It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


What Future for the JSF?

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 11:53 PM

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Harlequin

Good thing that commercial airplanes are easier to follow.....

Oh, and what makes you think that ?

After earlier mention of the Boeing 717, and the fact that, yes, it had it's roots in the DC-9, MD-80 series, nobody seemed to recall that it was actually the MD-95 prior to the merger between MDD and Boeing. The Chinese connection was that the MD-95 (then still a McDonnell-Douglas product - and historically a Douglas DC-9-95, perhaps) was going to be built in China at one stage, because MDD couldn't afford to build it in their plant (although what made Boeing think that they could build it economically at the same former MDD plant has to make you wonder).

And of course nobody could get confused by the fact that 717 is both the Boeing number for the above mentioned MD-95 AND the KC-135 and all its derivatives - two totally different airframe designs originating from totally different companies.

Perhaps Piper and Beechcraft designations are 'simple' until you consider where their designs have originated - for example the Aztec (via the Apache) started out as a Stinson design (the twin Stinson), while at the other end of the spectrum the Raytheon Beech Hawker 800 is actually what began as the De Havilland DH.125, then eventually became the Hawker Siddeley HS.125-800. Or perhaps that the Raytheon Beechcraft 400 Beechjet (T-1A in military speak) is actually The Mitsubishi Diamond business jet. Yep, Civil is simpler ........ perhaps.

Should I mention, perhaps, the relationship between Aero Commanders via Rockwell Jet Commander 1121's to IAI 1124 Westwinds, which when redesigned for a low wing became IAI 1125 Astras, which are now Gulfstream G.150s ? No, perhaps I shouldn't.

The Winged Wombat

[edit on 28/1/09 by The Winged Wombat]

posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 04:14 AM
reply to post by The Winged Wombat

Hey, WW

I actually wrote (typed) a long reply....and it disappeared.

Such are the foibles of the computer!!!

Shorter answer....I soloed in 1975, in a Cessna 150.

I have thousands of hours, since then, in just about every Beech and every Cessna built in the hey-day of Genberal Aviation.

My Mom leaned to fly in an Apache....(please don't ask....I'll just say that I WASN'T her instructor, obviously. Can you imagine???)

Well, I DID teach for some years, learned a lot and imparted my knowledge along the way. After that, I flew the SA-226 and SA-227(both seats).

Then, the B-727, Airbus A-300 and the DC-10, (right-seat on those commercial jets).

Of course, I am also type-rated on the DC-9 (MD-80), the B737 and the B757/767,

posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 08:41 AM
Wow Winged Wombat - what an answer!

Thank you!

So I guess the answer is: we won't know what we're doing until we know what's happening. Until then - it's all BS and speculation.

posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 08:35 PM
Winged Wombat, a star for that post.

In order to make this more than one line:

The f-35 will not be cancelled but I doubt that it will be a success in financial terms. I doubt that many countries atm are going to spend lavish sums of money on a such a plane when others will meet their current defence requirements. As such the unit price will go nowhere but up and less will be sold.
If the USA wants to be truly pragmatic about it, they would benefit from subsidising the cost of the 35 to a lot of states and create an international arms race. The same could be true of freeing the F-22. It would stimulate business and ensure that the production lines stay open.
The downside could be a ware beyond belief.


posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 02:28 PM

Originally posted by C0bzz
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?

Maybe it's time for Australia to concider participating in PAK FA? We'll give you a 15% discount! LOL!

On a serious note though, I think whith THAT budget the enitire program has become a huge moneymilking machine. It's out of control!

[edit on 3-2-2009 by Askel]

posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 03:10 PM
reply to post by Harlequin

Nunn-McCurdy is not an automatic cancellation. It calls for review at 15%, and CALLS FOR cancellation at 25%, UNLESS it is deemed a critical system, which the F-35 would be. Nunn-McCurdy halts funding at the end of a 30 day period for 15% over, and a 60 day period for 25%.

The link on this page has the official wording of the Act.

posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 03:32 PM
the DD(X) has someone got to 81% and some people in washington are seriously pissed at the USN for letting that happen;


what i mean is that given the economical climate - the act will be used , and alot of oversight and pressure thrown on certain people for messing things up.

