2019 F-35 News and Discussion

Read the forum code of contact

Turkey is in a far worse position than the US and Europe. Honestly, they're bluffing but doing a good job so far....

Member for

2 years 10 months

Posts: 333

That makes sense, but why to threaten specifically with the F-35? Turkey is very vulnerable to US cutting military cooperation in general so it would be easy to force them in other ways. And at the same time, F-35's supply chain and schedule counts on Turkey's participation so there is in fact a vulnerability of the program towards them. There is still something missing...

But Turkey's share of the supply chain can be replaced with only minor/moderate disruptions. But Turkey can not obtain a replacement within a five year period and they cannot build it themselves. And, as far as military cooperation goes, US-Turkish cooperation is already a basket case and so nothing to lose there.

Profile picture for user LMFS

Member for

3 years 1 month

Posts: 484

@XB-70

I read one official stating that removing Turkey would mean a delay of two years for the production IIRC, that is substantial I would say.

Turkey is deeply involved in many western programs, expelling them would do real harm to their MIC. What about spares for their F-16, can they produce on their own?
True, they cannot substitute the F-35 by themselves, but that would throw them even more in the arms of Russia and China. No doubt Russia would be happy to sell them Su-30s as strike fighters, if Turkey is marginalized by the West.

Profile picture for user FBW

Member for

9 years 3 months

Posts: 3,106

This was stated over a month ago, no major disruption should Turkey be removed.
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018...official-says/

i find your queries into into this matter disingenuous LMFS. You have several posters tell you essentially the same things:
The decision to ban sales of the F-35 due to the purchase of S-400 has nothing to do with proving or otherwise the stealth capabilities of the F-35 or that of the S-400 system to counter it.
It has everything to do with Turkey buying a weapon system from a country being sanctioned, not only by US, but every major NATO country... period... Germany, France, UK, Italy, shall I continue?
The US is correct in doubting the security of sensitive information contained in the F-35 program on how said system is identified and countered, if Turkey is willing to buy from a nation unfriendly to US.
it is a question of sovereignty as you stated, Turkey can choose to buy the S-400, and the US can choose to end sharing sensitive information and weapons with Turkey based on that. They cannot strongarm the US into continued participation in the F-35 program any more than the US can strongarm Turkey into cancelling the S-400 purchase if Turkey is set on following through with contract. Erdogan is playing poker with a pair of deuces. Just last summer, there was talk in Congress of suspending all FMS with Turkey. That would have a devastating impact on the Turkish military. The optimists can hope that this situation resolved itself over time and Turkey will eventually continue the F-35 contract and ties between the US and Turkey are repaired. I am not one of them. Nothing would make me happier to see Turkey never get the F-35 under the current Turkish leadership. And if Turkey wants to turn to Russia for Su-30’s or whatever, so be it (though I doubt relations between the US and Turkey will devolve to that level....unfortunately).

weapons sales have several components; financial, technological, and geopolitical. For the US, the financial implications of ending Turkey’s participation don’t outweigh the technological risks of transferring sensitive information to an unreliable ally. The geopolitical aspects between Turkey and the US are a mess right now and several NATO nation’s (not just the US) have been questioning the logic of Turkey’s continuation in the NATO alliance. What is the point of a military alliance containing an “ally” that acts counter to stated goals, and has divergent interests?

Read your Palmerston: “””We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and these interests it is our duty to follow.”””
The US and Turkey were allies due to mutual interests during the Cold War, the geopolitical landscape has changed.

Profile picture for user LMFS

Member for

3 years 1 month

Posts: 484

[USER="40269"]FBW[/USER]

