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

[Maverick]

Not really, no. And I have no idea why the folks in uniform who have no financial incentives are so hot on it then.

Ben,

Not to put to fine a point on it, but there have been cases, including recently, where uniformed personnel were given financial incentive to endorse a given product.  Once again, the Stryker is a case in point, although this allegedly and rightly is contravening military law.

Corporate games get pretty serious around multi-billion dollar sales and those extend to political & military circles.  Not to be rude, but Lockheed-Martin's ancestor (ie: Lockheed) has a track record for greasing the wheels when it comes to ensuring a sale.

Regards,

Mav

[Litvyak]

Not really, no. And I have no idea why the folks in uniform who have no financial incentives are so hot on it then.

Isn't funny how many Canadians wanted the F-22, and now that they can't get it they think the F-35 isn't what they need and is too expensive? Thats really odd. They needed the expensive are dominance fighter, not the cheaper multi role fighter.

Well, for one, the F-35 was supposed to be cheap... it's not looking like it'll be anything near as cheap as was promised (but I can be content to lay that blame on the whole F-35B mess; had they stuck to only working on the A, I doubt there would be this big of a mess).

Though I wasn't one of those who wanted the F-22 for Canada, it would have been the perfect fit for defending Canada's airspace; the F-35, by everything I have seen, is not any better for that role than the cheaper Rafale, Gripen, Typhoon, etc., and those are also very capable multi-role aircraft. Something else I'm not too keen on is how tight Lockheed seems to be with it (regarding the matter of the Israelis, and refusing to allow the IDF to modify the airplane as they want, in Israel). Yes, we're tight friends with the US, but that doesn't mean we have to be completely reliant on them. Of the above-listed aircraft, I would take whichever one offers a licence-build, to be honest... but no, we'll end up spending whatever immense sum Lockheed wants, and using up money that could go to the army or the navy or to whatever other projects that need money.

But I'm not worried for Lockheed's sake. Even if the F-35 ends up a total dog, they'll sell plenty. Like with the F-104, which even the USAF didn't want... Sale of the Century v2.0.

[kitnut617]

I like how you removed "Il-76" from my question... so the question still stands.

Well, any company in a western country that has thought about buying a Russian aircraft are thwarted by the fact they haven't passed any western countries certification.  There's a logging company in BC who wanted to use the Kamov Ka-32 (or one of the Kamovs) but because it didn't have the certification, they couldn't.  Leasing is a way around the red tape and almost all the leased aircraft the CAF (Canadian Armed Forces) uses are all out of country, which is another way around the certification issue.

[Litvyak]

I like how you removed "Il-76" from my question... so the question still stands.

Well, any company in a western country that has thought about buying a Russian aircraft are thwarted by the fact they haven't passed any western countries certification.  There's a logging company in BC who wanted to use the Kamov Ka-32 (or one of the Kamovs) but because it didn't have the certification, they couldn't.  Leasing is a way around the red tape and almost all the leased aircraft the CAF (Canadian Armed Forces) uses are all out of country, which is another way around the certification issue.

Vancouver Island Helicopters operates the Ka-32 - with Canadian registration: hence, type-certified in Canada:



Il-76 have a type cert anyways, since that's needed for an aircraft to come into the country - which they do, repeatedly.

[Litvyak]

Re: Ka-32 in the west - they're also used in Spain, Portugal, South Korea (Coast Guard), Switzerland, Turkey and the California State Fire Department...

[pwagner]

it's a total hunk of junk that's being forced on us for political reasons, and really deserves to collapse.

I'd like you to be able to justify those statements.

I could, but then I'd have to kill you

Without being inflamatory, I don't think most people think it's actually useless as an airframe.  In fact, it seems suited for the type of warfare the US in particular wages.  My main concern is whether it is good for the RAAF and Australia in general.  It might well be all singing & dancing with capabilities beyond and too secret, but do we as a nation need the type?

