Welcome to the Australian Ford Forums forum.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and inserts advertising. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features without post based advertising banners. Registration is simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Please Note: All new registrations go through a manual approval queue to keep spammers out. This is checked twice each day so there will be a delay before your registration is activated.

Go Back   Australian Ford Forums > General Topics > Non Ford Related Community Forums > The Bar

The Bar For non Automotive Related Chat

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 19-01-2012, 04:05 PM   #1
Road_Warrior
Pity the fool
 
Road_Warrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Wait Awhile
Posts: 8,997
Exclamation F35/JSF 'unable to land on an aircraft carrier': report

Pretty damning if true, if this means they have to redesign the aircraft it may mean the unit cost will be pushed up to the point it will become another expensive, unviable defence project.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-carriers.html

Quote:
Leaked Pentagon documents claim a design flaw in the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) has caused eight simulated landings to fail.

The “F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Concurrency Quick Look Review” claimed the flaw meant that the “arrestor” hook, used to stop the plane during landing, was too close to the plane’s wheels.

When a fighter lands on an aircraft carrier an arrestor cable catches the hook on the back of the aircraft, preventing it from overshooting and ditching into the sea.

The documents warn of "major consequences" to the aircraft’s structure and cast doubt on the readiness of the JSF to provide close-air support, which is seen as critical to a carrier’s role in providing amphibious landings.

The review further suggests the planes will be unable to fire the British Asraam air-to-air missile.

It adds that the F-35C remains untested in several areas, concluding that "there is a high likelihood of future failures that are not yet identified".

The report, seen by the Sunday Times newspaper, concludes that unless a "significant redesign" of the aircraft is urgently completed the future of the aircraft is at risk.

If such a redesign is proven to be too costly or difficult to implement, it warns that the entire F-35C programme may have to be scrapped.

Britain is due to buy around 50 aircraft at a total cost of about £5 billion but senior Navy sources admitted last night that on current budget, the MoD will have just six available by 2020.

They also told The Daily Telegraph that the flaws could place the entire JSF programme in jeopardy amid fears it could be axed all together despite billions of pounds spent by the British and American governments and other “partner nations”.

They further suggested that the flaws could also have major implications for the Royal Air Force and its manned fighter programmes. Labour called on the government to “come clean on the full impact of the defence review”.

Jim Murphy, the shadow defence secretary, said: "An island nation like ours should be able to operate aeroplanes from an aircraft carrier.

"The government must come clean on the full impact of the defence review. It's essential we know how long we will be without carrier strike capability."

On Sunday night a Ministry of Defence spokesman declined to comment on the leaked report.

But he added that Philip Hammond, the Defence Secretary, met his American counterpart, Leon Panetta, during a visit to Washington last month to “discuss a number of issues including the joint Strike Fighter”.

"We are taking delivery of our first Joint Strike Fighters for test and evaluation purposes this year and are committed to purchasing the carrier variant of the JSF,” he said.

“Our plans remain on track to have a new carrier strike capability from around 2020.”
Here's another, more critical article on the subject. Oh dear.

http://aviationintel.com/2012/01/10/...-on-a-carrier/

__________________
Fords I own or have owned:

1970 XW Falcon GT replica | 1970 XW Falcon | 1971 XY Fairmont | 1973 ZG Fairlane | 1986 XF Falcon panel van | 1987 XFII Falcon S-Pack | 1988 XF Falcon GLS ute | 1993 EBII Fairmont V8 | 1996 XG Falcon ute | 2000 AU Falcon wagon | 2004 BA Falcon XT | 2012 SZ Territory Titanium AWD

Proud to buy Australian and support Ford Australia through thick and thin
Road_Warrior is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 19-01-2012, 07:28 PM   #2
Jim Goose
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Sun City, North Australis
Posts: 4,274
Default Re: F35/JSF 'unable to land on an aircraft carrier': report

That particular version isnt what we (Aust) is buying.

We are buying the plane.. er plain runway bound "A" version.

However there are some serious design flaws in all 3 versions which has been found out now, software, cracking, airflow issues (causing the cracking) in which a penagon report labelled as serious issues mid last year....

