The number of potential cracks and hot spots discovered in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter’s airframe during initial fatigue testing has led the head of the US program to call for a slow down of production over the next few years.
The comments by US Navy Vice Admiral David Venlet, which came in an interview with the website AOL Defence, are another blow for the troubled F-35 program and its prime contractor Lockheed Martin.
Lockheed has repeatedly pushed the US to ramp up production in an effort to improve economies of scale. But Venlet said early fatigue testing had already found enough parts that require redesign or replacement to add roughly US$3 to $5 million to the cost of each plane that will require a retrofit. Lockheed is currently building the planes for roughly US$111 million each.
Venlet said the problems would not affect safety or performance of the fighter but would shorten its life span and were best addressed now. The discoveries came after a bulkhead crack was found in the F-35B last year, leading to a range of engineering analyses meant to identify parts likely to crack before the jet reached its 8000 hour life span.
“Most of [the problems] are little ones, but when you bundle them all up and package them and look at where they are in the airplane and how hard they are to get at after you buy the jet, the cost burden of that is what sucks the wind out of your lungs,” Venlet told AOL Defense. “I believe it’s wise to sort of temper production for a while here until we get some of these heavy years of learning under our belt and get that managed right.”
Venlet also criticised as a “miscalculation” the program’s assumption that F-35 production could begin even as flight testing continued, though he said it remained his job to see the program through as it was.
“What we’re doing is, we’re taking the keys to the shiny new jet, giving it to the fleet and saying, ‘Give me that jet back in the first year. I’ve got to go take it up to this depot for a couple of months and tear into it and put in some structural mods, because if I don’t, we’re not going to be able to fly it more than a couple, three, four, five years.’ That’s what concurrency is doing to us,” he told AOL.
Venlet declined to say how much he thought production should be slowed, according to the website. The Pentagon has ordered 30 F-35s in fiscal year 2011, down from previous plans to order 42. Production had been scheduled to ramp up each year, hitting 108 by FY 2016 and more than 200 once fatigue and flight testing was finished, but those plans have already come under heavy doubt as the Pentagon faces deep budget cuts.
The US is ultimately scheduled to buy 2443 of the jets as part of a US$379 billion program to replace a variety of current fighters. Eleven other countries including Australia are also part of the F-35 program. Flight testing of the aircraft is roughly 18 per cent complete, with 1394 test flights having been flown through the end of November.
Already the Pentagon’s most expensive project ever, the F-35 has faced repeated cost overruns that yesterday led US Senator John McCain to bash the program as a “scandal and a tragedy” and call on Lockheed to assume more of the burden for any future overruns.
McCain, a leading US defence figure and the 2008 Republican presidential nominee, earlier this year led a effort that would have seen the F-35 canceled within 18 months if costs kept rising. That effort was narrowly defeated in the Senate.
Australia launched its own review of the F-35 program schedule in October before committing to its first batch of 14 out of a requirement of 100 F-35s. The review is meant to ensure that delivery delays in the JSF program will not lead to a capability gap with the retirement of the RAAF’s ageing F/A-18A/B ‘classic’ Hornet fleet.
Meanwhile, last week also saw the end of a long-running side show to the F-35 program as General Electric and Rolls-Royce officially dropped development of the F136 “alternate” engine for the JSF. The program had been the darling of some US lawmakers, who viewed it as healthy competition that would put pressure on official F-35 engine maker Pratt & Whitney and lead to a better and more cost effective design.
The US cut funding for the program in February. GE and Rolls-Royce had said they would self-fund continued development, but announced an end to the program on December 1.
Peter
says:Again the JSF is a failed project, its a rotten turkey. Australia is better of buying F-15E+ variants and the RAAF should be an Eagle Country instead of buying more stingless Super Dogs.
Roger
says:Oh my god – head slap!
Lets go through some of your points?
A – F-16s top speed is Mach 2.0 and the F-35s top speed is Mach 1.6.
F16 mach 2 – when clean – No external stores – F35 Mach 1.6 fully loaded with internal stores. –
I put that down to you not knowing.
B – F35 “limited payload”? What is the max speed, maneuverability of all the planes you mentioned when loaded out? And also the much increased radar cross sections?
C -Your post of 15th Jan 9;25 . The points are Verbatim copy of ITfunk Post on DoDBuzz. From 3 weeks ago. What? Is there a F35 haters play book out there?
1. Development issue – So? Prove that means it will not work?
2. Again – development – Prove that it means it will not work.
3. Inadequate modelling. Main problem was the impact on the stealth coating . maintenance issue IF no fix in place. (big if)
4. Development issue? So they cannot fix it?
5. Arrestor hook. Major structural change MAY be needed if the folded, extended hook, other fixes do not work. Only affects C model IF it gets to that.
D – “The F-35A’s wing area is 460 sq.ft (42.7 sq.m) which means with 4 JDAMs or AAMs on each wings will sacrifice its stealth capabilities while carrying them externally and they’ll be reflected by a lot of radars on the ground”.
That’s the same with every plane in service now? At least the F35 can carry loads internally. As design was always intended at the start of the operation where stealth is required internal is only used and then transition to external when permissible.
E – Again as I said before, relying only on stealth, AESA radar, advanced sensors, networking, data fusion capabilities, BVR AAMs and cruise missiles as stand-off without speed and agility again “you’re a dead duck”
Quoted from a source I lost the reference – F-16 was approximately as maneuverable as a manned aircraft with a useful payload could possibly be. Chasing after the law of diminishing returns to find that little extra bit of manoeuvrability or energy retention to exploit the OODA loop was a losing game. First of all, aerodynamics was an established science so everyone knew how to do that, and soon all modern fighters were approaching the human limit of maneuverability. And that limit was a hard brick wall. It was proved when neither the X-29 (supermaneuverable) nor X-31 (thrust vectoring) were game-changers in exercises vs. existing fighters. And everyone had the same eyes in WVR so there was no advantage to be had there. The Germans further proved mathematically (leading to the Lampyridae project before they realized that stealth, while effective, was going to do anything but save them money vs. then-current fighters) that an advantage in medium-range combat was the most important advantage in the air. Changing the first O in OODA, by giving your plane better “eyes” to get first look and first kill (improved BVR radar and BVR missiles), or taking away your enemy’s ability to lay eyes on you first (stealth), turned out to be more effective post-F-16 than trying to out-F-16 the F-16 for increasingly small dogfighting advantages. In air to air combat, a larger, more capable multi-role aircraft might give up slight advantages were a dogfight to occur; but would have more likely won before it ever came to the dogfight; among modern planes was still maneuverable enough that it wasn’t at a major disadvantage even if it did come to a dogfight; and unlike a “lightweight day fighter” was actually still useful as a bomber after the air war was won.
