Export F35 to be `monkey model`

hearing some aweful reportst that Delta SSD is not just for crypto - but the entire export programme for the F35 will result in `monkey` model of the aircraft , with capabilities only on par with the 4th gen++ aircraft , degraded electronics and attack systems , and stealth thats `not as good`;


is this the information that the euro countries have got hold to cause the rethink on teh aircraft?

[edit on 9/7/09 by Harlequin]

Surely this wont apply to 'potential' RAF/RNAS aircraft. I would think that the open tech sharing would give the entire capability of the aircraft.

However if this is true, I would not be suprised to see certain buyers move toward the EF 2K or the Gripen and Rafale.

Jensy

Not what I had been told at a JSF briefing; by government officials AND Lockheed. I suspect this, if true, will be news to even the government, in which case they should cancel and nuke the hell out of Lockheed.

[edit on 9/7/2009 by C0bzz]

Hands up who really couldn't see this one coming...


The Americans, whether they choose to admit it or not, have many instances of previous behaviour such as this.

reply to post by C0bzz


Delta SSD is the issue - and whilst `above board` it only applies to crypto - the talk is that it covers everything , the US gets teh full monty whilst the rest don`t;


edit:

these being the same lockheed people who refuse to admit the aircraft is still overweight , that the F135 is not actually the best engine , and teh internal bays are actually too small and reguire redesigned ordnanace to go into them.

and yes the pictures of the bays do show quite well why they are too small.

[edit on 9/7/09 by Harlequin]

Frig this issue has been around ever since it was a part the international talks 3 years ago. It keeps coming up and really isn't news anymore since as you all have hinted no one is surprised. Its my opinion and hope that BAE pushes the Typhoon to Canada Gov and the Canadian Forces and we end up with the best possible 4.5 gen aircraft. If boeing wants to sweeten the point with a great deal on the Rhino so bet it but lets just cut ties with the JSF as a possible buy in my opinion.

these being the same lockheed people who refuse to admit the aircraft is still overweight , that the F135 is not actually the best engine , and teh internal bays are actually too small and reguire redesigned ordnanace to go into them.

and yes the pictures of the bays do show quite well why they are too small.

Just going on what LM's Burbage, USG Project Lead and RAAF NACC Lead said. Got any links for any of those? Never heard of any, not even from Eric Palmer, or Carlo Kopp? Not pictures, please.

[edit on 9/7/2009 by C0bzz]

[edit on 10/7/09 by Harlequin]

reply to post by Harlequin


After some searching, those pictures are of AA-1, the first F-35, it is not weight optimised, and them photos must of been taken back in 2006, or maybe earlier as it is not painted.

Here is the aircraft in Feb. 24, 2009.

www.jsf.mil...

www.jsf.mil...

The flight was the first time they opened the weapon bay doors. Why is the F-136 better, and why is the F-35 still overweight?

[edit on 10/7/2009 by C0bzz]

reply to post by C0bzz


the bay`s are still the same design and crammed full as before - they can`t change mcuh if anything without a very costly redesign and `fix` for aircraft allready on the production line.


F136 - produces more thrustthan the F135 , is allready reported to be more fuel effiecient and is lighter.

the F35 is weighing in at 49,000lbs in A2A config , with a 42,000 lb thrust engine , is walking backjwards in thrust to weight ratio.

the wing area is 460 square feet , smaller than that of the typhoon, with a wing load of 108 lb.foot - thats enourmous and add together to make an aircraft , with those numbers , less able to be `flung around` than the F-105 , which has amoungst the worst combat record ever.

those bays - 1 bomb and 1 self defence missile per side

it is not a good package - and remove the best feature set and the countries funding it must ask ` why?`

the bay`s are still the same design and crammed full as before - they can`t change mcuh if anything without a very costly redesign and `fix` for aircraft allready on the production line.

I agree - however the weapons do fit.

There is also structural support for other options than the current inboard AMRAAM store and outboard JDAM/JSOW store.

F136 - produces more thrustthan the F135 , is allready reported to be more fuel effiecient and is lighter.

Well it's years behind the F135. The F136 has only 800 SDD & non-SDD hours while the F135 is at 11800 hours in SDD alone and it's flying on aircraft too. Additionally I have seen no figures for either engine, only the F135 has a "do not exceed weight" of 6504 lb. Both engines are supposed to be indistinguishable from eachother from a pilots perspective, and completely interchangable.

I don't see how the F136 is better than the F135 when there are no figures (only "reports") for either, and furthermore the F136 is YEARS behind the F135. And certainly, I don't see why LM Aero would tell everyone the F136 is better, that's even more absurd - it would be like Boeing telling everyone the F110-129 is better than the F100 with the F-15.

the F35 is weighing in at 49,000lbs in A2A config , with a 42,000 lb thrust engine , is walking backjwards in thrust to weight ratio.

