combat capabilities will result in costly retrofits and fixes later down the line, creating a future unaffordable bow wave that, based on F-22 experience, will add at least an additional $67 billion in acquisition costs; and
Low availability and reliability of the F-35 is driven by inherent design problems that are only becoming more obvious and difficult to fix.

Normally as programs go along the problems decrease; an admittidly brief review show problems actually increasing in number and scope and lack of capability, over the last 5 years although this may be because of the previous lack of transparency from the contractors and all involved in this mess

No, you have cherry picked the 'problems' many of which not only the manufacturer, but also the services disagree with.

The 'problems' aren't getting worse, they are getting resolved, just like any development program, including your precious Gripen NG, which btw had its own pretty spectacular development problems in its Gripen incarnation, not least of which included test aircraft crashing...

 

[Distanstar]

No, you have cherry picked the 'problems' many of which not only the manufacturer, but also the services disagree with.

The 'problems' aren't getting worse, they are getting resolved, just like any development program, including your precious Gripen NG, which btw had its own pretty spectacular development problems in its Gripen incarnation, not least of which included test aircraft crashing...

I'd like to share your optimism but I dont think it matches the reallity;

For costs; The Australian Defence Force earlier this week told a Senate inquiry that $17 billion had been earmarked for the purchase of F-35 Strike Fighters so far, but a total of $24 billion would eventually have to be spent on the machines.

Going up 7 billion in a week of comments scheesh.

And may be wrong because of Canada's independant cost analysis;

"An independent Canadian audit into the true cost of its proposed 65 F-35 fighter fleet produced a figure of $48 billion."

The DOD report said that actual faults were being moved forward into future Tranches and being reported as solved and also reported fixes from redesign were being reported as solved when infact the problems were still there after the re-design. Ie you cant believe the statements from the contractors because they have been lying (misreporting) to congress let alone the wider public.

So if your going to say things are getting better, by relying on reports then its been independantly proven thats not the case.

By the way shouldnt someone be going to jail for all these lies and exagerations ??:?2

 

[t68]

I'd like to share your optimism but I dont think it matches the reallity;

For costs; The Australian Defence Force earlier this week told a Senate inquiry that $17 billion had been earmarked for the purchase of F-35 Strike Fighters so far, but a total of $24 billion would eventually have to be spent on the machines.

Going up 7 billion in a week of comments scheesh.

And may be wrong because of Canada's independant cost analysis;

"An independent Canadian audit into the true cost of its proposed 65 F-35 fighter fleet produced a figure of $48 billion."

The DOD report said that actual faults were being moved forward into future Tranches and being reported as solved and also reported fixes from redesign were being reported as solved when infact the problems were still there after the re-design. Ie you cant believe the statements from the contractors because they have been lying (misreporting) to congress let alone the wider public.

So if your going to say things are getting better, by relying on reports then its been independantly proven thats not the case.

By the way shouldnt someone be going to jail for all these lies and exagerations ??:?2

Source please thank you, of you are going to rely on the Canadians for independant veiw the new goverment has been sprouting the evils of F35 to sit there own agenda showing the lifetime costs as the flyaway price and then pointing to the flyaway cost of other options, they have dug themselves a hole so deep they don't know how to climb out of it.

 

[Distanstar]

Source please thank you, of you are going to rely on the Canadians for independant veiw the new goverment has been sprouting the evils of F35 to sit there own agenda showing the lifetime costs as the flyaway price and then pointing to the flyaway cost of other options, they have dug themselves a hole so deep they don't know how to climb out of it.

Source (usual stuff infront)
.news.com.au/technology/innovation/f-35-stealth-fighter-under-intense-attack/story-fnpjxnlk-1227579827067?utm_source=outbrain&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=technology

And Wiki for F-35 see souce [190]
A 2015 Pentagon report found these issues:[190]

The Joint Program Office is re-categorizing or failing to count aircraft failures to try to boost maintainability and reliability statistics;
Testing is continuing to reveal the need for more tests, but the majority of the fixes and for capability deficiencies being discovered are being deferred to later blocks rather than being resolved;

End sources

Ah so Canadians less independant that actual contractors lying. Not to sure about that as this was before election and requested by their government, who at the time were "For" F-35 purchases.

Please level your attacks at the F-35 contractors in equal measure ?

 

[ngatimozart]

Source (usual stuff infront)
.news.com.au/technology/innovation/f-35-stealth-fighter-under-intense-attack/story-fnpjxnlk-1227579827067?utm_source=outbrain&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=technology

And Wiki for F-35 see souce [190]
A 2015 Pentagon report found these issues:[190]

The Joint Program Office is re-categorizing or failing to count aircraft failures to try to boost maintainability and reliability statistics;
Testing is continuing to reveal the need for more tests, but the majority of the fixes and for capability deficiencies being discovered are being deferred to later blocks rather than being resolved;

End sources

Ah so Canadians less independant that actual contractors lying. Not to sure about that as this was before election and requested by their government, who at the time were "For" F-35 purchases.

Please level your attacks at the F-35 contractors in equal measure ?

You are making a lot of accusations about contractors lying etc., so please cite specific instances with reliable verifiable sources that will withstand legal scrutiny or withdraw your accusations and apologise.

One. For your information Wikipedia is not regarded as an authorative or reliable source.

Two. There are people on here who actually know things about the F35 that are not in the public domain and where they are able too, they will comment.

Three. There are people on here who actually do have some modicum of familiarity with the subject upon which they are discussing and in some fields some of tese people would be regarded as experts.

Four. There is a significant amount of misinformation, incorrect information and downright untruths, being promulgated on the internet and in the media by opponents to the F35 program. The authors of these have no, or very little knowledge of the aircraft or the program, yet they claim to know all about it. Criticism and opposition is fine, however it should be based upon actual facts, not mistruths and untruths fabricated by the ignorant hairy unwashed, who should know better. Very unprofessional.

Five. If you are going to be disrespectful of other posters on here, especially those who are knowledgeable upon the subject, the Mods will undoubtedly take a dim view and stir into action. Don't upset the Mods because they always win. They are grumpy at the moment because they haven't been fed for a while.

Six. New posters are always welcome but please read and abide by the rules.

Seven. If you want to use the standard news media as a source, be aware that as a general rule they are very ignorant of defence and defence related issues. They also tend to be quite biased.

Not all of us think that the F35 is the be all to end all - no platform ever is, however any issues that we may have with this, or any other platform, are based upon informed knowledge and thought.