I cant help it if you find my questions disingenuous, quite honestly cannot care too much. I am sincerely asking (because I don't want to judge the issue lightly) and all I get is speculation, not even DoD itself clarifies thir concerns. No clear consistent reason apart that F-35 is the best way to press Turkey to avoid deals with Russia, which by the way would constitute hostile meddling in their businesses. May be, but since it puts also risks on the whole program, on a key relationship and so much focus is placed on that particular system, I wonder if this really makes sense. I will tell what I think: if US had more to win than to lose through the operation of both systems together, they would not be bitching so much, whatever the reason they don't feel comfortable at all, despite gaining access to S-400 intelligence. I also find it shocking that a partner that has paid their bills and done their share can be shown the door unilaterally that way, surely partnership is not what I would call this association and illegal comes to mind to evaluate this decision, though I don't know the contracts themselves. It is also remarkable how several "allies" of US try to get access to an anti intervention insurance in form of the S-400, and the lengths they go to buy it, essentially pissing off US as hard as it gets... really remarkable indeed. So yes I think there is something weird going on, and no I am not saying it means necessarily that S-400 will bust the F-35's stealth.

Thanks for the link, when i can i will try to locate the statement i referred before about impact on the program of Turkeys removal.

Profile picture for user FBW

Member for

9 years 3 months

Posts: 3,106

[USER="77292"]LMFS[/USER]

agian you have dodged the major issue and instead have focused on the particulars to suit your own view. The US threatened cutting off ALL weapons acquired through FMS this past summer. The F-35 is just the biggest piece of pie on the table. Make no mistake, this is a direct result of Turkey ordering weapons from a nation under sanctions, you can continue to ignore the elephant in the room for the tusk. Read the EU’’s sanction statements. It would sanctimonious for the US to sell the F-35 to Turkey while pushing for all allies to boycott Russia:
https://europa.eu/newsroom/highlight...aine-crisis_en

That is ignoring all of the other specific issues that have surfaced between the US and Turkey, Erdogan’’s accusations of the US involvement in the Gulen farce (read internal purge), the imprisonment of the US pastor (not endearing to the influential evangelical lobby), and the Kurds. In the opinion of this poster, the Kurds have been an ally in recent years, the Turkish government?, not so much. Sad to see the US president willing to sell the Kurds out for a frenemy. But I digress...

As far as unilateral; who owns the IP for the F-35 technology? There is no legal recourse for Turkey other than fighting for a refund, that will be an uphill battle considering contracts that have already benefitted Turkish areospace industries.

Lastly, what other US ally is ordering the S-400 from Russia since the sanctions went into effect? India? Non-aligned. Iraq? Not a US ally (and no order placed). Qatar? Not going to sign a contract while the US is supporting them in their ongoing isolation by other gulf states. That is a bit of hyperbole on your part.

Member for

2 years 10 months

Posts: 333

[USER="40269"]FBW[/USER] - As far as I know, Turkey is still properly supplying F-35 components. (Please correct me if I'm mistaken) And so whether their industry has benefitted shouldn't come into play as there is no contract breach on the supply of parts. The legal question will simply be whether the US government had the right to stop the delivery of completed birds, and is return of payment required. Given both Erdogan's and Trump's nature, I don't see either accepting a disagreeable outcome easily. So it may drag a while. No outcome on this is going to dent the program too much though. Now if Turkey does attempt to cease being a supplier in retaliation (or the US forces them out of the supply chain) then there will be a whole lot of lawsuits, and industry gains and losses will come into play together with the legality of it.

Member for

5 years 3 months

Posts: 1,081

[USER="77292"]LMFS[/USER]

if US had more to win than to lose through the operation of both systems together, they would not be bitching so much, whatever the reason they don't feel comfortable at all, despite gaining access to S-400 intelligence.

Except they don't have more to win, no one wants to give tech sensitive equipment to an "allies" who appear that they will have a good relation with your rival. Their concern is easy to understand.

is also remarkable how several "allies" of US try to get access to an anti intervention insurance in form of the S-400, and the lengths they go to buy it, essentially pissing off US as hard as it gets... really remarkable indeed

such as?
Profile picture for user FBW

Member for

9 years 3 months

Posts: 3,106

[USER="77826"]XB-70[/USER]
Turkish aerospace industries have successfully bid on F-35 contracts for years, and that continues. I don’t believe that is a point of contention, agreed?

as far as conditions of a potential divorce, “all bets are off”. Being a level 3 partner requires Turkey to pay in exchange for the right to bid on F-35 contracts and have access to program. That does not imply contractual obligation to order or receive F-35’s (see Canada). Obviously, if the current 2 Turkish F-35’s are blocked by state from leaving US soil, and future contracted aircraft are put on hold or cancelled, Turkey would have recourse to ask for compensation. Outside of that, Turkey would have little recourse, they cannot force delivery, nor refunds for development which has already benefitted Turkey. Ban US military hardware imports? That would ground the majority of their Air Force and lay up their navy. That is why I stated Ergodan is holding a pair of deuces in this.