The only problem with the F35 is that the development is under the most scrutiny as any in history.
Other programs have had development issues as well. (lets not get started on the F-111 development)
I suppose what I would like is when comparing to “other threats “ please base it on a realistic scenarios. Top speed, radar cross section, manoeuvrability without external stores is not real life , except for the F35 since it is designed for it.
I suppose the ultimate judgement is if the stealth is not a game changer why are the T-50 and J-20 in development?
Peter
says:Roger – My head points don’t need to be pointed out ok. Thanks.
Peter
says:Comparing to the F-111 and F-35 development, which ones the worst in military aviation. The JSF is the one. Again the F-22 is designed to counter the T-50 and J-20 only, not the turkey JSF. You should know that.
The PAK-FA low-observable fighter now in development is expected to be much more lethal in air-to-air combat against the F-35. The PAK-FA will include more powerful radar, advanced sensors, data fusion capabilities and networking which can minimise the effects of the limited low-observable qualities of the F-35. Also the PAK-FA will have higher performance, longer range (without refuelling) and carry more air-to-air and air-to-ground weapons than an F-35.
Peter
says:Roger – None of my colleagues in the defence agree what you said and none of us will take your advise.
Roger
says:Peter – you or your colleagues may not agree or take my AdviCe. I do not want them too. I do not pretend to be an expert and the F35 may turn out to be not the best plane ever, but please when you start throwing out all these “issues, problems and statements about F35 viability” please keep the your arguments realistic and valid. You may get people even more more informed than me discussing on the forum.
But it is amazing you did not dispute any of my points with facts. Thanks, that speaks volumes.
And why the deception about things like your stated F-16 top speed when it clear to anyone in the know that it was clean compare to a F35 loaded? If you are so sure then state the facts in full. Good arguments are based on logical and plausible extrapolations.
And just to correct you (again) F22 was design to counter ANY threat in future. The T-50 is design to counter the F-22 , not the other way around , ?. And if they build more than a dozen then I think people will start noticing. And then if the engine is reliable enough to get into the air, they do seem to be having problems with those, dont they hehe. And the J-20 is designed as a more long range fighter/bomber (anti carrier). Thats is generally accepted due to is power limitations and size.
Thanks for the little discussion. Hope you learnt something
Peter
says:Roger – Yes I know the J-20 is designed as an long range fighter-bomber, only due with its power limitations, the size is not relevent. Larger airframes do far better job. In hindsight Roger I could’ve kept my issues, problems and statements about the turkey JSF and kept my arguments realistic and valid.. Yes I did dispute my points and facts earlier.
Peter
says:Roger
It depends. From what I’ve researched and heard about the aerodynamic design of the J-20 is a good compromise in the sense that with advanced digital flight controls and a suitable WS-15 turbofan engine (which is still under development) the aircraft should be able to achieve better aerodynamic performance and agility than the current benchmark, the F-22 Raptor and achieve better aerodynamic performance and agility than the F-35.
Cheers
Dane
says:Get off Air Power Australia! the key writer for that website has no military experience and a degree in political science. big deal. that writer also touted that the RAAF should have purchased the 744F tanker variant. Wow. That shows how much he knows about anything in defence. Yes, there are former RAAF officers who contribute to that site, but I am yet to find a decent argument imn regards to anything. He also suggested that the Advanced F-111 should fly alongside F-22’s. Do I need to point out the flaws of that problem?
Peter
says:Absolutely not Dane. My colleagues claim the key writer for that website does have military experience and a degree in political science.
APA is still a source of truth. Why don’t you get off the less capable and useless JSF/Super Hornet. Of course Dr Carlo Kopp did suggest that the Advanced F-111 should fly alongside F-22′s. To me the Raptor or any high capability aircraft should’ve been negotiated as an F/A-18A/B Hornet replacement back in the 1990’s. I don’t need to point out the flaws of that problem at all. I point out the flaws of the Super Hornet’s and upcoming JSF’s suitability for RAAF’s requirements etc.
Peter
says:Although it might be a problem for you Dane, but thats not to say I agree everything they say, I do have other suggestions too.
Dane
says:APA is a source of misguided truth, if you want real RAAF experience, look at the Williams Foundation.
Andrew McLaughlin
says:So, Peter
I’m not going to respond to any of your statements above – especially when you come on MY website and address me over an article I didn’t even write! I’ve told you repeatedly that I’ll let my work stand on its merits and that I won’t be baited into a flame war with you.
But I will ask (rhetorically of course), weren’t you the one who used to complain, hand on heart and tear in eye, about “ad hominem” attacks directed at you?
Andrew McLaughlin
Peter
says:APA is again a source of guided truth. Williams Foundation ia a misguided truth. Again the JSF is a total biggest failure in the world.
Peter
says:Andrew McLaughlin
No, I didn’t have a hand on heart with a tear in eye about “ad hominem” attacks on me, I’m extremely frustrated with the whole process that Australia are armed with the stingless F/A-18 Super Dog & soon the lemon F-35 JSF to lead the way in clearing the skies that are inferior to the Sukhoi family of aircraft, upcoming J-20 Mighty Dragon and advanced SAMs.
You folks claim that both of those aircraft are capable of facing high end threats that would cement Australia’s regional air power lead. Absolutely crazy. I can assume the RAAF, the Government, Defence Department and Williams Foundation with comments came from Boeing and Lockheed Martin– anyone who takes pro-Super Hornet and pro-JSF advocates seriously is doing themselves a profound disservice.
I have to admit the JSF has certainly claimed to be the biggest failed project of all time, the kinks will be unfixable and will continue to suffer with the teething problems when the aircraft comes into operational service in 2018 or later. It will be completely useless and will not be able up to do the job which is why its the most hated aircraft in the world and can’t be trusted.
