I wasnt making a personal attack folks. Please go through rec.aviation.mil and for that matter a dozen forums on the web for evidence of what I cited. The issues pointed out by other gentlemen wrt Mr Palmers posts are germaine. They are full of technobabble, deliberately high on the jargon- which have in the past led many people to the conclusion that they are so in order to prevent cogent/ precise objections to claims which might otherwise not stand upto scrutiny. If one cannot make a simple arguement high on brevity, short on jargon- its often not accepted, either in business or real life. Especially in engineering where KISS is a way of life- real engineers dont need to drip jargon to get their point across.
JSF, Let Me Count The Ways...
- Thread starter Kurt Plummer
- Start date
- Status
Grand Danois
Entertainer
KPL,
Well, an engineer would say code an not codes when referring to software code. (EDIT: I noted you used it properly later on, so leave it be.)
I might get the time to answer comprehensively and I have only skimmed your post so far, but so far my main objections are:
Europe does posses the technology for LO. The absence of fully implemented production lines for LO aircraft are not an indication of the absence of capability, though if there were some it would have been an obvious demonstration. What is being demonstrated, is that when necessary Europe have the materials technology and the ability to produce with the tolerances needed for F-35, EF and Rafale. They're done to spec and there was never a requirement for a full stealth fighter from the European defense industry. Hence no full very LO production line.
The exchange of technology across the pond is very intimate and the US basically does not have the technology base on its own to support the overall technology level of its military. It is a point Pentagon is trying hard to press on the select commitee in question wrt ITAR. That commitee has some people who hold the perceptions of KPL (IIRC rep. Hyde is one of them). Another issue are traditional industrial concerns ie jobs, competition and pork barreling.
The EW suite was not an example of capability (though it is that also), but an example of that the Europeans are already deep into the source code. The source code is already in the hands of the Europeans. This is really about who gets to do the maintenace and critically, the upgrades! Not of leaking source code.
Basically the US has enormous amounts of money for R&D, but they're by no means limitless. It can't research each and every technology and its implementation to the utmost.
Lastly, it is a mistake to translate political maneuvering and posturing as proof of genuine issues wrt ITAR. The leaking of technologies to third parties (China) is a legitimate concern. However, the US would absolutely hate to see the EU arms embargo lifted even for EU only developed technology.
The F-35 ITAR issue thus becomes a vehicle for US foreign policy ensuring that the ban stays in place.
Well, an engineer would say code an not codes when referring to software code. (EDIT: I noted you used it properly later on, so leave it be.)
I might get the time to answer comprehensively and I have only skimmed your post so far, but so far my main objections are:
Europe does posses the technology for LO. The absence of fully implemented production lines for LO aircraft are not an indication of the absence of capability, though if there were some it would have been an obvious demonstration. What is being demonstrated, is that when necessary Europe have the materials technology and the ability to produce with the tolerances needed for F-35, EF and Rafale. They're done to spec and there was never a requirement for a full stealth fighter from the European defense industry. Hence no full very LO production line.
The exchange of technology across the pond is very intimate and the US basically does not have the technology base on its own to support the overall technology level of its military. It is a point Pentagon is trying hard to press on the select commitee in question wrt ITAR. That commitee has some people who hold the perceptions of KPL (IIRC rep. Hyde is one of them). Another issue are traditional industrial concerns ie jobs, competition and pork barreling.
The EW suite was not an example of capability (though it is that also), but an example of that the Europeans are already deep into the source code. The source code is already in the hands of the Europeans. This is really about who gets to do the maintenace and critically, the upgrades! Not of leaking source code.
Basically the US has enormous amounts of money for R&D, but they're by no means limitless. It can't research each and every technology and its implementation to the utmost.
Lastly, it is a mistake to translate political maneuvering and posturing as proof of genuine issues wrt ITAR. The leaking of technologies to third parties (China) is a legitimate concern. However, the US would absolutely hate to see the EU arms embargo lifted even for EU only developed technology.
The F-35 ITAR issue thus becomes a vehicle for US foreign policy ensuring that the ban stays in place.
Last edited:
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #24
Big-E,
Big-E said:
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #25
Finally, you stated that the JSF was 'good to go' when in fact this could not be further from the truth. Between CDA X-jet and SDD F-jet, the JSF gained wing area, added almost a foot in length, shifted fuel around, thinned the wing skins, 'adjusted' the wing lapjoints. Moved the tails, both vertical and horizontal. Shifted the engine aft by almost 2ft. Redesigned the inlets. Redesigned the STOVL plenum. Added new landing gear which weighed almost twice as much. Added wingfolds and a weapons bay which further displaced auxilliary systems and plumbing/wiring routings that had previously been haphazardly thrown into the forward main fuselage.
