Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What is up with the F-35? Part II

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • F-35C high speed trials. Looking good.

    F-35C High Speed Fly-by - YouTube

    Comment


    • Australia Delays F-35 Order by 2 Years
      May. 3, 2012 - 10:52AM |
      By MARTIN PARRY, Agence France-Presse

      Australia has long-term plans to buy up to 100 F-35s but has made no commitment beyond the first 14. (U.S. Air Force)


      SYDNEY — Australia said May 3 it will delay its order of 12 F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) jets by two years to save money in an aggressive drive to return the budget to surplus.

      The move is a setback to defense contractor Lockheed Martin, which has struggled with delays and cost blowouts on the project, with the stealth plane’s price tag doubling in real terms over the past decade.

      It has also battled criticism that the jets, which are supposed to form the backbone of the future American air fleet, will not deliver the promised level of capability and had been outclassed by new Russian and Chinese aircraft.

      Defense Minister Stephen Smith said he spoke to his U.S. counterpart Leon Panetta early May 3 and assured him the decision would not affect the U.S.-Australia alliance, which has been stepped up in recent months.

      “That effectively mirrors the decision which Secretary of State Panetta made with respect to over 150 Joint Strike Fighters proposed to be ordered by the United States,” Smith told reporters.

      “We are now essentially on the same timetable for the delivery of our first batch of joint strike fighters as the United States is.”

      Australia is a key ally of the United States and the two have recently reinforced their defense cooperation in a significant geo-strategic shift by Washington that has irked Beijing.

      Australia is contractually obligated to purchase two JSF jets, which have already been delivered in the United States for testing and training. The other 12 were initially scheduled for delivery between 2015 and 2017.

      Canberra has long-term plans to buy up to 100 F-35s but has made no commitment beyond the first 14. Several other countries have also announced they are delaying or cutting orders, including the U.S. and Italy.

      The Australian government announces its budget next week and the delay on delivery of the F-35s will provide a $1.6 billion (U.S $1.64 billion) boost to the bottom line.

      Mining-powered Australia was the only advanced economy to weather the global downturn without entering recession, and returning the budget into the black is seen as key test of the struggling government’s economic management.

      Further cost savings will be made with the cancellation of a project to acquire self-propelled howitzers, Smith added.

      But the government said it would push ahead with the acquisition of 12 advanced new submarines to replace the Navy’s ageing Collins fleet.

      It announced $214 million in funding towards detailed design and analysis for the future project.

      “This will be the largest defense capability project the Commonwealth has embarked upon,” said Smith. Reports said that overall the submarine project was expected to cost around $40 billion.

      In announcing the decisions, Prime Minister Julia Gillard guaranteed that overseas defense operations would not be impacted by spending cuts in the May 8 budget and there would be no reduction in military numbers.

      “The budget will protect the men and women on the front line,” she said, adding that the government had commissioned a new defense white paper a year ahead of schedule.

      Gillard said there had been a number of significant developments both domestically and internationally since the previous white paper in 2009, citing a strategic global shift towards Australia’s region.
      Last edited by TopHatter; 07 May 12,, 14:26.
      “the misery of being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all” -- Joan Robinson

      Comment


      • Originally posted by xinhui View Post
        Australia Delays F-35 Order by 2 Years
        Lockmart should thank their lucky stars after the silly comments that some (one) of their executive have been coming out with. Remember the Czechs..... :)

        Boeing would run cost negative to take the slots with another interim tranche....

        As for subs, 12 is a pipe dream, navy never wanted that number, that was a political decision, not a warfighters decision. On top of which it will get pruned back as soon as gillard loses govt - and that likely to be before her term is up.

        the problem is that the opposition parties comprehension of the RAN sub requirements is just as stellar as the current govts understanding of fiscal frugality.

        at least the opposition listened to the JSF briefs when they were prev in power - so JSF won't be at risk as a vote gathering, money saving excuse (as is the rest of defence when things go to custard)
        Last edited by gf0012-aust; 07 May 12,, 06:27.
        Linkeden:
        http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
        http://cofda.wordpress.com/

        Comment


        • That 12 number has always intrigued me. I wanted to pick your brains about the genesis of it... but thought that might be a bit beyond the pale.
          Ego Numquam

          Comment


          • Originally posted by gf0012-aust View Post
            Lockmart should thank their lucky stars after the silly comments that some (one) of their executive have been coming out with. Remember the Czechs..... :)

            Boeing would run cost negative to take the slots with another interim tranche....

