jackjackthanks hammer, that has cleared up what is behind the curtain
jackjackPerhaps they knew it was never going to cost US35m, perhaps they knew it was going to be so late they would have to purchase billions of $ of Super hornets in the mean time, perhaps they will now have to have several different types in the inventory.
perhaps the cost of a Typhoon and a F-35 are now at ~parity…:D, with no sign of the F-35 getting any cheaper.
Perhaps they made a mistake. 😀 and are the people involved are too embarrassed to change horses mid race because that would be a career limiting move. :diablo:
and finally here’s the big one – Perhaps using the Australian competition isn’t such a good idea when saying “perhaps they knew something”..
Cheers
it has been delayed, would you like to share with us the time line of the f111 purchase and if it was worth while for australia
as to the rest, nope, nothing there i can agree with
jackjackLol, I’m aware that it is whack. All I was looking for was a rough estimate, and I hoped that I could get away with using a subsonic calculation, as long as I ensured that I corrected my constant values. As for needing installed thrust values at altitude- yeah, I figured that as well, but the sea level calculations seem pretty close to reality. Also, I figured that the ratios for dry thrust against wet thrust wouldn’t vary as much as the thrust values themselves, but this is just conjecture.
Wait until Carlo Kopp sees my Su-27 supercruise speed- he’ll fly into a panic.
I guess wave drag will have to be calculated numerically. But I’m not gonna go out of my way to do that…
i’m sure he will use your data to make a wonderfully coloured graph
jackjackBecause we believed the hype. – US$35m super stealthy fighter delivered by 2010.
A source in Eurofighter told me that after the Air 6000 debarkle they would not tender or even offer Australia info on the Typhoon, the only way Australia would get Typhoon would be to turn up with cheque in hand.
So we had a couple of quick inquiries in Oz to see if it was the right decision, and lo and behold with Eurofighter refusing to even talk to Oz the f-35 was confirmed as the best choice.
The only saving grace for Oz was the farce of a competition wasn’t carried as far as the Norwegian comp.
Cheers
except that eurofighter did bid for air 6000 and disclosed its secrets, as to cost, i think DoD know about it. it was never going to be yr 2000 35 mil as per your example, what was EF yr 2000 cost and its now cost ?
if you think EF is a better plane for australia, its obvious you have nothing to do with procurement
as i said this is the first time i can remember that aussies were going for just one plane for its total fighter/strike needs, granted the 18f as a filler till about 2025 and also when the uav’s are estimated to be comming online
jackjacki know you will have a comeback for everthing but this is what was released
Nov 2005: The U.S. Air Force, in it’s effort to get money to build more F-22s, has revealed just how “stealthy” the F-22 is. It’s RCS (Radar Cross Section) is the equivalent, for a radar, to a metal marble. The less stealthy (and much cheaper) F-35, is equal to a metal golf ball. The F-35 stealthiness is a bit better than the B-2 bomber, which, in turn, was twice as good as that on the even older F-117. .
so the f-35 has twice the stealth of the f-117.
i’ll let you work out how stealthy the f-22 is
jackjackI can’t tell, i don’t know where are the sources, where are the receivers, you idea is very vague
The 117, was meant to scatter the signals away from the source,the source was meant to be SAMs, so it shape is not facing directly the ground.
There are more important things than “planform alignment”
Can you explain me how a curved topology can do this???, bet you are just watching the silhouette, and not the actual surface
no i cant explain it, but LM say the f-22 has a smaller RCS than the f-117
i may be wrong, but isnt the f-35 also smaller ?
jackjack…and what did I say?? ROFLMAO…
One more thing about F35’s EO-DAS.
Apparently, several sources put EO-DAS in “mid-wavelength” single channel IR band (3-5um).What was that about F35’s superior avionics, again??
thats great, i wonder why the aussies dropped the eurofighter from their air 6000 evaluation ?
perhaps having the true capabilities given, they know something you dont
jackjackSupercruise = supersonic cruise. Cruise at M>=1.0 is supercruise. EF GMBH did not redefine this. This is the widely accepted definition, and always has been AFAIK.
i’m only going by LM FAQs
http://www.jsf.mil/contact/con_faqs.htm
Does the F-35 supercruise?
No, neither the F135 or F136 engines were designed to supercruise
jackjackUsing Gmbh redefinition of “supercruise” being ‘just’ >Mach 1.0 instead of the USAF/DOD/LM definition of >Mach 1.5, the F-35 very likely DOES ‘have supercruise’.
LM has said f-35 doesnt super cruise and i accept that for now, but time will tell
jackjacki cant remeber a time aussies didnt run 2 aircraft. for the replacement of our f111 and fa-18ab
the air 6000 evaluation of Joint Strike Fighter, the Eurofighter Typhoon, Dassault Rafale, F-16C/B60 and F/A-18E/F
the decission was that the f-35 was the clear winner and we would go with just one aircraft, to me that says a lot for the f-35
the rafale didnt make first pass and we have brought french before
jackjackhttp://startelegram.typepad.com/sky_talk/2009/12/australian-government-comments-on-f35-decision.html
Australian government comments on F-35 decision
When the government of Australia announced last week it had committed to buying an initial lot of 14 F-35 joint strike fighters, we sent the Australian Ministry of Defence some questions. The answers came back too late for inclusion in the Star-Telegram story that ran Thanksgiving Day.
