F-35 Joint Strike Fighter - Abbott agrees to buy more, more, more.

[DivideandMultiply]

So any opinion you agree with is good and noble, and any you don't must have been bought and paid for?

No, it actually read like an advertisement. That is standard practice for the industry, they spend tens of millions on PR and advocacy, that includes politicians, journalists and former/current servicemen.

 

[telsor]

No, it actually read like an advertisement. That is standard practice for the industry, they spend tens of millions on PR and advocacy, that includes politicians, journalists and former/current servicemen.

But when the F-16 designer criticises the F-35, that's just fair play and nothing to do with his company not getting the contract?

 

[DivideandMultiply]

But when the F-16 designer criticises the F-35, that's just fair play and nothing to do with his company not getting the contract?

I made no comment on the subject.

 

[Juddism]

But when the F-16 designer criticises the F-35, that's just fair play and nothing to do with his company not getting the contract?

Lol..General Dynamics a/c division is part of LM.

 

[Max zero]

Late to this and I hope it hasn't been answered up thread, is the long term future going to be fighter drones?

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-navys-new-drone-will-be-able-to-fight-other-planes-64b87d155545

Almost getting to the point where drones are the answer now let alone in the future.

For recon and targetted assasinations (lets call a spade a spade) they are way better then manned aircraft.

http://singularityhub.com/2012/02/0...ed-30-of-all-us-military-aircraft-are-drones/''

While representing more than 30% of the total aircraft flown, drones account for just 8% of the warplane budget. Nearly forty Predator and Reaper drones have crashed in Afghanistan and Iraq (with the loss of small UAVs like the Raven being considerably higher), yet the accident rate for Predators has dropped significantly in the past few years falling from 20 cases per 100,000 hours in 2005 to just 7.5/100k in 2009. That accident rate puts the Predator (and Reaper) on par with the F-16!

http://www.wired.com/2009/07/air-force-plans-for-all-drone-future/

“There are those that see [the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter] as the last manned fighter,” Mullen said. “I’m one that’s inclined to believe that.” General Atomics, which makes the popular Predator line of drones, underscored Mullen’s comment by unveiling its new, faster Predator C.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

Almost getting to the point where drones are the answer now let alone in the future.

As horrifying as drone warfare is, this has long been my position.

Investing billions in a sketch 5th gen fighter is not the smart investment going forward. The future is drone warfare, despite the lack of unmanned air superiority fighters. The thing is, it's an area of heavy investment for the US, China and Russia and this fact could quickly change, as the US navy is committed to an air combat rollout. There plans seem to be for the first wave, to manned pilot assisted. So for either a pilot to control a bot swarm or for the team on the ground to use the manned fighters targeting and sensors, to lead the bots.

Worth mentioning also, is that the yanks are keen to abandon the global hawk and reaper drones, likely due to the speculated development of a new stealth drone.

 

[little graham]

This is doing the rounds on socialist leaning american FB pages.

 

[telsor]

This is doing the rounds on socialist leaning american FB pages.

Sounds about right for most socialist thinking...Critical, short sighted and ignoring the consequences.

 

[little graham]

Sounds about right for most socialist thinking...Critical, short sighted and ignoring the consequences.

If there was no homeless, there would be less crime, less people in gaol, less money wasted on policing,security,charity services. This would allow us to afford to buy a modern jet that works, which happens to be Russian.

 

[telsor]

If there was no homeless, there would be less crime, less people in gaol, less money wasted on policing,security,charity services. This would allow us to afford to buy a modern jet that works, which happens to be Russian.

Yay for the magic pixie dust that will do that.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

So how are the JSF doing at the mo?

Massive engine failure leading to fire in an F-35 jet causes grounding of fleet. Engine failure turns out to be caused by an issue with fan blades, which have caused problems in the past. Pentagon in damage control claiming this doesn't represent another design flaw.

Tell me again how development is on track, everything will just be fine and we have made a wise purchase?

 

[telsor]

It's still in testing, any failure would lead to the grounding of the fleet. It's standard safety procedure.

Show me a new, advanced, plane that hasn't had issues during development that led to the grounding of the fleet.

 

[telsor]

To be fair, you attacked him for short term thinking, and then attacked him for long term thinking.

When both are dodgy, I don't think that's unreasonable. But you are right, the long term rationalisation is worse.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

It's still in testing, any failure would lead to the grounding of the fleet. It's standard safety procedure.

