F-35 Cancelled, then what ? [Archive] - Page 13

SpazSinbad

15th Jul 2013, 20:46

The RAAF expect to operate in 4 F-35A formations with other networkable airborne/ground/(sea-ship?) assets (I'll expect other operators will do the same).

New Data Link Enables Stealthy Comms 14 Jul 2013 AARON MEHTA
"...Gough declined to say how close jets need to be to trigger the network link, but did say tests have shown “very fast” acquisition times once within range.

Live flight system tests at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., began late last year and have continued throughout this year. Initially, the tests involved networking a pair of planes, but recently, test pilots began regularly flying four-plane networks. Those tests are proceeding smoothly, said Joe DellaVedova, a spokesman for the Pentagon’s F-35 Joint Program Office.

“MADL testing is performing as planned,” DellaVedova wrote in an email. “Development of the advanced data link is currently tracking to deliver the phased capability expected by the end of development.”

The system is designed for plane-to-plane communications only, something Gough expects to continue in the near term. But he did not rule out experimenting with data transfer to other terminals.

“We have postulated MADL terminals on ships and we have built a MADL test ground station, so it could be done,” he said. “But it’s more about the logistics of where F-35s will be flying and how close to the ground they would be. It would be mission-scenario dependent, but it’s all technically possible.”..."
New Data Link Enables Stealthy Comms | Defense News | defensenews.com (http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130714/DEFFEAT01/307140011/New-Data-Link-Enables-Stealthy-Comms)

Courtney Mil

15th Jul 2013, 20:50

I would hope that, given our mutual experience with Link 16 (and earlier versions, RAID et al) we can make a wide area secure network happen.

SpazSinbad

18th Jul 2013, 19:31

Estimates To Retrofit F-35s Decline By Amy Butler 15 July 2013 Source: Aviation Week & Space Technology
"The Pentagon expects to pay $480 million less than expected only nine months ago for retrofits to the first 90 F-35 fighters based on revised cost projections of changes anticipated to emerge through the end of development in 2017....

...Air Force Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, F-35 program executive officer, said last winter he expects to be able to stabilize the price of the F-35A, the predominant model sought for export, at between $80-90 million. At that point, in full-rate production, there should be virtually no retrofits required."
Estimates To Retrofit F-35s Decline (http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_07_15_2013_p42-594924.xml&p=1)

Bastardeux

18th Jul 2013, 21:57

How much will it still cost to retrofit them though? It's great saying each aircraft is going to be $5.3 million cheaper to retrofit, but if it's still going to cost $30 million then that still isn't great news.

SpazSinbad

18th Jul 2013, 22:18

From the same article here is one idea/guesstimate:
"...The largest anticipated per-unit retrofit cost is for aircraft in LRIP 2, which included 12 US jets, at $16.7 million, based on the May numbers. The estimate from last year projected each unit to cost about $25.8 million.

The cost is expected to slowly decrease until LRIP 10, when each unit is projected to require $760,000 to retrofit over last fall's estimate of $1.1 million per aircraft. ..."

Lowe Flieger

24th Jul 2013, 19:09

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... 60-388468/ (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-navy-hopes-to-increase-aim-9x-range-by-60-388468/)

The above links to a Flightglobal report that the USN needs more range from its AIM9X missiles. The article cites the need for a medium range missile for its F35s that is less susceptible to developing counter-measures than AIM120, the missile you would normally expect to be used for BVR engagements. I would guess that this is also to provide an agile missile to offset some of the F35's aerodynamic weaknesses should it get tangled up in a close encounter with a more manoeuvrable fighter. There is no mention of how big the upgraded missile might be but I surmise they are talking smaller than AIM120 so as to maximise the number that could be carried internally by F35, so helping it retain its low observable profile and so reducing the risk of getting into a turning fight in the first place.

LF

Heathrow Harry

27th Jul 2013, 15:58

article in Flight last week saying the Italian parliament has insisted it has to approve any further F-35 purchases (ie none)

SpazSinbad

27th Jul 2013, 18:33

I am led to believe the Italians are NOT ordering - without further permission - any more than those already agreed upon. For example:

Lockheed Martin Wins Contract for F-35A and F-35B Fighter Jets 18 Jul 2013 Rich Smith
"...The larger award, this one for a more substantial $70.4 million, modifies a previously awarded advance acquisition contract to provide Lockheed with the funds needed to buy "long lead-time" parts, material, and components that will be required to build seven Conventional Take-Off and Landing F-35A Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter aircraft, and one Short Take-Off Vertical Landing F-35B Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter aircraft.

All eight aircraft are destined for the Italian Air Force. Work on this long-lead contract is to be completed by February 2014.
The Pentagon made a point of clarifying that "International Partner contract funds" will be paying for these planes; for example, Italy is picking up the tab for this contract, and not U.S. taxpayers...."
Lockheed Martin Wins Contract for F-35A and F-35B Fighter Jets (http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/07/18/lockheed-martin-wins-contract-for-f-35a-and-f-35b.aspx)
&
Senate passes motion on buying controversial F-35 fighters 16/07/2013
"Government to spend nearly 12 billion euros
Rome, July 16 – A majority of Italy's Senate approved the plans to buy F-35 jet fighters in a vote Tuesday but said future purchases should be approved by parliament. The controversial purchase passed by a vote of 202 in favour, 55 opposed and 15 abstentions. Having already passed the same vote in the Lower House, the purchase plans are now final. Senators rejected a call to cancel the purchase of 90 Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter jets which, at an estimated $200 million per unit, are among the costliest fighter jets in the world.

Italy has a duty to its allies and its citizens to invest in the best defence systems possible, said Defence Minister Mario Mauro, whose government will spend approximately 11.8 billion euros on the program over 45 years starting in 2015....

...The purchase has been controversial and at times risked splitting the left-right coalition government. According to the defence ministry, the 90 aircraft will replace 256 obsolete fighters in the Italian air force...."
Senate passes motion on buying controversial F-35 fighters - GazzettaDelSud (http://www.gazzettadelsud.it/news/english/54368/Senate-passes-motion-on-buying-controversial-F-35-fighters.html)

ORAC

30th Jul 2013, 09:09

AWST: Sequester And the JSF (http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:5004670d-1aea-404a-b315-b2adf867546b)

JSFfan

30th Jul 2013, 13:22

It's a bit sad watching Sweetman spirial down to the depths, isn't it

perhaps this set him off? Lockheed, Pentagon reach deal on 71 more F-35s: source | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/29/us-lockheed-fighter-idUSBRE96S14220130729)
Lockheed Martin Corp and the Pentagon have reached agreement on orders for the next two batches of F-35 fighter jets, a deal worth over $7 billion, a person briefed on the discussions told Reuters on Monday.

The deal covers 71 of the radar-evading planes, with 36 jets to be purchased in the sixth production lot, and 35 in the seventh. The total includes 60 F-35s for the U.S. military, and 11 for Australia, Italy, Turkey and Britain.
PS, thanks to the few who validated my opinion. I couldn't post on the Typhoon thread because there doesn't seem to be one running. ln fact when the typhoon is mentioned, there seems to be a lot of staring at the ground and shuffling of feet

LowObservable

30th Jul 2013, 14:22

ORAC - Supply chain issues can be resolved, but it will take a realistic approach to numbers. Some suppliers have taken a conservative approach which means that they did not over-extend themselves, but on the other hand has frustrated efforts to bring the total cost down.

Others went all-in, showed their bankers the rosy projections of 2010 and earlier, and have a lot of their future business tied up in JSF. They're vulnerable.

At this point, too, LMT and the first-tiers need to take care of the little guys, who are looking at 35-36 ship-sets per year for a while rather than the 100-plus they were promised in 2010. (71 jets in two years is nothing to pop the bubbly about - it's what they need to keep the oil warm.) If the little guys die, nobody much is going to come in with cheaper bids, unless they're outsourcing to China.

Killface

30th Jul 2013, 16:34

71 jets in two years is nothing to pop the bubbly about -

I agree, those are Gripen NG like numbers. not good.

Just This Once...

30th Jul 2013, 20:15

Eeek, they are very low numbers indeed - just 36 aircraft in year 14/15 and 35 aircraft in year 15/16.

The obsolesce clock is ticking.

Killface

30th Jul 2013, 21:37

I agree, its very clear that 71 aircraft contracted over the next two years is a huge blow for lockheed and the F-35. They will probably return the 7 billion and advise all the governments involved to buy the eurofighter, who's recent sales have been incredible and well in excess of 71 aircraft contracts.

t43562

30th Jul 2013, 23:15

Am I misunderstanding? As I understand it the problem isn't about whether the number of planes is a lot or a little but about the difference from the number of planes that they intended to build?

The Swedes hopefully know that they're making X aircraft and invest in the capacity to do that.

Lockheed and it's suppliers must have invested to build many more planes than they actually are right now so they are presumably carrying debt without the revenue that justifies it.

JSFfan

31st Jul 2013, 00:17

It's a nonsense story by a sad old man, there are a number of statements and now this contract to show the sequester has little effect on the f-35

AFAIK these are the same numbers from around 2011/12 to allow the f-35 to mature. Here is the SAR that gives an idea of the build up
F-35 SAR | The DEW (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2013/05/f-35-sar/)

"Aircraft break down seems as follows:
LRIP 6:
18 F-35A's for the USAF
6 F-35B's for the USMC
7 F-35C's for the USN
Plus 3 F-35's for Italy, and 2 for Australia

LRIP 7:
19 F-35's for the USAF
6 F-35B's for the USMC
4 F-35C's for the USN
Plus 3 F-35A's for Italy, 2 F-35A's for Norway, and 1 F-35B for the UK

The next lot will be LRIP Lot 8, 48 aircraft
19 F-35's for the USAF
6 F-35B's for the USMC
4 F-35C's for the USN
4 F-35B's for the UK
2 F-35A's for Norway
4 F-35A's for Italy
5 F-35A's for Israel
4 F-35A's for Japan"

PhilipG

31st Jul 2013, 10:12

JSFfan,
According to General Charles Davis in 2008, slides at: -
F 35 Production (http://www.slideshare.net/andycosterton/f-35-production)
LRIP6 was meant to produce 118 aircraft not the 36, less than a third of the initial plan that have now been authorised.
LRIP8 was meant to produce 132 aircraft not the 35, just over a quarter of the initial plan that have now been authorised.
As far as I can work out this is not the result of sequestration but the result of concurrency not going to plan.
If I was running a small business making parts for the JSF I would have had to jump through many hoops to prove to LM that I was a suitable contractor, I had the capacity to produce the widgets at the projected rates etc, now to find my expensive new plant running at a third to a quarter of the level I had expected before any sequestration cuts would really scare me.
No doubt LM will be looking for extra funding to do stress tests on their supply chain soon...

Baron 58P

31st Jul 2013, 10:13

The 71 aircraft contracted are still VERY expensive - a minimum of around US$100 mil per copy sans engine and upgrades! see article here F-35 Deal Targets Unit Cost Below $100 Million (http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_07_30_2013_p0-602401.xml) :eek:

Snafu351

31st Jul 2013, 12:24

t43562, that's the way i read it.
There's a little too much understanding and thought required for certain F35 "supporters" to grasp it however :).

Just This Once, that is something i've been worried about for a long time. Again the F35 "supporters" have trouble understanding that the longer it takes to get significant numbers truly operational the more time the "opposition" have to field effective countermeasures.
There does appear to be a belief amongest the faithful that those the F35 is intend to combat will sit politely inactive and wait until the thing is fully operational prior to commencing development of opposing systems...
At the rate of development to date (plus certain whispers re Chinese espionage) it would not surprise me if the countermeasures are actually fielded prior to real IOC of the F35 :ouch::ugh:

LowObservable

31st Jul 2013, 13:36

When it takes you 35 years to equip half your force with the wonder-weapon - which will be the case with the USAF/USN - your adversary has engineering leaders in their 50s who have been studying countermeasures and responses (symmetrical and otherwise) since they graduated.

Nobody, by the way, is saying that the leveling of JSF production is new news, but that the effects are continuing to manifest themselves through the supply chain and that it is wrong to blame them on sequestration.

t43562 - Correct as regards the Swedes. Their overhead, inhouse manufacturing operations and supply chain are geared to low rate. Problems happen not when you build 10, 20 or 30 jets a year, but when you've tooled up to build 250 and then sell 60.

Heathrow Harry

1st Aug 2013, 07:33

Snafu 351 is correct of course

The only good thing is to think of all the money the Chinese & Russians have wasted rushing countermeasures into production based on published delivery targets and the F-35 not turning up

It must have cost them zillions and they keep having to update them

Who said aerospace didn't create jobs???

Just This Once...

1st Aug 2013, 08:48

The only good thing is to think of all the money the Chinese & Russians have wasted rushing countermeasures into production based on published delivery targets and the F-35 not turning up

That made me smile. The thought of VLF radar manufacturers in China going bust due to the non-arrival of the F-35. Millions knocked-off the share value of EO systems manufacturers in Russia. DMS issues for hardware already fielded in the Pacific Rim. Bistatic radars going rusty on the fringe of Europe.

Perhaps this was the plan all along? Worked for the Star Wars programme back in the day.

MSOCS

1st Aug 2013, 16:40

JTO,

That's a fair scenario to consider however the big difference between China and the 'West' is that one has cash and the other doesn't. So, they may have wasted a large quantity of funds on developing CMs for aircraft that have yet to materialise but there's plenty more where that came from.

I know they have money. Many neighbours in my English village are Chinese second home owners!

:O

JSFfan

1st Aug 2013, 17:44

PhilipG, (http://www.pprune.org/members/353099-philipg)
I agree with your post and the shift to the right with concurrency/software concerns.
personally I don't mind if these numbers are altered, my concern is with the software

Just This Once...

1st Aug 2013, 18:01

however the big difference between China and the 'West' is...

You seem to have found a rather massive hole in my theory!

Bastardeux

1st Aug 2013, 20:22

Hagel Sees Modernization Lull Versus Smaller U.S. Forces - Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-31/hagel-sees-modernization-lull-versus-smaller-u-s-forces.html)

Looks like the pentagon is finally seeing the writing on the wall. Like I pointed out a while back, ultimately, I see the F35 taking a significant hit.

P.s. 8 carriers instead of 11?? WTF, that's mental!

SpazSinbad

1st Aug 2013, 21:35

RAMP INSTALLATION CVF
"Last week the first of five ramp sections was lifted onto HMS Queen Elizabeth; this was three months ahead of schedule."
http://www.aircraftcarrieralliance.co.uk/~/media/Files/A/Aircraft-Carrier-Alliance/2013-weekly-comms/190713.pdf (0.4Mb)

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/th_CVFrampInstallJul2013.jpg (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/CVFrampInstallJul2013.jpg.html)

SpazSinbad

1st Aug 2013, 22:34

Lockheed F-35 Faces ‘Significant Challenges,’ Senators Say (1) 01 Aug 2013 Tony Capaccio
"The Senate committee that approves defense spending said in a report today that “significant challenges remain” for Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT:US)’s F-35 fighter even as progress is made.

The program “continues to experience considerable challenges with software development, system reliability and maintenance system development,” the Senate defense appropriations panel said in its report on the Pentagon’s $516 billion budget request for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1.

The full Senate Appropriations Committee adopted the bill and the panel’s report.

The panel cut $80 million and six aircraft [to 36] from the Pentagon’s initial $562 million request to start buying hardware for 42 aircraft that would be purchased in fiscal 2015. The Pentagon is planning an increase from the 29 planes that were requested, and approved by the committee, for fiscal 2014.

Given the “significant challenges,” a “large increase in the production of aircraft” to 42 from 29 “is not yet warranted” the defense panel said in its report....

...Now “there are still many, many unanswered questions as to whether this Joint Strike Fighter will become a reality that can protect us,” Durbin said.

Separately, the committee directed the Pentagon to review whether the Air Force’s goal of buying 1,763 F-35s remains feasible.

“Given these times of fiscal austerity,” the Pentagon “should review the Air Force tactical fighter force mix,” according to the report.

The committee also deleted for now a Pentagon request for $10 million to evaluate how to integrate the B61 nuclear bomb on later F-35 versions because the requirement hasn’t been thoroughly vetted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff’s requirements group, it said."
Lockheed F-35 Faces ?Significant Challenges,? Senators Say (1) - Businessweek (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-08-01/lockheed-f-35-faces-significant-challenges-senators-say-1)

SpazSinbad

2nd Aug 2013, 04:23

Pentagon downplays prospects of cancelling F-35, bomber 02 Aug 2013 Andrea Shalal-Esa (Additional reporting by David Alexander; Editing by Ken Wills)
"(Reuters) - The U.S. military on Thursday downplayed concerns it could cancel the F-35 fighter and a new stealth bomber, after leaked documents from a budget review suggested the programs might be eliminated as one way to deal with deep budget cuts.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said on Wednesday that finding $500 billion (330 billion pounds) in budget cuts required by law over the next decade, on top of $487 billion in cuts already being implemented, required tough trade-offs between the size of the military and high-end weapons programs.

Pentagon briefing slides shown to various groups mapped out those tradeoffs in stark terms, indicating that a decision to maintain a larger military could result in the cancellation of the $392 billion Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 program and a new stealthy, long-range bomber, according to several people who saw the slides.

Defense officials later stressed there were no plans to kill either program, noting that dismantling the F-35 program in particular would have far-reaching consequences for the U.S. military services and 10 foreign countries involved in the program, which is already in production.

"We have gone to great lengths to stress that this review identified, through a rigorous process of strategic modelling, possible decisions we might face, under scenarios we may or may not face in the future," Pentagon Spokesman George Little told Reuters in an email when asked about the slides.

"Any suggestion that we're now moving away from key modernization programs as a result of yesterday's discussion of the outcomes of the review would be incorrect," he said.

Analysts said Hagel and other Pentagon officials appeared to be leaning toward the option that would emphasize high-end weapons programs over force size....

...Jim Thomas, vice president at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, said the two options of a smaller military or sharp cutback in weapons programs represented a false dichotomy.