            As for subs, 12 is a pipe dream, navy never wanted that number, that was a political decision, not a warfighters decision. On top of which it will get pruned back as soon as gillard loses govt - and that likely to be before her term is up.

            the problem is that the opposition parties comprehension of the RAN sub requirements is just as stellar as the current govts understanding of fiscal frugality.

            at least the opposition listened to the JSF briefs when they were prev in power - so JSF won't be at risk as a vote gathering, money saving excuse (as is the rest of defence when things go to custard)
            the main reason behind its delay is something else. Australia has known that its too early to buy F35/ JSF and they would let its production line matured first. It is found that F35/ JSF is a true stealth fighter like F22 and can be used for special missions but its cant be used for dog fights like 4+ combat aircrafts. It may be possible that Australia may buy few of them but they won’t let its air defense dependent on this aircraft, like how they have planned to buy 100 F35 with 24 Super Hornet at present, a total of 124 ‘only’ 4++ and 5th gen aircrafts they would have by 2030, as per their current contracts. But now they are made to ‘think again’ about making their air defense dependent on only F35 as the news we are getting about F35 isn’t good. It may be possible that US may itself buy only 100-120 F35 for special missions only where the true stealth features will be the key, like how they have only 87 F22, but US may not buy this aircraft in big number like how they have planned right now to replace their fleet of F16. And the same Australia may also do and buy only few of F35 for special missions only F35, but they are first waiting to reach this F35 project to final stage and then they will decide.

            Also, we have news that F35 projects may be well delayed to 2018, so why to hurry?

            The independent Australian airpower thinktank the Williams Foundation has called for Australia’s acquisition of the F-35 JSF to be delayed to allow the aircraft to mature, in light of recent news that IOC (initial operating capability) for the US Air Force may now be as late as 2018.

            “In the Williams Foundation’s judgment, it would be sensible to wait and see what happens with the F-35, while simultaneously investigating the cost of capability issues involved in maintaining the classic Hornet beyond 2020,”

            Delay JSF purchase – Williams Foundation | Australian Aviation Magazine

            Comment


            • Originally posted by sunny_10 View Post
              the main reason behind its delay is something else. Australia has known that its too early to buy F35/ JSF and they would let its production line matured first. It is found that F35/ JSF is a true stealth fighter like F22 and can be used for special missions but its cant be used for dog fights like 4+ combat aircrafts. It may be possible that Australia may buy few of them but they won’t let its air defense dependent on this aircraft, like how they have planned to buy 100 F35 with 24 Super Hornet at present, a total of 124 ‘only’ 4++ and 5th gen aircrafts they would have by 2030, as per their current contracts. But now they are made to ‘think again’ about making their air defense dependent on only F35 as the news we are getting about F35 isn’t good. It may be possible that US may itself buy only 100-120 F35 for special missions only where the true stealth features will be the key, like how they have only 87 F22, but US may not buy this aircraft in big number like how they have planned right now to replace their fleet of F16. And the same Australia may also do and buy only few of F35 for special missions only F35, but they are first waiting to reach this F35 project to final stage and then they will decide.

              Also, we have news that F35 projects may be well delayed to 2018, so why to hurry?
              Sorry, but you're making statements which are really quite nonsensical with respect to both force development and RAAF requirements (ie their force development intent).

              You're also assigning outcomes and intent on govt decision making which are also without foundation - let alone about actual platform capability wrt to LO asset intent.

              as someone who does actually have to work in an environment on future force development - at a systems level I absolutely despair at the platform centric logic used to debate these issues.

              people really need to pause before extrapolating outcomes to gloom and doom levels. the reality of what the partners are intending to do, even though some are deferring due to budget issues has not impacted on what their air forces reinforce every day, day in, day out etc as to what we intend to position that capability.

              in fact the years of hysterical claims and naysaying have yet to yield anything remotely approaching the claims of doom and gloom.
              Linkeden:
              http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
              http://cofda.wordpress.com/

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Chunder View Post
                That 12 number has always intrigued me. I wanted to pick your brains about the genesis of it... but thought that might be a bit beyond the pale.
                sorry about the tardy reply, but flat out with work, and the Budget lancing of defence projects has had some collateral effect at the personal frustration level

