US F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program Progress, Photos & Videos

IF the P of W were to be put up for sale the only country I can think of that is potentially viable buyer is Australia. their economy is actually booming unlike Europe and wouldn't surprise me at all if they have a carrier themselves in the next 10 years to counter the Chinese expansion into the SEA region.

Originally Posted by delft

There will not be a Dutch carrier, much too expensive. Probably pretty soon there will be no Spanish or Italian carriers. France can't buy a second carrier. The UK cannot really buy one carrier, let alone two. And who would buy Prince of Wales? Hungary?
Besides were is the sense in being able to attack countries all over the world. Let every country be able to defend itself.

The Dutch have a very strong amphibious force component. These amphibs are very cheap in comparison to carriers and both the Spanish Juan Carlos as well as the Italian Cavour are not carriers, but amphibs that can fly fixed wing aircrafts. They cost about as much as one frigate that is the basic naval surface unit and about twice as much as a SSC. The Canberra class has a much higher price tag, probably due to electronics, but still far below US costs for a gator and only twice as much as an air defense frigate. Combining support and troop shipment in one ship, a joint support ship, like the Karel Doorman, will be the future for small navies. Even the small ones, like everyone else do have the urge to be part of sea power projection in alliance - the new basic concept of NATO.

Originally Posted by delft

Of course I admire the late Kelly Johnson. But those F-104G's were not sold to us as interceptors but as fighter bombers, able to haul a large load of bombs and missiles, even nuclear bombs. And the Dutch and the Germans and probably every other user lost a quarter of them due to accidents and very many pilots. The noise of the J-79 was horrible but could only intimidate people on the ground. ( Dutch Starfighters were used to help end the hostage taking in a railway train by descendants of Moluccan former members of the Dutch colonial army in what is now Indonesia. These men were given a service order to embark to The Netherlands after the Dutch lost the war against that country in 1949. They were cashiered immediately on arrival and put into camps. They were badly treated. )
Also I'm very sure that LockMart is not the company it was while Kelly worked there.

Thank you master delft for reinforcing my point, and yes the Luftwaffe cross looked very kool on the 104, I picked that one to elaborate on because I knew you would whine about "that one". For one thing the German Air Force knows and knew a thing or two about those very dangerous jet fighters and their operation, NO? Any pilot can look at that bird and the size of its wing and "know" exactly what it is, and what it will and won't do, and that it will be fast, it will be a handfull, and it will have a large "coffin corner". Incidentally, the P-38, F-104, U-2, SR-71, and the F-22 all have some "bad habits", and yet they are each one a "life saver" and provide very superior capabilities to their contemporaries in addition to expanding our "war fighting" capability, they all demand "MEN" to fly them who are willing and Able to operate them within their design parameters, the F-35 will offer no less IMHO. Oh and the J-79 howl is music to her fans and those German pilots loved their 104s and so did their many admirers, and though dangerous, they played a very important role in keeping the allies free, and yes flying a "dangerous airplane" is much safer than fighting a "dangerous WAR". The F-35 promises to be much safer, really she does! I think the trite little saying that applies is "freedom is'nt free", but then nothing worthwhile is, is it?

Originally Posted by Equation

I know this may sound crazy, but, why not turn the Prince of Wales into half UK owned and half NATO owned with standard operations and wing units of F-35B and eurocopters to operate. It not only cut purchasing and maintenance costs for both UK and Europe but also give them an extra carrier to go around.

"there ya go"

been there didn't do that....

Britain and France will not share aircraft carriers, officials say
Reports that two countries are to combine forces denied as defence secretaries meet to discuss closer military co-operation
Share 9


Email
Richard Norton-Taylor, security editor
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 2 September 2010 13.36 EDT

Officials have denied reports that Britain and France are to share aircraft carriers. Photograph: Sipa Press / Rex Features
British and French officials engaged in high-level defence talks have denied reports the two countries are considering sharing aircraft carriers, but are paving the way for unprecedented military co-operation, according to sources on both sides of the Channel.

Speaking on the eve of talks in Paris between the defence secretary, Liam Fox, and his French counterpart, Hervé Morin, officials said plans were being drawn up in an attempt to save money but maintain capabilities.

"We're in a phase where we must absolutely synchronise our budget cuts so that, in the end, there's no loss in our military capacities," a senior French diplomat told Agence France Presse news agency this week.

