UK to buy F-35Bs

[ajrimmer42]

The Government is expected to make a U-turn over Britain's new strike jets for the Royal Navy - going with Labour's preferred option.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/prime-minister-set-u-turn-strike-jets-091911833.html

[Jimbuna]

"The good news for the Royal Navy is the jump-jet version means that the two new aircraft carriers can come into service."


I'll believe that when I see them in operation...plenty of time to change mindset and government for that matter.

[HunterICX]

I'll believe that when I see them in operation...plenty of time to change mindset and government for that matter.

You reckon it should've been posted in the joke thread? :O:

HunterICX

[TarJak]

Its probably the Australian F35's that are being delayed. You guys get first use to run them in for us.:O:

[Oberon]

What is this F-35? I say it is a myth! :O:

[Herr-Berbunch]

I caught a snippet of this on the BBC news yesterday, all I got was the words

government, jump jets, u-turn

I wrongly thought they'd decided to get Harriers out of mothballed storage. :cry:

[TarJak]

I caught a snippet of this on the BBC news yesterday, all I got was the words

government, jump jets, u-turn

I wrongly thought they'd decided to get Harriers out of mothballed storage. :cry:

Now why would they do that when they can spend billions of pounds on a white elephant that might never get delivered in their term of office?:O:

[Jimbuna]

You reckon it should've been posted in the joke thread? :O:

HunterICX

I'm following the topic on another 'dedicated' forum and the 'experts' are absolutely scathing about the aircraft choice.

[Skybird]

No matter whether B- or C-version - still too expensive in these times, still to small an internal payload (spending all that money on making it stealthy and then compromising stealth by adding external payloads...???), and as many also say: too short legs, with the B-version having even shorter legs.

I saw the customer list so far somewhere, 11 countries - all names on the list suffering from extremly troublesome financial status. Spending without being able to afford it - something's wrong there. Sometimes you have to cut back your global intentions and stay with the cheaper solutions. You may still be able to defend what is vital to you. Just that maybe you have to shorten the planned front and can no longer plan for operations and wars that are no needs but luxurious choices.

[TarJak]

I'm following the topic on another 'dedicated' forum and the 'experts' are absolutely scathing about the aircraft choice.

This guy is certainly in the scathing category: http://www.smh.com.au/world/why-the-joint-strike-fighter-is-a-calamity-in-progress-20120509-1ycjt.html

[Oberon]

It's a fantastic aircraft, I'm not questioning its capabilities...when it's finally finished...

It's just beyond the price range of most countries these days, well...nearly all of them in fact, except perhaps Saudi Arabia... :hmmm:

[Herr-Berbunch]

This guy is certainly in the scathing category: http://www.smh.com.au/world/why-the-joint-strike-fighter-is-a-calamity-in-progress-20120509-1ycjt.html

A defence contract wouldn't be a defence contract if it wasn't over-running, under-performing, and wildly more expensive. :nope:

If it was my contract I'd say 'stuff it'. And I'd also make sure that that was written in the contract before signing - tight budgetry and timescale controls along with the fact it must at least reach the brief. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why Herr-B will never be involved with government procurement - unless they want to buy something off me. :D

[Catfish]

" ... The design was born in the late 1980s in the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the Pentagon agency that has earned an undeserved reputation for astute innovation. ..."

1980ies .. with the strategical need of those times ?

On one hand the project is too big to fail, on the other hand maybe it will die a silent death - of course after the elections, and regardless who's in charge then.

For what i read on multiple forums:
- Stealth will not be accomplished due to the two rudders - a clear blip visible on any 30-year-old radar.
- It cannot carry enough arms, even as the "normal" non-VTOL or even catapult version (the VTOL is being hampered by multiple problems, too fuew fuel and ams, due to the space needed for VTOL components)
- It cannot be used in low altitude missions (why not b.t.w.?)
- The fuselage cell is prone to cracks, especially with the VTOL and catapult versions, limiting the calculated life and needing more maintenance and state supervision
- The costs have exploded, but the machine still fails to deliver.

It seems they wanted a jet that did all - and what they get is a jet that can do all, but nothing right.

Also, from an article:

"In a decade's time, the United States plans to have (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1975139,00.html) 15 times as many modern fighters as China, and 20 times as many as Russia."

