WT Forums

Australia Voices Concerns About Latest Setback to U.S. Stealth Fighter

"They always cost twice and deliver half as much."

Defense News says Australia has expressed concern March 14 at news that the new generation U.S. warplane that was to be a cornerstone of Australia's future air force will not have the stealth capabilities initially promised.
[-]
Nelson said he was taking "very seriously" news that the U.S. Defense Department had downgraded the stealth capability of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighters (JSF), meaning the planes would be less able to evade radar detection and enemy attack than earlier believed.
The downgrade, revealed on a Defense Department website and confirmed by Nelson on March 14, lowered the radio frequency signature of the fighter jet from "extremely low observable" to "very low observable".
The setback is only the latest in a string of problems for the $240 billion (U.S.) JSF project, which both Australia and Britain have been counting on to provide their next generation of warplanes.
[-]
Peter Goon, a former air force flight test engineer, told The Sydney Morning Herald newspaper the change in the JSF's stealth rating would mean the difference between the warplane appearing as a "marble and a beach ball" on enemy radar.
[-]
Dennis Jensen, a government Member of Parliament and former defense analyst, recently said he did not think the Joint Strike Fighter would be a match for the Russian-built Sukhoi family of strike jets that are or will be operated by air forces in Asia, including China, Indonesia, Malaysia and India.

billmillan.blogspot.com/2...atest.html

<b>There are two kinds of soldiers.
Snipers...and targets.</b>
<img src="http://www.creedmoorsports.com/images/SA9121-M21.JPG" border=0>

_________________
????

Related Article:



Dallas Morning News
March 13, 2006

Another Reason To Cut F-35 Order

Air Force chief of staff cites high international demand; funds saved could go to another plane

By Richard Whittle, The Dallas Morning News

WASHINGTON ? Demand from foreign governments for the new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is so strong that the U.S. Air Force may let them buy some of the 1,763 it is slated to get, the service's chief says.

"I predict once the F-35A gets out there, there will be a long line of people ... wanting to buy it," Gen. T. Michael "Buzz" Moseley, Air Force chief of staff, said in an interview Friday. The "A" signifies the Air Force version of the multi-service plane.

Aerospace experts have said for years that the Air Force wanted to reduce its F-35 buy. Gen. Moseley, 56, a Grand Prairie native who took over as Air Force chief of staff in September after two years as vice chief, appeared to offer a new rationale for such a move.

Foreign air forces are flying about 4,500 old F-4 Phantoms, F-16 Fighting Falcons and other U.S.-built planes that need replacing, Gen. Moseley said. Many will want the F-35.

That demand is "a tremendous opportunity for American aerospace," Gen. Moseley said. "I don't know that we will be able to build that many of them, so I think there will be a discussion over what percentage of our buy do we provide for the international market."

Lockheed Martin Corp. builds the F-35 in Fort Worth.

The plane is to make its first flight this fall. First deliveries to the U.S. armed forces are to begin in 2009, but the Marines, Navy and Air Force aren't slated to use the F-35 until 2012 or 2013.

"This is an interesting twist on an argument that the Air Force has been pursuing for some time on the need to cut its purchases of Joint Strike Fighters," said defense analyst Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute, a think tank with defense industry ties. "The Air Force has settled on a number of about 1,100."

The U.S. services plan to buy 2,593 JSFs in all, with the Navy and Marines taking 680. Eight partner nations are expected to buy 700. The price is about $45 million per F-35 for the Air Force version and $60 million for the Marine Corps and Navy versions, Lockheed spokesman John Kent said.

The Air Force has put higher priority on another Lockheed product, the F-22A Raptor ? formerly known as the F/A-22 ? whose current price is $133.1 million a plane, not counting development and future operation costs.

Letting foreign allies buy F-35s originally reserved for the Air Force could free up money for the Air Force to buy more than the planned 183 F-22As ? hundreds fewer than the service wanted. "Or it could reduce the cost on the F-35, because the F-35 is going to be our mainline, bulk fighter, just like the F-16 is," Gen. Moseley offered.

Mr. Thompson, who is in regular contact with top Pentagon officials, said the Air Force "definitely wants to have 200 more F-22s," but it also has other needs it currently can't fund.

"In 2004, the service proposed to buy 400 F-22 Raptors and about 1,200 F-35s," Mr. Thompson recalled. "They were rebuffed by Defense Secretary [Donald] Rumsfeld, who cut the F-22 program in half while insisting on a full purchase of F-35s."

Under that plan, the Air Force was to stop building F-22s in 2008. Gen. Moseley and Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne, however, recently won Mr. Rumsfeld's approval to cut the number of F-22s built annually so as to keep the Raptor production line "hot" until 2010 ? beyond the Bush administration.

