JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 22 Dec 2011 10:05

^^My reply is OT for this thread It is here
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 8#p1214988

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 22 Dec 2011 10:12

mine too

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 5#p1214995

gakakkad · Post by **gakakkad** » 22 Dec 2011 17:27

mine too . at the same dhaga . the other newbie may take a look too.

Katare · Post by **Katare** » 24 Dec 2011 05:59

How many JSA were produced in 2011? 34? Is that figure makes it most produced fighter/strike aircraft in 2011?

Japan has signed a contract for JSF @ $114M a pop so Indian MMRCA has got a good reference point to beat.

pragnya · Post by **pragnya** » 29 Jan 2012 10:19

[youtube]7LIsv9LJPfU&feature=player_embedded%20[/youtube]

anishns · Post by **anishns** » 29 Jan 2012 12:12

^^Those green lights look pretty awesome....and so does the 15 feet blowtorch with the AB lit in the night!

member_20453 · Post by **member_20453** » 29 Jan 2012 13:11

This bird is ideal for India, I think we certainly need 3 variants, the Army can have it's own air wing with a few squadron of the F-35B, the Navy can have a few squadrons of the F-35C and AF can certainly use a few squadrons of F-35A.

MRCA should be cancelled because i think for similar price ranges of EF and Rafale we can have the F-35. With an initlai order of 126 F-35 and a follow on order of 74, total order of 200, we will be the largest international user.

I think apart from the critical tech LM or the US govt. won't have any trouble meeting the 60% TOT requirement set in the MRCA RFP. We should be able to assemble the whole thing in India. LM or the US govt. certainly won't mind an assembly line in India for F-35 because this will allow them to better target customers in Asia, middle east, have better supply chains in this part of the world and offer these birds at lower prices.

Furthermore, which such a large order of F-35 and associated weapons, we can certainly have enough leverage in order to get the US to drop some of the intrusive agreements we have signed and they want us to sign. At 15 birds a squadron we can have 6 or 90 F-35A , 3 squadrons or 45 F-35B and another 3 squadrons or 45 F-35C. A total of 180 for respective services with 1 squadron of F-35A for the Strategic Forces.

These birds have great avionics, DAS which can spot missile launches at over 1200 km away, revolutionary radar that allows for unparalleled ease of use and targeting, the most advanced pilot interface and cockpit far better than any other. Loaded with fuel and ammo it still out flies the teens and possibly the EF or Raffy. Having a extensive internal load doesn't hamper it's over all aerial performance.

Regarding it's current technical problems, well it's still under development, its the phase where you'r bound to find problems, they'll find fixes and issues will be resolved. Besides if India orders it, first production aircraft will probably only make it to India after 2016+, well in time to fix the design issues. We would be buying into a new platform and being the largest international user, we are bound to have a lot of input into it's future growth, Unkil' stance on India is off course bound to change. We can certainly expect a lot less strings, a lot of customization considering that F-35's will be able to deploy pretty much any weapon in EU, Israel and US. With a large enough order we can even have source code customization, Unkil won't allow independent tinkering of the source code but jointly we would certainly be able customize it. Unkil understands that with China and PAk we will need a very hand. Unkil will certainly support our cause in the event of war.

I think the fear of losing the AMCA to the purchase of the F-35 is not needed. We can certainly operate 3 types of Stealth fighters, there is no rule that says we can't since we already operate so many types, a future of Super-30, LCA, AMCA, PAKFA and F-35 is't bad at all. By the time the entire order of F-35, PAKFA and AMCA are delivered, Mirages, Mig-27/29, Jags will be phased out i think. Post 2030 it's better to have a predominantly 5th gen inventory i feel.

Dmurphy · Post by **Dmurphy** » 29 Jan 2012 15:33

Septimus P. wrote: the Army can have it's own air wing with a few squadron of the F-35B

Yes, but why just stop at that? I think the Army should also have its own AWACS, refuellers and a maritime wing comprising of frigates, destroyers, SSBNs and nuclear aircraft carriers.

Badar · Post by **Badar** » 29 Jan 2012 17:49

Septimus P. wrote:This bird is ideal for India, I think we certainly need 3 variants, the Army can have it's own air wing with a few squadron of the F-35B, the Navy can have a few squadrons of the F-35C and AF can certainly use a few squadrons of F-35A.