" ..
So, how many F-35s do we need?
100?
500?
Washington intends to buy 2,443, at a price tag of $382 billion.
Add in the $650 billion that the Government Accountability Office estimates (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08388.pdf) is needed to operate and maintain the aircraft, and the total cost reaches a staggering $1 trillion.
In other words, we're spending more on this plane than Australia's entire GDP ($924 billion). ..."

from:
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/03/the-f-35-a-weapon-that-costs-more-than-australia/72454/ (http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/03/the-f-35-a-weapon-that-costs-more-than-australia/72454/)


I think those jets are fascinating, but i do not think it would be wise to go on spending that money on .. "defence".

[Jimbuna]

This guy is certainly in the scathing category: http://www.smh.com.au/world/why-the-joint-strike-fighter-is-a-calamity-in-progress-20120509-1ycjt.html

That's a pretty good article...I enjoyed that :yep:

[HunterICX]

I'm following the topic on another 'dedicated' forum and the 'experts' are absolutely scathing about the aircraft choice.

Not really suprising, to me the aircraft seems an over engineered flying dreadnought.

HunterICX

[Takeda Shingen]

The F-35. :haha:

[STEED]

I'll believe that when I see them in operation...plenty of time to change mindset and government for that matter.

Dave U-Turn Cameron.:haha:

[Stealhead]

" ... The design was born in the late 1980s in the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the Pentagon agency that has earned an undeserved reputation for astute innovation. ..."

1980ies .. with the strategical need of those times ?

On one hand the project is too big to fail, on the other hand maybe it will die a silent death - of course after the elections, and regardless who's in charge then.

For what i read on multiple forums:
- Stealth will not be accomplished due to the two rudders - a clear blip visible on any 30-year-old radar.
- It cannot carry enough arms, even as the "normal" non-VTOL or even catapult version (the VTOL is being hampered by multiple problems, too fuew fuel and ams, due to the space needed for VTOL components)
- It cannot be used in low altitude missions (why not b.t.w.?)
- The fuselage cell is prone to cracks, especially with the VTOL and catapult versions, limiting the calculated life and needing more maintenance and state supervision
- The costs have exploded, but the machine still fails to deliver.

It seems they wanted a jet that did all - and what they get is a jet that can do all, but nothing right.

Also, from an article:

"In a decade's time, the United States plans to have (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1975139,00.html) 15 times as many modern fighters as China, and 20 times as many as Russia."

" ..
So, how many F-35s do we need?
100?
500?
Washington intends to buy 2,443, at a price tag of $382 billion.
Add in the $650 billion that the Government Accountability Office estimates (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08388.pdf) is needed to operate and maintain the aircraft, and the total cost reaches a staggering $1 trillion.
In other words, we're spending more on this plane than Australia's entire GDP ($924 billion). ..."

from:
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/03/the-f-35-a-weapon-that-costs-more-than-australia/72454/ (http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/03/the-f-35-a-weapon-that-costs-more-than-australia/72454/)


I think those jets are fascinating, but i do not think it would be wise to go on spending that money on .. "defence".

I am not sure where the idea that it will fail to be stealth because it has two tails the F-22 has dual tails and the F-117 had a V shaped quasi dual tail and that aircraft was stealthy.Being stealthy from radar requires two things working at the same time basically the radar beams(or most of them) need to be either absorbed or deflected away from the aircraft and not back in the direction of the source.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/question69.htm

Nothing truly is "invisible" not even the B-2 nor the F-117 what they did/do was send such a small amount of the radar waves back to the source that it appears as at most a flock of birds or other anomaly one could target every flock of birds that show up on their radar but that would be futile and a waste of resources.

Now I do agree on the massive cost of the entire program.Though your statement on the plane to buy 2,443 F-35s come directly from that Atlantic article where do they display the source of this claim?

I can find an article form the Washington Post that says that the US planned on buying 2,400 and that is including ones for the UK(this was written in 2005) making the wording deceptive. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38236-2005Mar15.html.

My feeling is that some are listing the total planned production based on current orders for all nations that currently plan to buy F-35s 8 and the US makes 9 and are making a good story by listing that as the desired amount for the US military.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38236-2005Mar15.html

2443/9=271 aircraft per nation obviously the US is procuring a larger portion but that number 2443 sounds more like the total planned production for all customers.

Here is what the GAO had to say sorry I do not have the time at the moment to read the entire PDF but the answer is in there it says 2,547 was planned for the DOD but if you read the highlights they recommend a review if the costs which pretty much means that the contractors will want more money for less aircraft I am sure that total number will go down but the F-35 will not go way. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10382.pdf

[Oberon]

Well, the Russkies had the Golden Fish...

