The F-35 No Holds Barred topic

[GTX]

has the 'export' F.35A variant been offered with the probe refuelling point of the B/C variant for those states without boom refuelling capability ? or to increase refuelling options (abiet at a weight penalty)

I am not sure if it has been formally offered but I believe it is technically possible to do so.

 

[jsport]

As LO has conveyed in recent AW&ST articles, Russian AD developments are placing into question the costly addiction of LO .

1. What have they actually, you know, demonstrated?
2. Imagine how screwed non-LO aircraft will be in such an environment.

This is nothing more than Bill, once again, trying to tear down the F-35. *YAWN*

still tryin figure out which respected publication you work for..

 

[bobbymike]

As LO has conveyed in recent AW&ST articles, Russian AD developments are placing into question the costly addiction of LO .

1. What have they actually, you know, demonstrated?
2. Imagine how screwed non-LO aircraft will be in such an environment.

This is nothing more than Bill, once again, trying to tear down the F-35. *YAWN*

still tryin figure out which respected publication you work for..

Seeing that the vast majority of us here at SP don't work for defense publications are you saying;

1) We must believe and may not criticize anything found in certain publication or;
2) We are not allowed to post unless we do write for a 'respected' publication?

 

[sferrin]

As LO has conveyed in recent AW&ST articles, Russian AD developments are placing into question the costly addiction of LO .

1. What have they actually, you know, demonstrated?
2. Imagine how screwed non-LO aircraft will be in such an environment.

This is nothing more than Bill, once again, trying to tear down the F-35. *YAWN*

still tryin figure out which respected publication you work for..

I take it you're one of those special individuals who are blinded by credentials? :

 

[Triton]

I'm confused why Lockheed Martin has not sufficiently addressed the probe and drogue refueling issue with the F-35A since the aircraft has received so much criticism in Canada for supposedly needing new aerial tankers.

The only thing I have seen are the comments made by Steve O’Bryan, the vice president for F-35 business development in 2012:

“We anticipated a number of the operators would want probe-and-drogue refueling in the F-35A and we kept that space empty on the F-35A to accommodate probe and drogue refueling. We‘ve done a number of studies – funded studies, not projects – funded studies to evaluate that, paid for by the countries who want that to happen. It’s a relatively easy … doable change.”

Source:
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/06/19/lockheeds-comprehensive-qa-on-the-f-35/

So I guess the answer is, if the customer orders probe and drogue refueling on their F-35As, these F-34As will have probe and drogue rather than boom refueling.

 

[jsport]

As LO has conveyed in recent AW&ST articles, Russian AD developments are placing into question the costly addiction of LO .

1. What have they actually, you know, demonstrated?
2. Imagine how screwed non-LO aircraft will be in such an environment.

This is nothing more than Bill, once again, trying to tear down the F-35. *YAWN*

still tryin figure out which respected publication you work for..

I take it you're one of those special individuals who are blinded by credentials? :

on that we may share something ..as am not special nor blinded by creds..

 

[sferrin]

on that we may share something ..as am not special nor blinded by creds..

If you're not blinded by creds explain your insinuation:

"still tryin figure out which respected publication you work for.."

 

[GTX]

The probe and drogue refueling issue with the F-35A including the supposed Canadian criticism regarding it is another red herring IMHO. The USAF is by far the biggest intended user of the F-35A so it does make sense to go with the boom system. It does also offer performance benefits over the probe/drogue system. Moreover, most foreign buyers of the F-35A either are getting/have boom tankers (Australia, Japan, Israel soon) or operate closely with the USAF (NATO countries - which includes Canada) so it will be hardly a real issue in any practical terms.

Does one really envisage Canada operating somewhere independently of others such as the USAF where it also needs Aerial Refuelling? Seriously?

