Israeli F-35 info

[+allenjb42 4,240]

I have a relative who works pretty high up in the Tel Aviv office of Lockheed Martin (and I don't mean on the 15th floor!). This is from an email I just received:

 

As for the planes, we are very hectic with this program right now and have lots of teams coming over from the US on this. The Israel version will be Grey like the US. The actual order has not yet been signed and is still in negotiation stage. (Price shot up from original budget, so difficult situation, especially with everyone hurting financially, including US Aid). We hope to sign in the next few weeks. Only after order signed and we have a specific model for Israel will they assign a name. I will let you know. It is an amazing plane. I used an F-35 simulator that was here for testing and display. Fantastic feeling.

 

Looks like we're going to need a grey Israeli skin after all...

Edited October 16, 2008 by allenjb42

[alex70b 0]

Lucky guy your relative.

I'd love to play around on a simulator like he did.

[Nesher 628]

from what was in the media, Israel gonna get 25 F-35A's (a squadron)

and an option for 50 more F-35B's

 

btw, i'm sure the IDF\AF will use the public to assign a name for the jet once will start getting them :)

like they did with F-16I Sufa

 

hope they sign soon, thanks for the info

 

Cheers!

[+Gocad 26]

Just out of curiosity, why would Israel want to buy the F-35B instead of more As?

[Salamander67 0]

Is it confirmed that they're opting for the F-35B if they go trough with the option? In Jpost a month ago they said that the option is for another 50 F-35A or B, which variant it finally would be was (then at least) undecided.

 

Personally I think that STOVL is a feature that certainly can be useful, but operating one squadron of A's and two with B's might not be cost efficent (spares, training, and so on). However, as shown with the F-15I, it's not impossible.

 

Certainly interesting though :yes:

[macelena 1,070]

I think that As would be the best option, as Bs are such expensive and hard to keep, i wouldn´t get them if it was not for a light carrier

Whatever the IAF would neede, the risk of loosing their airfields isn´t worthy the effort of buying Bs- I think.

[eraser_tr 29]

I would go for the Bs and simply use them conventionally and have the STOVL there just in case.

 

Damn shame they won't be giving them a desert camo scheme like the sufa.

[kesegy 5]

I think that As would be the best option, as Bs are such expensive and hard to keep, i wouldn´t get them if it was not for a light carrier

Whatever the IAF would neede, the risk of loosing their airfields isn´t worthy the effort of buying Bs- I think.

i completely agree, it just doesn't seem cost efficient to get Bs.

 

 

i mean, israelis don't and probably never will have carrier capability so if israel lost all its airfields capable of supporting F-35As, given the size of israel as a country i think they would have much bigger problems by that time and F-35s wouldn't make a big difference in the fight anymore.

 

get F-35As and a whole lot of 'em and no one will even think of trying to invade the holy land.

[Nesher 628]

just now i read on the friday's newspaper that Israel may have to cancel buying the F-35

the U.K. and Italy are pulling back from buying the jet and it may effect the price of it....

 

hope it won't change nothing regarding Israel... i would really like to see some F-35 with the IAF Blue star

 

Cheers!

[macelena 1,070]

get F-35As and a whole lot of 'em and no one will even think of trying to invade the holy land.

 

As descendant of a family of crusaders of the Malta Order (those who withdrew Jerusalem in Kingdom of Heaven) I

shall say something, but its kind of embarrasing

[Salamander67 0]

I would be surprised if the IDF/AF, ISAF or IAF (don't know what the proper title is nowadays...) completly withdrew from the project, although cuts in the planned number shure can happen. The Israelis have operated a sizeable force of first-class fighters since the sixties, and if they don't get the F-35, what else then? Eurofighter? Sukhoi's? Rafale? Gripen? Or F-22? Nah, don't think so. We'll almost certainly see F-35's with blue stars.

[+76.IAP-Blackbird 3,557]

Uk and Italy withdrawing from the project... it`s the best they could do, cause of the development costs, no access to the planes technology and weaker stealth ability then primary announced. Lockheed Martin absorbed all the technology from the states involved in the development of this bird. But they never get any information from LM about the plane.

 

UK has a plan B if they cancel the project participation.

Edited October 19, 2008 by 76.IAP-Blackbird

[Salamander67 0]

UK has a plan B if they cancel the project participation.

 

What's the plan B? Navalized Typhoon? That's hardly cost-effecient, not to mention the stealth-characteristics...

 

The thing is, even if the involved countries are screaming for more insight (which they probably are quite justified to, I mean, how do you operate an aircraft you don't know totally?), there is no other comparable aircraft in development at the moment. Something especially true for the ones interested in maintaing a jump-jet carrier (read: UK, and to a lesser extent Italy). So they might have to go ahead and buy it anyway, which probably is going to be a quite bad deal...

[+76.IAP-Blackbird 3,557]

The F-35 is more or less a Bombtruck for the USAF and NAVY and a replacement for the F-16, it`s still behind the frontline fighter F-22. The fact is, that this plane will be/would be the first line choice for the other countries.

Now we have to compare, US is developing a stealthy bombtruck and not a frontlinefighter <--- other nations need a frontline airplane and not a bombtruck.

 

Saab is developing a low cost alternative "Super" Grippen, enlarged fuel capacity, stronger engine and lower fuelconsumption, more sensors and bit more larger fuselage. Thinkin about a navalized version too. This plane is a nice low cost replacment for some F-16 fleets. And many countries wants to replace the F-16 with the 35.

 

A Rafale is a good choice to, Navalized version is standart, strong gear and fuselage. It will be interesting to see how this will go further.

