Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Last edited by spazsinbad on Aug 25, 2010 - 02:35 AM; edited 2 times in total

Australia flies away with strike fighters for $60m each IAN MCPHEDRAN : The Advertiser August 24, 2010

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/nati ... 5909593661

"AUSTRALIA will pay a "flyaway" price of less than $60 million each for up to 100 of the world's most advanced fighter jets.

However, the final price will be more than double that for a total package that includes weapons, sensors, training and through-life support for the F35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF).

At about $140 million each the single-seat jets will be cheaper than the 24 two-seat Super Hornets purchased by the Howard government for $6.6 billion, or more than $220 million a copy.

The multi-role JSF jet is powered by the biggest fighter engine built, that propels it at almost twice the speed of sound. However, Australia's aircraft will not be as stealthy as the U.S. version. [That is NEWS!]

Australia is buying up to 100 planes from the US Air Force in the deal.

For the first time, the aircraft-maker - US giant Lockheed Martin - has provided a "firm" price to Australian taxpayers in 2010 dollars.

During a briefing at Lockheed Martin's huge state-of-the-art JSF factory at Fort Worth in Texas, project chief Tom Burbage revealed that Australia, as one of nine global partners, would pay less for its planes than Israel.

"Your average cost of buying your fleet of aeroplanes will be at that number ($60 million) or maybe slightly below it," Mr Burbage said.

Israel announced last week it was buying 20 JSFs for $2.75 billion, or about $140 million each, based on an initial flyaway cost of $92 million.

Mr Burbage also revealed that the per-hour flying cost of the JSF would be about 20 per cent below that of the RAAF's current fleet of F/A-18 Hornet fighters.

The first two RAAF jets will be delivered in 2014 when pilots will train on them at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida. The initial operational squadron of 14 planes is due in service by 2018.
Ian McPhedran travelled to the US as a guest of Lockheed Martin" {& they confused him mightily}

F-16.net Sponsor

Great to hear that the F-35 was cheaper than the Super Hornet buy, maybe this will urge the UK to go back with the F-35B again. But what's with the Aussie version not being as stealthy as US? I thought they would all be as stealthy. But if not so, I hope it isn't degraded by much.

sven, Yep our intrepid reporter was bamboozled by too much free booze methinks. Tom Burbage [really BrigGen David Heinz] at 2009? Paris Air Show stated that all F-35s would have the same level of exportable stealth to quell a mini controversy about 'stealth for foreigners' at the time. Oz reporters have to travel back from US in 1st class so they get 'tired and emotional' and jet lagged all at the same time - whilst 'filing' their stories. Very Happy

__________________

Reality Check: JSF’s Phantom Export Variant
(Source: defense-aerospace.com; published June 18, 2009)
(Update: Response from the JSF Program Office added June 30, 2009)

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... riant.html

"...Brigadier Gen. David Heinz, program executive officer for the F-35, rejected a claim by Boeing executives that Washington was selling a "dumbed down" version of the F-35 to international partners, Reuters reported June 16 from the Paris Air Show."

"I state categorically that I am not doing a different variant of aircraft for my international partners today," Reuters quoted Heinz as saying in an interview. He said foreign countries who bought the F-35 would be subject to a U.S. disclosure process and U.S. export controls, but [that] the aircraft being sold today were the same airplanes that were also being built for the U.S. military services."
&
"(Update: Asked to clarify the issue of the Delta SDD, Gen. David Heinz provided the following response on June 30 [2009]:

“Delta SDD deals with the unique national requirements such as Crypto. Additionally, it does the design and testing necessary to assure critical technologies are protected and therefore exportable.”

The implication is that, although export aircraft will in fact differ from those built for the US armed forces, they will not be “dumbed-down,” but adapted to buyers’ national requirements. (end of update)"

But in the end there is no clear answer to the question. It all sounds like they are brabbling a lot to distract from the facts and avoid a direct answer.

Scorpion82 wrote:

But in the end there is no clear answer to the question. It all sounds like they are brabbling a lot to distract from the facts and avoid a direct answer.

That's the same journalist that wrote only a matter of a month or so ago that ADF were going to order 18x Shadow 200 TUAV's, the 'very next day'.

Well a month later it still hasn't happened but I haven't seen many retractions from this guy...

