Yeah I remember that, certainly was controversial.
Another argument in that case was the Indian pilots weren't exactly veterans and were still becoming accustomed to the aircraft.
They certainly didn't take the yanks comments lightly.
An interesting case is India's recent further interest in the Rafale to replace it's ageing Mirage fleet. Maybe this will boost Australian DOD to further back the F-35 if India does commit later in the year?
A long time to wait for the Fluff-35. Who knows, maybe the US will scrap the program considering their state of affairs
Unlikely, but would certainly throw a big spanner in the works.
Despite all of the military reasons why the JSF is wrong for Australia, the diplomatic imperative of keeping our American political masters happy (who themselves are enslaved to their industrial-military complex) will have us living with the financial consequences for decades...
And now to add to the fun
i see reports that they have just grounded them all due to cracks in turbine blades.
Be interesting to see if its a design or manufacturing flaw,
but not good either way.
And now to add to the fun
i see reports that they have just grounded them all due to cracks in turbine blades.
Be interesting to see if its a design or manufacturing flaw,
but not good either way.
Andrew
Bunch F-35A's were to be headed to Nevada this month for operational testing.
I wouldn't be surprised of hearing more problems reported to come, but not that this is a bad thing.
An interesting bit on the Four Corners program was the description of the working relationship between the prime contractor (LM) and the program office: something like "the worst I've ever seen", though I might have to watch it again to check that.
I've heard in detail about, and even seen first hand, toxic relationships with a contractor. In my recollection, after that becomes known, one of three things happens:
(a) dramatic scale-back of the project and continuation at a reduced rate;
(b) exercising a cancellation clause (if there is one); or,
(c) litigation (albeit rarely, and usually only for small projects/tasks). Edit: or liquidated damages (usually for larger projects) - I forgot about that one.
No idea what will happen here, though. I've never heard of a problem on this scale before ... except maybe the 1980's era Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), a.k.a Star Wars, program - I don't remember how that ended, only that it did. Edit: Just checked the history - seems SDI was a case (a) dramatic scale-back ... as SDIO was renamed BMDO (later MDA) rather than BMDO being a new organisation.
Just on the Raptors they landed at Avalon at around 6pm on the 22nd of Feb.. One almost had an in flight emergency (electrical problems) but was able to make it to the Airfield. Looks like only 1 might flying at Avalon this year.
Just on the Raptors they landed at Avalon at around 6pm on the 22nd of Feb.. One almost had an in flight emergency (electrical problems) but was able to make it to the Airfield. Looks like only 1 might flying at Avalon this year.
Argh!, don't jinx it
Maybe it was just a smoke alarm on the cigar smoke he was enjoying after a long transatlantic flight.
I have been rather amused at some of the suggestions arm-chair experts have posed in this thread
Clearly, it doesn't take much to amuse you. And now you're pronouncing yourself the greatest armchair expert of them all?
Quote:
Buying Russian...really...if we do that we loose all support for our existing US made fleet. C-17, P3, 737 Wedgetail, F-18A & F Hornet.
What utter rubbish. Our FMS relationship with the US is sound - it's a money-for-service contract, Government-to-Government. You could argue the same with our purchase of a Swedish submarine, Swedesh frigate combat system, French/European helicopter, Spanish light aircaft (I think that one's still going ahead), Spanish destroyer/amphib hulls, Austrian rifles, yada yada yada ... or any number of things we build for ourselves, and yet none hae harmed our FMS relationship or the alliance. And guess who LM teamed with for assistance designing the F-35B (STOVL version)? Yakovlev Design Bureau, and they're f___ing Russian!!!
Quote:
Retrofitting Russian aircraft with Western Avionics...maybe you should look at the debacle with Collin Class Submarine and the Seasprite Helicopter..maybe the Tiger Helicopter as well...that is if the Russians will allow retrofitting. Retrofitting isn't Australia's strong point, it has proven costly and a failure in the past.
We've retrofitted almost everything we have to some degree. I'd say that is exactly our strong point - where we fail, if anywhere, is putting too much faith in "blue sky" projects (and the original Collins combat system was indeed "blue sky"). The Super SeaSprite was a bad idea from the outset - many people said so, including me. The project was driven initially by the Offshore Patrol Combatant project that required a small helicopter and it was always going to be a compromise considering what they were trying to pack into it - it should have been cancelled when OPC was, but it staggered on. The aim and technology was sound, but trying to get it all into a tiny platform with only 2 crew was its undoing - it just couldn't be certified for operations in those circumstances.
We've upgraded most other platforms we have (air, sea and land) and have achieved good performance and cost effectiveness in most cases, compared to O/S projects.
Quote:
Maybe the F-35 will be a great white elephant..maybe not..time will tell
Thank you, Captain Obvious. That is actually what most of us are thinking/saying.
Quote:
Australia has not committed to the F35B variant
Australia is not buying the F-35B (STOVL variant), only the F-35A. Despite the occasional misinformed rumour, the LHD class of ships will only ever carry helicopters.
The F-35 program problems are applicable to all variants.
Edit: Bugger! After all that, it seems Hans deleted his original post. Oh well.
Clearly, it doesn't take much to amuse you. And now you're pronouncing yourself the greatest armchair expert of them all?
