And it's supposed to replace the A-10. Give me a break. How it's going to conduct ground support is beyond me. Besides the number of rounds they are much smaller and less powerful and for them to be effective on the ground you have to get close enough to draw all sorts of ground fire. The A-10 is highly survivable in that environment, armored titanium tub for the pilot and highly redundant control systems. The armored engine nacelles are designed so that one could be blown completely off and have the aircraft continue merrily on its way. The F-35 on the other hand can't work if it's fuel is too warm and would become immediately less stealthy if it gets even a few scratches on its RAM surfaces. Plus there isn't much in the way of protection of the pilot or vital systems. As for the idea of running STOVL F-35s off Australian ships I happen to know that this was a genuine factor in Australia getting involved in the JSF program. When the RAN heard "fleet air arm" they went a little nutty. Because it's not VTOL it wouldn't work on any current design but it's not out of the realm of possibility that we could buy old USN/USMC light carriers that have until now carried harriers. It's the one role the lightning is competitive in but we are never going to afford the 100 we need for the airforce and once the subs go over budget we would have to give up the whole army to pay for a couple squadrons and a single carrier with ask the required escort and support vessels. Apparently the targeting systems are a decade behind what's being put on f-16s in pods. It's low resolution and doesn't have a data link for sharing what it sees with ground controllers. T-50 is scary on paper but it's got troubles all it's own. It's got serious quality control issues with the airframe and stealth coatings and the engines are going to be difficult to build and are already way behind. I still know a lot of defence types who would rather have an American built T-50 in their fleet than lightnings.
What no planes to take on the latest Russian fighters? So we can't build a Canoe and it looks like we can't build a kite. Regards Errol 43
I'm pretty confident that we could build a canoe. There were even a few quite good things about the Collins and they are even more complicated than your standard 2 man polymer frameless canoe. The problem with the f-35 is that go win he contact LM threw out some wildly optimistic cost figures which meant they were going to go WAY over budget just to develop the plane they promised in the 90's. There was absolutely no money left for the sorts of design changes and evolutions that are a part of every military aircrafts development over the better part of 20 years. To be fair Boeing would have suffered similar trouble (though not to this degree). Australia seems to get intuitive trouble whenever we buy an aircraft off the drawing board instead of off the shelf. My point, I suppose, is that by comparison the Collins went pretty smoothly end ended up being pretty good in the end if this kite is the yardstick.
It's worse than just having wasted the acquisition money, the cost of maintaining these things, much much higher than initially represented, will kill our ability to fund other essential military projects down the line. Then there's the massive opportunity cost of what we could have gotten for this money...
I actually wrote a long rambling quora answer on this recently, might interest anyone who's been following the subject: http://qr.ae/7NtZZt
A red Ironman suit would be too irresistible to Tony. He'd strap in and be zipping all over the place causing mayhem.
Hard to tell. It's potentials are mostly classified but the media storm, overspend and delays happened with the F16 too and that was king in the air when it delivered. The reality of the f35 is not as a conventional 5th generation fighter although it is passable in that role. It is a flying command and control hub for a network warfare battle system including unmanned missile platforms,attack drones and electronic warfare drones. It is the generational bridge between manned and unmanned aircraft. This thing has the potential to carry and act as a flying control hub for a swarm of unmanned fighter drones/missiles, electronic warfare drones etc.. Thinking of it as a conventional jet fighter is kind of missing what is going on. Foe example one o its infamous features is a pilots helm that gives the pilot 360 visibility and creates the impression that the aircraft is not there around them. That can be switched forward to anything in its network. One of these things has the potential to wipe out an entire opposing air force. Navy's Next Air War Strategy depends on Data Link Advances http://spendergast.blogspot.ie/2014/01/navys-next-air-war-strategy-depends-on.html "The communications, navigation and identification (CNI) system on an F-35 can manage 27 different waveforms, including MADL. The system will be included in the 2B software package that the Marine Corps' F-35B jump-jet variant and the Air Force's F-35A conventional take-off-and-landing version will use when they declare initial operating operational capability capacity (IOC) in 2015 and 2016, respectively. It also will be included in all international versions of the jet. The Navy's F-35C carrier variant is expected to reach IOC in 2019 with the block 3F software, which will incorporate MADL and other capabilities. What makes MADL more than just a communications tool is its ability to connect with other planes and automatically share situational awareness data between fighters. The more planes in the network the greater the data shared and the more comprehensive a picture is formed. " To get it's internal payload in perspective it is capable of carrying internally a load equivalent to an entire harrier jump jet. As it is internal the payload does not effect its flight characteristics. I think it is designed to be an advanced attack drone command and control platform and is the midway between manned and unmanned air warfare. it is a complete game changer if it is an attack drone command and control carrier/relay/delivery. It certainly appears to be designed to be one. The raptor is the backup plan... Air Force's New Unmanned Strategy Has F-35 Pilots Flying Drones http://www.military.com/daily-news/...ed-strategy-has-f35-pilots-flying-drones.html "An F-35 Joint Strike Fighter pilot will one day control a small fleet of nearby drones from the cockpit while in flight -- according to a new Air Force report on autonomous systems, Air Force Chief Scientist Mica Endsley said. The Air Force is poised to unveil a new strategy for unmanned aircraft systems next month. The report will discuss more teaming with manned aircraft such as the F-35, greater levels of automation and a wider scope of missions for UAS -- such as transporting cargo. " Interested in your thoughts phrenzy.
Why would one F35 pilot be used to control numerous drones when an AWACs or similar aircraft has a team of people that can sit and do that. Or why would the F35 pilot be more than the platform driver of a reconnaissance platform where the drone commanders sit a theatre away from the conflict - which is what happens now anyway. Just their eyes are the sensors in the F35. I used to be all 100% support for the F35 but one of my favourite speech writers brings up some uncomfortable facts about it. [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HrKnF0dwqQ[/youtube]
How quick we forget that there was a time, not that long ago, when a nation which shall remain anonymous had aircraft with every F number you could think of....... F stood for Fat lot of good it did them.......and a complete waste of F..ing money Now it stands for Flat broke if we don't sell them.......and Foster injustice to encourage Further purchases ....
Canada won't buy F35's...Italy looks like doing the same. Cost will rise no doubt but we will we still buy to save face?. Regards Errol 43
