drabslabYou guys can deny the advantages of stealth all you want, but to do so makes you look like a complete fool. Do you really think LM and the U.S/JSF partners have invested all this into something that doesn’t give a great advantage? This is completely different than BVR back in the 60s and 70s. Its funny to read the denial in here. Do you really think that all these countries that have F-35s on order and would love to get their hands on the F-22 are just full of brainless idiots that just go with the stealth because it was a cool marketing slogan? Why is the PAK-FA being developed? Why does everybody want to get in on stealth and why has every 4th gen plane that has been upgraded to a 4.5 gen status gotten bolt on RCS reduction… yeah because it is a tactical advantage to have a lower RCS. Maybe it will be obsolete one day, but for now it does change how you approach a conflict from both combatants perspectives.
you are right, it is an advantage today, but for how long???
and what is left of these invisible planes if stealth is taken out of the equasion?
drabslabjust to clarify, i’m not talking about fighters, there is nothing i have heard about from us on that tech, scramjets, subs, othr are another thing though
the main problem with euro as i see it, is that everyone is looking after their own backyard, if there was a eu program where each member put in 0.1% gdp for 10 yrs, you will have a decent 5/6th gen design
I tend to agree with you that better EU collaboration would be an enormous advantage for EU military. I guess that the best practice that we can refer to is the EU collaboration on civil aviation. The many suffering european civil aviation companies formed an EU company (Airbus) which is effectively able to compete with the best world competitors.
But i dare to question that the EU should concentrate on stealth which seems to come at the expense of many other fighter requirements.
In times of net-centric warfare, stealth becomes obsolete as soon as someone discovers an effective countermeasure, even when that countermeasure equipment would be the size of a football field.
The core question for me is: what is the F-35 (or F-22 for that matters) worth if its stealth is compromised. Will it stand against a modern day gripen, su-27-31, rafale, typhoon… or can its fighter characteristics, like some sources (including airforces monthly) suggested be compared to an outdated F-105 or old-fashioned buccaneer
drabslabThis is not a “normal” industrial activity.
Military airplanes (and all weapons) have a very limited number of potential customers. this number is further reduced because working/selling for one potetnail client tends to exclude a range of other clients.
Further, development of a plane costs fortunes and will not be started unless some clients agree to pay for it and give a fair idea how many items they will buy once production can start.
Hence, you get a double lock in:
the supplier desperately needs to accept all requirements and conditions of the client, also the most irrealistic ones, otherwise there is no new development hence also no new production and the company fails.
the client invests large sums for a very uncertain outcome based on his own, often unrealistic wishes. The combination of “i have a dream” requirements with “we will achieve don’t know how” promises are not a good basis for any project.
Once the contract is signed another game starts. Do not forget that what is called development costs by the client are in reality development turnover (including profit) for the supplier. At least as long as he manages to convince the client to pay more and more money.
The visual signs of such games are that EADS managers start treathening to cancel the A400m project or that money on f-35 has to be moved from production to development.
Some claim that profit in development is very low and therefore the supplier needs to be able to start production asap. This is only partly true because e.g. the technology developed for F-35 (and payed with taxpayers money) ultimately belongs to LM and can be used for many other projects.
Ultimately, none of the stakeholders can afford that any of the above mentioned projects would fail, hence, they will go forward and we will see A400M and F-35 flying one day, no matter what the cost is.
If all this adds any value to our safety or future is another question.
drabslabquick question:
the F-35 seemed to have started as a conservative / safe / cheap stealth plane with a design that is more naturally stealthy than the F-22. What went wrong? Why is it taking so long, costing so much?
The F-22 is a huge leap forward compared to the F-15 generation. this was done by using very new technologies, materials and designs; It is not more than normal that this is now, in practical operations, showing drawbacks (like huge maintentance costs) while f-22 developments have brought many lessons.
the F-35 is not about building a simplified version of the f-22 in large numbers (using same technology), it is about using f-22 lessons to make yet another huge leap forward in airplane manufacturing methods, better stealth technology, better computer managed maintenance…
Hence, we should not be comparing f-35 to f-22 like eg comparing su-27 to mig 29. it is a different, and technology wise very interesting animal.
The risk of this game is that it wioll prove to be a step to far, and sprialing costs and delays could bring it down. By the way, most military projects suffer from this desease.
Anyway, this whole discussion does not answer to the original question that I started this tread with:
Does the f-35 make any sense from the military point of view, is it needed for something which is not already covered by f-22?