Not to mention is now at least 4yrs behind schedule and the price has doubled.
__________________
You've seen it, you've heard it and your still asking questions??

Don't write off the Goose until you see the box going into the hole....
Jim Goose is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 19-01-2012, 09:10 PM   #3
Neale
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
 
Neale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,481
Default Re: F35/JSF 'unable to land on an aircraft carrier': report

sounds like the F111 all over again
Neale is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 19-01-2012, 09:22 PM   #4
Jim Goose
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Sun City, North Australis
Posts: 4,274
Default Re: F35/JSF 'unable to land on an aircraft carrier': report

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neale
sounds like the F111 all over again

The F111 suffered from wing failures which were traced back to poor quality metal (from memory) in the wing box. Also the air intakes were redesigned due to flow issues. Mind you, there was no "super" computers back then so it did pretty well.

The F-35 however is a "paperless" aeroplane fully designed using computers... sadly they got several major things wrong.

It is also the wrong plane for Australia as its really a CAS aeroplane and not really a fighter. Not to mention it has one engine... a very poor load capcity in the weapons bays (in the fighter role initially just 2 AIM-120 and just 2 Aim-9) and in the bomb role 2 large JDAM and 2 AIM-9 missiles...

Oh but people say... it can carry weapons under the wings... goodo, then you have a plane which has a bigger radar return thus negating its so called "sealthy features".

And better still is that it wont be cleared to carry drop tanks (EVER) so much for long range flying... itll need a lot of tanker support to go anywhere.

Our $200million non-refundable "buy in" (previous governement) was a total crock too as it didnt pay for a single plane, but just to be a "partner" in some 3rd level development of maybe the ciggie lighter or a landing light....
__________________
You've seen it, you've heard it and your still asking questions??

Don't write off the Goose until you see the box going into the hole....
Jim Goose is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 19-01-2012, 10:34 PM   #5
Neale
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
 
Neale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,481
Default Re: F35/JSF 'unable to land on an aircraft carrier': report

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Goose
The F111 suffered from wing failures which were traced back to poor quality metal (from memory) in the wing box. Also the air intakes were redesigned due to flow issues. Mind you, there was no "super" computers back then so it did pretty well.

The F-35 however is a "paperless" aeroplane fully designed using computers... sadly they got several major things wrong.

It is also the wrong plane for Australia as its really a CAS aeroplane and not really a fighter. Not to mention it has one engine... a very poor load capcity in the weapons bays (in the fighter role initially just 2 AIM-120 and just 2 Aim-9) and in the bomb role 2 large JDAM and 2 AIM-9 missiles...

Oh but people say... it can carry weapons under the wings... goodo, then you have a plane which has a bigger radar return thus negating its so called "sealthy features".

And better still is that it wont be cleared to carry drop tanks (EVER) so much for long range flying... itll need a lot of tanker support to go anywhere.

Our $200million non-refundable "buy in" (previous governement) was a total crock too as it didnt pay for a single plane, but just to be a "partner" in some 3rd level development of maybe the ciggie lighter or a landing light....

True the F111 eventually turned out to be a good aircraft that did the job that it was built for very well. But it also was over budget & took longer to deliver than expected.

Hopefully they can get the problems sorted & turn it int a good aircraft.
Neale is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 28-02-2013, 06:50 PM   #6
SteveJH
No longer a Uni student..
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Coffs Harbour, NSW
Posts: 2,557
Default Re: F35/JSF 'unable to land on an aircraft carrier': report

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Goose View Post
The F111 suffered from wing failures which were traced back to poor quality metal (from memory) in the wing box. Also the air intakes were redesigned due to flow issues. Mind you, there was no "super" computers back then so it did pretty well.
Both aircraft are right at the limits of what the technology of the day could accomplish.

Quote:
The F-35 however is a "paperless" aeroplane fully designed using computers... sadly they got several major things wrong.
Like?

Quote:
It is also the wrong plane for Australia as its really a CAS aeroplane and not really a fighter. Not to mention it has one engine... a very poor load capcity in the weapons bays (in the fighter role initially just 2 AIM-120 and just 2 Aim-9) and in the bomb role 2 large JDAM and 2 AIM-9 missiles...
It also has stealth capability, the best and most up to date electronics INCLUDING radar and air-to-air systems. As the systems information and flight test data is all classified to, its a big call to say its not the right plane.

