backtop


Print 83 comment(s) - last by DCCIII.. on Feb 22 at 6:06 PM

The government and Lockheed Martin are scrambling to get back on schedule while fixing the overbudget project

The Pentagon confirmed a one-year delay of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, with Deputy Defense Secretary Bill Lynn facing increased pressure to get spending under control on the project.

"The development was originally projected to last an additional 30 months; we think with the additional test aircraft it will be closer to a delay of about 12 or 13 months, but I can't give you the cost numbers," according to Lynn's statement to the media.

Pentagon officials didn't say if this one-year delay will push back final release dates, but it likely will, military experts have noted. 

The Marine Corps is expected to receive the first batch of F-35s in two years, while the Air Force and Navy are expected to receive the next-generation fighter aircraft in 2013 and 2014.  Prior to Lynn's recent announcement, Lockheed Martin officials noted they were about six months behind schedule, but still expect to be able to meet the USMC release date.

Last November, a report said the program is drastically overbudget and behind schedule, which led the government to rethink its strategy moving forward.  Actual demand for the aircraft remains unknown, but there have been at least 2,500 orders placed for the U.S. military branches, with several other nations also expected to receive the aircraft in years to come.

Due to costly delays and budget miscues, the DOD will also withhold $614 million that will eventually be paid to Lockheed Martin.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

A Lost Cause
By Chillin1248 on 2/19/2010 8:59:46 AM , Rating: 2
Here are some great reads at this website highlighting why the F-22 or the PAK-FA make this plane out of date before it has even entered service:

JSF:
http://www.ausairpower.net/jsf.html

PAK-FA:
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2010-01.html

F-22 vs. JSF vs. PAK-FA:
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-300309-1.html

As it stands, the PAK-FA seems like the logical choice for any country looking for a 5th Generation warplane.

-------
Chillin




RE: A Lost Cause
By MrPoletski on 2/19/2010 9:33:47 AM , Rating: 3
The Russians know how to build good fighters and missiles, and that's the truth.


RE: A Lost Cause
By MrBlastman on 2/19/2010 3:11:07 PM , Rating: 2
The AA-11 Archer is one SCARY AAM. It makes even the AIM-9X Sidewinder look wimpy. The off-boresight targeting capability via HMS makes it quite the deadly weapon. Imagine a Mig on your tail and you're pulling a 9G turn with them while their AoA isn't sufficient to pull into your tail or better yet close to your vector and they STILL can get a shot off without the seeker head even seeing your heat signature.

That is nuts. That is the AA-11 Archer. It is death incarnate to our aircraft. I suppose though the F-18 provides somewhat of a counter to this given its incredible ability to pull high AoA at very low airspeeds giving it an increased kill zone to targets it is following. This doesn't help though... if the plane is behind you.


RE: A Lost Cause
By Reclaimer77 on 2/19/10, Rating: 0
RE: A Lost Cause
By Amiga500 on 2/19/2010 3:21:00 PM , Rating: 2
Like Kosovo?

A Pk of under 10%? (In fact, I think it was under 5%!!!) And that was against sitting ducks with no radar or RWR!!!

Long range AAMs are too big and cumbersome (due to their rocket motor size) to be able to out-maneuvre a modern fighter. Dismissal of the dogfight is absolutely crazy.

[Until the DEW becomes operational]


RE: A Lost Cause
By MrBlastman on 2/19/2010 3:40:13 PM , Rating: 2
I haven't read a Tom Clancy book since 1990. :( While in a cold-war environment most engagements occur at 20-25+ nautical miles, in an active wartime environment (if it should even happen versus an opponent of sufficient forces to retaliate against us), I guarantee you that the 20-25+ nm engagement envelope will be breached.

I dare say it would be entirely possible for engagements to encroach upon 10-12 nm or closer depending on the mission, threat mix and distance beyond FLOT. The AA-11 can stretch out ot 18 nautical miles and it is heat seeking. Your RWR does not light up and signal a launch of a heat-seaking AAM, only a radar-guided one. Sure, you might see the plane tracking you--that is, if they even target you.

With a heat seeking missile such as the AIM-9X or the AA-11, you need not even have your radar active nor have a target lock. Uncaged seeker heads are beautiful things. Of course, in order to deploy the AA-11 off-boresight you would need to be in high angle override scan mode with a narrow azimuth but a high vertical scan in theory. We don't have these missiles to be sure but it would make sense as you have to supply to the missles flight computer the vector after launch it must turn to to bring the target within its boresight radius.

Oh, and don't think the Russians do not have superior medium range missiles either. They are not shabby in the least. Our missile technology is far from the best in the world in everything. Our Air to Air radar technology though for years has been superior in several ways.


RE: A Lost Cause
By Iaiken on 2/19/2010 3:55:22 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Dogfights like that don't take place anymore. In the real world your Mig is shot down by over-the-horizon radar/weapon systems that the Americans have and you don't. You die without even seeing your opponent.


The Russians sell several BVR missiles:

AA-10 Alamo
AA-12 Adder

What's more, BVR weapons are only useful against planes that you (or the missile) can get a radar lock on from BVR. So let's say a PAK FA and an F22 want to mix it up, the first problem they have is finding each other. This is why many nations are working on multi-seeking capabilities and inertial guidance. The defender will have the advantage of being guided by powerful ground-based wide-band radars that can detect current stealth aircraft designs. He can fire a missile from BVR that will be guided towards the target by ground radar and it's own dead reckoning until it is close enough to get it's own radar/IR lock.

In the absence of such missiles, the guided interceptor will have the element of surprise when it comes to the engagement which will likely devolve into a dogfight once both parties see each other and engage. At which time weapons like the AA-11 become game changers.


RE: A Lost Cause
By bigdawg1988 on 2/21/2010 8:41:14 PM , Rating: 2
What happens to that ground radar when it gets hit by a HARM? And if you think the F22's will be flying anywhere near Russia (if we did engage them directly) without AWACS coverage, you're crazy. I don't think there are any other enemies with the radar coverage that the Russians have.

And in a dogfight if you somehow get surprosed why bother with the 9G turns when all you have to do is let go an AMRAAM and watch it make a 180 degree turn and blow your enemy away?

I think after what happened to Iraq there isn't anybody who wants to take the US on in a conventional fight. And the only countries stupid enough to want to (Korea, Iran, Libya?) don't have the money or the means.