Just get away from the turkey program its going to ruin the air force. Because Tom Burbage (from Lockheed Martin) is giving you an aeroplane that is extremely expensive to maintain, its inferior to the Russians/Chinese fighters that has poor acceleration, poor manoeuvrability and lack of range, it has very limited weapons payload and the JSF also has small aperature nosecone than the large fighters radome which means the F-35 or other small fighters have small fire control radar that is less powerful, can’t generate and more likely it can’t detect stealthy targets at long range etc. The same goes to the F/A-18E/F because it has the similar performance deficiencies to the JSF that is not up to the job.
Peter
says:Andrew McLaughlin
If you have told me that “I’ll let my work stand on its merits and that I won’t be baited into a flame war with you”. Then why are you keep on claiming they are the aircraft of choice, you can’t just sit and wait to see the lemon JSF progress because the aircraft has got such a life with technical problems, which is not progressing well and not meeting test objectives. You know I’ve have colleagues in the defence stating that what will be delivered (if F-35 ever arrives) will be obsolete; and that the F-35 is not affordable or sustainable. With cost increases, schedule delays, and continuing technical problems also increases the risk that the program will not be able to deliver the aircraft quantities and capabilities in the time required by the warfighter. The F-35 has failed the initial test of its stealth capability and remains behind schedule to provide the performance requirements.
Again I’ve told repeatedly Andrew I’m going to say again that single engine is a terrible idea that makes the aircraft more vulnerable to engine failure that can’t get back home safely etc, the internal fuel for the JSF is too inefficient which means their range is too short and would require significant air-tanker support to be able to get them to a combat radius 1,000+ miles to striike a target. The JSF’s acceleration is inferior – its only Mach 1.6 placing it at a significant disadvantage to Mach 2.4 aircraft such as the supercruising Sukhoi. The wing and engine intake geometry on the JSF is optimised for subsonic flight – so a more powerful engine cannot fix the problem even if one would fit in the small JSF airframe. The JSF carries only “four” air-air missiles (AAM) for Beyond Visual Range (BVR) self defence for air combat. This is going back to the Vietnam War era the story traces the history of heavy losses with the F-105 Thunderchief.
The RAAF doesn’t need low capability fighters in increased numbers. The reason why I’m concerned is that small fighters don’t deliver the hefty punch because the weapons load is very limited, if the JSF did carry weapons externally it will sacrifice stealth (been seen by enemy radars, advanced SAMs, AAAs on the ground and enemy fighters in the air).
Dane
says:Peter, did you ever think there was a reason the US ordered reduced numbers of the F-22? Maybe someone realised that it was too expensive for the single job it does. If they produce the F-22C with larger weapons bays to be able to allow it to carry AGM’s don’t you think that the extra space required would have to mean that either the aircraft will bulge around the bays or the internal fuel capacity will be eaten into?
Also, Peter, you are forgetting one key thing. The Defence in Australian Defence Force. Hence why we don’t require long ranging fighters. As long as they can be refueled to extend their patrol time then we don’t require an excessive combat radius. If external tanks are required then so be it.
As the F-22 will not be released under FMS for the foreseeable future, what do you, Peter suggest? The Australian Government will never buy Russian or Chinese/Asian built aircraft if it wishes to keep its interests and interoperability aligned with the US. I can tell you now that short of downgrading there is no alternative. The nearest European fighter is the EF-2000 Eurofighter which is of similar vintage in terms of design age to the F/A-18A. So that rules that out. The Gripen, again is of similar age to the EF-2000 and the F/A18A, and is a single engine machine. Interesting to note that the engine failure to occur on the Gripen was due to a birdstrike. This brings you back to my point earlier of the reliability of modern jet engines. Lockheed wouldn’t put an engine they even remotely thought was going to fail on the F-35.
Peter
says:Andrew McLaughlin
There are alternatives to the JSF. Don’t say the are no alternatives, again you can’t just sit and wait to see the lemon JSF progress because the aircraft has got such a life with technical problems and it will continue to suffer more and more teething problems when it becomes IOC later.
With the question being asked, Can Silent Eagle be a Cost Effective Alternative to Expensive
Stealth Fighters? My answer is yes, it is cost effective to have the F-15SE for any air
force if some countries can’t afford or qualify the 5th generation fighter etc.
The F-15 is the only combat-proven aircraft that Australia should be considering to fulfill the requirements. During action in the Persian Gulf, Kosovo, Balkans and recently in Afghanistan and it showed its superior ability to perform missions required of the FX.
The F-15 family of aircraft has a perfect air-combat record of more than 104 victories and zero defeats. F-15s downed four MiG-29 fighters during the Balkan conflict and 33 of the 35 fixed-wing aircraft Iraq lost in air combat during Operation Desert Storm. During the Balkan conflict, the F-15E was the only fighter able to attack ground targets around the clock, in all weather conditions. F-15 aircraft are used by the Air Force against terrorist targets.
The F-15 has greater long range endurance, weapons payload and speed capabilities than its FX competitors. It will get to a fight, strike with a lethal mix of weapons, and return more effectively than the other (small airframes such as F/A-18 Super Hornet, Eurofighter Typhoon, Dassault Rafale, F-16 Fighting Falcon and F-35 JSF) FX aircraft.
The F-15 is in production. Boeing has built more than 1,500 of all its F-15 models and the company has extended the F-15 production line well into the 2020s to attract and satisfy new and existing customers.
Absolutely nothing wrong with the F-15, its certainly the best replacement for 71 F/A-18A/B Classic Hornet fleet.
Roger
says:Peter,
F-35 has failed the initial test of its stealth capability – Reference please? I would like to read about that if true.
Oh and the 2.4 mach supercruising SuXX – Is that with or without external stores and how long before fuel goes bingo when reaching this magnificent 2.4 mach? (anyone remember Foxbat?). Oh and the supercruising 2.4 mach plane would glow brightly on any IR system so even the LPI radar are not needed. Every wonder why combat is primarily conducted in the submach region? (where the F35 with internal stores accelaerates quite well.)
“And if the JSF did carry weapons externally it will sacrifice stealth (been seen by enemy radars, advanced SAMs, AAAs on the ground and enemy fighters in the air).” Duh!
As would every pther plane carrying external stores. But the F35 would be seen at a much reduced range than those others planes. Seriously basic stuff here.
