F-35 Multirole Joint Strike Fighter

Status
Not open for further replies.

SABRE

Super Moderator
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #21
Re: F-35 Multirole Joint Fighter

This Australia-Indonesia thing is realy getting interesting. There should be a separate thread for this, Seriously. OR change this topic "Why Australia wants JSF" & move it to political discussion.

But than we might not have any topic on JSF to discuss here in military aviation.
Better move a part of it- leave out the JSF related thing here and rest to Political discussion.
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
Re: F-35 Multirole Joint Fighter

Yeah, well I've had my "spray" about Indonesia. It upsets me a bit how they "treat" or perceive us, when we do so much to help them, but anyway. Back to the JSF, I'll try and dig up an article I saw the other day where a Lockheed Martin official talked about Australia having a requirement for V/STOL F-35B's...
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
Re: F-35 Multirole Joint Fighter

Here is the article, short though it may be. It's from the Aus-Aviation website, subscriber access only unfortunately...

• RAAF CONSIDERS STOVL JSF: Mike Cosentino, Lockheed Martin’s head of International Programs for the JSF, has revealed that Australia is considering purchasing a mix of Conventional Take Off & Landing F-35A and Short Take Off & Vertical Landing F-35B Joint Strike Fighters to replace its F/A‑18s and F-111s.
When asked about whether the RAAF had ever enquired about acquiring F/A‑22s, Mr Cosentino responded, “The only mix we’ve heard of is that maybe Australia might be interested in a mix with some STOVL variants in addition to the CTOL variant†of the JSF.
A full report on Mike Consentino’s interview with Australian Aviation appears from page 42 of this issue
 

SABRE

Super Moderator
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #24
Re: F-35 Multirole Joint Fighter

Well not only Australia wants JSF they want to be a partner in it. Read below:

Australian Group Scouts Possible Lockheed Martin F-35 Work

FORT WORTH, Texas --- Australian government and aerospace industry representatives spent Thursday at Lockheed Martin's Fort Worth plant discussing potential opportunities for Australian companies to participate in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program. Australia has announced its intention to join the program's development phase in late 2002.

Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., a business area of Lockheed Martin Corp., is the prime contractor to develop the next-generation F-35 JSF for the United States Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps, and seven allied nations. Australia would be the eighth international partner to join the F-35 System Development and Demonstration (SDD) phase and would have the opportunity to develop and supply parts and subsystems, influence the aircraft's design and place representatives in the government's JSF Program Office.

Fourteen Australian government and 26 Australian industry representatives traveled to Fort Worth for a series of F-35 technical presentations, and discussions on potential Australian industrial participation in the program. Activities during the visit included a program overview, demonstrations of the F-35 cockpit and explanations of specific aircraft systems.

A Lockheed Martin F-35 team has traveled to Australia twice this year to evaluate companies' potential contributions to the program.

"Australia has a strong and well-established aerospace industrial base," said Tom Burbage, Lockheed Martin executive vice president and JSF program general manager. "We know the Australians manufacture very high quality, cost-competitive products, and we expect them to compete effectively within the F-35 program's best-value criteria."

To gain JSF work on the highly competitive F-35 program, suppliers must prove that they offer "best value," a combination of quality, affordability and other development and production criteria.

The F-35 is a stealthy (radar-evading), supersonic multirole fighter designed to meet the U.S. government's requirements for a new generation of transformational weapons. The single-engine JSF will be manufactured in three versions: a conventional-takeoff-and-landing (CTOL) variant for the U.S. Air Force, an aircraft-carrier version (CV) for the U.S. Navy, and a short-takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) version for the U.S. Marine Corps.

The cornerstone of the F-35 is affordability, achieved in large part through a very high level of common parts and systems across the three versions of the aircraft.

The F-35 is designed to replace aging fighter inventories, including U.S. Air Force A-10s and F-16s, U.S. Navy F/A-18s, U.S. Marine Corps AV-8B Harriers and F/A-18s, and United Kingdom Harrier GR.7s and Sea Harriers.

Lockheed Martin is developing the F-35 in conjunction with its principal partners, Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems. Pratt & Whitney and General Electric are developing two separate but interchangeable engines.

Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas, is a leader in the design, development, systems integration, production, and support of advanced military aircraft and related technologies. Its customers include the military services of the United States and allied countries throughout the world. Products include the F-16, F-22, F-35 JSF, F-117, T-50, C-5, C-130, C-130J, P-3, S-3, and U-2.

