F-35 Program - General Discussion

[t68]

which would mean that if those were regarded as being a frequent operational requirement then there would be changes and proposals put foward for force modeling changes (eg bill and ben, phat ships etc...)

Bill & Ben show the persuasion of cabinet decsions which affect defence force planning, I'd bet my right nut with hindsight cabinet regret that when for money overall spent could have got the recommend ship that defence wanted in the first place

The THSS project was abandoned in May 1993, when the then Government decided that the proposal to construct a new ship, with an estimated cost of $494 million, could not be afforded in the context of the Government’s 1993–94 budget. However, in recognition of Australia’s strategic requirement for the capacity to transport, deploy and support an amphibious force,the Government gave approval for Navy to undertake a study of less costly options for acquiring the required capability.

The penny wise pound foolish approach. The final bill approached the original cost budget analysis. The B might fall into this category within the stratgic guidence.

there has been a spectacular shortage of deep scholarly thinkers such as Beasley who had foreign policy nouse and a broad and deep appreciation of what the military needed beyond getting suckered by bright glossey brochures and free joy rides from industry - the last of the pragmatists IMO

I belive even Beasly wished he did things differently, he did come out and say we should have got eight Collins Submarine, just hope they don't regret latter on which variant would give the most options to goverment for not a lot of extra coin.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Bill & Ben show the persuasion of cabinet decsions which affect defence force planning, I'd bet my right nut with hindsight cabinet regret that when for money overall spent could have got the recommend ship that defence wanted in the first place

nope - bill and ben show the influence that MajGen Cosgrove had on the PM - and he was able to exercise that influence as he was the classical senior sir in that he remained apolitical - the glaring counterpoint to Cosgrove was VADM Chris Barrie

Cosgrove was able to convince the govt that bill and ben were necessary due to the logistics failings of ET 99

The penny wise pound foolish approach. The final bill approached the original cost budget analysis. The B might fall into this category within the stratgic guidence.

nope, governed by the GotD electoral whims and impulses to shore up soft seats
Bushmaster, extended M113, Hawkei, HQJOC were all political selections. A 50/50 strike rate

I belive even Beasly wished he did things differently, he did come out and say we should have got eight Collins Submarine, just hope they don't regret latter on which variant would give the most options to goverment for not a lot of extra coin.

except its the military in the end who have to successfully prosecute the case for "more" - they can only do their best. Hindsight would have solved lots of prev conflicts but its not how realpolitik works

This is meandering into OT territory

 

[t68]

nope - bill and ben show the influence that MajGen Cosgrove had on the PM - and he was able to exercise that influence as he was the classical senior sir in that he remained apolitical - the glaring counterpoint to Cosgrove was VADM Chris Barrie

Cosgrove was able to convince the govt that bill and ben were necessary due to the logistics failings of ET 99





This is meandering into OT territory

Agree,

But just a clarification please, Bill and Ben referrers to the LPA's not the LHD's ships, those decisions (93)were made 5 years prior to moving up in rank to Major General(98)

Interesting to see if ET didn't happen what would have replaced the LPA's but that's for another thread

 

[gf0012-aust]

Agree,

But just a clarification please, Bill and Ben referrers to the LPA's not the LHD's ships, those decisions (93)were made 5 years prior to moving up in rank to Major General(98)

Bill and Ben, B1 and B2 refer to kanimbla and manoora

my bad on career accuracy, I tend to just refer to final rank rather than a point in time.