I guess when this is all over we'll have the Golden Bird...

Let's just hope it works a tad better... :dead:

[Gargamel]

Well, if the Russians keep treating their modern planes the same way, they're going to run out of either planes or volcanos. Won't take too many f35s then to outnumber them.

[Catfish]

Hello Stealhead,


"I am not sure where the idea that it will fail to be stealth because it has two tails the F-22 has dual tails and the F-117 had a V shaped quasi dual tail and that aircraft was stealthy."

Maybe the fins are coated with some "Alberich" stuff to absorb or deflect radar in other than emitted or detecting source's angles, however the older F-117 with its similar twin tail is not stealthy in a way the new plane was meant to be. You can read that those V-shaped rudders had to be added to make the new jet fit for its additional tasks added AFTER the initial plane had been projected - which is what i mean happens when you try to stuff too much in one plane.

The building numbers of more than 2000 seem to be right, if it's some 2400 or more (?) there will be most likely all in it, including sales to other countries - i mean who would buy more than several hundred, apart from England ? Even with much less the US United States plans to have 15 tims as many modern fighters as China, and 20 times as many as Russia, as it was written in several articles. Don't you think someone might feel threatened, and react accordingly ?
A worldwide arms race again ?
I mean : What for ?

I understand that a budget or financial limitations do not weight that heavily when it comes to national interests and the security of the land, but does this really add to the security ? And doesn't it also look as if certain companies make more profit out of this fact, than there would be necessary ? All covered by politicians coming just from those big business arms companies ? From Wolfowitz to Cheney and all those others ..


"My feeling is that some are listing the total planned production based on current orders for all nations that currently plan to buy F-35s 8 and the US makes 9 and are making a good story by listing that as the desired amount for the US military."

Well most certainly, if i where responsible for my air force i would demand 10 to receive 5 :-?

There has to be some progress, and the airforce has to get new jets, but the whole concept of being capable to do all and press this into one jet projected in the 1980ies and in such numbers seems obsolete and plain wrong.

Greetings,
Catfish

[Skybird]

Catfish,

http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/4583/fsscr001.png (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/214/fsscr001.png/)

white letters on light-grey background is extremely difficult to read. ;) You cannot even invert other people's posts.

---


German Wikipedia site has a table listing the so-far planned orders by nations. 2400 is for the US alone. In dece,mbre 2010 Lockheed planned with a total production number of over 3100.

http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/7802/fsscr000fg.png (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/189/fsscr000fg.png/)

Note that the British change is not included.

[Catfish]

Huh, in my browser the text is just the usual white on black ?!
Anyone else can't read it ?

edit: changed the post above hope it's ok now ?


Thanks Skybird, so planned production is even higher (?) :o

[Skybird]

Huh, in my browser the text is just the usual white on black ?!

It depends on the colour scheme in your profile. If you do not use the default ink colour, than the ink does not get changed when you change the background colour.

[Skybird]

Thanks Skybird, so planned production is even higher (?) :o
It will melt considerably, I'm certain. That thing simply is too expensive. The ordered numbers cannot be afforded, even more when considering that the plane is under such heavy fire. What has not been mentioned is the immense doubts on the structural solidity of the cell and the longevity of the used surface materials. These could be reduced due to wear and tear and micro-fractions setting in sooner than expected. Just ask Airbus with their 380's hair-fractions about it.

Those 3100 planes will never be build, no doubt. Look at how the F-22 project has been molten down! ;)

My approach: go for stealth air superiority fighters like the F-22. Keep the ground runners conventional. I cannot see how the F-35 will ever be able to replace the immense capalities of the A-10C, for example. NEVER. Not even when loading the external hardpoints. You cannot load them to the max if you do not want to fly a flying brick. Even the A-10 does not get loaded full, for the same reason.

[geetrue]

This article is February, but it points to the year 2015 as a date for final decision. http://www.canada.com/Canada+convenes+international+meeting+over+trouble d+fighters/6137945/story.html


Britain, the biggest contributor to the joint development program, said in a 2010 defense review that it would cut its planned order of 138 F-35 fighter jets and decided to pull out of the short-takeoff variant completely.
This week, a U.K. official said the government would not decide until 2015 how many F-35s it will buy.

Turkey has already halved its initial order of four planes and Australia is rethinking when to buy the next 12 of its initial order of 14, given the U.S. delays.

Italy, the only other buyer of the short-takeoff version of the F-35, has hinted at possible "significant" reductions in its overall buy of 131 planes, with Italian media reports citing a cut of 30 planes.