"This is almost one reasonably attractive option and a straw man that looks pretty unattractive," he said. "I don't think we're going to end up at either of these corners on the map. I think that you're going to get a hybrid solution.""
Pentagon downplays prospects of cancelling F-35, bomber | Reuters (http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/08/02/uk-usa-defense-weapons-idUKBRE97104R20130802)

Bastardeux

2nd Aug 2013, 11:13

The last line sums it up pretty well, IMHO. The question is how the resultant increase in price (death spiral) will effect other buyers, who are pretty much on the limits of useful force numbers as well as affordability.

LowObservable

2nd Aug 2013, 11:55

Bastardeux is right. The source of the cancellation talk is in the slides linked here:

Analysis of the DoD SCMR Options | CSBA (http://www.csbaonline.org/2013/08/01/analysis-of-the-dod-scmr-options/)

Basically, if you don't touch force structure, readiness or the civilian workforce (slide 4 far right) and try to meet the sequester budget, all new programs cease until such time as more money is available, which it won't be because compensation for active and retired will continue to eat more of the budget.

On the other hand, without big cuts to structure, readiness &c and to other new programs, you can't produce JSF at the planned level. Indeed, you needed future budget increases to do that, even before sequester.

SpazSinbad

2nd Aug 2013, 12:00

F-35 Lightning II Program Status and Fast Facts July 10, 2013
"Last month, the F-35B performed its 400th vertical landing and first vertical take-off. (May 10 –VTO and May 14 400th)"
https://www.f35.com/assets/uploads/downloads/12648/f-35fast_factsjuly2013.pdf (0.2Mb)

Bastardeux

2nd Aug 2013, 14:43

LO, I know this is a thread about the F35, but if I was a B1 pilot, I would be pretty nervous for my career right now! We joked with our last exchange officer a couple of years ago that "well they're closing squadrons now, but next they'll close a whole fleet"...it's looking quite correct now!

MSOCS

2nd Aug 2013, 15:06

Well the Brits closed a whole fleet to afford F-35 too....

LowObservable

2nd Aug 2013, 15:08

Very true, B, and it calls this very ancient joke to mind...

http://secmefikralar.********.com/2010/12/gay-rooster.html

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/b52-strat/images/bombers_b52_0008.jpg

orca

2nd Aug 2013, 16:22

Having seen them at Red Flag earlier on in the year I would be very nervous if I flew the B1 and didn't get cancelled. The heavies managed a 100% success rate of losing someone on every VUL. ;)

Just This Once...

2nd Aug 2013, 16:33

They still have a habit of making it to every real war. When the ranges get long they can find themselves the only participant at the VUL.

Got to be in it to win it.

JSFfan

2nd Aug 2013, 18:00

I recall they were starting to be parked at the grave yard and wasn't only the sand pit that gave them a second lease?
In contested air they aren't looking good for the future

orca

2nd Aug 2013, 18:09

Just This Once,

Hadn't thought about that mate, good point.;)

JSFfan

2nd Aug 2013, 18:22

they aren't going without a fighter escort, so does it matter what range they have
?
it's like our F111, they couldn't go by themselves and only go as far as our fighters in the end

orca

2nd Aug 2013, 19:13

Well, that's not entirely true old chap. For example the current scrap doesn't really have an air threat so the B1 can do CAS on their own...given that they can employ PGMs and have the Sniper, a million or two bombs and about three hours on station.

Equally they can launch stand off stuff from 'quite a long way away' so can avoid CAP/ QRA with a bit of planning.

Or, given their endurance they can probably hang around waiting for the CAP to bingo out and then press on as if nothing had happened.

The reason they got a few more losses than most at Flag is that the Nellis airspace is pretty small and the regen points for Red Air are pretty close to any ingress/egress for the strikers.

Wasn't being serious chaps - big B1 fan, me!

Just This Once...

2nd Aug 2013, 19:26

I have quite a soft-spot for the Bone. It's the only aircraft I have flown that can move chunks of desert without moving the master arm.

:E

JSFfan

2nd Aug 2013, 19:36

fait enough, I'm guessing that if it wasn't for the sand pit, they would all be in the bone yard by now

SpazSinbad

2nd Aug 2013, 22:04

And now for something completely different.... :}

FINAL | United States Marine Corps | F-35B West Coast Basing
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), Volume I Chapters 1-12 OCT 2010
F-35B Fuel Usage and Maximum Transit Distance

www.navyf35cwestcoasteis.com/Resources/Documents/USMC_F-35B_West_Coast_EIS_Vol_I.pdf (http://www.navyf35cwestcoasteis.com/Resources/Documents/USMC_F-35B_West_Coast_EIS_Vol_I.pdf) (25.6Mb)

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/th_F-35BfuelUsageampMaxTransitTable2-1ed.gif (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/F-35BfuelUsageampMaxTransitTable2-1ed.gif.html)

Perhaps useful for figuring out 'bringback fuel for CVF/LHAs'? But of course there are always caveats.
____________________________________________

F 35B Aero Braking Lands at MCAS Miramar 30 July 2013

F 35B Aero Braking Lands at MCAS Miramar 30 July 2013 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMKouGq1Hpo&feature=youtu.be)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMKouGq1Hpo
________________________________________

1st F-35B RVL MCAS Yuma - YouTube (http://youtu.be/rgClbHcU2Q0)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgClbHcU2Q0

Baron 58P

5th Aug 2013, 13:30

Oh my, check this out - Pentagon considers cancelling F-35 program, leaked documents suggest ? RT USA (http://rt.com/usa/pentagon-f35-stealth-bomber-963/) Do the Russians KNOW...??:eek::eek:

LowObservable

6th Aug 2013, 18:01

The rumor mill today is working a bit like this:

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3043/2867609321_7a821a4099.jpg

glad rag

6th Aug 2013, 20:13

Oh my, check this out - Pentagon considers cancelling F-35 program, leaked documents suggest ? RT USA (http://rt.com/usa/pentagon-f35-stealth-bomber-963/) Do the Russians KNOW...??:eek::eek:

so they actually want then to continue, right :suspect:

SpazSinbad

6th Aug 2013, 20:43

Ready For Sea Trials; F-35B Completes 500th Vertical Landing 06 Aug 2013
"FORT WORTH, Texas, Aug.6, 2013 - The Lockheed Martin F-35B short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft completed its 500th vertical landing August 3. BF-1, the aircraft which completed this achievement, also accomplished the variant's first vertical landing in March 2010 at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md.

Next week, Sea Trials, known as Developmental Test 2 (DT-2) are scheduled to begin for the F-35B variant onboard the USS WASP. DT-2 is the second of three planned tests aimed at defining and expanding the F-35B's shipboard operating envelope for the U.S. Marine Corps. The first shipboard testing phase was successfully completed in October 2011. The successful completion of the upcoming Sea Trials is key to declaring F-35 Initial Operating Capability (IOC) for the U.S. Marine Corps in 2015...."
Lockheed Martin Corporation : Ready For Sea Trials; F-35B Completes 500th Vertical Landing | 4-Traders (http://www.4-traders.com/LOCKHEED-MARTIN-CORPORATI-13406/news/Lockheed-Martin-Corporation-Ready-For-Sea-Trials-F-35B-Completes-500th-Vertical-Landing-17169965/)

SpazSinbad

7th Aug 2013, 01:10

QDR: Air Force Circles Wagons Around F-35; No Big Push For Drones By Colin Clark 06 August 2013

QDR: Air Force Circles Wagons Around F-35; No Big Push For Drones « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary (http://breakingdefense.com/2013/08/06/qdr-air-force-circles-wagons-around-f-35-no-big-push-for-drones/)

"WASHINGTON: The head of the Air Force’s Quadrennial Defense Review office made very clear today that the service will do all it can to protect the F-35 for a pretty compelling reason: ”We must be able to project power in contested environments (A2/AD) and the Joint Strike Fighter is that machine.”

Kwast told reporters after his public remarks that JSF “plays a critical role in an architecture that keeps us ahead of our enemy.” It’s not like previous aircraft that specialized in providing one primary capability.

When I asked him what the Air Force would do if the White House ordered cancellation of the F-35, Kwast offered a pretty standard military response: “What we would do is, if they were to make that decision, we would roll up our sleeves and find a way.” But all his comments made clear that would not be a good idea in the estimation of the Air Force...."

Heathrow Harry

7th Aug 2013, 07:38

Great Cartoon LO - I think it was int the Economist a few years back.............

SpazSinbad

8th Aug 2013, 02:37

QDR General: USAF Must Rethink Strategies 07 Aug 2013 By AARON MEHTA
"WASHINGTON — The man in charge of a major US Air Force review warned an audience Tuesday that the service needs to rethink long-held strategies in order to maintain air dominance in the coming decade.

“In my humble opinion, there is tremendous room for maneuver here as far as being creative and being innovative,” Maj. Gen. Steven Kwast said during an event at the Center Strategic and International Studies....

...The general also indicated that the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, long identified as a service priority, would not be canceled without a presidential order to do so.

“Nothing in this business is all or nothing. So everything is on the table, but it’s about the balance,” Kwast said. “The JSF fits into a very sophisticated concept of operation that is integrated that gives us the ability to do something no enemy can ever do. So everything is on the table, we say, but that JSF plays a critical role in an architecture that keeps us ahead of our enemy.”"
QDR General: USAF Must Rethink Strategies | Defense News | defensenews.com (http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130807/DEFREG02/308070016/QDR-General-USAF-Must-Rethink-Strategies)

Bastardeux

8th Aug 2013, 09:22

I don't think anyone's expecting the F35 to be cancelled in its entirety, just that numbers are going to be substantially reduced either across all 3 variants, or by cancelling variants.

SpazSinbad

8th Aug 2013, 09:54

I do not believe any F-35 variant is going to be cancelled.

PhilipG

8th Aug 2013, 10:28

I personally feel that the form of words used by the General moves the decision to the White House and in a way is reminiscent of the F22 decision made by President Obama.
The USAF did not fall to pieces because not all the initially required 750 examples morphed into 187.
I suppose from the Navy's point of view if the number Carrier Groups and Air Wings is reduced as some reports suggest to 8 then the old F18 squadrons will not be required and the whole air wing will be Super Hornets, bringing into question the need for the F35C.
I note that the USN has decided not to repair the arson damaged USS Miami it would seem on cost grounds alone.

orca

8th Aug 2013, 10:36

The F-35C was always supposed to work with the Rhino, so even if a draw down allows the retirement of the legacy models it won't fundamentally alter the concept.

Don't forget that there are also Rhinos and Rhinos. The ones with the AESA and a few other toys are awesome, the ones with the APG-73 aren't! So perchance a draw down would also see a consolidated AESA only force.

One thing is certain, that Boeing has for some time been beating the Super Hornet drum and it has many supporters within the USN, mainly as a result of it having twice the engines of a F-35.

Bastardeux

8th Aug 2013, 11:23

I do not believe any F-35 variant is going to be cancelled.

I can see the C being a very, very easy target! The navy are lukewarm and as already pointed out, if the number of air wings falls to eight then the F18C could well be phased out without replacement. Everyone's a winner, the navy have the aircraft they want, the Air Force get to keep more F35s and congress get to save lots of money. I'm more interested to see what the Air Force's opinion will be on sacrificing the number of As to sustain marine orders for Bs.

Keeping only one variant instead of cutting numbers of all 3 would, at the end of the day, deliver a bigger bang for your buck...to borrow a terrible cliche.

Not_a_boffin

8th Aug 2013, 14:29

Keeping only one variant instead of cutting numbers of all 3 would, at the end of the day, deliver a bigger bang for your buck...to borrow a terrible cliche

Not that sure that it would. If you look at the published material from the SCMR and also the output from the combined think tank project that went public last week, only one of those talks about cancelling F35 at all.

http://www.csbaonline.org/wp-content/uploads/…/Comparison-to-SCMR.pdf

Strategic Choices Exercise Outbrief | CSBA (http://www.csbaonline.org/publications/2013/05/strategic-choices-exercise-outbrief/)

The majority look at recapitalising fleets and maintaining a qualitative edge (whether you belive it or not!) rather than running on legacy cabs, so for USAF F35 instead of running on F16s. I doubt the USN can afford another A12-like cancellation and having to wait till the F/A XX, so F35C may be safer than people think. That leaves the B and most of the thnk tanks tried to maintain LHA/LHD numbers, which when you are cutting CVBG puts a slighly higher emphasis on f/w aboard the amphibs.

Bastardeux

8th Aug 2013, 16:35

Yeah I took a look at the different think tanks' opinions when they were first published. Only one of them advocates not cutting any F35s and I have to say, I'm dubious that retiring a legacy aircraft early and ramping up production of a developing aircraft is going to save any money, when the replacement aircraft is known to be more expensive to operate; they did the exact opposite a couple of years ago to save money! I'm also dubious that the USAF would willingly take such a big capability gap over such an expansive fleet.

All the others either cut personnel numbers massively or went to town on the operating budget...and we all know that a weapon is only as good as its operator, so I wouldn't count on it being cut the way they have suggested.

The worst part of all for the F35 is that this is all money that has to be saved this decade, not somewhere down the line. So any cut in numbers can't be deferred to the 2020s...meaning there is also now a threat that the countries that are maxing out their budgets for it would find the resultant price increase difficult to swallow.

LowObservable

8th Aug 2013, 16:40

So far, nobody in the think-tank/budgetary world seems to have evaluated either whacking or deferring the F-35B/C while preserving the F-35A. The Navy Dept. versions may be a fat target when you look it at this way, because:

1 - The Navy has a jet in production with potential for improvement.
2 - The Marines are replacing their F-18s first. Half the Harriers will still be around in 2027.
3 - The B/C cost a lot more to build than the A and nearly twice as much as the Super H, even under the most optimistic assumptions.
4 - You could simplify flight test, development and production. The three versions are now so different that removing 20 Bs and 20 Cs (the current max planned rate for DoD) from the annual build is not going to send the price of the A through the roof.
5 - The assets already built or on contract could be stored and used to restart the program when money is less tight or the threat demands it.
6 - (drum roll) If you stop spending money on B/C from FY2015 you can save almost $10 billion through 2020 while giving the Marines and Navy up to 40 shiny new Rhinos per year.

UK and Italy could, if they so wished, fund the FY2015-and-beyond F-35B-unique development and flight testing (it's mostly finished anyway if LockMart and the Marines are to be believed :E), leasing aircraft and facilities, and assemble their jets in the Italian FACO.

Bastardeux

8th Aug 2013, 17:06

Hence my "more bang for your buck".

WhiteOvies

8th Aug 2013, 17:47

LO,

Interesting points, although it does rather shaft the UK, which as a Level 1 Partner does not send a positive message to the rest, especially those who are already wavering.

It also shafts the Marines and Navy in a way that the USAF would probably love, but the politicos would not allow (given significant lobbying).The Marines do not want lots of shiny Rhinos, they want lots of shiny F-35s and the US Navy still see F-35 as future proofing.

A lot of people in the USN were not initially in favour of the Rhino, when comparing it against the much loved Tomcat it replaced in the Fleet Defence role. However, the wheel turns and the Rhino is now a mainstay of naval aviation.

My personal view is that whilst a slowing is likely, legacy aircraft will be sacrificed for F-35 in the US, in the same way the UK did. Elements of the USAF would love an all Stealth strike force with B-2, F-22 and F-35 operating together.

Heathrow Harry

8th Aug 2013, 18:39

Considering how we were stiffed over Skybolt and the A-Bomb in 1945 I'm amazed anyone would be surprised that the cousins would leave us high & dry

But we would have two of the worlds biggest "Helicopter carrying destroyers"

Bastardeux

8th Aug 2013, 19:15

Would it be too late to revert back to the cats n' traps straight away on the PoW?...I think it would go down as the MoD's most shambolic procurement ever if that did ever happen!

hulahoop7

9th Aug 2013, 08:01

Left high and dry as in being given Polaris and Trident on the cheap? As in them offering up training opportunities for our pilots and deck crews while we are taking a capability holiday? Yank bashing is just so much bull****.

Not_a_boffin

9th Aug 2013, 08:22

Would it be too late to revert back to the cats n' traps straight away on the PoW?

EMALS and EAR can still go on both PoW and QE - it's perfectly feasible, just a matter of cost, which by now would be more expensive than 2010.

However, given the current state of the F35 programme, there doesn't appear to be a need to go there atm.

Heathrow Harry

9th Aug 2013, 09:34

"As in them offering up training opportunities for our pilots and deck crews"

as long as we're buying American.............

In 1962 the Americans offered Polaris because they suddenly realised that the British might walk off and join the French SSBN development - and then the Germans might be involved as well

Bastardeux

9th Aug 2013, 10:42

Come on hazza, we all look out for our own interests. Every country does it!

Bastardeux

9th Aug 2013, 10:43

However, given the current state of the F35 programme, there doesn't appear to be a need to go there atm.

What about the state of federal government finances?

Not_a_boffin

9th Aug 2013, 11:00

What about them? They're in the poo. Even so - as we discussed earlier, pretty much all the think tanks suggest cutting numbers not versions. Almost all of them suggest that land-based Tacair is going to struggle in the WestPac arena, which if anything points at the A taking (proportionally) a larger hit. Of course they then blether on about retiring either the Bone fleet or some of the remaining Buffs which only goes to demonstrate that there isn't necessarily a surfeit of logic going on there.....

Until DoD and the US legislature sort out what they're going to do, there's no point anyone else blundering around trying to predict it. There is a viable plan B (or C for that matter) in the event of the F35B getting canned, it will just cost money, which we may or may not have.

Short version is that no-one (especially the Pte Frasers of this world) knows what will transpire. Until we do, there's very little value gained in running round exercising the International Sign for Panic!

LowObservable

9th Aug 2013, 13:04

We're all dooooomed....

Problem is, Mr B, that the defense budgeteers have no good place to run. Congress spent the 00s competing to raise the pay and benefits of Our Warfighters and thereby landed the Pentagon with massive costs that will inevitably increase. The bills for operations here and there continue to fall due, and most of the combat equipment is old except for Reapers and MRAPs and suchlike that are as much use as a chocolate fireguard anywhere except OEF/OIF scenarios.

