Bharat Rakshak

Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
It is currently 27 Nov 2014 08:57

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1820 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 46  Next

JSF:Turkey or Talisman?
Poll ended at 09 Dec 2011 07:22
Should the IAF abandon the MMRCA for it? 0%  0%  [ 1 ]
Yes 2%  2%  [ 6 ]
No 49%  49%  [ 118 ]
Will it be more capable (air combat) than the FGFA? 2%  2%  [ 5 ]
Yes 7%  7%  [ 17 ]
No 39%  39%  [ 95 ]
Total votes : 242
Author Message
PostPosted: 09 Nov 2011 06:43 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 11276
Location: India
Since there is so much clamour from members fora separate thread for the JSF and to preserve the integrity of the MMRCA thread,here goes.First,doubts fron the land of US ally OZ.

http://www.ausairpower.net/Analysis-JSF-May-04-P.pdf

JSF "Death rattles".
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs. ... nt&src=rss

Xcpt:
Quote:
The sound of a JSF death rattleRobert Gottliebsen
Last update 10:15 AM, 4 Oct 2011

While all attention is on tax and falling markets, an even more important event for Australia and our region is unfolding: the trillion-dollar Joint Strike Fighter project has begun the early stages of a painful and extended death rattle. This threatens to inflict major harm on our defence partner, the United States, and the JSF is by far the largest military obligation in Australia’s history.

Even worse, we convinced our defence manufacturing industry to tool up to be major JSF contractors. As a result, a huge chunk of our defence manufacturing support capacity faces a financial disaster. Three companies have already failed. The long-term air defence planning of the US and Australia is now in tatters.

These are extreme statements which will, as always, be denied by the top brass in the Australian Defence Department. I have been warning about the dangers of the JSF for close to a decade and the defence officials, whose reputations are at risk, have always thrown cold water on my comments. Now, at last, the US marines have decided to tell the truth about the JSF in the American national interest. And the truth confirms all our worst fears.

But it is not all bad news because the US marines are also offering a solution. And better still, if Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Defence Minister Stephen Smith are courageous enough to bypass our reputation-preserving defence chiefs, and back the US marines’ solution, Australia can play a big role in overcoming the JSF problem. We would also maintain the significant US role in the air defence of our region and ensure survival for the large areas of Australia’s defence manufacturing that is hitched to the doomed JSF.

Few Australians will have heard of Major Christopher J Cannon, an operations analyst with the US Marines. Major Cannon did not tell the truth about the JSF by talking to the New York Times or Wall Street Journal. Rather he did something far more powerful – he told the truth in the Marine Corps Gazette under the heading “F-35B (JSF) needs a Plan B”. There has been silence from the US Marine chiefs. Clearly Major Cannon had their blessing and the blessings of many in the US defence hierarchy. When the truth is out it can be a great relief to those who are hiding it.

Major Cannon and the marines first describe the long JSF delays. Then he explains how the original cost estimate for JSF procurement of $US233 billion has blown out to $466 billion and is still rising.

“But procurement costs are less than half the problem,” he says. Total JSF costs are now estimated at $1,198 billion – almost three times the original estimate of $344 million. Given the looming US and global budgetary cuts, this makes the JSF impossibly expensive for both America and its partners.

Then Major Cannon and the marines explain the reluctance of the American global partners to commit to the JSF given the cost. Australia’s defence think tank, AirPower Australia, has calculated the JSF ordering disaster from US reports. Back in February 2007 (only four years ago), the US planned to produce 1,535 JSF aircraft to 2019, of which 1,077 would be taken by the US. America’s partners, including Australia, would buy the rest.

The current official figures show that US 2019 production has been cut to 622 aircraft but it is almost certain to go down to 522 – a fall of 66 per cent. These enormous falls mean most of the contracts that were given to Australian suppliers by the developer, Lockheed Martin, are useless. Lockheed will look after its American contractors first but the production numbers are now so low that they too will be hit. The JSF optimists say that after 2020 it will change but that’s unlikely because we also know that the JSF is no match for the Russian/Indian equivalent aircraft, although Major Cannon did not mention this.

What’s the answer? The US marines via Major Cannon have come up a very good solution. The US had a brilliant aircraft called the F-22 but in a self-serving lobbying exercise Lockheed Martin convinced the US Congress to stop F-22 production because Lockheed Martin make far greater profits out of the JSF.

The marines say that not only is the F-22 a better aircraft than the JSF, but measured over the life of each aircraft the F-22 will be $100 million per aircraft cheaper than the JSF.

This is where Australia comes in. When President Obama comes to Australia we should ask him if we can switch to the cheaper and better F22. But we should also offer to help with upgrades of the F-22.

Australia, the US and other countries have developed some magnificent systems innovation for the JSF which can inexpensively be converted for use in the F-22, which will make it an even better aircraft.

Australia should commit to the F-22 which will help President Obama back the marines against his defence hierarchy and manage the US switch to the F-22 in a way that incorporates the best of the JSF into the F-22. That way ‘face’ can be saved.

We need the US to be a strong air power in our region and with the upgraded F-22, it will retain its current power with an aircraft that is far cheaper to buy and operate than the JSF. And we will retain a defence component industry.