What utter rubbish. Our FMS relationship with the US is sound - it's a money-for-service contract, Government-to-Government. You could argue the same with our purchase of a Swedish submarine, Swedesh frigate combat system, French/European helicopter, Spanish light aircaft (I think that one's still going ahead), Spanish destroyer/amphib hulls, Austrian rifles, yada yada yada ... or any number of things we build for ourselves, and yet none hae harmed our FMS relationship or the alliance. And guess who LM teamed with for assistance designing the F-35B (STOVL version)? Yakovlev Design Bureau, and they're f___ing Russian!!!
We've retrofitted almost everything we have to some degree. I'd say that is exactly our strong point - where we fail, if anywhere, is putting too much faith in "blue sky" projects (and the original Collins combat system was indeed "blue sky"). The Super SeaSprite was a bad idea from the outset - many people said so, including me. The project was driven initially by the Offshore Patrol Combatant project that required a small helicopter and it was always going to be a compromise considering what they were trying to pack into it - it should have been cancelled when OPC was, but it staggered on. The aim and technology was sound, but trying to get it all into a tiny platform with only 2 crew was its undoing - it just couldn't be certified for operations in those circumstances.
We've upgraded most other platforms we have (air, sea and land) and have achieved good performance and cost effectiveness in most cases, compared to O/S projects.
Thank you, Captain Obvious. That is actually what most of us are thinking/saying.
Australia is not buying the F-35B (STOVL variant), only the F-35A. Despite the occasional misinformed rumour, the LHD class of ships will only ever carry helicopters.
The F-35 program problems are applicable to all variants.
Edit: Bugger! After all that, it seems Hans deleted his original post. Oh well.
Jeez RG..such a hostile response...did you miss your daily Valium dose today.
I deleted the post after realising it was going to be a one sided argument, which is obvious from your response. People like you only want to hear from others with like minded views. If I am wrong by all means point it out but leave out the profanity, its the sign of an individual whom hasn't got a command of the English language. The, use of emoticons doesn't diffuse the hostility of your response either.
Also, I know a lot more about the FMS system/agreement than you give me credit for. The withdraw of support won't be blatantly obvious but more subtle, thats what I am on about. Squirrel Helicopter comes to mind here.
Yes, I was wrong about the F-35B...so sue me. Australia is still only a level 3 partner in the F-35 development, other countries have more to loose if/when the project fails but there might be some good developments that can be salvaged out of the project.
Also, I know a lot more about the FMS system/agreement than you give me credit for. The withdraw of support won't be blatantly obvious but more subtle, thats what I am on about.
Again, rubbish. I doubt you have much experience with FMS at all, if that's your impression.
Quote:
Squirrel Helicopter comes to mind here.
The Aerospatiale Squirrel is French!
Quote:
People like you only want to hear from others with like minded views. If I am wrong by all means point it out but leave out the profanity, its the sign of an individual whom hasn't got a command of the English language.
And so it becomes ad hominem. If you perceive my bluntness as hostility, then that's a mistake. I acknowledge that I'm no diplomat (never have been) and if you'd had the long career arguing with the boneheads that I've had to argue with, you'd probably be the same. If you knew me, you'd know I'm not hostile (except in extremely rare circumstances that have yet to arise here). But if I see something as "rubbish" I won't hesitate to say so - it used to be my job.
PS: The profanity was being used for emphasis, as it often is - watch some late night TV talk shows, and I'm sure you'll see what I mean - it's quite common.
Again, rubbish. I doubt you have much experience with FMS at all, if that's your impression.
The Aerospatiale Squirrel is French!
And so it becomes ad hominem. If you perceive my bluntness as hostility, then that's a mistake. I acknowledge that I'm no diplomat (never have been) and if you'd had the long career arguing with the boneheads that I've had to argue with, you'd probably be the same. If you knew me, you'd know I'm not hostile (except in extremely rare circumstances that have yet to arise here). But if I see something as "rubbish" I won't hesitate to say so - it used to be my job.
PS: The profanity was being used for emphasis, as it often is - watch some late night TV talk shows, and I'm sure you'll see what I mean - it's quite common.
This one a long time have I watched.....Much anger in him.
Re: The Squirrel...Yes it is French but it was perceived that we were blackmailed into buying this Helicopter to keep spares flowing for the Mirage...true...I have no idea. The rumour came from some fact...then possibly distorted.
Re: The Squirrel...Yes it is French but it was perceived that we were blackmailed into buying this Helicopter to keep spares flowing for the Mirage...true...I have no idea. The rumour came from some fact...then possibly distorted.
Oh, this bit is new - you must have edited your post in between me starting my previous reply and hitting "Submit" ... anyway ...
The Squirrel was, and still is, a popular aircraft worldwide. I knew a guy on the project who once explained to me why we bought them (as well as knowing the people who flew them) - it made sense at the time - there's no need to propogate rumours to explain the purchase of the "Battle Budgie".
Besides, the timelines don't quite add up - we took delivery of off-the-shelf Squirrels in '84, already a long way into the Hornet project and just about when deliveries started. Also, I can't imagine bowing to that kind of pressure - we may make some foolhardy decisions from time to time, but they're all our own - no need to invent foreign influence to explain our mistakes (and I've had long involved dealings with the boneheads that make the decisions ... believe me, that's enough explanation for everything).
Granted my views are biased (being a U.S.Citizen)...but the USA makes the worlds best killing machines overall. It is too bad that the US Congress banned overseas sales of the F-22 Raptor, which arguably is the best current fighter jet in the world.
The F-35 Lightning II is turning into a mess as it is way over budget and has gained too much weight, and thus has a very reduced combat radius and range.
As for the French figher, I am quite ignorant of them. I was never impressed with thier Mirage series.
That is actually what most of us are thinking/saying.