Indeed it was all of these things TIMES THREE which drove the rightwards march of further developmental costs vs. weight as Lunchmeat /lied through their teeth/ about how 'common to the original moldline' the F-35 configuration was as an indicator about how 'right' they had gotten the original design. While sitting on one of the biggest weight control problems in recent design history.
If you cannot see that this makes even the PHYSICAL configuration of the jet inadequate to servicing at a time when 9/11 was already a given (October 28, 2001 SDD program win announcement) in terms of future warstate conflicting funding allocations, _you_ are the one who doesn't understand what I've been trying to say at all.
>>
Using F-35 as a test bed for all these other advanced projects is a waste compared to them vesting interest in the individual UCAV and F-22 projects. If they had used the research money for making the F-22 the all around bad boy instead of the too light too late F-35 we would of had one kick-ass downgraded version for foriegn sale on the cheap.
>>
That is not what you originally stated. You complained that the F-35 was a product of delays inherent to added capability weighdown without justifying which systems could be dumped. And which would have to be developed for ANY airframe.
>>
Forgive me if I don't applaud your efforts to try and drive me out of a job. I enjoy flying and I don't think UCAV will be as good as you think it will. There is something to be said for someone actually being in the cockpit.
>>
First off, I frankly don't care what you think of 'your job' or my trying to drive you out of it. The airlines are hiring if you just want to fly. But if you want to be a part of a changing warfighter paradigm. The first question you must ask is "Does the system of systems I drive _Win The War_?" That is the only thing that matters and it is clear that it is not doing so in Iraq or AfG.
As to your comment about the UCAV not working, prove it. All's I see is the hypocrisy inherent to your previous "But of course they shoulda concentrated on the F-22 and UCAV sooner!" as a mindless clone of my own opinion, when a couple paragraphs down your real opinion is put forth as a function of ZERO backing argument.
The fact of the matter is that, with modern delivery heights and threat floors on airframes that are way too expensive to employ as mudfighters with guns and bombs, EVERYONE is 'bombing by remote control'. This being one of the principle drivers behind even the A-10C with new displays and the LITENING pod. Where that attack is made by ATO prefrag against fixed targets, need for a man to be 'in the loop' is baseless as cruise missiles prove 'first in, always on time' every damn war. Where you are flying in a direct support role, of engaged forces, the biggest driver in the coordination loop is the guy on the ground having an ETAC and a ROVER terminal to help get eyes-on _with the EO_ (or a high grain SAR like Lynx). OTOH, if you are flying 'real combat', the kind of road recce free hunt that 'true pilots live for' because they are totally unexpected in terms of results, then the A#1 thing you have to be able to do is simply BE THERE. And there. And over there too. For hours and hours and hours.
NTISR is the most common mission flown today in Iraq. It is resoundingly HATED by the white scarf crowd because they are essentially standing CAS stacks with endless round-and-round orbits broken up by occasional up-the-road-down-the-road detex patrols for added soda straw monotony. They are also despised by the ops planners because, inevitably, you are looking at using 5-7,000 dollar per flight hour F-16s. Or 12-15,000 dollar per flight hour F-18/15E. To do a mission that a Predator could manage for about 1,200 dollars per flight hour. 'Sigh'. If only there were MORE THAN SIXTY OF THEM IN THE INVENTORY.
I'm not saying that the UCAV will match the MQ-1. But it will probably come between that number and the 2,500 dollars per flight hour of the JAS-39. And that means you can have more of them up, for longer, because there _is no baby onboard_.
>>
Yes, Yes.... I see clearly you advocate UCAV. You need not call me SON, it is rather offfensive unless you are my father. Which you are not as he is dead. I don't need a lesson on sortie ratios and pilot fatigue. I deal with it daily. I don't know why you decided to turn your JSF thread into a UCAV thread but congratulations, that's what it is.[/quote]
>>
Is English even your first language? I made a parody mocking the 'tradition for establishmentarianism's sake' (turf protection) you assume I am talking first person to YOU about the way I think it /should be/?! Aside from numerous spelling and gramattical errors, I find it strange that you seem to enjoy repeat-quoting an entire set of arguments merely to end justify an infantile 'Yes, Yes...'. That you then take offense at a single sentence without understanding the CONTEXT in which it was spoken also leaves me wondering how you could possibly be a college educated pilot of /any/ stripe.
I included three operational paradigms by which to highlight the limitations of hunting microtargets in a modern, collaterals dense, alinear, warfare system.
1. Conventional airframe interdiction campaign. Nothing works because the AF is an in and out system designed solely to get airframes deep enough to hit fixed targets
and RTB with zero loiter.