MRCA should be cancelled because i think for similar price ranges of EF and Rafale we can have the F-35. With an initlai order of 126 F-35 and a follow on order of 74, total order of 200, we will be the largest international user.

I think apart from the critical tech LM or the US govt. won't have any trouble meeting the 60% TOT requirement set in the MRCA RFP. We should be able to assemble the whole thing in India. LM or the US govt. certainly won't mind an assembly line in India for F-35 because this will allow them to better target customers in Asia, middle east, have better supply chains in this part of the world and offer these birds at lower prices.

Furthermore, which such a large order of F-35 and associated weapons, we can certainly have enough leverage in order to get the US to drop some of the intrusive agreements we have signed and they want us to sign. At 15 birds a squadron we can have 6 or 90 F-35A , 3 squadrons or 45 F-35B and another 3 squadrons or 45 F-35C. A total of 180 for respective services with 1 squadron of F-35A for the Strategic Forces.

These birds have great avionics, DAS which can spot missile launches at over 1200 km away, revolutionary radar that allows for unparalleled ease of use and targeting, the most advanced pilot interface and cockpit far better than any other. Loaded with fuel and ammo it still out flies the teens and possibly the EF or Raffy. Having a extensive internal load doesn't hamper it's over all aerial performance.

Regarding it's current technical problems, well it's still under development, its the phase where you'r bound to find problems, they'll find fixes and issues will be resolved. Besides if India orders it, first production aircraft will probably only make it to India after 2016+, well in time to fix the design issues. We would be buying into a new platform and being the largest international user, we are bound to have a lot of input into it's future growth, Unkil' stance on India is off course bound to change. We can certainly expect a lot less strings, a lot of customization considering that F-35's will be able to deploy pretty much any weapon in EU, Israel and US. With a large enough order we can even have source code customization, Unkil won't allow independent tinkering of the source code but jointly we would certainly be able customize it. Unkil understands that with China and PAk we will need a very hand. Unkil will certainly support our cause in the event of war.

I think the fear of losing the AMCA to the purchase of the F-35 is not needed. We can certainly operate 3 types of Stealth fighters, there is no rule that says we can't since we already operate so many types, a future of Super-30, LCA, AMCA, PAKFA and F-35 is't bad at all. By the time the entire order of F-35, PAKFA and AMCA are delivered, Mirages, Mig-27/29, Jags will be phased out i think. Post 2030 it's better to have a predominantly 5th gen inventory i feel.

Bravo! Jan '12 post of the month winner.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 29 Jan 2012 18:21

Dmurphy wrote:
Septimus P. wrote: the Army can have it's own air wing with a few squadron of the F-35B
Yes, but why just stop at that? I think the Army should also have its own AWACS, refuellers and a maritime wing comprising of frigates, destroyers, SSBNs and nuclear aircraft carriers.

air force should have its own infantry and amroured divisions, and a few submarines.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 29 Jan 2012 19:11

Septimus Severus,great Roman conqueror,thou art as unto "a prophet with honour except in one's own country"!

Nevertheless,if the "splittist" tendencies within the armed forces,who cannot agree to a CDS,encouraged by Babudom,we will in the future ,with all three services possessing similar ,ground,air and naval wings,have "three" armed forces to deal with India's enemies .After all the Pakis have their Taliban and other ungodlies under their control too. Like Hitler's "armies" of yore or "theatre commands" of today,the "1st Armed Force" will be responsible for the Western and N-Western theatre (Pakistan and the Gulf) formerly the IA ,the "2nd Armed Force" will be responsible for the North and North-East theatre (China) formerly the IAF, and the "3rd Armed Force" for the IOR and Pacific theatre,,formerly the IN.It will help immensely in promotions and we will have the world's largest number of generals,air marshals and admirals,and each "force chief" can hold the rank of Field Marshal,Marshal of the Air Force and Admiral of the Fleet respectively! There can be a huge increase in babudom too,with three Def. Secs. and a "Supreme Def. Sec." to whom the 3 Force commanders take their orders from,babudom always ends up on top! Not forgettting the extra ministerial berths with Def. Mins of State in charge of each Force too and the "Supreme Min. of Def." to rule them all!

