F-35 Multirole Joint Strike Fighter

Status
Not open for further replies.

Beatmaster

New Member
What "reports" are you referring to? Surely you can post a link let interested forum members decide for themselves if these reports "are credible enough"?
However i do not have the info to back that up so perhaps one of the other forum members can give more info about this.
ermm...:rolleyes:
I was referring to the Dutch comparison tests.
But the official documents have been archived on their webpage so i do not have them anymore.
What i do know it was very in depth and to the finest detail as the dutch MoD did some serious work. But as i said those papers have been archived.
And in terms of credibility i do not know if there where third parties involved that might influence the outcome of those tests.
So i hope that one of the other forum members might have similar data.
Anyway the reports use to be accessible trough mindef.nl but they are not anymore.
 

Bonza

Super Moderator
Staff member
Yes that should be the case, but as reports have been pointed out (Not sure if they are credible enough) But the Stealth abilities of the JSF are not that superior and the situational awareness is being matched by both Gripen and EF.
At least their latest reports claim so.
Which would mean that stealth and VSTOL are they only real aces that the JSF would have at this point.
However i do not have the info to back that up so perhaps one of the other forum members can give more info about this.
I'm not sure that either the Gripen or Eurofighter could match the F-35 in terms of situational awareness... rather than looking for a link stating that explicitly, I'd say it would be more useful to read up (as much as you can with open source information) on the manner in which each aircraft is intended to be used by its primary operator, the sensor systems planned or implemented, and the amount of emphasis that's been put on the aircraft's capacity to process and share large amounts of data.

It's up to you to make up your mind about it, but a lot of the information I've seen online seems to indicate that the F-35's designers placed greater importance on sensor fitout, processing power, data fusion and data sharing than either of the other two aircraft mentioned - and on top of that, these systems seem as though they'll have the benefits of being more modern designs, simply by virtue of the relative timelines in which each of these aircraft were developed.

As I said, it's difficult to find accurate open source information on this sort of thing and in the absence of definitive answers it's up to you to make up your own mind, but I think if you read enough to connect the dots you might come away with the same impression. Every other fighter producing company, from Boeing to Saab to Sukhoi, have made claims about situational awareness in their marketing literature, but I don't think the picture they paint quite fits the development cycles of their aircraft in the same way it fits the F-35 (not saying Lockheed-Martin don't inject their own spin into their marketing, they very much do). That said I'm open to being corrected if my line of reasoning is flawed.
 

Beatmaster

New Member
I'm not sure that either the Gripen or Eurofighter could match the F-35 in terms of situational awareness... rather than looking for a link stating that explicitly, I'd say it would be more useful to read up (as much as you can with open source information) on the manner in which each aircraft is intended to be used by its primary operator, the sensor systems planned or implemented, and the amount of emphasis that's been put on the aircraft's capacity to process and share large amounts of data.

It's up to you to make up your mind about it, but a lot of the information I've seen online seems to indicate that the F-35's designers placed greater importance on sensor fitout, processing power, data fusion and data sharing than either of the other two aircraft mentioned - and on top of that, these systems seem as though they'll have the benefits of being more modern designs, simply by virtue of the relative timelines in which each of these aircraft were developed.

As I said, it's difficult to find accurate open source information on this sort of thing and in the absence of definitive answers it's up to you to make up your own mind, but I think if you read enough to connect the dots you might come away with the same impression. Every other fighter producing company, from Boeing to Saab to Sukhoi, have made claims about situational awareness in their marketing literature, but I don't think the picture they paint quite fits the development cycles of their aircraft in the same way it fits the F-35 (not saying Lockheed-Martin don't inject their own spin into their marketing, they very much do). That said I'm open to being corrected if my line of reasoning is flawed.
Works for me, buddy.
Thanks for the crystal clear explanation.
Btw little question pops up in mind, Does the JSF offer in terms of avionics and data acquisition any unique assets? Because i did read a lot about the data processing power of the JSF kinda giving me the feeling of being a part within a centric network, so to speak as a single fighter being not as capable as being in a group as one bird does relay info to a second bird and thus being able to focus the direct firepower on pre coordinated targets trough a closed on board network with other air assets and a ground operations hub.
And from what i did read some of the anti JSF pages claim that a single JSF would not be as effective as a standalone bird, as the JSF its sensors would rely on the combined data processing and target acquisition of the group/squadron itself to maximize its effectiveness.
So would you or anyone else have any info on this? and how this would play out in actual combat?
 