Lockheed Martin Corp., headquartered in Bethesda, Md., is a global enterprise principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, and integration of advanced technology systems, products, and services. Employing about 125,000 people worldwide, Lockheed Martin had 2001 sales of $24 billion.

F-35 JSF Brings Australian Defence Minister, Government Officials to Texas

FORT WORTH, Texas---Australian Minister for Defence Robert Hill today joined the Australian Ambassador to the United States Michael Thawley and the U.S. Ambassador to Australia Tom Schieffer on an orientation visit of the facility where the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will be assembled.

The officials held discussions with U.S. members of the F-35 JSF team at the Fort Worth headquarters of Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., a business area of Lockheed Martin Corp. Assembly of F-35 prototypes will begin at the Fort Worth plant in late 2003.

he visit comes one day after Hill signed a Ministerial Exchange of Letters with his U.S. counterpart, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, providing for Australia's entry into the Joint Strike Fighter program. Hill and Rumsfeld signed the letters during the annual Australian-United States Ministerial Consultations in Washington, D.C. Australia becomes the eighth and final international partner in the stealth aircraft's development phase. The United Kingdom, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, Canada, Denmark and Norway joined the program previously.

The Oct. 30 visit included tours and briefings describing the unprecedented performance of this fifth-generation international aircraft, as well as its lean manufacturing methods and affordable life-cycle development. Hill also "flew" the F-35 cockpit demonstrator.

Australia's nearly $150 million (U.S.) financial contribution to the F-35's System Development and Demonstration (SDD) phase represents an unprecedented step for Australia, by enabling the country to participate in the development of a new international fighter. It also establishes a new method of cooperation between business and government on a global scale, and allows the Australian Defence Force to access levels of capability and technology that are a generation ahead of those in contemporary aircraft.

Partnership in the program also ensures that Australian industry is able to compete for F-35 JSF work on a best-value basis and expand participation in the global aerospace supply chain. The JSF program provides opportunities to participate not only in the development phase, but also production and support throughout the life of the program.

Plans call for the F-35 to replace Australia's current fleet of F/A-18 and F-111 fighters. The role of Australian industry in the F-35 JSF program is expected to grow following the country's decision to join SDD.

During the plant visit, ambassador Schieffer highlighted the history of cooperative security between the United States and Australia over the last century. He emphasized that the relationship has entered a new era of partnership, with the JSF program cementing that historic bond and enhancing its effectiveness.

Charles T. "Tom" Burbage, executive vice president and general manager of the F-35 JSF program, told members of the Australian delegation that their visit provided an opportunity to "give you a good look at what's almost magical about this airplane." He cited the program's commitment to reach across international borders to ensure that the aircraft is equipped with the most effective systems, and he explained how the F-35's combination of next-generation technologies will provide capabilities far superior to those of current-generation multirole fighters.

Noting that Australia is the last international development partner, Burbage said, "We're really happy to have the Australians on board so we can make this international program a reality," noting that the first anniversary of the SDD contract was Oct. 26, and there are only three years to the aircraft's first flight. He also said that all international contributions to the program's development equaled almost 15 percent of the SDD price tag, a further incentive to make the program successful.

The F-35 JSF is a stealthy, supersonic multirole fighter designed to replace a wide range of aging fighter and strike aircraft. Three variants derived from a common design will ensure JSF meets the security needs of each country while staying within strict affordability targets.

Lockheed Martin is developing the JSF in conjunction with its principal partners, Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems. Two separate but interchangeable engines are under development by Pratt & Whitney and General Electric. Among the aircraft JSF will replace are the A-10, AV-8B Harrier, F-16, F/A-18, and United Kingdom Harrier GR.7 and Sea Harrier.

Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas, is a leader in the design, development, systems integration, production and support of advanced military aircraft and related technologies. Its customers include the military services of the United States and allied countries throughout the world. Products include the F-16, F/A-22, F-35 JSF, F-117, T-50, C-5, C-130, C-130J, P-3, S-3 and U-2.

Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. is a unit of Lockheed Martin Corp., headquartered in Bethesda, Md. Lockheed Martin is a global enterprise principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture and integration of advanced technology systems, products and services. Employing about 125,000 people worldwide, Lockheed Martin had 2001 sales of $24 billion.


Both the news are aperently from 2002. Does any 1 has some thing new on this, some thing from 2004.
 