The worst thing that could happen for Australia is for the JSF project to go through its death rattle and die. We need to help the US merge it with a restored F-22. Julia Gillard and Stephen Smith can not only help our nation but also the western world.
in



IS THE JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER
RIGHT FOR AUSTRALIA?
PART 2 – JSF V RISK FACTORS

Quote:
The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is one of the most
technologically ambitious aircraft development programs
ever seen, in many respects more ambitious
than the TFX program which realised the F-111.
This ambition offers the promise of a battlefield interdiction
and close air support optimised fighter with
survivability and lethality well beyond that of the F-16C,
A-10A, F/A-18A-D, AV-8B and UK Harriers it is designed
to replace. The flipside of this payoff is that a considerable
number of risk factors come into play, potentially affecting
costs, timelines and the ultimate capabilities of the
production JSF.


Oh dear! I forgot to post this AWST report (they must be liars!) about the US losing JSF orders from Oz.Issue,Aug 29-Sep 5,2011.

"F-35 delays are increasingly likely to deprive Lockheed martin of some Australian orders".

AWST also says in the same report that the poor Israeli's ,pledged by LM to deliver the JSF to them (first exports) "early", have also been told that their " first squadron will not be completed until 2019".It also says that the IAF want their pilots to be trained from as early as 2015,but "it is unclear whether there will be USAF F-35s available that early"! Tch,tch!


Last edited by Philip on 09 Nov 2011 07:48, edited 4 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Nov 2011 06:49 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Jul 2011 16:05
Posts: 246
Location: On the sofa.
Thanks for creating a new thread. I hope JSF proponents can stick to this thread instead of ruining the MMRCA one.

----


IMO... its a Turkey for our current needs.


Last edited by Nick_S on 09 Nov 2011 06:50, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Nov 2011 06:50 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 23573
Location: Confucius say: bell ring as many times as you strike it, else it not ring
Turkey.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Nov 2011 06:58 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 11276
Location: India
Shiv,can you please create one of your famous polls on the bird?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Nov 2011 07:12 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 23573
Location: Confucius say: bell ring as many times as you strike it, else it not ring
Philip wrote:
Shiv,can you please create one of your famous polls on the bird?


Philip - I had started a JSF Turkey/Talisman thread about 3 months ago. It was locked. Yesterday another one was locked.

Having said that - you can actually edit your first post and make a poll if you want out of this thread but not sure if it will survive adminullah's scythe. But the clamor for such a thread seems to be increasing. Let the mob rule! :D


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Nov 2011 07:25 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 11276
Location: India
Mob rules OK!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Nov 2011 07:33 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 23573
Location: Confucius say: bell ring as many times as you strike it, else it not ring
You know Philip - your wording of the question "more capable" makes me want to take off on one of my rhetorical point making sprees.

Once upon a time Mig 21, a JSF and Eurofighter took off through a flock of birds. Which one made it back to base?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Nov 2011 07:50 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 11276
Location: India
Shiv,were they all flying in a straight line,or one behind the other?

Revised.I feel that the air combat capability is paramount.With PGMs,one can send in a homing pigeon if need be!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Nov 2011 07:56 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 04 Jun 2006 23:37
Posts: 153
Location: Frozen Tundra
Shivji, IMHO Eurofighter has a greater probability to making back home, as it is twin engined. The catastrophic effect of engine "swallow" of a bird in a single engined aircraft would be why F solahs, Mig 21s & JSF Lightening would less likely survive a flock of birds.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Nov 2011 08:23 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 23573
Location: Confucius say: bell ring as many times as you strike it, else it not ring
atma wrote:
Shivji, IMHO Eurofighter has a greater probability to making back home, as it is twin engined. The catastrophic effect of engine "swallow" of a bird in a single engined aircraft would be why F solahs, Mig 21s & JSF Lightening would less likely survive a flock of birds.


How dare you! Are you saying JSF==MiG 21 you <deleted>! :rotfl:

As an aside - this is why loaded rhetorical questions are asked


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Nov 2011 08:25 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 23573
Location: Confucius say: bell ring as many times as you strike it, else it not ring
Philip wrote:
Shiv,were they all flying in a straight line,or one behind the other?

Revised.I feel that the air combat capability is paramount.With PGMs,one can send in a homing pigeon if need be!


LOL! You got me there.

At Aero India the EF was touted as the only aircraft to have beaten the F-22 in air combat. But I digress. This is about JSF innit?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Nov 2011 09:12 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 04 Jun 2006 23:37
Posts: 153
Location: Frozen Tundra
:lol:
shiv wrote:
atma wrote:
Shivji, IMHO Eurofighter has a greater probability to making back home, as it is twin engined. The catastrophic effect of engine "swallow" of a bird in a single engined aircraft would be why F solahs, Mig 21s & JSF Lightening would less likely survive a flock of birds.


How dare you! Are you saying JSF==MiG 21 you <deleted>! :rotfl:

As an aside - this is why loaded rhetorical questions are asked


JSF== MiG 21== F solah onlee, when it comes to bird strike, no? :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Nov 2011 09:45 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 03 Nov 2011 21:43
Posts: 535
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 662198.cms

Bush era warmth over? US seen drifting from India

Obama ignores Singh in G-20 Summit. shell-shocked by MMRCA rejection...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Nov 2011 10:16 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13
Posts: 5966
Voted no on both counts. While it is tempting to go for the F 35 by cancelling the MMRCA. IT would be a mistake to do so. Also by accepting the F35 at the moment, we will be forced to abandon, the domestic project. The funds and the prirority for the domestic project be increased.