Just imagine the wonderful ability to then choose weapon systems different for each force.We could then buy the Raffy,Tiffy, and Gripen too,keeping almost everyone happy,with commissions spread out right across babudom and its political masters.Septimus would then get his wish and we would be able to buy the JSF as well as the FGFA and we could have German,French and Russian subs to play with in mock wargaming ! Having given the MOD/GOI this wonderful idea,may I please be immediately awarded a Padma jewel of my choiice ,St.Anthony,please hear my prayer!

Christopher Sidor · Post by **Christopher Sidor** » 05 Feb 2012 00:49

U.S. Air Force Reveals Budget Cut Details --- Aviation Week Dated 3-Feb-2012

From the article

Overall, the Air Force will be reduced by 286 aircraft. Of these, 123 will be fighters, the equivalent of seven squadrons — six tactical, one training — out of 60 squadrons. Of these, 102 will be A-10Cs and 21 will be older model F-16s — a response to the smaller size of the ground forces they will support.
....
....
Air mobility will take a 133-aircraft divestment. The Air Force will retain 222 C-17s, 52 C-5Ms and 300-plus C-130s. Divestments will include 27 C-5As, 65 older C-130s and all 38 existing and planned C-27s.
....
....
Programs that are being slowed are having their funding protected.
....
....
[Air Force Secretary Michael Donley said] “We have delayed F-35 full-rate production, but there are no changes in the program of record involving the projected size of the F-35 fleet. Those decisions will be made in the 2020s when production has reached about 1,000-1,600 aircraft."

rohankumaon · Post by **rohankumaon** » 05 Feb 2012 00:51

A very interesting piece on "China's Role In JSF's Spiraling Costs"

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... annel=awst

Manny · Post by **Manny** » 05 Feb 2012 03:42

OK.. moving this into the proper thread.

We ought not cancel the MRCA/Rafale thingi... But it is quite expensive per plane though.

Requesting the F-35s (80 or 50) is still beneficial for India.. It would certainly compliment and India is a big country. If you imagine each state like each country of Europe.

It doesn't matter if the US agrees supplying the F-35 or not..its a win win for India either way.

1) If the US supplies the F-35 with cutting edge weapons and AESA radar and what not... then India can use this in its portfolio. India doesn't have to depend on the f-35 squadrons for critical missions in case of sanctions and what not.. or at least the fear of it. It also has the advantage of the benefits of strategic alliance with the US or at least the perception of it. And India doesn't need the Tech transfer for this either.. since its working on the 5th gen Sukhois and the Rafale etc. enough technology transfer for Indians to do something with them.

2) If the US refuses the F-35 or any of the sophisticated weapons and radars, Whelp! Then Indian can say... we did not deny the US ...it was they who denied us... If the US really want strategic relationship with India, then it cannot refuse the fully loaded F-35s.

It is win win for India. the only downside is, it would chaff the butts of the anti American Desies a bit. Hopefully that would not enter the equation.

Manny

Christopher Sidor · Post by **Christopher Sidor** » 05 Feb 2012 09:10

We cannot spend 12+ billions on MMRCA and then float another tender for F-35. We are not that rich. We have to make a decision on what is best for IAF/IN. Either we go in for the MMRCA, which is essentially a 4th gen or aim for a 5th gen fighter.

But the way things are progressing, that is how it is going to be. Dont be surprised to see IAF honchos going to MoD/GoI for another 5th gen tender before this decade is out.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 05 Feb 2012 09:21

^ the cumulative military budget of India in next 10 years would be excess of $400B ($1.5T economy growing at minimum 6% and allocating 2.5%GDP for military, you do the math)

If we take out the operational costs of $200B (20b per year), it leaves $200b for fixed investments in the same period.

That leaves plenty of money for IAF for acquiring new toys even if we split the money equally among the three services.

That is why the Briturds are crying. The new game is to stay alive and afloat for next 5-10 years for western MIC.

P.S: please note that this is for next 10 years alone (2012-22)

Badar · Post by **Badar** » 11 Feb 2012 01:04

Interesting news for F-35 proponents and opponents.

"India made three different requests for information to the U.S. government over the last several years about sea-based versions of the F-35, and somehow nobody in Washington ever managed to answer any of them. Not surprisingly, the Indians eventually went away, but the lack of a U.S. response can't have made a good impression."

more at
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/3212 ... fdec6c1981

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 11 Feb 2012 02:07

So gives lie to the US spokeperson claiming India can ask for info on JSF if they want!

