F-35B may well become a What-if program !

[GTX]

We need to be able to secure Australian airspace with a large fleet of good, solid, safe (ie twin-engined), primarily-made-for-air-superiority fighters

Canadian needs aren't the same as US needs. We need a long-range aircraft capable of defending our airspace as its primary mission. This is the F-22, not the F-35. Do you know why the F/A-18 was selected for the CF over the F-16? The safety factor over remote areas - the F-16 has only one engine, the 18 has two. The 22 has two engins, the 35 has only one; the safety factor hasn't changed (it's just being ignored, with potentially very suboptimal results. The CAF didn't have a very good experience with the Lawn Dart, either).

Enough of this twin engined argument - it is ancient history and it is crap!  I have a fair bit to do with both the F-135 and F-136 and can assure you they are a giant leap over the older engines in terms of technology and reliability.  They are extremely robust - so much so that I doubt they will provide many maintenance related business opportunities for companies (BD Hat on  ).  Unless you put something through them (and more than a simple bird strike), they are not going to fail.  Even in a twin engined aircraft (e.g. F-22), if you were to loose one engine through combat damage - you will find what ever took out one engine will also take out the other.

Also, re the range - you might like to check some facts (even publically available sanitised ones) - the F-35 (even in the STOVL variant) will actually have a greater combat radius than the F-22!  Remember a simple fact:  twin engines consume more fuel!

Greg

[GTX]

We do *not* need to penetrate anybody else's airspace undetected and blow the crap out of them in the middle of the night (not to mention what the neighbours might think of us getting that capability!).

Equally so, it has been said that we don't need an interdictor type platform because of our current policies and if we were to acquire one, many of our neighbours with whom we have friendly relations (so that were told) would become quite distressed at the RAAF gaining that first-strike capability.

Guys,

For one, in Australia's case this whole argument about what the neighbours might think kind of died with the F-111 30 odd years ago!

Also, the comments about needing only defensive air-to-air capability and not interdiction/penetration capability is niave.  It is long recognised that the best way to remove the air-t-air threat is to take out the enemy on the ground, not in the air.  Remeber the old adage:  The best defence is a good offence.

Regards,

Greg

[Taiidantomcat]

What was that like 50 years ago? And for such a lousy aircraft people sure did like having them around for he longest time even when alternatives popped up...

They'd already paid for them, and not insignificant sums. Not everyone could afford to be like the US - some F-104s delivered to the USAF lasted only a few weeks in service!

Also is there any reason why you believe the US is incapable of testing and producing multiple aircraft at the same time? that thing in your mind based on no evidence is what is holding up the whole program because the A wasn't perfected before the B?

You are free to believe this or not, it won't affect my thinking either way: an LM employee I know said pretty much exactly that - that if they weren't distracted with the B, they would be /much/ further ahead with the A.

But also: I didn't say the /US/ isn't capable of testing and producing multiple aircraft at the same time. The US has LM, Boeing, Northrop... I was referring to one company. Not the entire aerospace establishment.

How is that the same company that produced the perfect for Canadian air defense F-22 now can't produce a Joint Strike fighter? did all the talent leave? did they forget to how to build or something? How come the F-22 and F-35 are produced by the exact same people and one is great and the other so worthless?   I also see no incentive for lockheed producing a dog when all alternate sales would go to a rival company. Lockheed is aware of all the competing aircraft you just mentioned and a few you didn't. So why would they think they could produce a substandard aircraft and still get any sales once word got out?

Canadian needs aren't the same as US needs. We need a long-range aircraft capable of defending our airspace as its primary mission. This is the F-22, not the F-35. Do you know why the F/A-18 was selected for the CF over the F-16? The safety factor over remote areas - the F-16 has only one engine, the 18 has two. The 22 has two engins, the 35 has only one; the safety factor hasn't changed (it's just being ignored, with potentially very suboptimal results. The CAF didn't have a very good experience with the Lawn Dart, either).

Why would they think they could sell a substandard aircraft? Well, let's take a look at the past record: they sold the F-104 to the Luftwaffe. How? Money. They sold the F-104 to the Japanese, who wanted the F-11F. How? Money paid to yakuza and Genda Minoru (yeah, the architect of Pearl Harbor) to influence the government's decision. They've even done it with other types besides the F-104. Now don't get me wrong, I know Lockheed isn't the only company who's resorted to bribery... but if a sale needs to be made, a sale /will/ be made. Even if the purchaser knows the product isn't what he needs.

By your logic of the F-35 being suitable for CAF just because the F-22 is, or because Lockheed can make it great, then Air Canada should get some too, because the L-1011 was good, the F-35 is great too! So it'll be perfect for Air Canada, too!

By your logic the F-104 and F-16 were bad so the F-35 is too?