Its a MULTI-ROLE aircraft, no different to the F/A-18A+ it is replacing.

Quote:
Oh but people say... it can carry weapons under the wings... goodo, then you have a plane which has a bigger radar return thus negating its so called "sealthy features".
Different situations will require different weapons loadouts. Even ignoring the Stealth aspect, its system integration is a generation beyond anything else in service or under developement...and that includes the F-22!

Its the first day of the conflict, you send the birds in on internal payloads to maximise stealth and take out enemy birds on the ground with precision ordinance. Day 10: Full external war loads for A-2-A and A-2-G.

They will also have AEW&C support from wedgetail.

Quote:
And better still is that it wont be cleared to carry drop tanks (EVER) so much for long range flying... itll need a lot of tanker support to go anywhere.
Why wont it be cleared for External Fuel? Plus you ignore the fact that it has a longer range on internal fuel then the F/A-18's and that the RAAF received the last of their new Tankers in December.

Quote:
Our $200million non-refundable "buy in" (previous governement) was a total crock too as it didnt pay for a single plane, but just to be a "partner" in some 3rd level development of maybe the ciggie lighter or a landing light....
It got us a say in the development of the plane, plus gave local industry a chance to bid on construction work, work that they would likely keep now even if we didn't buy a single aircraft. It would surprise me greatly if that work gave a net profit of less than $200 million over the course of the entire F-35 program.
__________________
Previous:
1992 Mitsubishi Lancer - Petrol/Manual/Silver
1997 Ford Falcon GLi - Petrol/Auto/White

Current:
2012 Ford Focus Sport - Petrol/Manual/Black
SteveJH is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 19-01-2012, 09:43 PM   #7
Road_Warrior
Pity the fool
 
Road_Warrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Wait Awhile
Posts: 8,997
Default Re: F35/JSF 'unable to land on an aircraft carrier': report

Agreed, the whole program is a crock and we should pull out of it.

Better off buying something off the shelf already proven in service, like the Typhoon. These would complement the Super Hornets quite nicely IMO

Oh and the thing about the single engine, this was the argument against choosing the F-16 over the F/A-18 back in the day, why the about face?
__________________
Fords I own or have owned:

1970 XW Falcon GT replica | 1970 XW Falcon | 1971 XY Fairmont | 1973 ZG Fairlane | 1986 XF Falcon panel van | 1987 XFII Falcon S-Pack | 1988 XF Falcon GLS ute | 1993 EBII Fairmont V8 | 1996 XG Falcon ute | 2000 AU Falcon wagon | 2004 BA Falcon XT | 2012 SZ Territory Titanium AWD

Proud to buy Australian and support Ford Australia through thick and thin
Road_Warrior is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 19-01-2012, 10:24 PM   #8
XR Martin
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
 
XR Martin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Canberra Region
Posts: 9,000
Default Re: F35/JSF 'unable to land on an aircraft carrier': report

Quote:
Originally Posted by Road_Warrior
Agreed, the whole program is a crock and we should pull out of it.

Better off buying something off the shelf already proven in service, like the Typhoon. These would complement the Super Hornets quite nicely IMO
Lols, better off?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03..._nao_analysis/

Quote:
This shows the acquisition cost of the Eurofighter/Typhoon in an even worse light than it had previously appeared, when an RAF fleet of 160 had been expected. It is now acknowledged that the development and production cost to the UK of Eurofighter will be £23bn with planned upgrades.

This means that we UK taxpayers will have shelled out no less than £215m for each of our 107 jets – that's $350m at today's rates, rather more than the US taxpayers have been made to pay for each of their 185 Raptor superfighters2, almost all of which will be used operationally. And the Raptor has third-generation Stealth: the Eurofighter has no stealth features at all. The Raptor has thrust vectoring for unbeatable manoeuvrability in a dogfight: the Eurofighter doesn't.
Quote:
There are indications of problems with the collaborative contracts for the supply of spares and repair of equipment. There have been shortages of spares and long timescales for equipment repairs on some of these contracts ...