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 9#p1236699

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 11 Feb 2012 02:45

Ramanna,Badar,that is a very significant point! The naval variants of the JSF would certainly be of interst to the IN,which more than its sister services,has gone out of its way in the opinion of some in conducting the most comprehensive naval exercises with the USN and its allies,sharply criticised by Beijing as openly "ganging up" against China. To this treat the IN in such manner shows the shallowness of the relationship that the US desires-only a master-slave one,where second-rate "hand-me-downs" are good enough for the serfs!

PS:For advocates of the Italian "orders",here is the latest news.

UPDATE 1-Italy widely expected to scale back F-35 orders
Fri Feb 10, 2012
* Cabinet to review defence spending cuts Tuesday -govt source

* Italian defense minister to outline cuts to lawmakers Wednesday

* Italy to cut order to 100 from 131 -newspaper

By Steve Scherer

ROME, Feb 10 (Reuters) - Italy seems certain to scale back its major investment in Lockheed Martin Corp's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, heightening uncertainty over the troubled stealth jet's future.

Defence Minister Giampaolo Di Paola has said repeatedly since January that the country's originally planned order of the 131 supersonic warplanes by 2018 was being "reviewed" because military spending cuts were necessary as part of Prime Minister Mario Monti's austerity plan to shore up public accounts.

General Claudio Debertolis, secretary general of the Defence Ministry and the country's armaments chief, confirmed to lawmakers on Tuesday that cuts were expected.

"There will be a revision of this Joint Strike Fighter programme to align it with disposable resources," he said.

Italy will ask for about 30 fewer planes, Corriere della Sera daily reported on Friday, without citing its source. Panorama magazine gave the same number on Jan. 18.

Government sources and lawmakers told Reuters that it was premature to say how many of the F-35 fighters Italy will order because of uncertainty over the version of the aircraft designed for short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL).

This version is supposed to replace ageing Harrier jets on Italy's new hi-tech Cavour aircraft carrier.

On Tuesday Monti's Cabinet will examine the Defence Ministry's new spending plan that includes reducing F-35 outlays and personnel cuts, according to a government source. The minister will then detail the package to parliament on Wednesday.

The Pentagon's F-35 program office declined comment on Italy's plans, saying all of the partner countries would meet in Australia in March to discuss their production plans.

PENTAGON CUTS

Uncertainty over the Pentagon's most expensive current arms programme is growing as participating countries cut or postpone orders, and flight testing continues.

Washington is expected to announce on Monday that it will postpone production of 179 planes over the next five years, bringing the total that would have been ordered between 2013 and 2017 down to 244 from 423.

In January the Pentagon announced $487 billion in defence cuts over the next decade.

"It's reasonable to do what the American government is doing, reduce the number of orders and spread them out over a longer time frame," said Federica Mogherini, secretary of the Italian Chamber of Deputies' defense committee and a member of the centre-left Democratic Party, the second-biggest bloc supporting Monti's technocrat government in parliament.

"It's not yet necessary to establish total number of planes we will order because costs are evolving, and all the technical problems have yet to be resolved," she told Reuters.

Some of the most significant technical problems concern the short take-off model, which has had engine trouble, and needed an early redesign due to excess weight. Recently, there were concerns about metal fatigue in a bulkhead, overheating of parts, and excess vibration in doors for an air input port.

Only the United States and Italy have so far said they plan to buy the STOVL version of the aircraft.

Australia has also said it is rethinking its plan to buy 12 of the radar-evading jets, and Turkey has put off buying two of them. Britain said earlier this month that it won't make a firm commitment on the number of planes until 2015. The other partners in joint construction of the plane are Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, and Canada.

Italy is the third investor in the programme after the United States and Britain. Italy is in the process of ordering its first three planes for $240 million, Debertolis said on Tuesday.

Centre-left lawmakers called for defence cuts as Monti's "Save Italy" austerity measures kicked in this year, hitting Italians with smaller pensions and higher fuel costs, property and sales taxes aimed at eliminating the budget deficit by 2013.

Two newspapers aligned with the centre-left Democratic Party criticized spending on the F-35 jet programme in a series of articles during the first half of January.