2. The JSF method which will NOT expand upon this because it is too expensive and thus still too time/asset limited in it's coverage. Both by pilot endurance and reduced
fleet inventory effects inherent to an airframe which is NOT optimized to the mission it needs to be for a contemporary warfighter-not-fighterpilot specification.
3. The way that a UCAV can be BOTH the ISR node AND the endurant weapons platform because it vultches the battlespace, looking for targets that pass by
on an opportunistic basis of present-to-engage exploitation.
If you can't speak cogently to that argument you have no business criticizing a writing style which clearly you are too illiterate to understand as NOT being in reference to a literal patronization of 'you'. God knows I'd never willingly claim you as mine.
KPl.
Indeed it was all of these things TIMES THREE which drove the rightwards march of further developmental costs vs. weight as Lunchmeat /lied through their teeth/ about how 'common to the original moldline' the F-35 configuration was as an indicator about how 'right' they had gotten the original design. While sitting on one of the biggest weight control problems in recent design history.
If you cannot see that this makes even the PHYSICAL configuration of the jet inadequate to servicing at a time when 9/11 was already a given (October 28, 2001 SDD program win announcement) in terms of future warstate conflicting funding allocations, _you_ are the one who doesn't understand what I've been trying to say at all.
>>
Using F-35 as a test bed for all these other advanced projects is a waste compared to them vesting interest in the individual UCAV and F-22 projects. If they had used the research money for making the F-22 the all around bad boy instead of the too light too late F-35 we would of had one kick-ass downgraded version for foriegn sale on the cheap.
>>
That is not what you originally stated. You complained that the F-35 was a product of delays inherent to added capability weighdown without justifying which systems could be dumped. And which would have to be developed for ANY airframe.
>>
Forgive me if I don't applaud your efforts to try and drive me out of a job. I enjoy flying and I don't think UCAV will be as good as you think it will. There is something to be said for someone actually being in the cockpit.
>>
First off, I frankly don't care what you think of 'your job' or my trying to drive you out of it. The airlines are hiring if you just want to fly. But if you want to be a part of a changing warfighter paradigm. The first question you must ask is "Does the system of systems I drive _Win The War_?" That is the only thing that matters and it is clear that it is not doing so in Iraq or AfG.
As to your comment about the UCAV not working, prove it. All's I see is the hypocrisy inherent to your previous "But of course they shoulda concentrated on the F-22 and UCAV sooner!" as a mindless clone of my own opinion, when a couple paragraphs down your real opinion is put forth as a function of ZERO backing argument.
The fact of the matter is that, with modern delivery heights and threat floors on airframes that are way too expensive to employ as mudfighters with guns and bombs, EVERYONE is 'bombing by remote control'. This being one of the principle drivers behind even the A-10C with new displays and the LITENING pod. Where that attack is made by ATO prefrag against fixed targets, need for a man to be 'in the loop' is baseless as cruise missiles prove 'first in, always on time' every damn war. Where you are flying in a direct support role, of engaged forces, the biggest driver in the coordination loop is the guy on the ground having an ETAC and a ROVER terminal to help get eyes-on _with the EO_ (or a high grain SAR like Lynx). OTOH, if you are flying 'real combat', the kind of road recce free hunt that 'true pilots live for' because they are totally unexpected in terms of results, then the A#1 thing you have to be able to do is simply BE THERE. And there. And over there too. For hours and hours and hours.
NTISR is the most common mission flown today in Iraq. It is resoundingly HATED by the white scarf crowd because they are essentially standing CAS stacks with endless round-and-round orbits broken up by occasional up-the-road-down-the-road detex patrols for added soda straw monotony. They are also despised by the ops planners because, inevitably, you are looking at using 5-7,000 dollar per flight hour F-16s. Or 12-15,000 dollar per flight hour F-18/15E. To do a mission that a Predator could manage for about 1,200 dollars per flight hour. 'Sigh'. If only there were MORE THAN SIXTY OF THEM IN THE INVENTORY.
I'm not saying that the UCAV will match the MQ-1. But it will probably come between that number and the 2,500 dollars per flight hour of the JAS-39. And that means you can have more of them up, for longer, because there _is no baby onboard_.
>>
Yes, Yes.... I see clearly you advocate UCAV. You need not call me SON, it is rather offfensive unless you are my father. Which you are not as he is dead. I don't need a lesson on sortie ratios and pilot fatigue. I deal with it daily. I don't know why you decided to turn your JSF thread into a UCAV thread but congratulations, that's what it is.[/quote]
>>
Is English even your first language? I made a parody mocking the 'tradition for establishmentarianism's sake' (turf protection) you assume I am talking first person to YOU about the way I think it /should be/?! Aside from numerous spelling and gramattical errors, I find it strange that you seem to enjoy repeat-quoting an entire set of arguments merely to end justify an infantile 'Yes, Yes...'. That you then take offense at a single sentence without understanding the CONTEXT in which it was spoken also leaves me wondering how you could possibly be a college educated pilot of /any/ stripe.