Roger
says:Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Fighter Jet Passes Initial Stealth Hurdle By Tony Capaccio – May 5, 2011
“Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT)’s F-35 fighter jet has passed its initial radar-evasion testing and there are no “major potential changes contemplated for any of the stealth design,” according to the U.S. program office.
Lockheed Martin spokesman Michael Rein said in an e-mail that “while there are challenges in holding tight tolerance specifications, all F-35s are meeting the requirements and are compliant in form, fit, function and stealth.”
I do not see any failure there?
Peter
says:Roger & Dane
Did you two ever think there was a wrong reason the US ordered reduced numbers of the F-22?
You two are still forgetting one key thing. Hence we should require longer ranging high capability fighters. They don’t need to be refuelled several times to extend their patrol time at a required excessive combat radius, because small fighters with short range require a lot of refuelling by the air tanker for them to get a excessive combat radius. If long range aircraft are still considered and needed for the requirements then so be it.
Although the F-22 will not be released under FMS for the foreseeable future (which it should be put in the intends pressure to the US Government to sell the F-22 to closest allies), what do you, I suggest? The Australian Government should buy Russian built Sukhoi or advanced F-15 Strike Eagle aircraft (again I didn’t recommend Chinese planes for Australia) if it wishes to keep its interests and interoperability aligned with the US. I can tell you now that short of downgrading there IS ALTERNATIVE. Again don’t say the are no alternatives, you can’t just sit and wait to see the lemon JSF progress because the aircraft has got such a life with technical problems and it will continue to suffer more and more teething problems when it becomes IOC later.
“Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Fighter Jet Passes Initial Stealth Hurdle By Tony Capaccio – May 5, 2011.”
“Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT)’s F-35 fighter jet has passed its initial radar-evasion testing and there are no “major potential changes contemplated for any of the stealth design,” according to the U.S. program office”.
Lockheed Martin spokesman Michael Rein said in an e-mail that “while there are challenges in holding tight tolerance specifications, all F-35s are meeting the requirements and are compliant in form, fit, function and stealth.”
Don’t get your hopes up, you guys are set up with too high expectations about the stealth performance of the F-35.
The JSF is not survivable. The kind of stealth quality the aircraft has is much less than the F-22 Raptor. The JSF will need the F-22 to survive serious high-end threats and the F-35 is not designed as a top level fighter. When stealth goes naked, due to turns that the maker of the aircraft has already stated, “can increase an aircraft’s radar cross section by a factor of 100 or more”, the F-35 has no extreme high altitude and speed of the survivable F-22. The JSF is optimised for ‘Forward’ and ‘Side’ aspect best performance limited to X band, only. The F-35 is vulnerable to advanced radar system. After China and Russia acquire brand-new radars, they could easily detect the JSF that would be seen at a much longer range than those others planes aka the F-22. Target KPP downgraded to Low Observable (LO) from Very Low Observable (VLO) – an order of magnitude change. Conversely, while the JSF’s APG-81 radar provides respectable air-to-air radar coverage capability, it is being optimised as a bomber radar to meet the Joint Operational Requirements Document (JORD) and CAIV.
Well I certainly do see a lot of extreme high risk failure on the lemon program. Again “The JSF is a turkey that is a biggest failed project of all time”. All of you pro-JSF advocates are absolutely crazy of still going ahead with this dud. I can honestly say I’ll get away from the terrible failed project, scrap the damn thing and nail the JSF in the coffin, burn the project in the fire and see it burn as a cancellation.
This is the reason why I considered and recommend Australia equipping both F-15AU and F-22AU concepts.
Peter
says:Roger & Dane
Don’t put words (that I claimed the J-20 Mighty Dragon for Australia’s requirements) into my mouth.
Peter
says:Roger & Dane and to all pro-JSF advocates
The F-22 is a superior and very capable warplane than the turkey F-35. Many of its electronic systems are identical or superior to the JSF including electronic warfare and networking data links, the F-22 has two engines (for improved survivability), F-22A’s APG-77 radar is much more powerful, providing twice the detection footprint of the JSF’s APG-81 radar. While the F-22A’s APG-77 radar provides excellent bombing capability, it remains the most capable air-to-air radar ever built thereby more electrical power and electronic cooling capacity, greater radar aperture, more thrust to weight, less supersonic drag, more manoeuvrability, super-cruise (which enhances both engagements of, and escape from, known threats and saving a lot fuel), superior stealth technology and a similar ability to carry and release precision munitions.
Plus Roger re your comment Duh! That shows your behaviour is being childish.
Don’t reply back.
Peter
says:John Newman, Roger, Dane and to all pro-JSF advocates
I saw what you put down about me. I really don’t care what pathetic criticisms and jokes you guys put down. I reckon you people just talking absolute rubbish with all of the garbage information claiming the JSF being a correct aircraft is just sheer nonsense.
Yes thats right the APA contributers are far more knowledgable than the RAAF, Department of Defence, Federal Government, Pentagon and Congress – with facts etc.
Yes most definately, my colleagues and myself in the ADF find that all of you pro-JSF advocates are all stupid and crazy to even think the aircraft is the future of Australia’s air power!! Then why should Australia deserve to be partners with Lockheed Martin to join the failed JSF program that will never fulfil its mission requirements???
I’d rather be partners with either Boeing (with the F-15 production) or Sukhoi (with the Su-35S Super Flanker-E or PAK-FA) companies.
Plus the ‘Indo-Russian PAK-FA better than the JSF.
Roger
says:Peter, Let me give you a piece of advice, before you start sprouting this “knowledge” such as the F35 failed initial stealth test, please check your facts. Now that I have shown this to be false about the stealth test and you did not show anything to prove otherwise, this shows either your statement was just plain ignorant, or it was a lie. I cannot make a judgement about the veracity of this claim and all the others you mention but we now have valid reason to take anything you say as either , questionable , ignorant or lies. Now if the moderators on blogs were harsh they would start watching your post. They have names for posts like yours , TROLLS. They get banned if they continually post such knowingly ignorant “facts”and or lies.
Good luck to you and I hope the moderators give you a chance to redeem yourself.
P.S. You call me childish. Well call me what you like. At least I have integrity.
Roger
says:Peter, Where did I say that you said “I claimed the J-20 Mighty Dragon for Australia’s requirements”?
I do not remember saying such.