Where do we have a potential adversary that will be able to compete with 180 F-22 in the next decade (or two)?
Should f-35 development have been postponed for another 10 years?
The F-22 was already criticised of solving an unexisting problem, why do we need a new one which lifetime will significantly overlap with F-22?
Should technology advances have been used to produce better, easier to maintain versions of the f-22 instead of making a new bird from scratch?
If the F-22 technology is so secret that the US refuses to sell it even to its closest allies then why will f-35 (with newer technology) be made available to many partners (or will this be a restricted version?)
drabslabThis seems like a very concrete sign that the “rumour” that the F-35 is in trouble is correct:
quote:
– 90% of Last Year’s F-35 Test Flights Were Not Completed As Planned (16 instead of 168)
– The testing backlog is one reason Defense Secretary Robert Gates has delayed the program, …
– More than $2.8 billion … to continue its development, according to a 2011 budget document.
– The development phase must now be extended … to October 2015,
(Source: Bloomberg News; published Jan. 19, 2010)
end quote
These figures can not be wiped under the table because these are part of the annual report sent to the US Congress.
Hence, the airworthiness of the JSF today mainly exists on paper. If continued testing would reveal any serious problems (leading to expectations of even more delays) then the program is in real problems (if it is not already).
If JSF delays would lead to unacceptable capability gaps then clients (including US ones) could be pushed towards alternatives which will keep flying for the next 30 years and destroy the jsf market.
The gamble to erase the EU fighter manufacturers by offering the “only game in town” could thus have the complete opposite effect.
drabslabSnafu – sorry I did not answer your other question because I wasn’t sure how to. It is just that I don’t see the problem. We leave, we continue to trade – buying and selling as before, but now free to legislate in a way that suits us, free from the legal shackles of the EU, £ 6.5 billion p.a. better off – £65 billion plus over a decade. Not a fortune in the vast scheme of our debt, I agree, but better than nothing.
I just don’t buy into the doomesday scenario some would write “if we should leave”.
And as for the Euro, of course it works when the playing field is level and all is sunshine and roses but look what happens when rweal life intervenes and it tries to rationalise a raft of contradictory fiscal regimes. It’s a mess and will get worse long before it gets better.
Doomesday scenario you say? Are you sure that you are not living it?
I guess that the strength of a currency is generally reflecting the strength of the economy behind it.
The british pound (and the dollar) are steadily going down compared to the euro and this for 8 years in a row.
Clearly, the playing field is NOT level. The EU countries, and euro countries in particular, are taking the lead. The euro zone is of course also feeling the negative effects of financial crisis, or world economy in general. However, it appears clearly that the eurozone has been able to reply better to economical troubles than other nations, which is reflected in the currency exchange rate.
If this is what you describe as being “a mess” then I hope that this mess continues as long as possible.
drabslabSnafu – sorry I did not answer your other question because I wasn’t sure how to. It is just that I don’t see the problem. We leave, we continue to trade – buying and selling as before, but now free to legislate in a way that suits us, free from the legal shackles of the EU, £ 6.5 billion p.a. better off – £65 billion plus over a decade. Not a fortune in the vast scheme of our debt, I agree, but better than nothing.
I just don’t buy into the doomesday scenario some would write “if we should leave”.
And as for the Euro, of course it works when the playing field is level and all is sunshine and roses but look what happens when rweal life intervenes and it tries to rationalise a raft of contradictory fiscal regimes. It’s a mess and will get worse long before it gets better.
Doomesday scenario you say? Are you sure that you are not living it?
I guess that the strength of a currency is generally reflecting the strength of the economy behind it.
The british pound (and the dollar) are steadily going down compared to the euro and this for 8 years in a row.
Clearly, the playing field is NOT level. The EU countries, and euro countries in particular, are taking the lead. The euro zone is of course also feeling the negative effects of financial crisis, or world economy in general. However, it appears clearly that the eurozone has been able to reply better to economical troubles than other nations, which is reflected in the currency exchange rate.
If this is what you describe as being “a mess” then I hope that this mess continues as long as possible.
drabslabDrabslab – I am sorry but I think that your acceptance of the way the EU works is naive to say the least. In fact I would go so far as to say that it works in precisely the opposite way. There is a gulf of difference between theory and reality where the EU is concerned.
Many discussions with UK MEPs has done nothing but convince me that it is an undemocratic, and unaccountable institution.
as said before in this topic, i know fairly well how the EU works, first hand, i don’t need to look at crapy newspapers to know what is going on.