[kesegy 5]

in my opinion, the rafale is not a viable alternative in the current market simply because of it short range, especially considering israel's requirements. it's not very often you see a rafale pic without 3 fuel tanks attached. international sales of rafale so far have proved that.

[+76.IAP-Blackbird 3,557]

For me they should buy russian planes put some western avionics in and fly them the cool way!

[Salamander67 0]

Going for a navalized version of the Eurofighter, Rafale or Super Gripen all has their own problems.

 

First: None of them is STOVL capable, meaning you need a CTOL carrier (or a STOBAR), the RN can perhaps afford it (have heard thet the QE will be prepared for later re-roling if needed), but i doubt that the Italian, Australian or several other smaller navies will be interested. However, there is considerable interest in short-deck carriers for STOVL-operations.

 

Second: Except for the Rafale there aren't even prototypes of these navalized derivatives (in the case of the Super Gripen there isn't even a mock-up of the land-based version).

 

Third: Again, except for the Rafale, the companies behind them has no recent experience in building shipboard CTOL-fighters. SAAB has NEVER built a shipboard fighter.

 

As for the F-22, yes, everybody would like to operate it, but the unit cost is far largfer than for the F-35, and the tech-transfer problems will probably just be bigger. The reason why the F-16 was a export success was not that it was better suited to European requirements than the F-15 or F-14, but rather that it was considerably cheaper and capable of delivering bombs too. Arguably, what most countries in Europe are looking for is a relatively cheap aircraft, capable of working both as a air-to-air fighter and as a bombtruck. Preferably it should be a aircraft that is sold in big numbers (especially to neighbouring countries) so training, spares, operating procedures and so on can be streamlined. If you with "frontline fighter" mean a single role fighter/interceptor, I think the market for that is pretty small...

 

And then there is politics, most NATO-countries (and several other European countries too) will not by a Russian design. Not that they would be in ferior, but because of politics and a general fear that they can not trust the Russian government (something that has increased since August). I'm not saying they're right, but in reality this do hamper Russian exports.

 

Gripen is in a better position, but again, it's far better to buy American arms and become better friends with them (and operate the same planes as several other NATO-members do), than to make sure one is a really good friend with Sweden. It's all about politics...

 

This leaves Eurofighter and the Rafale, with Eurofighter as the sligthly stronger contestant due to being operated by more countries. They can compete with the F-35A, but they lack stealth-caractheristics. Is the extra stealthiness worth it's price? That's an unanswered question. Still, there is no STOVL design for smaller carriers (or forward basing/operations from damaged runways), which means that the F-35B will probably gain some export orders, little matter how expensive it becomes or how un-stealthy it is.

 

Ooh, and btw, this has moved away from Israeli F-35 info quite some while ago...

[JediMaster 451]

I've heard nothing official about the UK or Italy buying fewer F-35s. Italy isn't really getting that many anyway, but the UK is a major player.

[Nesher 628]

that's what i read in the newspaper...

you can't always believe the media, but it's a posibilty with all that is going on..

 

btw, there was a anothe posting on the egyptian paper saying

that Israel+F-35 doesn't change the force balance in the area... (yeah right :P)

Edited October 20, 2008 by Nesher

[+allenjb42 4,240]

It wouldn't suprise me if somewhere down the line Saudi and (maybe Jordan) got F-35s and possibly F-22s. Heck, the way the global economy is going the Saudis may be the only ones who can afford them!

[Nesher 628]

F-22? never... maybe downgraded F-35... but a big maybe

i don't think that the U.S. will cause a quake in the force balance here (although we are in peace with Jordan)

[+Gocad 26]

F-22s are unlikely. F-35s on the other hand, well, I do think that it's quite possible that Israel won't be the only F-35 user in the region. I wouldn't be surprised if Egypt might get some as well. Not too soon, though.

[JediMaster 451]

I'd say there's a good chance Saudis will buy F-35s in the next decade some time. As already mentioned the F-22 won't be going there, or anywhere apparently, so those F-15 operators looking for a replacement will have little choice. Saudis are already getting Typhoons anyway, and I think they'll be used for AA primarily. To replace the ground attack F-15S they'll probably get F-35s.

[Salamander67 0]

Now, what no one seems to have commented on is why the Israelis want their F-35's to be grey. AFAIK the Israelis only use grey on their top air superiority fighters, and only then if they don't have a secondary air to ground tasking. At the moment (correct me if I'm wrong) the only grey fast-jets in Israeli service are their F-15A/B/C/D, with all F-16', F-15I, SKyhawks, Phantoms and so on, having received camouflage. That would indicate that they A) are going to repaint the entire fleet (ok, it's not that big, but anyway), or, B) will use their F-35's mainly for air-to-air missions (all talks of it being a "bombtruck" ignored), or, C) their going to do a revision of their paint schemes, and I honestly can't say why it would be better to have uncamouflaged fighters if you count on having them do attack missions (except perhaps for some wheight loss).

[Mannie 21]

Now, what no one seems to have commented on is why the Israelis want their F-35's to be grey. AFAIK the Israelis only use grey on their top air superiority fighters, and only then if they don't have a secondary air to ground tasking. At the moment (correct me if I'm wrong) the only grey fast-jets in Israeli service are their F-15A/B/C/D, with all F-16', F-15I, SKyhawks, Phantoms and so on, having received camouflage. That would indicate that they A) are going to repaint the entire fleet (ok, it's not that big, but anyway), or, B) will use their F-35's mainly for air-to-air missions (all talks of it being a "bombtruck" ignored), or, C) their going to do a revision of their paint schemes, and I honestly can't say why it would be better to have uncamouflaged fighters if you count on having them do attack missions (except perhaps for some wheight loss).

 

Maybe it has something to do with its stealthiness?

Could it be that camo colors disrupt it?

I don't know.