Anyway, if at the end of the day Canada who has been part of the JSF program for years now and seeming hasn't worried, wanted to be different then they could ask to be...though they would face the costs of paying to be different

 

[Triton]

The probe and drogue refueling issue with the F-35A including the supposed Canadian criticism regarding it is another red herring IMHO. The USAF is by far the biggest intended user of the F-35A so it does make sense to go with the boom system. It does also offer performance benefits over the probe/drogue system. Moreover, most foreign buyers of the F-35A either are getting/have boom tankers (Australia, Japan, Israel soon) or operate closely with the USAF (NATO countries - which includes Canada) so it will be hardly a real issue in any practical terms.

Does one really envisage Canada operating somewhere independently of others such as the USAF where it also needs Aerial Refuelling? Seriously?

Anyway, if at the end of the day Canada who has been part of the JSF program for years now and seeming hasn't worried, wanted to be different then they could ask to be...though they would face the costs of paying to be different

Exactly. Vice President Steve O’Bryan has sufficiently answered that question. If Canada wants probe and drogue refueling, they will get probe and drogue refueling.

 

[Steve Pace]

Here's my contribution to this thread (see document). -SP

 

[_Del_]

So I guess the answer is, if the customer orders probe and drogue refueling on their F-35As, these F-34As will have probe and drogue rather than boom refueling.

Or perhaps they'd be hermaphrodites like the Thud?

 

[jsport]

on that we may share something ..as am not special nor blinded by creds..

If you're not blinded by creds explain your insinuation:

"still tryin figure out which respected publication you work for.."

this sounds like 'troll-gument' so lets go back to the point..AD tech dev continues to threaten to the point of threatening even munitions..a previous argument which led to your unniceties... Stealth and sensors are great, but speed, high dynamic maneuver and high altitude are forgotten at one's peril.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

These days I'd place more hope in a combination of VLO stealth, ECM/EW support, and lots of cheap decoys like the ADM-160 for the enemy to waste their expensive S-400s on. With missile systems capable of intercepting ballistic missiles becoming more widespread, I don't think Mach 3 at high altitude and maneuvering will cut it.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Or perhaps they'd be hermaphrodites like the Thud?

The F-35 Team confirmed years ago that F-25A customers can get the aircraft with either receptacles, probes or both (hermaphrodite, LOL). But every customer for the F-35A has requested the receptacle.

 

[GTX]

Or perhaps they'd be hermaphrodites like the Thud?

Possible but at a weight and cost disadvantage that one would really have to question the benefit of.

 

[mkurt]

That's exactly why the world knows.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

Then allow me to give the whole picture, with the same provisions that you are not expected to believe it. In this spectacularly annoying Turkish way of doing things.

　
The world knows something happened.　



The world knows the advice given to relevant US Authorities to clean up the mess was: The THK F-35 contract should be cancelled alltogether, without a refund of money so far spent.　

The world knows Americans ignored it. No surprise since it's common knowledge that they want to destroy the Turkish Nation State to establish a Kurdish Nation State. For starters. Among other designs and desires.　



The world knows the Russians are coming back. For this reason a court case was eventually offered to certain Cold War relics.　



The world knows it's just a coincidence that it turned that the Chinese hackers had previously infiltrated a whole range of institutions in the US Industry. Chinese hackers, man!　



The world knows it turned into a dialouge of the deaf. 　



The world seriously knows Boeing doesn't have a man behind some curtain. The exact reason for...　



The world knows Americans intentionally wasted 2 years with glossy brochures on tilting F-15 fins to the sides. Had there been any local need the McDD would have been consulted in 1978.　



The world knows Americans are ready to forgive. That they were caught with a hand in the cookie jar. Accordingly we are to be allowed to have a fighter component with TC-only software. To be in service or at least a date for maiden flight in 2023. Currently reputed to be a Gripen. With no guarantees that SAAB will not go bankrupt by December 2022. The world expects nothing less than the Americans. For that we are to tie down 50 billion USD. Which will "initially" be spent on the completition of the THK F-35 contract. Don't be surprised by the outlandish budget, we are to buy all kinds of US bonds so that our economic growth will be to the benefits of our Allies. We are Allies, right?



