Australia’s First F-35 on the Go

[Dash_XR]

People of the west are still hung up on a fantasy that everyone wants to be like them and that's just not the case, you can't force democracy on people that can't handle it.

Not to mention manufacturing weapons is a multi billion dollar industry, humanity has a vested interest in fighting each other so do you think it's ever going to stop when there is so much profit at stake?

[My poor XF]

Originally Posted by ILLaViTaR

Just tried them on BF4 and they're ****, heatseekers won't even lock when another aircraft is in front of your face let alone 100 meters.

Heat seekers are ***** use the active radar

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by Dash_XR

you can't force democracy on people that don't want it.

Fixed

[Grunter]

The Designer Of The F-16 Explains Why The F-35 Is Such A Crappy Plane
According to the Pierre Sprey, co-designer of the F-16, the F35 is a turkey. Inherently, it’s a terrible aeroplane. An aeroplane built for a dumb idea. A kludge that will fail time and time again. Judging from the bajillion times the F-35 fleet has been grounded, well, he’s probably not wrong.

It’s a trillion dollar failure. Watch Sprey eviscerate the F-35 in the video below.

http://youtu.be/mxDSiwqM2nw

Source: http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2014/06/th...-crappy-plane/

I don't pretend to understand the positives and negatives, but thought some of you gals and guys might find this interesting.

[Road_Warrior]

I'm pretty sure that guy also bagged the F-15 when it was in development.

EDIT: In fact, it would appear he and others of his ilk are Luddites that don't like technology in fighter planes and believe fighter planes should only be used as fighter planes and should only need to do missions in daylight hours

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighter_Mafia

The Fighter Mafia attracted considerable controversy and the actual extent of their contribution to shaping US fighter design is a matter of debate.[1] Since the members of the group were in effect preaching a new US air combat doctrine, the expertise and qualifications of the group were the subject of scrutiny and criticism by defense experts and both USAF and USN officers. While Col. Boyd was a Korean War air combat veteran, Col. Riccioni was criticized for his lack of air combat experience, having seen no combat before his assignment to the Pentagon and afterwards opting for a desk position in Korea when offered a chance to fly combat missions in Vietnam.[4] Similarly, Sprey had no military expertise and scarce professional experience with fighter aircraft prior to his participation in the Fighter Mafia. While Sprey education included aeronautical engineering and he wanted to be a plane designer, he later abandoned that path to focus on probabilities, statistics and operational research.[5] In addition, Sprey was noted to have exaggerated his participation in both the testing of the A-10, the design of the F-16 and in NASA's operation of its F-15 test aircraft.[4]

In retrospect, the group's greatest contribution was the promotion of E-M as a basis for evaluating and designing aircraft for air combat maneuvering.[1] At a time when the US military was seemingly obsessed with technological solutions, the Fighter Mafia acted as the opposite extreme from which a more balanced approach to fighter design would emerge. However, this can be seen as ultimately a defeat of the Fighter Mafia and its ideals. While this balanced approach would result in the highly successful F-15, F-15E, F-16, F/A-18 and F/A-18E/F, it did so at the betrayal of the Fighter Mafia's campaign for the US military to adopt a single-role, low-tech fighter in large numbers.

The group's uncompromising disdain of and campaign against advanced weapons, radars, ECM, and multi-role designs, what they characterized as "gold-plating", would prove erroneous. For example, the Fighter Mafia argued that the ground attack mission should be handled by more appropriate, dedicated aircraft such as the A-10, which has had an outstanding record in that area[1] and that the addition of more electronics to F-16 caused its weight to rise to the point where it lost its edge in dogfighting, the mission for which it had been designed.[6] The vision of the group would have seen the US build thousands of dedicated short-ranged, low-tech, fighter-only aircraft to counter Soviet air power on a numerical superiority basis, a plan that was never endorsed by the USAF or the USN.[4] Instead, the success of US military aircraft has shown that the same technology would protect aircraft from missiles in an increasingly sensor-saturated battlefield, and would enable the multi-mission capabilities of modern aircraft. And while the US aircraft has engaged in few air-to-air encounters since Vietnam, the trend continues to show that missiles and in particular increasingly mature long-range missiles are the primary weapon on choice in modern combat, a trend that started as far back as the Vietnam War but continues to be downplayed by the Fighter Mafia.[4][7][8]