I am of the opinion that the MMRCA should be the last foreign purchase for the IAF. T50 and its future derivatives IMO are a result of joint development with the Russies so we can accept it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Nov 2011 10:45 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 22 Jan 2011 08:04
Posts: 41
What are you guys saying???
Birds don't crash the JSF... the JSF crashes birds! LOL.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Nov 2011 11:06 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Posts: 33770
Location: Col of the regiment, ORR JTF unit
360 EO DAS will detect and laser-zap any birds before they can get close. it will exchange data on the fly from audobon database using milstar-satcom and tune the laser energy per type of bird to not permanently hurt even a sparrow, just scare it off with a slap on the wrist. the $600,000 special module for this from L3 comms is a optional extra and comes with CISMOA given the classified techs involved. pilot can watch it all on HDTV quality MFDs as he relaxes in the massaging seat, sips a gatorade and programs his guided weapons for release....the automatic defence systems will take care of any threats high or low.

JSF need not change course vs a flock of canadian geese at all. "manouverability is not relevant anymore" :twisted:

and if you think otherwise you are obviously a euro-frog or worse a sukhoi fanboy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Nov 2011 11:44 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 11276
Location: India
To play devil's advocate here,the Oz study had this remarkable fact,that the JSF is no better than the F-16 in air combat ,actually designed for those parameters only,and would be trounced by a humble MIG-29OVT,Gripem too,fighters with TVC or canards for that quick-fix capability in the air.Why so? Because it is supposed to have a sensor-cum-cuing system,with situational awareness where the pilot need not manoeuvre at all,firing off the shoulder missiles,towards the rear missiles! How this is going to work out in reality is the big Q.Tis is what is worrying some analysts and wouldn be buyers,as with underwing stores-only 4 AAMs in internal bays,the stealth advantage goes out of the cockpit.

Shiv's humourous point about the bird strike survivors is actually very important.Virtually every IAF senior officer/pilot one has spoken too about the MMRCA has plumped for a twin-engined fighter being a better acquisition from th survival point of view,as our air bases have been almost swallowed up by certain cities which have expanded right upto the base and the presence of abattoirs and garbage dumps stupidly allowed to exist close to bases or maintained poorly by local bodies.Those who possess the excellent SU-30 in IAF service book,will not forgte a picture of a Flanker with one of its engine's TVC nozzle askew-shut down because of engine failure.Had the aircrat been single engined,it would've been lost.

I recommend a serious look at the OZ airpower studies link with respect to the JSF,.There are some good bits about the capabilities of our two contenders for the MMRCA too.Oops! I shouldn't be talking about them on this thread.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Nov 2011 14:08 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31
Posts: 1170
Philip wrote:
To play devil's advocate here,the Oz study had this remarkable fact


It is funny how you try to give Kopp more credibility than he deserves by equating him with the whole country of Australia.

Please don't tarnish the reputation of Australia by trying to collectively pin them with responsibility for that shoddy 'study' :rotfl:

The real professionals in the Australian armed forces give his ramblings exactly the attention they deserve: none


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Nov 2011 14:15 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Posts: 1517
Location: GSLV++
As if Australia has any choice but to dance to the US tune. Australia needs big brother's umbrella of security and that means following the US into wars with toilet paper quality dossiers on weapons of mass destruction and funding the JSF.

The RAAF will take whatever they're given without complaint. They won't get the F-22 so they must live with the JSF. None of this proves Kopp wrong.


Last edited by PratikDas on 09 Nov 2011 14:29, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Nov 2011 14:21 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 11276
Location: India
"The real professionals..",mmmm,like the foll. gent?

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/ret ... ted-02681/

The Australian Debate: Abandon F-35, Buy F-22s?

Quote:
”[Recently] Retired RAAF air vice-marshal Peter Criss has put aside usual conventions to openly question the wisdom of Canberra spending about $16 billion for the F-35 Lightning, also known as the Joint Strike Fighter. The Government committed an initial $300 million to become an early partner in the JSF program, with a final decision to be made by 2008. But Mr Criss says the RAAF should, in fact, consider buying the F-22 Raptor…”


..and I suppose that thes other worthies are just expelling hot air like you from their nether ends!

Quote:
Robert McClelland MP, the opposition Shadow Minister for Defence and the Federal Member for Barton, New South Wales, has advocated an initial buy of F-22s instead of the initial F-35 tier for some time now – most notably in his address to the ANU Strategic & Defence Studies Centre on April 6/06 [PDF format]. He contends that this 2012 buy would fill the gap left by the F-111s, maintain Australia’s regional air superiority over local SU-27/30 Flanker variants, and allow Australia to reduce both cost per aircraft and risk by buying later (and hence cheaper and more proven) production examples of the F-35 Lightning II. His most recent public statement, “Minding the gap – the Joint Strike Fighter and Australia’s air capability,” lays out his criticism of the current approach:

”...it was Hughes in 1925 who said:

“The aeroplane comes to us in Australia as a gift from the gods, for it places in our hands and within our resources an agency so exactly suited to our circumstances that we might well regard it as designed for our special benefit and protection.”