RE: A Lost Cause
By MrBlastman on 2/22/2010 5:36:12 PM , Rating: 2
AMRAAMs can't make a 180 degree turn. In order to fire one, you have to:

a. Lock your target with active radar
b. Make sure the warhead is within two pk windows (group 1 or group 2), if it is group 2, the smaller group, you can potentially launch the AMRAAM maddog and have a much higher pk versus being in group 1 and having to maintain active radar lock until the post-launch A counter (indicator on HUD0 turns from A to T signifying the seeker-head of the missile has gone active with its own radar and acquired the target.
c. Launch the missile and, as described above, maintain radar lock until the missile's warhead goes into active seeking mode (anywhere from 0-15 seconds on average).

Your 180 degree turn just isn't going to happen.

You also aren't going to typically use an AMRAAM in a dogfight. You will prudently use an AIM-9M or AIM-9X sidewinder typically as they are heat seeking and have a much higher PK in close range, turning combat.

We are NOT invincible. We do have first rate equipment and trained men and women but do not assume for a moment that all of our equipment is the best there is.


RE: A Lost Cause
By MrPoletski on 2/22/2010 6:18:56 AM , Rating: 2
You think Americans are the only poeple in this world to have weapons systems that use LF radar that can look over the horizon?

Do you think non-american soldiers throw rocks at their enemies too?


RE: A Lost Cause
By crystal clear on 2/19/10, Rating: 0
RE: A Lost Cause
By Reclaimer77 on 2/19/10, Rating: -1
RE: A Lost Cause
By gamerk2 on 2/19/2010 11:51:17 AM , Rating: 5
Because the Mig-29 was essentially obsolete by that point in time; when they came out, they were far better then the F-4 Phantoms the US still had in active service...

The SU-27 and Mig-29 were great planes when they came out. But they belong in the same generation as the F-14. Capable, sturdy, but old. Also remember, export varients are stripped of a lot of ECM equipment and other capability.

But after all, Russian workmanship is SOOO shoddy, then why did Grunman go to Yak to study the design of their lift system which was used in the F-35? Fact is, the lift system we use in our next-gen aircraft is of Russian origin.


RE: A Lost Cause
By jonmcc33 on 2/19/2010 1:03:04 PM , Rating: 2
It's not the plane, it's the pilot. Iraqi pilots were idiots with very little air-to-air experience.


RE: A Lost Cause
By ipay on 2/19/2010 2:57:35 PM , Rating: 3
Exactly - the best military hardware in the world is worth nothing if you don't have people who can operate it correctly. It's hardly Russia's fault that the Iraqi pilots lacked the experience and flight hours of their American counterparts.

Also, I find this article depressing and amusing at the same time, considering that the F-22 program - which is IMO a far superior platform to the F-35 - was effectively halted for the same reasons as stated in this article.


RE: A Lost Cause
By bigdawg1988 on 2/21/2010 8:50:41 PM , Rating: 2
The F35 is not a replacement for the F22, it's basically a cheaper version, sort of like the F16 is a cheaper version of the F15, not a replacement.
Piloting is nothing if you can't see what you're shooting at. Our pilots are guided by AWACS controllers who can vector them in to the best route to minimize detection and maximize kill capability.
Instead of the F35 though we ought to be developing remote controlled missile carriers. Make them VERY stealthy and high flying and use the radar from AWACS to guide the missiles. Sort of like a predator with AA missiles. The F22s will still be around just in case.


RE: A Lost Cause
By Reclaimer77 on 2/19/2010 3:15:41 PM , Rating: 1
They weren't all Iraqi pilots.


RE: A Lost Cause
By MrBlastman on 2/19/2010 3:16:36 PM , Rating: 2
If they weren't Iraqi, who were they? Osama's crew?

Pilot training is paramount to success in any modern fighter. The amount of auditory, visual and tactile input a pilot has to process is staggering. Only the genetically perfect can even hope to be a fighter pilot and succeed at it. I have utmost respect for any man or woman who can become one of these pilots.

Speaking of pilots, I'd wager a dollar that the Israeli Airforce could trounce ours if pitted head to head versus each other in equal aircraft. Those guys are hardcore.


RE: A Lost Cause
By monomer on 2/19/2010 3:11:55 PM , Rating: 2
I agree completely. I seem to remember a story from over a decade ago where a Canadian pilot won a Top-Gun competition in his CF-18, against Americans in F-15's and F-16's.


RE: A Lost Cause
By Amiga500 on 2/19/2010 3:18:37 PM , Rating: 3
22?

You mean 5 shot down (as acknowledged by the USAF) and 11 defected?

Destroyed on the ground is not the same as shot down.

BTW, a Foxbat downed a Hornet in GW1.

A better idea would be to consider the performance of the (derated) Luftwaffe Fulcrums in post Cold War exersizes against F-15s and F-16s.

Basically, in those exersizes the MiG ruled below ~300 kts, but if a viper keeps its speed up it has an advantage in both energy bleed and roll rate. The F-15 isn't maneuverable enough to stick with, so needs to make it a fight of engine power (vertical plane), but thats very messy. All of that was done without the HMS. I think the general thought of USAF pilots coming out (in the early 90s) of it was don't go into a furball with a fulcrum, if you do, odds are, you die.


RE: A Lost Cause
By MrBlastman on 2/19/2010 3:48:07 PM , Rating: 2
If you get stuck in the mud while going slow vs. a German 29, you're toast (unless you're in an F-18 but that's it). The funny thing though, about the German 29's is they push their engines so hard to get the power output higher in them that they have to be overhauled very frequently. It would be interesting to see the long-term viability of their airforce if pushed hard in a true wartime situation.


RE: A Lost Cause
By Amiga500 on 2/19/2010 4:15:09 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The funny thing though, about the German 29's is they push their engines so hard to get the power output higher in them that they have to be overhauled very frequently.


Two points on that.

(1) The east-German MiG-29s were de-rated versions of the Russians.

(2) The Soviets had a profoundly different approach to maintenance than NATO. Basically, you'd carry out less small fixes, but send the engine back to the factory more often for a full refit. I am of the opinion that it was actually the better system, as in a proper (cold war gone hot) war environment, relatively untrained personnel could sling a broken engine out and a new one in, then send the broken one off to be fixed in the relative calm of the factory.

It reduces the exposure of highly trained personnel, and reduces the maintenance between day-to-day missions.

The Fulcrum also had a rough field capability that virtually none of their NATO equivalents had - that alone is worth its weight in gold. How do you effectively crater hundreds of acres of fields as opposed to a 20 metre wide runway?


RE: A Lost Cause
By MrBlastman on 2/19/2010 4:28:04 PM , Rating: 2
Not even a neat row of BLU-107's down the line can fix that. :P

The Fulcrum really is an amazing aircraft. Despite its crude avionics (as far as modern jets are concerned), they got the airframe right and it is quite the deadly aircraft (up until the F-22).