Although Sprey often portrays himself as a "principal designer" of the F-16, the actual plane that entered service included the long-range missiles, sensors and multi-role capability that he continues to criticize today.[4] Interestingly, the Fighter Mafia can be considered presently active, as Sprey has become an often-cited critic of the F-35, including using comparisons of the accident rates of the early F-16 design that most strongly felt his design influence to argue that the F-35 ought to be equally unsafe.[9]

The references attached to that Wiki piece are telling.

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

EDIT: In fact, it would appear he and others of his ilk are Luddites that don't like technology in fighter planes and believe fighter planes should only be used as fighter planes and should only need to do missions in daylight hours

Cool, tell him that there's a couple of Spitfires not far from here that only fly during daylight hours

[ILLaViTaR]

Originally Posted by SB076

Maybe Australia should just buy 20 USAS 12 from BF3

But they could simply bind pitch up to spacebar on the existing jets instead of wasting all these billions on unnecessary stealth

[Moby Vic]

Originally Posted by ILLaViTaR

But they could simply bind pitch up to spacebar on the existing jets instead of wasting all these billions on unnecessary stealth

And then they could whinge about outdated equipment.

[mik]

Interesting article on the Counter punch site about the projected costs of the F35 and lockheed martins creative accounting....... sorry I dont have a link, but the title of the article is" reselling the F 35".

[DJR-351]

Originally Posted by mik

Interesting article on the Counter punch site about the projected costs of the F35 and lockheed martins creative accounting....... sorry I dont have a link, but the title of the article is" reselling the F 35".

http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/04/...ling-the-f-35/

[SB076]

We are now interested in the B version (think Harrier jump jets) For use on the Canberra ships (small aircraft carrier, to take helicopters)

[ford man xf]

Fullerton Cove residents facing new battle over JSF noise

After a lengthy fight to stop coal seam gas drilling at Fullerton Cove north of Newcastle residents have a new battle on their hands when the new Joint Strike Fighter jets are introduced.

At a public meeting last night Defence department officials explained to residents which suburbs will be affected by aircraft noise.

Local Action Group president Lindsay Clout says when the joint strike fighters enter service in 2020, they will be louder than the current Hornet jets.

"That's what they're telling us and we're a little concerned," he said.

"There was some military activity over the last week or so around the base and it was very noisy.

"So if that's an indication of what's coming we need to look closely at it.

Mr Clout says Fullerton Cove is just one of many suburbs on the JSF flight path.

"Being so close to the base we'll certainly be in the area where they'll be heard.

"I recognise that it'll be a much wider group concerned about this.

"People in Salt Ash will be concerned and Medowie across to Raymond Terrace.

"We just need to gather our thoughts and decide what approach that we'll take to it."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-0...-noise/5564892

[ford man xf]

Joint Strike Fighter: the best available, probably



A full-size model of the F-35 Lightning Joint Strike Fighter stands brazenly amongst the historic combat aircraft on the main display floor of the Royal Air Force museum at Colindale, North *London. It is an incongruous sight. What is the JSF, still in development and with no operational record, doing on parade amongst the great aircraft that fought in two world wars and many *subsequent conflicts?

Not to put too fine a point on it, the JSF’s presence strikes even an admiring observer as presumptuous marketing propaganda by Lockheed Martin which has doubtless paid the managers of *Colindale for the privilege of standing the JSF dummy with the real Spitfires, *Lancasters and Typhoons.

Of course Britain, like Australia, is an international partner in the JSF’s *development program and is committed to buying the aircraft as its future frontline air combat capability. As in Australia and elsewhere, there has been much concern in Britain over the JSF development *program which has been marked by cost blowouts, delays and performance *shortfalls which have led to repeated calls for cancellation of the project.