The world knows Americans expect the F-35 affair to be a "cornerstone" of their long term planning. Which readily annuls any prior arrangement. Even if to the extent of riding over any objection in favour of any prior arrangement. Since this country somehow still waits for the first batch of F-15s; for an exact 20 years as of now. In 1990 the Americans declared their unilateral change of the type to F-15E made it imperative that the date would have to be 1998 at the earliest. That makes the delay one of only 15 years.



The world knows Americans modified it once again circa 1992. On their own, into a delivery of F-4Es "free of charge" with solid instructions that between 50 and 100 Phantoms would be modified by the Israelis which "almost" turned into a fiscal rape. But then this is Defense business, stuff happens. What is to the interest of the layman is the rule of thumb. America still insists -somehow- that 1 F-4E=more than 2 F-15E. Armchair Air Force generals should know that while writing up their fantasy Air Forces.

　

The world knows the Americans are in serious violation of the 1978 "roadmap" to the extent that it's common knowledge that the US insisted there was no such thing after Turgut Özal, the Prime Minister in 1980s talked to the Panavia for a possible purchase of Tornados. Talks that led nowhere, considering they weren't meant to be. Apart from keeping the fort until 1992 as in the previous paragraph.　



The world knows in the most important world of the Internet such stuff are a penny a tonne. The world immediately forgives and forgets in the light of serious things: It's more fun to watch the battle between the supporters and the opponents of the F-35 instead of fairy tales. 　



The world also knows Bill Sweetman has reported a line of thought that has been translated and paraphrased. Which supposedly says the Chinese J31 or whatever its name might be is secured to provide what the USAF signed to between 1996-98. Mr. Sweetman than allows himself to be dragged over the coals by supporters and promoters. This or that, not tasteful when both...



The world knows there was hostile action. The world rests assured on the hostile reaction. To come.　


Still makes no sense? Don't worry. The world knows it makes no sense...

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Well the world now knows you're a madman.

 

[mkurt]

Thank you, it's an honour...

 

[TsrJoe]

cheers for the answer re the probe/recepticle question, many thanks chaps B)

 

[sferrin]

on that we may share something ..as am not special nor blinded by creds..

If you're not blinded by creds explain your insinuation:

"still tryin figure out which respected publication you work for.."

this sounds like 'troll-gument' so lets go back to the point..AD tech dev continues to threaten to the point of threatening even munitions..a previous argument which led to your unniceties...

What are you referring to here?

Stealth and sensors are great, but speed, high dynamic maneuver and high altitude are forgotten at one's peril.

Wasn't aware anybody had forgotten about this. Perhaps you could enlighten me?[/quote]

 

[GTX]

Well the world now knows you're a madman.

And then some....

 

[Triton]

The F-35 Team confirmed years ago that F-25A customers can get the aircraft with either receptacles, probes or both (hermaphrodite, LOL). But every customer for the F-35A has requested the receptacle.

Which version will France and Germany buy when they purchase their F-35s? Or will we see a Franco-German stealth fighter project to replace the Dassault Rafale and Eurofighter Typhoon? Or perhaps we might see the BAE Systems Replica again?

 

[Triton]

"S. Korea order would drive F-35 per-plane cost lower"
By Andrea Shalal-Esa

Source:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/korea-order-drive-f-35-235532826.html

WASHINGTON, Nov 26 (Reuters) - South Korea's plan to buy 40 Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 fighter jets will save the U.S. military about $2 billion by driving down the per-plane price of the new plane, and could create up to 10,000 U.S. jobs,according to sources familiar with the program.

Seoul's decision will also help to offset any move by the U.S. Air Force and Navy to deal with mandatory budget cuts by postponing orders for up to 54 jets over the next five years,according to analysts. Seoul's decision must still be approved by a committee chaired by its defense minister.

Loren Thompson, chief operating officer of the Virginia-based Lexington Institute, said the South Korean news would provide a significant boost to the F-35 program.

