Author Topic: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)  (Read 1351306 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline blueboy

  • New Member
  • **
  • 20
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 43
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #50 on: February 02, 2006, 12:46:10 »
I think Zoomie is onto something.
It's better to live one day as a lion, than a thousand years as a lamb.   Middle Eastern Proverb

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 160,185
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,631
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #51 on: February 02, 2006, 13:03:02 »
Ok - this is getting tiresome on all accounts.

Everyone that is a current CF-18 fighter pilot (or anyone else that flies fighters for an allied force) please chirp up now.

I imagine that no one will respond who hasn't already.  Therefore there are zero SME's on these means about this current subject.  I therefore surmise that all of us are out of our lane and should therefore take staff direction and STFU.  Armymatters may be talking above his operational experience level, but at least he is making attempts to research what he is saying and attempting to draw out a conversation from forum members.  I highly suggest that the rest of you take a break from attempting to slag the lad and just sit back and continue posting in other threads.  If you notice, most AF pers are giving this subject a wide berth, mostly because our corporate knowledge may not be quite up to speed on the JSF/F-22 topic.  I personally couldn't care less about the fighters in the CF aresenal.

This board and it esteemed members like to jump all over the new members and slag all their posts.  We are all posers in every right on these means.  Most senior members are an excellent source of information - however a post count does not equal military experience.  So here is a shot in the arm of all the discouraged posters - buck up and continue posting...

All lemmings, STAND TO!  Prepare to repel non-fighter pilot boarders...  ::)

I do not agree with you Zoomie...so will you only talk about Armour Corps issues and SAR, fixed-wing primarily, perhaps with some rotary-wing thrown in only if you have direct experience?  Others only on topics they have first-hand experience with?

While I personally think that Armymatters is overdoing the research-only fed input to the issue, to imply that only folks qualified on the aircraft "closest" to that being discussed need continue the thread is not at all reasonable. 

It's not like the thread was "Who thinks the expanded TWS mode of the APG-73 is any better than that on the APG-65 on ECP 583 Hornets?"

Perhaps the mods should carve all the posters out of this thread who aren't current CF188-qual'd pilots?

Then again, perhaps the thread can continue in general with a little less emphasis on regurgitating numbers and placement of reasoned logic and consideration to an issue where direct in-cockpit experience may not exist.  Especially moving towards a greater emphasis on EBO, details of flying a particular platform are not as important as the argument for the range of effects that a particular weapon system contributes to operations.

Cheers,
Duey



Offline Kilo_302

  • Banned
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 5,705
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 522
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #52 on: February 02, 2006, 15:12:36 »
Quote
Especially moving towards a greater emphasis on EBO, details of flying a particular platform are not as important as the argument for the range of effects that a particular weapon system contributes to operations.

I totally agree. With the emphasis on BVR combat for an air superiority fighter, it becomes clear which platforms offer the best solution without having to know what it feels like to fly them.

Also, having direct hands on experience doesnt always mean you know what the best solution is. For example, the Sten gun in WW II was widely regarded as being a cheap, poorly made weapon by soldiers who were equipped with it. But from a wider perspective, that fact that it was cheaply made was good, in that it could be produced in larger numbers than the Thompson. A crude example, but it still applies.

While I am not in favour of this approach in this case, (I still think we should look into the more expensive F-22 if its multirole capabilities are further developed), it holds some water. Spending less money on the JSF could enable the CF to spend more in others (cost/benefit).  I think we ought to remember that there are multiple ways of looking at this issue, whether it be from a pilot's perspective, a strategic perspective, or economic/political perspective.

Offline Ditch

  • Established 1998
  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 26,282
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,337
  • I routinely step in it, but like conflict...
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #53 on: February 02, 2006, 15:24:42 »
I am afraid that the intent of my original message has been misconstrued.  I do not avocate shutting this thread down due to a lack of SME's.  I am trying to make an issue with those who would tell other posters to stop posting due to a lack of first-hand knowledge. (whew, long sentence) 

I am all for this thread to continue.  It brings out those that enjoy such venues such as Janes.com and other technical-rich sources.