Why does it come as a surprise to you that politicians (of any nationality) will use issues like the F-35 as a political weapon to create a wedge issue to beat around the head of their opponents?

Especially when the issue involves as much money as the F-35 does, and national budgets are under pressure.

You tell me, fact however is that the Gripen and the EF are flying at this point and they are flying well while being upgraded everytime.
So one might say drop the JSF and go with for example the Gripen.
So you're comparing the F-35 (which has been in development for 10-15 years, depending on when you define it) to the Gripen that was in development for 15 years and has now been operational for 15 years, and the Eurofighter that was in development for 20 years and operational now for 10 years?

The realities of new technology aircraft design and manufacture is that it will be a difficult process. Integrating new technologies in new ways is always going to be fraught with problems and setbacks and cost over-runs. The Boeing 787 program was incredibly problematic and much delayed. But it is now entering commercial service.

Show me a fighter development program, and I'll show you a troubled development process.
The F-111 development program was horrific, but the APA fell in love anyway.
 

Bonza

Super Moderator
Staff member
Works for me, buddy.
Thanks for the crystal clear explanation.
Btw little question pops up in mind, Does the JSF offer in terms of avionics and data acquisition any unique assets? Because i did read a lot about the data processing power of the JSF kinda giving me the feeling of being a part within a centric network, so to speak as a single fighter being not as capable as being in a group as one bird does relay info to a second bird and thus being able to focus the direct firepower on pre coordinated targets trough a closed on board network with other air assets and a ground operations hub.
And from what i did read some of the anti JSF pages claim that a single JSF would not be as effective as a standalone bird, as the JSF its sensors would rely on the combined data processing and target acquisition of the group/squadron itself to maximize its effectiveness.
So would you or anyone else have any info on this? and how this would play out in actual combat?
This is where the idea of systems vs platforms comes into the discussion. Will an F-35 be at its best operating alone? No, but in fact, no other fighter aircraft will be either. And the one of the most important things to remember is that this isn't the way in which fighter aircraft are operated, and with the increases in capability offered by networking multiple platforms into one coherent system, this certainly isn't the way of the future either.

It's important to look at the aircraft as not just a machine, but a cog in a greater machine that represents overall warfighting capabilities. All modern combat aircraft are operated in coordination with offboard support assets, and even if an ultra high-performance aircraft of some kind could operate effectively while isolated, it might be a battle winner, but not necessarily a war winner. Do you understand what I mean? It's the sort of thing where an advantage in individual platform performance, if not accompanied with effective networking performance, will struggle to confer anything but a transitory advantage, because if you're fighting in individual platforms against a coordinated system, the system will be operating with a substantial information advantage that will allow it to dictate the circumstances of the overall battle.

An F-35 on an individual level might get out turned, or out run, or operate with less munitions - but this isn't representative of a real world combat capability. Because it's not necessarily the F-35 you're out turning that you have to worry about, it's all the other pieces of the system of which that F-35 is a part, which are now receiving data and thus operating at an information advantage to you. Likewise, if you're detected by another part of the system and one or several F-35s are tasked to deal with you, being faster and more agile is now less relevant because they can use the information advantage to dictate when and where the engagement occurs, for example by running silent and using offboard targeting data, they might gain a positional advantage which you cannot contest, as you've not yet become aware of their presence.

Bear in mind what I've described isn't unique to the F-35, and I'm not trying to portray it as such, but what I'm trying to get across is that airframe performance is not necessarily as relevant from a big-picture warfighting perspective as networking performance. If you look at how the USAF conducted the air campaign over the Gulf in 1991, you'll see it was planned specifically to convey as much of an informational advantage as possible to the USAF, and similarly to disrupt the IAF's capacity to gain and make use of information in its own planning.

I hope that answers the question or gives you an idea of what people mean when they talk about systems vs platforms. Others on this board could give you more and better information however, as this is all a hobby for me so I'm not an authority of any kind. :)
 

Beatmaster

New Member
Why does it come as a surprise to you that politicians (of any nationality) will use issues like the F-35 as a political weapon to create a wedge issue to beat around the head of their opponents?

Especially when the issue involves as much money as the F-35 does, and national budgets are under pressure.



So you're comparing the F-35 (which has been in development for 10-15 years, depending on when you define it) to the Gripen that was in development for 15 years and has now been operational for 15 years, and the Eurofighter that was in development for 20 years and operational now for 10 years?

The realities of new technology aircraft design and manufacture is that it will be a difficult process. Integrating new technologies in new ways is always going to be fraught with problems and setbacks and cost over-runs. The Boeing 787 program was incredibly problematic and much delayed. But it is now entering commercial service.