"The sale of F-35s to Japan and South Korea - America's two leading industrial allies in northeast Asia means the F-35 is now becoming the gold standard for tactical aircraft across the western Pacific," he said.

He said Singapore would likely follow suit with its own orders, followed by Malaysia and possibly New Zealand.

Top U.S. military officials have vowed to protect funding for the $392 billion F-35 program, one of their top priorities,but they acknowledge some U.S. orders may have to be postponed if Congress fails to reverse additional defense budget cuts.

In a worst-case scenario, the Air Force says it would postpone orders for 24 F-35s over the next five years, while the Navy has said it could defer as many as 30 jet orders.

Given ongoing uncertainty about the U.S. budget, military officials say no final decisions have been made, but they expect a slight drop in the planned ramp up in F-35 production, which had been slated to more than double to around 70 planes in a ninth production batch from 30 a year now.

The F-35 program, the Pentagon's biggest arms program, has seen repeated delays and a 70 percent increase in costs ove rinitial estimates. The fact foreign buyers are now placing orders for the new warplane underscores growing confidence in the program, U.S. officials say.

Lockheed is developing three models of the new fighter for the U.S. Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps, as well as eight countries that helped fund its development: Britain, Australia,Canada, Denmark, Turkey, Italy, the Netherlands and Norway.

After years of political wrangling, the Netherlands in September became the seventh foreign country to make a firm commitment to buy F-35s, joining Britain, Italy, Australia,Norway, Israel and Japan.

Britain is expected to announce additional orders next month, and Turkey is likely to become the eighth foreign buyer in January when it is expected to place firm orders for two of the 100 jets it plans to buy over time.

Japan and Israel are expected to order more jets next year,the sources said, while Singapore and Belgium are also considering joining the program.

U.S. government and industry officials also cite strong interest in the F-35 in the Gulf region, and say they have begun looking at when to release the jet to the region -- probably about five years after Israel gets its first jets in 2016.

Once Seoul - as new buyer - formally notifies the Pentagon about its planned purchases, those jets will be added to the total number of expected purchases by the U.S. military and allies that is used by defense officials to estimate the cost of each airplane.

By 2019, the Pentagon projects the cost of each new F-35 fighter plane will be around $85 million, putting it on a par with the cost of current fighter planes, said Jim McAleese, a Virginia-based defense consultant.

The South Korean order could create 10,000 jobs at Lockheed and its suppliers as they build the components to make the 40 jets.

The sources said the projected savings and job counts were comparable to similar estimates released when Japan announced plans to buy 42 F-35 jets from the U.S. government in December 2011.

 

[Triton]

And the rebuttal to the Reuters story.

"Op-Ed: More Creative F-35 Bookkeeping: Backers Play Fast and Loose with F-35 Costs"
(Source: Defense-Aerospace.com; published Nov. 27, 2013)
(By Giovanni de Briganti)

Source:
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?shop=dae&modele=feature&prod=149795&cat=5

PARIS --- Twelve years into the program, the F-35 fighter’s cost overruns are so spectacular that, even before South Korea has officially confirmed that it will buy the aircraft, Lockheed Martin’s P.R. machine is already in gear, explaining just how much the Korean order will reduce costs for the Pentagon, the main F-35 buyer.

And such is the urgency to provide some good news about the program, which is facing new order cuts because of sequestration, that the claims about the F-35's benefits are becoming increasingly nonsensical.

A Nov. 26 Reuters news story claims, for example, that “The South Korean order could create 10,000 jobs at Lockheed and its suppliers as they build the components to make the 40 jets.” This is not even remotely plausible.

If it were, and thus if each F-35 ordered did indeed create 250 jobs, the F-35 program’s planned 2,995 aircraft would generate fully 748,000 jobs at “Lockheed and its suppliers.” This figure should have given even the most enthusiastic program backer reason for pause, given that the entire US aerospace industry employs only 624,800 people, according to 2011 figures published by the Aerospace Industries Association. But apparently not.

This is not the strangest claim made in support of the F-35 in this story.

