What Future for the JSF?, page 1

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times

Topic started on 19-1-2009 @ 09:24 PM by answerman

Robert Gottliebsen wrote this in a recent article:

My US contacts say there is about a 40 per cent chance that Obama will throw in the JSF towel sending Australia’s long-term air defence plans into complete disarray. If Obama abandons the JSF it will be a huge blow for Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon and his chief Angus Houston. On the other hand, if Obama endorses the JSF then it will totally vindicate the stand of Houston and Fitzgibbon

Source: Houston, we have a problem

Where would that leave us?

Another article from The Age recently postulated that Australia could end up buying as many as 250 JSFs.

Source: Battle on the Home Front

What options are available?

reply posted on 19-1-2009 @ 11:02 PM by weedwhacker

reply to post by answerman

answerman....am assuming you refer to the 'Joint Strike Fighter'?

Well, here's a novel idea....let's improve BOTH the USA and Australian economies by licensing Lockheed and/or Boeing plants in AUSTRALIA, and asking the Aussie Gov't to kick in a few Dollars.

Let's get Canada and the UK onboard as welll...oh, don't groan, you know the politics involved!! Maybe the Queen, with that "Windsor Wealth" (trademark pending) could subsidize. Lords and Ladies know they can probably well afford to!!!

As the Eisenhower Administration was closing, President 'Ike' warned, in clouded terms, about the 'MIC'...(Military Industrial Complex).

When the 'cold war' was in full "hot" mode, there seemed a great need for the USA to be the police....but, we're in a far more Global environment now, with many different threats....and the dinosaurs of the old era should be put out to pasture (mixed metaphor, I know...)

The old thinking that the USA should build all of the fighters, then SELL to our Allies is out-dated. The R&D to ramp-up production on a new, fighter for example, far outweighs the resulting lack of profit in subsequent sales.

There are, of course, certain secrets that each Nation holds close to its chest....but, in decades past, when the USA has sold F-16s and F-15s to other countries, certain sensitive and top-secret technology was stripped out, first.

AND, I will go out on a limb here, and daresay the JSF technology may, having been mired in bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo for far too long, has probably been out-designed by something that we can only imagine, something far more advanced.....

reply posted on 20-1-2009 @ 12:13 AM by C0bzz

Australia will never buy 250 fighters. That's baloney. Maybe if we doubled our defense budget... As for whether the JSF will be cancelled, I don't know; I just hope the right decision is made.

reply to post by weedwhacker

All partners involved have donated a few hundred million dollars, each. Each partner is involved in making parts of the JSF, only assembly is in Fort Worth. JSF is probably going to get a massive amount of foreign sales...

[edit on 20/1/2009 by C0bzz]

reply posted on 20-1-2009 @ 12:17 AM by FredT

It depends on the level as well. THe UK is a level one partner I beleive and Im not sure where Australia is.

The Obama administration is not likely to do so.

One the lobby in the areas making the plane are very strong. Also it leaves the US without a credible strike fighter in the near future and unbale to meet growing threats. The Navy is in worse shape without the buy as it has nothing on the board beyond the JSF and nothing stealthy unless they want to go all UCAV. Sec Def Gates has been supportive of the JSF but not the F-22 so while the total numbers may be down driving up unit cost the airframe will be produced.

reply posted on 20-1-2009 @ 05:18 AM by answerman

Originally posted by C0bzz
Australia will never buy 250 fighters. That's baloney. Maybe if we doubled our defense budget... As for whether the JSF will be cancelled, I don't know; I just hope the right decision is made.

If you read the link to the Age article they mention the following:

The fourth option would make Australia a "muscular regional power" with 18 submarines, five air warfare destroyers, five frigates, three big troop-landing ships, 250 Joint Strike Fighters with several extra early warning and control aircraft and aerial refuellers to extend their operational range, and our own "constellation" of military communications and spy satellites. The army would get three new battalions. All this would soak up 2.41 per cent of GDP. An additional option would be to spend $8.5 billion buying the navy two Queen Elizabeth II class aircraft carriers and another $5.8 billion fitting them out with 36 naval version Joint Strike Fighters and four early warning aircraft to watch over them all. The aircraft carriers are being designed in Britain and would each carry 36 Joint Strike Fighters. The cost of this giant package would be 2.67 per cent of GDP.

That final figure of 2.67% of our GDP is roughly 0.87% more than what we currently spend. That's a little bit below a 50% increase. And we'd get a whole lot more than 250 Joint Strike Fighters.

reply posted on 20-1-2009 @ 10:45 PM by weedwhacker

reply to post by FredT

FredT....I think you've hit upon the problem with all of the Military Aircraft Procurement Process (the 'MAPP', which I just coined) as it relates to how various companies are 'publicaly' pitted against each other to compete for the final contract.

