F-35 Lightning II (2) testing and production thread

reply to post by Harlequin


Scrapped? Jesus' second coming has a better chance of happening. Don't give any weight to a Sprey article. The guy still thinks an F-16A is better than the Raptor. We all know the only thing he proves is that guys named Pierre should be banned from society.

i`ll go get my bible then - quite a number of programmes have been scrapped at a later stage than the F35 is currently at - comanche to name but 1

the thing is though - the US is now looking at only buiyng 2/3rds of the original estimate - and maybe so many as only 1/2 due to the financial situation , both denmark and norway will buy Gripen NG - 100% offset and a cheaper purchase and cost over life package will persuade them gievn the current economical climate

with a production run of only 1/2 the original cost per unit estimate - how many countries will buy them when the cost is (in reality) double

The thing with the F-35 that will save it though is the fact that it's desperately needed. A HUGE percentage of F-16s have structural cracks in them, and the F-15s are falling out of the sky. We've reached the point where they HAVE to buy the F-35 or keep what we have flying another 20 years until the next project hits production.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
The thing with the F-35 that will save it though is the fact that it's desperately needed. A HUGE percentage of F-16s have structural cracks in them, and the F-15s are falling out of the sky. We've reached the point where they HAVE to buy the F-35 or keep what we have flying another 20 years until the next project hits production.

New F-15s and F-16s can be had for a lot lot less than the F-35 and a lot quicker as well, so its not the end of the world if the F-35 were to be cancelled.

reply to post by RichardPrice


You really think quicker? If this was 3 years ago sure but the logistics of opening up more lines etc? Also the cheaper is debatable with the cost of opening up line again. I think the point 2 ponder for myself is that if they "claimed" that the F-35 would have issues is performance in combat why do you think the 16 would be any better?

Originally posted by Canada_EH
reply to post by RichardPrice

 

You really think quicker? If this was 3 years ago sure but the logistics of opening up more lines etc? Also the cheaper is debatable with the cost of opening up line again. I think the point 2 ponder for myself is that if they "claimed" that the F-35 would have issues is performance in combat why do you think the 16 would be any better?

Boeing already has a live production line for the F-15, its still an export commodity - the line resides in St. Louis and is currently running at 1/4 production speed.

Lockheed still produces a significant number of F-16s at its Fort Worth plant for export.

No lines would be 'opened up again', they already exist as live production lines.

The USAF was procuring F-16s for between $14.6m and $18.8m and F-15s between $27.9m and $29.9m in 1998, with that procurement figure being lower today. In contrast, the procurement cost for an F-35 is around $85m in the FY 2009 prediction for future procurement.

At nearly 3 F-15s per F-35? And at nearly 5 F-16s per F-35? Which really makes sense, financially wise considering both the F-15 and F-16 don't really have any real competition in the skies today, or even on the horizon...?

They won't do it because the F-15 can get its head handed to it by an F-18, let alone by other countries top of the line fighters. Yes the F-15 is still a contender, but nowhere NEAR the way it was for so many years. So even if they build more F-15s to replace the ones currently in the fleet, they still have the problem of it being 30 year old technology and fast becoming a 2nd line fighter. The F-16 even more so.

[edit on 10/1/2008 by Zaphod58]

I just don't see where the 15 comes into it unless your talking about the E model. In that case I don't see how the plane can do as good as a job as a plane with "modern" (I use that term sparingly) avionics like the 35.

Sure we are talking about a upgrade and what I do agree with is that a single engine attack aircraft is a mistake but it still should be able to hand a F-15 its head or the 16 or 18 for that matter and the test pilots claim it can..... Really I think its to early to say the 35 can't cut it? Am I wrong?

[edit on 1-10-2008 by Canada_EH]

Video posted of B version of the doors open and close test.
www.jsf.mil...

AA-1 has gone to edwards

www.edwards.af.mil...



[edit on 6/10/08 by Harlequin]

In a recent article concerning the F-35 program the following comments we made by a senior JSF program manager.