It's that, not poor logic, that takes out the B-1. It's too expensive for what it does. Might be nice to update it, but that money has to come from R-1 and P-1 and the JSF overruns have eaten all of that.

So the F-35 can and probably will be safe from termination, but nobody seriously imagines that the current, on-the-books plan - sustained deliveries of 120/year to the DoD - can be afforded at all. Anything close to that and there is no new bomber and other things go by the wayside as well. But significantly smaller quantities risk death-spiral territory - F-35Bs getting towards $200 m a pop in full production - unless some miracle-worker can achieve some major cost efficiencies, a task akin to redesigning and rebuilding a moving locomotive.

And read the tealeaves - it's not just Boeing doing new things to the Super Hornet, because the Navy is increasingly along for the ride.

Not_a_boffin

9th Aug 2013, 13:30

Congress spent the 00s competing to raise the pay and benefits of Our Warfighters and thereby landed the Pentagon with massive costs that will inevitably increase.

Which is why everything is predicated on a real BRAC exercise (yes, I know!) and most of the options hack away at the US Army.

So the F-35 can and probably will be safe from termination, but nobody seriously imagines that the current, on-the-books plan - sustained deliveries of 120/year to the DoD - can be afforded at all. Anything close to that and there is no new bomber and other things go by the wayside as well. But significantly smaller quantities risk death-spiral territory - F-35Bs getting towards $200 m a pop in full production - unless some miracle-worker can achieve some major cost efficiencies

So what you're suggesting, is that the A-model is the least useful/relevant to Pacific Operations, but is required in production to keep the numbers up. I wonder whether that means there's a trade-off in variant numbers vs force structure. Up the B and C numbers (there's plenty of room on those CVN decks) at the expense of A-models, trim the USAF number of TFS/TFW, with the small number of As aimed at fwd deployed units in Korea / Japan. Concentrate on maintaining bomb wing numbers......

Bastardeux

9th Aug 2013, 13:51

So what you're suggesting, is that the A-model is the least useful/relevant to Pacific Operations, but is required in production to keep the numbers up. I wonder whether that means there's a trade-off in variant numbers vs force structure. Up the B and C numbers (there's plenty of room on those CVN decks) at the expense of A-models, trim the USAF number of TFS/TFW, with the small number of As aimed at fwd deployed units in Korea / Japan. Concentrate on maintaining bomb wing numbers......

Then you just end up increasing the price of the A pretty significantly and almost definitely losing Italy, Canada, Japan, The Netherlands and potentially Turkey (300/400 aircraft?), further pushing up the price. I don't think there's really enough demand for the B and C to fill the hole that would be left behind by scaling back the A. It's a pickle that is going to have to be worked out some point pretty soon!

LowObservable

9th Aug 2013, 15:24

The USAF wants to build up a force of F-35As for dealing with AA/AD and targeting relocatable and transportable things wherever they might be. Longer-range things would be more relevant to Pacific, but are expensive and called bombers.

They are needed, the USAF knows they are needed, but two obstacles must be overcome: Reaching IOC and building a strong force takes a lot of time and money, and changing the bomber/fighter balance takes culture change. And nobody, but nobody, will advocate trading fighter wings today for bombers in 2025-and-later.

The A is not required just to keep the numbers up but to stop the USAF tacair force from falling into a hole (age and capability) from which it cannot be extracted in decades.

And you could up the B/C numbers, but even with optimistic assumptions about positive effects on unit cost, that is going to increase the annual bill for JSF procurement, and that's not a possibility.

The B itself would be in better shape if it was not the most expensive variant, if there was a stronger case for the value of deploying small numbers of aircraft on LHA/LHDs, if there was a stronger case for forward/dispersed basing, and if the Marines were going to replace the Harriers first.

Not_a_boffin

9th Aug 2013, 15:25

It's a pickle that is going to have to be worked out some point pretty soon!

Never said it was easy! Merely that running around saying the sky is falling isn't helping either and for the UK, wait and see (with a viable plan B) has to be the best option.

Given the shenanigans in Turkey atm, pinning a 3-400 cab order in that direction is - I would suggest - somewhat ambitious.

The USAF wants to build up a force of F-35As for dealing with AA/AD and targeting relocatable and transportable things wherever they might be.

and

The A is not required just to keep the numbers up but to stop the USAF tacair force from falling into a hole (age and capability) from which it cannot be extracted in decades.

don't actually comprise a requirement, rather a continuation of what the USAF TACAIR force does today. You are assuming that there is a need for a large USAF tacair force which will struggle to play in WestPac. If there's a real budget crunch (and there is) you probably need to think about which assets can be used everywhere and which can't, rather than who has the current force structure........

Bastardeux

9th Aug 2013, 16:19

Given the shenanigans in Turkey atm, pinning a 3-400 cab order in that direction is - I would suggest - somewhat ambitious.

Yeah, sorry if that wasn't clear, that was an estimate for the combined orders of all the nations listed.

You are assuming that there is a need for a large USAF tacair force which will struggle to play in WestPac.

How are you coming to the conclusion that the air force tacair won't have much of a role though? It's well placed to provide a huge impact from Korea, Japan and if needs be, Taiwan. Yes, it's not as flexible as having them on a boat, but both have just as many positives and negatives as each-other. And with the likely numbers of carriers/amphibs you would be looking at around a maximum of 4 each in theatre at any one time...

LowObservable

9th Aug 2013, 19:25

Not all the world is WestPac, and land-based TacAir can provide sortie rates and cover lots of targets. And if you rely mainly on CV, then your adversary has even more incentive to invest in keeping them nervous and at a distance.

ORAC

9th Aug 2013, 21:04

A-10 vs F-35 (https://medium.com/war-is-boring/adb2cef00361)

Mk 1

10th Aug 2013, 07:05

Comments provided by the neutral Winslow Wheeler....

No mention that the the F-35 pilot doesn't need a huge canopy - DAS will fix any supposed blind spots and give better visibility than the A10 jockey.

Valid point on the ammo load - but in that theater in that scenario a Herc gunship could have provided equal suppression with a longer loiter time. The Marine conversions (Combat Talon?) are even armed with Hellfires aren't they?

ORAC

10th Aug 2013, 08:06

Valid point on the ammo load - but in that theater in that scenario a Herc gunship could have provided equal suppression with a longer loiter time. In daylight? They made that mistake in Kuwait..... Spirit 03 (http://www.specialoperations.com/Memorial/spirit.html)

LowObservable

10th Aug 2013, 15:23

I will take Wheeler's demonstrated prediction CEP over any LockMart xvp's...

As for DAS, even program people will admit that (if and when they get it and the HMD to work) it has lower acuity than the current night vision camera built into the helmet, which is itself not good enough for landing guidance. Not much of a Mk 1 eyeball replacement for CAS.

Heathrow Harry

11th Aug 2013, 13:33

$13million each in 1980 - you can't get a Lockheed PR person for that now...........

NutLoose

11th Aug 2013, 15:26

I believe the RAF have been carrying out practice intercepts using the assets they believe they will have available if the F-35 project fails..

http://i536.photobucket.com/albums/ff321/taylortony/Spitfire%20MKx1x/Spit_zps086486d0.jpg

Courtney Mil

12th Aug 2013, 10:16

Actually, the F-35 is in that picture. Amazing stealth.

NutLoose

12th Aug 2013, 11:34

Well i didn't see it when i took it. :sad:

FODPlod

12th Aug 2013, 13:02

As we can't even see the F-35's pilot, he must be wearing MTP coveralls.

Bevo

12th Aug 2013, 17:19

That picture has been doctored, here is the original photo:

http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r209/TurboBob/Military/Formation_zpsd9d55395.jpg

Just This Once...

12th Aug 2013, 17:31

Female pilot with previously-secret WSO in a reclined position?

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/1/18154/1357670-wonderwomanplane.jpg

Courtney Mil

12th Aug 2013, 17:32

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

Both the above. Brill!

Stuffy

13th Aug 2013, 22:46

Hugely expensive.

Because of the money invested. It WILL have to work.

I would feel safer on an F-35B than a B787-8.* gulps* (whatever that means in net jargon?).

The fly-by-wire, will make it easier to fly than a Harrier.

May I suggest, a few trials on HMS Illustrious. Just to make a point to the Spanish, and everybody else?

A good time for some sales promotion. Flying off 'Lusty', while she is docked in Gibraltar?

Oops ! Have I just upset our loyal and faithful European friends ?

Lowe Flieger

15th Aug 2013, 16:57

U.K. Prepares For Major JSF Procurement Decisions (http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_08_05_2013_p34-602592.xml)

According to the linked Aviation Week item, above, the UK is gearing up for an initial purchase an estimated 14 jets in addition to the 3 already at Eglin. It also says the first aircraft are planned to arrive in the UK in 2018.

LF

SpazSinbad

15th Aug 2013, 19:25

Defense Writers Group A Project of the Center for Media & Security, New York and Washington, D.C.
General Herbert J. “Hawk” Carlisle Commander, Pacific Air Forces July 29, 2013
"...DWG: Can I ask a follow-up on that question? Specifically, to that end, do you have a strong feeling about Korea’s fighter competition which has been — [Laughter]. Then you also mentioned Singapore. We reported and heard that they are, they’re part of the F-35 program already, but that there was some movement to kind of complete an inertial[sic] sale. Can you give us an update on —

General Carlisle: I talked to their CDF [Chief of Defense Force], Chee Meng. I was just in Singapore. Singapore’s decided to buy the B model, the VSTOL variant to begin with. But I don’t know where they’re at in putting it into their budget. I know that’s a decision that’s been made and that’s why they’re part of the program, but I don’t know where they’re at in putting that in the budget...." page 13 of 18
http://www.airforcemag.com/DWG/Documents/2013/July%202013/072913Carlisle.pdf (200Kb)

SpazSinbad

15th Aug 2013, 20:24

Marine test pilot makes first F-35B night landing at sea 15 Aug 2013 By F-35 Joint Program Office Public Affairs | Headquarters Marine Corps
"USS WASP, At Sea -- A key milestone on the path to declaring F-35B initial operating capability for the U.S. Marine Corps is underway.

The F-35 Integrated Test Force from NAS Patuxent River, Md. embarked USS Wasp, Aug. 12, for the second at-sea test of the F-35B Lightning II, the short takeoff and vertical landing variant of the Joint Strike Fighter.

Developmental Test Phase Two is the second of three planned tests aimed at expanding the F-35B’s shipboard operating envelope for the U.S. Marine Corps. The first shipboard testing phase was successfully completed in October 2011. A milestone many point to as a turning point in F-35B development.

During the 18-day long ship trials, two F-35Bs will conduct a series of tests to determine the aircraft’s suitability for sea-based operations. Pilots will expand the F-35Bs allowable wind envelope for launch and recovery, conduct first-ever night operations at sea, conduct initial mission systems evaluations at sea, evaluate the dynamic interface associated with aircraft operations on a moving flight deck, and further evaluate shipboard sustainment of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

On Aug. 14, the first DT-II night vertical landing was accomplished by F-35 Marine Corps test pilot, Lt. Col. C.R. “Jimi” Clift. Clift, a Harrier pilot by training was pleased to be part of the milestone event.

“It all went extremely well,” said Clift. “Eight successful landings in one night, so we’re tracking favorably along the learning curve.”

Preparing for DT- II was no small task. Extensive Field Carrier Landing Practice training and qualifications wrapped up last week for the ITF at Patuxent River. Engineers completed electromagnetic environmental effects testing on the pair of F-35Bs being used in the ship trials. During the past month, F-35 maintainers have completed several actions to ensure the aircraft and support equipment were ready for shipboard operations.

Meanwhile, USS Wasp underwent a series of shipyard modifications to accommodate the F-35B, to include application of a new composite deck coating that offers additional heat protection, movement of some lights and sensors to better support F-35 landings, and installation of equipment to monitor environmental effects and collect data during F-35 operations. major actions taken included an on-site engine removal,which was performed in record time to ensure the aircraft were ready to deploy.

At the conclusion of DT-II, the Navy and Marine Corps team should have sufficient data to support certification for future F-35B Lighting II shipboard operations in anticipation of 2015 deployment."
Marine test pilot makes first F-35B night landing at sea > Headquarters Marine Corps > News Article Display (http://www.hqmc.marines.mil/News/NewsArticleDisplay/tabid/3488/Article/148069/marine-test-pilot-makes-first-f-35b-night-landing-at-sea.aspx)

CAPTION: "CAPTION: "Lt. Col. C.R. “Jimi” Clift makes the first F-35B Lightning II night landing on USS Wasp during the second at-sea F-35 developmental test event, Aug. 14. The F-35 Integrated Test Force is embarked on the Wasp for three weeks to expand the F-35B operational envelope in preparation for Marine Corps initial operational capability test in 2015. (Photo by MCSN Michael T. Forbes II, U.S. Navy) (Photo by MCSN Michael T. Forbes II)"
PHOTO:
http://media.dma.mil/2013/Aug/15/2000705976/-1/-1/0/130814-N-ML172-136.JPG

LowObservable

16th Aug 2013, 21:25

Cool pic, Spaz - though maybe "cool" isn't quite the word. No thermal effects on the deck there, nosiree Bob!

And here is a link to a pretty photo for the weekend, showing how the brilliantly inspired design of the F-35 eliminates anything that might cue the defenders to its presence...

Navy.mil - View Image (http://www.navy.mil/view_image.asp?id=157369)

SpazSinbad

16th Aug 2013, 21:34

F-35B Lightning II

F-35B Lightning ll - YouTube

Killface

16th Aug 2013, 22:50

Cool pic, Spaz - though maybe "cool" isn't quite the word. No thermal effects on the deck there, nosiree Bob!

And here is a link to a pretty photo for the weekend, showing how the brilliantly inspired design of the F-35 eliminates anything that might cue the defenders to its presence...

F-22 Raptor going Full Afterburner by ~jamestayloranime on deviantART (http://jamestayloranime.deviantart.com/art/F-22-Raptor-going-Full-Afterburner-305985335)

Impressive pic Spaz, thanks for sharing.

SpazSinbad

17th Aug 2013, 00:55

PhotoFckIt doan work for me again and whilst trying to get it to work I note that the DooLine has the same photo but it is USN official so go there or here for this Bewtay:

"130814-O-ZZ999-390 ATLANTIC OCEAN (Aug. 14, 2013) An F-35B Lightning II aircraft lands aboard the amphibious assault ship USS Wasp (LHD 1) during the second at-sea F-35 developmental test event. The F-35B is the Marine Corps variant of the Joint Strike Fighter and is undergoing testing aboard Wasp. (U.S. Navy photo courtesy of Lockheed Martin by Andy Wolfe/Released)/Released)"
ORIGINAL: (5.5Mb)
http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/130814-O-ZZ999-390.jpg
OR:
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/files/2013/08/130814-O-ZZ999-390-1200.jpg

Whilst FluckR has got to be the most modified ridiculous place after me own name sake I have ever seen but maybe it is just me.... :}

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2828/9527954756_00d262d195_o.jpg

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2828/9527954756_00d262d195_o.jpg

Photo not shown on previous page now cropped here:

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/1stnightDLussWasp14aug2013130814-N-ML172-136crop.jpg~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/1stnightDLussWasp14aug2013130814-N-ML172-136crop.jpg.html)

And... a slightly edited photie from here: http://webpic.chinareviewnews.com/upload/201308/16/102682499.jpg

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/F-35BnightSTOwaspAug2013forum.jpg~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/F-35BnightSTOwaspAug2013forum.jpg.html)

SpazSinbad

17th Aug 2013, 20:20

RAMP UP Deck-mounted ski-jump assembly marks key step toward U.K. carrier-based JSF operations
Aviation Week & Space Technology / 19 Aug 2013 pp.33-35
"...Design work is also close to completion on the ship-borne rolling-vertical-landing (SRVL) system, which is being developed for the U.K. by Lockheed Martin, BAE Systems and Northrop Grumman. The SRVL technique, which will also be used by the U.S. Marine Corps while operating F-35B short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing variants from U.S. Navy carriers, enables the aircraft to land at heavier weights than possible when making a vertical landing. Initial flight trials of the F-35B, including SRVLs, are expected in 2018.

Under this technique, the aircraft will follow a conventional 2.5-3-deg. glideslope from 1,000-ft. toward the carrier until leveling off at 200 ft., where it will stabilize for a final approach at 7 deg. Flying at around 60 kt., compared to 120 kt. for a conventional carrier approach, up to 5-10 % of the overall lift will be generated by forward flight.

"This increases the recovery weight above vertical landing and enhances the bring-back load by an extra 2,000-4,000 lb.," says Atkinson. "The intention is always to stop with brakes and engine at idle, compared to the carrier landing where the intent is always to bolter (aka touch-and-go). The SRVL touchdown point is variable with ship motion, while the carrier landing point is always on the arresting wires.

Pilots will fly the approach using a stabilized and illuminated aim point on the ship's deck and a ship-referenced velocity vector on their helmet-mounted displays. The technique is being developed using a modified flight simulator at BAE's Warton, England, facility.

The company has also been running tests at its hot-gas test rig at the same site to replicate the aero-thermal environment caused by the F-35's exhaust.

"The F-35 has a much more powerful propulsion system so we have to take account of the high-energy, hot-cold flow. We looked in the simulator at the repeatability of approaches and at how much of the catwalks we would have to sterilize (heat treat). We also looked at hover transition corridors for aircraft to land. We used computational fluid dynamics and subscale model tests to protect areas from heat transfer; along with full-scale testing," says Atkinson.

BAE built a 15.7%-scale model of a QEC catwalk with containers, fuel systems, life rafts and sections of the ship's deck. It then used the hot-gas test rig at Warton to expose the model to the full-scale pressure of a F-35 gas stream. "We've been testing things like life rafts without and with all sorts of covers. We want to protect for a single pass in areas that would not normally be overflown," he adds."