SABRE

Super Moderator
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #25
Re: F-35 Multirole Joint Fighter

Well Forget what I have post above. Read this.

New US combat aircraft 'flawed'

The new US jet fighter likely to replace Australia's ageing F-111s and F-18s may not be equipped with a missile to destroy enemy warships, technology vital for the defence of Australia, say Canberra defence experts.

The Australian Strategic Policy Institute says in a report on the United States Joint Strike Fighter project that the Federal Government appeared to have rushed to join it because the US told Australia it would miss out if it did not sign up quickly.

The report's author, Aldo Borgu, said if the fighter project delivered all that was promised of it, it would be the best option.

But the US had been progressively narrowing the range of weapons it could carry to keep costs down. It would not come with a specific anti-ship missile, for example.

Mr Borgu said the US did not need the new jet fighter to carry such a missile because it could be carried by other aircraft.

"They don't need it but we do," Mr Borgu said.

Institute director Hugh White said the ability to sink enemy ships was central to the role of Australia's combat aircraft.

The officer in charge of the project, Air Commodore John Harvey, said that by the time the jet was in operation, other anti-ship missiles, such as the Norwegian NSM and the US JASSM, would be available and the jet could carry them.

Australia has contributed $300 million towards the jet's development but has not yet committed to buying the aircraft. It is considered likely to buy up to 100 of the aircraft for about $16 billion, with the first to be delivered in 2012.

The institute said the jet's most potent rival in the region would be the Russian MiG-29 Fulcrum and the Sukhoi Su-27 and Su-30 Flanker, now entering service with some air forces. Indonesia says it will buy 48 Sukhois but only four have so far been delivered.

The RAAF plans to withdraw the F-111 from service about 2010 and the F-18 between 2012 and 2015.

Mr Borgu said that if planned upgrades to the F-18s ran into trouble, there could be a serious gap in Australia's strike capability. He said it was usual for aircraft development programs to run late and Australia should have a contingency plan. "The first production (JSF) aircraft won't fly until at least 2006 and full production is expected to be reached only in 2008."

Mr Borgu said he did not think the US applied extensive political pressure but it did say that Australia had to join early to be a player.

He said the RAAF argued that the jet was the best aircraft for Australia. "The Government accepted the advice of its professional military advisers," Mr Borgu said.

Mr White said he believed the jet was best for Australia but the Government had not done enough to manage the significant risk that the aircraft might not be delivered on time, on specifications and at the promised price.

"By not covering that risk, they've put at risk the long-term maintenance of our air combat capability," he said.

This could expose Australia to a strategic risk in an uncertain future.

Air Commodore Harvey said that if the JSF were delayed, the RAAF had a number of options including extending the life of the F-111s and F-18s.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
JSF's Weight Problems Nearing Solution, Contractor Says

By Marc Selinger
07/22/2004 09:32:06 AM


FARNBOROUGH, England - Lockheed Martin Corp., the prime contractor for the U.S. Defense Department's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, has developed a proposal that mostly would solve the aircraft's problems with excess weight, a company official said July 21.

Tom Burbage, a Lockheed Martin executive vice president who oversees the company's F-35 efforts, told reporters at the Farnborough Air Show that Lockheed Martin has come up with a combination of weight reductions and thrust-related efficiencies that would have the equivalent effect of losing 2,500 pounds, which is roughly the size of the bulge that Lockheed Martin has been grappling with for more than a year.

The proposal, which focuses on the short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) variant, the main source of the weight woes, would shed about 1,700 pounds through a half dozen or so large reductions, as well as hundreds of smaller cuts.

"We're looking at things that may save one pound," Burbage said. "But it all adds up."

Among the biggest modifications eyed for the STOVL JSF is a slight shortening of the weapons bays, which would save about 200 pounds. The change would not affect any of the weapons that the aircraft initially is required to carry, Burbage said.

Lockheed Martin's proposal would shed another 40 pounds or so by repackaging an actuator that helps the leading edge flap on the front of the wing move up and down.

Besides making the F-35 less heavy, the proposal calls for realizing 800 pounds of more thrust by improving air flows inside the aircraft and by tightening seals on the lift-fan nozzle to make it more efficient.

Although weight has been less of an issue for JSF's other two variants, the conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) version and the carrier variant (CV), the CTOL and CV aircraft still would receive many of the modifications proposed for the STOVL jet because their performance would benefit, Burbage said. One change they would not get, though, is the shortening of the weapons bays.