Show me a fighter development program, and I'll show you a troubled development process.
The F-111 development program was horrific, but the APA fell in love anyway.
True and i will not deny the valid facts you stated.
But the thing is that because this is such a high risk and expensive project there is a lot to lose and a lot at stake here for the involved nations.
The amounts of money put in and the amounts of effort and dedication is unprecedented at this point.
That alone should make the JSF a success, One the other hand the stream of information amongst the partners seem to be inaccurate and wishful thinking at best.
On top of that you got the fears of previous miscalculations to happen again.
Also the initial specs have changed over time and then you got the delays and costs.
So for the JSF partners this whole project is HUGE and most went in deep and hard, failing would be a disaster. Thus you cannot blame them from being a hawk and watch their interests, specially if it turns out that the commitment by the US in terms of counter offers and economic benefits are not being made as they said they would.
For example the Netherlands went in for 800 Million euro, and later did have to add another 2x 800 euro to break even with the project and to catch unforeseen expenditures, next to that we did clear 300 million to keep our current fleet of F-16 flying and we cleared another 240 million for the 2 test birds.
And practical speaking we do not have a operational plane yet, what we got is a mighty empty spot in our pockets, 2 bare bone JSF to play around with and another letter from the pentagon saying that the average cost of the JSF and its program is going to be another 20% higher.
And forgive me for saying how on earth can you call that a good marketing and project structure? So in that regard the JSF is ANYTHING but a success and it seems that the biggest enemy to the JSF is the JSF program itself.
No wonder that the partners start to feel uneasy as we are not talking about a few pennies here.
And if you take the total amount invested by the Netherlands at this point and you would buy the Gripen or JSF then we could affort 150 or even 200 4th gen birds against the 85 planned JSF birds...

And thats the whole discussion here in the Netherlands.
Its not the money as we knew upfront that this is going to be prizy, but its the lack of information and a lot of denial while the actual reports are crystal clear and tell a different story.
Let me put it this way, Minister H.Hillen has been with the JSF since the very first day he is by far one of the biggest hardcore JSF guys you will find in the whole consortium (Some in the Netherlands say that he dumped his wife for a pocket size show model of the JSF to sleep next to :D) and even he cannot justify the project as it is today.
And on top of that the economic benefits of this project (Counter offers and such) did not come.
Yes a few "Raam Contracts have been signed" total value 124 million Euro (Out of the 1.4 billion worth of orders promised) to date.
And thats a even bigger issue.
 
For example the Netherlands went in for 800 Million euro, and later did have to add another 2x 800 euro to break even with the project and to catch unforeseen expenditures, next to that we did clear 300 million to keep our current fleet of F-16 flying and we cleared another 240 million for the 2 test birds.
And practical speaking we do not have a operational plane yet, what we got is a mighty empty spot in our pockets, 2 bare bone JSF to play around with and another letter from the pentagon saying that the average cost of the JSF and its program is going to be another 20% higher.
And forgive me for saying how on earth can you call that a good marketing and project structure?
Don't whinge and whine about about 1billion euro planes just because the Netherlands chose to invest in the SDD phase of the JSF.
The Dutch government could have sunk the money into a bank account to earn interest, or played on the stock market, or flushed it down the toilet, but they chose to invest in the JSF. It wasn't a guaranteed investment with a guaranteed return of 10%. It was an investment in a program that if successful would result in work being contracted to Dutch firms.

If the Netherlands is having second thoughts about the JSF, then so long, good luck in the future, and Dutch firms will still be getting the work for the JSF.
 

Beatmaster

New Member
Don't whinge and whine about about 1billion euro planes just because the Netherlands chose to invest in the SDD phase of the JSF.
The Dutch government could have sunk the money into a bank account to earn interest, or played on the stock market, or flushed it down the toilet, but they chose to invest in the JSF. It wasn't a guaranteed investment with a guaranteed return of 10%. It was an investment in a program that if successful would result in work being contracted to Dutch firms.

If the Netherlands is having second thoughts about the JSF, then so long, good luck in the future, and Dutch firms will still be getting the work for the JSF.
Its not that simple m8. its pure about the agreements and guarantees made by the US which are not happening at this point. So to say the commitment by the US towards its partners falls short.
And thats the issue.
 

Lostfleet

New Member
JSF's unique SVTOL capability will probably inspire other aircraft designers to develop their own SVTOL military aircraft.