Roger
says:Just heard
LM just announced (in sworn testimony) that the LER estimates for the F-35 have gone up from 3:1 to 6:1 due to better understanding of it’s RCS and results from updated SIMs (computerized and piloted).
That is intertesting and good if holds up. Sounds like RCS is better than even they expected.
Peter
says:Roger, Andrew McLaughlin and to all pro-JSF advocates
I have shown this to be truthful statement about the stealth test and I certainly did show everything to prove otherwise, my statement shows it was NEVER a plain ignorant, or a lie. Its only a the bunch of “TROLL NAYSAYERS” like you, Andrew McLaughlin and to all pro-JSF advocates that claim the F-35 is a fighter of the future.
If you have valid reason to take anything you say is either , questionable , ignorant or lies. I reckon the moderators on blogs were harsh they would start watching your post pal. They will have names for posts like yours. They get banned if they continually post such knowingly ignorant “facts”and or lies about the turkey F-35 JSF is the aircraft of choice.
Don’t you ever realise the U.S. Department of Defence has completed its latest wildly inaccurate estimate of how much it will cost to build and operate the F-35 fighter over 50 years. The first military aircraft for which 50-year costs have been calculated, which means the number is predictably huge: Its $1.45 Trillion (not millions and certainly not billions) to buy, R&D, fly and maintain this failed project.
You want a feedback? This F-35 JSF is a terrible piece of equipment that will ruin ANY air force and navy requirements, because of all of you pro-JSF advocates have caused for any allied nation to buy extremely less capable and inferior junk aircraft.
Why should any customers deserve to be partners with LM to join the failed JSF program that will never fulfil its mission requirements??? Explain that.
Why’s this failed project extremely expensive?
Why is single engine aircraft unsuited to Australia’s needs?
Why is this aircraft inferior to the Sukhoi family of aircraft, upcoming J-20 Mighty Dragon and advanced SAM systems?
You JSF guys, the Federal Government and including you Andrew McLaughlin are the “biggest suckers” and absolutely crazy idiots in the world going ahead with this “lemon”. Pushing the turkey forward at any cost only threatens to create a budgetary sinkhole that will weaken the defences of the of your country (U.S.) and its allies. The F-35 will never become a viable combat aircraft due to very poor choices, very costly and nasty decisions made early in the design, and later Band-Aid fixes. To replace the existing combat aircraft with one single plane in 3 services is going to degrade the air force, navy and marine corp further, the pilots will fly worse, because they’ll get less training, which is certainly the most important role to train, they’ll be far less pilots is because the whole force will have to shrink and very soon you’ll just have a show piece air force, navy and marine corp that they can’t do anything.
Honestly, do you really have any idea how much the F-35 will cost to own/operate/maintain which are destined to replace?
The whole F-35 program is an outliar. Go and check out the JSF Issue Problems.
If this lemon (F-35) gets defeated in air combat by these adversaries, go don’t crying to me or to the APA that this piece of junk has not survived for another day, that said to you all “You see I told you so, the F-35 is a wrong aircraft – you didn’t listen what I and my colleagues explain earlier”. Oh I just heard the report the turkey F-35 will be obsolete when it delivers.
I also don’t see the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet Block 2 to be a viable option to replace 71 F/A-18A/B Hornet fleet. Is because the Super Hornet has a similar performance deficiences to the F-35 which the aircraft has a short range and does not have the performance envelope of a true air superiority fighter. The Super Hornets will be outclassed by the Su-27/30 Flanker family of fighters by most regional nations in all key performance parameters, aerodynamic and radar performance by widely available fighters.
Australia need to get out of this “Hornet country”.
I’m going to explain one more time. Australia needs a high capability fighter is because Australia is approx 2,222 nm (4,000 km) wide which means (long) range is very important and can’t be ignored. Aircraft designed for European use such as the Eurofighter Typhoon, Dassault Rafale, SAAB JAS-39 Gripen, MiG-35 Fulcrum and American F-16 Fighting Falcon and F/A-18E/F Super Hornet are unsuitable. Is because they have too short a range for use by a such a large country as Australia. Small fighters with short range are only ideal for smaller air forces in Europe and some Asian countries to operate them is because their range is not as important and they are surrounded by the small vast land areas, and more surrounding air bases (for any emergency situations e.g. hydraulic and engine failures). They can be equipped with either single or two engines (Actual range varies with mission).
Reserach the history of our Mirages. We’ve had 116 aircraft and lost 41 fatalities, it was heavily utilised, operated at extremely low altitude in any weather, saturated airspace infested with low flying birds, rolling hills, antennaes, many other high speed aircraft and gun firing which caused surges to the SNECMA Atar 9C turbojet which resulted an engine failure.
I hope you people wake up.
Peter (another one)
says:Resign Andrew McLaughlin
Peter (another one)
says:Andrew McLaughlin
You have a clue about air power whatsoever.
You absolutely don’t get it. Yes the F-35 will never be able to supercruise, but again you can’t just rely on situational awareness. You still need to have extreme agility, faster acceleration (at Mach 2+) with supercruising mode, long range, radar and sensor performance.
1. You can’t maintain air superiority with the F-35 vs. emerging threats.
2. Which means you can not “hold any target at risk”.
3. The F-35 has no credible “fifth-generation capabilities”; except maybe in the eyes of the marketing pukes.
4. The idea that there are no alternatives to the F-35 (For the USAF) is untrue.
5. “It must succeed”. Hitler was famous for statements similar to this when the German Army was getting torn to shreds; ignoring the concept that the enemy has a will of their own.
Again you need to resign.
Peter (another one)
says:Andrew McLaughlin
How many times I’ve told you about this. I don’t care what you put your wish in your magazine to claim the JSF is a right warplane is because you still have NO DAMN CLUE what you’re talking about. The JSF is certainly not a true 5th Generation Fighter, the lemon is a boondoggle. It’s now time to throw the turkey in the trash bin and see the rotten damn thing in the fire and see this rubbish burn for good.
The United States is making a gigantic investment in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, billed by its advocates as the next — by their count the fifth — generation of air-to-air and air-to-ground combat aircraft. Claimed to be near invisible to radar and able to dominate any future battlefield, the F-35 will replace most of the air-combat aircraft in the inventories of the U.S. Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, and at least nine foreign allies, and it will be in those inventories for the next 55 years. It’s no secret, however, that the program — the most expensive in American history — is a calamity.