RE: A Lost Cause
By SandmanWN on 2/19/2010 8:30:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Soviets had a profoundly different approach to maintenance than NATO. Basically, you'd carry out less small fixes, but send the engine back to the factory more often for a full refit. I am of the opinion that it was actually the better system, as in a proper (cold war gone hot) war environment, relatively untrained personnel could sling a broken engine out and a new one in, then send the broken one off to be fixed in the relative calm of the factory.

LOL, well I am certainly glad you weren't a military commander during the cold war. If I were opposing you, I would simply set my cruise missiles to take out your single point of failure, aka your few factories. Then send out evasive squadron groups to draw out your forces and retreat when they came into contact. Just going out to put strain on all your air frames until they fail and you are left with a worthless air group. Then blow them up while they are grounded.

The NATO way is obviously correct. Yes, it does cost more but any war of attrition would be won by the NATO group because they can service their own aircraft and keep them in the battle longer. You as the opposition are forced to take out every single squadron to gain air superiority, a mush more daunting task compared to me only have to take out a few stationary targets like a factory.
quote:
How do you effectively crater hundreds of acres of fields as opposed to a 20 metre wide runway?

I believe its called a B-52...


RE: A Lost Cause
By Amiga500 on 2/20/2010 7:18:36 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
I would simply set my cruise missiles to take out your single point of failure, aka your few factories


The factories located the far side of Moscow some even over the Urals?

Good man. Please at least try to gain a rudimentary understanding of what you are talking about before trying to make authoritative posts!

quote:
Then send out evasive squadron groups to draw out your forces and retreat when they came into contact.


WTF?

Are all these evasive squadrons drawn from the fighters and fighter-bombers that would otherwise have been concentrating on the numerous Soviet divisions rumbling through the Fulda gap, and breaking any beach-heads the Soviets had established over the Rhine?

Would these evasive squadrons deliberately choose not to engage the Soviet CAS (and their associated fighter cover) that was bombing the sh!t out of the NATO formations opposite these Soviet divisions?

... this coming from the man that states he is "certainly glad you weren't a military commander during the cold war"...

quote:
Yes, it does cost more but any war of attrition would be won by the NATO group because they can service their own aircraft and keep them in the battle longer. You as the opposition are forced to take out every single squadron to gain air superiority


Erm, if the NATO airpower could not deliver a decisive victory, allowing the A-10s and AH-1/AH-64s to engage the ground forces below, then your airbases would have been "moved" to the UK and the continental USA. Also, many of your spares would now be behind enemy lines... forcing more pressure on the NATO navies to keep the Atlantic corridor open.

By the way, just to be clear, a maintenance factory (as the Soviets envisaged) does not have to be a big massive facility. It can be numerous small distributed facilities, the distinction is more in the technical skill of, and equipment available to, the the people working in it than its size (compared to an airfield maintenance facility).

quote:
I believe its called a B-52...


I believe you don't have the slightest clue what you are talking about. You are gonna send BUFFS to carpet bomb in the coverage of what was then probably the most concentrated and complex air-defense network in the world?

You are UTTERLY CLUELESS.


RE: A Lost Cause
By FITCamaro on 2/20/10, Rating: -1
RE: A Lost Cause
By BikeDude on 2/20/2010 5:48:59 AM , Rating: 2
Did the russians even bother dragging out their newest tech for that conflict? It seems they simply used old stuff that they were about to throw away anyway.

Much like when Nato bombed Beograd using cruise missiles that were about to expire very soon. (according to maintenance schedule labels salvaged from the missiles)


RE: A Lost Cause
By SoCalBoomer on 2/19/2010 12:53:14 PM , Rating: 1
wait - you're looking at an Australian Air Force analysis page talking about their needs. This entire set of articles seems extremely speculative. . .

Chillin, you're making the same mistake that gets routinely made. Different needs mandate different roles:
You can't launch an F-22 from a carrier; you can launch an F-35 from a carrier - different role.
You can't create a V/STOL F-22 (or PAK-FA); the F-35 has a V/STOL variant.
You can't load the F-22 with a crapload of bombs - it's strictly air-superiority (with some in-board capacity); F-35 is meant to be a strike fighter (you know, the SF in JSF. . . :D )

As to the Sukhoi - it's behind the F-35 in development, just starting prototype trials. How long before it actually goes into production?


RE: A Lost Cause
By Iaiken on 2/19/2010 2:26:27 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The PAK-FA is fitted with unusually robust high sink rate undercarriage, intended for STOL operations.


While it doesn't have any vertical hover capabilities, it is intended to have STOL capabilities and the air frame is structured to allow for future carrier based versions.

quote:
Therefore, from a technological strategy perspective, the PAK-FA renders all legacy US fighter aircraft, and the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter, strategically irrelevant and non-viable after the PAK-FA achieves IOC in 2015.


The Australians are seriously reconsidering their agreement to purchase the F-35 for their air forces. With the additional delays and the requirement to meet the deliveries to the US forces before export, the PAK FA is being eyed by many nations as a viable alternative.

It is very likely that the PAK FA will follow suite with the SU-30's when it comes to international sale. The SU-30 derivatives that were sold to China and India had completely modern avionics, radar and weapons packages including glass cockpit. The fact that components are now being sourced from India, Israel, Taiwan, France, UK, China and even US manufacturers has demonstrated that the Russian arms industry has progressed far from being a sycophant catering to it's bureaucratic masters whims to one geared to turn a profit.

This could even signal a new strategic orientation for a Russian government that has no desire for a direct confrontation with the US. They are savvy enough to realize that the anti-American US allows for the existence of an anti-american military industry. It appears that many non-US analysts agree that objective of this new complex appears to the be to flood the world with enough affordable anti-american technologies that the US will have to think long and hard before attempting to project power. I've no idea what similar US analysts believe as there is practically no public information on the subject.

The laundry list of weapons systems designed to deny US technological capabilities is growing longer every year. It is also clear that deployment of these systems along side trained personnel threatens to end the current era of unopposed US access to such theaters.

And to what do we owe thanks for making this all possible? Capitalism. Export revenue profits are the absolute driving force behind the Russian arms industry. Essentially, they want to make it so that attacking other nations prohibitively expensive while making a profit.

For all the complaining people do about the cost of the Iraq war, that is nothing compared to what it would have been had the US lost numerous fighers, bombers and AWACs to Russian technology that could have been made available to them at the time. The combat "victory" in Iraq was in turn of fact, a diplomatic victory on the part of the US getting Russia to agree to continuously escalating weapons embargoes against Iraq since desert storm.

I dunno, I guess we'll just have to see where this crazy ride takes us...