Precisely. 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, with secondary strike capacity. 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!). Even if the F35 is best of it's kind in the history of the world, it still doesn't follow that we want such a thing. Or at least not a whole fleet of them.

Maybe it'll be as fabby as the LM salesmen want us to believe. Maybe it'll be turd full of useless whizz-bang gadgetry. Probably it'll be both depending on what you want it to do. And in either case, the VERY LEAST we should do is hold off placing any orders until we've held a proper competition to actually compare it to the alternatives. If it's really exactly what we need, it'll win. If not, it'll lose. Even if it's brilliant at what it does, it might *still* lose if it's not what the RAAF needs.

I do feel sorry for the designers, though. It was impossible to make something that's a kick-arse air combat fighter, PLUS a deep penetration strike jet, PLUS a tough close support aircraft, PLUS a fleet defence fighter, PLUS it's got be be invisible, PLUS it's got to carry everything internally, PLUS it's got to be as cheap as an F16. Oh yeah, PLUS it's got the be a VTOL Harrier replacement! Absurd ask. So of *course* it can't do all that equally well. The designers HAD to compromise, and choose one or two things to optimise it for, and of course their primary concern is to satisfy the requirements of the US services. But that doesn't necessarily translate to being suitable for services like the RAAF.

Paul

[Taiidantomcat]

Not really, no. And I have no idea why the folks in uniform who have no financial incentives are so hot on it then.

Isn't funny how many Canadians wanted the F-22, and now that they can't get it they think the F-35 isn't what they need and is too expensive? Thats really odd. They needed the expensive are dominance fighter, not the
cheaper multi role fighter.

Well, for one, the F-35 was supposed to be cheap... it's not looking like it'll be anything near as cheap as was promised (but I can be content to lay that blame on the whole F-35B mess; had they stuck to only working on the A, I doubt there would be this big of a mess).

Though I wasn't one of those who wanted the F-22 for Canada, it would have been the perfect fit for defending Canada's airspace; the F-35, by everything I have seen, is not any better for that role than the cheaper Rafale, Gripen, Typhoon, etc., and those are also very capable multi-role aircraft. Something else I'm not too keen on is how tight Lockheed seems to be with it (regarding the matter of the Israelis, and refusing to allow the IDF to modify the airplane as they want, in Israel). Yes, we're tight friends with the US, but that doesn't mean we have to be completely reliant on them. Of the above-listed aircraft, I would take whichever one offers a licence-build, to be honest... but no, we'll end up spending whatever immense sum Lockheed wants, and using up money that could go to the army or the navy or to whatever other projects that need money.

But I'm not worried for Lockheed's sake. Even if the F-35 ends up a total dog, they'll sell plenty. Like with the F-104, which even the USAF didn't want... Sale of the Century v2.0.

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...

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?

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?

C-17 - USA, but again what real option was there

Il-76.

Seriously. It's a good plane.

The Canadian Forces keep leasing them when they need to go somewhere... may as well just buy some outright.

Note, I said real option!

Regards,

Greg

While its out of production the Russians are apparently restarting production as the Il476.  So why isn't it a "real" option, Greg?

Probably, because as even you just pointed out that it is out of production? Now that its back in production it might be an option, however that ship has sailed. so it wasn't a real option then or now.  

Not really, no. And I have no idea why the folks in uniform who have no financial incentives are so hot on it then.

Ben,

Not to put to fine a point on it, but there have been cases, including recently, where uniformed personnel were given financial incentive to endorse a given product.  Once again, the Stryker is a case in point, although this allegedly and rightly is contravening military law.

Corporate games get pretty serious around multi-billion dollar sales and those extend to political & military circles.  Not to be rude, but Lockheed-Martin's ancestor (ie: Lockheed) has a track record for greasing the wheels when it comes to ensuring a sale.

Regards,

Mav

Mav how famous do you think I am?!   I'm not talking about lockheed buying off generals. everyone does that, and its a very old trick.

