I’ve lost count on the many times the F-35 has been grounded already. It feels like a $US1 trillion joke that is not funny at all. Now, 15 brand new F-35s are dead because of a stupid mistake.
They loaded the parachutes in their ejection seats in the wrong way, they were “reversed 180 degrees from design during installation,” according to Joe Dellavedova, at the Joint Strike Fighter Joint Program Office. The reason for the incorrect loading of the parachutes was “improperly drafted packing procedures”. A one trillion dollar plane grounded by “improperly drafted packing procedures”. Let that sink for a bit.
Dellavedova argues that this “wouldn’t have prevented the pilot from ejecting and landing”. But of course, it wouldn’t be the right kind of landing and the pilots could have been injured because the seats would be hitting the ground in the wrong position. Which of course, it’s the reason why the 15 aeroplanes have been grounded.
The replacement Martin-Baker US16E-21 and -23 seats — featuring Properly Loaded Parachutes among their many advanced features — are going to arrive in 10 days.
The planes are based at at Edwards Air Force Base in California and Eglin Air Force Base in Florida, plus three aeroplanes at Lockheed Martin’s facility in Fort Worth, Texas.
A History of Failures
This is not the first time the F-35 has been grounded. The last time the plane was grounded was in August 2011. That time, the aeroplane had a power system failure that affected cockpit temperature control and backup power. It was later cleared again for flight, even while it wasn’t fixed.
Before that, the F-35 fleet had two more grounding orders, bringing the total to four so far. The first grounding order came on March 2011, after an in-flight generator failure and oil leak was discovered.
Apart from these problems, the beleaguered Joint Strike Fighter project has suffered from numerous development, manufacturing and schedule delays, which have put the whole program into question several times. Even parts that seemed to be finished and working — like its scary demon helmet that could see through the plane itself — have had problems. [Aviation Week]
Sam
Wednesday, February 1, 2012 at 8:55 AMSo despite being bankrupt, America still manages to spend $1 trillion on jets that weren’t even built right?
Wow. If that happened in Australia, heads would seriously roll.
Chris
Wednesday, February 1, 2012 at 1:31 PMReally?
Australia bought more F18s to replace the F111 which seems to have been quite a big mistake.
I suggest you watch this
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2007/20071029_hornets/hornets_hi.asx
(it’s a WMP redirect file, so open it with WMP)
Guest
Wednesday, February 1, 2012 at 7:58 PMHi Chris
I strongly agree with you that the 24 F/A-18F Super Hornets is a nasty mistake to replace the F-111s. They have a sting missing in their tail which is why its called the “Super Dog”. Australia should’ve retain its F-111 fleet because DSTO said they can safely be operated and kept flying until 2020 or beyond.
By far the best recent example of bureaucratic incompetence and dishonesty in Australia’s DoD is the completely arbitrary decision to prematurely retire the aircraft, which at full strength accounted for over 50 percent of its strike capability. In fact there’s no replacement for the F-111 that no small fighters with short range can match the F-111s long range, firepower, the acceleration and sensors, or other characteristics to make a great strike bomber.
Although the F-111Cs were built in the late 1960s, the F-111 is a contemporary of the US B-52H and B-1B bombers, both of which the US Air Force intends to operate well past 2030.
Certainly the F/A-18 fleet cannot currently meet its peacetime fighter availability requirements, with the remaining fatigue life in the F/A-18A/B fleet to expire over this decade, which they’ll have trouble with airframe fatigue issues before the year 2020 (they should’ve been retired earlier since 2 years ago, not the F-111s). With further costly structural and enhancement program to replace fuselage centre barrels has been initiated to stretch the life of these aircraft. APG-73 radar, electronic warfare, guided weapon and missile upgrades and software will diminish this availability even further.
The Classic Hornet / Super Hornet are aerodynamically uncompetitive aircraft provides little useful capability in primary roles. They have a poor survivability due to inferior acceleration, limited range and weapons payload and unsuited for bomber and cruise missile defence. Two or more aircraft required to match range/weapons payload of single F-111 and F-15E variants.
The acquisition of Russian designed Sukhoi Su-27SK and Su-30MK Flanker series fighters by most regional nations now presents an environment where it shows the F/A-18A/B and F/A-18F Super Hornet is outclassed in all key performance parameters, aerodynamic and radar performance by widely available fighters.