Major General Charles Davis, USAF, the Program Executive Officer of the JSF program, explained that critics of the F-35 simply do not understand the fundamental requirements and technologies behind the aircraft, nor have these critics been briefed about the true capabilities of the new warplane. The F-35 is "not designed for an air-show in Paris," Davis said referring to the thrust vectoring Russian Su-35 aircraft which regularly performs spectacular routines at air-shows around the world. Davis said that while the F-35 was not designed as a pure air superiority machine, the program has a requirement to defeat any threat aircraft today- or any projected threat aircraft in the future.

Perhaps this will put an end to the speculation that the F-35 cannot perform multiple roles effectively. It can be both an air superiority fighter and a bomb truck, it will largely depend on the mission requirements.

In a pure stealth air to air configuration, the F-35 currently carries four AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles internally in its weapons bays, Davis said. While this configuration gives the jet a significant punch, Davis said studies have been undertaken that would increase the stealth air to air war load to six to possibly as many as eight air to air missiles which would be carried internally. The jet can also carry air to air missiles externally should the need arise and stealth is no longer a concern, Davis said.

Also, in certain situations the F-35 matches the F-22 in maneuverability. It has superb acceleration, thrust, and sub sonic handling. Its radar system is more advanced than we have been led to believe, it is even apparently capable of anonymous electronic attack. Datalink with the F-22 and AWACS will mean that the information gathered by its wide array of advanced ISR sensors will be distributed throughout the fleet.

F-35 Analyses

[edit on 9-11-2008 by WestPoint23]

Westpoint, you've convinced me.

I should have seen it from the start - it's obvious - anyone who dares to criticize the bird obviously know nothing! How could I have not seen this. It should have been obvious that the Program Managers would never tell any porkies, ever!

The technology in this bird to sooooo wonderful that I can't understand why the USAF would ever want to buy F-22..... it is just sooooo passe when it comes to F-35!

How about just a little healthy skepticism, Westy?

This is a dual role aircraft - how can you expect it to be better than something designed specifically for a single role with the same level of technology (F-22), or did they get the F-22 so terribly wrong that the dual role F-35 is much better?

The Winged Wombat

The world is getting just a little tired of 'It's American - it must be wonderful - yeah just like the free market economy!'

Originally posted by The Winged Wombat
I should have seen it from the start - it's obvious - anyone who dares to criticize the bird obviously know nothing!

I couldn't disagree more. However, anyone who irrationally criticizes the F-35 clearly needs to know more.

Originally posted by The Winged Wombat
It should have been obvious that the Program Managers would never tell any porkies, ever!

And what source do you draw your "porkies" from? People who consider a picture the closesent they've been to the bird? Almost anyone within the industry that's connected with the program will usually be glad to tell you how effective the F-35 will be. Take that for what you want, but not everyone has a perverted mindset, most people are just proud of what they do. And they have consistently backed it up with world class systems, I think I'll side with prudence and listen.

Originally posted by The Winged Wombat
The technology in this bird to sooooo wonderful that I can't understand why the USAF would ever want to buy F-22..... it is just sooooo passe when it comes to F-35!

The USAF needs the F-22 for a wide array of factors. It is currently in production and can be delivered very quickly. The F-15 fleet is deteriorating fast, only some of the Cs will be saved for upgrade. The Raptor also offers some capabilities, especially with upgrades, that the F-35 does not and cannot offer. It is the premier and dominant fighter aircraft in the world. The F-35 will simply provide some traits of the F-22 in kinematic performance, and expand on others involving avionics and sensors. Besides all the raw performance and technological reasons there are more fundamental ones.

We believe in a Hi-Lo mix, the F-16 has always been in some aspects more capable than the F-15. In the hands of a good driver it could of course wax the Eagle. However the F-15 was always better in the pure air to air role because it had more features incorporated into for it. It also had a crew dedicated specifically for air combat.

Originally posted by The Winged Wombat
How about just a little healthy skepticism, Westy?

I would be glad to see that.

Originally posted by The Winged Wombat
This is a dual role aircraft - how can you expect it to be better than something designed specifically for a single role with the same level of technology (F-22), or did they get the F-22 so terribly wrong that the dual role F-35 is much better?