These are personal friends who go back to high school and sometimes beyond. They are Sergeants with no real dog in the fight, and like most sergeants, especially behind closed doors they are going to call it as they see it. If Lock Mart is paying off lowly Sgts who have no real say in weapons programs one way or the other-- I now know why the F-35 is so over budget!! LOL   Wasting money to pay off enlisted folks to talk to the rare personal friend who knows anything about aircraft (and is a "ground side" Marine to boot) would not be smart spending.

[Taiidantomcat]

it's a total hunk of junk that's being forced on us for political reasons, and really deserves to collapse.

I'd like you to be able to justify those statements.

I could, but then I'd have to kill you

Without being inflamatory, I don't think most people think it's actually useless as an airframe.  In fact, it seems suited for the type of warfare the US in particular wages.  My main concern is whether it is good for the RAAF and Australia in general.  It might well be all singing & dancing with capabilities beyond and too secret, but do we as a nation need the type?

Precisely. 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, with secondary strike capacity. 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!). Even if the F35 is best of it's kind in the history of the world, it still doesn't follow that we want such a thing. Or at least not a whole fleet of them.

Maybe it'll be as fabby as the LM salesmen want us to believe. Maybe it'll be turd full of useless whizz-bang gadgetry. Probably it'll be both depending on what you want it to do. And in either case, the VERY LEAST we should do is hold off placing any orders until we've held a proper competition to actually compare it to the alternatives. If it's really exactly what we need, it'll win. If not, it'll lose. Even if it's brilliant at what it does, it might *still* lose if it's not what the RAAF needs.

Then why did they want the F-22? And why would it need a secondary strike capability at all if you "do *not* need to penetrate anybody else's airspace undetected and blow the crap out of them in the middle of the night"? And how do you know that you won't need that?

"Australia's combat aircraft were not used again in combat until the Iraq War in 2003, when 14 F/A-18s from No. 75 Squadron operated in the escort and ground attack roles, flying a total of 350 sorties and dropping 122 laser guided bombs."

So what do your neighbors think?

[GTX]

Something else I'm not too keen on is how tight Lockheed seems to be with it (regarding the matter of the Israelis, and refusing to allow the IDF to modify the airplane as they want, in Israel). Yes, we're tight friends with the US, but that doesn't mean we have to be completely reliant on them.

That is a total misunderstanding of the facts.  One area where the F-35 is different from previous programs is that the costs are based upon the total multi-national production set up with components being made all over the world (they will even end up with a production line in Italy for the entire platform).  As such, to deviate from this means more costs - not only to have different equipment but also for the loss of efficiency in the rest of the system.  This will go for both the production and sustainment elements.  It isn't quite Model T Ford "you can have any colour you like so long as it is black", but is somewhat similar (I'm sure people are already seeing this as a new point to argue!) - think of it as: "you can have any colour you want, so long as you pay for that colour change and for the additional cost imposed on all those customers who are happy with black".

The other side of the coin with this is that in many cases, the USA will be just as reliant on foreign firms - for instance, later this year, I hope to be able to be to negotiate a deal to be producing 100% of a certain JSF component.  In other words, every single JSF (including those for the USAF, USN and USMC) from that point on will be reliant upon my firm here in Australia. But I am not part of Lockheed so must be bucking the system!

Don't be misled by the supposed incentive of licence production if one were to go the non JSF route (this is relevant for the JSF partner nations).  From an overall industrial/jobs point of view (which is arguably what the Governments are really interested in), the JSF offers much more.  Looking at Canada.  Your Government have announced a plan to acquire 65 F-35s to replace the existing 80 CF-18s.  Let's assume that you went with something else (don't really care which) and even doubled that number (assuming it was that simple - you might be surprised to find what the alternatives really cost, but they don't get the same pressure on this front as the F-35) to 130.  You then might get a larger share of producing 130 aircraft (you won't get 100%), say over 3 - 6 yrs, instead of a smaller %  share of 3000+ F-35s over 20+ years.  I know from a business case point of view, which I'd prefer.  Even if you somehow managed to spin some 'offset' deals and also start producing parts for the rest of the aircraft type you have acquired (i.e. make parts for the same aircraft used by other nations), you still lose out.  For one you are coming in late on many of these programs and so, to put it bluntly, all the good stuff is gone anyway (and don't think those countries/companies already producing those parts will make it easy for you either - I know I wouldn't).  More over, let's look at the production quantities for some of those programs (remembering also that many of these are already produced):

