F-35 grounded - again

[Matt308]

Well I suppose you could just wait on your laurels until the penultimate strike fighter comes along and then you could buy it and never have to upgrade it ever again. I work in the procurement/acquisition business, wherein we struggle with performance standards on a daily basis. If you succomb to the faction that we should wait for solution to world hunger, you will never deliver anything. And meanwhile the world starves.

 

[mikewint]

Not to mention the ever changing needs/requirements/sophistication factors. Think cold war, the big push toward heavy bombers B-47, B-52. The dawning realization that height could not protect from G-A missles. Followed by the "Let's outrun them" smaller faster B-58 hustler at Mach 2 as well as the original B-1 Lancer also at Mach 2 Continuing missle tech eliminates height and speed which moves us into the stealth era and the B-2

 

[Matt308]

Yep... and in the next 10-20yrs likely yet another operational concept of superiority. And I think this is Syscom's point. But in my opinion just a score of years premature.

{enter Syscom}

 

[wuzak]

Well I suppose you could just wait on your laurels until the penultimate strike fighter comes along and then you could buy it and never have to upgrade it ever again. I work in the procurement/acquisition business, wherein we struggle with performance standards on a daily basis. If you succomb to the faction that we should wait for solution to world hunger, you will never deliver anything. And meanwhile the world starves.

No, I think there should be a more honest appraisal of the F-35 made. And then it can be more fairly assessed against alternatives.

To tell the truth, I would like Australia to actually bother to look at alternatives. Which isn't something that has been done.

btw, the Australian Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO) cam out during the week and said they lack the ability to nogotiate large contracts.

Defence Calls Private Sector To Help

 

[Matt308]

Again... the alternatives? Name the airframe platform and weapon system(s) that you are a proponent of?

Lets do a comparison. I'm curious. I personally think you will have to conclude the FlyBoyJ is right, that the F-16 is your bird.

 

[buffnut453]

Actually, the F-16 doesn't have the legs. F/A-18 is probably best...but Wuzak does like his Su-35s!

The biggest problem for all participants in the F-35 contract is simply that extricating oneself will probably cost more than seeing the programme through to the end.

 

[wuzak]

Actually, the F-16 doesn't have the legs. F/A-18 is probably best...but Wuzak does like his Su-35s!

The biggest problem for all participants in the F-35 contract is simply that extricating oneself will probably cost more than seeing the programme through to the end.

The F-16 is definitely a cost effective choice. If it were 5 or 10 years ago, maybe, but since the ADF chose the F/A-18 over the F-16 25+ years ago it is unlikely to change its mind now.

Other alternaties:

Eurofighter Typhoon - probably too single purpoose for Australia
Dassault Rafale - More of a multirole aircraft than the Typhoon. But I don't know too much about its abilities.
Saab Grippen - I suppose similar to the F-16 in size and abilities, though a newer airframe.
Boeing F-18E/F - this is the route we have taken for temporary fill-ins between the F-111 and the F-35, and looks like the only option we will look at if the F-35s are further delayed/orders cancelled.
Boeing F-15SE - a legacy airframe updated with more stealth charcteristics. Not sure how that will stack up for the future.
Sukhois Su-35 - or an Australia specific version of such.
Sukhoi Pak-FA - not likely to be ready before the F-35 in any case

As far as contracts are concerned Australia is either committed to purchasing 2 or 13 F-35, not sure which. We are due to get our first two delivered in 2014, but they will remain in the US. That will, surely, make it difficut for the ADF to make a comprehensive assessment?

 

[buffnut453]

I don't think the Typhoon is too single-purpose, although we've yet to see its full potential in the ground attack or anti-shipping roles (despite its limited use in the former role over Libya). Rafale or Gripen are both good options but the latter may not be big enough for Australia's needs.

 

[ivanotter]

I also do believe that a part of any MoD's job is to evaluate progress and evaluate alternatives and have a drawer full of "what if's...".

That said, If any country (Aus or any other) should pull out now, I think it is over the cliff. Too many other's might follow that path. I can't quite see Denmark and Norway having the money even today, but there I might be totally wrong.

It is probably also correct that the amount of alternatives is rather limited now. Too much is at stake on the success of the F-35.

Eurofighter? Rafale? Those are really the only two I see.

Super Hornet? I think its sell-by date is up
Gripen: Too limited. and trying to put it into a naval fighter? I think we all agree that it is not really simple.
Russian equipment: too many strings attached to that.

"Navalise" Eurofighter is not simple either.

Which leaves Rafale.

Now, If RN goes for Rafale (oh yes?) it will be a different world. The ramifications will be rather huge.

Australia? oh dear!