And again, its not perfectly green but is going in the right direction
drabslabDrabslab – I am sorry but I think that your acceptance of the way the EU works is naive to say the least. In fact I would go so far as to say that it works in precisely the opposite way. There is a gulf of difference between theory and reality where the EU is concerned.
Many discussions with UK MEPs has done nothing but convince me that it is an undemocratic, and unaccountable institution.
as said before in this topic, i know fairly well how the EU works, first hand, i don’t need to look at crapy newspapers to know what is going on.
And again, its not perfectly green but is going in the right direction
drabslabSome (dare say many/most) in the anti F-35 crown have been having a figurative orgasm over a recent article in the UK’s Guardian newspaper where it is claimed thet the UK is cutting its F-35B order in half (just the most recent is a long line of Guardian completely made up BS).
Well now the UK MOD has repsonded…
http://www.blogs.mod.uk/defence_news/2010/01/defence-in-the-media-15-january-2010.html
Carriers not under threat
A letter from the Minister for Defence Equipment and Support, Quentin Davies, has appeared in The Guardian newspaper in response to an article which appeared in the paper entitled ‘Stealth fighter jets to be slashed’. The Minister’s letter said:Dear Sir,
Your correspondent’s article in Wednesday’s Guardian on defence procurement, ‘Stealth fighter jets to be slashed’, is nonsense personified.
Our new carriers are not ‘under real threat’. There will not ‘certainly be a big reduction in Joint Strike Fighter numbers’. The article goes on to state ‘among other options being considered are: downsizing the second carrier … building both carriers but selling one perhaps to India’. No such fantastic ‘options’ are being considered at all.
As for the phrase ‘at a time when troops in Afghanistan are being deprived of helicopters and surveillance systems’, it is about as far from the truth as it is possible to be. We are currently in the midst of a dramatic increase in helicopter numbers in Afghanistan, up by 50 per cent from June 2009 – June 2010, we are adding new Reaper Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and will be introducing the Watchkeeper in the coming months.
If your correspondent would like a briefing on the real position I should be happy to arrange one for him, or to give him one personally, at any time.
Yours,
Quentin Davies MP, Ministry of Defence, Whitehall, London.
weird, i think that i read the same BS? in airforces monthly
drabslabI never claimed to be center-of-the road (where you get hit by traffic going both directions). No, I’m firmly on the right…maybe a notch or two from Atilla the Hun.
The hilarity of journalism is 90% of “journalists” vote exclusively for leftist candidates, surround themselves with leftist friends, participate in leftist causes, have no contact with non-leftists, then they claim to be “impartial” when reporting their leftist world view.
Next thing is you are going to claim that you actually KNOW at least 90% of the journalists personally and therefore are perfectly placed to know their political preference:dev2:
Papers are economical organisations and they take the positions which are needed to please the audience to buy the next issue as well. Hence, you can more or less estimate the political preference of the journalists in a country by looking at the composition of the governments.
drabslabFederalism implies a constitutional sovereign authority acting over a group of political entities. I don’t think the Thatcher interpretation was any different.
I prefer to vote for my sovereign authority in Whitehall, not Brussels. Any subsidiary political entity will gradually cede power to the sovereign authority which will ultimately control the key levers of power – foreign policy, defence and finance. Without these the nation state ceases to exist in anything but name.
We can see this happening in Europe already, except that they had already started to build and staff embassies and missions worldwide before the Lisbon Treaty allowing the appointment of a President and a foreign Minister, by any other name, had been ratified.
If the European Commission has set up embassies all over the world then you need to consider that this has happened at the request of the Member States.
The legislative process is very clear: the Commission proposes, the Council decides and the parliament has more and more a controlling and amending role. Often, the Commission is invited by Council or parliament to take initiative in one or another area, while the treaty establishes the overall framework.
The idea that a few evil empire brussels bureaucrats decide single handedly on just anything is a myth. The reason for the complexity of the decision making procedures (as defined in the Lisbon treaty) is precisely to ensure that a good balance is struck between having decision power and having an agreement and consensus
In general the commission is not “spending a penny” which is not justified by european law, scrutinised and in most cases agreed beforehand by Parliament and council.
Also, take into account that Europe, be it a federation, a superstate, or something else is going to be what the democratically elected governments of the Member States decide what it will be.
drabslabFederalism implies a constitutional sovereign authority acting over a group of political entities. I don’t think the Thatcher interpretation was any different.