[edit on 3/2/09 by Harlequin]

posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 11:20 PM
Gottliebsen is at it again:

The most disturbing news for Australia today is not the economic reports out of the US but rather a report in The Australian Financial Review that states the US is considering slowing down the Joint Strike Fighter development. The words "slow down” could end up being a euphemism for 'mothballed'.

Even if the program goes ahead he has hinted at a more worrying possibility:

Australia has downgraded the mighty and very adaptable F111 and is mainly relying on the Super Hornet for air defence while we await the JSF. The problem is that the Super Hornets are no match for the Russian fighters being used by China, India and Indonesia (though Indonesia needs greater investment). Worse still, there is rising evidence that the Russians have closely studied the JSF specifications and by the time the JSF development is completed it will be outdated.

(emphasis mine)

He's really pushing the case for us to pursue the F-22 and drop the JSF.

I'd be happy with that.

Full article A Danger to Defence

posted on Feb, 20 2009 @ 04:34 AM
reply to post by answerman

Against existing and near future threats, the Super Hornet is more than enough for Australia (It wouldn't if our neighbors actually had decent support, decent infrastructure, and Sukhoi-NG's that actually existed, not just a part of some peoples imagination). F-35 is probably domination against threats Australia is facing or will be facing. Also, how a 40 year old design will somehow stand up to newer Russian Aircraft with the Super Hornet considered obsolete, I don't know.

I hope the F-22 gets cleared for export, so it can be, at the very least, considered. No doubt it's easily the best aircraft in the sky when it comes to air to air combat!

[edit on 20/2/2009 by C0bzz]

posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 04:07 PM
Radio Network News (a national newsfeed going out to radio stations across the country) announced in the 8 AM (local time Melbourne) news this morning that due to the global financial crisis Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon is set to cancel the $2 Billion Air Warfare Destroyer and possibly the $16 Billion JSF program.

posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 08:17 PM
I have found a source for the earlier news release:

Global Financial Crisis Stalls Billions in Defence

Relevant quote:

THE global financial crisis has forced the Defence Department to shelve plans to buy billions of dollars' of military equipment, including a new $5 billion maritime surveillance system. The economic downturn will also mean the navy will not exercise the option to acquire a fourth air warfare destroyer worth $2 billion, and could force a one-year delay in plans to spend $16 billion on 100 F-35 joint strike fighters.

So it appears one Air Warfare Destroyer has been axed and the JSF has been put on hold...... will it ever happen? Could they actually end up cancelling the order?

posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 10:46 PM
I don't think the 4th AWD is in all practicallity all that much of a loss. With retention being the problem that it is, the RAN would struggle to man it; I however, hope that it's possible to get the 4th AWD in the future.

Also, F-35 has never been ordered, thus there is nothing to cancel. Delaying it might be a good thing; should help production costs be minimised. Just hope we don't get more Super Hornets over F-35....

Hope the P-8 & Global Hawk isn't cancelled forever though..

[edit on 2/3/2009 by C0bzz]

posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 02:14 AM
the P-8 is due i service - so thats a sure , but , from the noises and that the RAAF are actually happier than expected with the Super Bug , its looking that cacelling F-35 (especially since costs are now reported as at least $100 million each - and thats by the US) the -18 is cost effective option.

posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 09:16 PM

the P-8 is due i service - so thats a sure ,

Yep, only the Global Hawk was shelved.

(especially since costs are now reported as at least $100 million each - and thats by the US)

Source? I saw one over 100 million, however it included support costs and such. Never heard much about looking to cancel the Super Hornet... Source?

I hope we don't get too many Super Hornets though, 'cause F-35 is simply more capable.

[edit on 3/3/2009 by C0bzz]

posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 12:03 AM

Originally posted by Harlequin
from the noises and that the RAAF are actually happier than expected with the Super Bug , its looking that cacelling F-35 (especially since costs are now reported as at least $100 million each - and thats by the US) the -18 is cost effective option.

But what is the Super Hornet's primary role?

Air superiority? Ground attack? Both? If both does that mean it's great at neither?

posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 01:12 AM
reply to post by answerman


It is not the best aircraft at each, however, it still is very capable, cheap, and represents very little risk to Australia.

Also, for the long term Australia is really looking at a single aircraft type fleet, which can be cheaper and more capable. For example, 24 F-22's and 24 'Super' F-111's would be far less capable and more expensive than 100 F-35's, while representing far more risk.

[edit on 7/3/2009 by C0bzz]

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in