Ivan

 

[buffnut453]

I think the RN would go for the F-35C and cancel the F-35B before they'd go for Rafale (bearing in mind the RN would have to modify the QEII class carriers for either the F-35C or the Rafale). Personally, I'd like to see the F-35B canned but it likely will persevere.

 

[wuzak]

I think the RN would go for the F-35C and cancel the F-35B before they'd go for Rafale (bearing in mind the RN would have to modify the QEII class carriers for either the F-35C or the Rafale). Personally, I'd like to see the F-35B canned but it likely will persevere.

Haven't they already changed their mind at wanted F-35Cs, and then changed it back to F-35Bs?

How much would be involved in making the change? They would, obviously, need arrestor gear. But can they still use the ski ramp? Or will they need an angled deck with catapults?

 

[buffnut453]

They'd need angled deck and catapults. It was intended that the QEII design was to allow for both ramp or catapult launch but it seems the cost, once we embarked on the F-35B path, was more expensive than expected (hence the flip-flop F-35B to F-35C and back again). That said, if the RN wants combat aircraft afloat, the options are F-35B or modifying the QEII class. Personally, I think the latter approach, while undoubtedly expensive in the short term, is more cost effective and operationally beneficial in the long run.

 

[Lucky13]

The F-16 is definitely a cost effective choice. If it were 5 or 10 years ago, maybe, but since the ADF chose the F/A-18 over the F-16 25+ years ago it is unlikely to change its mind now.

Other alternaties:

Eurofighter Typhoon - probably too single purpoose for Australia
Dassault Rafale - More of a multirole aircraft than the Typhoon. But I don't know too much about its abilities.
Saab Grippen - I suppose similar to the F-16 in size and abilities, though a newer airframe.
Boeing F-18E/F - this is the route we have taken for temporary fill-ins between the F-111 and the F-35, and looks like the only option we will look at if the F-35s are further delayed/orders cancelled.
Boeing F-15SE - a legacy airframe updated with more stealth charcteristics. Not sure how that will stack up for the future.
Sukhois Su-35 - or an Australia specific version of such.
Sukhoi Pak-FA - not likely to be ready before the F-35 in any case

As far as contracts are concerned Australia is either committed to purchasing 2 or 13 F-35, not sure which. We are due to get our first two delivered in 2014, but they will remain in the US. That will, surely, make it difficut for the ADF to make a comprehensive assessment?

Would that be the C/D version, or the E/F, which is quite different?

 

[wuzak]

Would that be the C/D version, or the E/F, which is quite different?

Definitely E/Fs. We have some (24) of those now.

I think they are mainly Fs (2 seat version) with half of them wired so they can be converted to EF-18G Growler spec.

 

[ivanotter]

What could the cost be to re-design the RN carriers with catapult and so on. We are talking very heavy modifications I should think. Can it even be done? Might it upset the ship capabilities too much?

We are talking some few tons added to it and that in the very front? It is like syaing melt thme down and try again.

However, comparing this to the cost of F-35B version might be more economical, but then the cost of the entire project has surely run totally out of hand.

Typically, we all have a plan B in the drawer (I used to as an IT project manager). Was there really no plan B in this? did nobody ask the question "what if..."

It sounds very strange. FLB: Would you know about any (realistic) plan B in this project and in other similar projects?

Ivan

 

[wuzak]

They'd need angled deck and catapults. It was intended that the QEII design was to allow for both ramp or catapult launch but it seems the cost, once we embarked on the F-35B path, was more expensive than expected (hence the flip-flop F-35B to F-35C and back again). That said, if the RN wants combat aircraft afloat, the options are F-35B or modifying the QEII class. Personally, I think the latter approach, while undoubtedly expensive in the short term, is more cost effective and operationally beneficial in the long run.

Understood.

Just asking because the Russian navy's carrier has a launch ramp, arrestor wires and an angled deck. It doesn't seem to have catapults.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHi2-0_zYWo
Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/Ussr_cv.svg

 

[Lucky13]

Saab Grippen - I suppose similar to the F-16 in size and abilities, though a newer airframe....

I was referring to the Gripen, sorry pal...
They're the same as the F-18C/D and E/F, the Gripen E/F is larger than their older C/D versions, more powerful engine, more fuel, which gives her longer range, more hardpoints, supercruise etc., etc...

 

[wuzak]

I was referring to the Gripen, sorry pal...
They're the same as the F-18C/D and E/F, the Gripen E/F is larger than their older C/D versions, more powerful engine, more fuel, which gives her longer range, more hardpoints, supercruise etc., etc...

Sorry, misinterpreted your question.

So, how does the Gripen E/F compare with the F-18E/F?

 

[Lucky13]

No, no, no....the F-16..

 

[ivanotter]

Is this how they will find more money for the F-35?


BBC:

"US Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel has scrapped the final phase of its European missile defence shield, citing development problems and funding cuts".

Ivan