Reality- it probably won’t come to that. The current US executive branch is dysfunctional, and if the democrats win the whitehouse in 2020, Ergodan will be facing a hostile state and dod. There will be concessions, unless he can push through an agreement with Trump.

Member for

2 years 10 months

Posts: 333

[USER="40269"]FBW[/USER] - I think we're on the same page. Right now the only disagreement is the transfer of completed birds to Turkey. And any legal challenge can only result in three options - supply Turkey as contracted, withhold but refund (the amount of the sale), or withhold with no refund. Option 2 is probably the result.

Member for

9 years 4 months

Posts: 5,903

To me at the end , the PWIV hits behind the vehicle (hence the cabin top being blasted frwd). But in any case, blasting a Toyota with such a large weapon...

Member for

9 years 4 months

Posts: 5,903

And another example of the F-35 inviting herself into the strategic domain by the virtue of only her tactical capabilities:

Defense analysts say Pyongyang is particularly threatened by the new stealth fighters since they can penetrate the North’s air defenses and eliminate key targets with ease. Last March, the North’s state media called the deployment of such jets akin to an “anti-nation crime.”

For this reason, the South’s military is considering at least toning down its deployment ceremony for the new jets and proceeding with its future armament acquisitions in a low-key way.

Source (via Tango III):
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...heartburn.html

Profile picture for user SpudmanWP

Member for

12 years 3 months

Posts: 5,197

It was only a 500lb Paveway but you are right... which is why they are putting in SDB2. Even that is too big & expensive IMHO. I would like to see external LZUNI for the CAS & truck-plinker mission. Internal LZUNI would be nice but a new launcher & blast deflector would need to be developed.

On teh bomb drop itself, it came from the front and detonated directly over the bed of the truck.

[ATTACH=JSON]{"alt":"Click image for larger version Name:\t2019-01-16 07_47_55-(50) F-35 PavewayIV 5 release & hitting the moving target - YouTube.png Views:\t1 Size:\t894.5 KB ID:\t3847070","data-align":"none","data-attachmentid":"3847070","data-size":"full","title":"2019-01-16 07_47_55-(50) F-35 PavewayIV 5 release & hitting the moving target - YouTube.png"}[/ATTACH]

Attachments

Member for

9 years 4 months

Posts: 5,903

You are right. Detonation was Frwd.

Profile picture for user LMFS

Member for

3 years 1 month

Posts: 484

Except they don't have more to win, no one wants to give tech sensitive equipment to an "allies" who appear that they will have a good relation with your rival. Their concern is easy to understand.

Then Russia should also deny selling the system to Turkey, given they are a NATO country.

Their concern is related to the friendly attitude of Turkey towards Russia or against the S-400 exactly? Your point would mean that Turkey is not a trustworthy ally. On the other hand, they are perfectly ok with them buying Patriots and the rest of the hi-tech catalog, as far as they don't buy the S-400. So the problem is the weapon itself it seems. A system they were also bitching about in regards of India, even when they buy countless other weapons systems from Russia.

Answering your second question, from what I recall Turkey and Saudi Arabia are (were) staunch US allies. Now Turkey is buying S-400 with the consequences we see and Saudi Arabia is hinting about wanting the system too, though no contract has been signed and it could be more about threatening than about a real buying intention. India was granted waivers to avoid CAATSA sanctions for buying S-400 too, but they were threatened about loosing all military sales of hi-tech products. Look how Israel lobbied against the S-300 in Syria. To me modern Russian SAM systems are perceived as a threat of first order to the Western interventionism and hence both fought by US and sought after by countries that feel threatened. But we can pretend all is normal regarding US reactions to this system.