Quoting “sources familiar with the program,” the author further writes that South Korea's buy of 40 F-35 fighters “will save the U.S. military about $2 billion by driving down the per-plane price of the new plane.”

This is a particularly interesting figure, and not only because the only two sources identified in the story are self-avowed Lockheed Martin consultant Loren Thompson and Jim McAleese, “a Virginia-based defense consultant” whose website states that “a large portion of McAleese’s clients hold—or are seeking—Federal government contracts with DoD…”

If South Korea’s order for 40 F-35s does indeed save the Pentagon about $2 billion, then each aircraft lowers Pentagon costs by $50 million. By the same logic, each lost order should increase the cost to the Pentagon by the same $50 million – not far off, by the way, from the $65 million unit cost that Lockheed continues to claim is the average unit cost of the aircraft.

Following the same logic, we can now estimate how much the reduced orders by other customers have increased the price the Pentagon will pay for its F-35s.

A short look at recent changes in the foreign order book is thus instructive.

- United Kingdom:
Initially slated to buy 150 aircraft, the UK government has now amended its plans and will only buy 48 F-35Bs for its new aircraft carriers, any possible buy for the Royal Air Force being pushed off well into the future. At $50m each, the loss of 102 UK orders adds $5.1 billion to what the Pentagon will pay for its F-35s.

- Italy:
Italy initially planned to buy 130 F-35s, but this was reduced to 90 because of budget cuts. This is a loss of 40 orders, which will add $2 billion to the Pentagon’s F-35 bill.

- Netherlands:
The Dutch air force initially planned to buy 85 F-35s, but the current government has decided to reduce the number to 37, a loss of 48 orders and a price increase of $2.4 billion for the Pentagon.

- Canada:
Initially due to buy 65 F-35s, Canada has now reopened its new fighter replacement program. While the F-35 might still be selected, but in smaller numbers as there is a price cap on the program. For the time being Canada is no officially no longer a buyer, and the loss of its 65 orders translates into a cost increase of $3.25 billion for the Pentagon.

- Norway:
While it also initially planned to buy 85 F-35s, Norway has now decided it will buy only 52, a reduction of 33 and thus a cost increase of $1.65 billion for the Pentagon’s own F-35s.

So, in total, the program has so far lost 228 orders from the above international partners.

At $50m a pop, these cancellations have so far added $14.4 billion to the cost of the Pentagon’s own F-35s – something that Lockheed’s P.R. machine has failed to point out, even though it was quick to stress the $2 billion savings entailed by that future Korean order.

And here’s another thought. In 2001, when the program was launched, total F-35 orders were estimated by Lockheed at 5,179 aircraft. This has now been reduced to about 3,000 – none-one knows the final figure – so the loss of these 2,179 aircraft will have increased acquisition costs by $108.95 billion.

A final remark on the Reuters story. It again quotes Loren Thompson as saying that “Singapore would likely follow [Korea] with its own order, followed by Malaysia and possibly New Zealand.” Again, this is patent nonsense.

Even if Malaysia was considered secure enough to be trusted with the F-35’s much-vaunted “stealth” technologies – which is doubtful, if these really are as vital and as game-changing as claimed – it is totally implausible that New Zealand, which abandoned fast jets a decade ago because of their expense, would reverse this decision simply to buy F-35s, the most expensive of them all and, given the country’s geographical environment, the most useless,

All this shows just how desperate the pro-F-35 lobby is to find and publicize any good news relating to the program -- even if it has to make them up.

 

[GTX]

Singapore would likely follow suit with its own orders, followed by Malaysia and possibly New Zealand.

Ok, I am an unashamed F-35 fan and supporter but statements like this are needed to be taken with some salt!


Singapore - Definitely. Watch for announcement in Feb 2014.
Malaysia - maybe...eventually. Say sometime in next 10yrs but still no guarantee.
New Zealand- WTF?! Sorry, but as much as I would love to see it, it will be a tad chilly down in hell before the RNZAF joins the F-35 ranks.