The [2008] spares procurement contract does not include penalties for late delivery ...

To compensate, the Department [the MoD] has had to take parts from some of its Typhoon aircraft to make other aircraft available to fly
__________________
2016 FGX XR8 Sprint, 6speed manual, Kinetic Blue #170

2004 BA wagon RTV project.

1998 EL XR8, Auto, Hot Chilli Red

1993 ED XR6, 5speed, Polynesian Green. 1 of 329. Retired

1968 XT Falcon 500 wagon, 3 on the tree, 3.6L. Patina project.
XR Martin is online now   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 19-01-2012, 10:56 PM   #9
Road_Warrior
Pity the fool
 
Road_Warrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Wait Awhile
Posts: 8,997
Default Re: F35/JSF 'unable to land on an aircraft carrier': report

Quote:
Originally Posted by XR6 Martin
At least the Typhoon is in service and proven, whereas the JSF is turning out like being, for all intents and purposes, vapourware.

Even better if we could get our hands on the F-22, but US law won't allow it to be sold to a foreign power.
__________________
Fords I own or have owned:

1970 XW Falcon GT replica | 1970 XW Falcon | 1971 XY Fairmont | 1973 ZG Fairlane | 1986 XF Falcon panel van | 1987 XFII Falcon S-Pack | 1988 XF Falcon GLS ute | 1993 EBII Fairmont V8 | 1996 XG Falcon ute | 2000 AU Falcon wagon | 2004 BA Falcon XT | 2012 SZ Territory Titanium AWD

Proud to buy Australian and support Ford Australia through thick and thin
Road_Warrior is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 19-01-2012, 11:06 PM   #10
Jim Goose
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Sun City, North Australis
Posts: 4,274
Default Re: F35/JSF 'unable to land on an aircraft carrier': report

Quote:
Originally Posted by Road_Warrior
At least the Typhoon is in service and proven, whereas the JSF is turning out like being, for all intents and purposes, vapourware.

Even better if we could get our hands on the F-22, but US law won't allow it to be sold to a foreign power.

Its turning into a money pit.... the "solution" to some of the problems is to keep production going and sort it out later!!!! As stopping production now would be cost prohibitive.... However i can see soon that anymore delays and cost blowouts that the whole thing may be scrapped.. heres hoping!
__________________
You've seen it, you've heard it and your still asking questions??

Don't write off the Goose until you see the box going into the hole....
Jim Goose is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 19-01-2012, 09:48 PM   #11
XR Martin
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
 
XR Martin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Canberra Region
Posts: 9,000
Default Re: F35/JSF 'unable to land on an aircraft carrier': report

Looks pretty impressive to me

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki86x1WKPmE&
__________________
2016 FGX XR8 Sprint, 6speed manual, Kinetic Blue #170

2004 BA wagon RTV project.

1998 EL XR8, Auto, Hot Chilli Red

1993 ED XR6, 5speed, Polynesian Green. 1 of 329. Retired

1968 XT Falcon 500 wagon, 3 on the tree, 3.6L. Patina project.
XR Martin is online now   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 19-01-2012, 10:48 PM   #12
Peuty
Afterburner + skids =
Donating Member1
 
Peuty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Skidsville
Posts: 12,136
Default Re: F35/JSF 'unable to land on an aircraft carrier': report

Quote:
Originally Posted by XR6 Martin
Looks pretty impressive to me

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki86x1WKPmE&
We aren't getting that model.

Fact remains that it's just the wrong plane for our country, but the Yanks wouldn't sell us the right plane (F22).
__________________
Speed Kills. So buy an AU XR8 and live forever.

Oo\===/oO
Peuty is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 19-01-2012, 10:58 PM   #13
Streets
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
 
Streets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: QLD
Posts: 685
Default Re: F35/JSF 'unable to land on an aircraft carrier': report

They should've played Battlefield 3 before they signed anything. Everybody knows that an Su will eat an F-35 for breakfast.
Streets is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
This user likes this post:
Old 20-01-2012, 05:52 PM   #14
My poor XF
Geelong FC 07, 09 & 2011
 
My poor XF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Melbourne Vic
Posts: 1,552
Default Re: F35/JSF 'unable to land on an aircraft carrier': report

Quote:
Originally Posted by Streets
They should've played Battlefield 3 before they signed anything. Everybody knows that an Su will eat an F-35 for breakfast.
Not if I'm flying it lol.