                Original sub force levels were supposed to be for 8 platforms, and as a result, if we had maintained intent parity with Collins, then it would have been a 1 for 1 - ie 8 platforms. 8 is the number RAN soight to get. I am assuming (and I am assuming much as heaven help anyone who tried to assume that they had the wisdom of ministerial staffers magic wand waving) that someone within PM&C's hallowed halls decided that force projection ratios should be 33% over and above for nominal life of type and based against future war scenarios.

                the strong rumour has always been that "tin tin" had a personal investment in pitching 12 - some of it was based on him seeing that this was also "snowy mountains" MK2

                as for JSF. there was a persistent view that as part of the manic desire to realise a surplus, big ticket items were up for a bollocking. RAN to some extent was always going to come out ahead as there is a persistent view that to protect this country from dastardly probing and invasion, it will be Navy that pokes any enemy in the eye and sweeps the SLOCs of filthy vermin :) RAAF has been pretty well looked after with the trucks (C17's and Spartans) and Wedgetail, Tankers etc have been delivered relatively on time. The sharp end was not seen as risky as the mumbling from the USG and USAF about JSF has been persistent. We don't base decisions on what LM says, but we do care about what the USAF and USN say. Hence my frustration at some of the dialogue on JSF as there is an assumption that procurement and force development is based on the last vendor roadshow. Nothing could be further from the truth - that however doesn't stop some of the saged advice on "stealth" (shoot me now) and F-22 (shoot me again and bash me to ensure that I am comatose and can't suffer hearing any more internet wisdom) :) You'd also appreciate that the dialogue with the USAF/USN/USMC/USG is more than just about JSF.. its a key component in the systems force development model - its not the key

                as yuo would know, the decision to scale back some major programs was driven by the govts irrational desire to presenmt a surplus, and this not be seen as breaking another election promise - it had zero to do with actual force development concerns.

                the irony of course being that wedgetail E7's, P8's growlers and shornets will be a substantial force mix for the forseeable future and that the IOC of 2018 is still not a stress point. Having attended the P8 and E7 briefs, I'm damn sure I'm glad that they're in the orbat over any one else in the sphere of concern. The Sings are the only other outfit in this immediate region that can field a modern force. Short of suspending reality, there is no near peer threat - and there won't be till 2020-2025. That assumes that the traditionally accepted "red team" does want to punch on.

                me. I have a doubt
                Last edited by gf0012-aust; 17 May 12,, 20:25.
                Linkeden:
                http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
                http://cofda.wordpress.com/

                Comment


                • Originally posted by gf0012-aust View Post
                  sorry about the tardy reply, but flat out with work, and the Budget lancing of defence projects has had some collateral effect at the personal frustration level
                  All good, I've read what you've said. Rode the bike to the Fountain Inn chewing on it a bit - did the same on the way back. On racking the bike, I thought to myself "Non-core"! and have come back to re-read, and think some more about what it all means, longer term. I feel very strongly about the people that are paid well to show due diligence towards capability programs - all to have it thrown on the forsaken political expediency pile. In short I feel real people, not just the nation have been somewhat cheated because of some condom on the brick of progress.

                  But I'll stew on it a bit longer.... and I do hope the government pays a heavy price. Just can't bring myself to press the other button!
                  Ego Numquam

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by gf0012-aust View Post
                    Sorry, but you're making statements which are really quite nonsensical with respect to both force development and RAAF requirements (ie their force development intent).

                    You're also assigning outcomes and intent on govt decision making which are also without foundation - let alone about actual platform capability wrt to LO asset intent.

                    as someone who does actually have to work in an environment on future force development - at a systems level I absolutely despair at the platform centric logic used to debate these issues.

                    people really need to pause before extrapolating outcomes to gloom and doom levels. the reality of what the partners are intending to do, even though some are deferring due to budget issues has not impacted on what their air forces reinforce every day, day in, day out etc as to what we intend to position that capability.

                    in fact the years of hysterical claims and naysaying have yet to yield anything remotely approaching the claims of doom and gloom.
                    Look, we cant really predict about any defense arm as time to time upgrades are given to them, making them more competent with passage of time. But we do believe in the fact we have. Just about 5-6 years before, we used to talk that F35/JSF is the best aircraft but now its IOC is expected to be delayed till 2018, if no later than this, check my last post #290 to confirm this news.