Norway's parliament approved the purchase of four F-35 training jets last summer and is slated to decide this year on plans to buy up to 52 more planes.

Dutch Defense Minister Hans Hillen visited Lockheed's mile-long F-35 factory in Fort Worth, Texas last month, telling Radio Netherlands after the visit that a stream of negative reports about the program was causing him political headaches at home.

"The price, the rumours about technical shortcomings. Are they true, and if they are not: why is it that they keep doing the rounds?" he said.

The Netherlands plan to buy 85 F-35s in total, but has put off a final decision until a new cabinet takes office, which may not happen until 2015.

[MH]

My approach: go for stealth air superiority fighters like the F-22. Keep the ground runners conventional. I cannot see how the F-35 will ever be able to replace the immense capalities of the A-10C, for example. NEVER. Not even when loading the external hardpoints. You cannot load them to the max if you do not want to fly a flying brick. Even the A-10 does not get loaded full, for the same reason.

I can not see why anyone would even think of using f-35 same way as a-10 currently.
I should think that one would rather use f35 and f22 to achieve situation that allows use of more conventional planes.
But again... question is what will be conventional lets say in 20 years and what air defences will exist and who will be able to afford them.

4th generation fighters like f-16 f-18 or the expensive f-15 turned out to be very good multirole platforms.Good in a/a or a/g roles therefore trying to crate something similar bases on 5th generation technology is logical move.

When it comes to the costs i wonder...in American tradition there was this things about all different designs for the navy and air force with all different bunch of airplanes to be maintained or coming in and out of service.
F35 is trying to unify it all in terms of development maintenance and functionality.
It turned out to be more expensive than planed but in long run it may not be that bad.
May also lead way for the future development with all the lessons learned.

Not sure it is good idea to follow the old Russian doctrine of building a lot of cheap fighters and relaying on air defences.
Historically based on some proxy conflicts it did not turn out to well.



.....

[Takeda Shingen]

My approach: go for stealth air superiority fighters like the F-22. Keep the ground runners conventional. I cannot see how the F-35 will ever be able to replace the immense capalities of the A-10C, for example. NEVER. Not even when loading the external hardpoints. You cannot load them to the max if you do not want to fly a flying brick. Even the A-10 does not get loaded full, for the same reason.

You mean the same F-22 that makes it's pilots sick?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/10/f-22-raptor-pilots-make-problems-public/

[MH]

You mean the same F-22 that makes it's pilots sick?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/10/f-22-raptor-pilots-make-problems-public/
Picky...
There was similar problem with new F-16s:O:

[Oberon]

Even the F-22 costs half the GDP of most European countries to produce, what happens when one crashes? Has the USAF replaced the B-2 that crashed a few years ago yet?

[Stealhead]

No they have not replaced that B-2 that crashed in Guam and they likely never will 2 billion dollars down the drain thanks to a failure in the fly by wire system there was nothing the pilots could have done to save the plane and they did try.

The B-2 is a good aircraft to mention at one point they where going to procure a much larger number of them around 132 it got slashed to 21 subtract 1 from that now there are only 20.I doubt they will slash the F-35 on that scale but I have a feeling that the number will go down to some extent before all is said and done.The thing that the F-35 has going for it is that every branch(short of the Army) wants it the B-2 only the Air Force wanted making it more likely to get slashed than something everyone wants I think this also helped the V-22 the USAF and the Marines(and therefore Navy the Marines are a department of the Navy) wanted it.

[Skybird]

It'S been reported that after the F-22 has been grounded for several months, now that it flies again without the error in the oxygene system indentified, the defence minister has ordered that it shall operate only in close vicinity of airports to make emergency landings possible any time.

:haha:

The most expensive fighterjet in the world. The ruler in the sky. The king above the clouds. 412 million per piece if calculating developement per unit and also including later amendements to fix initial issues.

:har:

The problems are serious. Serious enough that some pilots have refused orders to fly with the plane - even at the risk of facing disciplinary charges or getting thrown out.

German news sources quotes a TV docu on CBS from last weekend, "60 Minutes".

[Herr-Berbunch]

The thing that the F-35 has going for it is that every branch(short of the Army) wants it the B-2 only the Air Force wanted making it more likely to get slashed than something everyone wants . . .

That sounds contrary to usual government procurement, giving all the people what they want!

I wouldn't be surprised now if only 100 were bought, and given only to the Army!

That is the way government procurement is supposed to work, isn't it? :hmmm: