Does SÂ’pore need such downgraded F35? !
-
What a joke, the supposed Stealthy JSF only available to Yankees themselves. The exported ones will be compromised on the stealth features.
Not so stealthy: the $15b fighters
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/not-so-stealthy-the-15b-fighters/2006/03/13/1142098404532.html
By Craig Skehan and Tom Allard
March 14, 2006
Page 1 of 2 | Single page
THE ability of Australia's new F-35 Joint Strike Fighters to evade detection and enemy attack has been substantially downgraded by the US Defence Department.
And a Liberal MP and former senior defence analyst, Dennis Jensen, warns that the fighters - at $15 billion the most expensive defence purchase in Australia's history - will be unable to maintain air combat dominance.
"Do we really want our pilots to be caught in a knife fight in a telephone booth with an aircraft that, aerodynamically, is incapable of mixing it with the threat?" he said in a submission to a parliamentary inquiry.
A crucial aspect of the fighter's "stealth capability" - radio frequency signatures - has been downgraded from "very low observable" to "low observable", according to the US Defence Department website.
Peter Goon, a former RAAF flight test engineer, said that would mean the difference between it appearing as a "marble and a beach ball" on enemy radar. The problem with the fighter, Dr Jensen says, is that it can be relatively easily detected from the rear.
A Federal Government source conceded yesterday that the stealth capability definitions had been changed, but maintained that the "design requirements" for the fighter to "avoid detection" had not.
Signs that the stealth capability had been lowered first emerged last year, when key performance indicators on the US Defence Department Joint Strike Fighter
website changed. The manufacturer of the aircraft, Lockheed Martin, insisted repeatedly to the Herald that the reported shift was an error. Australia's Defence Department also maintained there had been no change.
But those assurances have proven false. When the Herald contacted the US Defence Department Joint Strike Fighter program office in Washington, a spokeswoman said the latest table on its website was correct. "There is no reason to pull it from there," she said.
A Lockheed Martin spokesman said yesterday: "We will have to defer to our clients, the US Government, if that is their decision."
The downgrading in the stealth capability is only one issue that concerns Dr Jensen, who has a doctorate in applied physics and used to work at the Defence Science and Technology Organisation.
He said the Joint Strike Fighter could not match the Russian-built Sukhoi strike jets operated by air forces around the region in important respects.
It falls well short of the F-111 jet it is replacing in its long-range strike ability and would require air-to-air refuelling that would leave it and support aircraft vulnerable to enemy missiles and aircraft, he said.
He also said the fighter would almost certainly be more expensive than the Defence Department admits.
"[The Joint Strike] is essentially a second tier bomb truck. It lacks the necessary aerodynamics to defeat the [Sukhoi] Flankers, never mind future aircraft that may proliferate," he told the parliamentary inquiry into Australia's regional air superiority.
The Sukhoi family of Russian aircraft are, or will be, operated by most Asian air forces, including China, Indonesia, Malaysia and India.
It is understood Dr Jensen's concerns are shared by another Liberal MP, David Fawcett. Before he entered politics at the last election, Mr Fawcett was the commander of the Defence Force's flight test and evaluation centre.
Dr Jensen and Mr Fawcett raised their concerns with the Minister for Defence, Brendan Nelson, last month. Dr Jensen told the Herald yesterday he agonised before breaking with the discipline of the Howard Government to lodge his submission, but the issue was too important.
It falls well short of the F-111 jet it is replacing in its long-range strike ability and would require air-to-air refuelling that would leave it and support aircraft vulnerable to enemy missiles and aircraft, he said.
He also said the fighter would almost certainly be more expensive than the Defence Department admits.
"[The Joint Strike] is essentially a second tier bomb truck. It lacks the necessary aerodynamics to defeat the [Sukhoi] Flankers, never mind future aircraft that may proliferate," he told the parliamentary inquiry into Australia's regional air superiority.
The Sukhoi family of Russian aircraft are, or will be, operated by most Asian air forces, including China, Indonesia, Malaysia and India.
It is understood Dr Jensen's concerns are shared by another Liberal MP, David Fawcett. Before he entered politics at the last election, Mr Fawcett was the commander of the Defence Force's flight test and evaluation centre.
Dr Jensen and Mr Fawcett raised their concerns with the Minister for Defence, Brendan Nelson, last month. Dr Jensen told the Herald yesterday he agonised before breaking with the discipline of the Howard Government to lodge his submission, but the issue was too important
Like a beach ball on the radar Â… the former defence minister Robert Hill with a mock-up of the fighter.
Photo: Jason South -
This isn't new.....i was expecting this kind of ans.......
-
Singapore join e JSF project does not means tat we will buy e JSF. Joining e project lets us learn e tech involved(if tat any).
-
Oh, please, u know SG takes part in this joke-Sick F(JSF) as what layer Partner ?Originally posted by spartan6:Singapore join e JSF project does not means tat we will buy e JSF. Joining e project lets us learn e tech involved(if tat any).
As such a partner, u only got the priority to buy a F35 but not share its techs. -
Sad 2 say but i get your point n i had 2 agree, but well it open n option for us.
But i think e JSF is crap , 15b for an aircraft tat lack range, only 4 missile n limited wpn option without compromise steath hmmmmm
-
Our difference is that we get something basic and we uprate it to classified standards with Israeli and home-grown mods.
It might benefit us to get a plain, simple F-35.
-
Quite a risk we taking with this like of pricetag, but if it work wooh
-
Guy any idea how 2 insert text or photo.[/list]
-
Unstealthy F-35. lol! Time to start looking to Russia. At least they don't sell you watered down products.
-
The F-35 does not cost $15Billion per aircraft.That was the cost of the entire RAAF purchase.Originally posted by spartan6:Quite a risk we taking with this like of pricetag, but if it work wooh
Each F-22 costs $70m approx. the F-35 would cost around $25-30M per plane -
20-30m per plane tat doesnt sound tat bad an average 4th generation plane cost about 35m n i heard e f-22 cost 120m each -
screw F-35s.. go for VF-1s!!!
-
we're just buying into the program.
this will be the only reply i'll say in this topic. -
I have a feeling that the project will be a gigantic flop .......
cost overruns and delays and missed goals and deadlines aside ....
ultimately, the ones that'll keep this project afloat would be the foreign purchasers, if the US decides to sell them a downgraded version, after all the marketing hype and hyperboole .... I think many buyers may just opt for something else instead ..... without the steath, the F-35 would be nothing more than an updated 3G fighter, and I wonder, if it would perform as well against it's peers like the euro-fighter and the rafale, not to mention the sukhois .....
it has no thrust vectoring like the sukhois, no super-cruise like the eurofighter, and limited munitions carrying capacity as well .... now they are going to take away the stealth ? ... perhaps the US will end up being the only customer ...
-
with Norway and Turkey are on the verge of joining Eurfighter consortuim with better "pie" JSF is getting a lot more prolematic now.......once if Norway pushes to Typhoon, Denmark may follow suit with Gripen(?) or other alternatives.....Originally posted by Fatum:I have a feeling that the project will be a gigantic flop .......
cost overruns and delays and missed goals and deadlines aside ....
ultimately, the ones that'll keep this project afloat would be the foreign purchasers, if the US decides to sell them a downgraded version, after all the marketing hype and hyperboole .... I think many buyers may just opt for something else instead ..... without the steath, the F-35 would be nothing more than an updated 3G fighter, and I wonder, if it would perform as well against it's peers like the euro-fighter and the rafale, not to mention the sukhois .....
it has no thrust vectoring like the sukhois, no super-cruise like the eurofighter, and limited munitions carrying capacity as well .... now they are going to take away the stealth ? ... perhaps the US will end up being the only customer ... -
The main reason most foreign countries are looking to purchase the F-35 is due to its stealth more than anything else. Its raw capabilities alone aren't much, even current 3rd gen fighters, don't have to mention 4th gen, beat it hands down in terms of maneuverability, endurance, speed, sensors, and weapons payload. Even its stealth capability is in question, as it only provides frontal X-band stealth, as the engine outlets aren't stealthy. With a further downgraded stealth capability to non-US customers, many countries would probably reconsider their commitments to the programme.