This month, we learned that the Pentagon has increased the price tag for the F-35 by another $289 million — just the latest in a long string of cost increases — and that the program is expected to account for a whopping 38 percent of Pentagon procurement for defence programs, assuming its cost will grow no more. Its many problems are acknowledged by its listing in proposals for Pentagon spending reductions by leaders from across the political spectrum, including Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), President Barack Obama’s National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, and budget gurus such as former Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) and Alice Rivlin, former director of the Congressional Budget Office and Office of Management and Budget.
How bad is it? A review of the F-35’s cost, schedule, and performance — three essential measures of any Pentagon program — shows the problems are fundamental and still growing.
First, with regard to cost — a particularly important factor in what politicians keep saying is an austere defence budget environment — the F-35 is simply unaffordable. Although the plane was originally billed as a low-cost solution, major cost increases have plagued the program throughout the last decade. Last year, Pentagon leadership told Congress the acquisition price had increased another 16 percent, from $328.3 billion to $379.4 billion for the 2,457 aircraft to be bought. Not to worry, however — they pledged to finally reverse the growth.
The result? This February, the price increased another 4 percent to $395.7 billion and then even further in April. Don’t expect the cost overruns to end there: The test program is only 20 percent complete, the Government Accountability Office has reported, and the toughest tests are yet to come. Overall, the program’s cost has grown 75 percent from its original 2001 estimate of $226.5 billion — and that was for a larger buy of 2,866 aircraft.
Hundreds of F-35s will be built before 2019, when initial testing is complete. The additional cost to engineer modifications to fix the inevitable deficiencies that will be uncovered is unknown, but it is sure to exceed the $534 million already known from tests so far. The total program unit cost for each individual F-35, now at $161 million, is only a temporary plateau. Expect yet another increase in early 2013, when a new round of budget restrictions is sure to hit the Pentagon, and the F-35 will take more hits in the form of reducing the numbers to be bought, thereby increasing the unit cost of each plane.
A final note on expense: The F-35 will actually cost multiples of the $395.7 billion cited above. That is the current estimate only to acquire it, not the full life-cycle cost to operate it. The current appraisal for operations and support is $1.1 trillion — making for a grand total of $1.5 trillion, or more than the annual GDP of Spain. And that estimate is wildly optimistic: It assumes the F-35 will only be 42 percent more expensive to operate than an F-16, but the F-35 is much more complex. The only other “fifth generation” aircraft, the F-22 from the same manufacturer, is in some respects less complex than the F-35, but in 2010, it cost 300 percent more to operate per hour than the F-16. To be very conservative, expect the F-35 to be twice the operating and support cost of the F-16.
Already unaffordable, the F-35’s price is headed in one direction — due north.
The F-35 isn’t only expensive — it’s way behind schedule. The first plan was to have an initial batch of F-35s available for combat in 2010. Then first deployment was to be 2012. More recently, the military services have said the deployment date is “to be determined.” A new target date of 2019 has been informally suggested in testimony — almost 10 years late.
If the F-35’s performance were spectacular, it might be worth the cost and wait. But it is not. Even if the aircraft lived up to its original specifications — and it will not — it would be a huge disappointment. The reason it is such a mediocrity also explains why it is unaffordable and, for years to come, unobtainable.
In discussing the F-35 with aviation and acquisition experts — some responsible for highly successful aircraft such as the F-16 and the A-10, and others with decades of experience inside the Pentagon and years of direct observation of the F-35’s early history — I learned that the F-35’s problems are built into its very DNA.
The design was born in the late 1980s in the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the Pentagon agency that has earned an undeserved reputation for astute innovation. It emerged as a proposal for a very short take-off and vertical-landing aircraft (known as “STOVL”) that would also be supersonic. This required an airframe design that — simultaneously — wanted to be short, even stumpy, and single-engine (STOVL), and also sleek, long, and with lots of excess power, usually with twin engines.
President Bill Clinton’s Pentagon bogged down the already compromised design concept further by adding the requirement that it should be a multirole aircraft — both an air-to-air fighter and a bomber. This required more difficult trade-offs between agility and low weight, and the characteristics of an airframe optimised to carry heavy loads. Clinton-era officials also layered on “stealth,” imposing additional aerodynamic shape requirements and maintenance-intensive skin coatings to reduce radar reflections. They also added two separate weapons bays, which increase permanent weight and drag, to hide onboard missiles and bombs from radars. On top of all that, they made it multi-service, requiring still more trade-offs to accommodate more differing, but exacting, needs of the Air Force, Marine Corps, and Navy.
Finally, again during the Clinton administration, the advocates composed a highly “concurrent” acquisition strategy. That meant hundreds of copies of the F-35 would be produced, and the financial and political commitments would be made, before the test results showed just what was being bought.
This grotesquely unpromising plan has already resulted in multitudes of problems — and 80 percent of the flight testing remains. A virtual flying piano, the F-35 lacks the F-15’s and F-16’s agility in the air-to-air mode and the F-111 and F-15E’s range and payload in the bombing mode, and it can’t even begin to compare to the A-10 at low-altitude close air support for troops engaged in combat. Worse yet, it won’t be able to get into the air as often to perform any mission — or just as importantly, to train pilots — because its complexity prolongs maintenance and limits availability. The aircraft most like the F-35, the F-22, was able to get into the air on average for only 15 hours per month in 2010 when it was fully operational. (In 2011, the F-22 was grounded for almost five months and flew even less.)
This mediocrity is not overcome by the F-35’s “fifth-generation” characteristics, the most prominent of which is its “stealth.” Despite what many believe, “stealth” is not invisibility to radar; it is limited-detection ranges against some radar types at some angles. Put another way, certain radars, some of them quite antiquated, can see “stealthy” aircraft at quite long ranges, and even the susceptible radars can see the F-35 at certain angles. The ultimate demonstration of this shortcoming occurred in the 1999 Kosovo war, when 1960s vintage Soviet radar and missile equipment shot down a “stealthy” F-117 bomber and severely damaged a second.
The bottom line: The F-35 is not the wonder its advocates claim. It is a gigantic performance disappointment, and in some respects a step backward. The problems, integral to the design, cannot be fixed without starting from a clean sheet of paper.