RE: A Lost Cause
By Chillin1248 on 2/19/2010 4:43:44 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
You can't create a V/STOL F-22 (or PAK-FA); the F-35 has a V/STOL variant.


The PAK-FA is already STOL capable.

quote:
You can't load the F-22 with a crapload of bombs - it's strictly air-superiority (with some in-board capacity); F-35 is meant to be a strike fighter (you know, the SF in JSF. . . :D )


1) F-22A carries twice as many Air-to-Air missiles as the F-35A

2) In combat, the F-22A is flown at almost twice the altitude and twice the speed of the F-35A. This increases the range of the F-22A's Air-to-Air missiles by almost 40 percent, increasing lethality, while it doubles the range of guided bombs like the JDAM.

3) The higher speed of the F-22A vs the F-35A allows it to control twice the area, when targets are mobile and time sensitive. In such situations, a single F-22A can do the same work as two F-35As.

4) F-22A provides around three times more capability than the F-35A, yet costs only around 23% more per unit.

5) The F-22 internal payload is six AIM-120 AMRAAM and two AIM-9 for Air to Air operations or two AIM-120 and two AIM-9 plus two JDAM or eight Small Diameter Bomb for Strike operations. The F-35A in Air to Air operations carries only four AIM-120 AMRAAM, and in Strike operations, only two, for an identical number of JDAM or Small Diameter Bomb rounds .

http://www.ausairpower.net/JSF-vs-FA-22-Chart.gif

See how much better bang for the buck we can get out of the F-22 instead of the F-35:

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-110409-1.html

-------
Chillin


RE: A Lost Cause
By crystal clear on 2/20/2010 3:39:13 AM , Rating: 2
You dont buy a plane based on its abilities/capabilites on PAPER or whats posted on the internet.

All those claims of "what it does/can do" are purely promotional - good for the sales/marketing dept.

All those have to be TESTED & proven in real time conditons/situations.

quote:
In combat, the F-22A is flown at almost twice the altitude and twice the speed of the F-35A.


Which Combat ??????.....under controlled simultated conditons maybe ? not convincing indeed-where everything/action/etc is predetermined.

That brings you all to the point I quoted-

Russian planes have yet to prove themselves worthy in modern warfare in recent years.



Now to the next point I quoted-

The Russian stuff with their shoddy workmanship,is good enough for Arab countries to show it off in grand military parades .


Yes shoddy/poor workmanship ! Russian planes have in the past been severely criticized for many a long list of defects.

To quote a few-

From crack developing on the plane's body flying at high speeds to canopy opening up whilst flying at high speeds (instantly killing the pilot & loss of the plane),to engine failure whilst flying at high speeds (not at air shows or exibhitions) crashing the plane.

When it comes to unreliablity in air whilst flying ofcourse, Russian planes top the list.

quote:
See how much better bang for the buck we can get out of the F-22


Read one of my previous comments-

True to the Russian tradition, when it comes aircraft (designed & manufactured) of any type over the last 40 years,another model best graded as-

Defective by design

add to this shody/poor workmanship makes it a plane ready for a crash.

Nothing to get excited about this plane-good for countries like Iran/Syria/N Korea/Libya/etc who normally wont have access to Western technology.

The plane will sell well in these countries & Russia can recover all its development cost.

In addition can develop/refine all their design & manufacturing flaws & weakness by seeing & investigating their planes crashing, flown by these countries.

Good financial model !

Russians dont develop much of their technology rather steal from major aircraft manufacturers in the west,thats what their KGB does on a daily basis.

A package of stolen technologies/processes assembled together to get a plane into the air.

http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=17552...

Made in Russia is "A Lost Cause".


RE: A Lost Cause
By Chillin1248 on 2/20/2010 4:41:31 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Which Combat ??????.....under controlled simultated conditons maybe ? not convincing indeed-where everything/action/etc is predetermined.


In testing and combat excercises, which is much more than the F-35 can say for itself.

Your latter paragraphs quote the F-22 but talk about Russian equipment... The F-22 is still the better buy compared to the F-22. And the navy already has the F-18F which has a low RCS from the frontal area, just like the JSF. Keep in mind that the JSF is only stealthy in the front, the rear, sides and bottom are not.

Also for all your Anti-Russian slander, I would check up on the Indian SU-30MKi's and how they fared against the F-15s.

-------
Chillin

------


RE: A Lost Cause
By crystal clear on 2/20/2010 5:53:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I would check up on the Indian SU-30MKi's and how they fared against the F-15s.


Sometime around 2 months ago the Israeli channel 2 had a footage about the IAF (recorded ofcourse) testing (simulated combat)- a latest Russian fighter plane (dont remember the model) against the Israeli Fs , both planes flown by Israeli pilots.

The Russian plane was recieved by Israel on loan from a friendly country for the express purposes of testing (combat) its performance against the front line models the Israelis use on a daily basis.

The Russian plane was outclassed in all aspects of air combat.

I wish I could track down the footage on You tube to provide the link.

quote:
Keep in mind that the JSF is only stealthy in the front, the rear, sides and bottom are not.


Read this plus the full report-

DOD states that the F-35 program “was structured from the beginning to be a model of
acquisition reform, with an emphasis on jointness, technology maturation and concept
demonstrations, and early cost and performance trades integral to the weapon system
requirements definition process
.”3

All three versions of the F-35 will be single-seat aircraft with supersonic dash capability and
some degree of stealth . The three versions will vary somewhat in their combat ranges and
payloads (see the Appendix B).
All three are to carry their primary weapons internally to
maintain a stealthy radar signature. Additional weapons can be carried externally on missions
requiring less stealth.


http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL30563.pdf


RE: A Lost Cause
By Chillin1248 on 2/20/2010 8:10:07 AM , Rating: 3
It was a MiG-29, which to be honest is not competition for the F-15's. It is what the Syrian Air Force has so therefore it was tested.

However the SU-30/35 are a completely different class of aircraft which offers increased competition against the F-15.
=================
From the Report:

The Air Force states that:
The F-35 program will develop and deploy a family of highly capable, affordable, fifth
generation strike fighter aircraft to meet the operational needs of the Air Force, Navy,
Marine Corps, and Allies with optimum commonality to minimize life cycle costs. The F-35
was designed from the bottom-up to be our premier surface-to-air missile killer and is
uniquely equipped for this mission with cutting edge processing power, synthetic aperture
radar integration techniques, and advanced target recognition. The F-35 also provides “leap
ahead” capabilities in its resistance to jamming, maintainability, and logistic support.4


This statement kind of dumbfounds me, considering the F-35 is not stealthy from all angles except the front. So going against an Intergrated Air Defense Network is near suicide for the F-35 as the will be seen by such system as the S-300/400.