I personally think the russian 4.5 and 5th gen fighter/multi role aircraft would be better aircraft to acquire. Won't happen though.
__________________
2023 Audi A5 45 TFSI
My poor XF is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 20-01-2012, 06:04 PM   #15
Peuty
Afterburner + skids =
Donating Member1
 
Peuty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Skidsville
Posts: 12,136
Default Re: F35/JSF 'unable to land on an aircraft carrier': report

Quote:
Originally Posted by My poor XF
Not if I'm flying it lol.

I personally think the russian 4.5 and 5th gen fighter/multi role aircraft would be better aircraft to acquire. Won't happen though.
Of course it won't happen.

Politically and practically. Say goodbye to parts commonality with the US, along with their pilot/personnel exchange program. Refueling from NATO tankers would be out of the question as well - plus a whole bunch of other stuff.
__________________
Speed Kills. So buy an AU XR8 and live forever.

Oo\===/oO
Peuty is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 20-01-2012, 12:52 AM   #16
BHDOGS
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,290
Default Re: F35/JSF 'unable to land on an aircraft carrier': report

we should just build our own we did it with submarines we couldnt build it worse then there doing at present hahaha
BHDOGS is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 20-01-2012, 02:50 PM   #17
2011G6E
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
 
2011G6E's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: On The Footplate.
Posts: 5,086
Default Re: F35/JSF 'unable to land on an aircraft carrier': report

Now if our closest bestest friends the Americans had let us buy the off-the-shelf F22 Raptor, there'd be no problem...but there's a standing instruction that it isn't to be sold to any foreign power...even friends and allies.

Some odd decisions going on lately with defence...they seem to be dazzled by anything new and shiny.
Take the F111...it was replaced by a plane (the F18 Super Hornet) that can't fly as far, as fast, as high, as low (terrain following radar), or carry the same bomb load as the old plane could...yep...makes perfect sense...

Sometimes it's better to keep the old car you have in the shed and keep spending a few dollars keeping it on the road than to go to the latest new model that isn't as good...
2011G6E is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
2 users like this post:
Old 20-01-2012, 05:30 PM   #18
74_XB_Ute
See..Everybody Loves Ford
 
74_XB_Ute's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Brisbane, QLD
Posts: 511
Default Re: F35/JSF 'unable to land on an aircraft carrier': report

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2011G6E
Sometimes it's better to keep the old car you have in the shed and keep spending a few dollars keeping it on the road than to go to the latest new model that isn't as good...
You cant keep the old car going when there is absolutely no spare parts for it and you simply cant just fit some reproduction import that doesn't quite just meet spec. In 1997 when the US decided to stop flying F-111's is was a matter of procuring anything we could and things were going to get harder to source from that point on. No company is going to stand up a production line to keep a handful of foreign owned jets running.....and a handful is what we had compared to the US fleet of F-111's. The aussie government was paying premium dollars to US companies for short production runs of spares. There's also only so much patch work you can keep doing to the F-111 airframes before it was just not viable to keep maintaining....corrosion and fuel tanks for example.
74_XB_Ute is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 20-01-2012, 10:26 PM   #19
Bossxr8
Peter Car
 
Bossxr8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: geelong
Posts: 23,145
Default Re: F35/JSF 'unable to land on an aircraft carrier': report

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2011G6E
Now if our closest bestest friends the Americans had let us buy the off-the-shelf F22 Raptor, there'd be no problem...but there's a standing instruction that it isn't to be sold to any foreign power...even friends and allies.

Some odd decisions going on lately with defence...they seem to be dazzled by anything new and shiny.
Take the F111...it was replaced by a plane (the F18 Super Hornet) that can't fly as far, as fast, as high, as low (terrain following radar), or carry the same bomb load as the old plane could...yep...makes perfect sense...