[Maverick]

Ben & Greg,

Doing strike missions is obviously worth training for.  However, I can't see the RAAF performing those missions in defence of the nation anytime soon, unless the pollies have a major backflip and decide our bestest buddies are suddenly not (eg: Indonesia & China).  Whether the Australia should be part of a coalition beyond our national interests is another debate entirely that like the F-35 topic is widely divided.

Ben, so I'm guessing these Air colleagues of yours are AV-8B drivers? or Hornet pilots at the least?  Beyond that, once again opinion would be of doubtful use.

Greg, I don't think that my comment is naive in any shape or form.  The F-111s service was initially during a different geopolitical climate surely.  In fact, it was on this forum when someone (yourself?) posted that very same comment regarding the replacement of the F-111 by the F-35.  I had said that the F-35 would be a poor substitute for the 111 and its interdiction capabilites with that other comment coming against my own.  Supposedly, we would not need deep penetration / interdictor type platforms because we didn't need that capability.

As for offence being a good defence, that brings up the arguement of first-strike and the implications that it entails.  I can't see our current government authorising such a strike any time soon.

Regards,

Mav

[GTX]

As for Realpolitik: I'm willing to not consider Brazil to be part of the west (their Mi-35s), but what about South Korea? They've been bringing several Russian systems into their front-line forces.

In South Korea's case, I think you will find the acquisitions were part of a deal to partially offset Russia's large debt.   So hardly a valid comparison.

In Brazil's case, it is harder to say.  I understand there has been some controversy in the country over the deal.  Remember also the mess their fighter replacement deal has been with much political interference.  Mind you, the Mi-35s are probably a good balanced approach for Brazil.  It reported that the Mi-35s will be used in the Amazon region and will operate in conjunction with the Super Tucanos, etc.  If they are carrying a squad of troops+ giving firepower support, then they are a good choice and something not really matched in the West.  Still, one example doesn't make the point.

Regards,

Greg

[GTX]

I'm tired of all this:



Regards,

Greg

[pwagner]

Also, the comments about needing only defensive air-to-air capability and not interdiction/penetration capability is niave.  It is long recognised that the best way to remove the air-t-air threat is to take out the enemy on the ground, not in the air.  Remeber the old adage:  The best defence is a good offence.

Yes! That is precisely the argument one could make *against* the F35. It's primary means of defence is to attack first. We all agree on that. And it is extremely likely to make the neighbours antzy, and encourage them to up their defences too. And there is a world of difference between facing 24 F111s and and entire fleet of 100 JSFs.

I for one can't envision any situation where an Australian government would react to a regional dispute by launching a massive pre-emptive strike against another nations airfields. So why would we want a plane designed to do just that?

And that is where the dichotomy lies between the supporters of the JSF and the detractors. The key question is: What do you want the next RAAF fighter to do? What is it's primary mission?

IMHO the answer is air defence, not stealthy strike. By all means have a small fleet of F111 replacements - in all likelyhood some stealthy UAVs would be perfect - but the bulk of the fleet has to be interception and air superiority first and foremost, and for that reason alone something other than the JSF has to preferable. If you want a fleet primarily dedicated to strike, and rely on gross intimidation, or support from a friendly superpower to secure your actual airspace, then buy JSFs.  

The other thing that really needs consideration is what will the fleet look like in 30 or 40 or 50 years? The JSF *may* be 10 years ahead of the competition now, but that won't last. What will it be able to do once it's effectively obsolete, because you can bet we'll still be flying the things. To my mind, the JSF simply lacks the raw performance to stay a competitive platform once it's old-hat. The Mirages were still effective into the '80s, even though they were totally obsolete, because they were still high performance aircraft, and if you played to their strengths, they could still do their job. The F18s now are in a similar situation, but are still effective aircraft. How's a the F18 replacement going to perform in 2065, once it's "stealth" is long defeated, it's battleweb has been hacked, it's sensors jammed, and all you have left is the airframe and engine? If you start with something that's intrinsically high performance, fast and agile, than it'll probably still be of some use. If you start with something that relies on stealth and whizz-bangery to do it's job, once all that's gone you're going to be left defenceless.

So I say reinstate the AIR6000 competition. If the JSF is any good, LM should welcome the chance to prove it. If it's not, then for the sake of our kids and grandkids, we'd better find out BEFORE we buy the things.

Paul

[Taiidantomcat]

Ben & Greg,

Doing strike missions is obviously worth training for.  However, I can't see the RAAF performing those missions in defence of the nation anytime soon, unless the pollies have a major backflip and decide our bestest buddies are suddenly not (eg: Indonesia & China).  Whether the Australia should be part of a coalition beyond our national interests is another debate entirely that like the F-35 topic is widely divided.

