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Here are some great reads at this website highlighting why the F-22 or the PAK-FA make this plane out of date before it has even entered service: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.


"There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer

Related Articles













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