Mid-August review

The Lockheed Martin proposal would not provide all of the "margins" that the company would like to have in case the F-35 gains weight sometime in the future, Burbage said. But it "gets us very close" to where the program should be.

"We're in the range that we wanted to be in right now," he said.

The changes suggested by Lockheed Martin would not be made to the first of 22 test aircraft that the company is to build for the program, but the remaining 21 jets would receive the modifications.

The company plans to formally present its proposal to the Defense Department's JSF program office in mid-August and to a high-level Pentagon panel in October. While not commenting on the specifics of Lockheed Martin's proposal, Navy Rear Adm. Steven Enewold, the head of the program office, suggested that he believes the company is on the right track.

"My view is that we're getting to closure on what the configuration ought to be," Enewold said.

To provide more time to fix the weight problems, DOD has instituted a series of delays in the program's schedule, including moving the first flight test from October 2005 to August 2006 and the first fielding from 2010 to 2012 (DAILY, June 29).

Lockheed Martin is developing JSF for the U.S. Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy and for a host of expected and potential foreign customers. The Air Force revealed earlier this year that it intends to buy the STOVL variant in addition to the CTOL. The Marine Corps plans to acquire the STOVL version, while the Navy hopes to field the CV variant.

In 2004 dollars, the CTOL version is expected to cost in the low- to-mid $40 million range per aircraft. The projected price tag of the CV and STOVL variants is about $10 million more than that, Burbage said.


OSINT alert. No link provided
 

XEROX

New Member
Britain fights for larger stake in JSF
A row is brewing over America’s reluctance to share technology for the Joint Strike Fighter project. Report by Dominic O’Connell

A FIBREGLASS MODEL in battleship grey was one of the unlikely stars of last week’s Farnborough air show. While casual visitors gawped at the fighters roaring overhead, or oohed at the sleek, sinister shapes of the latest unmanned stealth aircraft from America, those in the know trudged up through the corporate boxes to scrutinise the unprepossessing mock-up

It was a model of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) — or F-35, to give it its American service name — a combat aircraft that will not go into production for another four years and is unlikely to enter service in Britain until 2011 at the earliest.
It may be some time before it fires a shot in anger, but the JSF has already assumed monumental importance for the future of Britain’s defence industry. Such are the tensions over its development and manufacture that a rift is emerging at the top level of the transatlantic defence alliance between Britain and America.

At issue is the Pentagon’s perceived reluctance to share the sensitive defence technology that would allow Britain to play a bigger part in the programme. In particular, Britain wants access to the software codes that would allow it to repair and upgrade the aircraft, so it can maintain an independent fleet without recourse to America.
Mike Turner, chief executive of BAE Systems, Britain’s largest defence contractor and a member of the Lockheed Martin-led consortium building the aircraft, is forthright.

“It is vitally important as a nation that we are self-capable when it comes to JSF. We need the software codes to have the capability to fit new weapons on the aircraft — otherwise we will have to join a queue with everyone else to have the job done in America,†he said.
British politicians have now taken up the cudgels. Lord Bach, the defence procurement minister, has visited the Pentagon to voice his displeasure at the slow pace of technology transfer, while at Farnborough his boss, Geoff Hoon, the defence secretary, confirmed he had written to Donald Rumsfeld, his American counterpart.

Hoon would not disclose the contents of his letter, but industry sources said he had reminded Rumsfeld that the two nations had signed an outline agreement on defence technology co-operation two years earlier, but that little progress appeared to have been made since then.

Turner and the politicians are playing for high stakes commercially as well as strategically. The JSF will become probably the largest military programme in history. Sales of the aircraft are expected to bring in between $200 billion and $400 billion (£108 billion- £217 billion), with service and support estimated to rake in four times that sum over the plane’s life.
It will become the backbone of America’s air force, marine corps and navy for the next 40 years, replacing several types of existing aircraft, from Harrier jump jets to out-and-out fighters such as the F-16.

The plane’s promised versatility gives it enormous export potential, especially as America has decided to make its design and construction an international collaborative effort, with 11 partner nations having already signed up. Top of the heap is Britain, which will buy up to 150, and has paid £1.4 billion to be the sole “tier one†partner in the programme.
But the partner nations are not entirely happy with the way America has handled the project, claiming that stateside firms have been handed the lion’s share of the work, and that the Pentagon’s sensitivity to the export of defence technology has stymied plans for their involvement.