 

[Stampede]

most modern militaries have their version of the CCV's in place. They act as the templates for how we will react with force against a given event - so there are "lots" of them in place ready for pulling out to act as the baseline template for an operation



which would mean that if those were regarded as being a frequent operational requirement then there would be changes and proposals put foward for force modeling changes (eg bill and ben, phat ships etc...)

so the thoughts around CTOL barges, F35b's, nuke subs, FW combat air, armed UAS, have already been discussed by the various service force planners well before they appear as options to consider in places such as here

every now and then a pro-active PM or DefMin might result in extra gravitas being applied to different platform options (nuke subs, japanese subs, extended wheelbase M113's, Hawkei, F-22 etc...) some low yielders might get up for seat retention merit, but generally the batschitt crazy ones get batted away by presenting coherent force development logic

there has been a spectacular shortage of deep scholarly thinkers such as Beasley who had foreign policy nouse and a broad and deep appreciation of what the military needed beyond getting suckered by bright glossey brochures and free joy rides from industry - the last of the pragmatists IMO

Thanks for the response

I agree that Kim ( Bomber ) Beazley was in the main a good defence minister. A thinker as you say and someone who had a genuine interest in both military matters and its broader Geo/political context. The Bomber label is an unfortunate tag as I don't see him as some starry eyed boy's own manual type but rather a committed politician trying to do justice is his/her portfolio. Would he do things differently on reflection, who wouldn't, but in the six years as Defence minister his is not a bad report card and his current writings are still worth a listening to on contemporary matters today

So how many defence ministers have we had in the last six years?
Anyway back to the aviation forum


Regards S

 

[the road runner]

Defence and Aerospace has a few interviews with outgoing program executive Lt General Chris Bogdan ...well worth a listen to


Buying lot 10 and how they can save money by doing a joint purchase of parts with partner nations ..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Li0PTiSzvXw&t=0s

Program wins

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eawaARGYQX0

Accomplishments

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LV6yFzLZ2xk

Lt.General Bogdan will leave the JSF program on May 25th ,2017 ....i recon he did a pretty good job in steering the program out of trouble

 

[ADMk2]

Thanks for the response

I agree that Kim ( Bomber ) Beazley was in the main a good defence minister. A thinker as you say and someone who had a genuine interest in both military matters and its broader Geo/political context. The Bomber label is an unfortunate tag as I don't see him as some starry eyed boy's own manual type but rather a committed politician trying to do justice is his/her portfolio. Would he do things differently on reflection, who wouldn't, but in the six years as Defence minister his is not a bad report card and his current writings are still worth a listening to on contemporary matters today

So how many defence ministers have we had in the last six years?
Anyway back to the aviation forum


Regards S

Well apart from the whole 'Defence of Australia' policy which of course was an unmitigated disaster as a defence policy in terms of the effects it had on Australian Defence Force capability, many of which are still being felt today...

 

[Boagrius]

Some new footage ostensibly showing prep for the F35 display in Paris. Whether or not this is the actual routine they use, it's probably the most I've seen anyone throw an F35 around to date:

https://youtu.be/PsEl_IL_5-M

 

[colay1]

Nice... too bad though the Paris crowds will miss a STOVL demo. A real show-stopper.

 

[Stampede]

Some new footage ostensibly showing prep for the F35 display in Paris. Whether or not this is the actual routine they use, it's probably the most I've seen anyone throw an F35 around to date:

https://youtu.be/PsEl_IL_5-M

Thanks for the link.

A very different display to that at Avalon.
An aircraft that is going form strength to strength.

Regards S

 

[Boagrius]

Thanks for the link.

A very different display to that at Avalon.
An aircraft that is going form strength to strength.

Regards S

No worries

Also, a little bed-time reading from the coal face for the naysayers:

I've used a lot about F-35 earlier. Last time I felt something at Air War College, my background was to have read specifications, test reports and have flown simulator. Then I stated that the machine was formidable. Now I have flown the machine for a year and I'm glad to say; What did I say? F-35 is the king in the air!

I'll be a bit more precise: With full war equipment, my experience with F-35A is that

It's easier to fly than F-16.
It's faster than F-16.
It has a longer range than F-16.
It flies higher than F-16.
It is more maneuverable than F-16.
It finds opponents on a longer distance (than F-16 would have done).
Opponents discover F-35 later than an F-16 would be found.