It’s time for Defence Secretary Leon Panetta, the U.S. military services, the Congress, pro-JSF advocates and including YOU ANDREW to face the facts: The F-35 is an unaffordable mediocrity, and the program will not be fixed by any combination of hardware tweaks or cost-control projects. There is only one thing to do with the F-35: Junk it. America’s air forces deserve a much better aircraft, and the taxpayers deserve a much cheaper one. The dustbin awaits.
“GET AWAY FROM THIS AEROPLANE ITS GOING TO RUIN OUR AIR FORCE”
If you have a big problem with that I recommend you take it up to the APA.
Do you listen to Lockheed Martin and RAAF personals all day about the Super Hornet/JSF issues?
Peter (another one)
says:Andrew McLaughlin, Roger, Dane and to all pro-JSF advocates
I hope this information gets you to explain why the JSF is a wrong choice for Australia, If this is giving you a extreme headache, serve you right is because you 4 people really need to learn your lessons very very hard.
The policy of pushing the failed F-35 JSF project forward at any cost only threatens to create a budgetary sinkhole that would weaken the defences of the U.S. and its allies.
Just remeber this aircraft is a turkey, it will never become a viable combat aircraft due to cumulative poor choices made early in the design, and later Band-Aid fixes.
You know why the F-35 is not a true 5th Generation Fighter.
“Why’s does the Pentagon and the RAAF say the JSF is a true 5th Generation Fighter. Really?”
Here are some of the major problems with the JSF which are:
ost of the program. $385 billion for development and production, and about $ 1 trillion or more to maintain and operate F-35 aircraft over decades.
Range. The short range of the JSF means they would have to be refuelled several times to fly across Australia or anywhere.
Please note: Australia is about 2,222 nm (4,000 km) wide. Aircraft designed for European use such as the Eurofighter Typhoon, Dassault Rafale, MiG-35, SAAB JAS-39 Gripen and American F-16 Fighting Falcon, F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and F-35 JSF have too short a range for use by such a large country as Australia. Again those aircraft are unsuitable to cement Australia’s regional air power lead and the RAAF really needs a large airframe with high capability to fulfill the requirements. Small fighters with short range are only ideal for smaller NATO countries e.g. Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Finland etc, Middle East and South American nations to operate them. The reason why the small airframes are only ideal for those countries is because their range is not as important and they are surrounded by the small vast land areas which are ideal for short range fighters with either single or two engines. (Actual range varies with mission)
Single-Engine. This makes the aircraft more vulnerable to engine failure which is totally ill-suited for overwater operations. Remember this makes the aircraft more vulnerable to engine failure that will cause heavy losses to the entire fleet and putting pilots lives in jeopardy. The Pratt & Whitney F135-PW-100 turbofan engine will cause damage to flight deck and runways with heat build-up and exhaust impedes the aircraft’s ability to conduct missions in hot environments. The F-35 engine and integrated power package exhaust may cause excessive damage to the flight deck environment and runway surfaces that may result in operating limits or drive costly upgrades and repairs of JSF basing options.
Thinned Skinned fuselage: Lockheed Martin has done very little with major safety pre-cautions on the Joint Strike Fighter to protect against fire. As an close air support which the F-35 is suppose to be (when it attempts to discriminate tanks, convoys, surface-to-air missiles and anti aircraft artillery) its totally incapable, the aircraft will be an very easy target to shoot down, because it’s a very delicate aeroplane which means the aircraft has a huge F135-PW-100 turbofan engine surrounded by fuel wrapped around entirely in the fuselage and engine. Very little they can do because the .22 Rifle or any form of gunfire can very easily penetrate the skin on the airframe and causes it to catch on fire like a “blow torch”. Its a very vulnerable aircraft.
Speed. The top speed of the JSF is only Mach 1.6 placing it at a significant disadvantage to Mach 2.4 aircraft such as the super cruising Sukhoi. Wing and engine intake geometry is optimised for sub-sonic flight – so a more powerful engine cannot fix the problem even if one would fit in the small JSF airframe.
Super Cruise: No (-1)
Thrust Vectoring Control – TVC: No (-1)
High Agility Supersonic / Subsonic: Neither (-1)
Large Thrust to Weight Multi Engine Thrust Growth: Middling T/W One Engine Little Growth (-1)
High Combat Ceiling (> 7 deg/sec turn rate, sustained): No 18 lbs (0) which is very inefficient.
APG-81 AESA radar. The nose geometry of the JSF limits the aperture of the radar. This makes the JSF dependent on supporting AEW&C aircraft which are themselves vulnerable to long range anti-radiation missiles and jamming. Opposing Sukhoi aircraft have a massive 1 meter radar aperture enabling them to detect and attack at an JSF long before the JSF can detect the Sukhoi. It has Medium Power Aperture (0) (Detection range around 140 – 150 nm at BVR)
“Partial Stealth”. It is argued that these disadvantages are offset by the JSF being “partially stealthy” in that it has low frontal visibility to millimetre-band radar. However, this is of little value against VHF radar using meter-long wavelengths. Russian engineers are now producing advanced VHF radar systems for the Sukhoi and for ground-based system such as Nebo SVU. As explained by my friends and colleagues in the defence, this exposes most fighter-sized ‘stealth’ aircraft. While the radar technology will only improve, the stealth characteristics of the JSF are locked-in with its flawed geometry.
Unavailability. The JSF is not expected to be fully operational around 2018 or later.
Weight. The JSF seems to have a serious weight problem and may be unable to take off with a full load of fuel and weapons making it even more dependent on air-tanker support.
Only “Four” BVR Air-to-Air Missiles. The JSF can only carry four air-air missiles (AAM) for Beyond Visual Range (BVR) combat. By contrast late model Sukhoi Flankers can carry a wide range of AAM on twelve hard-points.
Classified Components. The JSF is likely to have a range of components that are ‘off-limits’ to the Australia and can only be serviced in the US.
Highly Integrated Avionics: Yes (0)
Sidelooking ESA Apertures: No (-1)
High Specific Excess Power – Ps: No (-1)
High Situational Awareness (SA) – Onboard / Offboard: Yes (0)
Andrew, you’re a complete outliar with your own analysis and opinions with your own Super Hornet/JSF options for the RAAF. I hope you’ll wake properly when you keep reading this very important info. Because ignoring my advice isn’t going to help of not responding back to me.