Norway, which has invested $125m, has threatened to withdraw its involvement unless more work is forthcoming, while Italy has also complained about America’s reluctance to share defence technology.
Tom Burbage, the Lockheed Martin executive running the programme, is used to the complaints, but points out that the JSF was never intended as a work-share project along the lines of previous international defence schemes. “It’s not about jobs. It’s about finding the best companies internationally and running a programme that is affordable,†he said. Burbage acknowledged that it did involve “some sensitive technologyâ€, but said that so far there had been no hold-ups in obtaining Pentagon clearance for transferring technology to international partners.

Steve Briggs, the JSF vice-president at Northrop Grumman, Lockheed and BAE’s consortium partner, said the size of the programme meant international involvement was inevitable.
“At the peak, we’re talking about making one new JSF every day. That’s a monster to feed. Forget the (Airbus) A380 or the (Boeing) 7E7, this is a monster. We don’t believe, for example, that there are enough high-tech milling machines in the entire US to keep pace with making the components for this production line.â€
Those lucky enough to clamber aboard the JSF bandwagon are happy with the results.

Mark Scherrer, managing director of Ferra, an Australian engineering company that has won several pieces of work on the project, said it had led to unforeseen benefits, such as other contracts with multinational companies involved in the programme. “The flow-on effects for Australian industry will be long term,†he said.

One big British beneficiary will be Rolls-Royce, the aero-engine company. It will make the lift fan for the jump-jet version, a mind-boggling piece of equipment that has been described as the world’s most powerful hairdryer.
Driven by a shaft at the front of the JSF’s engine, it will produce as much thrust as a Eurofighter running flat out. In partnership with General Electric, Rolls-Royce is making an alternative powerplant for the aircraft to rival the current Pratt & Whitney engine.

BAE Systems and Britain have another goal: to make sure that if another JSF production line were needed — the principal line will be at Lockheed’s Fort Worth, Texas, headquarters — it would come to Britain.
For BAE in particular the need is acute. Its aircraft factories at Wharton, Lancashire, and Woodford, Cheshire, are likely to run out of work once their current programmes — Eurofighter and Nimrod respectively — have run their course. The number of Nimrods required by Britain was cut from 18 to 12 in last week’s defence review, and most analysts do not expect Britain to order its full quota of Eurofighters. Without JSF, the factories are likely to close.

Turner said Britain was pushing for a final assembly line, noting that the Dutch and Italian governments were also making strong bids.
It is unclear whether Lockheed and the Pentagon will deem a second production line necessary. Tom Fillingham, the BAE executive who is JSF’s deputy programme manager, said a study had recently begun on new production methods for use at Fort Worth, and that the final decision on a second line was unlikely to be taken for another 12 to 18 months.
The British government takes the prospect of a second line seriously. Last year it commissioned Rand, the American think- tank that played a large part in the formation of the original Pentagon procurement strategy, to examine Britain’s readiness for another line.
The study found that three British companies — BAE, Marshall Aerospace and Dara, the government-owned aircraft-repair agency, had the capability to build the new aircraft

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/ - 25/july/2004
 

SABRE

Super Moderator
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #28
Re: F-35 Multirole Joint Fighter

Ppl r seeing more flaws in F-35. Only country that seems serious is Britain. I dnt think with such an attitude F-35 would become a product that it is believed to be. It wouldnt be even near to F-22 in the end and Europe might end up with EF-2000s that JSF.

The project is keep getting delayed. Australia must also consider other Jets too. I c it not a good Idea for the time beeing.
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
Re: F-35 Multirole Joint Fighter

The problems with this aircraft "officially" relate to the F-35B (STOVL) version, not the F-35A (CTOL) version that Australia is looking at. Despite the "non-official" recent words that Australia may "consider" F-35B's at some point, it has not made any decision to purchase any version of this aircraft yet. That decision is to be made in 2006/7, by which time hopefully, the problems with the F-35 will either be sorted out or made much clearer.

Australia has considered other jets and apart from the F-22 (which we apparently can't afford) none of the available ones besides F-35, meet our requirements. The only stated requirement we currently have is a need for up to 100 aircraft to replace our F-18 and F-111 fleets from about 2012 onwards. No "final" decision has been made as yet, though F-35 WILL be the winner, if it turns out okay.
 