                    Rest, we can’t predict how exactly the professionals working on F35 project will be ended up by 2018, how good and bad we will see, but few of the Australian Defense ‘Experts’ think about F35, as below:

                    Independent air combat analysts from Air Power Australia have also stated that the F-35 is not capable of facing high end threats; that what will be delivered (if it ever arrives) will be obsolete; and that the F-35 is not affordable or sustainable.

                    http://www.f-16.net/news_article4416.html
                    Then here, after spending over 10-15 years on development of this Aircraft, its IOC is still delayed till 2018 and few of the Defense Experts think this project won’t ever be a success also, make sense?

                    Comment


                    • Dude....stop.

                      Quoting something from Air Power Australia has the same effect as saying, "Well, my uncle said...."

                      Follow S2's advice and engage more with your eyes rather than with the keyboard.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by sunny_10 View Post

                        Rest, we can’t predict how exactly the professionals working on F35 project will be ended up by 2018, how good and bad we will see, but few of the Australian Defense ‘Experts’ think about F35, as below:



                        Then here, after spending over 10-15 years on development of this Aircraft, its IOC is still delayed till 2018 and few of the Defense Experts think this project won’t ever be a success also, make sense?
                        APA - experts? Seriously sport, quoting them as experts is like claiming that Nth Korea is a democracy

                        You need to understand motive and background before you start running into public debate about the expertise of others - and a cursory check on the credibility and competency of the self professed experts and analysts would yield much to cause you to pause.

                        I suggest that you start to look at the complexity of this program delivery model and then do a short history lesson back on all major aircraft deliveries in the last 50 years to get a reality check on cradle to grave deliveries of major platforms.

                        there's considered debate - and then there's reactive debate. the latter is useful for experts who live on youtube etc... the former is what we should aspire to. quoting APA as experts isn't a path to enlightenment by any means
                        Last edited by gf0012-aust; 15 May 12,, 21:08.
                        Linkeden:
                        http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
                        http://cofda.wordpress.com/

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Chunder View Post
                          All good, I've read what you've said. Rode the bike to the Fountain Inn chewing on it a bit - did the same on the way back. On racking the bike, I thought to myself "Non-core"! and have come back to re-read, and think some more about what it all means, longer term. I feel very strongly about the people that are paid well to show due diligence towards capability programs - all to have it thrown on the forsaken political expediency pile. In short I feel real people, not just the nation have been somewhat cheated because of some condom on the brick of progress.

                          But I'll stew on it a bit longer.... and I do hope the government pays a heavy price. Just can't bring myself to press the other button!
                          unfort its the continued burden experienced in lots of countries (except totalitarian regimes :)) of the military requirement being over run by political domestic expediency. One only has to go back to the 2009 White Paper and the aspiration of Force 2030 to see how hijacked it is.. I despair over the hollow force that Aust could end up with. Force development is not about isolated platforms of capability, its about a force being able to act and react at the systems level. It sounds trite when looked at in isolation, but its not a sound bite, it is the reality.

                          Unfort the JSF debate is dumbed down by the ilk of APA etc to managed scenarios of red vs blue and usually at the "tally ho, Biggles" level of analysis. A similar parallel analogy is general discussion on SOCOM/SOF (using the US acronyms for convenience) type missions, they are usually dumbed down to kill or capture roles as thats what they think people are only capable of understanding

                          Its far too easy and attractive to dumb down the debate to platform issues rather than system issues. and you'd have to say that when govts start ripping into programs then the god view of systems impact is discarded onto a convenient pile of indifference.

                          having attended briefs recently on the P8's I'm absolutely gobsmacked at what they can do - and yet we will still get experts arguing over the need to replace them with UAS capability instead of manned solutions (some aren't even smart enough to see that UAS is a companion system, not an either/or solution)

                          But like you, my finger on the button waivers at the options. self inflicted euthenasia would be more attractive than letting the other mob in - and I have first hand experience on that issue as he used to be my Minister when I worked in Govt previously. He might be a Rhodes Scholar, but it just reinforces the mantra that you can be academically smart but as sharp as a bowling ball with zero street smarts. Its pretty self evident that the quality of debate coming from the other side is borderline and skating along the lines of having a conversation with a fire hydrant. :)
                          Last edited by gf0012-aust; 15 May 12,, 21:25.
                          Linkeden:
                          http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
                          http://cofda.wordpress.com/

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by gf0012-aust View Post
                            APA - experts? Seriously sport, quoting them as experts is like claiming that Nth Korea is a democracy

                            You need to understand motive and background before you start running into public debate about the expertise of others - and a cursory check on the credibility and competency of the self professed experts and analysts would yield much to cause you to pause.