Also:
Fifth-generation aircraft incorporate the most modern technology, and are considered to be generally more capable
than earlier-generation (e.g., 4th-generation and below) aircraft. Fifth-generation fighters combine new developments
such as thrust vectoring, composite materials, supercruise (the ability to cruise at supersonic speeds without using
engine afterburners), stealth technology, advanced radar and sensors, and integrated avionics to greatly improve pilot situational awareness.


From my understanding of this statement, the JSF would only qualify as a 4.5 Generation fighter. As it is very much lacking the:

1)- Supercruise
2)- Thrust Vectoring
3)- Stealth - The Airplane is only stealthy from the front.

-------
Chillin


RE: A Lost Cause
By crystal clear on 2/20/2010 9:21:48 AM , Rating: 1
Its chilling to compare the report to the realities of today, what a waste of funds & gross mismanagement by those involved.
That led me to post a seperate comment earlier "scrap it" & conclude -

"This JSF program is a failure !......"

Anyway it was nice discussing with you !

Found the link-
Israeli air force MIG 29 exposed (601 squadron)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJYAOY_lpAY&feature...


RE: A Lost Cause
By Amiga500 on 2/20/2010 7:25:07 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yes shoddy/poor workmanship ! Russian planes have in the past been severely criticized for many a long list of defects.

To quote a few-

From crack developing on the plane's body flying at high speeds to canopy opening up whilst flying at high speeds (instantly killing the pilot & loss of the plane),to engine failure whilst flying at high speeds (not at air shows or exibhitions) crashing the plane.


Now, now.

Everyone has problems. The Russians more than most due to their lack of maintenance funds over the last 20 years!

However, as you should know, the eagles were grounded for quite some time there due to longeron fatigue issues... which caused a few deaths.

Read this:

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/aging-aircraft...

All aircraft are only as good as the maintenance they get... and even then, father time stops for no-one, or nothing.


RE: A Lost Cause
By nafhan on 2/19/2010 1:56:32 PM , Rating: 3
There's still a role for the F-35, and the fact that they aren't the fastest and best doesn't make them out of date. You're comparing it to the F-22 for goodness sake - one of our own aircraft.
The F-22 will be tasked with fighting the enemies frontline fighters while the F-35 does... everything else. It was designed as a cheaper, more versatile, compliment to the F-22. It's not intended to replace it, and definitely not intended to fight it.


RE: A Lost Cause
By zmatt on 2/19/2010 6:28:30 PM , Rating: 3
Exactly, people are missing the point. The USAF works on a two fighter system, one expensive air superiority fighter that is produced in smaller numbers and is flown by our best pilots, the second is a cheaper, small, and more versatile multi mission fighter. For the past 30 years the F-15 and F-16 have filled those roles. The F-15 has to this day been undefeated in air to air combat, and the efficiency that the Viper C can handle strike missions is astounding. And for those of you who doubt the F-16's AA ability you should read up on what the Israelis have done with them, and that was before the F-16 could carry anything but sidewinders. Going off of this, anyone who thinks that AAM capability and top speed make a fighter doesn't know the fist thing about air combat. The most important aspects are training, tactics and CnC. This is what made the Air Force have a perfect kill/loss ratio in ODS and what allowed the Israeli pilots in the 6 day war to be successful in the Mirage 3 which compared to the MiG-17 and -19 is an inferior dog fighter.

The F-22 is the F-15s replacement, but due to the recession and budget cuts, and likely the overwhelming superiority of the F-22, we are replacing 500 F-15s with 189 F-22s. The Viper will be replaced by the F-35. The F-22's lethality and survivability have already been proven with outstanding numbers at Red Flag events, and the combat capability of the F-35 has never been in question. The issue is, can they keep from letting the program get too far behind and too expensive as do most long term government projects?

The truth is the Vipers are old. I got to visit the 20th Fighter wing at Shaw AFB last week and as good as our crew chiefs are, those planes are old. The demonstration jets looked brand new, but the rest of them were dirty and old. We need the F-35 today, and quite frankly the way this program has been handled is a shame. The F-15 and F-16 were developed side by side in a few years time right after the Vietnam conflict. We should be able to do the same with the F-35.


True F-14 successor?
By judasmachine on 2/19/2010 8:16:19 AM , Rating: 1
If this is more a strike craft, and less a dog fighter, then what is the Navy going to do for a air supremacy fighter? Continue to use the Super Hornet? Or throw all our money at the next big thing, that will run in development for at least 15 years.




RE: True F-14 successor?
By psychmike on 2/19/2010 8:41:20 AM , Rating: 2
The F-14 was never directly replaced. The role of fleet air defense shifted from an airborne platform (the F-14) to a surface platform (Aegis). The Navy has said that the F-18E will perform the fighter role (CAP, BARCAP, STRIKECAP). I'm not sure this makes a lot of sense either. In my opinion, the Navy might have said that to create relevance for -18 purchases when the F-35 was much further down the developmental pipeline. Once and if the F-35 proves itself, the Navy might have well hoped to order it in larger numbers for the fighter role. Things seem to be moving in the direction of UCAVs faster than many people believed, however.


RE: True F-14 successor?
By zmatt on 2/19/2010 6:36:30 PM , Rating: 3
The F-18 is a very capable fighter in it's own right. It's not a dedicated one, but the Navy's doctrine has changed and it doesn't have to be. We are the only nation with a large carrier strike force. The UK has some small ASW carries with harries, and India has a very old British carrier, but that's about it. The Russian Naval fighter program was never as successful as ours and the Chinese navy at this point is a joke. The last time we had to worry about other aircraft in the middle of the ocean was 1945. Because of this the navy guys decided it was silly to have a dedicated air superiority fighter if there isn't much to shoot down. The super hornet can hold it's own and Aegis can defend the fleet with it's SAMs. In the past 20 years and even back in Vietnam you saw the navy doing most of their work as a mobile strike force. Since we really aren't challenged at sea, you can more or less put the carriers where you need them and deliver surgical strikes and many times go around air defense sites that have been placed along geographic or political borders. On top of that the carries have an added layer of protection in that after the mission is over they can move on. An air field can't move and because of this it's always a target, a carrier group can do it's mission and sail out of range of land based aircraft.


RE: True F-14 successor?
By LordanSS on 2/21/2010 6:07:01 PM , Rating: 2
Brazil also has a carrier for fixed-wing aircrafts...

...aircrafts which, for a very long time, were grounded due to lack of funding for maintenance and fuel . They are all scrapped nowadays though, don't fly anymore, and all our carrier does is sit pretty at the Navy docks here in Rio.