Sometimes it's better to keep the old car you have in the shed and keep spending a few dollars keeping it on the road than to go to the latest new model that isn't as good...
Maybe the Yanks have learnt to stop supplying weapons to other countries that end up using them against them.

Afghanis using Stingers against US helicopters for example.

I guess its easier to stop supplying weapons to allies who may become potential enemies than it is to not start wars with them in the first place.
Bossxr8 is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 20-01-2012, 05:44 PM   #20
Road_Warrior
Pity the fool
 
Road_Warrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Wait Awhile
Posts: 8,997
Default Re: F35/JSF 'unable to land on an aircraft carrier': report

Quote:
Originally Posted by BHDOGS
we should just build our own we did it with submarines we couldnt build it worse then there doing at present hahaha
lol

Actually I was thinking about the subs the other day, we should invest in unmanned submarines because we can't even muster enough crews for the 6 we have now, let alone 12 future subs that Labor wants.

A fleet of 4 manned and 6 unmanned subs would work well.
__________________
Fords I own or have owned:

1970 XW Falcon GT replica | 1970 XW Falcon | 1971 XY Fairmont | 1973 ZG Fairlane | 1986 XF Falcon panel van | 1987 XFII Falcon S-Pack | 1988 XF Falcon GLS ute | 1993 EBII Fairmont V8 | 1996 XG Falcon ute | 2000 AU Falcon wagon | 2004 BA Falcon XT | 2012 SZ Territory Titanium AWD

Proud to buy Australian and support Ford Australia through thick and thin
Road_Warrior is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 20-01-2012, 06:28 PM   #21
TruBlu351
3 Pedals R Better Than 2
 
TruBlu351's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Newcastle
Posts: 5,241
Technical Contributor: For members who share their technical expertise. - Issue reason: Has given endless help in the cleveland section over the years. Knows his stuff and happily tests on the track and gives no fuss results. 
Default Re: F35/JSF 'unable to land on an aircraft carrier': report

Maverick.....I mean Goose!!....that was a $300M initial buy-in to be part of the JSF development phase.

I thought the nose gear was going to fold up sideways on the video @ 2:57! Looks rather flimsy......there'll be a redesign on that in 6 months!

2011G6E....although the F-111 is rather nostalgic and does cool dump and burns, the Super Hornet would run rings around it in almost every area, except in a 50 mile drag race over the salt flats. Remember, more bombs doesn't necessarily mean more targets destroyed and increased lethality. Whist the F-111 was a workhorse WRT load capacity, you also need to consider the type of weapons being carried. The Super Hornet has much better accuracy and even stand-off capability with the weapons it carries compared to the F-111. The only reason it had to go into a target area low and fast is because back in the 70's they never had the weapons technology we have today.....so you had to go and hand deliver your bombs on the front door step, wilst avoiding some big supersonic pointy phone poles - hopefully the low and fast bit meant you didn't get shot at. These days with GPS guided (glide) stand-off weapons, the game has changed.

The F-111 also couldn't fight its way into or out of a wet paper bag. Depending on the air threat, it might need someone holding it's hand. ie: it wasn't very multi-role......but it'd be OK going up against some 3rd world country 2000 miles away against a few Cessnas.

The decision to go 2 engines on the JSF simply boils down to dollars but not much sense to pardon the pun!! Engineers and bean counters vs a pilot wanting some level of redundancy incase one engine decides to take a rest. I had a chat a few years back with some of the Lockheed Martin JSF team.....and they simply based the single engine decision on statistics based on other single engine aircraft such as the F-16. A jet with two engines obviously costs more and losing an entire jet due to engine failure is expensive too....but when they weighed up the cost over the life of type of the aircraft.....ie: initial cost, ongoing maintenance etc of a twin eng jet say over 30+ years compared to losing a few jets over that time....statistically, after looking at the reliability they expect - it's more cost effective to accept a few airframe losses than supply and maintain the fleet for 3+ decades.

Should just get the Sea Sprites back and strap on some new radars and amraams.....and a door gun!!
__________________
XE Falcon - Under Construction
434 E85 Lawn Dart underway

TruBlu351 is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 20-01-2012, 08:10 PM   #22
Jim Goose
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Sun City, North Australis
Posts: 4,274
Default Re: F35/JSF 'unable to land on an aircraft carrier': report

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruBlu351
Maverick.....I mean Goose!!....that was a $300M initial buy-in to be part of the JSF development phase.
Whats a hundred million between friends?? lol..