Even with its full stealth capabilities, personally, i'd opt to wait for the F-22A to be available to non US customers, and in the meantime purchase smth to act as a stopgap, such as more F-15SGs, F-16E/F Block 60s, or the JAS-39
just my $0.02 worth -
agreed. The Pentagon, as usual, is not going to win anymore allies with this crap.Originally posted by sgFish:The main reason most foreign countries are looking to purchase the F-35 is due to its stealth more than anything else. Its raw capabilities alone aren't much, even current 3rd gen fighters, don't have to mention 4th gen, beat it hands down in terms of maneuverability, endurance, speed, sensors, and weapons payload. Even its stealth capability is in question, as it only provides frontal X-band stealth, as the engine outlets aren't stealthy. With a further downgraded stealth capability to non-US customers, many countries would probably reconsider their commitments to the programme.
Even with its full stealth capabilities, personally, i'd opt to wait for the F-22A to be available to non US customers, and in the meantime purchase smth to act as a stopgap, such as more F-15SGs, F-16E/F Block 60s, or the JAS-39
just my $0.02 worth -
UK---the all time buddy of Yankees and the only core partner of the JSF, although already billions of pounds sucked in this JSF project, Brits even canÂ’t be allowed to access the JSF software codes and share the Technologies, even worse, if RN purchases the F35, theyÂ’ll have to send the JSF back to US for service.
Anglo-US defence deals in jeopardy
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=407244&in_page_id=2
BRITAIN may consider buying up to 150 French fighter jets for two new-generation aircraft carriers scheduled to go into service with the Royal Navy in 2013.
If the Government went ahead with the £5bn deal, it would mean cancelling existing US contracts to supply aircraft for the carriers and could cause a major crisis in Anglo-American relations.
The unexpected verbal offer to buy the Rafale Marine jets came on January 24 when Defence Secretary John Reid met his opposite number, Michele Alliot-Marie, for crucial talks in London.
It followed well publicised difficulties between Britain and America on the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) project, dogged by a row over sharing technology. ..
( see full article, click the link shown above) -
Originally posted by LazerLordz:
Oh, really that cheap?, the 15 Billion bucks are only enough for 100 RAAF JSF! a simple calculation will be :
The F-35 does not cost $15Billion per aircraft.That was the cost of the entire RAAF purchase.
Each F-22 costs $70m approx. the F-35 would cost around $25-30M per plane
15 billion / 100 = 150 Million USD/unit . Yes, u like to have a taste of it? 150 million USD for a monkey?
source:
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2698.htm
...In October 2002, Australia became a Level III partner in the U.S.-led Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program. Both of their current fighters are scheduled to exit service by 2012 when they will be replaced by up to 100 JSF aircraft. ... -
In the first place, why do the Tommies want to pursue the JSF? I can understand that they want to replace their Harriers, but I'm sure there's going to be compatibility problems between the JSF and their existing Eurofighter Typhoons.Originally posted by 38�Ž:UK---the all time buddy of Yankees and the only core partner of the JSF, although already billions of pounds sucked in this JSF project, Brits even can’t be allowed to access the JSF software codes and share the Technologies, even worse, if RN purchases the F35, they’ll have to send the JSF back to US for service.
And with their inability to access some of the Yanks' JSF technologies, it's bound to get worse. To add the final insult to injury, they can't even repair their own JSFs.
With all that crap being thrown at them, I think it would be better for them to just stick with the Typhoons. Even if the Typhoon is more expensive, at least they won't be stuck with all this nonsense. -
if they're really going to downgrade the low observables technology, i say to hell with JSF and stick with the F15SGs
-
My bad.But that figure was taken from a report that forecasted the eventual selling price of the JSF once the UK and Australia's purchases have lowered the price..Originally posted by 38�Ž: -
Cant even repair their own JSF, wat e fraking crap is this n e brit agree
-
unless USA is willing to released the project codings together with his allies.....JSF will never be move......and others will begin to find alternatives like typhoon/rafale/gripen etc
-
Boycott the US. their military tech is degrading.