Did you read the article, or my posts?

Beesley for his part, when asked which aircraft he preferred, said that "for clearing the skies" he'd have to pick the Raptor, but for everything else the F-35 would be his pick...

Originally posted by The Winged Wombat
The world is getting just a little tired of 'It's American - it must be wonderful - yeah just like the free market economy!'

[edit on 10-11-2008 by WestPoint23]

Just to take this part of your 'argument' to task.......

Originally posted by WestPoint23
And what source do you draw your "porkies" from? People who consider a picture the closesent they've been to the bird? Almost anyone within the industry that's connected with the program will usually be glad to tell you how effective the F-35 will be. Take that for what you want, but not everyone has a perverted mindset, most people are just proud of what they do. And they have consistently backed it up with world class systems, I think I'll side with prudence and listen.

Just what do you think the jobs of the Program Managers are? Their job is to bring the bird to service, on time and on budget. They have a real vested interest in getting it done, and I laud their enthusiasm in getting that job done - seriously! It would make no sense at all to put people into a program if they are not enthusiastic about what they are trying to do. I would be pretty flabbergasted if people in the industry close to the project came out and said it was crap.

However, if there is any criticism of the project, then it is reasonable, don't you think, that these Program Managers are going to be pretty enthusiastic about defending their turf - because any criticism of 'the bird' is easily translated as criticism of the Program Managers. (And if that criticism happens to be well founded, then perhaps it is truly critical of those managers - it is their responsibility to iron out the problems that arise, as they inevitably will with the program).

Therefore, what I'm saying is that what Program Managers say about their program has to be taken with a grain of salt, because like it or not, they are actually too close to the project to be unbiased. How would your future career (either with the service or the company) look if 'your' project went belly-up? See what I mean. I'm not saying that they are lying deliberately, but let's face it, there is heaps on the line for these individuals.

Equally, history can demonstrate that many projects have been failures, (for instance the XFV-12A was so bad they didn't even attempt to fly it!) for any number of reasons, and that there have been claims made from time to time that have proved entirely false. To think that such situations could not, and will not occur again is simply naive (and if that were so there would never be any need for oversight, now would there).

The other thing about 'American' technology that some of us outside the US wonder at is just how that technology originates from the US considering the world ranking of the US education system (somewhere around 34th to 37th, I think). The answer, of course is that the US, as the financial powerhouse of the world, collects up the smartest people from around the world and, until now at least, has been able and willing to fund the research necessary to bring these technologies to maturity. This does not make the US any smarter than anyone else - simply richer. With the debt that the US government will incur (along with all of our governments as well) in attempting to overcome the current financial situation - indeed if it can be overcome! - is going to severely dent the US's ability to continue to fund technological advance.

So, I'm fine with people being proud of their achievements, but be realistic with that pride. The technology that you are so proud of, is, in fact, technology that belongs to whoever can fund it, and not necessarily something that should be a matter for national chest beating! It could easily be that the technological movers and shakers of the next 50 years could be the oil-rich Muslim states of the Middle East - after all - they will have the money.

Some of the documents posted on here, when reduced to what they actually say (regardless of the subject) just read ....... (insert aircraft or project name) is the best thing since sliced bread, will beat anything that could possibly be thought of in the next 500 years and anyone who disagrees can't possibly have an IQ greater than one. Unfortunately, perhaps, I don't just accept such claims as fact!

Westy, I know you consider yourself a patriot, but sometimes it just comes across as blind hero worship. People are just people, they have weaknesses, faults and vested interests, and even the President of the US of A still puts his pants on one leg at a time, just like the rest of us!

The Winged Wombat

Oh, and by the way - the lecture on Hi-Low mixes wasn't necessary - the reference to the F-22 being passe was sarcasm - the point was..... if the F-35 is as good as these Program Managers say, then why would you bother with anything else - which is the sort of thing Program Managers are supposed to say! (and that HAS been what you've been telling all of us about OUR possible purchase of the F-35, isn't it?)