And he was right…. Our neighbours are buying ever more advanced aircraft – this was no doubt one of the reasons the Howard Government signed up for the JSF project in 2003.

What the Howard Government failed to do – at the time or since – is have a plan B whereby an alternative aircraft would be available if the JSF was delayed. Singapore, involved in the same JSF project, has a plan B.

In fact so great is the Howard Government’s faith in the JSF that the usual tendering processes for very large projects were thrown out the window. The JSF was taken on faith without having taken to the air.

There is another aircraft available, the F/A-22 Raptor. It costs more than the JSF on current indications although that price gap appears to be closing [DID: for early production F-35s, est. about $100-120 million vs. about $140 million for additional F-22As]. But this aircraft is a proven performer and its strike capability is being enhanced.

The worry is that the Howard Government and a goodly proportion of the defence establishment refuse to look seriously at the Raptor, and keep staring intently, perhaps wishfully, at the JSF. There is still no plan B to maintain our air superiority until delivery of the JSF.

Also there is simply no way the JSF will be introduced for service in Australia in 2012 – final testing is programmed to continue to 2013. Some pundits are betting this country will not receive its allocation of JSFs until 2020!

So with the F-111s to be rolled out of their hangars for the last time in 2010, Australia will face a big capability gap, the duration of which no one can be sure.

.... Australia’s regional standing and influence has a direct relationship to our air combat capability….”

Other Australian Labor Party figures have tended to echo these sentiments.

The debate in Australia promises to become more and more interesting, not least given the existing US prohibitions on export of the F-22 Raptor. But what happens if two key US allies, Australia and a suddenly more prominent Japan, are both asking and both very serious?


But then George,you are the expert on the JSF,better than Oz,Japan,etc. who dare to question the wisdom of buyng your much-touted turkey!

PS:Good piece about the "smokescreen" of the JSF touting.

http://defense-update.com/20111104_1446 ... +Update%29

US F-35 Pitch to India – a Smoke Screen or a Step Toward True Cooperation?

conclusion:
Quote:
The F-35, bound by complex subcontracting sourcing, with U.S. limiting user access to core functions, will hardly suffice for India’s aspiration for mastering it as indigenous technology

If Washington is really serious about moving forward in cooperative development with India, its goal should be partnering and joining the Advanced medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA), a single seat stealthy jet to replace the Jaguar and MiG-27s by the turn of the next decade


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Nov 2011 14:45 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Posts: 1517
Location: GSLV++
Australia's military reputation has its fair share of jokes, many of which have to do with Collins class submarines. No stranger to turkeys or lemons this country.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Nov 2011 15:34 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31
Posts: 1170
PratikDas wrote:
As if Australia has any choice but to dance to the US tune. Australia needs big brother's umbrella of security and that means following the US into wars with toilet paper quality dossiers on weapons of mass destruction and funding the JSF.


Maybe you should stop insulting both Australia and the US.

And you really think the US would refuse to help Australia just because they bought fighters somewhere else :roll:

(FYI: Australia bought tankers from EADS instead of Boeing and frigates from Spain instead of the US, they are not shy about buying what they feel best meets their needs)


Last edited by GeorgeWelch on 09 Nov 2011 15:46, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Nov 2011 15:42 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 12 Jun 2009 09:31
Posts: 1170
Philip wrote:
"The real professionals..",mmmm,like the foll. gent?


So they might prefer the F-22 to the F-35. Does that surprise you?

Notice what they are NOT saying: That Australia should ditch the F-35 for the Sukhoi, EF, Rafale, Gripen, etc.

Quote:
He contends that this 2012 buy would fill the gap left by the F-111s, maintain Australia’s regional air superiority over local SU-27/30 Flanker variants, and allow Australia to reduce both cost per aircraft and risk by buying later (and hence cheaper and more proven) production examples of the F-35 Lightning II.


So he wants to buy the F-22 as a gap-filler till the F-35! You're not helping your case . . .

Quote:
“The aeroplane comes to us in Australia as a gift from the gods, for it places in our hands and within our resources an agency so exactly suited to our circumstances that we might well regard it as designed for our special benefit and protection.”


Thank you for posting the REAL Australian position on the F-35.

Quote:
Also there is simply no way the JSF will be introduced for service in Australia in 2012 – final testing is programmed to continue to 2013. Some pundits are betting this country will not receive its allocation of JSFs until 2020!


So the Australian complaint about the F-35 is not capability like Kopp is saying, it's scheduling.

In fact they're dying to get their hands on them. Sounds like they believe in the F-35's capability.

(I'm frankly astonished you quoted this article as it so severely undermines your position)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Nov 2011 16:02 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 31 Aug 2011 10:39
Posts: 1256
GeorgeWelch wrote:

So they might prefer the F-22 to the F-35. Does that surprise you?

Notice what they are NOT saying: That Australia should ditch the F-35 for the Sukhoi, EF, Rafale, Gripen, etc.