Member for

5 years 3 months

Posts: 1,081

Then Russia should also deny selling the system to Turkey, given they are a NATO country.
Their concern is related to the friendly attitude of Turkey towards Russia or against the S-400 exactly? Your point would mean that Turkey is not a trustworthy ally.

Yes currently, they clearly don't seem as trustworthy as Israel or UK or Japan..etc
The buying of S-400 could mean a start of friendly relation between Turkey and Russia


they are perfectly ok with them buying Patriots and the rest of the hi-tech catalog, as far as they don't buy the S-400. So the problem is the weapon itself it seems. A system they were also bitching about in regards of India, even when they buy countless other weapons systems from Russia.

Patriot isn't Russian made, so obviously it won't help strengthen the bond between Russia and Turkey. Besides, Russia was also bitching when US put missile defense system around Europe, it kinda common practice for both sides to limit the influence of their rival.

To me modern Russian SAM systems are perceived as a threat of first order to the Western interventionism and hence both fought by US and sought after by countries that feel threatened. But we can pretend all is normal regarding US reactions to this system

It is a normal reaction, you just prefer to think otherwise
It is not like Russia have a different reaction when the situation is reverted

MOSCOW — As American and allied officials celebrated the opening of a long-awaited missile defense system in Europe with a ribbon cutting and a band, the reaction in Russia on Thursday suggested the system had raised the risks of a nuclear war.

Russian officials reiterated their position that the American-built system imperiled Russia’s security. But the public discussion in Russia was darker, including online commentary of how a nuclear confrontation might play out in Europe, and the prospect that Romania, the system’s host, might be reduced to “smoking ruins.”

“We have been saying right from when this story started that our experts are convinced that the deployment of the ABM system poses a certain threat to the Russian Federation,” the Kremlin spokesman, Dmitri S. Peskov, told reporters in a conference call.

“Measures are being taken to ensure the necessary level of security for Russia,” he said. “The president himself, let me remind you, has repeatedly asked who the system will work against.”

The United States has asserted that the anti-ballistic missile system would protect only against “rogue” states, particularly Iran, and provide no protection for either Europe or the United States from Russia’s far larger arsenal of nuclear missiles.


https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/13/world/europe/russia-nato-us-romania-missile-defense.html


Russia Warns Czech Republic, Poland On Missile Defense
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov today reiterated Moscow's concerns.
"We are seriously concerned about plans to deploy elements of a U.S. missile-defense system in Europe and the critical situation that threatens the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty," Lavrov said.
"NATO's enlargement, which is undertaken despite the assurances we were given previously, does not help strengthen trust either. We are also concerned about the advance of the alliance's infrastructure toward the Russian border."
Nikolai Solovtsov, the commander of Russia's Strategic Missile Forces, said on February 19 that Russia may withdraw from a 1987 treaty with the United States limiting short- and medium-range missiles in Europe if the U.S. plan goes ahead.
Solovtsov also warned that hosting the U.S. shield could make the Czech Republic and Poland targets of a Russian missile strike.

https://www.rferl.org/a/1074816.html

Russia cries foul as Nato activates missile defences in Europe
Tensions between Russia and the West rose still further on Thursday when Nato declared that a missile defence site in Romania had become operational.

A battery of American SM-3 interceptors, designed to shoot down incoming missiles, was activated at Deveselu military base. A similar facility is due to become operational in Poland in 2018.

Only a handful of interceptors will be deployed at the two bases, enough to protect Europe against attack from a country possessing a small arsenal of nuclear missiles. The missile shield would be of minimal use against Russia, which has about 300 inter-continental ballistic missiles on land and scores more deployed on submarines.

Nonetheless, Russia claims to sees the missile defence plan as direct threat to the deterrent power of its own nuclear arsenal.