I included three operational paradigms by which to highlight the limitations of hunting microtargets in a modern, collaterals dense, alinear, warfare system.
1. Conventional airframe interdiction campaign. Nothing works because the AF is an in and out system designed solely to get airframes deep enough to hit fixed targets
and RTB with zero loiter.
2. The JSF method which will NOT expand upon this because it is too expensive and thus still too time/asset limited in it's coverage. Both by pilot endurance and reduced
fleet inventory effects inherent to an airframe which is NOT optimized to the mission it needs to be for a contemporary warfighter-not-fighterpilot specification.
3. The way that a UCAV can be BOTH the ISR node AND the endurant weapons platform because it vultches the battlespace, looking for targets that pass by
on an opportunistic basis of present-to-engage exploitation.
If you can't speak cogently to that argument you have no business criticizing a writing style which clearly you are too illiterate to understand as NOT being in reference to a literal patronization of 'you'. God knows I'd never willingly claim you as mine.
KPl.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #26
The INTEL that these facilities produce is shared. And we pay rent. If you want more for THEM ALONE you should ask for it. Myself, anything which helps keep the earthbound under the watchful eyes of "In god we trust, everyone else we verify." is such an important thing that it should be a given.old faithful said:
Certainly we don't owe you more technology base than we have already 'donated' to JOTR with R-OTHR engineering.
Having said that, stealth is only as good as it is exclusive. Having to pay for stealth when one weeks worth of LO raids is enough to shatter any conventional IADS and DEWS will in turn obliterate conventional airpower altogether is foolish when you can coattrail on our abilities.
What this comes down to economics of sheer greed. And American taxpayers should not have to pay to export fewer fighters than we give up from our own inventory merely to ensure 'good will' among those who not only want the capability. But the means to exploit the engineering for their own use as well.
MOST ESPECIALLY we should not have to pay for a weapons system which cannot perform todays mission well enough to win wars. And will not be able to do tomorrows /at all/.
Solely to support a multinational military aristocracy of piloted airpower 'purists'.
The fact that some people are waking up to this reality (too much for too little) is why you are seeing 'subtle hints' being dropped by an increasingly desperate Lunchmeat.
First it's a UCAV. Now it's an F-15. Then it's an A-10.
When in fact the jet is NONE of these things. And never will be.
1. For Cost and Loiter. Since Get thar fustest with the mostest has now been supplemented if not supplanted by 'stay longest for the cheapest'.
2. For Capabilities (Specifically internal missiles but also a suppression ARM).
3. Because Sturmovhik CAS is an exercise in Russian Roulette airpower which is no longer necessary with small-IAM and tightly interfaced air:ground taskforcing.
Those of us who care about the dark road direction that our excessive belief in ourselves as warriors takes us in furtherance of skynight class elitism must band together to keep the pressure on. Constricting LM's ability to LIE about what the JSF will do. Giving them absolutely no wriggle room as Congress finally wakes up and drops the hammer on this exercise in pork politics which is no longer a profit making enterprise.
For the ROW, the warning is simpler: Get ready to jump because you didn't develop it. And a pittance of SDD money doesn't buy you the decades of engineering lead that went into it. Not when your greed for both a cake and the recipe to make it sends the business case into the sewer. The percentage purchase:support fraction has always been 60:40 people. Lunchmeat is trying desperately to get it down to about 50:50 but they will fail because fighter pilots are boys who love to wreck as much as wring out their toys. And military funding for the logistical spares pipes in pissant nations is always a function of 'this year, the navy, next the air force, then the army' inconsistency.
With those kinds of profits (276 billion for the R&D + Production, 347 billion for the 'aftermarket' is one quote I've heard) involved, if you think that 'sovereignity' over your own secondary development and local maintenance will ever be allowed by those in our nation whose venal natures make your own look positively saint like.
You are _vastly_ mistaken.
KPl.
Kurt-
You don't like the F-35, that's fine. Your depiction of nations including Australia and our mates in Europe is not.
We are not wretches and we are not beggars. We have stood proudly shoulder to shoulder with the US for decades and will continue to do so.
In summary, fuck you and your bullshit.
You don't like the F-35, that's fine. Your depiction of nations including Australia and our mates in Europe is not.