But British defence officials, irritated by reports of plans to "combine forces" and "share" ships, are keen to play down the significance of tomorrow's meeting. Morin is expected to be a victim of an imminent French government reshuffle.

"We will be looking at areas of closer co-operation between the two countries. But there are no plans to share carriers," British officials said.

Officials are instead pointing to the significance of the Franco-British summit between David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy, due to be held in England on 5 November. In a keynote address to ambassadors last month, Sarkozy said France was prepared to undertake "concrete" defence projects with Britain. He added: "We will be discussing this with them without taboos in November."

The results of the British government's strategic defence and security review are expected to be announced before the November summit, making it easier for Cameron and Sarkozy to announce specific plans for co-operation.

Recent reports the two countries were planning to share ships, notably aircraft carriers, have provoked a storm of protest. Lord Boyce, the former first sea lord, said: "You cannot co-own an asset. It is totally impracticable and simply won't work."

French military officials have also expressed concerns about the practical problems involved, including different warship design. The countries also have different interests or have taken opposing positions on key international issues, including the Falklands Islands, former French colonies in Africa and the invasion of Iraq.

However, there are many potential areas of defence co-operation, which British and French officials have been working on intensely throughout the summer.

Britain is building two carriers at a cost of £5.2bn which are due to enter service in 2016 and 2018. They are unlikely to fall victim of the defence review, officials say, if only because £2bn has already been spent on them and under the contracts with shipyards and the manufacturers BAE Systems, Babcock International, and the French company Thales, scrapping them would save less than £1bn.

France, which has one aircraft carrier, has delayed until next year a decision on whether to build a second one.

Instead of sharing carriers, Britain and France could ensure more effective co-operation on missions about which the two governments agree, officials say. These could include humanitarian operations such as those off Lebanon four years ago and in the Persian Gulf.

Britain and France could also increase the "interoperability" of their warships, provide surface escorts for each other's carriers, and synchronise nuclear missile submarine patrols, officials say.

Officials point to successful co-operation between the two countries in the past on maritime missions in the Mediterranean, the Adriatic and countering pirates off the Horn of Africa.

back to to topic........

UK Takes Delivery of First F-35B Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter

Originally Posted by kwaigonegin

been there didn't do that....

Britain and France will not share aircraft carriers, officials say
Reports that two countries are to combine forces denied as defence secretaries meet to discuss closer military co-operation
Share 9


Email
Richard Norton-Taylor, security editor
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 2 September 2010 13.36 EDT

Officials have denied reports that Britain and France are to share aircraft carriers. Photograph: Sipa Press / Rex Features
British and French officials engaged in high-level defence talks have denied reports the two countries are considering sharing aircraft carriers, but are paving the way for unprecedented military co-operation, according to sources on both sides of the Channel.

Speaking on the eve of talks in Paris between the defence secretary, Liam Fox, and his French counterpart, Hervé Morin, officials said plans were being drawn up in an attempt to save money but maintain capabilities.

"We're in a phase where we must absolutely synchronise our budget cuts so that, in the end, there's no loss in our military capacities," a senior French diplomat told Agence France Presse news agency this week.

But British defence officials, irritated by reports of plans to "combine forces" and "share" ships, are keen to play down the significance of tomorrow's meeting. Morin is expected to be a victim of an imminent French government reshuffle.

"We will be looking at areas of closer co-operation between the two countries. But there are no plans to share carriers," British officials said.

Officials are instead pointing to the significance of the Franco-British summit between David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy, due to be held in England on 5 November. In a keynote address to ambassadors last month, Sarkozy said France was prepared to undertake "concrete" defence projects with Britain. He added: "We will be discussing this with them without taboos in November."

The results of the British government's strategic defence and security review are expected to be announced before the November summit, making it easier for Cameron and Sarkozy to announce specific plans for co-operation.

Recent reports the two countries were planning to share ships, notably aircraft carriers, have provoked a storm of protest. Lord Boyce, the former first sea lord, said: "You cannot co-own an asset. It is totally impracticable and simply won't work."

French military officials have also expressed concerns about the practical problems involved, including different warship design. The countries also have different interests or have taken opposing positions on key international issues, including the Falklands Islands, former French colonies in Africa and the invasion of Iraq.

However, there are many potential areas of defence co-operation, which British and French officials have been working on intensely throughout the summer.

Britain is building two carriers at a cost of £5.2bn which are due to enter service in 2016 and 2018. They are unlikely to fall victim of the defence review, officials say, if only because £2bn has already been spent on them and under the contracts with shipyards and the manufacturers BAE Systems, Babcock International, and the French company Thales, scrapping them would save less than £1bn.