Correct me if I'm wrong, is the JSF a Lockheed project and the F-22 a Boeing??? Or, other way 'round?

No matter....I think it tends to be eyewash anyway. You mentioned UAVs...basically a high-tech radio-controlled model. Since I've flown R/C for some years, I get the concept....of course, my models didn't have cameras nor armaments.

'stealth' tech was being developed from as early as the mid-1970s....yet once Reagan decided to 'de-classify' the F-119 and the B-2.....well, draw your own conclusions.

The fabulous 'SkunkWorks' of Lockheed gave us the U-2....and the SR-71 'Blackbird', quite possibly the sexiest airplane ever built. AND, these technologies are near 50 years old, they are SO FAR behind!!!

So...my claim stands! ANY publically-funded and profiled-in-Jane's Aircraft is already old news! (Ditto for Aviation Week and Space Secrets....oops, meant 'Technology'....).

reply posted on 20-1-2009 @ 11:15 PM by dooper

It was one thing for Obama to run his mouth during the election. He told a lot of folks what they wanted to hear, and what he thought they may want to hear.

It's a completely different ballgame now. Reality time. All those defense cuts he was anticipating? Won't do it.

You see, he's already working toward reelection.

And one thing that carries a lot of weight, is the US defense industry. No, the JSF will continue.

There is no choice. Our other airframes are reaching the end of their lives.

And by now, even Obama knows that things look a bit different from the inside.

reply posted on 20-1-2009 @ 11:32 PM by weedwhacker

reply to post by dooper

dooper, still not sure exactly why you wished to introduce new President Obama into this discussion....as if you believe that ANY President has complete authority over the funding (or lack, thereof) of ANY Military contract.

Ahem!! CONGRESS controls those purse-strings!!!

And, before I am accused of being naive....of course, a President with tendrils into the various Goverment webs of intrigue....as Bush (43) did because of Cheney's influence....well....you'll have to wait and see if Biden's many years in the webs of influence will pan out....another mixed metaphor....I'll try again --- Perhaps Biden's experience in the River of Washington will allow him to pan gold ---

See?! Much better! BUT, I am only postulating, not predicting.

Look....one will assume that (I hope) the CIC will be briefed properly about upcoming, still top-secret, technology in the pipeline, and how soon it's to be expected, and how to deflect Public scrutinity fromt he real truth, and so on....AND how to encourage our Economy, even if it means building a soon-to-be-obsolete new airplane. In fact, that makes good sense, because we can sell that to our Allies, and keep the better stuff for ourselves!! (Oh, wait....that was the Bush Doctrine!!!...ooops)

reply posted on 21-1-2009 @ 12:19 AM by C0bzz

Correct me if I'm wrong, is the JSF a Lockheed project and the F-22 a Boeing??? Or, other way 'round?

The F-22 is Lockheed Martin, and Boeing. F-35 is Lockheed Martin with Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems as major partners.

dooper, still not sure exactly why you wished to introduce new President Obama into this discussion....as if you believe that ANY President has complete authority over the funding (or lack, thereof) of ANY Military contract.

No, but the administration does, and is going to make the decision.

As for public stuff being so far behind. No, they are not. Current UAV's have drawbacks. Secret aircraft has been discussed all over these forums. A one off prototype of some secret technology that is hugely expensive to maintain, develop, and procure does not count.

[edit on 21/1/2009 by C0bzz]

reply posted on 21-1-2009 @ 12:22 AM by hardeeboy

Why do they have to count on the USA for so much? Don't these other countries have ways of supporting their own military equipment needs?

reply posted on 21-1-2009 @ 12:30 AM by C0bzz

Why do they have to count on the USA for so much? Don't these other countries have ways of supporting their own military equipment needs?

Jet fighters don't grow on trees? What else can I say?

The development costs for the F-35 are in the region of 25 billion dollars, and Australia is probably going to spend 16 billion dollars on the aircraft. Do you really think we would spend 41 billion dollars on some aircraft? Or, become part of another countries programme?

All these 'other countries' are the ones building parts for the JSF.

Your new presidential chopper, and tankers, are going to be European, with major parts of your JSF coming from Britain.

[edit on 21/1/2009 by C0bzz]

reply posted on 21-1-2009 @ 12:38 AM by weedwhacker

reply to post by C0bzz

Thanks for the correction, the 'head's up'
as it were.