Hence perhaps, its somewhat flagrant presence at Colindale. (Here’s an irrelevant but interesting fact: the name *Colindale derives from the name Colin Dale, which was used by T.E. Lawrence (of Arabia) when he joined the RAF as an anonymous aircraftsman after his First World War activities in the Middle East, and was posted to the RAF base *previously on the Colindale site).

While Londoners and tourists stare with wild surmise at the Colindale JSF, some Australians remain perturbed by the recent pre-budget announcement by Prime Minister Tony Abbott that *Australia will pay $12 billion for another 58 JSFs and will eventually buy 72 in our costliest military acquisition.

Apparently an enthusiastic convert to the JSF acquisition, Abbott has now reportedly ordered the Department of Defence to look at acquiring the short take-off and landing variant of the JSF to convert Australia’s Landing Helicopter Dock (LHD) assault ships into something like aircraft carriers. Defence’s response to what seems to have been an Abbott thought-bubble has been cool and *sceptical and it has flick-passed the *suggestion to the team developing the next defence white paper.

Meanwhile, back in London, the *solidly conservative old (UK) Telegraph has been reporting the JSF may need to be cancelled because of poor performance. Quoting a senior US Air Force officer *writing in the USAF journal Air and Space Power, the Telegraph says the new fighter might have even substantially less *performance than some existing aircraft. Similar criticisms have been common in Australia.

Five considerations in support of the JSF

So what to think about the JSF mock-up alone and palely loitering on the floor at Colindale? Despite the criticism, five important considerations stand in favour of the JSF and the government’s decision to purchase.

First, history. The Menzies government’s 1963 purchase of the F-111 aircraft faced cost blowouts and a decade of delays which, like the JSF delays, forced the then government to acquire interim fighters. Yet the F-111 proved one of the country’s most effective and durable *aircraft. Technical difficulties and cost blowouts in aircraft development are common and are irrelevant to the *eventual operational performance of the delivered aircraft.

Second, commitment. The US and its partners have bet the farm on the success of the JSF as their frontline, multi-role fighter. So it is arguably too important to fail – and the US military aviation record leaves little doubt they have the *technological competence and creativity to overcome developmental difficulties.

Third, combat realities. Modern air combat is not about daredevils in leather helmets and long white silk scarves *dog-fighting over the hedgerows of the Western Front. Superior engine power, over-the-horizon radar, stealth tech*nology and air-to-air missiles are the keys to success. First radar lock wins the fight. There is no credible evidence that *Chinese or Russian fighters now in* *development will be superior to the JSF.

Fourth, systems integration. The JSF is not a stand-alone aircraft. It will be part of an integrated system of systems involving in-air refuelling, AWACS and Growler electronic warfare aircraft. These *integrated systems with their wide-area ability to share information will provide massive force multiplier effects. To all that you can probably add the JSF’s *potential integration with surface and sub-surface warships.

Finally, the alternatives. The Russian and Chinese alternatives are non-starters given Australia’s western alliance arrangements. The European possibilities – Eurofighter, Rafale and Gripon – would not fit easily with Australia’s US Hornet history. So, as Andrew Davies of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute has observed, “there wasn’t actually much choice”.

Despite the hype and hubris reflected in the dummy posing at Colindale, the JSF is probably the best bet available to *Australia. Advanced military acquisition decisions often have to be made with imperfect knowledge involving possible risk, and the JSF is no exception.

http://www.afr.com/p/joint_strike_fi...CFsh2gRpW50CnN

[ford man xf]

The above article is actually encouraging for once!
I find this point interesting as I did not know the F111's history that it had cost blow outs and delays, and it did turn out to be such a fantastic aircraft, I really miss seeing them at airshows.

First, history. The Menzies government’s 1963 purchase of the F-111 aircraft faced cost blowouts and a decade of delays which, like the JSF delays, forced the then government to acquire interim fighters. Yet the F-111 proved one of the country’s most effective and durable *aircraft. Technical difficulties and cost blowouts in aircraft development are common and are irrelevant to the *eventual operational performance of the delivered aircraft.