I take exception to some members attempting to shut down others.  My point that none of us are CF-188 drivers is more of an example of how all of us have equal voice in this topic.
Per Ardua Ad Astra

Offline Armymatters

  • The Armchair General
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • -90
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 498
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #54 on: February 02, 2006, 23:36:55 »
1. I do not recommend Russian jets for one good reason: maintenance. I know a mechanic in the Luftwaffe that serviced the MiG-29's. He said that the MiG-29 was hell to service, primarily due to its crudeness. Also, Russian engines aren't too reliable, and they are more finicky with fuel - see the Indian experience with Russian jets. For example, you have to overhaul a RD-33 engine in a MiG-29 every 500 hours, he told me. Remember, there are two of these engines in a MiG-29. The GE F110 engine in a F-16 can go 1000-1500 hours between overhauls, roughly 2-3 times the life of a Russian engine. So, I have to agree, from a technical perspective to stick with Western designs, and a easy to maintain airplane, to save money on maintenance. Sure, Russian fighters are cheap, and they perform great, but think of the overall costs as well.

2. The CF-18 is a hard jet to replace, I have to admit. The design is excellent for what we use it for, and it is a easy jet to maintain, compared to other airplanes. I will have to agree with a_majoor that we are stuck in terms of finding a suitable replacement. Our geography and the missions we send our CF-18's out on dictate a design that in essence, contradicts itself in terms of features. You normally can't have a long range jet in a small airframe (unless you turn the airplane into a flying fuel tank), and larger airplanes are usually harder to maintain. Canada's budget for new fighters does not allow for buying specifically taylored airplanes, we have to get multi-role airplanes that does it all.

Offline CTD

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 2,695
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 483
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #55 on: February 03, 2006, 01:18:07 »
I vow we buy new F18's. Why? It is an awesome weapons platform. We can aquire a new jet that is proven to be very well built and we can have a min of hassle for the conversion training for pilots and ground crew.
The jet is good enough for the US Navy for the next XXXX number of years so I figure it is good enough for us. 

It would be nice to play with all the rader defeating supercruise jets. The reality of it is we cannot afford nor do we need such high tech low yield fighter attack bombers. The CF 18 does an outstanding job now in it's present configeration. So why buy a whole new weapons platform only to have to re do the whole drawing board with learning and other systems? 
We need a jet now that we can deploy over seas and support the troops on the ground with a min of hassle in the form of training, parts and learning curves for all.  Looking ahead to determine the need for our military fighter attack jet in the next 20 to 40 years is silly. We need good jets now. To spend the big bucks and get the big toys mean nothing unless you can use those toys for what they are meant to be used for, that is support.

In the distant future we should aquire one of those nifty high tech rader defeating supercruise high altitude air to air, air to ground and air to sea attack fighter/ bombers that can fly 90 deg's to it's flight path with in a second and dodge all but the best missiles.

Bottom line is the US is only ordering a limited number of FA22 Raptors. This may change but as of yet it hasn't. Their are to many other variables into the fighter replacement project that they need to figure out before going to a all one fighter outfit. The JSF is a dream for it's super ablities, to deploy as a stol platform to fit the Marine and Navy's need's. Hence why the purchase of the new G model of the FA18 Super Hornet. The Super Hornet will be with the US Navy/ Marine Corps for long time to come. I feel it should become a part of our Weapons platform in the very near future.

Strictly my opinion and mine alone.
cheers all 

Offline FSTO

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 24,485
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,254
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #56 on: February 04, 2006, 21:24:14 »
Bottom line is the US is only ordering a limited number of FA22 Raptors. This may change but as of yet it hasn't. Their are to many other variables into the fighter replacement project that they need to figure out before going to a all one fighter outfit. The JSF is a dream for it's super ablities, to deploy as a stol platform to fit the Marine and Navy's need's. Hence why the purchase of the new G model of the FA18 Super Hornet. The Super Hornet will be with the US Navy/ Marine Corps for long time to come. I feel it should become a part of our Weapons platform in the very near future.

Strictly my opinion and mine alone.
cheers all 

Navy puke here.