DRUB

New Member
Re: F-35 Multirole Joint Fighter

The report which said that Oz was possibly looking at the F-35B's, would that be in light of ppl pushing for the littoral for the RAN? So the littoral could effectively be used as an Aircraft carrier?

Gf- you mentioned that Oz was one of four nations which the U.S would look favourably at for the F-22, are the other nations U.K, Israel, canada???

cheers
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Re: F-35 Multirole Joint Fighter

DRUB said:
The report which said that Oz was possibly looking at the F-35B's, would that be in light of ppl pushing for the littoral for the RAN? So the littoral could effectively be used as an Aircraft carrier?

Gf- you mentioned that Oz was one of four nations which the U.S would look favourably at for the F-22, are the other nations U.K, Israel, canada???

cheers
Talk has been that it would be Oz, U.K, Israel, Japan.

I would imagine that Canada could, but they haven't been on the US popularity list WRT to Iraq, deserters etc....
 

DRUB

New Member
Re: F-35 Multirole Joint Fighter

gf0012-aust said:
DRUB said:
The report which said that Oz was possibly looking at the F-35B's, would that be in light of ppl pushing for the littoral for the RAN? So the littoral could effectively be used as an Aircraft carrier?

Gf- you mentioned that Oz was one of four nations which the U.S would look favourably at for the F-22, are the other nations U.K, Israel, canada???

cheers
Talk has been that it would be Oz, U.K, Israel, Japan.

I would imagine that Canada could, but they haven't been on the US popularity list WRT to Iraq, deserters etc....
thanks
 

SABRE

Super Moderator
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #33
Re: F-35 Multirole Joint Fighter

gf0012-aust said:
DRUB said:
The report which said that Oz was possibly looking at the F-35B's, would that be in light of ppl pushing for the littoral for the RAN? So the littoral could effectively be used as an Aircraft carrier?

Gf- you mentioned that Oz was one of four nations which the U.S would look favourably at for the F-22, are the other nations U.K, Israel, canada???

cheers
Talk has been that it would be Oz, U.K, Israel, Japan.

I would imagine that Canada could, but they haven't been on the US popularity list WRT to Iraq, deserters etc....
Who is Canada Fighting? They r just waisten good money on arms. No one hates Canada no one will attack Canada not even the AL-Qaida has targets there.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Re: F-35 Multirole Joint Fighter

SABRE said:
Who is Canada Fighting? They r just waisten good money on arms. No one hates Canada no one will attack Canada not even the AL-Qaida has targets there.
You don't buy weapons to necessarily go to war today - you buy them today in case you have to use them tomorrow, and to make the message clear to anyone who may visit harm on your country that they will pay a price for their actions if they decide to fight you .

Have you even looked at Canadas Military History?

In over 3000 years of reasonable recorded history about conflict and warfare how many nations have escaped conflict, and how many years of total peace have there been? Then have another look at Canadas role in history and tell me where you would have predicted events and outcomes correctly.

Good luck - because if you can get it right, and predict that nature of future conflict for individual nations, then politicians and military officers will beat a path to your door.

You'll be more popular than Nostradamus :D:
 

SABRE

Super Moderator
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #35
Re: F-35 Multirole Joint Fighter

gf0012-aust said:
SABRE said:
Who is Canada Fighting? They r just waisten good money on arms. No one hates Canada no one will attack Canada not even the AL-Qaida has targets there.
You don't buy weapons to necessarily go to war today - you buy them today in case you have to use them tomorrow, and to make the message clear to anyone who may visit harm on your country that they will pay a price for their actions if they decide to fight you .

Have you even looked at Canadas Military History?

In over 3000 years of reasonable recorded history about conflict and warfare how many nations have escaped conflict, and how many years of total peace have there been? Then have another look at Canadas role in history and tell me where you would have predicted events and outcomes correctly.

Good luck - because if you can get it right, and predict that nature of future conflict for individual nations, then politicians and military officers will beat a path to your door.

You'll be more popular than Nostradamus :D:
Ok How abt this, Santa from North Pole invades Canada. Toronto bombed by FX-3000 the flying Randears. Elf troops take control of the Ottowa City. Canadian navy destroyed by NPNavy controlled by Penguins and Seals. :D: :smokingc:

Just Kiddin, All I wana know is who is going to go all the way up, almost to the top of the world just to invade Canada?