I still maintain, if Boeing can contract out to China and Thailand, and who else knows where for components of their newest project....in this case, of course, the B-787....not military, naturally.

WHY can't certain components of the JSF be contracted to sites where Americans are located?

What I mean is, we live in a very Global Economy. It seems important to point out that Boeing already outsources much of its manufacturing, when it comes to commercial airplanes.

WHY NOT do the same? Oh, I get it!?! We're supposed to think that American Companies will provide jobs for Americans!!!!!

Well, THAT'S been propen to be wrong, so far....so what now?

I mean, a US-owned factory in, say....Australia? Utilizing US workers? What could be possibly wrong with that?

Just because US companies, such as Boeing, contract some work to China....what could POSSIBLY go wrong???? (Besides the fact that he B-787 is two years behind schedule...)

I KNOW!@!! Blame the Unions!!! Always have seemed as a perfect foil, and 'Fall Guy', for the last eight years, give or take....

reply posted on 21-1-2009 @ 01:12 AM by C0bzz

WHY can't certain components of the JSF be contracted to sites where Americans are located?

I don't think outsourcing necessarily employs Americans... The JSF IS being built around the world. Outsourced particularly to the JSF partners, forexample, BAe, Alenia in Italy, Fokker... etc...

cache.gizmodo.com...

The 787 is mainly European, Japanese, and American I don't think much or anything is made in China.

[edit on 21/1/2009 by C0bzz]

reply posted on 21-1-2009 @ 01:23 AM by weedwhacker

reply to post by C0bzz

Well, not the B-787....but I believe I've seen reports of various components on the (former) MD-82, prior to the merger between Boeing and McDonnel-Douglas...or maybe I'm thinking of the MD-87, which is NOW the B-717???

Regardless, there is an International component connection for many of the recent Boeing products.

Doesn't matter if you consider the wiring harness from the fuel pumps, or (the fuel pumps themselves) or the Altimeters and the construction of the various Instrument Panels, or if it is simply the 'box-joint' of the main structure that comprises the wing....OR if it's the entire wing, minus the flaps and ailerons....

It is a multi-national endeavor, nowadays....just look at Airbus!!!!

reply posted on 21-1-2009 @ 01:49 AM by C0bzz

reply to post by weedwhacker

The MD-80 series is essentially a lengthened DC-9 with larger wings, and various other upgrades. Further improvements came over the base model (-81) with the -82, -83, -87, and -88. The MD-88, for example, has a new cockpit with Flight Management Computers, that are similar to the ones in Boeing aircraft you're probably familiar with.

The MD-87 specifically, is essentially a shortened MD-88, with some small changes such as a slightly bigger vertical tail to compensate for the decrease movement arm. The MD-90 was designed later, a stretch of the MD-88, with new IAE V2500 engines, which are also used on the A320. China did indeed assemble two MD-90's. The tooling used was later used to create the ACAC ARJ21, which looks very similar to the MD-90. Perhaps some minor parts were found on the MD"s produced in America.

The Boeing 717 is essentially a modernised DC-9-30. I believe it has the tail of the MD-87, wing of the DC-9-34, all the upgrades from previous DC-9 derivatives, including the MD-80 series. The engines are new. The 717 has a cockpit similar to the MD-11, which is highly advanced and by most accounts more advanced than the cockpit in the 777 (And 767-400).

717 uses a different wing, cockpit, landing gear, engines, and length compared to the MD-87. 717 is more for short routes, MD-87 is designed for longer ones. I like 717, sounds naice.

You worked for Delta I presume? Continental?

[edit on 21/1/2009 by C0bzz]

reply posted on 21-1-2009 @ 02:06 AM by waynos

Originally posted by hardeeboy
Why do they have to count on the USA for so much? Don't these other countries have ways of supporting their own military equipment needs?

This is a situation of Americas own making. Pressure in the '60s led to the cancellation of advanced domestic programes and the dismantling of British capability to compete with US Industry as the USA leant on HMG to buy C-130, F-4 and F-111 instead of the British alternatives HS 681, P.1154 and TSR 2, ALL THREE of which were axed in 1965 striking a mortal blow to Britains ability to produce advanced aircraft single handedly. HMG of the day was equally to blam of course, but they insist that America 'had us over a barrel' (Dennis Healey - ex Chancellor)

See also the wholesale transference of the Harrier from Hawker to McDonnell Douglas ( with most of the design and engineering staff with it!) as AV-16 was canned in favour of AV-8B and the death of the BAe ASTOVL forcing BAE into partnership on JSF instead.

To now complain that we rely too much n the USA is a bit rich!!