From my limited knowledge of the AF, the F/A 18 ( a NAVY aircraft BTW  >:D) has been an outstanding aircraft for Canada.
That being said, the replacement for it should be the navy/marine version of the JSF. I say that for the following reasons:
Who knows what we are going to get for an Amphib ship? The Marine version may be able to work off of it.
More fwd deploying bases: Scenario: CF is deployed to Butthole Somewhere outside of NA. There is a need for fast air, but there is no real airport to support a traditional fighter. Naval Task force moves in, sends troops ashore, set up very austere airfield. Helo's bring in fuel and voila we have a support base for fast air. Outlandish? Impossible? With a F22 Raptor yes, with the JSF maybe no.

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 160,185
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,631
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #57 on: February 04, 2006, 23:14:31 »
* Deuy, having "grown up" at Roads, hums the words to 'Heart of Oak'...*

FTSO, I agree.

Cheers,
Duey

Offline Have Computer Problem

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • -30
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 276
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #58 on: February 04, 2006, 23:39:30 »
I personally think that the Super Hornet is THE BEST Hornet Replacement.
It may have the same name and look the the same, but in fact it is a totally different aircraft...
-Payload augmentation of 15%
-2 more underwing hardpoints
-Range augmentation of 40%
-Parts reduction of 40%
-Size augmentation of 25%
-Radar signature reduction of 60% (yes that's true)
The Super Hornet now comes with the Raytheon APG-79 active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar. Future upgrades could be an IRST and even trust-vectoring nozzles (yes that's possible). Talk about a modern aircraft!

As for the JSF, It can only carry 4 missiles or bombs internally so it WILL have to carry at least half of its weapons externally..... bye bye super stealth.  ;)
Another thing about the JSF is that its cockpit offers bad visibility for the pilot compared to almost all other current and future fighters. Some might argue that this is not important in the 21st century, but in fact it is rather the contrary if we want to take full advantage of these new short-range air to air targetting-NVGs.
(  http://www.sfu.ca/casr/id-ng3-7.htm ).  :)

Offline CTD

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 2,695
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 483
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #59 on: February 05, 2006, 03:01:32 »
I figure the Super Hornet right now is the best option for our needs. I am willing to say that US Navy/Marine Corps wont be using the JSF anytime soon (the next 10 or so years) in a large amount of quantities for us to justify the dream of having them in our arsenal. We need a well proving Platform that can be sustained with a min of hassle. The Super Hornet can do this for us for the next 10 to 20 years.
Speculation of an Amphip ship and what it can can't do will be up in the air until we actually see it. At the time it is actually spec'd, that is when we could focus buying Air Weapons Platforms for that particular application. Until then we can look at what we need and can use. To buy an A/C that we may use to it's full potential 20 years from now is pointless.
The F/A18 G Super Hornet is spec'd to provide a variety of mission specialties. A/A refuelling, conventional A/A and A/G attack, ECM for the fleet, EW and numerous other capabilities. The Navy/Marine Corp purchased a jet that is truly a multifighter/attack fighter in the Super Hornet. It can do all the missions well that are being done by the rest of the fleet and with a min of hassle for re config of the basic airframe. To me for the limited number of Airframes that we will buy this is the best allround jet. The JSF and the F/A22 although good Aircraft cannot provide the vast range of capabilities that the Super Hornet can muster. 
 
No hard feeling's meant by my post.

Offline SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 102,965
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,293
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #60 on: February 05, 2006, 08:32:21 »
Just thought that I would throw something else on the table wrt buying an amphibious ship and then buying the F-35B to possibly operate off of it.  Right now, I'm reading a book about Banshee fighters in the Canadian Navy from 1957-1962.  It is pretty clear from the book that HMCS BONAVENTURE and the Banshee fighter were bought by two different "groups" within the Navy, without necessarily making sure they were compatible together.  Guess what? They weren't.  BONAVENTURE turned out to be too slow and too small for a fighter the size of the Banshee, so the Banshee was retired early in 1962, despite having the best record of exercise intercepts of any Canadian Fighter of the day (mostly because of the sidewinder missile, but I digress).

My point?  IF it is decided that it is important to the CF to operate fighters from a ship again in the future (a mighty big IF, in my opinion).  You had better make sure that before you buy either the ship or the fighter, that you are absolutely convinced that they will work together. 