Sure is a pretty sight for us crossing the Guanabara Bay through the bridge, though. =)


RE: True F-14 successor?
By Spoelie on 2/19/2010 9:07:56 AM , Rating: 1
Eurofighter Typhoon? Now that would be something ;)


RE: True F-14 successor?
By MrPoletski on 2/19/2010 9:20:31 AM , Rating: 2
well, it is a dogfighter, sure it can do multiple roles.. but the primary design consideration was manueverability IIRC.


RE: True F-14 successor?
By jonmcc33 on 2/19/10, Rating: -1
RE: True F-14 successor?
By Manch on 2/19/2010 10:31:59 AM , Rating: 2
The F-18 is not a YF-17. They only thing they ever shared other than a similar look is the the support structure under the cockpit. Everything else was redesigned for the F-18 program


RE: True F-14 successor?
By dgingeri on 2/19/2010 10:45:43 AM , Rating: 2
Although they look very, very similar, they are completely different, apparently. I wonder why they kept the general shape and yet redesigned the whole thing?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YF-17
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F/A-18_Hornet

look at the pics. they are almost completely the same shape externally. Yet, apparently, the interior is completely different. Engineers can be weird sometimes.


RE: True F-14 successor?
By johnsonx on 2/19/2010 11:08:35 AM , Rating: 2
All three of you are right. Wikipedia's quote:
quote:
The Navy fought for and won permission to develop an aircraft based on the YF-17. Since the LWF did not share the design requirements of the VFAX, the Navy asked McDonnell Douglas and Northrop to design a new aircraft around the configuration and design principles of the YF-17. The new aircraft, designated the F-18, shared not a single essential dimension or primary structure with the YF-17.

So, yes, the F/A-18 is obviously an evolution of the YF-17, which did lose out to the YF-16 in the Air Force competition (which doesn't make it a lesser aircraft... the F-16 simply wasn't a good fit for carrier duty). Yes again, the F/A-18 is also a completely different aircraft.


RE: True F-14 successor?
By jonmcc33 on 2/19/2010 12:43:32 PM , Rating: 1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_YF-17

"Although it lost the LWF competition to the F-16, the YF-17 was selected for the new VFAX specification. In enlarged form, the F/A-18 Hornet was adopted by the United States Navy and United States Marine Corps..."

Are you sure about that?


RE: True F-14 successor?
By Manch on 2/19/2010 12:48:24 PM , Rating: 2
Yes. The YF-17 was a starting point but by the time the F-18 came to fruition pretty much every aspect of the aircraft was changed. The quote from the wikipedia link you mention is very much an over simplification. While they look very similar from a distance if put side by side the differences become very apparent.

I would be wary of using wikipedia as "proof" try Janes Defence or another publication with more credibility.


RE: True F-14 successor?
By jonmcc33 on 2/19/10, Rating: 0
RE: True F-14 successor?
By gamerk2 on 2/19/2010 11:47:37 AM , Rating: 2
The F/A 18-E Super Hornet is still the Navy's Air-Superiorty fighter, and they even pitch that as a backup fighter if something happens to the JSF program.

Remember people, the JSF program mandates the F35 be 4x as capable in air-to-air combat as any other plane still in service. It will do just fine in the air-to-air role.


RE: True F-14 successor?
By Amiga500 on 2/19/10, Rating: -1
RE: True F-14 successor?
By corduroygt on 2/19/2010 5:31:09 PM , Rating: 2
Unlike the 60s, we do have reliable missile technology these days. I still think the F-35 fails but that's because of cost, if it cost half of the F-22, it'd be worth it.


RE: True F-14 successor?
By Reclaimer77 on 2/19/2010 6:19:04 PM , Rating: 2
In another article Amiga argued hardcore against the F-22. Calling it a failed platform, too expensive, bla bla bla.

He's a pacifist. He doesn't think ANY money should be spent on the military, and that we should fly our legacy fighters till the wings fall off.


RE: True F-14 successor?
By Amiga500 on 2/20/2010 7:36:39 AM , Rating: 1
Perhaps you should re-read those comments you refer to.

The time of the manned fighter (as we know it now) is approaching its end. The ABL has killed 2 airborne targets now... AESAs have been demonstrated to have the ability to fry electronics...

It will soon be a question of getting power into the air, not launching missiles (as a defensive laser system will fry any inbound missiles long before they hit).

Right now, I would give the manned fighter a shelf life of at most 15 years... are you happy investing all that money for 15 years? Or would you rather fund laser R&D to close that to under 10 years, then bridge the gap with Block 60 F-16s and/or F-15SEs... much, much cheaper.


RE: True F-14 successor?
By Reclaimer77 on 2/20/2010 8:28:25 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Right now, I would give the manned fighter a shelf life of at most 15 years...


You are such an idiot if you believe this.

That would be such a massive restructuring of our entire combined armed forces. Hell man, it take 15-20 years sometimes to build a new fighter from a concept ! We're going to have fleets of unmanned fighters in 15 years ? HA!

quote:
Block 60 F-16s and/or F-15SEs... much, much cheaper.


Yup, I called it right. Even 15 years from now you are STILL pushing the use of 30 year old airframes.

I'm tired of wasting my time with you. You are living in a fantasy world.


RE: True F-14 successor?
By Amiga500 on 2/20/2010 11:10:25 AM , Rating: 1
Arrggghhh...

quote:
You are such an idiot if you believe this.

That would be such a massive restructuring of our entire combined armed forces.


1. Why you think I keep saying its a massive shift? Why do you think I keep saying investing billions in manned fighters right now is a waste?

2. Why do you think the opposition give 2 sh!ts about how much restructuring your armed forces have to do? If your happy to put up sitting ducks for their lasers; that is not their problem!

3. Unmanned fighters? I have been talking about getting power in the air. Power = lots of engines = B747 ABL. That is not an unmanned aircraft. Might even be a (yet another) role for the BUFF in there!

Basically, an airborne ABL will be like a AEGIS system moving at 500 mph and at 30,000 ft. Within a bubble of XXX miles nothing is allowed to live unless the ABL wishes it. Manoeuvrability is useless, as is fighter missile performance.

The ABL is a system... I would expect serious efforts at fitting it into large aircraft within the next decade. There are not the same levels of complications integrating it as a full design of a new fighter.

quote:
Yup, I called it right. Even 15 years from now you are STILL pushing the use of 30 year old airframes.


Do you know how old a block 60 is? Here is a clue, they were first built for the UAE and deliveries started in 2004. You can do the maths on the resultant airframe age if the USAF bought some....

You are simply not clued up on this subject, and I'm finding it hard not to get really, really frustrated by having to continually go over basics.