If statements from the head of the program like, 'I categorically state I am not doing another aircraft' aren't clear enough, then I guess you can't be satisfied.

The program partners have staff in the JPO. They know EXACTLY what they will be getting if they buy this aircraft. But, nah, obviously they wouldn't have a clue and instead we should believe some reporter with an absolute litany of defence related errors in his work and who in all likelyhood would be unable to articulate what 'stealth' even is...

Good luck with that. I'll take the word of the professional airmen who will have to take this machine into harms way and bet their own lives on it's capability, thanks...

$60M each - I'll buy that.

@Conan,
who says they have no clue what they get? Maybe they are satisfied with what they get. You don't need to design a different aircraft to achieve different signature levels, leave out this or that treatment or use different material coatings etc. might be sufficient. There were similar reports in the past...

Any change in coatings will require a new set (partial at least) of flight tests because the COG, abrasion, and other qualities will be different.

I'd love to know the source of that information, especially considering it goes counter to what's been said in the past on more than one occasion.

Scorpion82 wrote:

But in the end there is no clear answer to the question. It all sounds like they are brabbling a lot to distract from the facts and avoid a direct answer.

Who's babbling? Its just that I read the statment from BrigGen David Heinz and can see nothing that makes me think he's babbling about anything. Infact it seems what he says is very straight forward.
I'd take his word regarding the F-35 program over some Australian journalist anyday of the week, afterall he's most probably a tad more involved and knows just a little teeny bit more about the program than the journalist does.

I think Heinz and Burbage have been very explicit on the issue.

Differences may not be related to VLO shaping or materials at all. It didn't say "less stealthy to RADAR".

Maybe due to australia's large area and smaller fleet they will have to boost comms signals making them "louder" or something relating to the way they'll need to operate in aus.

wrightwing wrote:

I'd love to know the source of that information, especially considering it goes counter to what's been said in the past on more than one occasion.

I'd strongly suggest APA is the source for Mr McPhedran...

They've long been running a 'smoke and mirrors' campaign of negativity towards the F-35, through Australian media.

They somehow hope with enough negative press that Government might re-consider it's plans. Of course what they would now re-consider 'for' is of course un-clear, but even multiple changes of Government and a firm commitment to the F-35 in spite of them, hasn't deterred them...

Conan wrote:

wrightwing wrote:

I'd love to know the source of that information, especially considering it goes counter to what's been said in the past on more than one occasion.

I'd strongly suggest APA is the source for Mr McPhedran...

They've long been running a 'smoke and mirrors' campaign of negativity towards the F-35, through Australian media.

They somehow hope with enough negative press that Government might re-consider it's plans. Of course what they would now re-consider 'for' is of course un-clear, but even multiple changes of Government and a firm commitment to the F-35 in spite of them, hasn't deterred them...

Well it's bound to be APA right Conan? Or that Sweetman guy, don't forget him.

Really Conan, APA’s objections to this aircraft are perfectly reasonable. The way it was selected as the replacement for Australia’s F-111s and F-18s, the fact that it’s still largely a paper aeroplane despite the testing progress. The questionable claims as to it’s stealth, survivability, maneuverability, it’s range and ultimately it’s cost. They’re all legitimate concerns Conan, why can’t you see that? And I'm pretty sure they're resigned to the fact that right or wrong Australia's getting these aircraft now, but by all means Conan don't go all soft on them now.

The other point to make is that messrs Heinz and Burbage made no mention as to what software will be available for the exported F-35s. A large portion of the aircraft's stealth extends from the AGP81 and the many and various 'modes' it can operate in. I’m pretty sure Australia won’t be getting access to the source code and I’m not sure whether the Australian government came to a similar arrangement as the UK in regard to access to the code. The UK had major concerns in this regard, as you no doubt remember and I only remember them coming to an agreement that the UK would have *limited* access to the source code but that that access was considered "sufficient".

Where Australia stands on this matter I haven't seen anywhere but an export AGP81 with limited or reduced functionality would most likely result in an export F-35 that could be considered less stealthy than the US variants.

Just my two cents.

jeffb wrote:

, the fact that it’s still largely a paper aeroplane despite the testing progress.

Just a friendly word of advice that is don't expect anyone to take your posts seriously if you write utter nonsense like that.

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Oz $60Mil F-35As 'NOT AS STEALTHY' - WHAT?