Ben, so I'm guessing these Air colleagues of yours are AV-8B drivers? or Hornet pilots at the least?  Beyond that, once again opinion would be of doubtful use.

Some of them are pilots. The Majority though are the enlisted personnel who: load the weapons, service the avionics, write the books, track the records, fix the airframes, Run and test the engine(s), and maintain nearly every aspect other than actually flying the aircraft. Why would their "opinion be of doubtful use?" Enlisted people often know more about the Aircraft than pilots. why should I tell my friends they are right about the machines they are expert in now and are wrong and technically incapable of comprehending the F-35 systems they get to observe or learn about or work on first hand? that their opinions based on decades of real world experience are incorrect because they are not pilots? When my friend who has worked on Harriers and hornets power plants for four years says that the F-135 outclasses everything he has ever seen in terms of power and reliability do i tell him he is wrong? that his opinion is of doubtful use? He knows the F-135 is good because he knows engines. I would put his knowledge against a pilots any day.

Mav their opinions are more important than pilots not less. Its very dismissive to think that these men who keep these machines flying day in and day out are ignorant and incapable of comprehending how their systems or other related systems compare.

[Taiidantomcat]

Also, the comments about needing only defensive air-to-air capability and not interdiction/penetration capability is niave.  It is long recognised that the best way to remove the air-t-air threat is to take out the enemy on the ground, not in the air.  Remeber the old adage:  The best defence is a good offence.

The Mirages were still effective into the '80s, even though they were totally obsolete,

Oxymoron.

The other thing that really needs consideration is what will the fleet look like in 30 or 40 or 50 years? The JSF *may* be 10 years ahead of the competition now, but that won't last.

So it will be obsolete in 30-50 years so its not worth buying?

How's a the F18 replacement going to perform in 2065, once it's "stealth" is long defeated, it's battleweb has been hacked, it's sensors jammed, and all you have left is the airframe and engine? If you start with something that's intrinsically high performance, fast and agile, than it'll probably still be of some use. If you start with something that relies on stealth and whizz-bangery to do it's job, once all that's gone you're going to be left defenceless.

Probably about as good as any aircraft designed 65 years ago... you really can't predict how air warfare will be in 2065. But the fact that the F-18F and F-35 may not be ready for a battlefield 54 years from now is something I can live with... is any current aircraft at that point?

Even your vaunted Mirage is not expected to be top of the line 65 years after development.

"sure the P-51 is great and all and we need it badly, but how will it perform in the year 2006?"

[Maverick]

Ben,

I'm not being dismissive of maintenance personnel, but at the end of the day they aren't the ones that will be there when the fur is flying.  They'll be back on the LHD or the airbase working up for the next sortie.  The pilot will be in harm's way in an aircraft that may or may not have the capability to get him there and back.  Maintenance crew opinions of various components are valid, their experience counts, but the entire package is in the hands of one person when that package is feet wet at the end of the day.  If that individual has been part of a chain that has ensured a substandard platform has entered service, the resultant loss will be rather ironic.  If, on the other hand, he/she is just a line pilot doing his job and flying into harm's way, the loss is criminal.

I'm not saying at this point that the F-35 program is substandard.  If you believe LM and others singing the company line, why bother with anything when this is the best (doubtful) if you believe the naysayers who have a political axe to grind, it's purely about the money (equally doubtful).  The truth is somewhat moreso in the middle I'd wager.  I'd just hate to base that particular wager on the lives of young men & women.

Regards,

Mav

[Taiidantomcat]

I'm not being dismissive of maintenance personnel, but at the end of the day they aren't the ones that will be there when the fur is flying.  They'll be back on the LHD or the airbase working up for the next sortie.  The pilot will be in harm's way in an aircraft that may or may not have the capability to get him there and back.  Maintenance crew opinions of various components are valid, their experience counts, but the entire package is in the hands of one person when that package is feet wet at the end of the day.  If that individual has been part of a chain that has ensured a substandard platform has entered service, the resultant loss will be rather ironic.  If, on the other hand, he/she is just a line pilot doing his job and flying into harm's way, the loss is criminal.

Is there any aircraft that is exempt to that?^

This may sound harsh but no one is going to lose any sleep over it.

Can you show me the aircraft that will always bring back the pilot? The plane that never crashes or gets shot down? Is there something I don't know about Typhoons, Rafales, or any other aircraft that "may or may not" bring back their pilot? even if you lose F-35s in combat it doesn't mean the thing sucked. even an f-117 has been shot down. Every time an aircraft launches there is no guarantee that it lands safely. everyone from the top down knows the risks.  Losing people hurts badly, people who work on the aircraft know the pilot depends on their judgment and intelligence. suicides have resulted from maintained personnel after a pilot loss, so lives are at stake for more than the pilot. The Majority of crashes are pilot error, Sometimes things happen.