The F-35 would have to be made of unobtainium to get a >1 T/W ratio when loaded up with 18,840lb of fuel. That's a 0.40 fuel fraction right there; if you load up an Eagle or Viper with that fraction you end up with an Eagle with 3 600 gallon tanks and an additional 3000lb of conformal tank fuel, and a Viper with 3 370 tanks to even get to a 0.35 fraction (and these tanks are subsonic only IIRC).

If you do the math in such a case the F-35 is close to the F-15SE (only the F-35 is flying CLEAN), and better than a block 52 F-16 (only the F-35 is clean). If you don't need the range then lighten the F-35 up and the result is similar.


*F-35 at 67% fuel.
*F-15SE has regained 3000lb of fuel in the conformal tanks / bays, is 500lb lighter than F-15E, and has weightless conformal bays (100% fuel).
*Gripen NG are estimates and does NOT have a growth F414 engine.
*F-22 fuel capacity is a bit off.

And no, the F-35 is not overweight, they have an extra 250lb of weight reduction that can be included, if nessesary.

the wing area is 460 square feet , smaller than that of the typhoon, with a wing load of 108 lb.foot - thats enourmous and add together to make an aircraft , with those numbers , less able to be `flung around` than the F-105 , which has amoungst the worst combat record ever.

F-105 this, F-105 that. Guess the F-16 (with one of the BEST combat records) which the F-35 beats sucks too, eh? And the F-15SE doesn't fare much better, or does the Gripen, for that matter. Besides, the F-35 is designed to fight far more like an F-16 than the Thud.

IIRC, the price of the F-16 doubled during development, and furthermore huge amounts were procured before development was finished.

those bays - 1 bomb and 1 self defence missile per side

Yep, it's pretty small. However it is likely we can vary internal and external munitions depending on the threat. The LO will be destroyed however it will be smaller than any generation 4 aircraft by a large margin which is still tactically significant.

remove the best feature set and the countries funding it must ask ` why?`

Agreed.



If it were that bad then Israel wouldn't be calling it "the ideal fighter plane" that "they'd like to have very much".

[edit on 10/7/2009 by C0bzz]

Of course the export F35 will be a 'monkey mode'..or dumbed down.
Who actually thought it wouldn't? I can only think of one group of people who actually talk about the F35 as if it will change the world, and they are not Americans.

About the only country that will get an F35 as close to the US version, will be the UK.

Think about it this way.
The US is the O N L Y country in the world to have developed and produced stealth military aircraft. The F117, the B2, the F22 and now the F35.
Why on earth would the US export a technology that nobody has yet been able to match ?

reply to post by BLV12


And why should fellow NATO nations ... each committed by treaty to defend the United States ... have to pay full whack for dumbed down aircraft ? Especially when considering the governments of the UK, Australia, Canada, Turkey, Denmark, Norway & Holland have chipped in nearly $5 billion towards its development ?

The F-35 isn't a US creation. It's as international an aircraft as the Tornado was.

Who actually thought it wouldn't?

LM's Burbage, USG Project Lead and RAAF NACC Lead said so.

[edit on 19/7/2009 by C0bzz]

this is the same lockheed that have screwed it up with bugged and potentially dangerous software - and you still believe them?

the same company that slapped 1/2 ton extra RAM coating on the hide a chea ass falw in the way the company designed it


and you still believe them?

Not this again...

Originally posted by C0bzz
I agree - however the weapons do fit.

Of course the weapons fit. This is such a laughable point. For starters, as far as common sense goes, you do not design the most expensive weapons system ever, and the most sophisticated fighter aircraft yet to be produced, without the stated internal weapons fitting.

Only someone without an argument would irresponsibly speculate and post irrelevant images as evidence.

Weight.

Several years ago, he said, weight was a critical issue, as it was cutting deeply into the payload that the F-35B could take off with vertically. The program was allowed a year’s delay as weight-cutting ideas of all kinds were explored and implemented. As a result of the redesigns that ensued, “we’ve been tracking now for several years to a three percent weight growth projection,” which is half of what Naval Air Systems Command anticipated. The weight savings applied to the F-35B provided some bonus payload for the Air Force and Navy versions, although the F-35B weapons bay had to be modified and as a result can only accommodate weapons up to the size of a 1,000-pound Joint Direct Attack Munition. The Air Force and Navy variants can still carry the 2,000-pound JDAM.

“We learned a lot of lessons from legacy programs” and from the F-22, Crowley said, about “structural problems that grew weight,” and these have been avoided. Also, the computer-aided design of the F-35 has allowed for far more precision in building parts—twice the computing capability available during the F-22’s design.

As a result, weight is well understood and thoroughly under control, Crowley said. In fact, he has the luxury of about 250 pounds of weight savings that are ready to go if necessary. For now, though, the additional weight reduction isn’t needed, and implementing the cuts would add cost, so they’re being held in reserve.

The weight purge of a few years ago was so “intensive,” Crowley said, that “there’s not thousands of pounds” of weight left to be saved on the F-35. However, even with a three percent annual weight growth, the key performance parameters, or KPPs, won’t be affected.