[DJR-351]

Originally Posted by ford man xf

The above article is actually encouraging for once!
I find this point interesting as I did not know the F111's history that it had cost blow outs and delays, and it did turn out to be such a fantastic aircraft, I really miss seeing them at airshows.

Yet the F-111 proved one of the country’s most effective and durable *aircraft.

Effective in this case = successful in producing a desired or intended result.....

Considering the Australian F-111 never saw combat can someone please explain how it was effective ? is it because we had them that no one tried to invade ?

Great at Air shows and such.....

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by ford man xf

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-0...-noise/5564892

You've got to love people who move close to an Airport/base and then complain about the noise.

Who was there first, the Airport or the residents ?

[SB076]

Originally Posted by DJR-351

Effective in this case = successful in producing a desired or intended result.....

Considering the Australian F-111 never saw combat can someone please explain how it was effective ? is it because we had them that no one tried to invade ?

Great at Air shows and such.....

Not sure, maybe they are referring to years in service?

[Cashie]

Originally Posted by DJR-351

Effective in this case = successful in producing a desired or intended result.....

Considering the Australian F-111 never saw combat can someone please explain how it was effective ? is it because we had them that no one tried to invade ?

Great at Air shows and such.....

The US version of the pig saw plenty of service.
Our's served it purpose well, provided us a genuine independent strike capability into South East Asia.

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

You've got to love people who move close to an Airport/base and then complain about the noise.

Who was there first, the Airport or the residents ?

They should use the whingers as target practice when the JSF goes into service

[ford man xf]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

You've got to love people who move close to an Airport/base and then complain about the noise.

Who was there first, the Airport or the residents ?

Like people who move to an apartment in Melbournes CBD and then complain that another skyscraper is being built next door, it's a high density building region FFS!

[ford man xf]

Originally Posted by Cashie

The US version of the pig saw plenty of service.
Our's served it purpose well, provided us a genuine independent strike capability into South East Asia.

That's how I see it, and I'll use that word I keep on using, "deterrent"

[DJR-351]

F-35 Joint Strike Fighters grounded after engine fire

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politi...704-3bdpy.html

Australia's newest and most expensive defence technology acquisition, the high-tech F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, has been grounded in the US where it is being built, after one of the stealth bombers experienced an unexplained engine fire.

Australia is expected to take possession of its first two JSFs within weeks - more than two years after they were originally planned to be delivered.

The fire is the latest of a series of problems with the controversial single-engined aircraft which has suffered avionics and software issues and attracted harsh criticism from experts for being too slow, unmaneuverable, and likely to be superseded by the time it comes on line.

The US military, which is still in the pre-service stage as it assesses the capabilities and limitations of the aircraft, has decreed all F-35s must remain on the ground until the cause of the pre-take-off fire - in which the pilot was not injured - is identified..........

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/07/03/us...ded/index.html

[calais]

The F-111 was an exceptional regional deterrent. And yes ours did see operational service. The F-111 flew stand-off sorties during the Timor crisis.

That said, even today it's capabilities are unsurpassed by anything in our inventories or flown by our regional adversaries.

[Cashie]

Wow, surely you are not serious?
If you're not happy with life in a modern western country you are welcome to leave. Surely you can comprehend in the modern world that defence has a very real need???

[Bucknaked]

Edit will post layer when I figure out how to post a pgoto

[Bucknaked]

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[ford man xf]

Lockheed rolls out first two F-35 JSF aircraft for Australia
25 July 2014

Lockheed Martin has rolled out the first two F-35 Lightning II joint strike fighter (JSF) aircraft for the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF), in Texas, US.

Australia will acquire 72 F-35A conventional take-off and landing aircraft at a cost of more than $12bn to replace RAAF's F/A-18A/B Hornet fleet.

Australian Finance Minister Mathias Cormann, who attended the event on behalf of Defence Minister David Johnston, said the F-35A aircraft will provide 'leading edge' air combat capabilities for the Australian Defence Force for several decades.

Lockheed Martin chairman, president and CEO Marillyn Hewson said: "The F-35 Lightning II will lay the foundation for the next century of Australia's military air power."