F35 in the Air-to-Air Role

 

[ngatimozart]

It appears that a solution may have been found for the problem of battlefield communications between new stealth fighters and legacy aircraft. Called the Einstein Box, this system is a plug and play system that bolts onto legacy aircraft, allowing them to quickly and efficiently distribute to, and receive data from the F-35 MADL system.

 

[colay1]

It seems to be some sort of gateway similar to BACN. Unfortunately there's a paywall.

 

[Clueless]

Great quote from test pilot Billie Flynn on the upcoming displays at Paris

“All of those airplanes that do air shows—the Hornet, Viper—they are all slicked off without all the external stores,” Flynn said. “They are a party trick at an air show, versus a combat-configured F-22 or F-35.”

The article contains a diagram and description of the high display
F-35 Demo Pilot: Paris Performance Will ‘Crush Years Of Misinformation' | Paris Air Show 2017 content from Aviation Week

 

[Boagrius]

Great quote from test pilot Billie Flynn on the upcoming displays at Paris

“All of those airplanes that do air shows—the Hornet, Viper—they are all slicked off without all the external stores,” Flynn said. “They are a party trick at an air show, versus a combat-configured F-22 or F-35.”

The article contains a diagram and description of the high display
F-35 Demo Pilot: Paris Performance Will ‘Crush Years Of Misinformation' | Paris Air Show 2017 content from Aviation Week

Here is the video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93NdwZAeXhI&t=213s

Certainly a lot of turning, climbing and running for a jet that can't turn, climb or run :

 

[ngatimozart]

An article about the simulator being used for F-35 pilot training. Quite impressive.
Domes on the Range: F-35 Training Takes Off

A RCD article on the F-35 and how it is becoming a success. The article also addresses the detractors claims.
Five Signs the F-35 Fighter Is a Smashing Success

 

[colay1]

LM F-35 Chief Test Pilot Al Norman explains in layman's terms the different maneuvers portrayed in the Paris Air Show F-35 Demo. Illuminating.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0On-GMTSWvc

 

[south]

Looks aalright, if not a little 'heavy' IMHO... I'd be interested to see what fuel weight they are taking off at.

Kinematics was never going to be its strongest point anyway...

 

[SpazSinbad]

Looks aalright, if not a little 'heavy' IMHO... I'd be interested to see what fuel weight they are taking off at.

Kinematics was never going to be its strongest point anyway...

OH well one can never be pleased with the F-35A power displayed at PAS 2017 and there is potentially more on the way with... Also in 3i configuration the F-35A was limited to 7 Gs.

[Forgot to add AWE at: "...a 100-knot 50-degree angle of attack low-speed pass..." then straight into a climb. Reminds me of an old USN LSO cartoon about 'Power Power Power - Don't Climb' but of course the F-35 goes straight up.

Faster and Farther with Growth Option 1.0 19 Jun 2017 Pratt & Whitney
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvxYzi8FvqM

LEST WE FORGET the F-35 variants can go to max airframe G with full internal fuel and weapon loadouts. https://www.f35.com/in-depth/detail/the-f-35s-high-angle-of-attack-explained

"...The F-35[A] was also designed to turn at nine Gs, with a full load of internally-stored fuel and weapons, far outclassing any enemy jet with their externally-mounted missiles and fuel tanks...."

 

[StingrayOZ]

OH well one can never be pleased with the F-35A power displayed at PAS 2017 and there is potentially more on the way with... Also in 3i configuration the F-35A was limited to 7 Gs.

Faster and Farther with Growth Option 1.0 19 Jun 2017 Pratt & Whitney
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvxYzi8FvqM

LEST WE FORGET the F-35 variants can go to max airframe G with full internal fuel and weapon loadouts. https://www.f35.com/in-depth/detail/the-f-35s-high-angle-of-attack-explained

I imagine the enemy jet will want to fire off those weapons and jettison those fuel tanks. If your in the same airspace as a F-35, you should be heading for the hills.