RE: True F-14 successor?
By Reclaimer77 on 2/20/2010 1:00:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why do you think I keep saying investing billions in manned fighters right now is a waste?


Because you're stupid ?

quote:
2. Why do you think the opposition give 2 sh!ts about how much restructuring your armed forces have to do? If your happy to put up sitting ducks for their lasers; that is not their problem!


Right. We also have to worry about their Death Stars destroying whole planets too.

quote:
Do you know how old a block 60 is? Here is a clue, they were first built for the UAE and deliveries started in 2004. You can do the maths on the resultant airframe age if the USAF bought some....


It doesn't matter when they were built. The design is terribly outdated. We need more F-22's and next generation fighters. PERIOD. End of discussion.

quote:
You are simply not clued up on this subject


I.E not biased enough ?


RE: True F-14 successor?
By Chillin1248 on 2/20/2010 4:51:09 AM , Rating: 4
You would be surprised.

The AIM-120D has an 85% reliability rate, which means about 1 in every 5 missiles will be a dud. , the AIM-120 has achieved 10 BVR kills from 17 shots – a Pk or “kill probability” of 0.59 (59 percent) against benign or “dumb” targets (i.e. - Drones like the QF-4). No AIM-120 has been tested let alone operationally employed against a target with a panoply of defensive measures, so the kill ratio of the AIM-120 in modern air combat may well be much less than the operational 0.59 Pk experienced to date.

-------
Chillin


RE: True F-14 successor?
By Amiga500 on 2/20/2010 7:30:57 AM , Rating: 4
It was deployed in Kosovo... with what were basically quite alarming results.

There was an AFM article on it a few years back talking about the Yugo MiG-29s... most lacking radar and RWR... yet the AMRAAMs still had kill percentages in single digits!

Of course, the AMRAAM has moved on to the C-7 since, and the D version is the latest... I'm also sure the seeker has moved on. However, all medium and long range AAMs currently struggle to out maneuvre an evading adversary (rule of thumb: they need approx 4x the maneuvering to guarantee a kill) due to their size (rocket motor too big). The AMRAAM is particularly susceptible as its fins bleed off energy at a faster rate in high-g maneuvering than the lattices of, say, an AA-12 (which are worse at around Mach 1... which is pretty much a too low an energy state to kill in anyway).


What is the point of F-35?
By corduroygt on 2/19/2010 11:13:34 AM , Rating: 2
F-22 had already been developed, was it that hard to make bombs that will fit it, or in the worst case carried externally? Was it hard to change the RAM coating to something more easily maintained as technology improved? Was it hard to make an export version without powerful radar, no RAM, and no TVC for significantly cheaper?
Why spend all that money to develop another aircraft from scratch?




RE: What is the point of F-35?
By stmok on 2/19/2010 11:47:07 AM , Rating: 2
The F-22 has technologies that the US does not want in anybody else's hands. (US Govt has banned this plane from export). Its role is to totally dominate the air; so they need to keep that advantage from a technology perspective.

International customers like Japan, Israel, Saudi Arabia, etc didn't want a cut down variant of the F-22. They wanted the full thing like they received with the F-15. (This wasn't going to happen.)

The F-35 is more like a budget stealth platform. The project tried to lower its costs by getting many different International partners. Its OK'ed for export as it doesn't have the latest top end technologies found in the F-22. (Its better than 4th/4.5th generation fighters, but still below the F-22.)

In effect, the F-22 is like the Core i7 (Gulftown). While the F-35 is like the Core i5-6xx (Clarkdale).


RE: What is the point of F-35?
By jonmcc33 on 2/19/2010 2:04:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The F-22 has technologies that the US does not want in anybody else's hands. (US Govt has banned this plane from export). Its role is to totally dominate the air; so they need to keep that advantage from a technology perspective.


Exactly! The F-22A is US only! No other country has them.

quote:
In effect, the F-22 is like the Core i7 (Gulftown). While the F-35 is like the Core i5-6xx (Clarkdale).


Nice way to make it geek for IT people to understand. ;-)


RE: What is the point of F-35?
By Manch on 2/19/2010 3:15:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
International customers like Japan, Israel, Saudi Arabia, etc didn't want a cut down variant of the F-22. They wanted the full thing like they received with the F-15. (This wasn't going to happen.)


The F-15J that Japan recieved is actually the same as the F-15 Block A's but with some custom avionics developed by Japan themselves (See also Japan F-2). The "J" designation stands for Japan and they're manufactered by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries. Saudi recieved similar platforms but there's were manufactured by us. Israel recieves more current blocks but still does not recieve the latest and greatest versions of the platforms.


RE: What is the point of F-35?
By corduroygt on 2/19/2010 4:48:48 PM , Rating: 2
But the F-35 itself is a watered down F-22 with ground attack capabilities. Why couldn't we just water down the F-22 and sell it, I bet it'd be cheaper than the F-35, and more capable to boot.


RE: What is the point of F-35?
By Aloonatic on 2/19/2010 5:35:14 PM , Rating: 2
What's the point? Britain won't have anything to put on its new carriers if it doesn't get made.


RE: What is the point of F-35?
By FITCamaro on 2/20/2010 12:54:36 AM , Rating: 2
F35 development started before F22 was finished being developed. Both are needed. But we should have bought more F22s.

And there are no external hard points on the F22 to mount bombs on. And its not like you can just add them. Nor would you want to since it would ruin the F22s stealth abilities. Thats the whole point of having all its weapons carried internally.

In the end we're probably not going to get very many F35s either. Because the Democrats will say the same shit they did with the F22. "We don't need them"


RE: What is the point of F-35?
By MadMan007 on 2/21/2010 6:24:36 AM , Rating: 2
Why do you have to be stupid and make it political? I recall it being pointed out multiple times in previous F-22 articles that the F-22 procurement was scaled back under Bush, on top of that don't forget that Gates was Bush's SecDef appointee.

I'm with Amiga500 on this although I don't see lasers as the panacea but rather UCAVs. I am willing to bet that there is some secret sh*t none of us know about that will make manned aircraft obsolete within 15 years...the rediculously long development time of the F-22 and F-35 didn't help either.


This isn't really the story though...
By Amiga500 on 2/19/2010 8:45:14 AM , Rating: 2
The program has breached Nunn-McCurdy:

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/02/19/33...

quote:
US Air Force chief of staff Gen Norton Schwartz has warned that cost-overruns on the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter are likely to breach a statutory cap that would force the Department of Defense to formally re-certify the programme to Congress and invite a fresh wave of scrutiny.


Which means you can expect F-35 numbers to be cut further. But that could potentially extrapolate right up to a total cancellation!