In my mind, any fighter aircraft that you buy to operate off of any ship of the size we are likely to buy (let's say 20,000-30,000 tonnes, tops) is going to be a compromise and will not do other things like long range air interception in North America really well when it is not embarked.  In other words, we are not going to buy 80-100 VTOL F-35Bs, just because we MIGHT end up operating 4-8 of them off of a amphib someday.  if you want a full performance aircraft without too many compromises, you are going to need a full performance aircraft carrier.

To my way of thinking, buying some form of armed/attack helicopter gives you most of the fire support functions you are likely to need in an expeditionary force, without worrying too much about ship/aircraft incompatibility.  Most of your air defence functions could be better performed by ensuring that your escort ships have a robust missile/radar combination (like a Standard missile with an APAR) that could give you pretty good coverage over land anyway.

Just my opinion...

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 160,185
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,631
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #61 on: February 05, 2006, 11:27:30 »
...To my way of thinking, buying some form of armed/attack helicopter gives you most of the fire support functions you are likely to need in an expeditionary force, without worrying too much about ship/aircraft incompatibility.  Most of your air defence functions could be better performed by ensuring that your escort ships have a robust missile/radar combination (like a Standard missile with an APAR) that could give you pretty good coverage over land anyway.

Just my opinion...


I would like to formally announce that in no way did I influence, nor attempt to influence SeaKingTacco to make the preceding statement!


....although the AH-1Z is a fully-marinized, combat-capable, attack helicopter....just for fear anyone was wondering.  *whistles innocently*

Seriously though, SKT, very good point!  I think there needs to be a little more holistic assessment going into capabilities that clearly span multiple environments/services.

Cheers,
Duey

Offline SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 102,965
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,293
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #62 on: February 05, 2006, 11:43:41 »
Quote
Seriously though, SKT, very good point!  I think there needs to be a little more holistic assessment going into capabilities that clearly span multiple environments/services.

You know Duey, we spend ALOT of time in the military teaching the Estimate process.  So how come we spend so little time actually DOING estimates, particularly when it comes time to buying equipment?

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 160,185
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,631
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #63 on: February 05, 2006, 12:19:24 »
I know SKT... ::) ...I was thinking about hopping over to the MMEV and MGS threads but would probably dig myself in too deep there...same issue IMHO, folks are not adhering to the basic tenets of the military estimate...it seems that many systems, and it's not just the Army or the Air Force, are being procured because they were simply a follow-on from some other pre-existing systems.  I would like to see somebody start from the ground up and say...

"OK, here is the spectrum of operations we want to be able to operate in.  Here are the effects we want to be able to produce while conducting these operations.  Here are the tactics, techniques, procedures and equipment that we need to produce those effects."

This would get the material and the personnel issues sorted out to make things happen in a holistic manner that maximized effectiveness (notice I didn't say efficiency...that's often an MBA-ism that is not nearly as useful a metric as effectiveness...actually getting the ob done) of the generated forces.

2 more ¢

Cheers,
Duey

Offline Bert

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 1,395
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 804
  • Military
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #64 on: March 18, 2006, 13:07:48 »
Another angle on JSF procurement is technology transfer and ownership.  Here is an arcticle that tells
of British issue with the possibility of American controlled software in the JSF.   A country buys the
aircraft but the US maintains control over the technology and ultimately whether the aircraft works or
not. 

http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2152035/joint-strike-fighter

Offline Blue Max

  • Member
  • ****
  • 0
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 186
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #65 on: March 31, 2006, 04:15:21 »
The more I read about the JSF trial and tribulations the more I think Canada should keep its money and either buy the F-15K or Euro-Fighter, IMHO.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.16906677.1134288011.Q5vci8Oa9dUAAD0yqTM&modele=jdc_34

Tactical Aircraft: Recapitalization Goals Are Not Supported by F-22A and JSF Business Cases
Source: US Government Accountability Office (GAO)

Dated March 16, released March 17, 2006; 27 pages in PDF format

This document is the testimony before the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces of the House Armed Services Committee of Michael Sullivan, Director of GAO for Acquisition and Sourcing Management.
Unsurprisingly, given past GAO reports, he paints a dismal picture if the Pentagon’s management of its F-22A and JSF fighter programs, which together represent about $320 billion in investments.