With your comment: “I’m not going to respond to any of your statements above – especially when you come on my website and address me over an article I didn’t even write! I’ve told you repeatedly that I’ll let my work stand on its merits and that I won’t be baited into a flame war with you”.
The fact is Andrew you’re too scared to even read my detail analysis about the the flaws on the lemon JSF. Putting this protective barrier in front of you of not wanting to take any of my advice what most folks are trying to explain the reasons about the F/A-18E/F and F-35 are a wrong aircraft that they can’t compete with the Sukhoi family of fighters etc. If you had told me that you are working on your merits – then why do you keep bagging on about the same issue that the Super Hornet/F-35 are the right types for the RAAF’s requirements. Again they are too vulnerable etc.
My colleagues, friends of mine and myself in the ADF also researched on Advancing counter-stealth radar technologies.
The Nebo M is a highly capable multiple band three dimensional high mobility radar system developed specifically for the detection and tracking of stealthy fighter aircraft (including the lemon F-35 JSF) and UAVs, in turn providing tracking data feeds for Surface Air Missile batteries and interceptor aircraft. Arguably, it is the world’s most capable counter-stealth radar system entering full rate production with a large volume order.
Until now, counter-stealth sensors have been niche low production volume designs, often limited in capabilities, accuracy and mobility. The Nebo M announcement marks the transition from developmental designs and niche products to mainstream Integrated Air Defence System (IADS) components deployed en masse; ultimately, available in quantity on the global arms market to any nation with the interest and the available funds.
Detractors of stealth will inevitably declare this to be the death of stealth , which fortunately it is not. What it does represent is the practical death of ‘economy stealth’ and ‘reduced observables’ aircraft, which have been so politically popular in Western nations over the last decade, usurping funding which should have properly been invested in ‘real stealth’ aircraft such as the F-22A Raptor and B-2A Spirit, or ‘Batwing’.
The Russian decision to invest on a large scale in a capable counter-stealth radar parallels the decision to invest on a similar scale in the T-50 PAK-FA stealth fighter as a replacement for the venerable and still potent T-10 Flanker series, and the current investment in the PAK-DA, which is intended to be a Russian analogue to the B-2A, and a replacement for the Cold War era fleets of Tu-22M3 Backfire C and Tu-160 Blackjack supersonic heavy bombers.
Concurrently, increasing numbers of new Chinese prototype radars operating in the favoured one metre VHF wavelength band are being observed. It is not known how well the PLA has progressed in this area.
What is clear is that Western air power now faces its single biggest challenge since the early 1980s, when the Soviets effected massive advances in technology, and matched key United States capabilities of the pre-stealth era. The 1980s F-117A Nighthawk and 1990s B-2A Spirit were the magic bullet capabilities which rendered these Soviet developments ineffective, but this is no longer the case.
Check out the APA’s Some of the High & Extreme level Risks Identified and Since Materislised in F-35A CTOL JSF Aircraft and System Designs. Then you get an idea of why the F-35 isn’t as stealthy as the F-22 Raptor, T-50 PAK-FA and J-20 Mighty Dragon. Despite what YOU and many pro-JSF advocates believe, “stealth” is not invisibility to radar; it is limited-detection ranges against some radar types at some angles. Put another way, certain radars, some of them quite antiquated, can see “stealthy” aircraft at quite long ranges, and even the susceptible radars can see the F-35 at certain angles like the Nebo-M. The ultimate demonstration of this shortcoming occurred in the 1999 Kosovo war, when 1960s vintage Soviet radar and missile equipment shot down a “stealthy” F-117 bomber and severely damaged a second.
There Are NO Alternatives to the F-22 Raptor. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is Certainly NOT a Substitute for the F-22 Raptor
The widely held view in Western bureaucratic circles, that the F-22 and F-35 are interchangeable aircraft, is not true and can never be true. The F-22 provides close to three times the capability of the F-35 at a similar unit procurement cost. The F-35 lacks the performance of the F-22, the survivability of the F-22, the firepower of the F-22, and the deployability of the F-22. The limitations of the F-35 are inherent in its basic design and cannot be fixed by design modifications or upgrades. Poorly defined basic specifications for the F-35 and inadequate prototyping have resulted in an expensive aircraft which cannot be used in combat situations other than benign, requires support by a lot of F-22 Raptors and aerial tankers, and requires long concrete runways for overseas deployments.
I wish you luck of reading my statements Andrew McLaughlin, Roger, Dane and to all pro-JSF advocates.
Have a good day.
Another Guest (from Melbourne)
says:Andrew McLaughlin, Roger, Dane and to other pro-JSF folks
You need to be very very careful who you speaking to out their. Because that was not Peter Goon, you 4 people could be talking to any guy that is thinking and feeling the same way that are anti-JSF folks, so just be beware who you speaking to. Because I strongly agree with Peter’s statements and opinions about why both F/A-18E/F and F-35 are wrong types for Australia and I’m one of them that is anti-JSF and anti-Super Hornet.
Because I read Pete’s statements above. Its a fact and truth and you people are total outliars.
Andrew McLaughlin
says:85 comments on a single thread, about 80 of them from just one person…often just a few minutes apart in the middle of the night. That says quite a lot in itself…
[quote]You have a clue about air power whatsoever.[/quote]
Thanks!
[quote]Resign Andrew McLaughlin[/quote]
Ok, but only because you asked so nicely.
Andrew McLaughlin
says:Peter
I don’t know who you are nor why you’ve targeted your vitriol at me personally. I didn’t write this article, but I believe I have always reported on the JSF in a fair and balanced way, criticising it when warranted, and reporting on its successes and attributes as well.
You obviously have plenty of time on your hands, so if you want to come out of the closet of anonimity and continue this offline, please email me at [email protected]. If not, I’ll assume you’re a gutless wonder who is happy to hide behind a pseudonym.
Andrew McLaughlin
Peter (another one)
says:Excuse me I meant Andrew McLaughlin has NO clue about air power whatsoever, which I mispelt, from 29th April 2012 at 12:33 am.
australianaviation.com.au
says:Enough of the personal attacks please Peter, or we will block further posts from you. Thanks, Gerard Frawley, Publisher & Managing Editor