It is also worth bearing in mind this new schedule (which has slipped 13 months - as reported here), was only adopted in early 2008, after the slip of the 2005 plan!

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index...

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_gener...

Once more, Lockheed Martin shaft the US taxpayer, and once more, they will be defended by the "die hard patriots" that don't realise the security and defence of their country is being exchanged for company dividends and manager bonuses. A sad, if ironic, state of affairs.




RE: This isn't really the story though...
By MrPoletski on 2/19/2010 9:22:00 AM , Rating: 2
wont get cancelled, too many other nations want to buy it.

you will make a profit from this thing in the end, im sure.


By Amiga500 on 2/19/2010 9:52:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
too many other nations want to buy it.


I wouldn't be so sure of that.

I don't know of many potential customers that are not re-evaluating other options...

The UK, The Netherlands, Norway, Turkey... all looking other directions.

I'm not sure on Israel (are they really a customer anyway since US money will pay for most of it?) and Australia... but there are some very vocal elements within the Aussie airforce not one pit pleased at the F-35.


By TerranMagistrate on 2/19/2010 12:15:46 PM , Rating: 2
Seeing as how it takes decades to develop a new generation of fighter aircraft, there is literally no chance that the JSF program will be canceled, none. Any true alternative would be really down the line and not to mention cost prohibitive if you take into account the funding that has been sunk into this program.

The bottom line is that the aging fourth generation airframes of multiple types of planes are expiring and the F-35 is the only viable successor. Cancellation is not an option no matter the cost.


By Amiga500 on 2/19/2010 3:26:21 PM , Rating: 2
I think I've been read the wrong way with the above.

I personally am not of the opinion it will be cancelled - a lot of credibility of the US defence industry is now on the line. I am saying it is a potential option on the table for Congress.

I think the JSF has went too far to become another A-12.


They're actually right on schedule
By 91TTZ on 2/19/2010 9:28:22 AM , Rating: 2
It's the same old story all over again so I'll just repost one of my previous posts:

If you observe the government's habits long enough, you'll see these things.

The F-22's production run was ended under the pretense that attention was going to be diverted to the JSF, and that we'd buy additional F-35's. Once the F-22 production line was closed down it was time to announce that F-35 production is going to be reduced as well, with funds ostensibly being used for some other project which in turn will be canceled. Doing this effectively butters defense contractor' palms without actually being used for much.

In the end, foreign orders will probably be dramatically reduced and we'll get the "low cost" F-35 for about the same price as the "expensive" F-22.

Government waste at its finest.




RE: They're actually right on schedule
By werepossum on 2/19/2010 5:53:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's the same old story all over again so I'll just repost one of my previous posts: If you observe the government's habits long enough, you'll see these things. The F-22's production run was ended under the pretense that attention was going to be diverted to the JSF, and that we'd buy additional F-35's. Once the F-22 production line was closed down it was time to announce that F-35 production is going to be reduced as well, with funds ostensibly being used for some other project which in turn will be canceled. Doing this effectively butters defense contractor' palms without actually being used for much. In the end, foreign orders will probably be dramatically reduced and we'll get the "low cost" F-35 for about the same price as the "expensive" F-22. Government waste at its finest.


Probably all true. Is the F-35 actually the new F-111 Aardvark?


RE: They're actually right on schedule
By rcc on 2/22/2010 2:54:02 PM , Rating: 2
Ah the Texas Gooney Bird. Anyone who has seen the Carrier trials for the F111 will know why it's such a problem to get the Air Force and Navy to use the same designs.

Which shouldn't be unexpected, they have very different operational criteria and requirements.


Same old story
By DragonJuice on 2/19/2010 8:13:48 AM , Rating: 3
This doesn't seem too uncommon. Let me guess, unrealistic expectations were made to win the contract, and now LM can't deliver. People need to wake up and be realistic about expectations. I'm sick of seeing my tax dollars wasted on this crap.




RE: Same old story
By Schadenfroh on 2/19/2010 8:39:17 AM , Rating: 2
Unrealistic promises win you contracts. I am a minion working on a project that was founded on unrealistic promises that we cannot possibly deliver in the time-frame given. But, our leaders will make us to achieve things that we never thought possible.....


Scrap it !
By crystal clear on 2/19/2010 8:41:02 AM , Rating: 2
Makes one laugh how congress can be easily fooled, if you read this document below.

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program: Background and Issues for Congress.

The F-35 was conceived as a relatively affordable fifth-generation strike fighter
that could be procured in three highly common versions for the Air Force, the Marine Corps, and the Navy,

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL30563.pdf

This JSF program is a failure !......relatively affordable try the Boeing concept/option.




RE: Scrap it !
By gamerk2 on 2/19/2010 11:54:55 AM , Rating: 2
Yet still cheaper to build and maintain then the F-22...

Still, when you subcontract out every minor component to please as many congressmen as you can, what else should you expect? One subcontractor fails to deliver, and the entire project falls apart.


SU-30MK Better Than Joint Fighter
By DCCIII on 2/22/2010 6:06:16 PM , Rating: 2
Russian fighter jet can stop in mid-flight
Posted by Mark Frauenfelder, December 5, 2007 10:34 AM | permalink
I don't know anything about the capabilities of modern fighter jets, but I was impressed by the maneuverability of this Russian Su-30MKI, as seen in these videos.
Russian SU-30- Vectored Thrust with Canards. As you watch this airplane, look at the canards moving along side of, and just below the canopy rail. This is a video of an in-flight demonstration flown by the Russian SU-30MK fighter aircraft. You'll not believe what you are about to see. The fighter can stall from high speed, stopping in less than a second. Then it demonstrates an ability to descend tail first without causing a compressor stall. It can also recover from a flat spin in less than a minute. These capabilities don't exist in any other aircraft in the world today. Take a look at the video with the sound up. This aircraft is of concern to U.S. and NATO planners. We don't know which nations will soon be flying the SU-30MK, hopefully China isn't one of them.




Does it make any sense?
By deanx0r on 2/19/2010 8:25:54 AM , Rating: 1
The point of a joint venture with so many nations is to reduce development, manufacturing and operating costs. Now, I am starting to think it was a clever scheme from the US to force the hand of many potential buyers that are now entangled in this program.

And in the eve of the French Rafale dominating the Eurofighter and giving the Raptor a run for its money during the recent UAE exercises, I am starting to believe the F35 won't be able to deliver its promise performance wise.

Now, the F35 might end up being a very expensive turkey, I still think it will sell billions and provide jobs for the next 20+ years or so as military exports have little to do with performance, and are more of a political matter.




"The Space Elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing" -- Sir Arthur C. Clarke

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki