F-35 grounded - again

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

wuzak said:
I am curious as to what you think Australia needs.
Click to expand...


Right now? F-16s
And the F-16 could do all that at half the cost but technology is slowly catching up to it, but it's still an ideal aircraft for a country that wants all the above with a limited defense budget.


wuzak said:
Therin lies the problem. It is not designed to world class at anything. It is designed to do a bit of this, a bit of that....
Click to expand...
That's always been the issue with multi-role aircraft.
wuzak said:
I would think that the accuracy of the bombs would largely depend on the bloke on the ground pointing a laser at the target.
Click to expand...
And if you're not able to put a "bloke on the ground"?

wuzak said:
Well I guess the process on selecting it was teh same there as it was here - a lot of political arse kissing.
Click to expand...

You're going to get that regardless
 
Last edited:
syscom3 said:
Yup. Its not good at anything it does. And you're paying a lot of money for a 2nd rate AC.

This is another McNamara nightmare. Only this time, our economy cant handle it.
Click to expand...

And your proof of that? Where is it REALLY failing?!?!?!?

Understand something here folks - this F-35 is a firm fixed price contract. The press and some imbeciles at the pentagon and in congress rant about the costs of the F-35. These so-called cost over runs HAVE to be approved by the government. Has anyone ever thought that some of the spiraling costs are actually INDUCED by the government?!?!?!?

Here's a pretty decent piece that shows some of the deficiencies found and some of the "add ons." I don't think you could find anything in there that shows this aircraft is "not good at anything it does." What's not being mentioned is this aircraft is probably also the most extensively tested aircraft in the history of aviation.

http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/f-35-jsf-dote-fy12-annual-report.pdf
 
Last edited:
FLYBOYJ said:
Right now? F-16s
Click to expand...

We had the opportunity to get F-16s 30 years ago, but chose F/A-18s instead. So not going to happen now.


FLYBOYJ said:
And the F-16 could do all that at half the cost but technology is slowly catching up to it, but it's still an ideal aircraft for a country that wants all the above with a limited defense budget.
Click to expand...

Indonesia has some F-16s (10 in service), and some more on order (24 - according to wiki). They also have Northrop F-5s (15), 5 Su 27s and 5 Su 30s. And they apparently have 50 KFXs on order.

KAI KF-X - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
II have a question gentlemen...

How many other (perhaps badly) needed upgrades etc., are suffering from the costs going up on the F-35? I mean, the more it goes up, your DoD(?) must cut somewhere, right?

Edit: Also, the longer this take, seeing that this, whatever it is have that radar thingy coating etc., the longer this takes, it gives the development of new weapons a chance to catch up, weapons that's less affected by this, right? So, I'm sure that this will happen, where do you stand then? A very expensive paperweight? (Tongue in cheek here, don't bute me head off! )
 
Last edited:
In my experience, procurement of new equipment is funded entirely separately from maintenance of existing equipment. Now roll it up high enough and, yes, it all comes out of the same pot but I don't know if anyone on this forum has the fidelity and access to say what got cut to keep F-35 alive - it gets very complex because, for example, the cut could have been the closure of a base rather than an equipment-based programme.

As for others catching up, well defence budgets are stretched pretty much everywhere right now and the only countries with the capacity to challenge the F-35 from the technical perspective are China, Russia (perhaps) and India (possibly)...unless the US is going to war against NATO. High-tech programmes always have difficulties - that's across the board. If it was easy, anyone could do it. But it's not easy, it's very, VERY hard and with that difficulty comes technical complexity and problems. Therefore the concept of "catch-up" is rather flawed methinks.
 
Somehow, the notion of other countries catching up could be very real, I should think.

These long development times (as I know from software development times way back in time) could easily create "the best aircraft for the 2000's, in 2015".

If we look at the weapons to be carried, there are really two issues: control software in the F-35 must be able to interface with the weapons software. That is both programming and certification.

Here I am guessing as I really don't know: If thew weapons to be carried offer more functionality (and therefore require more bandwidth) than what the F-35 can interface to (because nobody thought about it 15 years ago), then what?

Can we find ourselves in a situation where the weapons are more sophisticated than what the platform can utilise? Is the development cycle of missiles significantly shorter than the aircraft platform? and if that is so, it is the software development of the platform which is critical.

In essence, if you have something which can fly reasonable well but can integrate to everything, is this the winner above an aircraft which is great in any aviatic way, but lack access to modern weapons? Maybe too simple a question, but do we find some reality in it?

Now please, don't hurl sticks at me as I really don't know the parameters on this.

Ivan
 
Maybe this has already been mentioned, I don't know....but, if I tossed money into this project (as a outside country), wanting to buy 100 F-35 but in the ends only get 85 and it's not even the best that those money can buy, what stops me from bailing out and go somewhere else?
If I was the Big Cheese of my country's defense money, I sure as h*ll (I know, sorry!) want the best that those money can buy and preferably while I'm still in office!
Will this be, or is it already one of them famous Jack of all trades, King of none? Something that shows that most expensive is far from always the best? Another thing, with those internal weapon stores, what good are that low radar emissions (or whatyacallit), stealth if they jam open?

Btw, how much has each airframe gone up in price?
 
Lucky,

As already pointed out, you don't need to be the best in everything...you just need to be good enough to beat the foreseen opposition. Few air forces can afford to have the best of everything because that requires role-specific airframes which are unaffordable.

The nations in the F-35 programme are all free to jump ship at any time. The key question is where will they go? Back in time 30 years to the airframes the F-35 is designed to replace? That's hardly going for "the best" is it? Buy airframes from Russia and then load in your own avionics? That's hugely risky and there's no collaborative programme even in place for such a thing - it'll take 10 years just to get the thing flying, if it ever does successfully.

What "best" airframes/weapon systems do you suggest we purchase instead of F-35?
 
I have no idea, have about as much knowledge about modern aircraft as I have about how womens mind work!

I think that it's too many cooks or chefs in this soup, which usually, not always, means a c*ckup in the end...or as CID Grim put it: 'cause you know what'll happen Raymond, don't you - it'll be your c*ck up - my *rse! Just remember Raymond, it's my *rse and if you stuff it, I'm going to be very red in the face.
 
If I was the guy writing the checks from one of the countries who had tooled up to produce components for this, and then the major country decided to cancel the program, you had better believe I'd be asking for that (taxpayer) money back.

Remember, its not just an American manufactured platform...
 

India already do that with Sukhoi, with the Su-30MKI. I believe one of the prime contractors in that was Thales.

Australia has also done upgrades to their F/A-18As. So there is some capability in Oz to do such things.

We could buy Su-35s for a similar price to the F-18Fs we are getting, if not cheaper. Definitely cheaper than we will get the F-35s. And it will be a more capable aircraft than either.

Then the problem is integrating the weapons, I guess. Just wonder if the Indians have already done it.
 
More capable how? In terms of onboard sensors? Ability to penetrate enemy air defences? Oh, and it still won't meet the requirements for the F-35B. Integrating weapons is not trivial, nor is re-engining an existing airframe - just look at the problems the UK had fitting Rolls Royce engines into the F-4 and that's 40 years ago. Modern aircraft with highly integrated avionics are far more complex where software controls aren't necessarily discrete. I know of one airframe where a customer replaced the engine with a home-grown alternative and it entirely screwed up the fire control system.

Personally, I'd put the F-35 against any of the Flanker variants any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
 
More capable in air to air role - which should be Australia's primary concern.

More capable as in can carry more ordinance longer distances.

I don't see the F-35's stealth being that great an advantage.
 
Not sure I agree with your first point - I think the F-35 as a total package still beats the Flanker series in the air-to-air role. Agree on the range issue and ordnance factors, though. However, the Su-35 is still a 30-year-old airframe and installing new avionics is, as pointed out previously, a risky proposition. The other factor is maintainability. There have been plenty of jabs at the F-35 for potential (not yet demonstrated) problems of sustained operations and yet the reliability of Russian combat aircraft isn't the greatest in the world. No point having a long-legged weaponed-up Su-35 if it can't get off the ground 'cos its serviceability rate is so low.
 

From what I've seen of Russian aircraft, its not the build quality that causes the low serviceability, but poor maintenance practices.
 
You may be right. So we should all throw in our lot with that nice trustworthy man, Mr Putin. I'm sure there won't be any strings attached to the deal!
Click to expand...

I wasn't commenting on any 'strings attached' merely noting that it is noto nly build quality that affects serviceability.

BTW, American aircraft come with plenty of strings attached. We had to get US permission prior to disposing of the A4's - Outdated technology!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

RAF to Obtain F-35A Airframes
Replies
9
Views
2K
buffnut453
F-15C Eagle 76-0543
Replies
4
Views
940
Gnomey
F-16C Block 30 "The Bats"
Replies
4
Views
902
Martin06
N
Is the Super hornet much better than F-16?
Replies
12
Views
628
BiffF15
Yikes!! Reckless Russian Su-35
Replies
5
Views
1K
buffnut453
Menu
Log in
Register