 

[bobbymike]

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/2a5cd0edf210

Posted to this topic to be kncked down by the experts here. Just read the incredible hyperbole of systems not even built yet.

"This missile is the greatest the F-35 is the worst fighter ever and is TOTALLY outclassed blah, blah, blah.........."

And linked at Ares is this Sweetman's influence?

 

[sferrin]

And linked at Ares is this Sweetman's influence?

Is the Pope Catholic?

 

[sublight_]

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/2a5cd0edf210

Posted to this topic to be kncked down by the experts here. Just read the incredible hyperbole of systems not even built yet.

"This missile is the greatest the F-35 is the worst fighter ever and is TOTALLY outclassed blah, blah, blah.........."

And linked at Ares is this Sweetman's influence?

AESA missile better than a missile with a UV seeker on it? I don't think so....

 

[SpudmanWP]

The attached image is being attributed to the K-77M.

Several things stand out that are in conflict with the article:

1. Still has a mechanical gimble
2. Too few modules to have more than 1 or 2 beams
3. There is a reason it's not called a "hittle"

 

[F-14D]

The attached image is being attributed to the K-77M.

Several things stand out that are in conflict with the article:

1. Still has a mechanical gimble
2. Too few modules to have more than 1 or 2 beams
3. There is a reason it's not called a "hittle"

Agree with 2 & 3. As for 1, the gimble makes sense. AESA radars have a narrower field of view than mechanically scanned ones. So a fixed AESA would actually exacerbate rather than alleviate the close in problem cited in the otherwise hyperbole-ridden article. The way aircraft manufacturers try and deal with this is through side arrays (T-50 and originally, the F-22), rotating an AESA angled to the direction of flight (Gripen E), mechanically move the aim of the array (Captor-E, APY-9 in the E-2D) or just give up and ignore it (almost everybody else). The last choice isn't acceptable for a missile because the off-boresight angle changes can be rapid and large at the endgame. Apparently the designers felt that re-aiming the AESA was the best way to address the issue.

 

[SpudmanWP]

I was not disputing the benefit of having a gimble on an AESA missile, just that the article said that the K-77M did not have one.

 

[F-14D]

I was not disputing the benefit of having a gimble on an AESA missile, just that the article said that the K-77M did not have one.

 

[GTX]

;D

 

[LowObservable]

Oh you are a wag GTX. Do they get them before or after the RNZAF?

 

[GTX]

Definitely before…outside of a zapped one or a whiff model, even I don't expect to ever see a F-35 with RNZAF markings. A Taiwanese one…well maybe, one day in the distant future…maybe.

 

[jsport]

on that we may share something ..as am not special nor blinded by creds..

If you're not blinded by creds explain your insinuation:

"still tryin figure out which respected publication you work for.."

this sounds like 'troll-gument' so lets go back to the point..AD tech dev continues to threaten to the point of threatening even munitions..a previous argument which led to your unniceties...

What are you referring to here?

Stealth and sensors are great, but speed, high dynamic maneuver and high altitude are forgotten at one's peril.

Wasn't aware anybody had forgotten about this. Perhaps you could enlighten me?

[/quote]
Next generation Air Dominance is a different thread..

 

[Triton]

Will United States Navy and Marines F-35C and F-35B aircraft be permitted to be repainted in traditional squadron color schemes? Or is VFA-101 "Grim Reapers" unique?

 

[GTX]

Probably expect to see from time to time, though not as standard schemes.

 

[Triton]

The Navy and Marines have a long history of repainting aircraft in low-visibility and high-visibility color schemes. So I was curious if any re-painting performed on an F-35 aircraft required the use of radar-absorbing paints. Or if the aircraft just required an intact radar-absorbing layer of paint or undercoat. I was also curious about the traditional painting of nose art and kills on an aircraft and if these required the use of radar-absorbent paints.

 

[crabanero]

The Air Force says it will have no choice but to send the sluggish stealth fighter into aerial battle.

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/95462ccd6745