Lokehttp://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN3015665320100330?type=marketsNews
“We do not think it is wise to dissipate the limited pool of resources that we have available for F-35 by procuring new, lesser capable aircraft that will last as long,” Schwartz said after addressing an Air Force Association breakfast.
He acknowledged that the service needs to verify that service life extensions are possible to the older planes.
“We do not think it prudent to utilize precious procurement dollars for anything but fifth-generation aircraft,” he said
A pity Europe did not develop a 5th gen manned a/c — that would have been nice, and would also give F-35 some real competition in the “Western” part of the global market. I think that would have been good both for Europe but actually also for the US since competition is always healthy. Monopoly is not.
At least we will have the PAK FA that will hopefully keep the pressure up on LM and the F-35 :diablo:
LokeI can easily buy the vibration issue however I am more surprised about drag — Distiller are you sure that the AMRAAM will give less drag than the Sidewinder?
LokeBesides the ECM suite on Growlers can provide protection against SAMs, stealth is not the only game in town.
Why is the US Navy still committed to the F-35 then, in spite of recent delays and cost increases?
Boeing has proposed a 10% price reduction which would bring the fly-away of SH down to 50 million USD; The Growler will cost some more but with multi-year buy of Growlers I am sure the price of the Growler will also drop.
LokeWhat about sending BW and JJ back to SP?
I wote “Ya”
LokeAustralia should cancel JSF and opt for More FA18E/F and acquire Growlers. Say 50/50 ratio of E/F to G model. Say 40 E/F and 40 Growlers would be enough to see us to 2030 and beyond.
This talk about “PakFa” and “future chinese stealth” is gigantic BS perpetuated by LM crowd and lobby group. Which country in the region purchase Park Fa?? Malasiya and Indonesia have trouble keeping few squadrons of 4th gen fighters in the air. As for Chinese stealth.. that will be atleast 10 years behind Pak Fa.. and if LM fan boys claim Pak Fa is 10 years away from production min.. then hope of chinese 5th gen is beyond 2030.
Regardless is China is unable to retake island of its coast much less defended than Australia, what are their chances of coming half way down the globe? F35 project is a joke, and an example of pointless waste.
Perhaps you are right about the PAK FA and Chinese stealth planes — However as stated already the biggest threat in any case is not other fighters but SAMs.
I think it depends what Australia wants to prepare for. If it’s only air policing and bombing of Afghanistan, then fine, F-35 is not needed, SH is more than good enough.
However if there is a chance that you may face stronger opposition then it seems to me that stealth does give much higher survivability.
F-35 may not be the optimal solution in some respects (I for one would have like to see SC and a few other things) but still I think it’s the best choice, as of today.
If you would go the SH route for the next 30-40 years presumably you would need to combine with UCAVs — but how will you avoid jamming problems and bandwidth problems? And those UCAVs also need to be developed, they are still not there yet.
I agree though that the more costly the F-35 becomes the more attractive it may seem to switch to 4.5 gen + UCAV, however one must then keep in mind that the UCAV will also require quite a lot of investments.
(my definition of 4.5 gen: SH, Rafale, Typhoon, Gripen NG 🙂 )
LokeThe mass distribution aspect is obvious, the winglet-like effect also. But regarding why -120 instead of -9 I’ve heared stories about serious drag and vibration issues with Sidewinders on the wing tip stations of the F-16, which do not occur with AMRAAM.
I’ve heard similar stories about vibration issues with Sidewinders that are not seen with AMRAAM.
I did not hear about drag issues though. Interesting.
LokeSo…….unless you’re saying that an aircraft that is more agile(and quicker)than either of these aircraft doesn’t possess the traditional strengths of a combat aircraft, I have to raise the BS flag. I’ll grant you that the F-35’s top speed is lower than either the F-22 or PAK FA, but so is every other recent fighter’s.
I thought it was not about top speed but rather kinetic energy?
What about Typhoon, Su-30, Su-35 and Rafale? I thought they would all be more agile and also offer more kinetic energy than F-16/F-18. Since AFAIK the F-35 is supposed to be in the F-16/F-18 class when it comes to those traditional capabilities I would assume that the abovementioned a/c would all be stronger than the F-35 in this respect.
What kills a fighter today? I believe mainly missiles, and mainly SAMs.