Keeping the program alive until a new and perhaps more Raptor-friendly administration takes office in 2009 "was not part of the decision," Gen. Moseley said. But he added: "I don't know that 183 is the bottom line."

A stealth plane that can cruise at supersonic speeds, the Raptor is packed with electronic gear that allows it to attack numerous enemy planes simultaneously, evade the most sophisticated air defenses, bomb heavily defended targets and share intelligence with other friendly forces.

But 183 will give the Air Force only seven squadrons of 18 planes each, rather than the historic level of 10 fighter squadrons with 24 planes, Gen. Moseley noted.

"Are 18 airplanes in those squadrons going to be enough?" Gen. Moseley said. If not, "then there'll be some discussions along the way about plus-ups in those squadrons. But I think it's too early yet."




Edited by - rickusn on Mar 16 2006 3:24 PM

Math time!

“The setback is only the latest in a string of problems for the $240 billion (U.S.) JSF project, which both Australia and Britain have been counting on to provide their next generation of warplanes.”

“WASHINGTON ? Demand from foreign governments for the new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is so strong that the U.S. Air Force may let them buy some of the 1,763 it is slated to get, the service's chief says.”

“The Air Force has put higher priority on another Lockheed product, the F-22A Raptor ? formerly known as the F/A-22 ? whose current price is $133.1 million a plane, not counting development and future operation costs.”


How the math:
$240 billion divided by $133 million equals around 1,800 F-22. What is wrong with me? We need 1,763 F-35 half ass planes not 1,800 F-22 the best in the world! And I would bet a 1,800 planes buy would drop the cost down a bunch.

I have never liked this high/low mix thinking! F-16/F-15 & F-18/F-14 it would have been nice to have had 2500 + F-14! And I bet the cost would have been less over all.

I am guessing someone who lives in out back Arkansas just does not know how to spent money like they do in Washington.




Edited by - wayne2010 on Mar 16 2006 4:42 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> What is wrong with me<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Your not paying attention, that's what's wrong:
"the F/A-22 ? whose current price is $133.1 million a plane, <b>not</b> counting development and future operation costs."

1800 F-22s WOULD drop the price PER PLANE, but the program cost would skyrocket, the per plane cost of F-22 would never get as low as per plane for F-35.

2500 F-14s would have been great until the panic over the first grounding of all 2500 planes due to some technicle glitch. Never put all your eggs in one basket when it come to defence, the F-35 will come WAY too close to doing that all by itself.

A 45 has a muzzle.
A 9mm has a bullet vent.

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
I thought the F-35 was always a step down from the F-22. You can tell from the design details. They got away with many details that we couldn't.

Ninety percent of the game is half mental.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Agreed, I've never heard of the F-35 being equal to the 22 in LO.
Do you know if they are still going with that aplique decal type of finish for the F-35 instead of paint?

A 45 has a muzzle.
A 9mm has a bullet vent.

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

Thank you boomer, sorry I was in a mood because most of the time I feel that we do not get anywhere near the value for the amount of money that is spent.
Anyway I read you young guys a few times a week and this old guy is glad you are on our side. Will check in with y’all from time too time. Keep up the good work.

lol "young guys" I'm in my mid 40's dude lol

A 45 has a muzzle.
A 9mm has a bullet vent.

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

What they appear to be saying is that the F-35 has been downgraded YET ANOTHER notch below the F-22.

Ie, whatever lower than F-22 rating it had, it's even lower(or higher i guess, lol) now.

<b>There are two kinds of soldiers.
Snipers...and targets.</b>
<img src="http://www.creedmoorsports.com/images/SA9121-M21.JPG" border=0>

However Vastly Exceeds all aircraft in use today minus the Raptor.

Them Aussies, they love to hump on the US Buck.

Lets look at the Aussie Airpower. F111, and F18a (Aesa Radar)


<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
What they appear to be saying is that the F-35 has been downgraded YET ANOTHER notch below the F-22.

Ie, whatever lower than F-22 rating it had, it's even lower(or higher i guess, lol) now.

<b>There are two kinds of soldiers.
Snipers...and targets.</b>
<img src="http://www.creedmoorsports.com/images/SA9121-M21.JPG" border=0>
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

And despite claims that they will all be the same I suspect the exports will have a downgrade in certain areas.

A 45 has a muzzle.
A 9mm has a bullet vent.

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

_________________
????

Boomer, sorry 61 years here. Wish I was still in my mid 40's. To show you how far I go back we still had M1s when I was in ROTC in high school. In the old days between the three high schools in our town we must of had over a thousand M1s and close to 100 BARs at schools. We would take the schools rifles to summer camp and fire them and I can tell you the BAR was sweet.