We are not wretches and we are not beggars. We have stood proudly shoulder to shoulder with the US for decades and will continue to do so.
In summary, fuck you and your bullshit.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #30
Scraw,scraw said:
The day that you ARE a 'we' I may choose to agree with you. Specifically, one nation state, one constitution and government, one territory-wide currency able to pay your own way in maintaining your international interests in NATO and whatever other out of area 'diplomacy by other means' you care to participate in.
Until then, when you come to MY nation's table with one fifteenth (one fifth in the case of the UK) our 295 million people and no real technology base to contribute to only steal from, don't pretend to dictate terms and not leave a foul taste in the mouths of those whose money paid for the R&D of a jet that is more useful to you than to 'U.S.'.
Because we have long since earned the right to call ourselves a 'We', The People. The ones who spend treasure for blood so that OUR shores may be safe. Despite our governments mistake reputation, we are not into paying for other peoples' defenses, we are not the Arsenal of SOMEONE ELSE' Democracy. That's asking a little too much for a nation in as bad a shape economically and strategically as we presently now are.
Definition Of Terms:
Beggars Table. A concept which is more commonly known as 'beggars can't be choosers'. If you demand something you have no right to ask for and we say no. You should leave the table. And go buy more Flubbers or Rafales. IF YOU STAY, it is because you think that you /need/ something we have. And you should not then stuff 'your conditions' for purchasing it down OUR throats for the privelege of buying _our_ airplane. As I said before, this was all one giant bluff because the Brits knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that nothing else compared or they would have long since run away from the impractical economics involved in this latest F-111.
They furthermore know that we ourselves cannot afford this albatross around our neck for THEIR benefit. Not least because we have other, superior, options.
Arrogant Little Wretches. Unless your real name is Paul Drayson or Brendan Nelson, taking 'personal umbrage' at me for calling them wretches is foolhardy at best. THEY were the ones who stopped a proper white paper study process to determine the right solution for AIR 6000 in the rush to hop onboard the bandwagon of the JSF program.
THEY were the ones who didn't support BAe in a staunch contract negotiation. If THEY now find the teaming arrangement to be 'disappointing' based on what was initially arranged. YOU should replace them.
Not criticize me for criticizing their arrogance for thinking that they had the right to Europeanize a production effort completely out of proportion as is indeed the case for ALL the Airbus, Panavia, Eurofighter _subsidized_ efforts.
KPl.
P.S. On 'personal attacks'. If the best you can do is condemn my words without responding to the meat of their points with more than 'feelings' about the alternative inherent to UCAVs or even the merits of the JSF itself, your criticisms are the ones that are off topic. Because you have nothing else to say to the subject but innuendo and veiled character assassination. Keep in mind, this is a free forum. The mods can close this thread. Or you can stop participating in the discussion. But if you claim to be interested in the subject, don't complain that it is too long a read as an excuse to make derogatory comments about ANYTHING BUT that which is 'germaine' to the subject I started.
The JSF is another in a long line of pork barrel military projects the basis of which is entirely inherent to _institutionalized greed_ on all three levels of the MIC. The facts are thus brutally ugly even as they very human and therefore 'personality if not personally' driven. Again, unless you care to demonstrate how the JSF is NOT a terrifying waste of money as WE (the ones footing 90% of the bill) sink deeper and deeper into a losing war, may I politely suggest you find something better to waste your most emminent 'defense industry professional' time upon?
Such as writing honest articles for the trade press that reflect the real story of what is going on with this bloated beast of a Vae Victis Vickers escalation for exports sake program.
Stealth is too precious a secret to be held by any but the few who NEED to use it to go into other peoples hood and enable 'everyone else' to follow. That is not you. It is U.S.. Asking for technology which you don't need but whose ownership will degrade the value of what he have exclusively, is WRONG. Because it represents an utter waste of all the money and decades that went into developing it. Focus on that, highlighting whether and what the source code and airframe maintainability means in terms of differences between the 'for export' and 'U.S. Only' model capabilities.
And JSF will also die a little more. As it becomes clear that nothing we give you will compare to the effort you have to expend to render your airframe equal to ours.
I will be happy either way.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Calling the JSF partner nations thieves and beggars and something had to come the other way.kyakko said:
Well, the UK got accepted as the only Tier 1 JSF partner when the USA was shown our stealth mock-up (Replica), & the associated work that had been done here. That showed we actually had enough of the technology to be able to make a positive contribution to the project, & not be "thieves or beggars".Kurt Plummer said:
Germany had a stealth technology demonstrator in the 1980s, Lampyridae. Showing it to the USA made the US military realise that the oh-so-secret F-117 could be duplicated in Europe - but with better aerodynamics - so they showed it to the Germans & then told the world (they'd told the UK a bit earlier).