The F/A-18A/B fleet have been fantastic aircraft for the past 20 years. I’m a great fan of the F/A-18 aircraft, until later I’ve woken up and said to myself they will be no match up against the Sukhoi in air-to-air combat, they are expensive to maintain etc.
In my opinion, the high capability aircraft are the best aircraft to replace the classic Hornets for the RAAF’s frontline fighter force where range is very important. Which they include the F-15E+ Strike Eagle variants, Sukhoi Su-35S Super Flanker-E or the PAK-FA as an alternative options.
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 F-16 Fighting Falcon or F/A-18E/F Super Hornet have too short a range for use by such a large country as Australia. They 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 surrounded by the small vast land areas and more air bases which are ideal for short range fighters with either single or two engines. (Actual range varies with mission).
Plus the good news is, Boeing is continuing manufacturing variants of its F-15 Eagle — a fighter first flown in 1972 — all the way until the 2020s to attract and satisfy new and existing customers. . The Eagles or Silent Eagles are as cheap and easy to produce as they’ve ever been. A beautiful and terrific long range fighter for any air force.
Pity the F-22 Raptor is not for sale to any allied country and the production line has shut down, which was the perfect replacement for the classic Hornets when it was negociated back in the late 1990′s.
Cheers
Guest
Wednesday, February 1, 2012 at 8:17 PMFor example, imagine the Super Hornet was not chosen back in 1990 to replace the failure A-12A Avenger and A-6 Intruder, the F-14D+ Super Tomcat 21 aircraft would’ve presented a much better plane for the US Navy and any air force to acquire.
Chris
Wednesday, February 1, 2012 at 1:34 PMhere is a link to the actual file:
mms://media4.abc.net.au/4corners/hornets/hornets_hi.wmv
Chris
Wednesday, February 1, 2012 at 1:35 PMsorry….try this link to the file:
http://media4.abc.net.au/4corners/hornets/hornets_hi.wmv
Chris
Wednesday, February 1, 2012 at 1:37 PMsorry…none of those links worked to download the file, just use the first link.
I wish I could delete my other comments.
Dr Doom
Wednesday, February 1, 2012 at 4:53 PMAustralia only bought the F-18′s because of the delays in the F-35 program.
Chris
Wednesday, February 1, 2012 at 6:05 PMyes, but was it the right decision?
Grievous
Wednesday, February 1, 2012 at 5:24 PMNot sure heads would roll. Lots of people would complain on forums but basically do nothing and the government would go on as usual without any sackings or being voted out. We spent 3/4 of a billion dollars on Myki in Victoria and it doesn’t work as well as a $1000 office swipe system.
attila
Wednesday, February 1, 2012 at 9:07 AM“Now, 15 brand new F-35s are dead because of a stupid mistake.” – yeah, I guess that is more inflammatory than “15 F-35′s have been grounded for 10 days because their chutes were packed incorrectly”.
Timmahh
Wednesday, February 1, 2012 at 9:07 AMI was thinking of making a derogatory remark, but hey, it’s all been said so many times before!
Lillee
Wednesday, February 1, 2012 at 9:20 AMThis F35 would be terrorizing the skies if it was built at Foxtcon… Funny but sadly true
JonBOY
Wednesday, February 1, 2012 at 10:49 AMHaha, awesome.
China will have their own version soon enough anyway given their talent for reverse engineering and imitating absolutely anything, and I mean anything…..even fake chicken eggs! Google it.
jeremy
Wednesday, February 1, 2012 at 9:32 AMGrain of salt – the current press hyper-focus on this “failed” plane means even trivial things get over-reported. So there was a DETECTED FIXABLE manufacturing flaw in a bleeding edge plane. So what to be honest – the F1-11 took years to bed down, but then went on to give 30 years of great service, successfully kicking the s**t out of all comers. Ditto the F-18, F-14, harrier, tornado, euro-fighter, apache, blackhawk and every other significant military aircraft with the possible exception of the F16 which just worked because it was deliberately made to be a low-tech low-cost project. Projects like this always cost more for a very simple reason – large complex projects with new tech take longer than we expect and there is a little thing called inflation. Blah blah. Here is a prediction – in 5 years all of this will be forgotten, and like with the warthog, the B1, the steath fighter and the stealth bomber we will wishing we had made more of them, not less.