SpazSinbad

17th Aug 2013, 20:41

RAMP UP Deck-mounted ski-jump assembly marks key step toward U.K. carrier-based JSF operations
Guy Norris, Aviation Week & Space Technology / 19 Aug 2013 pp.33-34
"...The 200-ft.-long ramp is the longest ever fitted to a carrier and, like the Queen Elizabeth-class carriers (QEC) themselves, is the first of its type to be purpose-designed from the outset for F-35 operations. Angled at 12.5 deg., the ramp wiii be 20-ft. high and is designed to reduce the required deck roll on takeoff by up to 50%, or allow an increased payload of up to 20%. The ramp achieves this by boosting vertical velocity, giving the aircraft a ballistic launch profile that provides it with additional time to accelerate to flying speed.

However; the ski ramp imparts added loads on the landing gear during launch and, because these can be increased by even small variations in the surface of the ramp or by the interface with the deck, developers are paying special attention to the build tolerances. David Atkinson, who leads JSF/QEC integration activities for BAE Systems, says the requirement for build accuracy is even greater than for previous ski jump designs because the F-35 has a wide tricycle gear. This makes it more exposed to variability than the narrower footprint of the tandem main gear of the Harrier, for which the concept was originally conceived in the 1970s. In addition, the center section of the carrier deck is cambered to prevent pooling of water, further complicating the interface with the ramp.

"You have to allow for the effect of deck-plate bumps and sags, and when the ship is floated up we will go over it with laser mapping to measure the actual tolerances achieved in build," says Atkinson, who was speaking at the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Aviation 2013 conference in Los Angeles.

The ramp has been designed by BAE and Lockheed Martin, rather than the shipbuilders, and is configured with two curves. The initial entry or "cubic" curve leads to a let-down or "ellipse" section that provides the launch point for the aircraft. The ramp's makeup provides a positive climb rate and no more than a zero sink rate if wind-over-deck conditions are less than expected...."

SpazSinbad

18th Aug 2013, 05:18

Navy/Marine Corps Team: Testing F-35B Lightning II Aircraft Aboard USS Wasp
Story Number: NNS130816-07 Release Date: 8/16/2013
By Mass Communications Specialist Seaman Michael T. Forbes, USS Wasp Public Affairs
"...DT-II is the second of three test phases encompassing numerous milestone events including the first night operation at sea as well as the first launch and recovery of the F-35B at sea by a U.K. test pilot. The goal of this testing is to further define F-35B operating parameters aboard amphibious ships such as Wasp....

...Launch and recoveries filled the first, second and third days at sea creating smooth, synchronized daytime operations. Wasp flight deck crew members were trained in advance of DT-II to prepare them for F-35B operations at sea, ensuring all those involved were ready to support DT-II.

"The crew itself has spent quite a bit of time up at Patuxent River working with the F-35B understanding how the aircraft operates," said Capt. Brian Teets, Wasp's commanding officer....

...U.K. Squadron Leader Jim Schofield, a Royal Air Force pilot became the first international pilot to conduct sea-based launch and landing in the F-35B.

"It's exciting to see the integration of this new plane with the amphibious assault ships," said Schofield. "After a year leading up to this evolution, it's awesome to get here and start. And the crew has been especially accommodating and efficient at running these tests smoothly."...
Navy/Marine Corps Team: Testing F-35B Lightning II Aircraft Aboard USS Wasp (http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=76012)
&
Large Photo: http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/130812-N-WI365-075.JPG (1Mb) [HERE CROPPED]

CAPTION: "130814-N-ML172-152 ATLANTIC OCEAN (Aug. 14, 2013) An F-35B Lightning II aircraft takes off from the amphibious assault ship USS Wasp (LHD 1) during the second at-sea F-35 developmental test event. The F-35B is the Marine Corps variant of the joint strike fighter and is undergoing testing aboard Wasp. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Michael T. Forbes II/Released)"

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/F-35BstoSideOffWASP130814-N-ML172-152forum.jpg~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/F-35BstoSideOffWASP130814-N-ML172-152forum.jpg.html)

"(U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Michael T. Forbes II/Released)"

http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/photos/130814-N-ML172-278.JPG [HERE CROPPED]

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/F-35BsternSideApproachSprayWaspDTII130814-N-ML172-278forum.jpg~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/F-35BsternSideApproachSprayWaspDTII130814-N-ML172-278forum.jpg.html)

John Farley

18th Aug 2013, 09:32

Those who cannot sleep at night because of the thermal situation under an F-35B as it does a VL might do well to wonder why its rubber tyres don’t mind.

Finnpog

18th Aug 2013, 09:45

I was just thinking about you, JF, and your detailed and informative posts on ski-jump ramps when I read Spaz's post just above.

Interesting point about both the camber on the ramp and also the differences in main gear configuration.

You would assume that the nose gear was designed with a ski-jump in mind as there might not be the weight allwance to 'swap in' the C-model version.

John Farley

18th Aug 2013, 12:49

Finnpog

There are several points to consider for the F-35B ramp

The ramp max nose leg load case. I would guess this might be up to 3 times that standing stationary at whatever weight you are considering for takeoff (but I would expect the nose gear strength to be set by VL loads not ramp loads because with a VL overstress the oleo will probably not have time to compress and the strut can be considered almost as a rigid structure).

The max time on the ramp (the longer the time the further the nose oleo will be compressed for a given load and you don't want it to bottom as this will involve a shock load. (On the ramp the oleo has plenty of time to shorten despite its damping unlike with a heavy VL)

The profile. Obviously affects the nose leg loads. Dunno why they are talking of the need for a very accurate profile on the QE class. John Fozard always reckoned the tyres could accommodate even sudden changes like a lip of 1/8 inch where sections joined. This though may have been because the Harrier tyre pressures were low compared to may fast jets. What is very important is the exit profile which is needed to unload the nose leg from its very compressed state. Without that the shock loading as the leg suddenly shoots out to full length as you leave the ramp is again a nasty shock load. Could apply to the mains as well although this was not a problem with the Harrier main leg that I can recall.

SpazSinbad

18th Aug 2013, 13:08

DAYTIME VL VIDEO ONLY: F-35B Lightning ll - YouTube

Engines

18th Aug 2013, 13:13

Finn,

The F-35B gear was designed with a range of loading conditions in mind, including ramp work. However, (at least a few years ago) the ramp launch was not the stressing manoeuvre. If it became one, LM had the fix ready, which was an adjustment to the oleo metering system.

The 'C' model nose gear is a completely different beast and would not be considered for ski-jump work.

The ramp angle quoted here (12.5 degrees) is interesting, and indicates that the team are seeking to get the maximum available 'delta' from the ramp. The explanation of the advantages the ramp provides is very good, the only thing it misses is the fact that it also reduces pilot workload and improves safety.

As I've posted before, the ski-jump is the nearest I've ever seen to providing 'something for nothing', and the big 'something' is a massive improvement in launch payload. Give any aircraft designer a way of taking off with another 20% payload with no additional strengthening, easier handling and improved safety, and they would offer to have your babies. It's just another great RN invention for maritime aviation.

Great to see the team pressing forward at speed with the clearances - eight landings in one night is going some.

And for Killface - no one said that there aren't any thermal effects on the deck. It's whether they are acceptable or not that matters, and that's why the BAE team have been working the issue with LM for around 12 years now, using a mix of full scale tests, rigs and computer simulation. The fact that the test team are back on the ship doing large numbers of landings to the deck shows that they understand the issue and can cope with it. JF's comment is an excellent one to consider.

Best Regards as ever to the team actually doing the business,

Engines

Finnpog

18th Aug 2013, 14:15

:ok:
Thanks folks.
Very informative once again. I appreciate the detail.

(I was slightly tongue in cheek about the C-Model. That's obviously hewn from the centre of the earth for CATOBAR dynamic forces.);)

Engines

18th Aug 2013, 17:24

John,

Sorry, didn't see your post before I posted back to Finn.

As ever, you are bang on the money. It's not nose leg loads (they are set by max rate VLs) but rate of oleo closure while on the ramp, and the need to avoid bottoming the strut.

I'd suggest that concern over QE ramp profile was due to issues with one of the CVS's ramps that was not built as precisely as one would have wanted, and that led to limits on SHAR launch weight from that ship. You are also quite correct that the Harrier's very soft front tyre limited some of the issues. However, F-35's is a mite higher in pressure.

And finally, yes, the need to manage leg extension on ramp exit has been noted, and the team have been modelling and testing that since around 2002. Incidentally, the landing gear team at Fort Worth were quite the nicest bunch of people you could ever have wished to work with - great boss and very talented engineers working in a highly specialised field. They had very good assistance from the BAE team at Farnborough (all ex Dunsfold people) on all matters to do with ramps.

Best Regards as ever

Engines

Courtney Mil

18th Aug 2013, 17:35

Thanks, guys, for the informed postings here. All very interesting and encouraging. It clearly flies well and the airframe is doing what it should. Please, does anyone have any equally reliable encouragement about the systems?

Thanks again. :ok:

John Farley

18th Aug 2013, 18:57

Engines

Thanks. Especially the info re one of the CVS ramps.

As to me not remembering the Harrier main leg being a prob off the end of the ramp - wot a prat I am. Of course it wasn't a problem on extension as the main leg was selfshortening and had no rebound. Doh!

JF

Killface

18th Aug 2013, 19:48

And for Killface - no one said that there aren't any thermal effects on the deck. It's whether they are acceptable or not that matters, and that's why the BAE team have been working the issue with LM for around 12 years now, using a mix of full scale tests, rigs and computer simulation. The fact that the test team are back on the ship doing large numbers of landings to the deck shows that they understand the issue and can cope with it. JF's comment is an excellent one to consider.

You misunderstand me. I posted the picture of the F-22 takeoff in afterburner to show the F-35C afterburner picture Low Observable is trying to make a mountain from a molehole of, is quiet normal.

It was also Low Observable who said:

Cool pic, Spaz - though maybe "cool" isn't quite the word. No thermal effects on the deck there, nosiree Bob!

you have to forgive him, a lot of people have been counting on the F-35B to fail thanks to that heat, and he is extremely disappointed (and responding with immaterial snark) about the F-35B succeeding in an area he hoped it would fail. just as you point out no one said "no thermal effects" what they said is that the thermal effects wouldn't lead to issues.

Clearly there is heat effects on the deck, as there is with the Harrier and Osprey but its obviously within tolerances. (just as people said it would be)

Just to elaborate further this has been a huge bone of contention with Bill Sweetman:

U.S. Navy Details Ship Mods Required For F-35 (http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/asd_05_29_2013_p01-02-582896.xml&p=1)

"The changes confirm that Lockheed Martin and the Marine Corps issued erroneous statements in early 2010 regarding the environmental effects of the F-35B’s exhaust. At that time, a company spokesman said that “extensive tests” had shown that “the difference between F-35B main-engine exhaust temperature and that of the AV-8B is very small, and is not anticipated to require any significant CONOPS changes for F-35B.”

As he tried to paint any changes as "significant." which is of course a relative term. You will also remember that Bill Sweetman predicted exploding concrete that has yet to come to fruition as well.

I actually had a very snarky comment lined up for LO's original post myself, but decided to be civil and simply respond with a picture trying to show that stealth aircraft in burner on takeoff doesn't seem to effect them on their missions. And he should know this with his:

30+ years of open source research and analysis on stealth. Tracking JSF and its direct predecessors since 1986.

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/424953-f-35-cancelled-then-what-122.html#post7848457

NoHoverstop

18th Aug 2013, 20:12

Following on from the undercarriage/ramp interaction discussion, another area where the F-35B designers have to be pretty savvy is how the flight control laws cope with finding themselves suddenly in the sky but in a situation where sustained flight is not instantaneously possible. We never did ski-jump take-offs with the VAAC Harrier's experimental FCS engaged (for real that is to say. We did do lots in simulation), because the margins for recovery from a yaw channel (read as nose-wheel steering in this context) runaway of VAAC's simplex (and sometimes just plain wrong!) control laws were just too small for comfort. However, prior to that assessment we did all the other work to allow for ski-jumps including letting the FCS know what was going on in this "special case", so that it would not try to fly straight away on leaving the ramp but instead get the correct priorisation and blending of accelerations. In our case the logic to let the monitoring software back-off temporarily to let the control laws get on with it was triggered by a combination of weight-on-wheels and airframe movement that could only happen on the ramp during a ski-jump. As I said, we never got to try it for real, so it will be truly a "great leap forward" for STOVL technology when an F-35B does it for the first time.

For what TJSF and the ITF have achieved so far :D :ok:

LowObservable

18th Aug 2013, 20:39

For a few of the slower learners around here:

As for Spaz's F-35C photo, I was not talking about the afterburner.

http://www.jsf.mil/images/gallery/sdd/f35_test/b/sdd_f35testb_164.jpg

"Spalling" concrete was predicted by Navy engineers. This prediction is reflected in specs for VL landing pads that are being built today. So far, too, every VL we have seen is on such pads, or concrete protected by AM-2, or on steel decks.

Likewise, concern about ship-deck impact was also first raised by Navy engineers, giving rise to an ONR/DARPA effort to look at cooling schemes.

None of these things were invented by the media, oddly enough.

JSFfan

18th Aug 2013, 22:55

For a few of the slower learners around here:
As for Spaz's F-35C photo, I was not talking about the afterburner.
http://www.jsf.mil/images/gallery/sd...5testb_164.jpg (http://www.jsf.mil/images/gallery/sdd/f35_test/b/sdd_f35testb_164.jpg)as a slow learner, I still don't know what you were talking about, here is a f-22 with vortex
http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/PyKYw_p1Hrc/hqdefault.jpg?feature=og

SpazSinbad

19th Aug 2013, 21:19

Two F-35B Lightning II Jets Begin Developmental Testing II Aboard USS Wasp

Two F-35B Lightning II Jets Begin Developmental Testing II Aboard USS Wasp - YouTube

F-35B Accomplishes First Night Vertical Landing Aboard USS WASP

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AW72dBp5DBM

SpazSinbad

20th Aug 2013, 06:19

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/F-35BnightSTOWaspAug2013forum.jpg~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/F-35BnightSTOWaspAug2013forum.jpg.html)

The Prodigy - Firestarter - YouTube

glad rag

20th Aug 2013, 16:16

No Spaz. You just don't get that Prodigy song, do you!

SpazSinbad

20th Aug 2013, 18:32

Yeah this version is more to my liking.... even though these are Kiwi KAHUs there are ex-A4Gs there in the mix - probably. All single seat ex-A4Gs gone to KAHUs with one exception are in USofA today with DRAKEN.

RNZAF A4K Skyhawk and P3 Orion Firestarter 99.mpg

RNZAF A4K Skyhawk and P3 Orion Firestarter 99.mpg - YouTube

SpazSinbad

21st Aug 2013, 09:12

F-35B Accomplishes First Night Vertical Landing Aboard USS Wasp 20 Aug 2013
"...As of August 18, the two F-35Bs participating in DT-II, known as BF-1and BF-5, had completed a total of 40 short takeoffs and 41 vertical landings...."
Lockheed Martin · F-35B Accomplishes First Night Vertical Landing Aboard USS Wasp (http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2013/august/130820aef-35b-accomplishes-first-night-vertical-landing-uss-wasp.html)

SpazSinbad

21st Aug 2013, 20:07

F-35B Twilight Operations on the USS Wasp
"Published on Aug 21, 2013
The Integrated Test Force operates F-35B test aircraft aboard the USS Wasp at twilight in August 2013. The tests were a part of Developmental Test Phase Two for the F-35B short takeoff/vertical landing variant."
F-35B Twilight Operations on the USS Wasp - YouTube

SpazSinbad

21st Aug 2013, 20:30

F-35 Support Costs Fall 22%, Pentagon Manager Estimates 21 Aug 2013 Tony Capaccio
"A fleet of Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT)’s F-35 fighters will cost $857 billion over 55 years to operate and support, 22 percent less than previously estimated, according to the head of the Pentagon office developing the plane.

The new estimate reflects the aircraft’s performance in 5,000 test flights over 7,000 hours, Air Force Lieutenant General Christopher Bogdan, the Defense Department’s program manager for the F-35, told the Senate Armed Services Committee in written answers last month that haven’t been made public until now.

“The previous cost estimate did not factor in this new knowledge,” Bogdan said.

Operating costs include expenses from spare parts to repairs and fuel. Officially, the Pentagon’s estimate remains $1.1 trillion, a two-year-old projection developed by the Pentagon’s independent cost-assessment office....

...Bogdan estimated that basic production costs, including engines, for the three variations of the aircraft will fall as much as $35 million per plane by fiscal 2018, when full-rate production is scheduled to begin.

If current trends hold and production rates increase, Bogdan said, the Marine Corps version will fall to $110 million a plane from $153 million under the fifth production contract signed in December.

The Navy’s version will drop to $100 million from $140 million and the Air Force’s to $85 million from $120 million, he said...."
F-35 Support Costs Fall 22%, Pentagon Manager Estimates - Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-21/f-35-support-costs-fall-22-pentagon-manager-estimates.html)
_________________________

F-35 operating cost drops below $1 trillion -source 21 Aug 2013
"Aug 21 (Reuters) - The U.S. government now estimates it will cost $857 billion to operate and maintain a fleet of more than 2,000 Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 fighter jets over 55 years, a drop of more than 20 percent from the previous estimate of more than $1 trillion, according to a senior defense official.

The new estimate reflects actual data about the airplane's performance and revised assumptions about how it will be used in combat...."
F-35 operating cost drops below $1 trillion -source | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/21/lockheed-fighter-idUSL2N0GM1OP20130821)

Rhino power

21st Aug 2013, 21:25

IF current trends hold and production rates increase, Bogdan said, the Marine Corps (and RAF/RN's) version will fall to $110 million a plane

Only $110m per copy? Bargain!... :}

-RP

SpazSinbad

21st Aug 2013, 21:54

'CHEEP' to "RUN" also? [Just DO NOT Press the STOVL RED BUTTON]

Marines Put F-35B Flight Costs 17 Percent Lower Than OSD 21 Aug 2013 Colin Clark
"PENTAGON: By combing through the assumptions — some of them deeply questionable — undergirding the Defense Department’s official cost estimates for the F-35B and refining them, the Marines say the plane should cost 16.6 percent less per flight hour than the current estimate. Since the F-35B is the most expensive plane to operate, lowering these cost estimates for the Joint Strike Fighter’s Marine version would have a substantial impact on the program’s overall costs.