It isn't. & has never been, a purely US technology. We dropped our own project as part of the deal letting us in on the ground floor of JSF. Trying to change the rules & pretend it's all some deep dark US-only secret which we aren't worthy to know, & incapable of comprehending unless told by the all-knowing Americans, is the sort of double dealing which ends up with Americans wandering around looking baffled & saying "Why doesn't anyone like us or trust us? It isn't as if we've lied to them or cheated them." (Cue sudden attack of that all too common in the USA disease, selective memory syndrome).
Ozymandias
Banned Member
Hi Kurt
First of all, please understand that this is a internet forum, not a technical manual. Essays with arbitrary underscores and fowardslashes are hard to read. For example:
What arrogance.
1. I said _HUG_ or the Hornet Upgrade. At the time this was being contemplated (targeting pods, APG-73 equivalent upgrade, new center barrel, AMRAAM), there were /many/ alternatives out there. If you chose not to go with them, it's NOT MY NATION'S PROBLEM.
Please use fewer paragraphs to get your point across, with better grammar.
Secondly, I think your argument is that the F-35 is not particularly useful, cancelling it in favour of J-UCAS would be better, and that (among other countries) Australia and the UK have some nerve in asking for a fixed price and technology access for the JSF. Am I correct?
Well, I am a civilian, so I am not going to try and argue the pros and cons of the JSF. But I am an engineer, so let me set you straight about acceptable businees practices. Projects are expected to be on TIME, on BUDGET, with all the given specifications. If I told my clients that their design will cost twice as much and be ready 6 months later than what I said, they would fire me, sue for breach of contract, and hire someone else to do the job. Unexpected delays and cost blowouts should be taken into account in a project plan.
If Lockheed Martin is blowing the budget and missing it's deadlines, they either have some serious project management problems in the planning stages of the JSF project, or they deliberately mislead the USN, USAF, USMC Australia, UK etc. Either is unacceptable for an engineering firm.
Wanting to know what the finished product will cost is perfectly reasonable. The Australian federal budget is not infinite, and neither, I suspect, is the British or American budgets.
As to the issue of technology transfer, it is something the US has agreed to do for Australia, as outlined in a 2002 agreement:
http://www.industry.gov.au/content/...tent/azindex.cfm?keyword=joint strike fighter
I'm sure concerns about dissemination of JSF technology were addressed in the specific document. Do you have particular concerns about the security of information in the hands of the ADF? Or do you think Australians are inherently untrustworthy?
First of all, please understand that this is a internet forum, not a technical manual. Essays with arbitrary underscores and fowardslashes are hard to read. For example:
What arrogance.
1. I said _HUG_ or the Hornet Upgrade. At the time this was being contemplated (targeting pods, APG-73 equivalent upgrade, new center barrel, AMRAAM), there were /many/ alternatives out there. If you chose not to go with them, it's NOT MY NATION'S PROBLEM.
Please use fewer paragraphs to get your point across, with better grammar.
Secondly, I think your argument is that the F-35 is not particularly useful, cancelling it in favour of J-UCAS would be better, and that (among other countries) Australia and the UK have some nerve in asking for a fixed price and technology access for the JSF. Am I correct?
Well, I am a civilian, so I am not going to try and argue the pros and cons of the JSF. But I am an engineer, so let me set you straight about acceptable businees practices. Projects are expected to be on TIME, on BUDGET, with all the given specifications. If I told my clients that their design will cost twice as much and be ready 6 months later than what I said, they would fire me, sue for breach of contract, and hire someone else to do the job. Unexpected delays and cost blowouts should be taken into account in a project plan.
If Lockheed Martin is blowing the budget and missing it's deadlines, they either have some serious project management problems in the planning stages of the JSF project, or they deliberately mislead the USN, USAF, USMC Australia, UK etc. Either is unacceptable for an engineering firm.
Wanting to know what the finished product will cost is perfectly reasonable. The Australian federal budget is not infinite, and neither, I suspect, is the British or American budgets.
As to the issue of technology transfer, it is something the US has agreed to do for Australia, as outlined in a 2002 agreement:
http://www.industry.gov.au/content/...tent/azindex.cfm?keyword=joint strike fighter
I'm sure concerns about dissemination of JSF technology were addressed in the specific document. Do you have particular concerns about the security of information in the hands of the ADF? Or do you think Australians are inherently untrustworthy?
knightrider4
Active Member
Jsf
Oh this is such a funny forum its good entertainment. On a reasonably serious note the JSF is probably good for dropping JDAMS on some poor hapless insurgent but not much else. I,m in agreement with Mr Plummer lets write off the 300 million say thanks for the comedy show that the program is and buy European.
