@AD,

That’s not a new approach but something taken by most modern combat aircraft of recent times, see F-22 and Eurofighter blocks, Rafale F-standards etc. The point here is that the F-35 entered production at a time when it was largely untested and that involves a great risk, which ts supportes are obviously playing down. “Simulation technologies are much more advanced etc.” is their excuse and then we see over weighted, not sturdy enough airframes and who knows what kind of problems will arise and more importantly at what point.

Approximately 10% of the flight test program complete, nearly 500 test flights and many more test points hit. Envelope cleared to M1.3, 39,000 feet and maneuvers up to 7G isn’t ‘sturdy enough’ for you?

Ok…

But the F-35 is about to enter low-rate porduction, while it is still far away from reaching IOC. If they would still be testing only, with series production not starting, it would be adffierent thing, yet the USMC still believes the first F-35B unit to form by 2012.

F-35 has been in LRIP for quite some time now. The current LRIP contract is LRIP 4…

I highly question that claim of EOTS 3rd gen FLIR. It looks great in the vids along w/ the vids showing Sniper AT performance. For A2G, Litening ATP-SE next gen pod (incl new laser imaging functions) would arguably be superior. It builds on the G4 which already sets unprecedented standards (1k pixel CCD TV), which itself builds on the amazing Litening AT (which RAAF is just now integrating into Hornets).

Hey Geo, RAAF reached IOC with Litening AT in 2009. The integration work has finished…

😎

How?

The Pak/FA still has a lot of testing to go through. And so does the F-35. Also, the big killing stick you are depending on is the AMRAAM, which in combat vs. targets with poor capability has a PK of around 50 percent. If the Pak/FA works, it doesn’t have to be super-stealthy. It has to be stealthy enough to lower the PK of the AMRAAM down to that of a Vietnam era Sparrow or worse.

You’ve been drinking too much APA cool-aid Eric. Chris Mills and Carlo Kopp came up with those figures and unfortunately for you and them, they don’t match with reality.

They consider AMRAAM to be a BVR weapon so any successful launches at WVR ranges, they discount. Two missiles that pass within lethal range counts as one kill from two missiles and so on. It’s called ‘pre-determined end point’ arguing but they have to fudge their figures to reach their pre-determined end point. It’s why they are unreliable as sources…

Of course they seem to believe that only Australian flown F-111’s can save America from Cruise Missile attack launched from cargo ships, so if this is your ‘reality’ you are welcome to it. The story about the Emperor’s new clothes tends to spring to mind though…

Then you get into HOBS/heater range. Do you think that the F-35 will have more raw performance than the PAK/FA? If so; how?

Huh. I thought WVR combat was utterly lethal now and the presence of HOBS and high off-boresite heaters renders it a virtual ‘mutually assured destruction’ event? I could have sworn I read something like that from you on many occasions…

I could have even sworn Kopp himself said something about this very subject:

Missiles such as the AIM-9X, ASRAAM, Python 4 and 5, Iris T, R-73 and R-74 give no quarter, and with exceptional G capability, often aided by Thrust Vector Control (TVC), these missiles are almost impossible to defeat by manoeuvre.

So let me get this right, now you think it’s not the case and sheer airframe performance is the only relevant factor? Hmm…

With 40 cents of every dollar in the U.S. federal budget borrowed money, how many F-35s do you feel the Navy and the USAF will be able to field by 2020, 2025, 2030?

The US has run deficeit budgets for nearly 100 years. They’ve survived okay so far… Cuts will be made, but you will be bitterly disappointed, I think. Plenty of F-35’s will be bought and we’ll all just have to learn to hide in cupboards due to the great fear that the loss of our ‘strategic edge’ will cause…

:rolleyes:

The F-35 is currently a troubled program. How can it be put back on the rails to gain affordability?

It’s no worse than virtually any other modern fighter project and yes it will cost more and less will be bought, but it will still provide the basis of the majority of Western Air Forces. The legacy fighers whose lack of capability against modern threats was the basis for devising the F-35 program are no answer.

Do you understand the concept of the procurement death spiral?