France, which has one aircraft carrier, has delayed until next year a decision on whether to build a second one.

Instead of sharing carriers, Britain and France could ensure more effective co-operation on missions about which the two governments agree, officials say. These could include humanitarian operations such as those off Lebanon four years ago and in the Persian Gulf.

Britain and France could also increase the "interoperability" of their warships, provide surface escorts for each other's carriers, and synchronise nuclear missile submarine patrols, officials say.

Officials point to successful co-operation between the two countries in the past on maritime missions in the Mediterranean, the Adriatic and countering pirates off the Horn of Africa.

Yeah, but during tough economic times, prickliness and pride has no room for logic and reasons.

Originally Posted by Equation

Yeah, but during tough economic times, prickliness and pride has no room for logic and reasons.

France has a slightly inflated ego, being the grande nation. They are absolutely the wrong partner for carrier sharing, Marianne and John Bull can't be roommates. The Dutch, Canada or a Danish-German alliance are more promising candidates. Offering shares is already part of the Berlin class supply ships, so just slot in an aircraft carrier and bit by bit a common affordable naval structure grows. Next time see the carriers more as amphibs with fixed wing capability and a much reduced price tag. The current development costs of a class of ships with one and at utmost two specimen is totally crazy.
The French and the British navy both wish to have about 2 carriers and 4 gators. Either they join and develop the 4 carriers together (Russia might want to join) and thus affordable or they look at Italy/Spain and built each up to 6 Cavours that are multi-capable.
The F-35 B STOVL is the right kind of aircraft for small navies to put aircrafts on affordable ships and thus a major naval contribution for all but the French.

Originally Posted by Air Force Brat

Thank you master delft for reinforcing my point, and yes the Luftwaffe cross looked very kool on the 104, I picked that one to elaborate on because I knew you would whine about "that one". For one thing the German Air Force knows and knew a thing or two about those very dangerous jet fighters and their operation, NO? Any pilot can look at that bird and the size of its wing and "know" exactly what it is, and what it will and won't do, and that it will be fast, it will be a handfull, and it will have a large "coffin corner". Incidentally, the P-38, F-104, U-2, SR-71, and the F-22 all have some "bad habits", and yet they are each one a "life saver" and provide very superior capabilities to their contemporaries in addition to expanding our "war fighting" capability, they all demand "MEN" to fly them who are willing and Able to operate them within their design parameters, the F-35 will offer no less IMHO. Oh and the J-79 howl is music to her fans and those German pilots loved their 104s and so did their many admirers, and though dangerous, they played a very important role in keeping the allies free, and yes flying a "dangerous airplane" is much safer than fighting a "dangerous WAR". The F-35 promises to be much safer, really she does! I think the trite little saying that applies is "freedom is'nt free", but then nothing worthwhile is, is it?

For the interception of bombers, the original function of the F-104, the MiG-21 was better. And the MiG, in its Chinese forms, is still alive after more than fifty years. For the use as fighter bomber it was a deadly mistake.

Funny:
Philip Hammond shrugs off US criticisms of Joint Strike Fighter - Telegraph

Philip Hammond shrugs off US criticisms of Joint Strike Fighter
Philip Hammond, the defence secretary, poured scorn on concerns over the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) programme on Wednesday comparing an official US government audit into the embattled fighter jet to a “home buyer’s survey” that could be safely ignored.