I prefer to vote for my sovereign authority in Whitehall, not Brussels. Any subsidiary political entity will gradually cede power to the sovereign authority which will ultimately control the key levers of power – foreign policy, defence and finance. Without these the nation state ceases to exist in anything but name.
We can see this happening in Europe already, except that they had already started to build and staff embassies and missions worldwide before the Lisbon Treaty allowing the appointment of a President and a foreign Minister, by any other name, had been ratified.
If the European Commission has set up embassies all over the world then you need to consider that this has happened at the request of the Member States.
The legislative process is very clear: the Commission proposes, the Council decides and the parliament has more and more a controlling and amending role. Often, the Commission is invited by Council or parliament to take initiative in one or another area, while the treaty establishes the overall framework.
The idea that a few evil empire brussels bureaucrats decide single handedly on just anything is a myth. The reason for the complexity of the decision making procedures (as defined in the Lisbon treaty) is precisely to ensure that a good balance is struck between having decision power and having an agreement and consensus
In general the commission is not “spending a penny” which is not justified by european law, scrutinised and in most cases agreed beforehand by Parliament and council.
Also, take into account that Europe, be it a federation, a superstate, or something else is going to be what the democratically elected governments of the Member States decide what it will be.
drabslabdear Basv and Sky high,
I am very familiar with the way the things are organised in “nasty EU Brussels” which I guess could make me suspicious in your eyes.
I want to stay a bit unprecise on what this means, basically because I want to continue having the possibility to express my personal view on a subject which interests me enormously (the military aircraft world) without ending up in conflict with any official stakeholder. I hope that you can accept this.
That personal opinion is shaped from a childhood in the west of flandern playing hide and seek between rows of military crosses of poor souls which died in a useless war, the stories from my grandfather (being a resistance member), the stories from my best friend his father (having collaborated with the nazis) and from the father of a female friend (a high level Belgian legal administrator before, during and after WWII).
Add a high interest for history to this mix and you get an explosive result 😀
A long introduction to a short advice if you permit, that advice is:
“DO NOT BELIEVE”
instead of believing: think, analyse, and from your own idea based on facts.
From where I stand, europe has brought prosperity to many and has done that in a completely peaceful way. This does not mean that it is a perfect thing. Much more debate and careful changing of the concept is needed, much more education of the population are needed (e.g. so that people no longer depend on lowlife newspapers to decide who to vote for).
This debate and shaping can only take place if people really get involved and learn about the facts instead of firing of wild accusations. I could rather easily give links to official sources dismantling many of the anti european voices here but that would not make any sense; Besides it is rather funny reading things like “germany and france are simply ignoring european law”
Each individual has to (or not to depending on personal choice) decide if he/she wants to learn, hence know and build an opinion based on facts or … to follow one or another big mouth doing the thinking in their place.
drabslabdear Basv and Sky high,
I am very familiar with the way the things are organised in “nasty EU Brussels” which I guess could make me suspicious in your eyes.
I want to stay a bit unprecise on what this means, basically because I want to continue having the possibility to express my personal view on a subject which interests me enormously (the military aircraft world) without ending up in conflict with any official stakeholder. I hope that you can accept this.
That personal opinion is shaped from a childhood in the west of flandern playing hide and seek between rows of military crosses of poor souls which died in a useless war, the stories from my grandfather (being a resistance member), the stories from my best friend his father (having collaborated with the nazis) and from the father of a female friend (a high level Belgian legal administrator before, during and after WWII).
Add a high interest for history to this mix and you get an explosive result 😀
A long introduction to a short advice if you permit, that advice is:
“DO NOT BELIEVE”
instead of believing: think, analyse, and from your own idea based on facts.
From where I stand, europe has brought prosperity to many and has done that in a completely peaceful way. This does not mean that it is a perfect thing. Much more debate and careful changing of the concept is needed, much more education of the population are needed (e.g. so that people no longer depend on lowlife newspapers to decide who to vote for).
This debate and shaping can only take place if people really get involved and learn about the facts instead of firing of wild accusations. I could rather easily give links to official sources dismantling many of the anti european voices here but that would not make any sense; Besides it is rather funny reading things like “germany and france are simply ignoring european law”
Each individual has to (or not to depending on personal choice) decide if he/she wants to learn, hence know and build an opinion based on facts or … to follow one or another big mouth doing the thinking in their place.
Sign In