Oh this is such a funny forum its good entertainment. On a reasonably serious note the JSF is probably good for dropping JDAMS on some poor hapless insurgent but not much else. I,m in agreement with Mr Plummer lets write off the 300 million say thanks for the comedy show that the program is and buy European.
It really disappoints me when I hear an ostensibly knowledgeable poster speak so disparagingly about his or her nation's most trusted allies . If you believe that US stealth technology is of such paramount, strategic importance that it cannot be shared even with Britain or Australia, you are free to voice your opinion and support it accordingly. But to belittle, defame, and in general so strongly censure others with no regard to patriotic sensitivities reflects very poorly on one's character and integrity--no matter how obscurely an argument is parsed, and no matter how much rambling, discursive and faux-technical jargon is included.
To all of those foreign posters who have been offended--for good reason, and not just the Brits and Aussies--by several of the posts in this topic, I sincerely apologize. Please remember that such posts clearly do not reflect upon the sentiments of the vast majority of Americans and represent merely an isolated example of supercilious arrogance and condescension taken to an extreme which can be found throughout the world. We value your contributions as important friends, we share a common global, political and even moral framework, and most importantly, we hope that you can stand with us as friends and still feel pride and respect rather than embarassment.
Anyway, going back on topic: Although I have no formal expertise or experience in the industry, I think speculations of the demise of JSF are overblown and exaggerated. Yes, there have been significant cost overruns, and yes, there are still many difficulties that lie ahead. But compared with other projects of similiar wide-ranging scope and magnitude, I feel as if the JSF program is still fairly healthy at this point. Many like to bring up well-publicized criticisms about weight issues, coding delays, and limited internal carriage armament as evidence for failure, but I think that such arguments "selectively forget" the cost overruns and delays borne by the Raptor, Typhoon and Rafale programs throughout the 90s. And of course, there is the issue of how much fault exactly lies with Lockheed Martin, or whether problems should be attributed to subcontractors, political disputes on both national and international levels or the constant shifting of vaguely defined military requirements.
Of course, I say all of this with a conflict of interest in mind . My father, who works for Boeing IDS, contributed some work to the X-32 program during the late nineties, and as his son I am still somewhat bitter about the JSF contract loss. I would like to think that had the X-32 design been chosen, the problems currently plagueing JSF would not be so exacerbated, but given the less-than-stellar recent track record of Boeing management--Wedgetail, FCS, Sea-Based X-Band Radar and GMD (with a few exceptions such as SDB and JDAM)--I am not certain how strongly I can support my opinions.
To all of those foreign posters who have been offended--for good reason, and not just the Brits and Aussies--by several of the posts in this topic, I sincerely apologize. Please remember that such posts clearly do not reflect upon the sentiments of the vast majority of Americans and represent merely an isolated example of supercilious arrogance and condescension taken to an extreme which can be found throughout the world. We value your contributions as important friends, we share a common global, political and even moral framework, and most importantly, we hope that you can stand with us as friends and still feel pride and respect rather than embarassment.
Anyway, going back on topic: Although I have no formal expertise or experience in the industry, I think speculations of the demise of JSF are overblown and exaggerated. Yes, there have been significant cost overruns, and yes, there are still many difficulties that lie ahead. But compared with other projects of similiar wide-ranging scope and magnitude, I feel as if the JSF program is still fairly healthy at this point. Many like to bring up well-publicized criticisms about weight issues, coding delays, and limited internal carriage armament as evidence for failure, but I think that such arguments "selectively forget" the cost overruns and delays borne by the Raptor, Typhoon and Rafale programs throughout the 90s. And of course, there is the issue of how much fault exactly lies with Lockheed Martin, or whether problems should be attributed to subcontractors, political disputes on both national and international levels or the constant shifting of vaguely defined military requirements.
Of course, I say all of this with a conflict of interest in mind . My father, who works for Boeing IDS, contributed some work to the X-32 program during the late nineties, and as his son I am still somewhat bitter about the JSF contract loss. I would like to think that had the X-32 design been chosen, the problems currently plagueing JSF would not be so exacerbated, but given the less-than-stellar recent track record of Boeing management--Wedgetail, FCS, Sea-Based X-Band Radar and GMD (with a few exceptions such as SDB and JDAM)--I am not certain how strongly I can support my opinions.
Retired-Oz
New Member
Kurt
Kurt, you describe yourself as a Defense Professional / Analyst.
I’m wondering what exactly you analyze.