I think it’s very seldom these days that modern fighters end up in a dog fight. However in a dog fight I may actually prefer the Typhoon to the F-35….
And before anybody comments on the fact that the F-35 has been compared to a “clean F-16”; first, a Typhoon I believe do have some advantages to F-16 in general, and second; if you end up in a dog fight you are most likely in a “clean config”. A “clean” F-35 vs a “clean” Typhoon in a dog fight; if we assume both pilots have the same skills I would bet on the Typhoon.
But to repeat what I said above; it’s not the dog fight that kills the modern fighter. It’s the missile. And I believe that F-35 will be more survivable in most scenarios due to it’s stealth than any other fighter out there today (with the notable exception of F-22).
Better radars and better algorithms will make it easier to detect a VLO a/c like F-35; however it will also make it easier to detect LO a/c like Typhoon, Rafale, and Gripen NG.
What could be a bigger problem for VLO a/c could be multistatic radars, since they may make it as easy to detect and track a VLO than a LO a/c…
The Swedes have a design ready I believe — it will be interesting to see if they actually start building such a network of radars when the PAK FA starts flying…?
LokeDepends what your up against I don’t think the JSF will be suitable in 20-30 years, difference is the JSF will only be starting in Australian service in 2018 that tech level is not going to last till 2048.
Older fighters are usually struggling with newer models within 15 years of service.
Name any fighter that is 30 older than the current models that could compete with them!, that’s the situation the JSF will face as will all current fighters, the JSF is just not that special.
Why do you think the JSF will not be suitable in 20-30 years? And if so, do you really think that the Typhoon would fare better?
When JSF is 15 years old, how old will the Typhoon be?
Of course both Typhoon and JSF needs to be upgraded. The problem with the Typhoon though is that no matter how much you upgrade it, it will not become a VLO a/c.
What new fighters do you see then? Currently I can only see the F-35, the PAK FA, and the Chinese stealth a/c. Further down the line there is the MCA. All stealthy a/c, and most likely they will be significantly more stealthy than the Typhoon. Again, why do you think the Typhoon would do well against such a/c?
I think the JSF will have just as much of a problem, but without the means to bug out when the situation dictates.
The JSF will be quickly over taken by UAV’s in its primary role, you simply don’t need a manned platform to go bombing, unfortunately its a bit of a slouch when it comes to AtoA, I’m not just talking about combat manoeuvring, getting into a position to attack a supercruising target will cause the JSF all sort of problems. so a jack of all trades and master of non is a bad engineering choice.
Why do you think so? Consider a submarine; it’s terribly slow and the agility is awful. Still it’s an extremely powerful and potent weapon, the main reason being stealth.
UCAVs may be sensitive to jamming.
I agree on some of your points; it would have been nice to have SC for instance. Still if I had to choose between an F-35 and Typhoon I would choose the F-35. Because I think stealth is more important than SC.
Perhaps I am wrong, but if that’s the case then I am certainly not alone…. I see many air forces express strong interest in the F-35, and much less interest for the Typhoon. Why is that?
LokeJWcook,
do you really think that the Typhoon would have been the best choice for Australia?
Today and in the immediate future, probably yes, but if we look 20-30 years into the future, would a fighter with external drop tanks, external munitions and pods still be acceptable?
In 20 years expect both PAK FA and the Chinese stealth plane to fly — and perhaps more important, SAMs will be even more of a threat than it is today.
The learnings the USAF have had from recent conflicts seemed to be; VLO is highly preferred in particular in any future conflicts.
We will see how the F-35 pans out, however whatever happens I think they got one thing right; The VLO aspect of the program.
The only alternative to VLO fighters I can think of would be to rely more on UCAVs , cruise missiles and other stand-off weapons. Although such a solution seems to have some limitations.
Right or wrong, F-35 seems to be the only viable Western fighter program for the long-term future. Whereas the Typhoon no doubt can “wipe the floor” with a/c like SU-30 and SU-35, what about the PAK FA?
Facing the future PAK FA in a Typhoon or Rafale seems not very attractive to me…
Lokefirst jackjack and now bluewings — what is happening here, a hostile takover by Strategypage?
LokeNice links on Ares blog:
A question on the first video: look at 2:52. He talks about something which is “1 m”; could that be the RCS he is talking about? :confused:
And does he really mean 1m2?