Quote:
Originally Posted by TruBlu351
The decision to go 2 engines on the JSF simply boils down to dollars but not much sense to pardon the pun!! Engineers and bean counters vs a pilot wanting some level of redundancy incase one engine decides to take a rest. I had a chat a few years back with some of the Lockheed Martin JSF team.....and they simply based the single engine decision on statistics based on other single engine aircraft such as the F-16. A jet with two engines obviously costs more and losing an entire jet due to engine failure is expensive too....but when they weighed up the cost over the life of type of the aircraft.....ie: initial cost, ongoing maintenance etc of a twin eng jet say over 30+ years compared to losing a few jets over that time....statistically, after looking at the reliability they expect - it's more cost effective to accept a few airframe losses than supply and maintain the fleet for 3+ decades.

Should just get the Sea Sprites back and strap on some new radars and amraams.....and a door gun!!
Sadly one engine over water no matter how "hi tech" it is.... isnt good enough. Ask a pilot how many engines he wants when he is over water.

At least the Hornet and F-111 would/ should make it back to land on one engine if something goes pear shaped. The Super Hornets were all ferried from the USA, I daresay the F-35 when its finnally ready for delivery will be put in a C-17 and flown here. Could you imagine loosing $110million or so because it ditched in the pacific on a ferry flight?. (And again this aircraft WONT be cleared to fly with drop tanks).

The designers sadly much like management is only interested in making money and to squeeze as much into a small airframe as possible.
Sadly this sort of aircraft wont be as "buyable" as the F-16 was (some 26 nations use the little F-16) because of its extreme high cost and expensive avionics. Its also impossible to repair this type of aircraft quickly should it be damaged in combat.

Not to mention a senate inquiry shouldve been held on the whole process of how we (Australia) "decided" to buy into this program.
The F-35 was NEVER offered to Australia when the RAAF was running the AIR2000 (?)back in the 1990s. There was 4 aircraft on the short list and the F-35 at that time was still in the desing stage and a prototype wasnt even built when we bought into the program. The whole selection process was dumped without warning and we decided on the F-35.
__________________
You've seen it, you've heard it and your still asking questions??

Don't write off the Goose until you see the box going into the hole....
Jim Goose is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 20-01-2012, 09:11 PM   #23
Peuty
Afterburner + skids =
Donating Member1
 
Peuty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Skidsville
Posts: 12,136
Default Re: F35/JSF 'unable to land on an aircraft carrier': report

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Goose
Ask a pilot how many engines he wants when he is over water.
I think you just did.
__________________
Speed Kills. So buy an AU XR8 and live forever.

Oo\===/oO
Peuty is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 20-01-2012, 10:35 PM   #24
Peuty
Afterburner + skids =
Donating Member1
 
Peuty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Skidsville
Posts: 12,136
Default Re: F35/JSF 'unable to land on an aircraft carrier': report

Iran with their F14's.

Not that any of them would be airworthy.
__________________
Speed Kills. So buy an AU XR8 and live forever.

Oo\===/oO
Peuty is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 20-01-2012, 10:38 PM   #25
z80
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 598
Default Re: F35/JSF 'unable to land on an aircraft carrier': report

Consider the 300 million as the cost of protection by our US "friends" for a few nanoseconds.
z80 is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 20-01-2012, 10:52 PM   #26
74_XB_Ute
See..Everybody Loves Ford
 
74_XB_Ute's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Brisbane, QLD
Posts: 511
Default Re: F35/JSF 'unable to land on an aircraft carrier': report

I guess one good thing to come from being part of the JSF buy in is it seems some of the local industry have picked up contracts for production. There's an engineering company here in Brisbane machining components for JSF bomb racks.
74_XB_Ute is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 20-01-2012, 11:34 PM   #27
Jim Goose
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Sun City, North Australis
Posts: 4,274
Default Re: F35/JSF 'unable to land on an aircraft carrier': report

Quote:
Originally Posted by 74_XB_Ute
I guess one good thing to come from being part of the JSF buy in is it seems some of the local industry have picked up contracts for production. There's an engineering company here in Brisbane machining components for JSF bomb racks.

