F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

[Jammer]

Just so we're clear...i don't buy the damn things...I just register my opinions....like anyone else.

 

[Jammer]

the best that can be hoped for is that the same folks in the MHP project keep their fingers off this.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

the best that can be hoped for is that the same folks in the MHP project keep their fingers off this.

Nice.  How exactly do you find the time to be aeronautic engineer and a comedian in addition to your day job?

 

[Jammer]

Oh it's a stretch...some days i'm better at one than the other...(mostly comady though).

 

[WingsofFury]

WoF...thanks for the classy dig...well done.

Mea Culpa on some of the tech errors...ie internal cannon
However I'm sure you would agree that hanging anything on the wings or belly will compromise steath capabiltiy.

The reason defence spending is increasing is to afford the damn things if they are bought....basic economics.

i will debate the extenal tanks on the F-22....they are carried on regular patrolling duties in Alaska

Eurofighter and Rafale are markedly less expensive then the F-35

I would submit that dual engines are better than one...The F-104, apart from being utilized and a ground attack role for which it was never designed had a huge attrition rate for engine failures. the F-16 is not immune to this factor as well. All you have to do is compare F-15 to F-16 attrition rates.

All in all the F-18E offers a better value and more can be purchased for the same budget.

Stealth...it's been nothing but a problem for the F-22...unless LM has learned from it issues with F-22. This has the potential to be a white elephant.

Thanks, I’m trying harder as time goes on…lol

Yes, obviously hanging anything on the wings or the belly will compromise stealth – but as I outlined before, it really doesn’t matter.  If the planes are doing NORAD patrol and northern intercepts, they can put tanks under the wing and it won’t reduce the planes effectiveness in that role while it intercepts Bears and Blackjacks.  As well, should they be tasked for a role similar to that in Libya, they will have no tanks on and rely on aerial refuelling to keep them on station. 

I don’t have to debate the use of external tanks on a Raptor.  They are present because the planes are either being ferried to a location and need the extra gas OR are being configured for use after air dominance in a battle area has been secured, and extra loiter time and firepower is required for Combat Air Patrol (CAP).  This same situation is the one which I’ve outlined in the paragraph above concerning the F-35 on NORAD patrol.

With all due respect, defence spending is increasing not because we might need more money for the F-35, but because almost every bit of kit that is currently in use – especially with the RCAF – is either at or nearing the end of its service life.  What do you propose we do, not spend the money and not have the capability?

As for the Eurofighter, I would suggest you do a bit more research.  RAF Tranche 1 aircraft are going to be retired – essentially thrown away – by 2019.  That leaves Tranche 2 and 3 aircraft.  On 17 June 2009, Germany ordered 31 aircraft of Tranche 3A for €2,800m, leading to a system cost of €90m per aircraft.  The UK plans to retire the entire Eurofighter fleet by 2030.  So if you want to pay more for aircraft that will have a much shorter service life, and aren’t as capable as the F-35 in the strike role by the way, then your entire argument is moot.

You’re right, the Rafale is cheaper.  It also exclusively uses French designed armament which isn’t as technologically advanced or as numerous as what will be carried by the F-35.  Canada also has zero dollars invested in its development, and the likelihood that France will move parts of production here are slim.  Not to mention the fact that it doesn’t have stealth capabilities.

Instead of comparing Eagles to Vipers, why not compare the Viper to the Raptor, and then make a decision based on the fact that the engine in use with the F-35 provides the same performance standards as the Raptor and is designed essentially the same way.  There have been no recorded issues with Raptor engines – so why should we go all doomsday over an engine that performs the same way?

You still haven’t shown me how the Super Hornet offers better value for the money, especially when they’re going to start retiring them in 2030.  Also, as SAM technology progresses, how safe do you think that our pilots will be in a non LO platform?

You state that stealth has been nothing but a problem for the Raptor.  That’s why the newly created and better stealth coatings of the F-35 are going to be used on the F-22. 

With the new platform comes new advancements – ones which put the F-35 miles ahead of its competition.

 

[PuckChaser]

Eurofighter and Rafale are markedly less expensive then the F-35

And there are countries picking the F-35 instead of the Eurofighter, and even think with the cost increases that the F-35 is cheaper. Sources would probably help your argument here.

 

[Jammer]

Like I said before lads, it's only my opinion. based on the trade mags, tech data, financial reporting..etc.
Agreed that with out a doubt If/when the F-35 is placed in service with whatever nation flys it it will be a great plane asset. Albeit not in great numbers.

No, I'm not a military pilot, aeronautical engr. Nor do I play one on TV.

i really don't take a whole lot of stock in what the RAF might or will do. As you can imagine the UK MoD is undergoing a little upheaval right now, enough that they could be using assault boats to patrol the Channel soon.