Both programs continue to be burdened with risk. The F-22A business case is unexecutable in part because of a 198 aircraft gap between the Air Force requirement and what DOD estimates it can afford. The JSF program, which has 90 percent of its investments still in the future, plans to concurrently test and produce aircraft thus weakening DOD’s business case and jeopardizing its recapitalization efforts. It plans to begin producing aircraft in 2007 with less than 1 percent of the flight test program completed.

Furthermore, Sullivan notes that DOD has not presented an investment strategy for tactical aircraft systems that measures needs, capability gaps, alternatives, and affordability, and that DOD’s 2006 QDR report, issued last month, did not present a detailed investment strategy for tactical aircraft systems that addressed needs, capability gaps, alternatives, and affordability.

Full text


"We will preserve our tradition of being most ready when the nation is least read. While this mission is our number one priority, we also have the responsibility to prepare for the future."
Commandant of the Marine Corps Gen. Michael W. Hagee

Offline Lancaster

  • Guest
  • *
  • 140
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #66 on: April 06, 2006, 15:03:23 »
I don’t know if Canada afford the Joint Strike fighter and how many fighters do we need? Australia is looking at spending about approximately $11.0 U.S. Billion for 100 fighters($110 U.S. million per fighter) and support structure(subcontracting work?) .If  Canada spends any where near Australia spends, then the  Joint Strike fighter will be potentially the “most costly Canadian military program ever”.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=1597873&C=asiapac

Offline Cdn Blackshirt

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 10,540
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,319
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #67 on: April 06, 2006, 15:35:18 »
I just don't understand why we pre-pay for logistics and maintenance for 20-years for everything.  It seems like a huge waste of what little precious cash we actually have in-hand.


M.   ???
IMPORTANT - 'Blackshirt' is a reference to Nebraska Cornhuskers Football and not naziism.   National Champions '70, '71, '94, '95 and '97.    Go Huskers!!!!

Offline SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 102,965
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,293
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #68 on: April 06, 2006, 16:04:25 »
We don't pre-pay (I wish we could...).  When you see a contract for 20 years of maintenance and support for $1 billion bucks (just to pluck a figure out of the air), it generally means that the CF will pay about $50 million/year (could be more or less, depending on the year) for the next 20 years.  Treasury Board wants the thru life costs accounted for upfront, is what I understand.

Offline Cdn Blackshirt

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 10,540
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,319
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #69 on: April 06, 2006, 16:29:43 »
We don't pre-pay (I wish we could...).  When you see a contract for 20 years of maintenance and support for $1 billion bucks (just to pluck a figure out of the air), it generally means that the CF will pay about $50 million/year (could be more or less, depending on the year) for the next 20 years.  Treasury Board wants the thru life costs accounted for upfront, is what I understand.

I like that much better....thanks for the correction SKT.


Matthew.   :salute:  :cdn:
IMPORTANT - 'Blackshirt' is a reference to Nebraska Cornhuskers Football and not naziism.   National Champions '70, '71, '94, '95 and '97.    Go Huskers!!!!

Offline Blue Max

  • Member
  • ****
  • 0
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 186
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #70 on: April 22, 2006, 00:51:47 »
I believe the JSF is supposed to be a "Cheap-Bomb-Truck". Problem is that there is nothing cheap or proven about it.

Jet fighter costs go skyward as price of rival nosedives
By Tom Allard
April 20, 2006
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/jet-fighter-costs-go-skyward-as-price-of-rival-nosedives/2006/04/19/1145344153546.html

THE F-22A Raptor strike jet - considered the best manned warplane yet - can be bought for about the same price that Australia will pay for the first batch of F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, new figures show.

The data from the US Department of Defence highlights a disturbing trend for the Government: as the price of the F-22A declines, the cost of the Joint Strike Fighter is rapidly increasing.

"It's extremely concerning," said Dennis Jensen, a Coalition MP and a former defence scientist. "What I want to know is how does Defence get the numbers so wrong?"

As well as posing fresh questions over defence costings, the new figures will rekindle debate about whether Australia will get the right aircraft to maintain its long-held air superiority in the region.

The Joint Strike Fighter is Australia's preferred option to replace its FA-18 and F-111s, at a cost of $15 billion.