State-owned Finmeccanica is one of the subcontractors on the project. Finmeccanica's Alenia unit will assemble the planes purchased by Italy, the Netherlands and Norway.

"Even if the order we make is much lower than 131 we started with, Italy's work on the aircraft is still guaranteed," Debertolis told lawmakers. "We could have a significant decrease in orders and still keep Italy's industrial role intact."

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 12 Feb 2012 12:45

Submission on JSF to Australian Parliament by Carlo Kopp and Peter , has some interesting statics on JSF

http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/j ... s/sub2.pdf

atma · Post by **atma** » 13 Feb 2012 05:40

U.S. F-35 production slowdown may delay foreign orders

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/ ... 3320120211

The Pentagon is restructuring the most expensive U.S. arms program for the third time in recent years, a move that will delay savings that would come from building more planes faster.

International partners who were banking on the savings as they face their own budget pressures are balking at the shift, according to multiple government and industry sources here and overseas.

Given the uncertainty, Lockheed is also trying to woo more foreign buyers like South Korea and India, after winning Japan's fighter competition in December.[ID:nL3E7NK11O] Every additional order will help drive down the price per plane for all buyers.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 13 Feb 2012 08:33

The converse is also true,that "every cancelled order is driving the price upwards!"

So poor India and others are being wooed with this very-expensive bird-in-the-making. Anyone got a few billion $ to spare for this poor American beggar?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 02 Mar 2012 06:47

Confucius reigns...in Britain!

Oh dear,what can the matter be,
Oh dear,what can the matter be,
Oh,dear what can the matter be,
The JSF's not seen in the air

They promised they'd buy me the fighter to please me,
And then for a kiss,they vowed it would thrill me,
They promised they'd bring me a bunch of big bills with it,
To pay for so it could fly in the air!

They promised they'd buy me a bombload to go with it,
A garland of missiles ,a foreign land to rocket,
They promised,they promised,but I still haven't seen it,
"It's a stealth fighter don'tya know,you stupid British idiot?!"

(Copyright Mr.Pee)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/mar/0 ... ke-fighter

UK aircraft carrier plans in confusion as ministers revisit square one
Decision expected by Easter on which US joint strike fighter Britain will buy: ministers now want to revert to original choice

Britain's troubled and increasingly expensive plan to equip the navy with new aircraft carriers has been plunged into fresh turmoil as ministers consider reversing their earlier decision to change the type of plane that should fly from them, it has emerged.

The government announced in last autumn's strategic defence review that it had decided to buy the "cats and flaps" (catapults and arrester gear) version of the US joint strike fighter. This would have a "longer range and greater payload ... the critical requirement for precision-strike operations in the future", the government stated.

Moreover, the government added, it will be cheaper. It would also enable French planes to land on British carriers, and vice versa, inkeeping with the new UK-French defence spirit of co-operation.

Now, in an extraordinary volte-face, the Ministry of Defence says the "cats and flaps" planes may well be cheaper but it would be too expensive to redesign a carrier – more than £1bn – to accommodate them. The ministry is thus faced with the prospect of renegotiating a deal with the US, reverting to its original plan – namely buying the short take-off and vertical landing version of the aircraft, even though it is acknowledged to be less effective and more expensive .

The latest chapter in the troubled saga of Britain's future aircraft carriers – whose own estimated costs have soared – was raised on Thursday in a letter to the defence secretary, Philip Hammond, from Jim Murphy, his Labour opposite number.

Murphy referred to "worrying suggestions" that the government was about to change its mind about the kind of aircraft to buy from the US. "It is vital that there is now clarity on the government's plans for this vital area of the defence equipment programme," he wrote.

Murphy said the decision in the defence review to scrap the Harrier fleet meant the UK would have no carrier aircraft capability until 2020 – and then only one carrier would be operational.

Defence officials said that the government was "re-assessing" its earlier decision because, they indicated, of pressures on the defence budget.

HMS Queen Elizabeth, the first carrier, will be mothballed immediately it is launched in 2016, according to existing plans. The second, HMS Prince of Wales, will be able to put to sea by 2020, but it is not known how many planes will be able to fly from it – nor what kind.