But than there are two countries. Hmm.... USA & Russia. Niether of them have motives. Other than that we will have to wait for them to participate in the coming soon Sequel of WW1 and 2 "The WW3" and may be 4 aswell.
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
Re: F-35 Multirole Joint Fighter

No, there is no likely threat that any Country will invade Canada, but that doesn't mean that Cananda doesn't require any armed forces. Canada has a long and respectable record of taking part in both peace-keeping and war fighting missions overseas. It is foolish however, to design a defence force around 1 particular type of mission (as the New Zealand Government is doing, ie: Peace-Keeping).

In order to successfully undertake these missions, the ability to escalate the force you're capable of employing is often the only reason peace-keeping missions don't become a "peace-making" missions, ie: peace forcibly imposed upon a region. To do this requires a mix of capabilities including a strong air component. Canada has always maintained a fairly strong air force, and their current CF-18's won't last forever... They are probably looking at the JSF for exactly the same reason as Australia...
 

tatra

New Member
Verified Defense Pro
Re: F-35 Multirole Joint Fighter

22/11/2004, An Article from Janes:

Equipment swap failure forces Dutch JSF delay
By Joris Janssen Lok JDW Special Correspondent The Hague

The Netherlands is delaying its planned introduction of Lockheed Martin F-35A Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft by two years to 2014.

The measure will release money needed to pay for newly emerging acquisitions, which for a major part have become necessary because of Norway's controversial decision, last September, to cancel a major equipment swap with the Netherlands.

According to the Netherlands Minister of Defence Henk Kamp, postponing the replacement of the Royal Netherlands Air Force (RNLAF)'s ageing F-16 fleet with new F-35As will generate EUR189 million ($243.8 million). This money will now be used to acquire urgently needed bridgelaying and minefield breaching platforms as well as 155 mm precision-guided artillery munitions. The engineer platforms and 155 mm munitions were supposed to have been provided at no cost by Norway as part of the package deal.

In total, the Norwegian withdrawal from the equipment swap is costing the Netherlands EUR216 million, said Kamp, who earlier expressed his intense disappointment with the Norwegian decision. However, only part of the extra costs (EUR86 million) can be absorbed during the current defence planning period, which runs through to 2009.

This is because other programmes are also confronting the Dutch with previously unplanned extra spending, namely:

EUR106 million related to the earlier-than-planned introduction of new CV9035 Mk III infantry fighting vehicles for the Royal Netherlands Army (RNLA);

At least EUR30 million to bring the RNLAF's existing and planned Boeing CH-47D Chinook helicopters to the same avionics standard;

A still-to-be-determined amount for changing the existing contract with NH Industries for 20 NH90 naval helicopters to a new contract for 12 NH90s in naval and eight in maritime transport configuration.

Finding a customer for the RNLA's 18 surplus Krauss-Maffei Wegmann PzH 2000 155 mm howitzer systems - which were at the heart of the equipment swap but which Norway now does not want - will be necessary to pay for part of these as well, Kamp said.
Interest development, considering that both countries are JSF partner nations and that Norway, The Netherlands as well as Denmark were all unhappy with their workshares. In fact, Norway was threatening to abandon the programme and buy Typhoon or Gripen instead. Now their decision not to swap equipment with The Netherlands delays Dutch JSF procurement . Wonder how that will impact on JSF production schedule and price :roll

On the equipment swap with Norway, see http://defencetalk.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3104

Anybody up for some pre-owned PzH 2000? :D:
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Re: F-35 Multirole Joint Fighter

We've been having discussions on another Australian Military Forum about the PzH's - we all think it's a good idea to buy them! ;)

I met PzH re this platform at the last Land Warfare Conf - damn impressive, and it certainly made some of the other offerings like the K9 and Casear look a little lame.

The presentation was certainly well done (as all of these things are choreographed to do!)
 

redsoulja

New Member
Re: F-35 Multirole Joint Fighter

i thought that america wasn't going to allow Isreal to enter the JSF-35 project after what happended to Lavi? and Canada is doing ok with the F-18s although i think the F-35s would be nice :alian
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Re: F-35 Multirole Joint Fighter

redsoulja said:
i thought that america wasn't going to allow Isreal to enter the JSF-35 project after what happended to Lavi? and Canada is doing ok with the F-18s although i think the F-35s would be nice :alian
Canada has over half of her current Hornet fleet mothballed as they have had budgetary cuts. They're currently parked with about 50 inactivated F5's.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top