Show me a new, advanced, plane that hasn't had issues during development that led to the grounding of the fleet.

This is a fallacy, other planes have development issues, therefore any issues with the F-35 are unremarkable, does not an argument make.

Critical engine failure due to fire, caused by components which have been the source of technical failure before, is deeply concerning. If the rapid fire defence of the incident is wrong and this combination of incidents does indicate a design flaw, then what?

Another revised timeline, more cost blowouts?

 

[telsor]

This is a fallacy, other planes have development issues, therefore any issues with the F-35 are unremarkable, does not an argument make.

Critical engine failure due to fire, caused by components which have been the source of technical failure before, is deeply concerning. If the rapid fire defence of the incident is wrong and this combination of incidents does indicate a design flaw, then what?

Another revised timeline, more cost blowouts?

Yep.

But I repeat, what advanced fighter hasn't had similar issues? (not counting those developed in countries that hide such info).

Look at the Typhoon, major delays and cost blowouts...First development plane flew in 1994, first production plane in 2002, costs? The UK's program was initially budgetted at around$7Billion ($3.3B dev,+ $30M*160 aircraft), most recent estimate is $37Billion (or about $220M/plane).

2 choices...buy a new craft being developed and get on the leading edge, or buy a pre existing plane that would need to be replaced sooner (due to being out of date sooner).

 

[telsor]

For the investment v. output v. other nations, do you think we are receiving what we have paid for? Especially as, we have to increase our payment, if other investors pull out?

I don't think there is a 'good' option, we need to buy something, so we either take a chance on what is potentially the best (as we did, rightly or wrongly) or buy something that already exists and thus will be 20 years behind by the time the F-35 is finalised and thus need to be replaced ~20 years sooner if we want to remain competitive. It's a very expensive risk either way.

C'mon Telsor, what is the in-between?

Pay for the accommodation of one of your(hypothetical) countries law breakers, and/or the punishment? Or preventing the cause?

NB: I am not defending anyone who breaks that law. But I do empathise those who choose to rob, or become homeless.

I'm saying it's not cost effective to give potential law breakers so much money that they choose no longer to break the law.

If someone is honest and unemployed, would they be better off to rob the next convenience store they pass in order to get on the 'law prevention' gravy train?

 

[telsor]

So, you don't think we are pumping funds into an output that has increased exponentially, due to the pull out factors from other nations?
We are waiting for a product, that has produced no product for us, and asked us for a vast increase, in order for our original order to be possible?
I would call that a scam in any language!

And yet there are no clearly better options (and I dare say none that don't have some scams involved).

I don't understand your point. You ignored, basically, what I know you understood from my post.

OK, how do you 'prevent the cause'?

 

[telsor]

Well, as a form of air defence/attack, we are fairly isolated. What is wrong with the sukhoi?

Not being an expert, I couldn't say for sure, but they're a couple of decades behind in technology ( first built in the 90s so ~10-15 years earlier than F-35 and is a revamped SU-27, which were first built in the 70s) and there are strategic issues with building a vital part of your defense on a source that mightn't be friendly when you really need parts ( so cheap becomes less so because you need to buy LOTS more spares up front in case).

Prevent the cause all over, I don't know. Human elements are hard to foresee. But adding to the cause shouldn't be supported, right?

Human nature is to want more. Some will choose less ethical means to acquire that. If it was just poverty, white collar crime would be less prevalent. Buying plane X or plane Y won't change that and as you mentioned, we're isolated (and big), so planes are really important to our defense because they can cover the distances required. As a corollary, when they get there, with little additional support available, they'd better be good enough to win.

 

[telsor]

Well, as a form of air defence/attack, we are fairly isolated. What is wrong with the sukhoi?

Apologies, I thought you meant the SU-30, but you probably mean the SU-PAK/T-50, and a quick check of it brings up a couple of familiar issues. It's been having a bunch of delays and cost overruns, with India cutting their intended orders accordingly and Russia's orders looking shakey.

As for the engine issues the F-35 has been having, June 10th, 2014, the 5th T-50 prototype "suffered an engine fire after landing". As I said, s**t happens with new/development systems.

 

[telsor]

So you feel that the SU-27 and the SU-30, that Indonesian currently have, don't mean much, because they had delays. And we have been waiting a similar period for our American planes, and they are still on hold, with no actual known shipment date. Just an overall cost increase, due to other investors pulling out.

We are talking about the safety of our future. But we were talking about that five years ago. Say another decade passes, will we still be insisting on the importance of the highly secretive American planes, to protect us from future attacks?