“All of our predictions for performance are based on an end-of-life, worst-case” scenario relative to the F135 engine’s power capacity, “so the true performance of the jet, throughout its life, will be much better.

Link (2009)

Weapons.

Adding to the throng during a recent visit to Australia was Brigadier General Charles Davis USAF, and Program Executive Officer (PEO) for the JSF Program Office, who told a Canberra media roundtable 10 October that the JSF had been designed to complete all USAF F-22A ‘Raptor’ missions, as well as more complex types of strike missions not required of the F-22A. In air-to-air missions, Davis admitted two F-35As might be needed for each F-22A to successfully complete some missions, noting F-22As carried up to eight air-to-air missiles internally (six AIM-120C AMRAAM/two AIM-9X ‘Sidewinder’), while the F-35A can carry only four (either AIM-120C AMRAAM and/or AIM-132 ASRAAM). While F-22As therefore had an advantage in air-to-air combat against larger formations of enemy aircraft, called 2-V-4 and 4-V-8 (two against four and four against eight), Davis revealed the F-35A’s internal carriage weapons bays have volume to carry more than four missiles, with studies underway to develop a new rack to carry additional weapons.

Link PDF (2006) Page 23

The F-35 carries a diverse load of weaponry. Almost every air to ground weapon in the U.S. arsenal will eventually be integrated into the jet. These weapons include a host of laser guided weapons, satellite guided munitions, and air to ground missiles. While the perceived lack of weapons payload is the one of the main criticisms levelled at the JSF, Davis points out that the aircraft can carry a huge load of weapons externally once the enemy air defense systems have been destroyed. During the opening days of a war, Davis said weapons have to be carried internally in order to maintain the maximum level of stealth. In a full stealth configuration, the primary weapons load is limited to two 2000 lbs JDAM satellite guided munitions and two air to air AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles. In the future, however, the JDAM will be exchanged for as many as eight, possibly more, 250 lbs Small Diameter Bombs (SDB), allowing a single jet to strike as many as eight or more separate targets, Davis said.

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.

Link (2008)

this is the same lockheed that have screwed it up with bugged and potentially dangerous software - and you still believe them?

I would trust RAAF NACC lead & US Governemnt lead, over Lockheed which itself is more reputable than some unproven lawsuits. In any case I don't really expect you, or anyone to agree with me - lots of other sources say it will be downgraded...

Of course the weapons fit. This is such a laughable point.

Quote Harlequin not me.

[edit on 19/7/2009 by C0bzz]

Originally posted by Ulala
reply to post by BLV12

 

And why should fellow NATO nations ... each committed by treaty to defend the United States ... have to pay full whack for dumbed down aircraft ? Especially when considering the governments of the UK, Australia, Canada, Turkey, Denmark, Norway & Holland have chipped in nearly $5 billion towards its development ?

The F-35 isn't a US creation. It's as international an aircraft as the Tornado was.

Oh, it's an International thing is it? The only thing that is International about it is the funding and work share.
The aircraft was designed by the Americans. Not Australia, not Norway..

Why should they get a dumbed down aircraft? Because that's life.
Or do you think the US is going to go selling state of the art aircraft with the same capabilities as those which will be in service in the US? Don't be so naive.

The Germans don't even sell submarines that are as capable as their own, what makes you think the United States will sell state of the art stealth fighters that are as capable as those which will be in service with the US?

The Germans don't even sell submarines that are as capable as their own, what makes you think the United States will sell state of the art stealth fighters that are as capable as those which will be in service with the US?

Personally, the fact that the US Government, Lockheed Martin, and the RAAF all in one room told me so.

Why should they get a dumbed down aircraft? Because that's life.
Or do you think the US is going to go selling state of the art aircraft with the same capabilities as those which will be in service in the US? Don't be so naive.

Probably due to the fact that the partners are paying a disproportionately large amount of the development costs, compared to the amount of aircraft they might procure. They are paying for that priveledge. Or are you really that naive to think that the UK, for example, is paying for >10% of the development costs while procuring

Originally posted by C0bzz
Personally, the fact that the US Government, Lockheed Martin, and the RAAF all in one room told me so.

[edit on 20/7/2009 by C0bzz]

Really? And we are supposed to believe you are telling the truth..or that you were in the audience at all...

Well, what if someone said they were told otherwise?
What then? Will you back up what you claim with some evidence, or just keep posting RAAF, USG, LM said so when you were in the room?

I'm not saying the export F35 wont be a capable aircraft. I'm not saying it wont be stealthy. In fact I believe the export F35's will be extremely capable.
What I'm saying is the US will not export an F35 in it's initial operational infancy, that will on par capability wise with F35's in service with the US.

Feel free to prove me wrong with something more then "LM, USG, RAAF told me so"

Yes, they are selling aircraft now that are more capable then their own. F16 Blk52+, Blk60 etc.

What's your point? These are all aircraft that will be retired in the not too distant future.

Did they sell these more capable aircraft when the F16 and F15 entered production? The answer is no..

So thanks for helping me back up my point.

[edit on 21-7-2009 by BLV12]