So we’ll post the entire exchange to this blog. And we’ll also post some followup information from the primary opponents in Australia of buying the F-35.
Here’s the response of the Australian government to our questions:
Australia has been a partner in developing the F-35 from the inception of the program and has invested its own money. Were other aircraft types considered to meet Australia’s future combat needs? Which ones?
The Australian decision to acquire the JSF was made after an extensive analysis of all potential future air combat aircraft. That decision was originally made in 2002 when we entered the System Development & Development phase of the JSF Program and formally re-confirmed in the Air Combat Capability Review that was conducted in 2008.
Throughout that time, however, we have continued to monitor developments in other air combat programs to ensure our decision remained valid.
This is a decision of policy, correct? Not a formal order for aircraft?
This is an acquisition decision – which includes funding approval – for the first 14 aircraft. Placing orders for the 14 aircraft will be done via the US-led JSF Project Office in conjunction with the US and other partners.
Have the U.S. and Australian governments agreed on price and terms of the F-35 purchase?
Australia will pay the same price as the US Government. The USand all partners will buy aircraft under the same contracts placed by the US-led JSF Project Office. For the next several years, the prices of aircraft under these contracts are being determined annually. Eventually acquisition will be via multi-year orders, again in collaboration with all other partners.
When do you anticipate placing a formal order?
Orders are placed progressively. Australia’s first aircraft will be part of the Low Rate Initial Production lot 6 contract to be delivered in 2014. We will identify our requirements for this contract in 2010 to allow ordering of necessary long-lead items. Subsequent aircraft will be ordered on an annual basis until it is agreed that the JSF Program is sufficiently mature to support a “multi-year” contact. In the early years sustainment is also contracted on an annual basis.
Has funding for the acquisition been approved by Parliament?
In the Australian system Parliament does not need to approve the acquisition, that is up to the Government. Government has approved funding for the first 14 aircraft and associated infrastructure and support.
Are there potential political/policy steps to be taken that could result in a change of policy regarding F-35 acquisition?
The Australian Government has stated that it will acquire around 100 JSFs in the context of the 2009 Defence White Paper. The recent acquisition decision – i.e. authorisation for funding – is for the first 14 aircraft. Additional authorisation decisions will be required for the remaining aircraft.
Some Australian groups (Air Power Australia) have been vocal in their criticisms of the F-35. Have those criticisms been considered in reaching this decision?
Defence and Government take into account all informed commentary in making such major decisions
(thats a polite way of saying koop and co are know-nothing trolls, isnt it)
Are there any concerns about the U.S. DoD decision not to release F-35 software codes to buyers?
Australiahas never sought access to source code of JSF software. For commonality and affordability reasons we want to stay common with the core JSF Program. What we do need, however, is the ability to re-program mission data libraries with our data to meet specific sovereign requirements. Ability to do that has been agreed by the US Government.
Are there any concerns about the delays in development and flight testing progress of F-35?
All delays are of concern but there is also very good progress in many areas. Australia has considerable schedule buffer to deal with all realistic schedule risk.
jackjackTo be fair, any fighter is going to have a much tougher time if it doesn’t have support from AWACs, datalinks, Jammers, ground based systems, etc….
do you know of a plane that will be more systems orientated or have more situational awareness than the f-35 ?
jackjackI see that on this forum many posters consider LM as a kind of con corporation. It is like they (the companies that form today LM) didn’t built planes such F 104, SR 71, F 16, F 117, F 22, to name just a few.
However, the TAC Browler simulations were performed by USAF, not by LM. I.e. by the buyer , not by the seller!
Those simulations involved a few thousands scenarios. TAC Browler simulations proved to be true true in the ’70, when they predicted that F 15 and F 16 will be unmatched for decades. They proved right in the ’90, when they predict that F 22 will be a top fighter. I doubt that they will be wrong now.
In these TAC Browler simulations, the other planes (Rafale, EF, Su 30 MK, Gripen, and the unnamed “advanced 4th gen” –probably J10) were considered fitted with AESA radars, advanced EW suites (digital RWR and DRFM) and IRST, “regardless if they will be able to field such systems or not”. Also, the F 35 was considered towards the end of the service life, with 5 % degradation in thrust and 3 % increase in fuel consumption, “while other were given the benefits of the doubt”.
PS Excuse my English-I’m not a native speaker.
thank you for putting some reality into this topic, but i am afraid it will fall on death ears
these fan boys wont accept their favorite plane wont be king of the sky, half of them still do a f-22 vs their plane, where of course their plane wins
jackjackFrom the same source. 😉
“And even Lockheed Martin test pilots concede that the F-35—although offering very high initial acceleration due to its powerful 42,000-lb.-thrust F135 engine—could start losing advantage at higher speed and altitude. This might be partly due to the aircraft’s large frontal area, which is designed to allow internal weapons carriage—meaning in a traditional quick-reaction intercept role, the F-35 may not be able to match rivals.”
you should of read the next line,,,
Nevertheless, Brawler modeling showed the F-35 could achieve a loss-exchange ratio better than 400% against its nearest “competitor,” according to Lockheed Martin executives. They demur about naming the competitor, but their comparison charts indicate it is the Sukhoi Su-30 or Typhoon
the f-35 wasnt designed to be the fastest, just one of the most deadly
jackjackhttp://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/F35-030509.xml
the f-35 top speed so far is mach 1.67 😀
not that speed is the measure of 21st century air warfare
Sign In