However I was wondering if this technology can be used for a civillian SVTOL aircraft, most likely for a private jet. We can see MV-22's civillian cousin AW-609 in development ( although for a very long time now) so can we expect something similar to F-35s in the civilian market ?
 

the concerned

Active Member
if the US doesn't buy its full quota of JSF's it would most probably be that they decide not to replace the A-10 with it but decide between the unmanned A-10 or the new avenger uav otherwise it might be because whatever replaces the T-38 might provide limited air defence for ANG units which is why i think the T/A-50 will win [Mod Edit: The Mod Team previously asked you to do some basic research before posting and you continue to persist in this behaviour. Consequently, we are issuing a source challange. You have 2 days or until the next time you post (which ever is shorter) to provide a link to a source that supports the above statement on the A-10 alternative. No further warnings (for the any further failure to observe directions by the Mod Team) will be issued.]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

jack412

Member
Beatmaster, after skimming your posts, all I can say is I think you are wrong and didn't see anything I agree with in them
a couple of points that others haven't covered and other than that I'll leave you to your thoughts
the f-35 hasn't gone up 4 times the price for full rate production planes

your link is nearly bias as apa
JSF Nieuws.nl » F-35 buyers from anxiety to paranoia over unpredictable costs
but when it quotes apa in 42 pages, it's almost a draw
site:http://www.jsfnieuws.nl air power australia - Google Search

and finally regardles of your saying otherwise, turkey is ordering 2x 2012 LRIP planes
Turkey to buy two F-35s in 2012: minister | Alrroya
 
Last edited:

the concerned

Active Member
i don't have any evidence these are my opinions you'll have to forgive me i thought thats what these threads are about.i just think it would be more sensible to replace the A-10 with the uav's(this is my opinion only) ok.In AFM and Combat aircraft they both state that the US is conducting studies into turning the A-10 into a UAV.I can't understand why if it is being replaced unless they are not convinced either. [Mod Edit: A source challange means you provide the article title, page number, full title of the magazine and the substance of the article. A passing reference that you may read something in one of two magazines in the past without the proper context will not suffice.

This is a forum for serious military discussion and hence poorly suited for this sort of fanboy type of participation. Some level of background reading is necessary but unfortunately, you have obviously not done any background reading nor read the forum rules. Reading and thinking before posting is a good thing. A little research before posting can do wonders to help you contribute intelligently to the discussion.

You are hereby banned for 21 days and any failure to address any Mod requests in future will lead to further adminstrative sanctions.]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

SpudmanWP

The Bunker Group
the Stealth abilities of the JSF are not that superior and the situational awareness is being matched by both Gripen and EF.
Just a few clarifications:
1. The stealth and SA benefits have been testified to in front of the AU Parliament. While classifeid, they did attest to it's superiority and very high LER (Loss Exchange Ratio) enjoyed by the F-35.

2. The F-35's datalinks are the only ones available in the world that are directional and LPI. This allows them to automatically share data amongst themselves WITHOUT giving their position away.

3. Nobody has any system like EODAS which adds greatly to the SA picture, especially in a furball or when under AAA or SAM attack.

4.. Gripen NG (and it's systems) are not flying, so it is an unknown for the most part.

5. The EF's MAW is actually an active system. In other words it has to broadcast a radar signal (in all directions) in order to detect an inbound missile. That signal can be picked up by ESM systems and would likely give the EF's position away.
 

Cadredave

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Cadredave, after skimming your posts, all I can say is I think you are wrong and didn't see anything I agree with in them
a couple of points that others haven't covered and other than that I'll leave you to your thoughts
the f-35 hasn't gone up 4 times the price for full rate production planes

your link is nearly bias as apa
JSF Nieuws.nl » F-35 buyers from anxiety to paranoia over unpredictable costs
but when it quotes apa in 42 pages, it's almost a draw
site:http://www.jsfnieuws.nl air power australia - Google Search

and finally regardles of your saying otherwise, turkey is ordering 2x 2012 LRIP planes
Turkey to buy two F-35s in 2012: minister | Alrroya
Jack
First off that link was added by Beat not I he was answering a question I possed, all those against F35 have one thing in common to kill this programme and what alternate do they offer to replace it with more 4 gen like Gripen/EF/F15/F16/ where the sense in that.

I fail to see how a 4+ gen aircraft is going to provide us a capability in the latter half of this century no amount of tinkering under the hood is going to produce the capabilities that F35 has (LO, SA etc) in aircraft like Gripen/EF/Rafael/F16/F15 if anyone can answer that simple request then ill stop being a pro F35 supporter.