A substandard aircraft will get more than just the pilot killed and everyone realizes that. A Marine f-18 suffered a dual engine failure that killed a house of full people after the plane plummeted to earth a few years back. Its not lost on the Marines, neither were the problems with the V-22. The V-22 BTW makes the F-35B look like a ray of pure sunshine.

My friends think the aircraft is good, because the system is good and the design is sound. if the design is sound and the systems are good-- its a good aircraft, if its a good aircraft it will bring its pilot back--provided the pilot is competent. why would the F-35 look good to everyone who works on it and then it inexplicably fails? Why this vast conspiracy to put forward an aircraft that won't work? And don't say money because the majority of folks I know working on that aircraft get paid the same canceled or not.

No Airplane flies itself. All we can do is get the best aircraft that we possibly can and hope the pilot can do the rest with the machine provided. Not all of them will come back, its war. But if they don't come back it doesn't mean that the plane failed. It could have been worse with a lesser system or the same with an alternative system. I can lead the horse to water but I can't make him drink. Lockheed can only produce the best machine it can, it can't guarantee a perfect flying record for the next 30 years, and if they could would you believe them?

So its the best with what we have. I really don't know how to answer your question Mav. If we fretted about what may or may not happen in aviation we wouldn't get anywhere near flying machines.

[pwagner]

So it will be obsolete in 30-50 years so its not worth buying?

No, the point is how *quickly* will it become obsolete? Are there other aircraft which will have a significantly longer service life? When you have to make a fleet last a long time, like we do, it's a significant consideration.

My fear is that the JSF will become obsolete very quickly, anti-stealth detection systems will be ubiquitous, and it's just not designed for the sort of raw performance that would make it still effective. Other aircraft may be better, and we may be better off buying them instead.

Paul

[Litvyak]

...they are not going to fail.

Isn't that what they said about the Titanic?

But, you can say that till you're blue in the face, I won't believe it until it's proven... and so far, twin engines have proven a lot safer than singles.

For the moment, on the pro side all I see is what Lockheed says about this being the cat's meow, a lot of words and numbers. I can do this too - the Li-7834 I'm building in my backyard can fly at a -342 degree angle of attack, go Mach 37, has a cloaking device, etc. Until I prove it, it's just words. But Lockheed et al want us to just take their word; I told the priest "no" too, to a similar request.

On the con side, even discounting the theoreticals about its capabilities (or lack thereof), which is just as much mouthwind as the pro side, I see some very concrete things: the delays, the problems, the continuously escalating price. As a taxpayer, I'll be helping to pay for these things. And just as I wouldn't buy a car sight unseen just based on the manufacturer telling me that this is the best car ever, I'm not keen on us doing the same thing on an airplane that's already proven of itself in only one field: that it will not be on time, nor will it be on budget. Sticking to the provable: it's already over priced, and it's a single engine.

For these and many other reasons, I'm far from convinced that the F-35 is what Canada needs.

[pwagner]

why would the F-35 look good to everyone who works on it and then it inexplicably fails? Why this vast conspiracy to put forward an aircraft that won't work?

That's not the issue. It's probably going to be perfectly good at doing what it's designed to do. The issue is, does Australia (or Canada or the UK or whatever....) WANT an aircraft that does what the JSF does, or do they want and aircraft that does other stuff instead?

F35s, F22s, Rafales, Gripens and Typhoons aren't all the same, they do different stuff differently well or poorly. The argument here in Oz isn't really "the JSF is a totally crap plane" (even if that's the shorthand), it's "The JSF is not designed to do the sort of things the RAAF should be doing". And what should the RAAF be doing? Depends on who you ask. Independently securing Australian airspace and as far as the eye can see? Threatening to bomb Jakarta? Or Beijing? Supporting the US in whatever place they want to invade next? Your opinion on that question is what's going to decide whether the JSF is the most suitable available plane for the RAAF or not (AKA "crap").

Paul

[Maverick]

Well Ben,

I guess I'm getting older & actually believe that we should be concerned about personnel losses.  Given the hullaballoo everytime an Australian dies in Afghanistan, I wonder if I'm not merely expressing the general feeling here.  US losses are larger, given their greater involvement, and maybe its the numbers that means that one can be callous.

Nothing can guarantee safety that's a given, hopefully the Marines, or RAAF or anyone else for that matter won't have to test out LM's rather optimistic projections about the aircraft's capabilities in a real-world environment (eg: not bombing 3rd world terrorists but actually fighting someone who can engage with an air defence network).

Whichever is the result, this aircraft in any of its forms is not the choice for the RAAF in my opinion.  It is a first-strike interdictor (I once used the term "glorified bomb-truck" and there's some truth to that), something that I'm told we don't need.

Regards,

Mav