But is the end cost worth it?

As is being said the f-35 is turning into a money pit for the US government and has failed to meet expectations. The UK is considering dumping the F-35 as well as Australia is reconsidering how many we buy. We have ordered 14 (a planned 80 to 100 though nothing ever confirmed).

In the end in order to buy the projected 100 or so at an estimated $130million EACH (which the price already doubled and still climbing) plus our no-refundable 200..er 300million, it will cost the aussie tax payer over $14billion...... oh but i hear people say we must have the bset?!

Clearly it isnt the best... and certianly DMO, Defence and the Australian Gov in general has shown us how poorly some of the decisions have been over the decades when it comes down to buying stuff for defence....

Our Subs, the Seaprite debarcle ($700million or so down the drain for something which NEVER entered service fully), 2nd hand refurbished main battle tanks (been better off with smaller one but hey) which needed new trucks and trailers (no one thought of that when we bought them), body armour which was no good, rusty old 2nd hand ships, landing craft sitting at Townsville which are unusuable, shoes which fall apart.... to mention a few

Sorry but a few jobs in Brisbane hardly cuts the mustard when billions are wasted
__________________
You've seen it, you've heard it and your still asking questions??

Don't write off the Goose until you see the box going into the hole....
Jim Goose is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 20-01-2012, 11:52 PM   #28
74_XB_Ute
See..Everybody Loves Ford
 
74_XB_Ute's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Brisbane, QLD
Posts: 511
Default Re: F35/JSF 'unable to land on an aircraft carrier': report

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Goose
But is the end cost worth it?

Sorry but a few jobs in Brisbane hardly cuts the mustard when billions are wasted
Unfortunately wasted $$$ is an everyday occurence in the Defence Force. It won't ever change....it's just the way it is. But when money is spent whether it be a waste or not it helps the big wheel turn and helps keep food on the table for some lucky chap
74_XB_Ute is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 21-01-2012, 12:03 AM   #29
Road_Warrior
Pity the fool
 
Road_Warrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Wait Awhile
Posts: 8,997
Default Re: F35/JSF 'unable to land on an aircraft carrier': report

Quote:
Originally Posted by 74_XB_Ute
Unfortunately wasted $$$ is an everyday occurence in the Defence Force. It won't ever change....it's just the way it is. But when money is spent whether it be a waste or not it helps the big wheel turn and helps keep food on the table for some lucky chap
Theres waste, and there's blatantly taking the ****. Need I mention the Seasprite project? Case in point.
__________________
Fords I own or have owned:

1970 XW Falcon GT replica | 1970 XW Falcon | 1971 XY Fairmont | 1973 ZG Fairlane | 1986 XF Falcon panel van | 1987 XFII Falcon S-Pack | 1988 XF Falcon GLS ute | 1993 EBII Fairmont V8 | 1996 XG Falcon ute | 2000 AU Falcon wagon | 2004 BA Falcon XT | 2012 SZ Territory Titanium AWD

Proud to buy Australian and support Ford Australia through thick and thin
Road_Warrior is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 24-01-2012, 04:51 AM   #30
Fordman1
Donating Member
Donating Member3
 
Fordman1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,819
Default Re: F35/JSF 'unable to land on an aircraft carrier': report

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Goose

and certianly DMO, Defence and the Australian Gov in general has shown us how poorly some of the decisions have been over the decades when it comes down to buying stuff for defence....

....... 2nd hand refurbished main battle tanks (been better off with smaller one but hey)
Rubbish comment, M1A1 AIM SA is great value for money as far as a MTB goes, these are rebuild to new, so saying they are '2nd hand' is misleading. They are a zero miles as new tank.

Perhaps a 2nd had leopard 2 or Challenger 2 should have been purchased out of "old stock" for twice the price ?
Fordman1 is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Reply


Forum Jump


All times are GMT +11. The time now is 10:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Other than what is legally copyrighted by the respective owners, this site is copyright www.fordforums.com.au
Positive SSL