[edit on 10/11/08 by The Winged Wombat]

What the US does is take ideas, and expand and build upon them. Take the F-117. They took the mathematical formulas that the Soviets released, and added the RAM materials to them. Then instead of just sitting on that RAM, they improved it constantly until they got to the point they are now. So while the ORIGINAL idea may have been someone else's, the improvements, and the implementation were all the US.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Oh, I agree wholeheartedly, but perhaps (in a changing financial world situation) one should insert 'the country with the money' for 'the USA'.

You don't have to be too smart to figure out that's how you advance technology - scoop up the ideas and the people who can understand those ideas and provide the money required to make the theories work. (let's face it using people who don't have the education or intelligence to solve the problem is never going to work, regardless of how many billions you throw at them). The thing is that even the idea of doing that isn't American - it just happens that they currently have the money to do it.

The Winged Wombat

Well, at least someone at the company is worried about where the money might be coming from......

This posted on Australian news sources a couple of hours ago.....


The company building a controversial fighter plane being considered for purchase by the Australian Air Force says it is worried about the impact of the global financial crisis on the project's future.

Tom Burbage from Lockheed Martin is in Australia to brief the Government and the defence industry on the progress of the joint strike fighter project.

The Government will decide next year whether to go ahead with its plan to buy 100 of the planes, which would cost close to $16 billion.

Mr Burbage says the potential impact of the global economic downturn is concerning.

"We're all sort of struggling with that right now, I do worry about that, and I do worry about pressure on defence budgets and I worry about investment capital available to make industry investments and those kind of things," he said

"The situation for those issues today is certainly different to what it was a month ago."

But Mr Burbage says the project will continue even if the Australian government decides against buying the planes.

"If you want me to be ready to produce your airplanes I've got a plan to build them," he said.

"If you tell me later on you don't want them, I'll have somebody else, I'll find some way else to accommodate them, in order to be ready to build airplanes and make the investments required and have the capacity online,

"I've got to have a plan to operate from."


Just what these last few quotes actually mean, I have not the slightest idea - does he mean that if we order them and then back out he's not worried because he'll just sell them to somebody else? Hey fella, the IMF is saying that we are the country that probably won't go into recession - like who else do you think might be able to afford some of these birds, if we can't?

Indeed, it is all different to what it was a month ago!

The Winged Wombat

www.lockheedmartin.com...

Getting 3 AA missile in there must be a real squeeze if they fund the twin launcher. Can't see 4 ever fitting, maybe they thinking they could have a new smaller missile.

Must be very bright on rader while it dropping bombs or launching a missile as well, at least it would just be for a few seconds.

The F-35 has allways been a bomb truck first and a sort of fighter second; and for a workable bomb truck you need to tear off the wing tabs and slap stores under the wing - and there goes your stealth

the problem is that the internal bay - especially on the F-35B is really small - to the point where 1 bomb can be carried (and a self defence missiles) each side , and that weapon is limited to 1,000lb or less

thats less than the now retired Nighthawk

www.aerospaceweb.org...

also , the royal navy are really concerned over the real world abaility of the aircaft to take off from its new carriers - yes it hasn`t been tested yet for stovl ops BUT the lockheed published numbers are showing LESS than the rpesent harriers for UK carrier ops; not exactly whats wanted.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Perhaps this will put an end to the speculation that the F-35 cannot perform multiple roles effectively.

Why would an article ever put an end to speculation? You'll never put an end to speculation about anything here with an article. If articles put rumours down, I would never have believed anything I do about Russian equipment . Alternatively, you've seen the amount of articles I've posted about Russian stuff. You never seem to believe any of it.

Originally posted by The Winged Wombat
It should have been obvious that the Program Managers would never tell any porkies, ever!

Originally posted by WestPoint23
And what source do you draw your "porkies" from?

Isn't this the exact opposite argument that takes place when someone posts an article able Su-35BM or PAK-FA?

let's face it using people who don't have the education or intelligence to solve the problem is never going to work, regardless of how many billions you throw at them

So that's why politics doesn't work.

I'd post something more intelligent, but I haven't the time right now. Maybe later.