The two carriers, originally priced at £3.5bn, are now estimated to cost £6.2bn. According to the Commons public accounts committee, the cost is likely to icrease to as much as £12bn.

The government, which originally said it wanted more than 100 joint strike fighters, says that it will have just six operational ones by 2020. The unit cost of the joint strike fighter, made by Lockheed Martin, has soared because of production problems and delays caused by US defence budget cuts. Britain's BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce have big stakes in a future deal adapting the joint strike fighter for British forces.

A spokesperson for the MoD said: "We are currently finalising the 2012-13 budget and balancing the equipment plan. As part of this process, we are reviewing all programmes, including elements of the carrier strike programme, to validate costs and ensure risks are properly managed. The defence secretary expects to announce the outcome of this process to parliament before Easter."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/mar/0 ... -fighterUK aircraft carrier plans in confusion as ministers revisit square one
Decision expected by Easter on which US joint strike fighter Britain will buy: ministers now want to revert to original choice

Badar · Post by **Badar** » 03 Mar 2012 15:19

Japan, having just got onto the JSF wagon, threatens to fall off.

http://defense-update.com/20120302_japa ... +Update%29

Christopher Sidor · Post by **Christopher Sidor** » 03 Mar 2012 21:55

With so many countries facing economic woes, I just don't know why GoI/MoD does not seize the moment and carries out some hard bargaining where this fighter is considered. It is simply unfathomable.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 04 Mar 2012 10:13

well nobody knows for sure its eventual cost and capability , let alone a reliable delivery timeline.
as for industrial offsets and TOT - its been very minimal to even a Level1 munna like UK...we wont get anything.

anishns · Post by **anishns** » 07 Mar 2012 01:48

Guess what is going to replace the F-14s in TopGun 2 ???

Atleast it will be made of some use in Hollywood

F-35s finally land a combat role – in Hollywood

koti · Post by **koti** » 07 Mar 2012 13:57

Hollywood is the Marketing agency of US Military Industries

Badar · Post by **Badar** » 07 Mar 2012 21:22

"Pentagon Helps New Stealth Fighter Cheat on Key Performance Test"
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/03/jsf-test/

WRT previous posts about JSF not being "allowed" to "fail".

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Mar 2012 21:40

natgeo/fox/discovery also do heavy publicity for israeli weapons ranging from small arms like cornershot to big stuff like arrow/delilah/merkava. and usually they say "no american has hitherto been allowed into this base and we cannot reveal where it is"

muscular shaven headed 'israeli security consultants' also get roles in programs on self-defence and hand to hand fighting.

in terms of defence sector or just personally badass, being israeli is a "brand" in khanate.

Eric Leiderman · Post by **Eric Leiderman** » 14 Mar 2012 08:44

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/03/13 ... been-made/

Its still early but looks like the Canadian Govt is having 2nd thoughts.
I am pretty sure the deal will not be scuttled, however, it is very likely that the nos ordered will be curtailed. Thats my analysis on it.

The IAF desicion of going with the french is looking better by the day.
Lets clinch the deal Mr.Clean

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 14 Mar 2012 09:21

in a enviroment of huge funding cutbacks and economic woes worldwide all bets are off wrt promises of future tranche based development. the one who has most capability already built in or on verge of delivery (rafale/F18/MKI) are the safest bets.

koti · Post by **koti** » 14 Mar 2012 13:03

Link
According to the link, Canada was ready shell out 16 billion Canadian dollars for F35 For Purchase and Lifecycle costs. And that too for only 65 birds.
And even this is seemingly being exceeded now.

I wonder how one calculated JSF to be cheaper then Rafa/EF in IAF.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 14 Mar 2012 20:08

Canada would be better served MLUing their F18s and buying a new set of F18 international. cheaper and on time for sure , with a good radar, EW and weapons matrix. guaranteed to be in service with the USN for 40 more years surely.