They know that there is no choice apart from buying American planes. The only plane American plane better than F-35 is F-22. They can't buy Sukhois or Migs. There is only so much freedom allowed by the USA.

Quote:

So he wants to buy the F-22 as a gap-filler till the F-35! You're not helping your case . . .


F-22 as a gap-filler :roll:

Quote:
So the Australian complaint about the F-35 is not capability like Kopp is saying, it's scheduling.


That's a start. Soon you will be able to see the other problems.

Quote:
In fact they're dying to get their hands on them. Sounds like they believe in the F-35's capability.


You succeeded in making a fool of yourself.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Nov 2011 18:04 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 11276
Location: India
Nakul,GW seems to have a serious memory lapse.He can't seem to remember details posted by other members at all.The JSF was originally designed to match only F-16 air combat capability,relying upon stealth characteristics for the added advantage.Here,studies have shown that even less modern 4+ aircraft like the Gripen,MIG-29OVT,TVC and canard equipped aircraft would better it in air combat.As for OZ dying to get its hands on the JSF? Not at all from the posts I've been making!

Here's excerpts once again from the the Rand study.Thje last sentence summing it up beautifully!

Quote:
The RAND study also spends a great deal of time on the core American assumptions concerning “beyond visual range” air to air combat, and the current and future capabilities of SU-30 family aircraft. The implications of its examination do affect the F-35’s fighting qualities – and they will be significant to some of the plane’s potential customers.

RAND’s discussion begins by predicting poorer beyond visual range missile kill performance than current models suggest when facing capable enemy aircraft, by noting that BVR missile performance since the 1990s has largely involved poorly-equipped targets. It also notes the steep rise and then drop in modern infrared missile performance, as countermeasures improved. Meanwhile, AESA radar advances already deployed in the most advanced Russian surface-air missiles, and existing IRST (infra-red scan and track) systems deployed on advanced Russian and European fighters are extending enemy detection ranges against even ultra-stealthy aircraft. Fighter radar pick-up capability of up to 25 nautical miles by 2020 is proposed against even ultra-stealthy aircraft like the F-22, coupled with IRST ability to identify AMRAAM missile firings and less infrared-stealthy aircraft at 50 nautical miles or more.

The F-35’s lower infrared and radar stealth mean that these advances will affect it more than the F-22. Especially if one assumes a fighter aircraft whose prime in-service period stretches from 2020 -2050.

The clear implication of the RAND study is that the F-35 is very likely to wind up facing many more “up close and personal” opponents than its proponents suggest, while dealing with beyond-visual-range infrared-guided missiles as an added complication. Unlike the F-22, the F-35 is described as “double inferior” to modern SU-30 family fighters within visual range combat; thrust and wing loading issues are noted, all summed up in one RAND background slide as “can’t [out]turn, can’t [out]climb, can’t [out]run.”



Therefore,why do we need a JSF at all when our SU-30MKIs (forget the FGFAs) ,especially the upgraded Super Flankers to come with 200KM AAMs,in internal weapons bays that can carry double the number of AAMs internally than the JSF,with all-aspect AESA radars/sensors giving 360 deg. coverage can do the business?


Last edited by Philip on 09 Nov 2011 18:21, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Nov 2011 18:15 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 09 Jul 2009 22:06
Posts: 1092
Location: Land of the free
GeorgeWelch wrote:
Pogula wrote:
2. USG will waive all monitoring/communication conditions that IAF/MoD/GoI already declined to agree to.


Apparently they reached enough of an agreement to consider the F-16 and SH. The bigger point is that you don't have anything to worry about it. If there are conditions the IAF can't agree to, they won't buy it and problem solved from your perspective.

However to not even CONSIDER it because of what the conditions MIGHT be would be very foolish indeed.

Apparently, F-16 and SH are out today and monitoring/communication conditions did not make any cut as you state.
Expecting that they would have is being excessively optimistic as those conditions specifically resulted in removing the communications and other Nav equipment from the C-130J and P8(?) purchases.
It was and truely is a risky option to entertain these for an asset as crucial and strategic as MMRCA.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Nov 2011 18:20 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 09 Jul 2009 22:06
Posts: 1092
Location: Land of the free
Philip wrote:
Nakul,GW seems to have a serious memory lapse.He can't seem to remember details posted by other members at all.The JSF was originally designed to match only F-16 air combat capability,relying upon stealth characteristics for the added advantage.Here,studies have shown that even less modern 4+ aircraft li............

Saab, F-16 with what radar?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Nov 2011 18:29 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 11276
Location: India
Koti,the capabilities appear to refer to the aerodynamic peformance of an F-16 in WVR combat,no canards or TVC,making its peformance inferior to 4+ and 4++ aircraft like the Gripen,MKIs.MIG-29 OVT/35,etc.,what the report says,quote again:

"double inferior” to modern SU-30 family fighters within visual range combat; thrust and wing loading issues are noted, all summed up in one RAND background slide as “can’t [out]turn, can’t [out]climb, can’t [out]run.”

As for BVR,the details above in earlier posts give you their findings.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Nov 2011 18:29 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 09 Jul 2009 22:06
Posts: 1092
Location: Land of the free
GeorgeWelch wrote:
Philip wrote:
"The real professionals..",mmmm,like the foll. gent?