“We believe we are going to achieve much greater savings than we are currently being credited for,” Marine Lt. Gen. Robert Schmidle, deputy commandant for aviation, told me in an interview here.

Among the questionable assumptions Schmidle highlighted is this whopper: the Office of Secretary Defense estimate developed by the Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation office (CAPE) predicted that the F-35B would be flown at full throttle in STOVL mode — which uses enormous amounts of fuel and utilizes the highly sophisticated lift fan system at much greater rates than the Marines project — about 80 percent of its time in the air.

...The great majority of the plane’s flight time — ... — would be spent flying without using the lift fan and STOVL.

The current CAPE estimate assumes $41,000 an hour for the F-35B. a senior defense official said they will eventually bring the costs down to $30,000 per hour, with an interim figure of about $37,000. Schmidle also notes that the F-35B’s cost figures were extrapolated from the costs of the much older AV-8B Harrier.

Overall, once the F-35 replaces the three Marine aircraft — F-18, EA-6B, Harrier — it is designed to supplant the Marines will save an estimated $520 million a year in operations and maintenance costs in 2012 dollars, Schmidle says...."
Marines Put F-35B Flight Costs 17 Percent Lower Than OSD « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary (http://breakingdefense.com/2013/08/21/marines-put-f-35b-flight-costs-17-percent-lower-than-osd/)

ORAC

23rd Aug 2013, 14:20

8K50UVd-cdo

ORAC

23rd Aug 2013, 14:32

Analysis: Lower F-35 Operating Costs Should Be Taken with A Pinch of Salt (http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?shop=dae&modele=feature&prod=147327&cat=5)

PARIS --- Reports that the Pentagon has sharply reduced its estimates of F-35 operating costs have downplayed the way this reduction was achieved. On closer analysis, it appears that these lower estimates are based on improbably favorable assumptions that suggest this reduction could just as easily be reversed. Furthermore, as long-standing F-35 plans are also being twisted and stretched, notably by the Marine Corps, to show the aircraft is affordable, the headline 22% reduction in costs is probably much less credible than it appears.

This latest, lower estimate was sent to the Senate Armed Services Committee by the F-35 program director, US Air Force Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, and was first reported Aug. 21 by Bloomberg.

Pentagon uses same, effective tactic

The Pentagon successfully used a similar tactic earlier this year, when its much-publicized 2012 Selected Acquisition Report said F-35 production costs had dropped, for the first time, by $4.5 billion. At the time, this generated a great volume of favorable media reports. However, mostly overlooked was the fact that the SAR itself (http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/feature/5/145257/f_35-cost-decline-due-to-lower-labor-costs.html) said the reduction was “due primarily to decreases in the prime contractor and subcontractor labor rates (-$7,853.3 million).” In other words, lower costs were obtained simply by lowering labor rates, a perilous assumption to make for a 50-year program.

This time around, the F-35 Joint Program Office reduced operations and maintenance costs by 22% by again using “revised assumptions about how [the aircraft] will be used and maintained,” a DoD official told Reuters. The wire service also reported that “industry and military officials [argued] that many of the [previous] assumptions were outdated and off base” to justify the revision. But, at this point in time, no-one can say that the new assumptions are more or less credible than previous ones. This is no doubt why the Pentagon’s Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) office has not seen fit to revise its own cost estimate, which remains pegged at $1.1 trillion as before.

Strange Arguments Justify Lower Costs

Both Bloomberg and Reuters reports (see links at bottom) cite some intriguing details that cast legitimate doubts on the credibility of the 22% cost reduction. First of all, as rightly noted by Bloomberg, operating costs mainly include fuel, repairs and spare parts. Since it is impossible to predict how fuel and manpower costs will evolve over the F-35’s 55-year career, it is vacuous to claim, today, that total operating costs have declined.

The Marine Corps has also radically changed its F-35 operations to claim lower costs. Lt. Gen. Robert Schmidle, deputy Marine Corps commandant for aviation, told Reuters that the Marines would fly their F-35Bs “in STOVL mode just 10 percent of the time, far less often than the 80 percent rate factored into the initial estimates.” This is a stunning statement, and one that contradicts all the arguments that the Marine Corps has used to justify the F-35B STOVL variant. It also shows the lengths the Corps has to go to show it can afford to buy and operate the F-35.

Marines Plan to Reduce STOVL, MRO Manning

If STOVL is needed only 10% of the time, then it is, at best, a secondary capability, and is no longer enough to justify the F-35B variant’s exorbitant cost, both in terms of acquisition ($153 million, without engine, in LRIP Lot 5) and of operations ($41,000 per flight hour). Furthermore, if STOVL operations are limited to 10% of flight activities, it is hard to see how Marine pilots will ever gain enough experience to fly STOVL missions from small, unprepared landing zones on the beachhead – the main, if not only, reason the Marine Corps says the F-35B is indispensable.

Reuters also quotes Schmidle as saying that manning levels assumed in the initial estimates were also higher than needed in practice. However, the Marine Corps has no realistic experience in operating the F-35: as of July 10, it had received only 23 F-35Bs, according to Lockheed’s latest status report (http://www.lockheedmartin.com.au/content/dam/lockheed/data/australia/documents/F-35FastFactsJuly2013.pdf), so it is questionable that it can determine appropriate long-term manning levels from such a small fleet, especially as Lockheed personnel continue to support the aircraft.

Schmidle also told Reuters that the Marines would “trim maintenance costs by doing up to 90 percent of the work in house, rather than farming it out to contractors.” He added that “similar efforts had resulted in big savings on the V-22, the Marines' tilt-rotor aircraft.” Again, this statement flies in the face of previous claims that private contractors cost less than military personnel, and that the Pentagon (and other militaries, especially in Europe, would save huge amounts by outsourcing work to the private sector. It also implies that the Pentagon has been wasting billions of dollars on contractor services when, if Schmidle is to be believed, military personnel can do the same job at lower cost.

Foreign Implications and Convenient Timing

It probably also is unwelcome news for Italy, which so far has spent a billion euros to set up a Final Assembly and Check-Out facility, which also is to maintain its own, Dutch and possibly other European F-35s. If the Marines can do 90% of the job at lower cost, then so can European air forces. This means Italy’s investment is essentially useless, and the business plan for the facility, and for Alenia’s future, is no longer valid. But the 1 billion has been spent.

Finally, the timing of the cost reductions is especially convenient for Lockheed Martin, whose bit to sell the F-35 to South Korea was rebuffed last week as far too expensive. Thanks to the lower estimate, Reuters reported that “U.S. officials said Seoul could decide to restart the competition and ask for new bids.”

Bogdan sent his letter announcing the lower cost estimates to the Senate panel right in the middle of the Congressional recess, which runs Aug. 2 to Sept. 9, and during the slow summer news season. This could well be another coincidence, but it could also have been arranged to guarantee maximum headlines.

Given all of the above, and to coin a phrase, reports of lower F-35 costs appear to have been greatly exaggerated.

Click on the links below for the reports mentioned in this story:

Bloomberg: F-35 Support Costs Fall 22%, Pentagon Manager Estimates (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-21/f-35-support-costs-fall-22-pentagon-manager-estimates.html)

Reuters: Pentagon Cuts F-35 Operating Estimate Below $1 Trillion: Source (http://ca.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idCABRE97L01E20130822?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0)

Lonewolf_50

23rd Aug 2013, 15:07

While I liked the videos, BFD. It's what the aircraft are supposed to do.

Question in re this thread: the question is "cancelled, then what" and I'd like to know who is intending to cancel their F-35 buy?

Anyone?
USN and USMC do not seem to be in that position.

PS: cost estimates reduced ... gee, there's a shock. :rolleyes:

JSFfan

23rd Aug 2013, 15:11

"However, mostly overlooked was the fact that the SAR itself (http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/feature/5/145257/f_35-cost-decline-due-to-lower-labor-costs.html) said the reduction was “due primarily to decreases in the prime contractor and subcontractor labor rates (-$7,853.3 million).” In other words, lower costs were obtained simply by lowering labor rates, a perilous assumption to make for a 50-year program.

when you start with a false assumption, it can only go down hill from there, I think you will find it was lower man hours

LowObservable

23rd Aug 2013, 15:32

Orac's video makes me agree with Engines' praise for the flight control people. There's one hell of a lot going on in the last moments of the T/O at 0:40 onwards, including a goodly roll input from the horizontals.

Some people are getting the Marine op cost story wrapped around their necks, by the way. CAPE's assumption was that 80 per cent of sorties would use STOVL, not that 80 per cent of flight time would be in STOVL, in which case the op cost per hour would be in six digits.

80 per cent is about right for the Harrier in Marine use, I suspect. (Posters here suggest that the RAF never does CTO and CL is emergency-only.) But the F-35B is a different animal because it is more comfortable in CTOL, and STOVL is more expensive than CTOL because it activates a whole bunch of extra moving parts, some of them hot and highly loaded.

So what the Marines are saying now (it seems) is that they will use STOVL only on the boat, training to go to the boat, and in their once-per-major-war austere-base excursion, and that adds up to ten per cent of sorties.

Bastardeux

23rd Aug 2013, 15:34

I can believe that they're getting the cost down, it's the claim that it will only conduct 10% of it's landings vertically that I find astonishing, wtf is the point in investing so much money in such a niche capability that is apparently going to be very rarely used!?

LowObservable

23rd Aug 2013, 15:59

And Bastardeux wins the internetz for today.

The answer to the question is "Because most people in Washington don't have the :mad: to say no to the Marines, no matter how idiotic their plans are."

Lowe Flieger

23rd Aug 2013, 16:01

So, 3 years and more than 3,150 posts after the question (F-35 cancelled, then what?) was first posed, where does the programme stand? I have tried to take stock:

1. I think it is past the point where F35 might have been cancelled. While not yet zero, I don’t think this is now a high risk. Progress has been slow, costly and politically charged. Fewer aircraft may be acquired, and orders delayed. Some customers, such as the USN perhaps, may not be totally devastated by that. For others it may be a convenient deferral of the bill, at the risk of more future cost escalation, capability uncertainty, and legacy aircraft sustainment issues.

2. F35 is designed to bring different qualities to the fight - stealth, sensors, networking, all wrapped up in an airframe constrained by STOVL and supersonic capability and required to be all things to all air-arms. It trades off some of the aerodynamic performance of the legacy fighters it is to replace. Initially at least, more performance has been traded off than the original specification promised; perhaps it has been traded off permanently.

3. It has been an extremely ambitious programme; the complexity under-estimated or design capability over-estimated. Take your pick(s). This has cost time and money which has evolved into a self-propagating cycle. ‘Concurrency’ has been pushed to the limit and then some, while faith in computer modelling appears to have been too readily accepted at the expense of the more staid and traditional method of testing to see how reality compares to the predicted and correcting as necessary. At its heart 'concurrency' appears to have been a means of bringing forward cash-flow for the manufacturer more than a programme development tool. Substantial issues remain in a number of areas – helmets, software, arrestor hooks, weight and heat management and some structural components for example, and likely some not in the public domain.

4. Politics have dragged things out too, yet may have saved the programme from extinction. Had it not been too big to fail, it might well have done. If it had been a European project, the remains would likely now be at a museum somewhere, and various nations scrabbling to fill the gap. In the UK, two brand new aircraft carriers might easily have become surplus to requirements.

5. Everybody recognises that the development period for such major projects is just too long. It exposes a programme to even more risks and uncertainties than result from ambitious technology alone. How this cycle is broken is a future challenge. As F35’s long gestation period has embroiled it in the worst global financial crisis in living memory, it has been subjected it to extraordinary levels of scrutiny.

6. Taking Courtney Mil's point in an earlier post, ...With any modern fighter, it is the entire system that’s important, not just selected features on a platform such as stealth, agility, power, weapons, etc. its success or otherwise will be down to just how effective it's new tricks turn out to be, how far ahead they remain of counter-technology, and whether they are significant enough to more than offset its performance deficits. Will the new whole be greater than the legacy whole? The answer(s) may be role-specific. E.g. perhaps yes in the strike role, perhaps not in a close encounter with an agile and advanced foe. It may also vary over time, as development and upgrades either fulfil requirements, or not. In the early days F35, like many systems that have gone before, is highly likely to come up short compared with legacy capability. So will its unique features deliver on their promises and allow the fighter to quickly catch up and overtake the platforms it is designed to replace? Will it be a landmark development and outperform expectations or will it be a stepping stone to the next level, and an expensive one at that? Will the computer simulated superiority over legacy fighters - 3:1, 4:1 or whatever is claimed, be justified in the real world? History provides examples of such theories evaporating upon first contact with reality. I certainly don’t know the answers, but then nor do I think anyone else really does yet. Informed opinion may well be positive, but behind that necessary optimism, I suspect fingers and toes are crossed tight. My perception is that these uncertainties are more pronounced than with previous ambitious projects, but I can’t be sure that is not just a reflection of the extraordinary level of scrutiny of F35 development, certainly more than I can recall with other advanced programmes.

7. But it is what numerous air forces, including the UK's, are going to get and I think the question now is "How do we get the best out of it?" and not "What are we going to get instead?" - at least not for a good few years.

LF

t43562

23rd Aug 2013, 18:36

Given the talk in other threads about the protracted development of new aircraft, is it a good time to begin designing the F-35's replacement?

Lonewolf_50

23rd Aug 2013, 19:09

Given the talk in other threads about the protracted development of new aircraft, is it a good time to begin designing the F-35's replacement?
See the thread on the X 47 landing on the George Washington.
JSF's successor is already in development.

As a lot of folks have said in the past decade, the F-35 is the last manned fighter the US will ever build. I firmly believe that to be true.

The American way of war, is, in a lot of ways, war by machine. (Which has its plusses and minuses ...)

FoxtrotAlpha18

23rd Aug 2013, 22:51

"Because most people in Washington don't have the http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/censored.gif to say no to the Marines, no matter how idiotic their plans are."

Wow, that's a massive call to be made by a journalist of supposed integrity! :eek:

Shark = jumped!

SpazSinbad

23rd Aug 2013, 23:05

'Bastardeux' said:
"I can believe that they're getting the cost down, it's the claim that it will only conduct 10% of it's landings vertically that I find astonishing, wtf is the point in investing so much money in such a niche capability that is apparently going to be very rarely used!?"

Do you think the same for any Naval Aircraft? It would be interesting to know your perception of how many arrested landings an F-35C may make compared to ordinary runway landings. Of course you can only guess but nevertheless is the hook a 'pointless' accessory? It is so handy - not just for carrier arrested landings but even the F-35A has an emergency hook - which will probably never be used. But lets get rid of that quick smart.

The STOVL MODE of the F-35B allows landings in a kinds of situations where a conventional aircraft - even one with a hook - would find such landing impossible. Let us not forget a STO. But you knew that - right?

LowObservable

23rd Aug 2013, 23:05

LF - Cogent points. I would add one more:

Given all of the above, do we want to pursue a plan under which this one system swallows a vast proportion of our air combat budget for the next two decades, depriving alternative, complementary or follow-on systems of fiscal oxygen?

FA18 - Welcome to my ignore list, as a review of your posts shows nothing of any use whatsoever.

longer ron

24th Aug 2013, 00:07

The answer to the question is "Because most people in Washington don't have the :mad: to say no to the Marines, no matter how idiotic their planes are."

Fixed it for ya :)

JSFfan

24th Aug 2013, 00:50

Wow, that's a massive call to be made by a journalist of supposed integrity!
I can't see LO being a journalist, he sounds like just another naysayer repeating wheeler and co

NITRO104

24th Aug 2013, 17:09

So what the Marines are saying now (it seems) is that they will use STOVL only on the boat, training to go to the boat, and in their once-per-major-war austere-base excursion, and that adds up to ten per cent of sorties.
If that.
Seven LHAs loaded with six planes each comes down to 12% of the MC fleet.
With war load of up to 20 planes per ship, the STOVL percentage goes down the drain.

SpazSinbad

25th Aug 2013, 05:08

USMC Concepts & Programs 2013 20 Dec 2012
“...The Marine Corps will acquire 357 STOVL aircraft and 63 CV aircraft for a total of 420 JSFs. Once the F-35 enters service, the Marine Corps will begin retirement of AV-8Bs and F/A-18A-Ds. All legacy tactical strike aircraft platforms should be retired by 2031....” page 179
http://www.hqmc.marines.mil/Portals/142/Docs/USMCCP2013flipbook/USMC%20CP13%20Final.pdf (11.9Mb)

Earlier:
More Marines to fly carrier variant JSFs 14 Mar 2011 Christopher P. Cavas
"...The Navy Department still intends to buy 680 F-35 joint strike fighters. Of those, 260 will be Navy F-35Cs, another 80 F-35Cs will be Marine aircraft, and the STOVL version for the Corps will make up 340 planes, or half the total Navy-Marine JSF fleet...."
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2011/03/navy_dfn_jsf_031411w/

SpazSinbad

26th Aug 2013, 18:35

ONLY DAYtime STO & VL (with unusual viewing angles) in this video:

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/MarinestestF-35BverticallandingonshipBOWManSTOscreenieED.jpg~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/MarinestestF-35BverticallandingonshipBOWManSTOscreenieED.jpg.html)

Marines test F-35B vertical landing on ship
"Published on Aug 26, 2013
The F-35B variant of the Joint Strike Fighter demonstrates its capabilities on the USS Wasp while being tested by Marine Corps and Lockheed Martin pilots and engineers off the coast of North Carolina, Aug. 19, 2013. This is the second repetition of three planned sea trials designed to test the capabilities of the Department of Defense's newest multi-role jet aircraft candidate. (Official U.S. Marine Corps photos and video by Sgt. Tyler L. Main)"
Marines test F-35B vertical landing on ship - YouTube

Courtney Mil

26th Aug 2013, 19:43

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/MarinestestF-35BverticallandingonshipBOWManSTOscreenieED.jpg

During the first trail of the Navy's new arrester system, JSFFan suddenly realised he'd forgotten his catcher's mit.