JSF != Ipad3 ... its not a must have gadget.

member_20036 · Post by **member_20036** » 16 Mar 2012 22:27

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Securi ... z1nlgSMHsu

Marine Corps inducts F-35B into air arm

EGLIN AIR FORCE BASE, Fla., Feb. 28 (UPI) -- The U.S. Marine Corps aviation has introduced Lockheed's F-35B Lightning II aircraft into its fleet.
The 2nd Marine Aircraft Wing's Marine Fighter Attack Training Squadron 501 took delivery of the F-35B Lightning II fighter, into the Marine Corps aviation arsenal at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla.
At the induction ceremony Marine Corps assistant commandant Gen. Joseph Dunford pointed out the aircraft's characteristics, including supersonic speed, radar-evading stealth, extreme agility and short takeoff vertical landing capability.
"It's innovation like that representedhere today which has kept Marine aviation ready and relevant for the last 100 years," he said Monday in a base release.
"These Marines are part of the cutting edge of marine aviation," Dunford said. "The ability to combine supersonic flight and radar-evading stealth with the short takeoff and vertical landing capability needed aboard an amphibious warship is among the greatest innovations the aviation community, much less Marine aviation, has ever known.
"Combined with the Navy's F-35C carrier variant of the aircraft, it givesthe nation double the number of capital ships capable of operating a fifth-generation, multirole fighter."
The F-35B Lightning II is expected toreplace the Marine Corps' F/A-18 Hornets, AV-8B Harriers and EA-6B Prowlers, along with reducing maintenance costs as it ensures the Marine Corps' future tactical air dominance.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 16 Mar 2012 23:02

I wonder what version of the JSF the USMC inducted.DTI says that the aircraft (which has no cockpit displays, all data only seen through the pilot's helmet),is having problems with it,so in the absence of any cockpit displays,all that the pilot will be able to do once he straps himself in is to pull the ejection handles !!!

The naval variant (CTOL) is also experiencing some major problems,with its tailhook.The undercarriage is located so far back under the fuselage that it is interfering with the conventional location of a tailhook,which will not be able to "hook" onto the arrestor cables on deck during landings.

Canada feels that if they order the JSF,it will be in service not before 2020.many nations who have ordered the JSF are now looking at interim alternatives.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 17 Mar 2012 22:29

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-f ... 3385.story

JSF makes first flight with external weapons. pic in link.

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 18 Mar 2012 07:45

JSF Unaffordable?
http://www.mediafire.com/?biuclcama86a89a

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 18 Mar 2012 17:14

one takeaway from JSF is that small a/c are not suited for internal bays. if it cannot carry a good sized load internally, the compromises needed to accomodate the bay are not worth much..so one ends up with a boxy airframe that cannot carry enough in VLO mode and is not as nimble as conventional airframes.

looking at the AMCA it seems to suffer from the same size deficit...hope we dont fall into the same hole. unlike the US we cannot print paper dollars or throw tens of billions down the toilet.

might as well scale it up to ensure atleast 4 x 1000lb weapons and 2 x AAM can carried internally. this is the typical external combat load of the Jaguar currently.
alternately 6x500lb + 2AAM internally which is Rafale combat load.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 19 Mar 2012 03:02

That is very prescient Singha.It also brings into question the concept of multi-role "jack of all trades aircraft",like the JSF,which fail in certain key areas.The LCA is also suffering from the same problem,"multi-role" in the smallest ,lightest airframe,resulting in an underpowered aircraft which has to be made larger to accommodate a more powerful aircraft,thus destroying the original concept.The Gripen is perhaps the best compromise/design fulfilling this dual role,but with limitations.The IAF has to cut its losses with the LCA and leave more of the strike role to other larger aircraft concentrating on making the LCA a superb interceptor/air combat fighter.

The JSF as you have pointed out,is a stealth scaled up version of the same fatally flawed concept.Here,the JSF does not even have air combat/dogfighting capabilities better than a 30+ yr. old design like the F-16 !

PS:Here's even more delighful news about the "turkey" (more in the IN td.),whose naval version for the RN will by its own estimates,only appear in 2027!!!

In the strategic defence and security review (SDSR), the prime minister insisted the carriers would have to be converted to include "cats and traps" to allow a version of the new Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) to be catapulted from the decks and caught by arrestor wires on landing. But the Guardian has been told the cost of the modification has spiralled out of control, to between £1.9 and £2bn.

With the "carrier variant" version of the JSF also beset by technical problems, the MoD has concluded the carrier programme could be delayed by at least another seven years – to 2027 – unless it abandons the plan.

Though he knows the U-turn will be humiliating for the coalition, Cameron has been told the best option is to switch back to another version of the JSF, which was ruled out in the review because it was likely to cost more and do less.