So they might prefer the F-22 to the F-35. Does that surprise you?

Notice what they are NOT saying: That Australia should ditch the F-35 for the Sukhoi, EF, Rafale, Gripen, etc.



The problem here is that: If you buy Russian goods, he may be lazy to deliver them, buy the French ones and he will charge you extra for polish and delivery, now to buy the Unkhil's goods, you should also live by him holding your balls.

Just expect the reaction of US when oz calls(say) for a competition b/w JSF and T-50.
Heck, JSF and Su-35.

JSF may be a good plane. But making it a (sole for a time) strategic asset will be a strategic mistake.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Nov 2011 18:46 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Posts: 1517
Location: GSLV++
GeorgeWelch wrote:
PratikDas wrote:
As if Australia has any choice but to dance to the US tune. Australia needs big brother's umbrella of security and that means following the US into wars with toilet paper quality dossiers on weapons of mass destruction and funding the JSF.


Maybe you should stop insulting both Australia and the US.

And you really think the US would refuse to help Australia just because they bought fighters somewhere else :roll:

(FYI: Australia bought tankers from EADS instead of Boeing and frigates from Spain instead of the US, they are not shy about buying what they feel best meets their needs)

Whatever. Even the US chose the European tanker before the deal was scuttled to surprise surprise find the Boeing tanker in favour again. If you make a shit product, it stinks, sorry.

U.S. Flap on the Aerial Tanker Could Be Self-Defeating

Quote:
“We in [Britain] are supporting you on your Joint Strike Fighter. Why are you not supporting us on the tanker?” This simple question, posed by Prince Andrew – the Duke of York and a man deeply involved in British industrial exports – to the representative of a major U.S. defense contractor at the 2008 Farnborough International Air Show last July in Britain, bares the frustration many Europeans in the defense industry have felt as of late. In other words, if the United States wants expanding international cooperation on warplanes in order to field stronger, more affordable modern Western air forces, is it helpful for Europe to see so many chauvinistic-sounding complaints in the U.S., especially in Congress, about the choice of a new in-flight refueling tanker for the U.S. Air Force? After a major competition for that important, long-running contract, the Pentagon chose a plane to be built by an international team involving Northrop Grumman-EADS, the European consortium that owns Airbus. The losing design came from Boeing, the U.S. aerospace giant that traditionally has been the sole supplier of in-flight refueling aircraft to the U.S. Air Force.

An outcry of protest erupted, particularly in some Congressional quarters. Political stakes became clear this fall when Secretary of Defense Gates suspended the competition for the Air Force tanker contract – in effect handing the decision over to the next administration. The process is being watched closely in Europe, and its outcome may have repercussions on the long-term outlook for transatlantic industrial defense cooperation within NATO. What should Europeans – and interested American taxpayers, too – be looking for in trying to decide what lies at the heart of the controversy and what it may portend about future trends in military aerospace?Any review of the question has to start with the fact that the U.S. Air Force chose the Northrop Grumman-EADS tanker built on an Airbus A330 airframe because it wanted it.
:roll:

I "really" think the Australians had no choice but to buy the JSF and you "really" can't find an alternative but for a Russian product.


Last edited by PratikDas on 09 Nov 2011 19:46, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Nov 2011 19:07 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 11276
Location: India
Koti,the issue with the JSF is somewhat similar to that of the LCA in that it hasn't arrived as yet,why the IAF is going in for the MMRCA.US allies are also looking at alternatives for the delayed JSF.A few points:

1.Inordinate delays : The JSF will arrive officially for first customer Israel only in 2019.

2.Cost: Supposedly cheaper than the F-22 ,initially ten years ago estimated at about $60m has now climbed past $125m according to some sources and the actual cost is yet to be determined as the development stage is incomplete.

3.Declining orders adding to cost: STOVL B version abandoned by Britain as too expensive and too late.Oz considering other options,more F-18SHs ,F-22s ,etc.So too are Japan and SoKo.As allies desert or reduce orders,the cost keeps on increasing.My earlier posts showed the astronomical costs of development thus far and the intense opposition for developing an alternative engine.

4.Inferior JSFs for partners: Britain especially is p*ssed off as the US refuses to share all developmental secrets and full TOT with it.Without this say Oz,where partners will get "export" quality aircraft only with differing stealth charcteristics,the full potential of the aircraft cannot be exploited.

5.Combat capabilities in question: Shown in above details.When faced with superior numbers of 4+ gen aircraft,like vanilla PLAAF Flankers,its lack of enough AAMs will affect its chances of survival.

These issues are making US allies in the line for JSFs to strt reviewing their orderbooks,reducing numbers on order,and also looking for interim 4++ gen. options and the F-22.Oz worries :

http://portal.eqentia.com/ad/permalink/ ... -programme

...and this:

"The Pentagon's Priciest Plane Can't Fly"
Adam Clark Estes Aug 4, 2011

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics ... fly/40834/

Quote:
Fighter jets have always been an expensive line item for the Pentagon, but the cost of the new F-35 fleet sets a startling precedent. As Dominic Tierney explains at The Atlantic, the cost of building and operating the 2,443 planes the military is planning to buy tops out at over $1 trillion: "In other words, we're spending more on this plane than Australia's entire GDP ($924 billion)." You would think for all that money, they would at least fly (as well as maybe do your laundry and give you some tax advice.) But for the moment, the entire fleet is grounded.