 

[WingsofFury]

From today's Globe and Mail, compliments of Murray Brewster of the Canadian Press

Half of stealth-jet fleet won't arrive till after CF-18s reach end of service life

MURRAY BREWSTER
OTTAWA— The Canadian Press
Published Tuesday, Nov. 15, 2011 6:38PM EST
Last updated Thursday, Nov. 17, 2011 9:59AM EST

The air force will have less than half its fleet of new F-35 fighter jets in place when it comes time to retire the aging CF-18s, and will only receive one stealth jet in the first year of the program, government estimates reveal.

The delivery of all 65 jets is being spread out between 2016 and 2023, with most of the radar-evading aircraft arriving after 2019, according to figures provided by the office of Associate Defence Minister Julian Fantino.

Here are some of the more interesting points, I'm not going to bother with the fact that the headline should have included the word "some" before CF-18's.

According to access-to-information records, Canada is expected to buy 13 F-35s between 2016 and 2019. A further 52 will follow between 2020 and 2023.

“Canada's delivery of F-35 aircraft will be phased in incrementally as our aging CF-18s/fleet needs to be replaced,” Chris McCluskey said in an email response to questions from The Canadian Press.

Defence experts, such as retired air force lieutenant-colonel Dean Black, said he believes Canada's decision on a slow purchase plan is more related to budget uncertainty further down the road – something the Parliamentary budget officer has warned about.

With the decision to accept fewer aircraft over a longer period of time and no room to postpone further, Black says the government has tough decisions to make.

Although the modernized CF-18s won't fall out of the sky in 2020, the airframes and avionics of some will be worn with age.

The government should consider either another upgrade – or the purchase of a handful of the latest version of the fighter, known as the Super Hornet, said Mr. Black, the executive director of the Air Force Association of Canada.

That is exactly what Australia has done in the face of ongoing F-35 delays. The United States has also embarked on a life-extending programs for hundreds of its F-16 Tomcats* Falcons.  *my edit

“If it came down to extending the life of our CF-18s, there are things the government and our military experts could look at,” Mr. Black said. “I'm not sure whether Australia considers its Super Hornet purchase as a gap filler, but it wouldn't be beyond Canada to do that kind of thing.”

The entire article can be read here.

 

[ArmyRick]

Enough! Screw all of this technology this and capability that blah blah blah...

The F35 is the coolest looking aircraft we can get and thats what ultimately matters!!!

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Excuse me while I  :deadhorse:

Purchase 30 SuperHornets now and agree to take 35 f-35s initially and possibly more on a slow rate production. We have a replacement for the CF-18 and are not screwed when one fleet gets grounded over some unforeseen fault.

 

[Loachman]

Like I said before lads, it's only my opinion. based on the trade mags, tech data, financial reporting..etc.

If those charged with fighter selection based their opinions solely on the same sources, their opinions might match yours. Their information is a lot more detailed, extensive, accurate, and current as well as classified, hence their opinions are somewhat different.

I'll put more stock in their opinions.

Albeit not in great numbers.

Please define "great numbers". Over two thousand isn't great enough for you?

As far as the engine issue is concerned, there's been a little progress in engine design and reliability since the F104 was state-of-the-art. The US Navy is willing to operate these over oceans. They do not seem to be any more concerned than our people. It's only an issue for media and anti-Harper types who will never fly in these or come close to grasping the facts.

The vast bulk of my flying time is on single-engined aircraft. A fair amount of that was over less-than-hospitable isolated territory and occasionally significant stretches of water. It didn't bother me. I never had so much as a hiccup from an engine over about 3800 hours.

 

[Remius]

The concern shouldn't be about the plane's performance.  Experts have figured out that this plane is the best choice for the job.  Can other planes do the same job?  Probably but they figure this is the best option.

The problem for me is the deal itself and the cost.  Seems like it is going from questionable to cluster**** in record time.  As allied partners scale back, delay and reduce, the price seems to get steeper and steeper.

Would we be getting the best plane?  I have no doubt.  Would we be getting the best deal?  I'm not so sure.

 

[Haletown]

Would we be getting the best plane?  I have no doubt.  Would we be getting the best deal?  I'm not so sure.

The government has done a very poor job of explaining/selling  this acquisition. The first and biggest mistake was deciding to quote the price  to include total life cycle costs per aircraft rather than the usual method of using the airframe price.  That opened the door to a Niagara of fear mongering media coverage and a never gets dull  pointy stick for the  anti Cf crowd out there in Peace & Love NGO land.

Very poorly handled by the tall forehead types in the PMO & Brick Brain sur Rideau.

The result is the F-35, which should be a flag ship acquisition has ended up being the gift that keeps on giving to the PPG/MSM, the Opposition and the whole gamut of military haters across the land.

 

[McG]

I would submit that dual engines are better than one ...