However, the Chief of the Defence Force, Angus Houston, has said the F-22A "will be the most outstanding fighter aircraft ever built" and possibly the "end of the line in manned fighters".

It can travel at supersonic speeds without afterburners, has unprecedented stealthiness and can launch missiles out of range of other fighter jets and air defence networks.

The problem has always been price. Australia's military has insisted it is at least three times as expensive as the Joint Strike Fighter and simply unaffordable.

But the latest US Department of Defence selected acquisition report, released earlier this month, shows that the F-22A can be bought for $US127 million ($172 million) each.

That is down 17 per cent on figures quoted two years ago.

In the meantime, the same report shows the total cost of the Joint Strike Fighter program has leapt 8 per cent in the past three months, with each plane costing about $US95 million ($128 million), after stripping out development costs.

Separate figures from the US Government Accountability Office, released in March, showed the cost of the Joint Strike Fighters would be much higher for those, like Australia, who are buying planes produced early in the manufacturing cycle. Australia wants 100 planes and will order its first batch in 2010 for delivery in 2012.

According to the US figures, the average cost of Joint Strike Fighters produced this year will be $US125 million. That cost gradually decreases over the 20-year life of the program.

Air Commodore John Harvey, director-general of the RAAF's new air capability project, said the cost of the variant Australia is buying would average about $100 million, including support. Even at the lower price, the F-22A would be "twice the price" of the Joint Strike Fighter, he said.

While Defence was keeping a "watching brief" on the changing price, "nothing in our analysis has fundamentally changed", he said.

But Dr Jensen said the new US figures should ring alarm bells, especially as the Joint Strike Fighter - still under development - was untested and costs were likely to blow out further.

Labor's defence spokesman, Robert McClelland, said: "The Government should really re-examine its decision on the JSF. The [F-22A] Raptor has known capability, while the JSF's has yet to be determined."

Canada is supposed to be getting the JSF to replace the F-18, but there is no proof that the JSF can take on the role of an interceptor, especially IMHO over the three oceans surounding Canada along with our great white north, on only ONE engine.
"We will preserve our tradition of being most ready when the nation is least read. While this mission is our number one priority, we also have the responsibility to prepare for the future."
Commandant of the Marine Corps Gen. Michael W. Hagee

Offline FormerHorseGuard

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 11,455
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 538
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #71 on: April 22, 2006, 13:59:58 »
I think every time there is a new weapons system made and just about to be sold you  will find various people come out of the woods and tell us all what is wrong with it. I always wonder are these people being paid by the other company who designed something else and not sold to the branch of the service requiring the new kit.
I remember when the CF 18 was about to enter service in Canada, the stories of how bad this aricraft was and how it was a lemon and the taxpayers should ask for the money back. ( yes there were some problems, experts here will remember most of them, cracked mounts is the one i remember most) , but that happens in all new systems, does not mean it is wrong design or whatever. The big 3 car makers have 100 000 of recalls every time you look around, does it make them bad auto makers?

I have no idea what  Canada needs for new fighter/ attack aircraft, not in my line of arm chair expert knowledge.  I do not know what any other country  needs, but I do know almost every country is now flying 70s designs, built in the 80s and flying in the 2006 time period. some aircraft out there are 60s designs, built in the 70s and flying today. Some designs in the 50s are still flying in active service. People have to remember it takes years to design and then years to build it.

Does Canada need the JSF, or the new Euro aircraft, or what model. Everyone has an opinion but me. I will tell you this much it be twice as much as off the shelf models because the government will demand Canadian Content etc.
I would like to see an airframe that  will have dual engines, stable of canadian airforce ideas, too much water to fly over here. comms equipment so they can chat with other airforces in the action area, weapons system to defend the pilot and take out the target. It will have to be a multi purpose aircraft, fighter bomber as we all know it will be hard to maintain 2 airframes and have enough of both to do anything with.

