UK to buy F-35Bs

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by HunterICX

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

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]

Originally Posted by jimbuna

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-...509-1ycjt.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...

[Herr-Berbunch]

Originally Posted by TarJak

This guy is certainly in the scathing category: http://www.smh.com.au/world/why-the-...509-1ycjt.html

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

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.

[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 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 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/

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

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by 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 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 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/

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...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...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...

[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.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by TarJak

This guy is certainly in the scathing category: http://www.smh.com.au/world/why-the-...509-1ycjt.html

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

[HunterICX]

Originally Posted by jimbuna

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.

[STEED]

Originally Posted by jimbuna

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.

[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,



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.



Note that the British change is not included.