CD
 

jack412

Member
many apologies Cadredave, I did mean Beatmaster and not yourself, your posts I find accurate and valuable
I wrote your name by mistake, again I am sorry
 

Cadredave

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
many apologies Cadredave, I did mean Beatmaster and not yourself, your posts I find accurate and valuable
I wrote your name by mistake, again I am sorry
Not a problem Jack ive learnt quite alot on here by those who do this for a day job (Air Force, Procurement, system engineers).

CD
 
Jack
First off that link was added by Beat not I he was answering a question I possed, all those against F35 have one thing in common to kill this programme and what alternate do they offer to replace it with more 4 gen like Gripen/EF/F15/F16/ where the sense in that.

I fail to see how a 4+ gen aircraft is going to provide us a capability in the latter half of this century no amount of tinkering under the hood is going to produce the capabilities that F35 has (LO, SA etc) in aircraft like Gripen/EF/Rafael/F16/F15 if anyone can answer that simple request then ill stop being a pro F35 supporter.

CD
Beat has stated for the record that he hopes the F-35 can be brought up to speed, but that whats put out in PR punts, is often misrepresentative of where this program actually is, which is a dissapointment to all of us who were hoping to actually have some capability by now. Ret Gen Ronald Fogleman was not/is not calling for the discontinuation of the F-35, his candor and credentials are impeccable, as a former Air Force Chief of Staff, and former F-15 international airshow demo pilot, F-100 Misty Fac, his call for more 4+ fighters to fill in the gaps "until we have capability" in the F-35 is just good policy. He is onboard with all the technology stating that he believes the F-35 will be a "marvelous airplane", but that we need to maintain the capability to fill in the gaps between now and then. His admonition that the Super Hornet would be a good matchup for the USAF, but heaven forbid the USAF would consider a Navy airplane, points to the "bitter" inter-service rivalry in the US military and DOD in general. It may be funny to those outside of the US, but it has left the warfighting capability of our military lacking in many areas, many times in the past, Gen Foglemen is one of the few with the stones to call em like he see em!
 

SpudmanWP

The Bunker Group
IMHO building "new" 4th gen airframes to fill a gap that is not here yet is very bad policy. When you buy a new fighter, you are buying 30-40 years of airframe life. However, the very definition of a gap denotes a "short-term" problem and a new airframe is a "long-term" solution.

Developing & implementing upgrades to current 4th gen assets is a better solution because the WHOLE fleet benefits from the avionics development. It is also much less expensive due to only adding a few thousand hours of airframe life instead of 30-40 years.

Buying a new airframe is also committing a "long-term" solution to a perceived (and not yet materialized) "short-term" problem.
 

Haavarla

Active Member
Wow..!
WP, i just about had it with your constant Pro push for the F-35 program, just to justify what the USAF total status and imminent future glassball predicement look like..
The reality is that the US navy, marines and USAF will not meet its requirments goal of force multiplier doctrine as it has allways followed in the past.

All of a sudden the whole multiplier doctrine are swappen to meet a less demanding requirement. If this is a reality or a smoke screen to cover the huge delay and setback of the F-35 program i can not tell..

However, if the US DOD cannot see the useage in producing new 4th gen platforms with 5th sensors suite as follow, then this debate is hopless.

The F-35 Program has for some time now exeeded its treshhold as the payback money(bang for the Bucks) guarantie has expired.

The F-15 and SH production line has not yet halted, thus we can not calculate the exact service efficiant and cost value of procuring more 4th+ gen platforms.. vs the F-35 haunted development program which is by a fair account quite uncertain..
 

SpudmanWP

The Bunker Group
Yikes

The reality is that the US navy, marines and USAF will not meet its requirments goal of force multiplier doctrine as it has allways followed in the past.
Now who is predicting out of thin air.

However, if the US DOD cannot see the useage in producing new 4th gen platforms with 5th sensors suite as follow, then this debate is hopless.
They(along with 9 partner nations) cannot see it because they have the experience to know better and the numbers to back it up.

The F-35 Program has for some time now exeeded its treshhold as the payback money(bang for the Bucks) guarantie has expired.
With results like "better than 6:1 LER vs advanced 4th Gen fighters in a 4:8 scenario" sounds like an AWSOME "bang for the buck" to me... and anyone else who can add.

The F-15 and SH production line has not yet halted,
While the F-15 line is open for a few more years, the SH is on it's last legs if it does not win in Brazil. Its early lose in India is not a good sign. There is still time in the lines to crank them up if (contrary to where the F-35 is going) a major, program ending defect is found.

btw, Someone needs switch to decaf ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top