• Eurofighter Typhoon: around 559 total to date across all tranches.  Even if you add in a couple of hundred more, it still won't top 1000;
• Dassault Rafale: approx 180 ordered total.  Even if Dassault get more orders domestically and manage to eventually get some export customers, you won't see this even reach 500;
• Saab Gripen: something like 250 produced to date.  Again, even if they get more exports (and good luck to them - personally I like the Gripen and believe the JAS-39 is the heir apparent to the Northrop F-5 series), they will also not reach 500; and
• Super Hornet:  Something like 600 - 700 already on order (with most already produced).  Maybe with additional exports/domestic sales it will reach just over 1000.

None of these programs offers the industrial participation opportunities that countries are looking for.

In the case of Israel, their F-35 acquisition is largely (if not totally) funded by US Government money with much of the Israeli funding coming in the form of U.S. Foreign Military Financing (FMF) credits.  The Israelis however wanted to be different (their specific equipment), wanted early production slots (also costly) and to have a cheaper price (i.e. not deal with the above conditions, including not pay for the integration costs of this new equipment) - sorry, it doesn't work that way.  Also, Israel was not a JSF partner nation - the other partner nations including the UK, Canada, etc protested Israel getting any special treatment and good for them, the USA largely resisted doing this.  Also, please note that much of what has been written about the Israeli acquisition in the press is extremely misleading, and I would argue, deliberately so for a variety of reasons.  By way of example, there were reports that Israel Aerospace Industries will receive a multi-year contract from Lockheed Martin to manufacture up to 900 wing pairs for the F-35 - all in return for Israel buying 20 F-35s.  There is NO WAY this will be happening!

Also remember that in the case of Israel (and to an extent Japan), a lot of what you have read re the F-35 is part of posturing to get the F-22.  However, this is unlikely to happen, simply because there is legislation in the USA preventing it (look up the "Obey Amendment" to see what I am referring to).  Unless that legislation is changed, it ain't happening!  Also, don't think this legislation is part of some conspiracy from Lockheed Martin.  They would love to be able to see the F-22 - in fact doing so, might also help justify producing more for the USAF as well.

regards,

Greg

[GTX]

C-17 - USA, but again what real option was there

Il-76.

Seriously. It's a good plane.

The Canadian Forces keep leasing them when they need to go somewhere... may as well just buy some outright.

Note, I said real option!

Regards,

Greg

While its out of production the Russians are apparently restarting production as the Il476.  So why isn't it a "real" option, Greg?

Well for one it is less capable than the C-17.  Secondly, there is the Realpolitik issue - like it or not, no major western country is going to have front-line Russian equipment in service any time soon.  Once again, personally I like a lot of the Russian equipment and the philosophies behind them (I think there is a lot for us to learn), but realistically, it just isn't going to happen. 

Regards,

Greg

[Taiidantomcat]

There you go again Greg, confusing me with facts when my mind is already made up.

[Litvyak]

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?

I didn't say they're not capable of making a JSF. But the difference: the F-22 was designed and built for a single, specific purpose, and by all accounts it excels at that. The F-35 is trying to be everything to everyone, and so will - like everything else that's ever tried to do that - it will excel at nothing (though may well be good at everything).

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.


Short form, I have to echo what pwagner said: The F-35 may very well turn out to be a phenomenal airplane. But it is not what Canada needs. We need an air superiority fighter that can defend our airspace, not an aircraft whose primarily role is strike.

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!

Yes, I'm being facetious there, but just trying to illustrate my point about suitability: a plane can be as perfect as it wants, it's still not suitable for a role it wasn't designed for. And the role Canada needs filled is not the role of the F-35.