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reports, "the power system that starts and cools the aircraft failed during an engine ground test," and until engineers can figure out why, the pricey planes are simply expensive lawn ornaments. This is the third time that this has happened in less than a year--an electrical problem afflicted the fleet in March and software problems grounded the fleet last October. Responding to this latest development, The Atlantic's Joshua Foust points out that while these problems were cropping up, the Pentagon was scrambling to find a way to cut costs and distracted by a plan to design a second, cheaper engine for the jet.

The latest mechanical failure might prove helpful to those who would like to see more scrutiny directed at the fate of the fleet. (At least, the F-35 pilots don't have anti-freeze in their blood.) The Pentagon is scrambling to figure out how they'll deal with the possible $500 billion in budget cuts as outlined by the new debt deal. According to a Bloomberg report out Thursday, the gnarly new fleet of F-35 Joint Strike Fighters on order from Lockheed Martin "has been in the crosshairs" for a while. And it's not too difficult to see why. The fleet will be the most expensive weapons program in Pentagon history.

Sources
Problem with power system grounds all F-35s, Bob Cox, Fort Worth Star-Telegram
The F-35: A Weapon That Costs More Than Australia, Dominic Tierney, The Atlantic
Competition for Military Contracts Doesn't Lower Costs, Joshua Foust, The Atlantic


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Nov 2011 19:19 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 17 Aug 2009 23:10
Posts: 18
Location: Behind you
A way of looking at this F35 debacle was to look at this as a pre-cooked turkey it comes in funky packaging with added trimmings but on the ingredients list u find what's truly in there. The added taste enhancers ,additives etc. Which as a common consensus are not beneficial to a healthy living. :)

Also correct me if I am wrong but isnt one of the major points of having this MMRCA induction to increase our in-house tech baseline. The addition of 2 more potential international standard assembly lines and the merging of various offset tech for future projects is in my mind the main incentive to stay on course for this deal. Adding an F35 into the mix will make us completely reliant on US whims, where India is still looked on by most as a third world country (except the learned Liberals i.e. :p ).

When a stalwart ally like the United Kingdom is bullied around on the system and not allowed any sensitive data on the aircraft, one can imagine the aircraft parked in a hangar here in India surrounded by american tech's for every little repair and overhaul making commercial sense as LM gets a massive maintenance contract most probably going into the billions over a few years.

I say lets absorb this new continental and French cuisine, use it to enhance our own LCA Mk2/3 and AMCA systems who knows add something to the FGFA. This way it can be seen to benefit our industry as a whole other than some lobbyist senators and industrialists in the states.

Just my 2 paisa :)

MS


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Nov 2011 19:26 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Posts: 1517
Location: GSLV++
When a man is drowning, he'll grab on to anyone nearby. His grip can be so firm that the person nearby is unable to swim. They can both drown. That's the JSF project in a nutshell.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Nov 2011 19:28 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 11276
Location: India
Well put Pratik! From "Drowning Man to Mad Hatter!

More on the Turkey,the "weapon that costs more than Australia"!

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/arc ... lia/72454/

Quote:
The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II is an impressive aircraft: a fifth generation multirole fighter plane with stealth technology. It's also a symbol of everything that's wrong with defense spending in America.

In a rational world, U.S. military expenditure would focus on the likely threats that the United States faces today and in the future. And at a time of mounting national debt, the Tea Party would be knocking down the Pentagon's door to cut waste.

But the only tea party in sight is the one overseen by the Mad Hatter, as we head down the rabbit hole into the military industrial wonderland....


Quote:
Washington intends to buy 2,443, at a price tag of $382 billion.

Add in the $650 billion that the Government Accountability Office estimates is needed to operate and maintain the aircraft, and the total cost reaches a staggering $1 trillion.

In other words, we're spending more on this plane than Australia's entire GDP ($924 billion).

The F-35 is the most expensive defense program in history, and reveals massive cost overruns, a lack of clear strategic thought, and a culture in Washington that encourages incredible waste.

Money is pouring into the F-35 vortex. In 2010, Pentagon officials found that the cost of each plane had soared by over 50 percent above the original projections. The program has fallen years behind schedule, causing billions of dollars of additional expense, and won't be ready until 2016. An internal Pentagon report concluded that: "affordability is no longer embraced as a core pillar."

In January 2011, even Defense Secretary Robert Gates, a champion of the aircraft, voiced his frustration: "The culture of endless money that has taken hold must be replaced by a culture of restraint."

....The 2010 bipartisan Bowles-Simpson Commission on deficit reduction suggested canceling the Marine Corps's version of the F-35, and halving the number of F-35s for the Air Force and Navy--replacing them with current generation F-16s, which cost one-third as much. This would save close to $30 billion from 2011 to 2015.

The plan went nowhere.

We used to be content to outspend Australia on aircraft. Now we literally spend Australia on aircraft.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Nov 2011 19:59 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 16 May 2011 07:03
Posts: 132
Quote:
X-posted from the Turkey thread.