I wonder if you truly do sometimes. And the concept of necessity… You harp on about the F-35b being cancelled. Well mate, perhaps you’d be prepared to share your insight as to what might happen to the 34 or so already funded F-35B LRIP aircraft?

I doubt the USMC will ever see their planned numbers of F-35B’s, but a substantial force WILL be bought and as the USMC only operates around 7x operational Harrier squadrons, I can see at least this many squadrons worth of F-35B’s being bought and perhaps they might have to make do with another cheaper, but newer carrier capable aircraft, ala their F/A-18A/D’s, but cancelling F-35b in full is a bit hard to swallow…

Do you know that profitability and affordability claims in the F-35 program were dependent on all the JSF partner nations kicking in for their 700 some aircraft? Where are they? This revenue has to appear sooner and not in 2035 for industry to continue with the program.

Let’s wait til 2012 when most partner nations had actually planned to make their procurement choices shall we?

This is bigger than just listening to an LM press release and going to bed happy or depending on the glue-sniffing brigade to bring more hope to the conversation.

It is and it deserves have to have serious thought put into it, rather than this sort of nonsense…

As incredible as might appear is Kopp!

Yep, Kopp at his pretentious “best”…

If anyone came here and called a 700mm radar antenna “small” the howls of outrage would be deafening…

But then he wrote that in 2002 and he had an agenda (to sell plans for the F-111S “supercruiser” to the Aus Gov), so…

What I love is his opinion of the Super Hornet in 2001 (after he got a free ride) compared to now (that Australia purchased it).

2001 quote –

In a low speed post-merge manoeuvring fight, with a high off-boresight 4th generation missile and Helmet Mounted Display, the Super Hornet will be a very difficult opponent for any current Russian fighter, even the Su-27/30. The analogue and early generation digital flight controls with hard-wired or hard-coded AoA limiters used in the Russian aircraft are a generation behind the Super Hornet and a much more experienced pilot will be required for the Russian types to match the ease with which the Super Hornet handles high alpha flight regimes.

and now:

In conclusion, the Flanker in all current variants kinematically outclasses the Super Hornet in all high performance flight regimes. The only near term advantage the latest Super Hornets have over legacy Flanker variants is in the APG-79 AESA and radar signature reduction features, an advantage which will not last long given highly active ongoing Russian development effort in these areas. The supercruising Al-41F engine will further widen the performance gap in favour of the Flanker. What this means is that post 2010 the Super Hornet is uncompetitive against advanced Flankers in BVR combat, as it is now uncompetitive in close combat.

What changed? The Super Hornet interfered with his business plans…

😀

Regrettably this is one of the very few truthful statements from this group. They have tried their hardest to become a “profit entity” afterall…

Air Power Australia is a non-profit entity

F-22, F-117 and B-2 are very close to all aspect stealth imho. F-35 is not.

Hmm. Lockheed Martin which designed and built three out of those four aircraft say it is. Those who have never built a single Low Observable fighter aircraft say it isn’t. Whom to believe? Those who have RCS testing data to support their assertions or those who’ve a look at a few photographs and made their own minds up?

Just to support that L-M IS saying this, I quickly found a promo brief to support my claim.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/aeronautics/products/f35/A07-20536AF-35Broc.pdf

Specifically under the ‘revolutionary manufacturing’ section and that was found after a 2 minute Google search. I’m sure there is plenty more out there.

What support equipment do the F-18s need that wouldn’t fit in an A330?

Probably not that much, but the C-17’s and previously the C-130J’s that accompanied the Hornets would take part in the tactical phases of the exercises they were deploying to.

The KC-30B’s could do that too no doubt, but it depends on the training program for the various force elements within RAAF. Even when the B707’s were running around, RAAF still preferred to send C-130J-30’s in support…

Payload and Range are hardly full data. A while back people were posting slides SAAB presented to the Norwegians or Dutch or whoever when they competed against the F 35 in that country. These slides were probably meant for their Airforce Top Brass and even in those the range/payload was given.

There is a significant difference between open sourced marketing material and tender quality data.

Companies do NOT give the full particulars on the capability of their product in their marketing literature and Countries do NOT provide full particulars on their capabilities for national security reasons. If they did, there would be no need for user trials…

Performance and range data IS included in this.

Thinking otherwise is naive.