Leo
Wednesday, February 1, 2012 at 10:00 AMYeah @Sam Australia never f*%ks shit up http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/34636.html
Sean
Wednesday, February 1, 2012 at 10:07 AMHoly crap, the worlds most sophisticated aerospace engineering project ever has had four small things go wrong with it? Cancel the entire program immediately! And scrap those aircraft with the wrongly packed chutes, apparently that rendered them so irreparable that they are now “Dead”.
JonBOY
Wednesday, February 1, 2012 at 10:54 AMThere’s only been a handful of bugs emerge during what has been a massive project, and when these bugs are ironed out the F-35 is going to silence the critics.
From memory the stealth bombers had problems with their radar-defying paint washing off, yet that problem was solved and the planes have been happily bombing people to smithereens for years now.
MotorMouth
Wednesday, February 1, 2012 at 12:36 PMJesus H. Christ! What do you expect with a new aircraft that is barely even in service yet? These kinds of things happen. F-111s fell out of the sky all the time during development and the project was delayed almost a decade but the result was the greatest fighter-bomber ever made that saw 30 years of service. If these problem are still occurring in 5 years, then there will be cause for complaint. Until then, grow up, Gizmodo!
Ammar Abdullah Khan
Wednesday, February 1, 2012 at 11:18 PMoH MY GOD…How are they affording this plane..?
I think the remaining RAPTORS should be modified instead of doing expensive experiments with F-35.
Guest
Thursday, February 2, 2012 at 7:27 PMThe F-35 JSF is a lemon and is totally incapable of facing high end threats that would not cement Australia’s regional air power lead and won’t be able to survive against the Russian/Chinese fighters. This has shown that the JSF has a lot of limitations and it cannot do a lot of things as aspected to show and promise that is a true fifth generation fighter. Because it does not meet all the requirements of partner nations, the aircraft has inferior acceleration, poor manoeuvrability, short range with no loiter time and very limited weapons payload that is unsuited for bomber and cruise missile defence and unsuited for air superiority role when compared against Sukhoi family of aircraft, particularly post 2010 configurations; definitely post 2015 evolved growth variants.
The F-35, is undergoing a substantial flight test and evaluation program, which is not progressing well and not meeting test objectives. Its been stated 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. The cost of supporting the JSF will not be progressively refined between now and its introduction into its service. The F-35 will be extremely costly to operate than the F-111, F/A-18 or other aircraft.
Detailed modelling, analysis and participation in highly fidelity simulator exercise which have shown and demonstrated that the JSF has been defeated all realistic current and future threats that Australia is likely to face by the Sukhoi family aircraft. Part of the presentation showed a computer simulation which calculated that the F-35 would be consistently defeated by the Russian-made Su-35S Super Flanker-E fighter aircraft. The defeat calculated by the scenario also showed the loss of the F-35′s supporting airborne-early warning and air-to-air refuelling aircraft.
The F-35 lacks the aerodynamic performance to be employed effectively as an air defence interceptor/fighter, while its stealth performance in provably insufficient for defensive/offensive counter-air and ASuW strike operations against contemporary regional capabilities. In the most fundamental sense the argument is moot, as the F-35 is incapable of making any useful contribution to the defence of Australia’s sea-air gap.
The upcoming Russian-made T-50 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 Su-35 and T-50 made appearances last year at the Russian aerospace industry air show known as MAKS 2011. Both aircraft will include sensors and networking which can minimise the effects of the limited low-observable qualities of the F-35. They will also have higher performance, longer range (without refuelling), more powerful radars, advanced sensors, networking, data fusion capabilities and carry more air-to-air and air-to-ground weapons than an F-35.
The F-35′s fuselage is too thinned skinned. 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, SAMs and AAAs) its totally incapable, the aircraft will be an very easy target to shoot down, because it’s such a delicate aeroplane which means the aircraft has a huge F135-PW-100 turbofan engine surrounded by fuel wrapped around entirely in the engine and to the fuselage. 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”. Lockheed Martin has made an argument that they don’t need safety pre-cautions on the aircraft and they’ve drop them, in order to save weight which is a complete disaster. It will be a very vulnerable aeroplane without fire extinguishing system to put out fire when the aircraft has an engine failure for example.
Single-Engine is unsuitable for RAAF’s requirements, this makes the aircraft more vulnerable to engine failure which is totally unsuited for overwater operations 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.
In fact single engine should be ruled out of AIR-6000 F-X (Fighter Experimental) program for F/A-18A/B Hornet replacement and the RAAF can’t afford any more losses.