Offline joshi

  • Guest
  • *
  • 0
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 23
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #72 on: April 22, 2006, 19:43:51 »
What people do not realize is that the JSF is a fifth generation plane which will replace frontline jets not only in Canada, but also the US, Britiain, Australia and many other allied countries such as Greece, Turkey, Japan to name a few. And this means that a lot of these jets will be produced in thousands as there are virtually no competitiors in the field disregarding the Eurofighter and the Rafale which is another thread. Since Canada is a major contributor in this program we will be positively affected and prices such as, $110 million per unit stated here is not true if one were to keep in mind that prices drop as more aircraft are porduced over time and the need of an aircraft such as the JSF in the future will be very high indeed. Also, the arguement of the JSF being a single engine airplane making it less effective in some way is also false, just look at the F-16 an all round multiurpose single engine fighter which is battle proven. Plus, planes such as Eurofighter and Rafale are still 4+ generation not providing an AESA radar and very minimal to nill stealth characteristics and the price tag for them is $70+ million for the most basic version. By getting the JSF we get the best multipurpose plane in the market and one that has a very good future.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2006, 19:53:42 by joshi »

Offline Argh to the Zee

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • -60
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 282
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #73 on: April 22, 2006, 19:58:06 »
I would say, from reading about what the CF uses its combat aircraft for in the past, that somthing like the F-15E would be a suiting plane. Now I now the F-15E is a dated plane (i.e. its based of a 70's airframe with 80's electronics) and that it would not be prudent to buy them. But Somthing similar, like the Eurofighter or even Sukhoi's new (currently in serial production with 8 in service) Su-34. (yes its russian, but its not exactly a old MiG-29A with turbojets instead of turbofans and vacume tube electronics) But somthing like that. twin engine, supersonic multi role with a big payload of ATG (which is mostly what seems to be employed in current operations) but that can still scrap pretty well in ATA (They can turn fast, ability to take modern missiles like AMRAAM or AA-12, good radar units ect) The JSF, will encompasing most of these, is IMHO, lacking in combat radius, and in ATG stores. It doesnt have a big payload (2000lbs...one Mk84)

Just the laymen opinion of a person in the recruiting process who happens to be a civil aviation student and a bit of a plane nut/nerd.

aesop081

  • Guest
Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
« Reply #74 on: April 22, 2006, 20:05:32 »
What people do not realize is that the JSF is a fifth generation plane which will replace frontline jets not only in Canada, but also the US, Britiain, Australia and many other allied countries such as Greece, Turkey, Japan to name a few. And this means that a lot of these jets will be produced in thousands as there are virtually no competitiors in the field disregarding the Eurofighter and the Rafale which is another thread. Since Canada is a major contributor in this program we will be positively affected and prices such as, $110 million per unit stated here are totally baseless. Also, the arguement of the JSF being a single engine airplane making it less effective in some way is also false, just look at the F-16 an all round multiurpose single engine fighter which is battle proven. Plus, planes such as Eurofighter and Rafale are still 4+ generation not providing an AESA radar and very minimal to nill stealth characteristics and the price tag for them is $70+ million for the most basic version. By getting the JSF we get the best multipurpose plane in the market and one that can give us the edge when needed.

The F-16 is combat proven, that i cannot deny.  However, what YOU are not realizing is that the F-16 was rejected by canada and one of the reason was the fact that it is single-engined.  I would like for you to explain how you see the price tags for JSF as baseless.

Rafale and Typhoon :  The nation using these fighters have made a concious decision based on capabilities and cost when they puchased these types. European countries did not see the lack of stealth as that much of a detriment.  Do you have some magical insight that contradicts several of the major European air forces ?  Dont forget that several countries ( South Africa,Hungary and The Chez republic) have chosen the JAS 39 Grippen for their fighter needs ( if i have to remind you , Grippen is a single-engined fighter of the not that stealthy type).  Algeria is considering buying the raffale as well.  Stealth technology ( low observables byt its correct name BTW) is not the be-all - end - all of aviation.

lastly, when you say that if we get JSF, we will get the best multi-purpose plane on the market, i beleive you faith is rather hasty as the F-35 has yet to prove itself at anything. It is not yet lown operationaly by anyone, anywhere.  lets see what happens during full-scale developement, how it fares when it eventualy reaches IOC (initial operating capability) and finaly full scale squadron service.  This is an abitious program to produce a "jack of all trades" aircraft.  Remember the F-111 program ?  the navy abandoned it because , although it sounded good on paper, the naval version (F-111B) did not meet the navy's needs.