[Maverick]

Ben,

Colour me confused but a few paragraphs you went to great pains to mention how the serving Marines you knew thought it was a great platform, but then you said that they weren't aircrew.  Without being rude, I would take the opinions of infantrymen & tankers regarding an aircraft with a fairly large dose of salt.  Equally so, I would look carefully at the opinions of a Harrier or Hornet pilot who sang the praises of a new tank or crew-served weapon.

As for LM paying off enlisted personnel, that's ludicrous obviosly, but slightly more believable would be those service personnel directly involved in the testing and evaulation of the F-35 variants being financially advantaged by LM's machinations.

The personnel who evaluated the Stryker were allegedly given financial incentives to sing the praises of the vehicle and their 'unbiased, professional opinions' that were video-taped by GDLS as part of the process looked more like paid advertisements than realistic appraisals of the type.

As to why the RAAF wanted the F-22, there are two schools of thought there.  One being that they wanted the glamour aircraft for a prestige point of view, the other was that the F-22 is (once again allegedly) the premier air dominance fighter in service today and therefore quite capable of performing a worthwhile role in defence of the Australian continent.

Also it's worth remembering that the missions flown by the RAAF in 2003 and beyond were at the behest of the US coalition during their invasion of Iraq, not defending Australia or force-projecting during that defence.  Whether the mission was legal or not, it didn't affect the neighbours in question.

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.
Regards,

Mav

[Litvyak]

Well for one it is less capable than the C-17.  Secondly, there is the Realpolitik issue - like it or not, no major western country is going to have front-line Russian equipment in service any time soon.  Once again, personally I like a lot of the Russian equipment and the philosophies behind them (I think there is a lot for us to learn), but realistically, it just isn't going to happen. 

I like the C-17 personally, but that's beside the point here.

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.

Now, if you amend to say that no /Anglophone/ country will buy Russian equipment, I may be more inclined to believe you.

But then who would've thought 20 years ago that the Russians would by French-made warships...

[Taiidantomcat]

Ben,

Colour me confused but a few paragraphs you went to great pains to mention how the serving Marines you knew thought it was a great platform, but then you said that they weren't aircrew.  Without being rude, I would take the opinions of infantrymen & tankers regarding an aircraft with a fairly large dose of salt.  Equally so, I would look carefully at the opinions of a Harrier or Hornet pilot who sang the praises of a new tank or crew-served weapon.

As for LM paying off enlisted personnel, that's ludicrous obviosly, but slightly more believable would be those service personnel directly involved in the testing and evaulation of the F-35 variants being financially advantaged by LM's machinations.

The personnel who evaluated the Stryker were allegedly given financial incentives to sing the praises of the vehicle and their 'unbiased, professional opinions' that were video-taped by GDLS as part of the process looked more like paid advertisements than realistic appraisals of the type.

As to why the RAAF wanted the F-22, there are two schools of thought there.  One being that they wanted the glamour aircraft for a prestige point of view, the other was that the F-22 is (once again allegedly) the premier air dominance fighter in service today and therefore quite capable of performing a worthwhile role in defence of the Australian continent.

Also it's worth remembering that the missions flown by the RAAF in 2003 and beyond were at the behest of the US coalition during their invasion of Iraq, not defending Australia or force-projecting during that defence.  Whether the mission was legal or not, it didn't affect the neighbours in question.

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.
Regards,

Mav

No they are AIR side, I am ground (technically). I should have typed it better. Thats my point-- if im some dumb grunt they don't need to sell me on it so why bother? Luckily I know about airplanes so we can chat LOL My not all of my friends are directly involved either.

I am just using Iraq as an example. You might find yourselves outside your own areas, just as you said as part of some coalition. If Australia was Switzerland I would say knock yourself out, but the Aussies do go beyond their own borders, and its would be a good idea to have an aircraft that will bring you back in one piece. but thats just me. If you want to drop out of all the coalitions, or just hope you never ever have to do a strike mission thats fine too.