To send the pilots into a fight with an inferior platform deliberately purchased when a demonstrably better alternative may have been available is questionable decision making at best.
If Australia does go ahead with the purchase of the Joint Strike Fighter and or F/A-18E/F rather than the advanced F-15 or other aircraft options (high capability aircraft with two engines only), as an F/A-18A/B replacement, the RAAF will be ineffective for the next 30 to 40 years.
MotorMouth
Friday, February 17, 2012 at 8:11 AMThis comment has been reported for inappropriate content and is awaiting review.
Mepis
Wednesday, February 22, 2012 at 2:09 PMThis comment has been reported for inappropriate content and is awaiting review.
The Big Fish
Wednesday, February 22, 2012 at 9:57 PMRe the failed stealth test.
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?
Once these “errors” start being sprouted as truth is when one should question the motives and rationality.
Guest
Monday, February 27, 2012 at 11:52 AM@ MotorMouth
That’s absolute rubbish. The F-35 will never dominate the skies for decades. It will not see and destroy the Sukhois before the Sukhois can see it. The JSF doesn’t carry large payloads over long distances that put larger fighters to shame. The RAAF are just behaving like children because they getting F-35s, its pathetic. What you’re reading about the F-35 is similar the media said about the F-111.. The F-35 is 50 times worse than the F-111.
Of course the F-15 airframe is already 35 years old, it still has anything to offer on a modern battlefield, despite its age and still in production until in the 2020′s. I reckon both the F-15AU and F-22AU concepts will provide the RAAF a potent combination of flexibility and capability to suit Australia’s “long range” requirements as a perfect replacement of the 71 F/A-18A/B Hornet fleet, since the F-111′s has been retired half way through the aircraft’s service life which is in fact a very nasty mistake.
The JSF is still a wrong aircraft MotorMouth.
Guest
Monday, February 27, 2012 at 12:04 PM@ MotorMouth and @ Mepis
The F-35 is aerodynamically uncompetitive aircraft, it provides little useful capability in primary roles. The aircraft has a poor survivability due to inferior acceleration, limited range and weapons payload and unsuited for air superiority, bomber and cruise missile defence. Two or more aircraft required to match range/weapons payload of single F-111 and F-15.
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, better 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.
The Big Fish
Monday, February 27, 2012 at 12:14 PMWhy do people still talk about getting F22s. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. They have stopped production. Like it or not the F35 is the only stealth plane being built in any significant numbers (planned).
The F111 was pounded from pillar to post and maybe the F35 will go the same route and prove its worth later to the vocal minority. The planned 360 degree situational awareness is unmatched by anything including the F22.
It still may not be perfect. It may be costly but what endeavour with high reward came without high risk?
Guest
Monday, February 27, 2012 at 5:44 PM@ The Big Fish
Refusing to sell the F-22s to allies is an insult that will also harm American interests, by scrapping the production and closing American options.
Guest
Monday, February 27, 2012 at 12:15 PM@ MotorMouth and @ Mepis
Did you two ever think there was a wrong reason the US ordered reduced numbers of the F-22?
You two are forgetting one key thing. Hence the RAAF 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. Long range aircraft should be considered and needed for the requirements.
Don’t get your hopes up, you guys and even the air force, navy and marine corp personnels are set up with too high expectations about the stealth performance of the F-35 etc.
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 to counter the Su-27 Flanker family of fighters, T-50 PAK-FA and J-20 Mighty Dragon. 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 a.k.a 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.
The JSF is a biggest failed project ever.
Guest
Monday, February 27, 2012 at 12:29 PM@ The Big Fish
Yes the F-35 is the only stealth plane being built in any significant numbers (planned). But if I was doing the announcement for defence acquisitions, I will kill the F-35 (Joint Strike Failure) like it or not.
Because again the F-35, is undergoing a substantial flight test and evaluation program, which is not progressing well and not meeting test objectives. Its been stated 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 and certainly will continue with teething problems when it becomes IOC in 2018 or later.
Tom Burbage (from Lockheed Martin) is giving you an aeroplane that is extremely expensive to maintain, inferior to the Sukhoi family of fighters that the JSF has poor acceleration, poor manoeuvrability and lack of range, again the still has very limited weapons payload and 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.
Guest
Monday, February 27, 2012 at 3:06 PM@ The Big Fish, @ Mepis and @ MotorMouth
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 that is currently available now.