                            I suggest that you start to look at the complexity of this program delivery model and then do a short history lesson back on all major aircraft deliveries in the last 50 years to get a reality check on cradle to grave deliveries of major platforms.

                            there's considered debate - and then there's reactive debate. the latter is useful for experts who live on youtube etc... the former is what we should aspire to. quoting APA as experts isn't a path to enlightenment by any means
                            I would like to end my contribution on this topic with one of the belief in development of any technological products, that is, “its always very hard to ‘fix’ the frequent problems of any new product development as compare to develop a new one.” I do have worked on a design phase of copper plant and it is strongly believed that once you find that your product is not ‘competent’ enough to deliver its ‘expected’ performance, it harder to fix those problems at final stage as compare to develop a new alternative product.

                            Right now we are getting news that even if US has made 15 to 20 prototypes of F35/JSF, their professionals working on this project are trying to fix problems on final stage by going back to design phase also. And this way its IOC is now delayed to 2018, if no later than this. And in my above paragraph, I tried to say that its easier to develop something new as compare to again go back to design phase and try to fix those issues with which they struggling on the final stage of F35 development. In short, I would like to say, either US might have developed F35 during their last 12 years of efforts, like how we used to talk a lot about F35 5-6 years before, or, they would simply declare it as a failed project as even if they have got 15-16 prototypes of F35, they know they aren’t ‘competent’ enough to be accepted as a replacement of F16s.

                            Rest, it is no doubt that concept behind 5th generation aircrafts have proper base and not only US’s professionals but Russian and Chinese have also invested heavy money to have aircrafts like this in future so they might have enough reasons behind it, its true. But I only mean to say, Australian Air Force is wise enough to not buy these aircrafts until they may see the final outcome of this projects, may be till 2018, and they are ‘correct’ on their stand with F35, thanks

                            Comment


                            • thanks for replying, but you've basically reinforced that you have not understood one iota of my earlier reply.

                              your last sentence just applies emphasis to the issue that the decision to delay was not based on capability concerns. To whit, it was due to domestic politics where the Govt wants to return a surplus budget to ensure that the opposition political party had one less cudgel to bash them with.

                              its got zero to do with a lack of confidence in the article.

                              btw, the decision is a Govt decision - its not a RAAF decision. In Australia the military defers to Govt decisions.

                              Please don't make claims about force decision when its apparent that you have no idea of what has driven this outcome in the first place.

                              as for your other comments, they have zero to do with JSF, LO, RAAF force development, Govt procurement processes or how marshmallows get made.
                              Linkeden:
                              http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
                              http://cofda.wordpress.com/

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by gf0012-aust View Post
                                thanks for replying, but you've basically reinforced that you have not understood one iota of my earlier reply.

                                your last sentence just applies emphasis to the issue that the decision to delay was not based on capability concerns. To whit, it was due to domestic politics where the Govt wants to return a surplus budget to ensure that the opposition political party had one less cudgel to bash them with.

                                its got zero to do with a lack of confidence in the article.

                                btw, the decision is a Govt decision - its not a RAAF decision. In Australia the military defers to Govt decisions.

                                Please don't make claims about force decision when its apparent that you have no idea of what has driven this outcome in the first place
                                .

                                as for your other comments, they have zero to do with JSF, LO, RAAF force development, Govt procurement processes or how marshmallows get made.
                                First I want to tell you a bottom line thing about the governments of Britain and its colonies like Australia/ Canada etc. their governments always lie about the facts. they just believe in publicity of lies through their media to justify their every right/ wrong steps. A certain belief the British and British origins of Australia/ Canada/ US have, that is, no matter how many wrong they do, or did in past, doing positive publicity by using their media may change all the right and wrong happenings ever happened, or still happening. And here, I would like to warn you that no matter how much Australian government say that money was the main problem in their JSF/F35 purchase, to say they spend less on military, but the reality is, not only Australia but none of F35’s customer including US is going to have F35/JSF in their inventory within next 5-6 years, until professionals may get any clear cut success in this project. and I have said before, F35/JSF is not competent enough to be accepted in its current level of performance and whether its professionals may achieve that 'fitness landscape'/ the minimum criterion to accept this aircraft, everyone of F35's customers are waiting for that. thanks

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X