I thought the eurocanards were already in that range if not lower? (in clean config presumably).
LokeI believe Saab suggested a stealthy canard design to Korea — and Saab employees also hold a patent on how to achieve a strongly reduced RCS with a canard design.
Of course I don’t know if such a design would be as “stealthy” as e.g. the F-35, and I suspect none of the others participating in this debate knows… and those who knows are not likely to let us know 🙂
You find some more info and also some drawings in this thread:
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?p=1268015
Edit: Short description of the patent:
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/fordon_motor/flygplan/article381347.ece
google translate
James Bjerkemo does not comment on the information on Korea, but take for granted that Saab carries out marketing with his version of stealth technology, also known as lågsignaturteknik in English or stealth.
With all-new combat aircraft signature is a big issue, “he says.
He is an engineer at Saab, and a specialist in so-called signature technology. Airplane’s signature is the track that it leaves behind for those looking for it, perhaps with radar or infra-red cameras, or simply with the eyes or ears.
-Normally you can not make a plan, low signature when there is a nosvinge located near the main wing fixed higher up, as it does on the Gripen. But this is a trick to do that anyway, “says James Bjerkemo.
A z-shaped “waist”
James Bjerkemos patented technology makes the plane more difficult to detect with radar.-It makes a Z-shaped folds on the side of the plane. The main wing is stuck at the bottom of zetat, and nosvingen upper part. Crease allows one to place the wings as you want but avoid radar.
– It is not quite optimal from a signature point of view, but it nevertheless gives the possibility to combine low signature with very good aerodynamics
LokeFaulkner gives upbeat JSF assessment
Defence Minister John Faulkner has provided an upbeat assessment of the troubled Joint Strike Fighter project despite acknowledging it has its problems.
But the problems should be resolved in time for the aircraft to enter Australian operational service by 2018, he said.
So operational service in Australia is 2018, and I think this was the plan also before the delays were announced, or am I wrong?
Will the first planes still be arriving in 2014 for testing and training?
LokeSo yeah, my core position – subject to change – is that I agree to disagree with ‘stay the course’ F-35 ideas and concepts… given the available public info to work off.. Respects.
Geogen,
I have long been sceptical to the F-35 — however I now start to feel that we have already passed the “point of no return” — I don’t see any good alternatives that will be much cheaper. So much money has already been spent and the work has progressed so far (although admittedly quite a lot remains to be done). My point is that any dramatic changes to this program now will create the need for an alternative, and that would probably cost more than just moving ahead. Hopefully the restructuring will put the program back on course.
The alternatives I think have been discussed already, and — well to me they seem to be either inadequate or at least as costly as the F-35 at this stage. I may be wrong of course.
13 month delay is after all not that bad, compared to other programs. The price increase is more of a challenge however my current understanding is that this will hit mainly the US and perhaps to some degree early adopters like Australia. Big countries that can absorb it, I am sure.
I don’t think many countries will “jump ship” and choose something else; which air force would really prefer SH to F-35 if the price is in the same ballpark? And the politicians will see that as partner nations they will gain from producing parts to the F-35. In addition several other nations that are currently not partners will most likely buy it — they see how horribly expensive it is to develop a “stealth fighter” — those that cannot or will not consider a future PAK FA or Chinese stealth fighter have really no other option than the F-35. So countries like S Korea, Japan, Singapore, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Finland, etc. etc. will most likely in the end all choose the F-35 unless it becomes so horribly expensive that they simply cannot afford it.
In spite of all de doom and gloom I am slightly optimistic; sure more delays will come however I think (hope!?) that they will be rather minor at this stage.
Famous last words? Perhaps…. 🙂
LokeLooks like slowly preparing excuses for losing out to Rafale. Makes me think that the deal has already been decided.
Funny they used the word “complained”.
The Swedish media did not phrase it like that. They basically qouted him saying that “ultimately it is a political decision”. I did not read it as “complaining”, more like stating a fact or making an observation. The French of course want to portray it as “complaining”… it’s part of the media battle I guess.
But yes, even the Swedes realize that Rafale most likely will win this, that has been clear to most people for quite some time now I think.
OTOH the Swedes have not completely given up yet, seems this visit is the last attempt at swaying the Brazilian politicians. At the same time they realize that chances are slim.
Sign In