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/12/russia-cries-foul-as-nato-activates-a-missile-defence-shield-in/
Profile picture for user LMFS

Member for

3 years 1 month

Posts: 484

[USER="40269"]FBW[/USER]

this issue with Turkey is a complex topic. Will try to be brief and not go too much off-topic but please excuse some side argumentations that may be necessary

1. As said I was looking for answers to form my opinion on the topic, not disingenuously asking when I have already a formed opinion. US has alleged security (“We would be handing this technology over to the Kremlin if we granted Turkey these planes, and Congress will not stand for it.”) and interoperability concerns to block the sales of F-35 if Turkey buys the S-400 and I wanted to understand them. Answers here were rather vague on the technical side. You say the aim is to avoid Turkey doing business with Russia. But it was even offered to Turkey that buying the S-400 but not operating it would exempt them from consequences. How this matches your explanation is hard to understand for me, since the "business with the enemy" would be done.

2. On an important side note, why so much hatred of Russia to damage your reputation and relationships? Is Russia officially the enemy already? West cultivating this enmity much further will get our families killed and our countries destroyed, just Americans don't complain when the this inane policy comes to its logical consequence. Russia has said they will not fight again for survival on their own soil, please be wise and don't take this warning lightly.

3. You try to pass sanctions forced on EU by US (and economically borne by Europe BTW) as if they were genuine and a further justification for US banning the sale to Turkey. This is what I find disingenuous. You know Europeans are mad to see the sanctions go away and restart their businesses with Russia. You know Europeans don't consider Russia a threat, even after being brainwashed 24/7 for years and know NATO is just a disguise for US military domination of their countries. You know fulfilment of Minsk agreements does not depend on Russia but on Ukraine. You know the whole Crimean case is ridiculous and if the referendum was unjustified and void, then how come the West supported and acknowledged the independence of Kosovo? You know this is geopolitics, not fight for human rights or for respect of international law or whatever crappy excuse we are told. It is about US containing Russia at all costs, period.

4. You say there was talk about other weapons being affected by the ban, ok, it seems that has been again subject in Pentagon report from November. We will see but the Senate NDAA affected the F-35 alone originally if I am not wrong, and quoted the above mentioned security concerns about F-35 technology, be it the reason or just an excuse. I am not 100% aware what this general ban would mean in detail but it could have catastrophic consequences for Turkey's military and also for NATO as a whole. Seeing India being exempted of CAATSA for being so nice, I assume Turkey can get away with it. They will certainly try so lets see what happens.

5. Regarding industrial consequences, Mattis said that finding alternative suppliers would mean a delay in the production plans from 18 to 24 months:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...kheed-f-35-ban

Some parts manufactured in Turkey are single source apparently:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...turkey-problem

Furthermore, they were expected to be main maintenance hub for engines in Europe if I am not wrong. Hence why I consider it a big impact, just in my opinion.

6. Thanks for the information on the nature of the partner nations contracts with US, I was not aware they were so one-sided. I see no breach of contract by Turkey but if penalties are so light as you say then ok, US can cancel the contract. It wont do good to international perception of US as a reliable partner, that is for sure. Will not make Lockheed happy either and on the long term will end up with Turkey fully embracing the Eastern block. I think some compromise will be found, even when you and many others dislike their deeds, Turkey is a very important nation for US.

Profile picture for user LMFS

Member for

3 years 1 month

Posts: 484

[USER="71228"]garryA[/USER]

1. Turkey and Russia have friendly relationships already and reach deals on Syria with Iran, excluding US. They don't need the S-400 for that. If US doesn't trust Turkey they should not sell any secrets to them, with or without the missiles.
2. To bring ABM issue in relation with this topic is totally unfortunate IMO. First, no such concern has been voiced by US. Second, the strategic nature of the ABM systems is obviously (is there really any doubt about this?) of critical nature for the national security of Russia, unlike the S-400 for US. On the one hand, the system is not capable for intercepting strategic weapons. On the other, they are not surrounding US ICBM launching sites as it does happen with European and Asian emplacements of US missile shield. Not to talk about the Mk-41 launchers being compatible with nuclear-tipped CMs (or even land-attack versions of SM-3) threatening Russia's main cities and violating INF. For Russia this is like somebody pressing a gun against your head and asking you to believe it is unloaded. Would you take the risk? They neither...

Anyway, better not to extend further off-topic I think.