By Peter Foster, Washington10:08PM BST 18 Jul 2012
“If you ever buy a house and you get a surveyor to do a structural survey, you will never, ever buy the house if you read the structural survey,” Mr Hammond said, dismissing a 50-page report by US Government Accountability Office (GAO) which raised profound questions about the fighter last month.
The GAO, the official watchdog of the US Congress, warned that the development of the $160m (£102m) aircraft’s high-tech software systems were “behind schedule and risky”, pointing out that only 4 per cent of its systems had yet been fully tested.
Mr Hammond will be in Texas on Thursday to take the ‘keys’ of the first British F-35B Lightning, a jump-jet version of the aircraft that was ordered in May following a major U-turn by the Coalition government which decided the F-35C catapult version was too expensive.
Re-iterating Britain’s commitment to buy 48 of the Fifth Generation planes, Mr Hammond gave assurances that that engineering problems that have bedeviled the Lockheed Martin jet were now largely resolved.
“We’ve got past the phase where the focus was getting the plane flying and proving it, and we’re now at the stage where the customer is seeking to drive the cost down,” Mr Hammond said.
The GAO report paints a very different picture, however, warning that it would be “years” before it was clear if the F-35B would work as planned. It warned that engineering changes would continue at “elevated levels into 2019” - which is three years after Britain takes delivery of its first F-35Bs
Although tests had demonstrated basic air-worthiness, the report continued, more difficult testing, including “low-altitude” and “high angle” attacks had not started, with testing of a fully operational aircraft not expected until 2015 “at the earliest”.
Britain is scheduled to take delivery of its first aircraft for land-based operations in 2016, before beginning carrier training in 2018, with a view to having a fully operational carrier-based aircraft in 2020, Mr Hammond said.
The GAO report also raises concerns about 24 million lines of software code that will needed to create a hyper-advanced, futuristic fighter aircraft where pilots will see all the information they require projected onto the inside of the visors of their helmets.
The auditors found that the helmet “continues to have significant technical deficiencies”, making it “less functional” even than existing equipment, forcing the manufacturers to supply a “less capable” helmet while spending $80 (GBP50m) trying to fix the original design.
In terms of engineering the GAO says that only two of the five structural problems - including bulkhead cracking and overheating - which forced the jump-jet F-35B version to be put on probation last year have been properly fixed, with three other issues being given only temporary solutions.
“Assessing whether the deficiencies have been resolved in ongoing and, in some cases, will not be known for years,” the report added.
Mr Hammond said such problems were to be expected with such a “fantastically complex” airplane, and that he was confident that the JSF, which is a key part of the future planning for the US Marine Corps, would eventually work.
“I’m not saying all the work’s been done, all the hitches have been ironed out – of course they haven’t - - there’s lots of development work lots still to do,” he concluded, “Maybe some of the sceptics will change their minds when they see it fly.”

Superhornets huge control surface look kinda small in comparison!

Originally Posted by navyreco

Superhornets huge control surface look kinda small in comparison!

Luke AFB in Arizona will host the Air Forces F-35A training center, eventually being home to 72 F-35As, this from todays Air Force Magazine daily report.

Originally Posted by Equation

I know this may sound crazy, but, why not turn the Prince of Wales into half UK owned and half NATO owned with standard operations and wing units of F-35B and eurocopters to operate. It not only cut purchasing and maintenance costs for both UK and Europe but also give them an extra carrier to go around.

I dont think that a mixed comand/crewed boat would work? They cant even on the direction Nato forces should be taking now. eg. the Middle East. In time of need some might go along others don't, and thus one their contribution of men and planes pulled off the ship.....yada..yada.
yada.

Sorry Kwaigonegen, I missed your post first time around. You said it all.

Originally Posted by Air Force Brat

While I am absolutely in aggreement with you, let me step out of my [F-22 Funk} crotchety early on apparaisal of the F-35, [which R still right on the money} and say this. The F-35 has been designed by our friends at LockMart, they have a history of getting the job done, {P-38, F-104, C-130, EC-121, SR-71, U-2, F-22, etc,etc,} all very cutting edge birds designed to fill a need. While only the C-130 and F-35 remain in production, you can sense that LockMart is often there with the right bird for the job, at a price you will be glad to pay, given that no one else will build you what you "want". I know some of you whiners will say the F-104 was a "dangerous airplane", but let me remind you that Kelly Johnson designed a light tactical aircraft to bring down supersonic nuclear bombers with a well placed missile shot. Yes it is dangerous, but if you have even heard that J-79 Howl, it is also a psychological weapon. It is still FAAAASSST! and thats how they sold it, the missle with a man in it! My point is, Lockheed will get it in the ballpark, the rest is up to you. It will not be cheap, it will not be FFFAAASSSSST, but it will do what it was designed to do, haul a load in reasonable stealthy manner, strike the target as advertised, and hopefully, take ya home, albeit at a leisurely pace, hope no flanker driver sees ya, if he does I hope you've still got a coupla those fancy pants off bore sight A2A missles left, or at least a Halo of Raptors, the heavenly bird! Cheers Brat

Well kids, if Mitt wins the Whitehouse in November, he will restart the F-22 line, this in from todays Air Force Magazine Daily Report, and I could end my F-22 blue funk! Halleluyah!

Then we can resurrect the HI/LO fighter/fighter attack plan and get the Air Force out its feminine funk, bout time we had a man's Air Force again!