US Acquisition, Technology & Logistics under secretary of Defense Frank Kendall said: "For both our nations, this programme represents an exponential leap in capability on the cutting edge of technology -- and an integral component of our ongoing joint commitment to stability and peace in the Asia-Pacific."

Designated AU-1 and AU-2, the aircraft are scheduled to undergo functional fuel system checks, and ground and flight tests in the coming months before their delivery to RAAF later this year.

"The aircraft will be deployed at the Luke Air Force Base in Arizona, US, for use in Australian and partner country pilot training."The aircraft will be deployed at the Luke Air Force Base in Arizona, US, for use in Australian and partner country pilot training programmes.

The Australian aerospace industry is expected to benefit from the F-35 programme with more than $412m already contracted and up to $6bn expected in manufacturing orders.

The programme will provide business to local industry. Contracts for works such as production of 722 sets of vertical tails for F-35, composite panels for the fuselage, weapons carriers, decoy flares and other components are in the offing.

Cormann said: "Some 30 Australian companies have been directly involved in the F-35 programme to date, and more than $412m in production orders have been won with only about 3% of aircraft production completed to date."

Initial RAAF pilot training in the US is scheduled to start early next year, while F-35 ferry flights to Australia will commence in 2018.

http://www.airforce-technology.com/n...tralia-4327015

[ford man xf]

Axing The F-35's Alternative Engine Was An Incredibly Stupid Move

A Tail Of Two Engines...
The Joint Strike Fighter was envisioned with having two engine options since early on in the program's history. These included the F135, based on the F-22's Pratt & Whitney F119 turbofan and the General Electric/Rolls Royce F136 turbofan based on the competitor of the F119 during the Advanced Tactical Fighter program fly-off in the early 1990s, the General Electric F120.

Generally speaking, the F120 was known to have been the more advanced and innovative engine design when it was flown on the YF-23 and YF-22 ATF test aircraft. Although it was slightly heavier than the F119 it was said to have greater room for thrust upgrades in the future and excelled at high-altitude, high speed operations. In the end the USAF chose the F119 mainly because it presented less technological risk.

The ATF competition was held well over 20 years ago, and a lot has changed when it comes to engine technology and metallurgy since then. Yet, the Joint Strike Fighter's F120 derived F136 engine was seen by many as more advanced than the F-35's primary engine choice, the F135. None-the-less, the F135's predecessor was already nearing operation in the F-22 and it had years of federally funded development time under its belt in comparison to the F136.

This was not much of an issue during the early and mid-2000s as the JSF program progressed and funding to the F136 alternative engine continued to flow even though there were some sporadic calls for its cancellation. Once the F-35 program hit the rocks and became mired in weight issues, sliding timelines and broken budgets, along with the crash of the US economy towards the end of the decade, the "almost all my eggs in one basket" fighter concept turned into an "every last egg in one basket" fighter concept when the Pentagon and the Obama Administration began threatening to cancel the F136 alternative engine project once and for all.

The Obama Administration's call for canceling the F136 was not the first bit of turbulence the JSF's alternative engine program hit, in fact, threats of cancellation from one congressional committee or politico or another began as far back as the middle of the decade. I will spare you the massive soap opera like timeline, as you can get a good idea of it here. Yet by the late 2000s, then Secretary of Defense Robert Gates showcased the F136 program as needless waste, even though a clear majority in the defense analyst and journalism world saw it as an essential and stabilizing element of a program that was already viewed as extremely high-risk.

By the fall of 2011, the F136 development was over 80% complete and had about another $2B to go before wrapping up. Yet Washington went along with the Obama Administration's veto threats and the program was finally cancelled. Apparently, the thought that saving a couple billion dollars in the very near term was worth adding massive risk to an already very troubled and risky trillion and a half dollar weapons program, the biggest in the history of mankind.

Spend Two Billion Now, Save Billions Later...