Two engines that are 99.9% reliable are exactly the same as one engine that is 99.9999% reliable.  Back in the bad old days of the Canuck and Starfighter, engine reliability was much higher than either of those numbers, and today reliability is much higher than it was back then.  As reliability of one system gets better, there are diminishing returns for putting two systems in parallel.  Does it make sense to pay double the cost for two engines when the second engine only brings marginal improvement in reliability?  At the same time, that second engine increases the size of the aircraft and increases the logistic support requirements of the aircraft.

No, I'm not a ... aeronautical engr.

It shows.

 

[Haletown]

Friday morning F-35 porn

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MemOSGx18sw&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBt-aQ1vObM&feature=related

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The concern shouldn't be about the plane's performance.  Experts have figured out that this plane is the best choice for the job.  Can other planes do the same job?  Probably but they figure this is the best option.

The problem for me is the deal itself and the cost.  Seems like it is going from questionable to cluster**** in record time.  As allied partners scale back, delay and reduce, the price seems to get steeper and steeper.

Would we be getting the best plane?  I have no doubt.  Would we be getting the best deal?  I'm not so sure.

I think you have hit the nail on the head with this.

I suspect the F-35 will perform well over it’s life and the VTOL version will give options to smaller navies far beyond what the Harrier could. In fact I think this is where the type will really shine. (HMCS Bonaventure II anyone?)  ;D
However I think the 65 airframe is already to few and any reduction in this number is going to be a real problem for us in the future. I know people here are going to say “experts figured out this number as amount we needed” Personally I think the real reason for this number is that it is the “bare bone minimum we can get by with and as much as the government is going to tolerate from a cost perspective”.

 

[WingsofFury]

More information and photos found at the link below.

F-35 Flies With External Stores

The F-35 has completed its first external weapons flight test, an F-35A CTOL test aircraft flying with AIM-9X air-to-air missiles on the outboard wing stations and unoccupied pylons inboard.

Complete article, once again with photos, can be found here.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Latest (as of 16 Feb 12) from the Congressional Research Service attached - from the summary:

The largest procurement program in the Department of Defense (DOD), the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), also called the Lightning II, is a new aircraft being procured in different versions for the United States Air Force, Marine Corps, and Navy. Current DOD plans call for acquiring a total of 2,456 JSFs. Hundreds of additional F-35s are expected to be purchased by several U.S. allies, eight of which are cost-sharing partners in the program.

The F-35 promises significant advances in military capability. Like many high-technology programs before it, reaching that capability has put the program above its original budget and behind the planned schedule.

The Administration’s proposed FY2013 defense budget requested about $5.8 billion in procurement funding for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program. This would fund the procurement of 19 F-35As for the Air Force, 6 F-35Bs for the Marine Corps, and 4 F-35Cs for the Navy.

FY2012 defense authorization act: The report on the House-passed version of the FY2011 defense authorization bill included language limiting expenditure of funds for performance improvements to the F-35 propulsion system unless development and production of such propulsion system is done competitively. Other language required the Secretary of Defense to preserve and store government-owned property acquired under the F136 propulsion system development contract and allows the contractor to conduct research, development, test, and evaluation of the F136 engine at the contractor’s expense. The Senate Armed Services Committee report required that the fifth F-35 low-rate initial production contract lot be a fixed price contract, and that the contractor assume full responsibility for costs under the contract above the target cost specified in the contract. The Senate report also required DOD to implement the requirements of the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 in the F-35 program. These provisions, less the language regarding allowing the F136 contractor to continue development, and with a required report on the status of F-35B development, were included in the final conference report.

FY2012 DOD appropriations bill: The House Appropriations Committee funded 19 F-35As, 6 F-35Bs, and 7 F-35Cs, as requested, while cutting $55 million from F-35C and $75 million from F-35 research and development. The Senate Appropriations Committee funded 17 F-35As, 6 F-35Bs, and 6 F-35Cs. With cuts to R&D and advance procurement, the SAC mark funded $695 million less than the Administration request.

The conference report on FY2012 defense appropriations funded F-35 procurement at $5.9 billion for 31 aircraft (19 F-35As, 6 F-35Bs, and 7 F-35Cs), plus $455 million in advance procurement.

 

[Haletown]

Some Wednesday F-35 porn.

http://www.gizmag.com/f35a-armament-test-flight/21557/pictures#5

 

[WingsofFury]

Lockheed readies aggressive F-35 test schedule

By MARCUS WEISGERBER
Posted : Thursday Feb 23, 2012 18:18:04 EST
 
ORLANDO, Fla. — Lockheed Martin is preparing to ramp up flight testing of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter over the next year, including the first release of live weapons.

The multinational, tri-service program has put together a robust flight test schedule for 2012, according to Alan Norman, Lockheed’s F-35 chief test pilot. The program is expected to conduct more than 10,000 test points per year in 2013, 2014 and 2015, Norman said at a Feb. 23 briefing at an Air Force Association-sponsored conference here.

http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2012/02/dn022312_AFA_F-35/