When you make statements such as “arrogant little wretches in Oz and Blightey”, I have to wonder if your intention is to “piss off” the two countries most likely to offer support to the US in difficult times. I’m well aware that Australia has been able to offer little in the way of conventional military forces in recent conflicts, but we have been able to contribute significantly in niche areas. WE are also investing heavily in modernizing and hardening our forces with the help of Americans far more enlightened that you.
We arrogant little wretches from Oz and Blightey have a sovereign right to demand anything we bloody well want from a perspective supplier. Whether or not that supplier comes to the party is another issue.
As I’ve said in a previous post, we want the JSF, but not at “any” price.
If you are truly an analyst why have you not come to the realization that the Oz/Us forces are far more that just allies. Australian facilities are part of the “US Block” global military network. Our bases are used by US forces. Our ports are used for US Navy on R&R. Our surveillance facilities are integrated into the US network.
Fortunately the many US personnel I’ve come into contact with in business and socially differ greatly from an arrogant prick like you, which allows me to maintain the high opinion I have of your country.
PS: You can describe me as an arrogant wretch to satisfy your prejudices, but at 6’4” and 120Kg (265lb) can you lay off the “little”.
Kurt, you describe yourself as a Defense Professional / Analyst.
I’m wondering what exactly you analyze.
When you make statements such as “arrogant little wretches in Oz and Blightey”, I have to wonder if your intention is to “piss off” the two countries most likely to offer support to the US in difficult times. I’m well aware that Australia has been able to offer little in the way of conventional military forces in recent conflicts, but we have been able to contribute significantly in niche areas. WE are also investing heavily in modernizing and hardening our forces with the help of Americans far more enlightened that you.
We arrogant little wretches from Oz and Blightey have a sovereign right to demand anything we bloody well want from a perspective supplier. Whether or not that supplier comes to the party is another issue.
As I’ve said in a previous post, we want the JSF, but not at “any” price.
If you are truly an analyst why have you not come to the realization that the Oz/Us forces are far more that just allies. Australian facilities are part of the “US Block” global military network. Our bases are used by US forces. Our ports are used for US Navy on R&R. Our surveillance facilities are integrated into the US network.
Fortunately the many US personnel I’ve come into contact with in business and socially differ greatly from an arrogant prick like you, which allows me to maintain the high opinion I have of your country.
PS: You can describe me as an arrogant wretch to satisfy your prejudices, but at 6’4” and 120Kg (265lb) can you lay off the “little”.
I think Kirk is a bit paranoid. He would be even more paranoid when he realizes that many of our strategic minerals are imported from abroad. Bauxite, uranium, titanium, and chromium. The ugly American. And I won't mention America imports more than half its oil consumption.
At $45-50 million US a copy, the JSF F-35A is a wonderful aircraft. At $100 million US a copy, it won't help America's huge trade deficit. It will be so overpriced, no one abroad will buy them.
As an American, I hope the price blow out doesn't breach $80 million per copy. I don't think America can afford too many aircraft at that price, and fewer if the price breaches $100 million.
What bothers me the most is the Congress insisting on 2700 aircraft to keep the price down, while the air force insisting they only want 2000. This drop in numbers will reflect an even higher price per aircraft, not less. This will start a chain reaction causing the Congress to buy fewer aircraft thereby increasing the price up further.
If I was Australia, and the price breaches the price of either the Rafael or Eurofighter, I wouldn't buy the F-35A. The Super Hornet begins to look very attractive at $50 million US per aircraft. Better still, Australia should ask for its $300 million JSF investment be returned. This could buy six Super Hornets.
Mod edit: Guys, I'm closing the thread for a few days to give everyone a chance to calm down. It's simply becoming argumentative and hurling insults at one another achieves nothing. Cheers. AD.
At $45-50 million US a copy, the JSF F-35A is a wonderful aircraft. At $100 million US a copy, it won't help America's huge trade deficit. It will be so overpriced, no one abroad will buy them.
As an American, I hope the price blow out doesn't breach $80 million per copy. I don't think America can afford too many aircraft at that price, and fewer if the price breaches $100 million.
What bothers me the most is the Congress insisting on 2700 aircraft to keep the price down, while the air force insisting they only want 2000. This drop in numbers will reflect an even higher price per aircraft, not less. This will start a chain reaction causing the Congress to buy fewer aircraft thereby increasing the price up further.
If I was Australia, and the price breaches the price of either the Rafael or Eurofighter, I wouldn't buy the F-35A. The Super Hornet begins to look very attractive at $50 million US per aircraft. Better still, Australia should ask for its $300 million JSF investment be returned. This could buy six Super Hornets.
Mod edit: Guys, I'm closing the thread for a few days to give everyone a chance to calm down. It's simply becoming argumentative and hurling insults at one another achieves nothing. Cheers. AD.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status