Why do people still talk about acquiring F-22s instead of the turkey JSFs? Is because
1) F-22A carries twice as many Air-to-Air missiles as the F-35A
2) In combat; the F-22A is flown at almost twice the altitude and twice the speed of the F-35A. This increases the range of the F-22A’s Air-to-Air missiles by almost 40 percent, increasing lethality, while it doubles the range of guided bombs like the JDAM.
3) The higher speed of the F-22A vs the F-35A allows it to control twice the area, when targets are mobile and time sensitive. In such situations, a single F-22A can do the same work as two F-35As.
4) F-22A is much more lethal than the F-35A. It is also much more survivable than the F-35A.
5) F-22A provides around three times more capability than the F-35A, yet costs only around 23% more per unit.
6) F-22 was in production, yet the planned Initial Operational Capability for the F-35A is 2013 and now its slipped to 2018 and this is at the Block 3 configuration level, with the prospect of further schedule slippages with commensurate increases in cost.
Guest
Monday, February 27, 2012 at 3:19 PM@ MotorMouth
Ask yourself. “How can the lemon F-35A carry bigger payloads over long distances that put larger fighters with high capability to shame”. Really?
1,200 nm ~ 2,200 km (Ferry Range); 600 nm ~ 1,110 km (Combat Radius)
Do you call that long range?
Re your comment MotorMouth. “The F-35A will see and destroy the Sukhois before the Sukhois can see it”
The N035 Irbis-E fire control radar for the Su-35S Super Flanker-E its been tested from the Su-30MKK “503 Blue”, this radar has a passive phased array of 35 inches (900 mm) diameter scanned mechanically to give a 120 degree field of view in azimuth. This radar can track up to 30 aerial targets while guiding missiles to 8 priority threats, in air-to-surface mode it can track up to 8 targets. Detection range in air-to-air mode was up to 218-248 miles (350-400 km) for typical fighter-type target and 56 miles (90 km) for stealthy target with an RCS of 0.11 sq.ft (0.01 sq.m) including the JSF.
In air-to-surface mode the N035 radar could select large ship with an RCS of 538,195 sq.ft (50,000 m) at 248 miles (400 km), a railway bridge with an RCS of 10,763 sq.ft (1,000 m) at 93-124 miles (150-200 km), a patrol boat with an RCS of 2,152 sq.ft (200 m) at 62-74 miles (100-120 km) and a group of tanks with an RCS of 323 sq.ft (30 m) at 37-43 miles (60-70 km).
Guest
Monday, February 27, 2012 at 3:24 PMAll you pro-JSF advocates are absolutely crazy to think and say that its a right aircraft with all the lies and misinformation that you people are conned that you folks keep on listen on the wrong side of any stories what the Governement, the RAAF and aircraft companies say to you all. I don’t trust Lockheed Martin including Tom Burbage he is a crook, con-artist and a liar.
Why should Australia or any customer do any business with them to join the most pathetic turkey (JSF) program that is behind schedule, cost overruns etc when it cannot beat Russian/Chinese fighters???
Guest
Monday, February 27, 2012 at 3:35 PM@ The Big Fish, @ Mepis and @ MotorMouth
Australia really needs to stop following the United States in everything and be impartial between nations when choosing military equipment. If I had my own way of choosing military equipment I’ll go for the “long range” tactical fighter (F-15AU concept) that can fulfill the needs and give the small nation a hefty fire power for the RAAF.
The Big Fish
Tuesday, February 28, 2012 at 8:58 AMGuest , (Or should that be Peter?) you do sprout all these posts? Should go easy on that.
“But if I was doing the announcement for defence acquisitions, I will kill the F-35 (Joint Strike Failure) like it or not” You are not , you do not have all the information and so what you state is an opinion only basedon very limited “facts”.
I don’t trust Lockheed Martin including Tom Burbage he is a crook, con-artist and a liar.
And how do we know you are not? Strong words can come back to bite.
The F15 (even the S version) so passionately pushed would be detected by the marvellous Irbis radar at a much greater range than the F35. So would it even reach a reasonable position to engage. And the F35 would detect the Su35s at some >100nm >160km? Even the vaunted PAK-FA would be easily detected.
It is reported that Pogosian told a gathering of Indian ministers of defense he was trying to sell the plane to that the RCS was 0.5 m2. http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2010/01/india-russia-close-to-agreement-on-next.html This has been reported in numerous places and Shukla is a very respected aviation journalist. The exact RCS of the Super Hornet is not known, but general estimates would put that at anywhere from half the SH’s RCS to twice the SH’s RCS. But roughly in the same range as the SH.