The strangest thing about the cancellation of the F136 is that it defies exactly what the Pentagon learned during the "great engine war" of the mid 1980s and 1990s. This successful practice in choice driving increased efficiency, quality, capability, and lower costs saw the F-16's customers, and years later the F-15's customers for that matter, go from having only the Pratt & Whitney F100 engine option, to having a choice between it and the General Electric F110.

With the USAF soliciting bids from both engine manufacturers to outfit its yearly F-16 purchases, as well as foreign customers having the choice between both engines, the results were stunning according to the GAO:

·Nearly 30 percent cumulative savings for acquisition costs
·Roughly 16 percent cumulative savings for operations and support costs
·Total savings of about 21 percent in overall life cycle costs.
·More rapid improvement in both engine designs, including more thrust and "twice the life and much more durability"
·Much higher product service from manufacturers
The fact that the USAF now had redundancy built into their fighter engine program was free.

So why, after such a successful hallmark program that not only saved money but created better, more powerful and reliable engines, with better product support from their suppliers, would the Defense Department think such a practice is a waste of money for the F-35?

Even during the aforementioned "great engine wars" of the 1980s and 1990s, America had multiple fighter aircraft in production including the F-16, F-15, F/A-18, with many other fighter and attack aircraft in service with extensive rebuilding programs being offered by their manufacturers. The F-35, on the other hand, will most likely see no alternative manned fighter aircraft built in the US once it enters widespread use in the 2020s.

Such a meek indigenous fighter aircraft production outlook compounds the reality that the F-35 will only have a single engine option, even though it was built to "plug and play" either the F136 or the F135. This means that in the coming decades the vast majority of America's fighter fleet could be grounded at any given time due to engine issues, and considering the Pentagon has never asked for 40,000lbs of thrust out of a single turbofan from its contractors, this is real possibility.

The Jet Didn't Request, Design, Build & Procure Itself ...
Like so many things F-35, the flawed philosophy behind its genesis and its procurement are mainly to blame for its woes, not the resulting hardware alone. If you are going to have a one-size-fits all fighter jet that will take the place of many distinct types than you better at least build some sort of redundancy into the program wherever you can. Having an alternative engine available is one place where injecting some of this redundancy makes the most sense, especially since we were already heavily invested in it at the time of its late cancellation.

S
Surely the F-35 program will recover from its latest incident, although this one looks like it will be the first Class A mishap ($2M or more in damage) that the JSF program has experienced. What is worse is that the $120M F-35A involved was brand new and may not be rebuildable resulting in a total write-off. Additionally, this event comes at a time when the F-35 was supposed to make its much hyped international air show debut and first cross-ocean crossing to the UK, which is now in doubt. As a result, the "optics" of such a catastrophic event occurring at this highly publicized moment in the program's already troubled existence is less than ideal to say the least.


S
Assuming the engine issue that caused the recent F-35A fire are rectified without major refitting being needed, something that could put the program months further back on its already atrociously reformed developmental timeline, it is still a clear of reminder how the couple billion dollars that the F136 needed to finishing development was a relatively small price to pay for a large serving of redundancy and piece of mind. This is especially true considering that history has proven that a second engine will pay for itself over time and will result in a more capable and dependable fighter aircraft.

S
Let's say the F136 alternative engine program were restarted, and somehow the remaining unsunk development costs were never recouped through competition and its resulting efficiency, that couple billion bucks equals about one half of one percent of the entire F-35 procurement cost (close to $400B), and less than one fifth of one percent of the entire trillion and a half dollar F-35 program.

When you take a step back and look at those comparative figures, finishing development of the F136 is an incredible bargain for the DoD, the US Taxpayer and the Warfighter, and you don't have to be a jet engine scientist to figure it out.

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/axi...+matthardigree

[mik]

Just thinking about what those designers said about not having enough wingsurface area on the F35 for dog fighting in close combat, I have the answer , we can go down to bunnings and get some Marine ply and some tech screws and put some hungry boards on the wings. ...... problem solved baby, a bit of dupli color ...... Ready to kick some Suu Koy butt baby.

[Cashie]

Is close combat dog fighting still a big threat/requirement these days for fighter jets with accurate long range fire control?