Someone said that this was the place to discuss
the Turkish Air Force?
It better be, I voted for them. :D
Sorry for that but I just can't stand those
Talisman beardies, really! :roll:


Oops, I did it again!

Good day all, Tay.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Nov 2011 22:41 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 01 May 2006 22:56
Posts: 634
Location: Some where near Equator...
F-35: Should India Really Ride The Lightning?

Very Nice Article and sum up of analysis done on F-35; pasting some pat of it; read full analysis on above link

Quote:
Even if it is advertised as a “multirole” aircraft, its capability on the aerial warfare front is still seriously suspect. At present the best it can do is carry four air-to-air missiles internally, less than half the capability of either the Typhoon or Rafale. It cannot operate without air cover as it does not possess a swing-role capability.

The aircraft features thrust-to-weight ratio and wing loading figures poorer than those of any contemporary fighter. One wonders how well it would perform in the key strike role in the thin air over the Himalayas and the Tibetan plateau – the likely setting of any future India-China conflict.

The lack of a two-seat F-35 means that not only will the IAF not get what it wants for deep penetration strike roles, but it means that any pilot training will have to be done on expensive simulators only.

Another problem is the complexity of the design itself and the fact that many of its technologies are radically new and untried. The USAF is learning the hard way that the F-22’s radar absorbing skin (which the F-35 also uses) is highly vulnerable to rain and dust, and very expensive and difficult to maintain. Advertised as having the computing power of two Cray supercomputers, it is so complex that it can only fly for an average of 1.7 hours before suffering a critical failure.

If that wasn't bad enough, it gets worse once we start talking about timelines and costs. As of today, the F-35 (without development costs included) is priced at the same level as the Eurofighter and the Rafale. But while the latter two are combat proven and available today (in a fashion), the Lightning II won't be for a decade.

Detractors may argue that the AMCA is nowhere close to completion, and may be delayed by years just like the Tejas has been. That may well be the case, but if the AMCA does suffer inordinate delays, India can always place a future order for an F-35 with many of its niggles hopefully sorted out. There is little reason to make that call now, when the AMCA is still a design on paper.

[u]Having said all that, one can imagine a few scenarios in which the F-35, even with all its problems, would serve a useful purpose in the IAF. For years, the IAF maintained a handful of high-maintenance MiG-25R Foxbats for a niche profile: reconnaissance of enemy territory, out of reach of interceptors or SAMs. Likewise, the IAF could consider one or two squadrons of the Lightning II, for the simple purpose of “kicking the door down” in the first few days of the war, taking out vital air defence nodes, logistics nodes, or AEW&C and tanker aircraft before handing over the heavy lifting to other aircraft that can announce their presence[/u].

This is not to suggest that the F-35 Lightning II is a turkey, or that the US military is making a humongous blunder in buying it. But in the Indian context, we see little rationale behind spending large sums of money today on something that will only arrive a decade from now at the very best, be a difficult fit in our existing doctrine as well as punch a hole in our finances. If Lightning should strike our enemies, we would rather it not have our tricoloured roundels on it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 09 Nov 2011 23:32 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 26351
Location: NowHere
The only thing that interests us in JSF is the VTOL version for ADS. All we need is GE/P&W partnership. Rest is all filled with CISMOA and Enduser issues for the beginning.

sensor package, advanced radars, passive tracking, stealth skins are other interesting aspects that we are yet to advance.. and I don't think it is as hindering as the turbine technology precision engineering issues.

So, focus on the core engines and capabilities for AMCA and fgfa needs. Unless pakis get JSF, we can roll with fgfa soon.

focus on the core!.. I bet we can produce a raptoram in about $80M-100M per puppy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Nov 2011 00:07 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Posts: 2030
Location: Trivandrum
This thread is topical. Like a tube of B-Tex lotion. We should think from birds' side too. We should never under estimate them. They are atleast a million years ahead of any Indian, as they can fly while we are still flapping around after 1000s of years. Our govts are shortsighted and did not do anything when Russians stopped flying in the 90s.

Anyways, the birds will have a better death with JSF because they wont know the Liteninkuh-eretta is going to vaccum-n-fingerlick them up. Even if they see the plane approach the birds can do nothing with its current level of evolution. Whereas with the other planes, they have a better chance at squawking in agony and frighten them away.

As for JSF, I dont think the plane is designed to be any less maneuverable than the Shakeela-ish shape the recent blocks of F16 took on. If it reaches the coldwar era specs of easy serviceability (engine swaps under few minutes etc) at the frontiers, then it will not be a bad plane. But "wipe your shoes before standing on wings" sort of things point otherwise too. Too early.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Nov 2011 00:29 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Posts: 12530
Location: In a sad place
hnair wrote:
This thread is topical. Like a tube of B-Tex lotion. ...........


:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

:lol: :lol: :lol:

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

:mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 10 Nov 2011 04:25 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 22 Jan 2011 08:04
Posts: 41
hnair wrote:
As for JSF, I dont think the plane is designed to be any less maneuverable than the Shakeela-ish shape the recent blocks of F16 took on.


You made me spill my coffee Nair ji :rotfl:


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1820 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 46  Next

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Austin, Google Feedfetcher, Yagnasri and 17 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group