JSFfan

27th Aug 2013, 04:15

That's not me, I'm shorter than that,,it's a very disappointed monk that believed the emulation nonsense of anything within a mile radius

Snafu351

27th Aug 2013, 13:09

Interesting reading:

Test Pilot Tried to Warn Navy About Troubled Stealth Jet

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/8d09a6b858ae

Bastardeux

27th Aug 2013, 13:17

Do you think the same for any Naval Aircraft? It would be interesting to know your perception of how many arrested landings an F-35C may make compared to ordinary runway landings. Of course you can only guess but nevertheless is the hook a 'pointless' accessory? It is so handy - not just for carrier arrested landings but even the F-35A has an emergency hook - which will probably never be used. But lets get rid of that quick smart.

No, because this isn't like any other naval aircraft, is it? This is an aircraft where technology has been developed at enormous cost (and compromise to capability) specifically for a capability that has always verged on the irrelevant. Carrier aviation is a proven war winner. Having exceptionally expensive aircraft flying from ships that are in the vicinity of an aircraft carrier anyway, is not. Given unlimited budgets I would be happy to see it succeed...it's a supreme demonstration of what can be engineered...but in the age of austerity, is it worth the opportunity cost of other, cheaper and more capable platforms? No. It's capability applies to a situation that is too rare to justify its cost, especially as that thing isn't going anywhere without a huge trail of other aircraft.

The STOVL MODE of the F-35B allows landings in a kinds of situations where a conventional aircraft - even one with a hook - would find such landing impossible. Let us not forget a STO. But you knew that - right?

You don't have to patronise me. I have employed a hook enough times to value it's worth thank you very much.

Courtney Mil

27th Aug 2013, 14:09

That's not me, I'm shorter than that

Sorry, I thought it was quite a good Caption Competition entry.

it's a very disappointed monk that believed the emulation nonsense of anything within a mile radius

What does "emulation nonsense of anything within a mile radius" mean? Not quite following your drift there.

Heathrow Harry

27th Aug 2013, 14:10

"Carrier aviation is a proven war winner"

the last time it was proven was 1945.....................

it certainly didn't win the war in Vietnam (or Iraq) for example

Lonewolf_50

27th Aug 2013, 14:18

Interesting reading:

Test Pilot Tried to Warn Navy About Troubled Stealth Jet

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/8d09a6b858ae
That article is 3 years old. I understand his analysis. I also think he selectively forgets that any number of foreign customers have only VTOL capable carriers, so a VTOL sort of aircraft is all they can afford for their maritime air arm. It isn't just the Marines who are wedded to such a capability. The Harrier was in the fleet of a number of our NATO allies.

SpazSinbad

27th Aug 2013, 14:19

'Bastardeaux' said: "...I have employed a hook enough times to value it's worth thank you very much." Good for you. Wanna tell us about it?

Lonewolf_50

27th Aug 2013, 14:23

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/85b3bdabf14b

While I usually take Axe with a grain of salt, this assessment, depending upon the source of the "leak" USNI got ahold of, is in the reasonable category, and the time scale of UCAV/UCLAS IOC is about what I expected once the carrier trials were made public for the X-47.

As people have been saying for about ten years .... the F-35 is the last manned fighter the US will produce. Ever.

Still betting the over on that one.

ORAC

27th Aug 2013, 15:17

As people have been saying for about ten years .... the F-35 is the last manned fighter the US will produce. Ever (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/uk-project-cancelled.htm)

SpazSinbad

27th Aug 2013, 21:58

One-eighth slow motion video clip of a STO onboard USS Wasp - note the shooter not bothering to hold on to the deck tiedown fitting and of course the nonchalant bow man: [OLD 2011 Quote Below]

Vertical landings hit the mark in F-35B’s tests By Kate Wiltrout The Virginian-Pilot 20 Oct 2011
“...Engineers initially thought the jet would create far more turbulence on the flight deck because it's much more powerful than the Harrier. Cordell said for the first few flights off the Wasp, the shooter – the flight deck crewmember who taps the flight deck, signaling final permission for pilots to takeoff – was told to tuck his head down, run to the ship's island (superstructure) & hold on for the actual launch. After a number of takeoffs, Cordell said, the shooter said that precaution seemed unnecessary. Couldn't he just hold onto one of the metal rings set into the flight deck, like he did when Harriers launched? The engineers assented.

Engineers were also concerned about the forward-most flight deck crewmember – the bow-waver, who signals to the shooter that there's no interference before takeoff. "He is right at the point where the wing is demanding the most lift possible, where you'd expect outwash and potential problems. He stands there as if he has very few cares in the world," Cordell said. Adm. Kevin Scott, the commander of Expeditionary Strike Group Two, seconded that point. "I didn't believe it at first. So I walked up there and stood next to him. It was really impressive," Scott told reporters....”
Vertical landings hit the mark in F-35B's tests | HamptonRoads.com | PilotOnline.com (http://hamptonroads.com/2011/10/vertical-landings-hit-mark-f35bs-tests)

F 35B STO ShortTakeOff SLOMO one eighth speed - YouTube (http://youtu.be/QeJ-X1Z0saM)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeJ-X1Z0saM

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/MarinestestF-35BverticallandingonshipGIMMESHELTERzoomie.png~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/MarinestestF-35BverticallandingonshipGIMMESHELTERzoomie.png.html)

SpazSinbad

28th Aug 2013, 04:16

F-35 Flight Test Update 11 27 Aug 2013 By Eric Hehs
"...14 June 2013: AF-6, AF-7, BF-17, and BF-18 were used to complete the first F-35 airborne four-ship MADL connection; at Edwards AFB, California. The airborne four-ship also achieved MADL connectivity with AF-3 during its ground test, marking the first five-ship MADL connection...."
Code One Magazine: F-35 Flight Test Update 11 (http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=123)

SpazSinbad

28th Aug 2013, 13:12

See two F-35Bs land and takeoff in the conventional manner at MCAS Miramar and inbetween be hot refuelled - the video:

F-35B Hot Refuel at MCAS Miramar 07 Aug 2013
"08/26/2013: Two U.S. Marine F-35B Lightning II jets with Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (VMFA) 121, Marine Air Group 13, 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing (MAW), conduct a training flight from Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Yuma, Ariz. to MCAS Miramar, San Diego, Calif., Aug. 7, 2013 for a hot pit refuel. This evolution marked the first time a F-35B Lightning II executed a hot pit refuel at MCAS Miramar.
Credit:3D Marine Aircraft Wing Combat Camera 08/7/13"
https://vimeo.com/73152376

ORAC

28th Aug 2013, 16:14

Raymond “Chip” Dudderar is a retired U.S. Navy aviator and test pilot. For nearly three decades he flew Navy A-7s and F/A-18s — and also Marine Corps AV-8 Harrier jump jets as an exchange pilot. Retiring in 1996, Dudderar pursued a second career with the Department of Justice, investigating the Navy’s botched, multi-billion-dollar A-12 stealth warplane program, which spawned several nasty lawsuits pitting the government against the contractors.

In his capacity as an air power consultant, in 2010 Dudderar penned informal, unclassified analyses for Navy admirals outlining the problems with another pricey, problematic airplane development: the stealthy F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which is costing more than $400 billion just to design and buy 2,400 copies for the Air Force, Navy and Marines. The Navy foots the bill for the Marines’ new weapons.

Dudderar focused his attention on the Marines’ F-35B jump jet model, a supposed successor to the Short Takeoff Vertical Landing (STOVL) Harrier that has run into particularly serious managerial, design and performance problems—even warranting a yearlong Pentagon “probation” a few years ago.

He drew on experience overseeing a Harrier detachment in some of the same conditions in which the Marines expect the new F-35B to function. “I learned first-hand … about the foolishness of the STOVL concept in a true operational environment,” Dudderar tells War is Boring. “I have tried to alert the Navy and others of the these fatal flaws that are now coming home to roost in the F-35.”

What follows is the first [and second] of Dudderar’s warnings to the Navy, edited for style and clarity.

Test Pilot Tried to Warn Navy About Troubled Stealth Jet (https://medium.com/war-is-boring/8d09a6b858ae)

Vertical-landing F-35B is the wrong airplane for the wrong mission, Chip Dudderar told officers.

Marines’ Stealth Fighter Repeating Navy Jet’s Embarrassing History (https://medium.com/war-is-boring/db11e9105c91)

F-35B making same mistakes as canceled A-12, test pilot Chip Dudderar warned

Heathrow Harry

28th Aug 2013, 20:12

"I learned first-hand … about the foolishness of the STOVL concept in a true operational environment,"

so he wasn't in the Falklands then.................... but probably has more medals than the whole UK task Force put together.......

Courtney Mil

28th Aug 2013, 20:54

HH, his is just another opinion in this huge sea. Best we ask "why" and "what lessons" before questioning his medal count. Or are you so certain that there are no downsides to CV STOL/STOVL/S... etc? If there is a debate to be had, rather than simply a complete, unquestioning acceptance of whatever we're given, better to ask the questions than simply to deny.

SpazSinbad

28th Aug 2013, 22:07

F-35B Lightning II Week 1 Testing
"Published on Aug 26, 2013
Video of the F-35B Lightning II conducting Development Testing II testing aboard USS Wasp (LHD 1) during week 1 of testing."

Click thumbnail for big pic: http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/th_F-35BshooterGrabsOnScreenie.png (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/F-35BshooterGrabsOnScreenie.png.html)

F-35B Lightning II Week 1 Testing - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5TC1BbrzF0&feature=youtu.be)

F-35B Lightning II Week 1 Testing - YouTube

SpazSinbad

28th Aug 2013, 22:18

F-35B Lightning II: From The Deckplate Of USS Wasp 28 Aug 2013
by Capt. Brian Teets | USS Wasp (LHD 1) commanding officer
"USS Wasp (LHD 1) Sailors are supporting testing and validation of the F-35B Lightning II until Aug. 30.The ship’s commanding officer explains how Wasp has prepared for the testing. (NAVY LIVE BLOG 26 AUG 13) Capt. Brian Teets...

...Since Wasp’s designation as the F-35B LHD test platform, she has undergone a series of alterations and training evolutions to support hosting both the first and second underway phases of developmental testing; Development Testing I in October 2011 and now, Development Testing II in August 2013.

During Development Testing II, the F-35B Integrated Test Force is focused on expanding integration of the F-35B with large deck amphibious ships. This testing provides the baseline for the aircraft’s operational test in 2015. In preparation for Development Testing II, Wasp has been modified with special and unique infrastructure to accommodate test equipment, some deck-edge equipment has been moved, and accommodations for monitoring performance and environmental factors were added.

For example, we modified deck markings and lights to include the tramline and short take-off cue, we installed new materials to support thermal loading, and brought aboard temporary facilities to handle charging and storage of Lithium-Ion batteries. In some cases, the modifications not only accommodated F-35B but solved legacy ship-aircraft integration issues associated with the MV-22. For example, the new non-skid solution used for the F-35B is now an option for addressing MV-22 deck heating in operations and maintenance areas. That could be a big win for reducing maintenance time and keeping ships at sea...."
F-35B Lightning II: From The Deckplate Of USS Wasp - Association of Naval Aviation in Virginia Beach, Virginia - Hampton Roads Squadron (http://hrana.org/news/2013/08/f-35b-lightning-ii-from-the-deckplate-of-uss-wasp/)

Rhino power

28th Aug 2013, 23:12

In other F-35 news, it was reported this morning that an access panel was opened and the contents there in were fiddled with, upon completion of the fiddling the access panel was successfully closed and no problems were reported. There will now, no doubt, be several hundred links posted to demonstrate just how this procedure proves just how damn fine splendidly the F-35 program is progressing... :}

-RP

SpazSinbad

29th Aug 2013, 00:38

You mean this one? Access Panel for Hot Refuel Screenshot MIRAMAR. :}:ok:

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/F-35BHotRefuelatMCASMiramar07Aug2013AccessPanel12.png~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/F-35BHotRefuelatMCASMiramar07Aug2013AccessPanel12.png.html)

SpazSinbad

29th Aug 2013, 04:19

UhOh - backwards landing: http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3712/9614145703_d40f7f0722_o.jpg

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/F-35BbACKwardsVLaug2013forum.jpg~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/F-35BbACKwardsVLaug2013forum.jpg.html)
&
VL Aids: http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/VLaidsF-35BbACKwardsVLaug20139614145703_d40f7f0722_o.png~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/VLaidsF-35BbACKwardsVLaug20139614145703_d40f7f0722_o.png.html)
&
Sideways: http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3798/9614147057_26ccef6b1e_o.jpg

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/F-35BsidewaysVL9614147057_70688900f1_c.jpg~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/F-35BsidewaysVL9614147057_70688900f1_c.jpg.html)

SpazSinbad

29th Aug 2013, 08:43

Marine Corps F-35B Finishing Sea Trials 29 Aug 2013 Kris Osborn
"USS WASP — The Marine Corps and Navy are close to wrapping up 19 days of Sea Trials for the Corps’ F-35B...

...The ongoing Sea Trials have resulted in at least 90 successful short take-offs and 92 vertical landings aboard the USS Wasp, said Joe DellaVedova, spokesman for the Joint Strike Fighter’s Joint Program Office....

...“Harriers are all manual controls. With the F-35 we have computers. A ton of engineering goes into making it a low work load. The plane is literally sampling winds, sampling conditions and the parameters,” said Marine Corps Capt. Michael Kingen, an F-35 developmental test pilot....

...The next Sea Trials for the F-35B are slated for sometime in 2016, DellaVedova said...."
http://defensetech.org/2013/08/29/marine-corps-jsf-finishing-sea-trials/

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/GoofersF-35BLightningIIWeek1TestingPDF.jpg~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/GoofersF-35BLightningIIWeek1TestingPDF.jpg.html)

idle bystander

29th Aug 2013, 09:36

@Heathrow Harry
"Carrier aviation is a proven war winner"

the last time it was proven was 1945.....................

it certainly didn't win the war in Vietnam (or Iraq) for example

Er ... Has someone forgotten a little incident in the South Atlantic in 1982?

And that would have been a cinch if they hadn't scrapped the real Ark Royal

Courtney Mil

29th Aug 2013, 10:17

Nice one, Rhino. :ok:

SpazSinbad

29th Aug 2013, 11:40

F-35 team makes headway with helmet-mounted display 28 Aug 2013 Dave Majumdar
"...Test pilots recently tested a modified second-generation helmet fitted with a new 1600x1200 resolution ISIE-11 night vision camera coupled with a new display management computer/helmet, says Lt Col Matt Kelly, an F-35 test pilot assigned to the JPO.

Kelly says the ISIE-11 immensely improves the helmet's night vision capabilities....

...The ISIE-10 has inferior night vision capability compared with the ANVIS-9 night vision goggles (NVGs) used in the Boeing AV-8B and F/A-18. However, pilots say it is easier to land the F-35B unaided by the night vision camera on a ship than a AV-8B with NVGs."
F-35 team makes headway with helmet-mounted display (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/f-35-team-makes-headway-with-helmet-mounted-display-389953/)

SpazSinbad

29th Aug 2013, 13:39

USMC well into second set of sea trials 28 Aug 2013 Dave Majumdar
"The Pentagon's F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) and the US Marine Corps are well into a second set of sea trials for the Lockheed Martin F-35B Joint Strike Fighter. Having completed 17 of 19 days of testing, the USMC and the JPO were set to demonstrate the stealth short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) jet on board the amphibious assault ship USS Wasp on 28 August, but then fate intervened. Aircraft BF-1, which was set to fly that morning's test, suffered from a malfunctioning engine nacelle cooling fan that had to be fixed before the jet could fly. Meanwhile, BF-5 - the other aircraft deployed to the Wasp - had a problem with its power thermal management system computer the night before, says US Navy Capt Erik Etz, the programme's test and evaluation director for naval F-35 variants.

Etz says the two events interrupted what had been a better than average reliability rate for the F-35 during the shipboard deployment. Until the night of 27 August, the F-35B had 90% sortie completion rate on board the Wasp, he says.

Despite the setback, the F-35B's sea trial period has been remarkably successful, says Capt Michael Kingen, a USMC F-35 test pilot assigned to the VMX-22 operational test squadron but seconded to the JSF test effort. Thus far, pilots have flown 90 short take-offs and made 92 vertical landings on board the Wasp during this detachment. Nineteen of those vertical landing were made at night.

The goal of this second set of sea trials is to expand the operating envelope of the F-35B in preparation for the jet's initial operational capability date in July 2015. The F-35B has been tested to 40kt (74km/h) of headwind and 10kt of tailwind, Kingen says. Particular attention has been paid to landing with starboard crosswinds, where a lot of turbulence originates due to the ship's superstructure, says Lt Col Matt Kelley, a senior USMC F-35 test pilot assigned to the JPO.

Additionally, the F-35B's short take-off capability was tested with its maximum internal weight, Kingen says. Pilots are also determining the jet's minimum short take-off distance, he says. Those trials involve letting the aircraft "settle" toward the sea as it leaves the deck.

Thus far, Kingen says he is pleased with the aircraft's performance during the sea trials. Ironically, BF-1 flew its test sortie shortly after reporters departed the ship."
USMC well into second set of sea trials (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usmc-well-into-second-set-of-sea-trials-389954/)

SpazSinbad

29th Aug 2013, 22:13

Marines Put F-35B STOVL Jet Through Paces At Sea 29 Aug 2013 Colin Clark
"More than 1,200 Marine test pilots, engineers, experts from the Joint Program Office running the program and Navy and industry civilians are collecting enormous amounts of data from the two aircraft, BF-1 and BF-5, and the ship itself to ensure the planes are performing as they should....