So while the F35 is not perfect (which plane is?) the 180 F22s is easily enough for the foreseeable future since no plane is getting close to it (or the F35) in terms of stealth. And lets not forget the Irbis is only 120Degree only because it moves but at any one time that awareness is only a 90degree arc. So unless it is looking in the right direction the first time it knows a F35 is close is when a nasty surprise up it exhaust nozzle.
Guest
Tuesday, February 28, 2012 at 6:24 PM@ The Big Fish
Well if it was up to me doing the announcement for defence acquisitions, I certainly will kill the F-35 (Joint Strike Failure) like it or not. Yes I do have all the information (for e.g. specifictions, history etc) about this aircraft. Look the aircraft does have great systems don’t get me wrong. But the airframe design of the aircraft is inferior, single engine (which is totally unsuited for overwater operations), heavy weight, poor manoeuvrability (not enough lift and drag), poor acceleration, lack of range, limited weapons payload and not powerful AESA and sensors.
My colleagues in the ADF and myself don’t trust Tom Burbage he is a crook, con-artist and a liar about the JSF has all the performance, long range etc. You know what I mean.
No, in my opinion the fleet of 180 F-22s is isn’t enough for the foreseeable future, of course its not going to happen, but I reckon USAF needs more than 180 aircraft, about 390 of them.
Wait on. So you’re actually saying that the JSF’s APG-81 AESA radar’s detection range is 100nm (160 km)? That detection tracking is not a long range, to me the nose aperture is quite small which means the JSF has a small fire control radar and less power that can’t generate and more likely can’t easily detect stealthy targets such as the PAK-FA and J-20.
Guest
Tuesday, February 28, 2012 at 6:32 PM@ The Big Fish
You remember what been said about the F-35′s fuselage is too thinned skinned. Well, 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, SAMs and AAAs) its totally incapable, the aircraft will be an very easy target to shoot down, because it’s such a delicate aeroplane which means the aircraft has a huge F135-PW-100 turbofan engine surrounded by fuel wrapped around entirely in the engine and to the fuselage. 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”. Lockheed Martin has made an argument that they don’t need safety pre-cautions on the aircraft and they’ve drop them, in order to save weight which is a complete disaster. It will be a very vulnerable aeroplane without fire extinguishing system to put out fire when the aircraft has an engine failure for example.
Guest
Tuesday, February 28, 2012 at 6:37 PM@ The Big Fish
Well if anyone sees any failure or anything happens to the JSF (with crashes in operation service) who to blame I’ll point a finger to the RAAF and the Government that gone ahead with this lemon.
Guest
Tuesday, February 28, 2012 at 7:18 PM@ The Big Fish
You know why Tom Burbage is a crook, con-artist and a liar?
Because he is giving you an aeroplane that is extremely expensive to maintain, that is totally inferior to the Sukhoi family of fighters which has again poor acceleration, poor manoeuvrability and lack of range, again the still has very limited weapons payload and 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. I’ve heard Tom’s explainations before what he claims about the JSF and I’ve heard the different story with the APA, retired fighter pilots, retired RAAF personnels, aircraft designers and other engineers about the JSF is a wrong aircraft etc. That’s why I don’t trust what Tom and other pro-JSF advocates say.
For e.g. just think about you’re going to buy a new car from the car place. And you want to know everything about the features of the vehicle etc and the guy explains to you “it’s got everything, its safe or whatever he puts that claim about the vehicle, until later you think about what the guy said to you about the car has everything and the price is affordable and you think wait a minute no it doesn’t, somethings wrong here. I mean its a similar aspect for aircraft and you got to be extremely careful what they explain. You know what I mean?
Even what Chris said about Australia bought 24 F/A-18F Super Hornets to replace the F-111 fleet which seems to have been quite a big mistake. But was that right decision? Well the same goes to the JSF which is a quite a nasty and very expensive mistake.
That’s why you need other alternatives, you can’t just sit back 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 and the extreme high costs will continue to be unaffordable to repair maintain the aircraft when it becomes IOC later. When it comes down to it you’re totally stuck. That’s exactly what I said before if it was up to me doing the announcement for defence acquisitions, I certainly will kill the F-35 (Joint Strike Failure) because its a failure and not trusted.