The Super Hornets we have as an interim measure are actually newer than SU-30s, and worst case, we'll just buy some more of them (ALP looked at 24 more at the end of 2012, but for budget reasons 'only' ended up getting 12 of the 'Growler' EW variants to bring us to a total of 36).

Yeah, it could be a while (although if memory serves, we get our first 3 F-35s pretty soon* - they're for training and testing and it'll be a few years before the rest start to arrive)

The T-50's first export deliveries are expected (hoped?) to be in 2025.


*-quick check shows first Aus F-35 is supposed to roll off the line July 2014, so 'now', with the first pilot training early 2015

 

[telsor]

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. As is, the super hornet vs the sukhoi (27 or 30), value wise, the sukhoi wins. Buying more of a weaker product, doesn't help us. ALP or Coalition, doesn't justify the currently unending funding for a product that we have no time limit on.

First operational F-35 squadron is expected in 2020, we're not going to buy a totally new system in the interim (even if there are a few years delay), because by the time they're delivered, and pilots/maintenance crew are trained up, they'll be at best a very short window before they're redundant, so we're 'stuck' buying more of the same (or very similar). Yes, this could put us at a disadvantage, but changing wont really help much on that.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

First operational F-35 squadron is expected in 2020, we're not going to buy a totally new system in the interim (even if there are a few years delay), because by the time they're delivered, and pilots/maintenance crew are trained up, they'll be at best a very short window before they're redundant, so we're 'stuck' buying more of the same (or very similar). Yes, this could put us at a disadvantage, but changing wont really help much on that.

The problem, outside of all the other issues is that they are duds. Major duds. The only advantage that has been attributed to the F-35 is a semi mythical "enhanced situational awareness", that is all very secret and not able to be explained.

So, outside of the cost blowouts, the timeline revisions, the design flaws and at present unachievable software goals for full functionality, we have a craft that even if it performs as advertised has no real advantage and a heck of a lot of weaknesses.

The future is in drone warfare. For a fraction of the cost we could buy a more limited, but targeted fleet of aircraft and look at getting in at the ground floor on one of the several air to air combat role fighters currently in development. Heck, even if we are deadset committed to the F-35, scale back our order dramatically and do what the US Navy are planning. Using a limited number of all purpose fighters, with powerful detection and comms ability, as a command hub for small drone groups. Cheaper, safer for personnel and would ultimately provide cover for the F-35's weaknesses.

 

[telsor]

The problem, outside of all the other issues is that they are duds. Major duds. The only advantage that has been attributed to the F-35 is a semi mythical "enhanced situational awareness", that is all very secret and not able to be explained.

So, outside of the cost blowouts, the timeline revisions, the design flaws and at present unachievable software goals for full functionality, we have a craft that even if it performs as advertised has no real advantage and a heck of a lot of weaknesses.

The future is in drone warfare. For a fraction of the cost we could buy a more limited, but targeted fleet of aircraft and look at getting in at the ground floor on one of the several air to air combat role fighters currently in development. Heck, even if we are deadset committed to the F-35, scale back our order dramatically and do what the US Navy are planning. Using a limited number of all purpose fighters, with powerful detection and comms ability, as a command hub for small drone groups. Cheaper, safer for personnel and would ultimately provide cover for the F-35's weaknesses.

I'm in awe of your expertise and personal knowledge of these aircraft.

Unless of course you're just parroting some crap someone else has come up with, because lets face it, pretty much every new system in the part 50 years has been a called a dud (or similar) at some point during it's development. I said earlier there are risks, but, unlike you, I'd rather see proof before I write things off.

As for drones...sure, for air-ground strikes, they're fine, but where are the air superiority drones, without which the ground strike craft would be wiped out? Sure, in time they'll be developed (they're on the way already), but if you use the same criteria for assessment, current AS drones are 'duds'.

 

[Jakko]

Not being an expert, I couldn't say for sure, but they're a couple of decades behind in technology ( first built in the 90s so ~10-15 years earlier than F-35 and is a revamped SU-27, which were first built in the 70s) and there are strategic issues with building a vital part of your defense on a source that mightn't be friendly when you really need parts ( so cheap becomes less so because you need to buy LOTS more spares up front in case).

As seen with recent events. Not to mention how unlikely we could get access to latest tech from Russia, no way they will sell us their best stuff when were so close to the US.

 

[Power Raid]

Should we be looking for solar powered fighters instead?