...both JSF planes had glitches while we were out on the ship, though BF-1 began flying again soon after we left. The second plane appeared to have a “pretty significant problem,” a crew member told me. Its Integrated Power Package, a sort of super generator that powers many of the plane’s sophisticated electronics would not start. I’ve emailed the Joint Program Office for an update and will update this as soon as we hear from them.

One of the biggest concerns about the F-35B, which directs most of the engine’s power directly down to the ship’s deck as it lands, was that it would damage the ship’s deck so much at each landing that the Wasp and other ships — or the F-35B — would have to be redesigned to mitigate that problem. I spoke with several deck crew, the men and women who wear yellow shirts on the carrier deck and execute the dangerous ballet of launching and retrieving aircraft from the Wasp. They say that, after taking off and landing several times almost every day since Aug. 12, they are seeing less damage to the deck than it sustains from some other aircraft that routinely fly from the Wasp and other LHD class ships.

The Navy and Marines have added a new coating to the deck where F-35Bs land, called Thermion. From all accounts, it’s a remarkable product composed of aluminum and ceramic bonded together by heat at application to form a very smooth and tough heat-resistant coating.

There is one part of the ship that is sustaining unanticipated — if not critical — damage, namely the edge of the bow. Nets to catch crew members who might lose their footing in rough seas or be blown down by a passing aircraft are being severely rattled by the enormous downwash from the F-35B’s jet engine as it passes low over the end of the ship. The wire netting is snapping and some of the structure that supports the nets is being bent. And lights just under the deck’s lip are being shattered.

Chief Steven Vlasich, who is responsible for maintaining the deck, took me up to check the damage. I saw a few snapped wires. It didn’t look too bad, but then Vlasich and his crew had been fixing everything they could. The chief and three other yellow shirts told me the Thermion appeared to be working well. But Vlasich said he’d like to keep much of the deck covered with its current aluminum product, which is much rougher than Thermion. He thinks it gives crew members better traction, especially when the deck is wet and covered in leaking hydraulic fluid and oil.

Joe Spitz, a systems engineer with Naval Sea Systems Command, told me they’ve got several solutions they’re considering for the nets. One would be pretty simple: drop them down as the jets take off.

He doesn’t agree with Vlasich about Thermion. He says it is safer than the older surface and grips better. Perhaps most important, you can clean oil and other fluid from it more effectively, Spitz says. The Wasp is reportedly going to have its entire deck coated in Thermion.

But these are secondary, if important issues. What really matters to those on the Wasp is that they are getting the F-35B into the air consistently and safely...."
Marines Put F-35B STOVL Jet Through Paces At Sea « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary (http://breakingdefense.com/2013/08/29/7646/)

SpazSinbad

29th Aug 2013, 22:22

F-35B Day Landing USS Wasp - YouTube

Courtney Mil

29th Aug 2013, 22:53

These are all good items, Spaz, but as others have said, it can take off and land like it should. Is that such great news? Let's see some stuff about how it's going going be our great new wonder jet that justifies all that money. Again, I'm not an anti, I'm just not seeing anything here that makes it better than any other modern bomber.

SpazSinbad

29th Aug 2013, 23:30

I'm happy to post news as it comes to hand. I have no control over the news. I would have thought details about the DT-II F-35B trials aboard USS Wasp would interest any potential F-35B users. If you are not interested or bored then just put me on your ignore list. Does not bother me in the slightest. :}

U.S. Marines see progress in F-35 testing despite challenges 29 Aug 2013 Andrea Shalal-Esa
"...Wing Commander Nic Hindley, the UK liaison to Marine Corps headquarters, said Britain was keeping a close eye on the tests since it must decide by October on buying 14 more F-35 B-models.

He said testing results were encouraging, as was recent news that the Pentagon had lowered its estimate for the long-term cost of operating and maintaining the planes...."
U.S. Marines see progress in F-35 testing despite challenges | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/29/lockheed-fighter-testing-idUSL2N0GU03Z20130829)

SpazSinbad

30th Aug 2013, 04:56

F-35B DT 2 Update: A few hours on the USS Wasp 30 Aug 2013 Amy Butler
"...Peter Wilson, a BAE test pilot, was able to test the F-35B landing at four headings, each 90-deg. apart. He says the testing validates the aircraft can conduct VLs at any heading on the ship.

The VLs were conducted on spots in the aft portion of the ship that have been treated with Thermion, a new heat resistant coating the includes ceramic and steel; it is a vast improvement over the current anti-skid coating used on the deck and might be applied to other F-35 ships in the future, says Joe Spitz, lead tester on deck for Naval Sea Systems Command.

During one of the tests, Wilson landed an F-35B with its nose off toward the port side of the deck and its engine and hot nozzle exhaust on the port side. During this test, the engine nozzle was just at the demarcation on the deck between the Thermion and baseline anti-skid coatings on the deck. The effects are obvious. The anti-skid coating is brown as a result of the intense heat, while the Thermion appears unaffected.

Spitz says that while the anti-skid coating typical on can handle F-35 operations, its service life could be compromised over time. So, the Navy is assessing whether it will outline decks – or at least portions to be used by the F-35B – with this Thermion material in the future. The performance tradeoff is cost; Thermion is more expensive, he says.

However, heat output is an issue also with the MV-22s landing on the decks of carriers and small-deck ships, so it is possible the Navy will take into account the operational use of these tiltrotor aircraft as it plots a way forward for the use of Thermion.

Below, the dark section on the right is the Thermion coating. You can see on the left where Wilson landed with the engine nozzle just over the divider between the Thermion and standard anti-skid -- the the latter a bit toasted...."
F-35B DT 2 Update: A few hours on the USS Wasp (http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3ae14de239-0201-4cd6-afd9-21344c382ecb)

http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/13/7/cd47c8c2-8d81-497c-a7bb-a9c2207e3b5b.Large.jpg

BIG PIC: http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/13/7/cd47c8c2-8d81-497c-a7bb-a9c2207e3b5b.Full.jpg

Courtney Mil

30th Aug 2013, 07:56

Not at all, Spaz, I find most of the news interesting. All I'm wondering is, for example, whether a prototype managing to land 92 times is really news. Your posts that look at the issues - heat, the helmet and the like - are newsworthy indeed and I thank you for them.

Baron 58P

30th Aug 2013, 12:11

See this article - Boeing Targeting U.S. Navy For Super Hornet Upgrades (http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/asd_08_29_2013_p01-01-611097.xml) :sad:

hanoijane

30th Aug 2013, 12:46

I'm sorry, but it's a ghastly machine. I mean, just LOOK at it.

I wonder how many people gaze fondly at fading pics of the X 32 and think, 'If only..."? I know I would.

dat581

30th Aug 2013, 12:55

Then you must have beer googles on. The F35 might not be much of a looker compared to other jets but it is a damn sight better than the cod mouthed X32 ever was and that includes the redesigned version. It was an absolute hippocrocagrillapig of an aeroplane.

Courtney Mil

30th Aug 2013, 13:11

The F-35B in particular, does look bloody awful, but I have to agree with Dat, the 32 is way worse.

http://www.ebtx.com/oats/x32hap2b.jpg

JSFfan

30th Aug 2013, 13:13

Is the Navy looking at alternatives for the F35C?
See his article - Boeing Targeting U.S. Navy For Super Hornet Upgrades (http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/asd_08_29_2013_p01-01-611097.xml) http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/puppy_dog_eyes.gif

I think if USN wanted it they would have funded the development,,it was first offered when Jesus was a boy

hanoijane

30th Aug 2013, 13:18

Sorry. Should have explained.

I wasn't referring to its looks, per se, rather to the number and range of aerodynamic aids it takes to make it perform its tricks.

The beast is so stuffed full of technology and control systems that I sincerely doubt whether there is a square centimetre of the planes surface that could take a hit from a single 7.62 mm round and not have the MFD's lighting up like a Christmas tree.

At least the '32 had the potential to be a robust aeroplane.

A technological wonder the F 35 undoubtedly is. It will be an airshow hit. Little Johnny will blink his eyes and gasp in delight. Young ladies will faint as the pilot alights.

As something to go fighting in? Rather you than me.

Bevo

30th Aug 2013, 13:31

I think if USN wanted it they would have funded the development,,it was first offered when Jesus was a boy

You mean a few years after the F-35 was selected?:E

Snafu351

30th Aug 2013, 13:37

Bevo you owe me a keyboard

JSFfan

30th Aug 2013, 14:20

yep a few years after f-35 and 20 years after typhoon which was BC wasn't it?

glad rag

30th Aug 2013, 17:23

The OCD kid's back in from da cooler.

And hanoijane :}:}

SpazSinbad

30th Aug 2013, 18:22

For the delectation of 'hanoijane' (whereyabin?)....

F-35: First-Ever Fixed Wing Full-Up System Level by Jeff Johnson and Timothy Staley | pp.28-31
"After 20 years of the live fire test law (10USC2366), nearly every type of aircraft has undergone testing, paving the way for programs to come. In spite of this long and impressive legacy of testing, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program still marks many firsts....

...The waiver limited full-up system-level (FUSL) testing to a single variant of the JSF and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (OSD/AT&L) granted the waiver in June 2001. The waiver meant that though preceded by the F-22, the JSF will become the first fifth-generation fighter to undergo FUSL testing....

...The focus of the live fire test and evaluation (LFT&E) program is to address the components or systems that have the greatest areas of uncertainty or the greatest amount of risk. This uncertainty includes unique aspects of the design and features that have little or no previous test data available. No aspect of the JSF is more unique than the STOVL propulsion system....

...As a result, these components warrant live fire testing. Thus far, the program has tested the ballistic tolerance of the 3BSM, the shaft, and the clutch, with the lift fan testing to come....

...An interesting design feature of all three variants is the bifurcated inlet duct, which has inlet openings on both sides of the fuselage, merging to a single inlet path just in front of the engine. The two inlets surround a large fuel tank on the CTOL and CV variants. As a result, any ballistic damage to this area can lead to leakage down the inlet and into the engine....

...Perhaps the most significant design change affecting the program’s LFT&E relates to the fire suppression system. Several phases of testing were performed to determine the most lightweight and cost effective fire suppression system. The outcome of some of the testing, such as that performed by the 46th Test Wing at Wright-Patterson AFB (WPAFB), was quite spectacular. However, once again, weight constraints (among other factors) resulted in the removal of the fire suppression system (with the exception of fire detection) from the aircraft....

...The JSF is being assessed against a wide range of threats, from API and high-explosive incendiary (HEI) rounds to fragments from proximity-fuzed surface-to-air missiles (SAM) and man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS) The MANPADS analysis uses the new advanced diverging ray methodology (ADRAM) and a localized area is being assessed, taking into account the areas of the aircraft where an infrared (IR)-guided MANPAD is more likely to impact. This analysis allows for more reasonable trade studies with respect to these threats, and ensures the program gets the most “bang for the buck” with any vulnerability reduction features implemented in the design...."
http://www.bahdayton.com/surviac/asnews/ASnewsletter_Fall_2007.pdf (1.6Mb)
____________________________________________

F-35 Live Fire Test: Full-Up Systems Level Testing
"The Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) (F-35, Lightning II) Vulnerability and Live Fire Test Team will be conducting Full-Up System Level (FUSL) testing on the 1st JSF System Design and Development (SDD) aircraft (2AA:0001). The F-35 live fire test and evaluation (LFT&E) strategy is to conduct a comprehensive test and evaluation of the system-level vulnerability and lethality of all three F-35 variants against ballistic and advanced threats. The original LFT&E strategy for determining the system-level vulnerability for the F-35 family of aircraft was founded on the FUSL testing of an F-35 short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) variant. The approach for the remaining two variants was to leverage the high degree of commonality between the F-35 family of aircraft by conducting Full-Up testing of the variant unique features and component/system level tests. The waiver approving this live fire (LF) strategy was approved by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (USD AT&L) on 25 October 2001."
http://www.bahdayton.com/surviac/asnews/JASPO_Spring10.pdf (3.3Mb)
___________________________

2011 DOTE Report page 5 of 14 pages | numbered page 29
"...Live Fire Testing
• FUSL testing conducted on the first flight test aircraft (CTOL aircraft AA-1) provided aircraft flight control, electrical, propulsion, and fuel system vulnerability data. Due to commonality of the three variants, these results are extendable to the STOVL and CV variants as well.

• Contractor Fuel System Simulator tests showed the On-Board Inert Gas Generation System (OBIGGS) performance to be inadequate to support the vulnerability reduction requirements of the aircraft. A two-phase redesign effort is underway to provide protection against threat-induced fuel tank explosion across the entire flight envelope. Engine test articles have been delivered and structural test articles have been identified."...
http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2011/pdf/dod/2011f35jsf.pdf (0.6Mb)
______________________________

Aircraft Survivability Journal - Spring 2012 Issue
Published by the Joint Aircraft Survivability Program Office
JSF FULL UP SYSTEM LEVEL TESTING F35 Flight Critical Systems Test Chuck Frankenberger
"...FCS Architecture : No cheap Kills [Flight Control System]
One of the newer technologies in the F35 is the Electrohydrostatic Actuators. These actuators contain a self-contained hydraulic system. There are two types of actuators on the aircraft: simplex and dual tandem. The dual actuators have redundancies built in, including dual communication and power paths. The dual actuators were ballistically tested and showed good tolerance to damage. The redundant systems are isolated, and damage on one side did not propagate to the other side....

...Conclusions
The FUSL testing conducted on AA-1 was very successful meeting all defined test objectives and success criteria. Addressing synergistic effects, the electrical power and flight control systems successfully isolated failures and protected the redundancies built into these systems, allowing continued safe flight. The VSN [Vehicle System Network] architecture is robust, providing multiple paths to transfer data. Testing highlighted that fire is a significant threat to flight critical systems.

The test team was able to verify that the actual ballistic damage response correlated very well to previous pilot in the loop simulator testing. Over the course of the test program, the LFT [Live Fire Test] team witnessed firsthand the robustness of the F35 flight critical systems, no cheap system kills."
http://www.bahdayton.com/surviac/asnews/ASJ_Spring2012_V9_web.pdf (2.1Mb)

hanoijane

30th Aug 2013, 19:31

Wherehaveibin? I've been doing interesting things, Spaz. There is life beyond PPRuNu yunno :-)

Yes, its all very wonderful on paper. But you've flown things which have been tested-to-death, quality assured, serviced by saints and have duplex/quadruplex digital flight systems and - by golly - don't they still fail, in unison, and usually at the most inopportune moments?

The more things there are to go wrong, the more things will go wrong. The more flight critical things there are in an airframe to hit, the more will be hit.

The F35 will end up being used by the Marines as a bomb truck. Get a marine in a quiet corner and he'll usually admit it too. And as a bomb truck it has some serious limitations.

Americans have the ability to produce some truly exceptional designs. I'm in awe of the X47. A remarkable step forwards. Degrading the UCLASS specification was crazy. It only makes sense if you're trying to kill the programme to save the F35, which would be the very definition of madness.

I don't know why I care. It's not my air force :-)

SpazSinbad

30th Aug 2013, 19:34

'hanoijane' what airfarce is yourn then?

hanoijane

30th Aug 2013, 20:00

Not one, my dear friend, likely to be on the list of approved customers for the F35.

SpazSinbad

30th Aug 2013, 20:38

F-35B Lightning II Testing Night Video - YouTube

CLICK for Daytime FlyCo View: http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/th_WASPdaytimeFlyCo9602159676_406675f9d3_oCROPsmall.jpg (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/WASPdaytimeFlyCo9602159676_406675f9d3_oCROPsmall.jpg.html)

AvWeak gets jiggywithit:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkvMXB3ygh8

Heathrow Harry

31st Aug 2013, 08:25

@Heathrow Harry
Quote:
"Carrier aviation is a proven war winner"

the last time it was proven was 1945.....................

it certainly didn't win the war in Vietnam (or Iraq) for example
Er ... Has someone forgotten a little incident in the South Atlantic in 1982?

And that would have been a cinch if they hadn't scrapped the real Ark Royal

----------------------------------------

just remembered there WAS a real aircraft carrier (as opposed to our rather gash jobs) in the Falklands War - HMS Venerable aka ARA Veinticinco de Mayo (V-2)

she never showed up because we had SSN's......... which raises a point about the viability of any modern aircraft carrier against a similarly equipped foe

dat581

31st Aug 2013, 10:49

It also raises the point that an SSN can target an airfield with cruise missiles with much greater ease than a carrier which can move at 30kts+. Maybe we should leave that argument for the Sharkey Watch thread.

LowObservable

31st Aug 2013, 13:26

From other coverage of the sea trials, of possible interest to those looking forward to operating the FifthGenerationTM wonderjet...

An interesting factoid, one of the USMC test pilots mentioned this little tidbit—they have to use a modified Rutowski profile in order to get the F-35B and C up to Mach 1.6. Basically, you do one push over, unload the jet and accelerate, get up to 1.2, turn and repeat until you hit 1.4 Mach, turn and repeat till you hit Mach 1.6. It just barely gets there and barely has any gas left over afterwards. The kinematics are basically F/A-18C-like, though that was apparently exactly what was expected.

F-35B sea-trials aboard the USS Wasp - The DEW Line (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2013/08/f-35b-sea-trials-aboard-the-uss-wasp/)

That's probably a bit of a libel on the Classic Hornet, especially with the -402 engine. The F-35A will be about the same, with the exception of having a bit more gas left at Mach 1.6.

JSFfan

31st Aug 2013, 14:50

"they have to use a modified Rutowski profile"

I think you will find the above to be factually wrong and the flight tests specs are for level flight. Operationally they may/will chose a Rutowski profile

the other thing is that most planes can't do m1.6 with bombs and missiles

SpazSinbad

31st Aug 2013, 17:42

On previous page 'Rhino power' said:
"In other F-35 news, it was reported this morning that an access panel was opened and the contents there in were fiddled with, upon completion of the fiddling the access panel was successfully closed and no problems were reported. There will now, no doubt, be several hundred links posted to demonstrate just how this procedure proves just how damn fine splendidly the F-35 program is progressing... http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/badteeth.gif
-RP "

Is this the one: (from the doodline): http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/files/2013/08/bf-5-1200-st.jpg

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/th_F-35BwaspDT-IIzoomLADDERpdf.jpg (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/F-35BwaspDT-IIzoomLADDERpdf.jpg.html)

Just This Once...

31st Aug 2013, 17:45

...the other thing is that most planes can't do m1.6 with bombs and missiles

Not sure why a non-aviator would post 'facts' such as this in this forum. I've seen M1.6 whilst carrying a brace of missiles, as have a fair number on this forum. Usually seen when accelerating or decelerating through it.

JSFfan

31st Aug 2013, 17:51

and how many 1-2,000lb bombs?

gr4techie

4th Sep 2013, 16:19

I've just noticed in the RAF News a full page advertisement for the F-35 (page 6, 16 Aug 13).

Baffles me why? Can I buy one and keep it in the garden?

No wonder it's so expensive when Lockheed Martin buy full page advert space in random news papers.

t43562

6th Sep 2013, 11:56

kqrpo6cSb4Y

SpazSinbad

6th Sep 2013, 12:32

Thanks 't43562'. Looks like an SRVL to me. I like all dem lights. Info about Youtube video above below. Did not hear narration on Youtube but heard it later which explains all I guess. Screenshot (large) from video.

Landing an F35B on HMS Queen Elizabeth [SRVL]
"Published on Sep 6, 2013
What will it look like of pilots coming in to land, at night, on HMS Queen Elizabeth? This simulation will give you an idea..."
Landing an F35B on HMS Queen Elizabeth - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=kqrpo6cSb4Y)

SRVV Ship Referenced Velocity Vector graphic from: http://www.hrana.org/documents/PaddlesMonthlyAugust2011.pdf (2.2Mb)

Click thumbnail for big pic: http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/th_SRVLshipreferencedvelocityvectorSRVV.png (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/SRVLshipreferencedvelocityvectorSRVV.png.html)

Paddles Monthly August 2011 ‘What the Future Beholds...’ Dan "Butters" Radocaj Test Pilot/LSO VX-23 Ship Suitability
“...We may also need to add another lens-type glideslope indicator. One idea is called a Bedford Array. You can see in Figure 1 that a Bedford Array is like a lens spread of over the length of the LA. Unlike an IFLOLS which has 12 cells that are always on to create a glideslope reference, the Bedford Array is a set of Christmas lights and only the light corresponding to current position of the touchdown point is illuminated. Just as the dynamic touchdown point moves across the deck on the LSODS screen, the Bedford Array lights would “move” forward and back across the deck corresponding to the dynamic touchdown point. Figure 2 shows what your HUD may look like. You keep the ship stabilized velocity vector on top of the Bedford light that is illuminated. The datum is a reference line in your HUD. As long as the 3 all line up you are on glide path. A Bedford Array & a ship stabilized velocity are indicators of glide-slope that will show you if you are off glide-slope more precisely but they still don’t make the airplane respond differently....”
http://www.hrana.org/documents/PaddlesMonthlyAugust2011.pdf (2.2Mb)

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/SRVLsimViewCVFtouchdownZonePDF.png~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/SRVLsimViewCVFtouchdownZonePDF.png.html)

glad rag

6th Sep 2013, 16:30

Looks like fun. So what about reality?

Courtney Mil

6th Sep 2013, 17:40

Nice, but did I miss something? I didn't see why that was different to any other landing using the HUD/Indicators/Balls/etc. It looked exactly like I would expect.

Just This Once...

6th Sep 2013, 18:26

It's actually pretty impressive when you see it in action and a credit to those who worked on it.

I agree it looks pretty ordinary in a still, but when working the 'HUD' it sells itself pretty quickly.
:ok:

orca

6th Sep 2013, 19:35

Courtney - I am unfamiliar with the equipment but the document talks of a 'ship stabilised velocity vector' whereas the VVs we all use (or don't if we're listening to the LSOs) are 'earth stabilised'. So somehow it's accounting for the forward motion of the ship. If you put a classic VV on the Fresnel lens you would drop short...and probably hit the port side of the ship. This needn't necessarily be seen as a bad thing because you would probably hit the LSO platform....;)

SpazSinbad

7th Sep 2013, 00:39

Refer to this recent post for SRVL technique: http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/424953-f-35-cancelled-then-what-157.html#post7998153

Tailored to Trap 01 Dec 2012 Frank Colucci
"...The flight control software, hosted in identical Vehicle Management Computers (VMC), uses a scheme called dynamic inversion (DI). DI allows the desired aircraft response — linear and angular accelerations — to be implemented directly in control laws, thereby reducing the control gain “tuning” required in the development process.

At the heart of the JSF DI implementation is a variant-specific On-Board Model (OBM). The OBM predicts, for the current state of the aircraft, the response that will result from various control surface deflections. Given pilot commands, the VMCs “invert” the OBM in real-time to determine what control surface deflections will provide the desired response. Canin, a Former Navy A-7 pilot, has flown all the JSF versions and now tests the F-35B and C models at Pax River. “Across all three variants, there’s almost no difference in the response to pilot inputs, only in the aerodynamic models used to achieve the response,” he said. “We define the response we want, and the software figures out what to do with the control surfaces.”

Canin added, “That’s the beauty of using this approach when you’re developing three airplanes concurrently. By restricting the differences to the onboard models, the aircraft response developed for one variant transfers naturally to the others.” Common control law development affords cost savings across the JSF variants.

Safe carrier approaches require the airplane be stabilized in the correct glideslope and attitude to touch down with the proper geometry and rate of descent. Carrier pilots maintain that glideslope with visual reference to an optical landing aid on the ship, or “meatball.” They make continuous power changes while holding the aircraft at a near-constant angle of attack (alpha). According to Canin, “If we’re going to hold alpha constant, then the only way to change lift is by accelerating or decelerating the airplane. We do this with power, but because of engine lag and aircraft inertia, there’s a lot of anticipation required, and a lot of corrections and counter-corrections. Doing that well requires skill, seat-of-the-pants [flying], and a lot of practice.”

He offered, “A much better approach would be to control the coefficient of lift itself, by changing the camber of the wing.”...

...Though not currently part of the F-35 plan [I'll imagine it is now for the F-35B SRVL as seen in the video], implementing a “ship-referenced velocity vector” (SRVV) would allow the pilot to put the SRVV on the intended touchdown point to hold glideslope. “All we would need to know from the ship is its current velocity, so we can put the airplane symbology in that reference frame,” Canin said.

Readily rewritten control laws have other possibilities. “With the current flight control law, the pilot commands pitch rate with the stick, and uses that pitch rate to establish a glideslope,” noted Canin. “There’s no reason, though, why the flight control system couldn’t establish a baseline glideslope, and allow the pilot to apply control stick pressure to command tweaks around that glideslope in response to ball deviations.” A “glideslope command” mechanization of this sort is not in the baseline airplane now, but is an example of the type of changes that could relatively easily be incorporated in the F-35 control system.

For recoveries in the worst weather, the A-7 and other carrier aircraft flew coupled automatic landings based on radar tracking and datalinked commands from the ship. Canin confided, “I’d break out of it in-close the few times I did one. The pilot doesn’t’ get a [landing] grade if he lets George [autopilot] fly it to touchdown.”

The JSF test program currently has no autolanding requirement, but plans call for an F-35C autolanding capability based on the Joint Precision Approach and Landing System. “The F-35 will take more of a self-contained approach — an internally generated glideslope from GPS.”

IDLC is just one part of the F-35 test program which will now include tests of a refined tailhook for arrested landings. “We look at approach handling qualities every chance we get,” said Canin. “Where the rubber meets the road, though, is at touchdown. Until recently we haven’t had a loads clearance that allowed us to do carrier-type landings, but now we do, so now we’ll be able to look at our control precision to touchdown.”..."
Avionics Magazine :: Tailored to Trap (http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/military/Tailored-to-Trap_77964.html)

JSFfan

7th Sep 2013, 18:32

Creating the 5th Generation Force: Secretary Wynne and Lt. Col. Berke Meet and Discuss on Vimeo

Re-Norming Air Power: The Policy Maker and the Implementor Discuss the 5th Gen Revolution | SLDInfo (http://www.sldinfo.com/re-norming-air-power-the-policy-maker-and-the-implementor-discuss-the-5th-gen-revolution/)

glad rag

7th Sep 2013, 20:26

Well yes, it was a nice evening.

<dripping sarcasm mode off>

SpazSinbad

9th Sep 2013, 06:56

Perhaps the rags of glad will be useful here.... (if only to wipe the drippy sarcasm). :E I feel a THERMION coming on.... :}

The Forth of July RN Navy News August 2013 page 7
"...All that remains to add to the Queen now are two sponsons on her flight deck and her ski jump ramp.

The first of the five pieces of the ramp was installed in mid-July. By October, HMS Queen Elizabeth will be complete outwardly - although there's a lot of work inside to finish off. And she still needs to be painted a traditional RN grey.

To date only the window seals and frames on the carrier's two islands are painted in her final livery. Everything else requires at least one, or more, coatings of paint (there will be five layers on the finished ship - in all she requires 1,500,000 square metres of paintwork, which would turn an area the size of London's Hyde Park grey).

Those coatings - including a special paint on the flight deck which will be sufficiently resistant to take the poundings from aircraft landing and the heat from the jet engines of the F35 Lighting[sic] II strike fighters - will be applied over the coming 12 months in time for the carrier's launch next summer...."
201308 Navy News Aug 13 (http://content.yudu.com/Library/A2dq2s/201308NavyNewsAug13/resources/index.htm?referrerUrl)=

ORAC

9th Sep 2013, 15:51

Op-Ed: Disarmament by F-35? (http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?shop=dae&modele=feature&prod=147779&cat=5)

PARIS --- The latest round of Dutch defense cuts is an apt illustration of how defense readiness across NATO is being damaged by government insistence on procuring the F-35 fighter at whatever cost, despite its recurring delays and very serious technical faults and design shortcomings.

Two prospective buyers, Canada and the Netherlands, have established firm price caps on their F-35 acquisition budgets to prevent cost blow-outs, but because costs continue to increase, the number of aircraft they will be able to buy is being constantly reduced. This also reduces their military usefulness, as the fewer the aircraft, the lower their overall operational effectiveness.

The Netherlands are an apt illustration of the dangers of such an approach. It was originally due to buy 85 F-35s, but successive Dutch governments have reduced this number to 58, which, as the Algemene Rekenkamer (AR), the independent state auditor, concluded in its Oct. 25, 2013 report, are not even enough to fulfill Dutch commitments to NATO. Nonetheless, the F-35 program will absorb half the defense ministry’s total capital expenditure budget for six years, starving other programs of funding. The current Dutch government now simply plans to buy as many aircraft as it can with its €4 billion budget – fewer than 40, the Rekenkamer estimated. But even to afford this reduced number, it must cut most other defense spending. The latest round of cuts (http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/147732/dutch-to-sell-off-biggest-ship-in-latest-round-of-budget-cuts.html), reported Sept. 5, is worth €330 million, and will entail the sale of a logistics support ship which is still being built, the scrapping of an entire Army battalion and the mothballing of six or seven more F-16 fighters.

The situation is broadly similar in Canada, where the government has placed a price cap of $8.9 billion on its F-35 acquisition budget, without being able to say how many aircraft this will buy. Yet, it is gradually becoming apparent that cuts in other parts of the defense budget will be needed to protect F-35 funding, and an Aug. 13 report in the National Post was headlined “F-35 purchase may force Conservatives to chop infantry battalion from cash-strapped military.”

And it’s really no different in the United States. Under the pressure of sequestration, the Pentagon will have to choose between a “much smaller force” or a decade-long “holiday” from modernizing its weapon systems, to quote defense secretary Chuck Hagel. Frank Kendall, the Pentagon acquisitions chief, has already indicated that the F-35 program, and a few other top priority programs, will be protected from further cuts, but this means that “remaining programs in the procurement account would have to be cut even more than the 16% average reduction for the whole [acquisition] account,” as the Lexington Institute’s Lauren B. Thompson recently noted.

In the United States as in the Netherlands and Canada, the F-35 is soaking up much of the available acquisition funding, at the expense of other programs or activities that will have to be stretched out or cut altogether. One example is the US Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship program, which Defense News reported Sept. 2 may be cut from 52 to 24, and others are still emerging. On current trends, the US Air Force one day will fly only F-35s, KC-46 tankers and the future Global Strike bomber, along with a few – by then elderly - F-22s. This will be a stunning loss of capability compared to the large and diversified combat fleet it operates today, but that is their choice, made by elected representatives and, indirectly, approved by voters.

But there is no reason for US allies to display the same stubborn insistence on buying the overpriced and underperforming F-35. This has already put some allies onto the slippery slope where they must sacrifice other programs to pay for ever-lower numbers of F-35s. Italy, for example, has already said it will reduce its F-35 off-take from 130 to 90 or fewer, while the UK is currently committed to buying 48, instead of the 150+ it originally planned, although it ultimately intends to buy more.

If current, short-sighted policies continue, these governments – whether in Canada, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway or other countries – will wake up one day and realize they have forsaken their entire military capabilities to pay for a squadron or two of F-35s they cannot afford to fly.

PhilipG

9th Sep 2013, 16:48

ORAC a good post, my feelings entirely, there is in my view one part of the equation that you may have overlooked, the cost of keeping 4th generation planes in service beyond the time that initially the F35 was meant to be available from, so from a government's point of view, there have been higher than anticiapted costs to keep the old planes working, the promised cost savings in fleet running costs in comparison to the 4th Generation planes are in fact cost pressures and to cap it all the planes cost nearly twice as much as initially promissed, yes I know I am not comparing apples with apples but the acquisition cost was meant to be £65m in year X $ now it is north of $100m a plane.
Many factors that result in the overall plane purchase resource envelope to be reduced and thus the number of units to be reduced.

cokecan

9th Sep 2013, 17:53

ORAC's post is one of the most depressing things i've ever read.

the programme is a fcuking abortion, and we need out.

JSFfan

9th Sep 2013, 19:48

ORAC, isn't that a funny oped

what's happening is that both sides of dutch gov have agreed that the f-35 is what they want
DutchNews.nl - Labour party now supports JSF fighter jet project: Nos (http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2013/09/labour_party_now_supports_jsf.php)

Rhino power

9th Sep 2013, 23:03

JSFfan, that article simply goes to prove ORAC's posts point! An original order for 85, cut down to 58 and now, if the article is to be believed, cut down further to '30 to 40' just so they can afford to buy it!!!

-RP

FoxtrotAlpha18

9th Sep 2013, 23:51

Just to clarify, It's an OP ED written by a guy who has never had a kind word to say about the program! :suspect:

His OPinion based EDitorial is no more or less valid than the opinion of anyone else.

Maybe 'Giovanni de Briganti' is Italian for 'Low Observable'! :ooh:

LowObservable

10th Sep 2013, 06:19

Clearly he has no grounds for stating that when something gets more expensive, you can't buy as many of them for the same money.

http://www.bit-101.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Yeah-well-you-know-thats-just-like-your-opinion-man.jpg

SpazSinbad

10th Sep 2013, 07:44

Tailhook 2013 Symposium Many Videos available - the first instance highlighted below.

Tailhook 2013 Symposium on Livestream (http://new.livestream.com/wab/tailhook)

http://pdvod.new.livestream.com/events/000000000010bf75/05a82a7f-377b-421b-bcb4-7ed252fa4490_548.mp4?start=290&end=7051&__gda__=1378794764_1ea1723a5f39904f7e2c05dcb2cc16e7 (1 hour 51 minutes) [413Mb]

Date
Fri Sep 6, 2013 5:00pm EDT — Sat Sep 7, 2013 7:00pm EDT

Question about F-35C (& co-incidentally X-47B) arrestor hook answered:

http://www.f-16.net/./modules/PNphpBB2/../../attachments/hookf_35cquestiontailhook2013_167.wma (9Mb)

NOW with ADDed VIDEO (13Mb): http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/th_HookF-35CquestionTailHook2013loq.jpg (http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/HookF-35CquestionTailHook2013loq.mp4)

Courtney Mil

10th Sep 2013, 08:30

Oh dear. That's a bit of a shocker, Orac. I think it was generally expected that some customers were likely to reduce their orders a bit, but that's a big cut. And actually doing it feels very different to just talking about it. I hope one jumper doesn't start to encourage others, not good for the UK's cost-per-unit figures in the longer run.

what's happening is that both sides of dutch gov have agreed that the f-35 is what they want

Absolutely wonderful. You're such a fanatic about this program and so blinkered to the issues that you can even see this bad news as a triumph for the wonder-jet. Perhaps it doesn't worry you as much, but I find it concerning because of the potential this has to cost the UK more, the likelihood that it could reduce NATO capability in Western Europe and the further uncertainty it casts over our future defence spending and, therefore, our ability to conduct future ops.

A fleet of working F-35s should increase capability. An under-sized, unaffordable F-35 fleet could do just the opposite.

John Farley

10th Sep 2013, 11:46

One of the problems with just talking numbers of aircraft in a fleet is that it takes no account of what I call military productivity.

How many WWII aircraft did it take to be sure to take out a bridge? – answer sometimes more than we had. How many aircraft with LGBs does it take to do the same thing today? – answer one.

How many F-16s will it take to have the same military capability as an F-35? - answer I don’t know but I would be surprised if it was not quite a few.

(Indeed it may even be that any number of F-16s could not do the job that one F-35 could do. Modern kit has amazing capabilities)

downsizer

10th Sep 2013, 11:49

All good points John, but 1 jet can't be in more than 1 place at a time....

Just This Once...

10th Sep 2013, 11:54

Happy to agree with you John for interdiction sorties but these days we spend more time watching and talking to the guys on the ground; we go 'kinetic' far less often than you would think. As such, having less numbers within their line of sight will not be helpful.

Courtney Mil

10th Sep 2013, 12:19

The numbers game can be a tricky one. But governments don't just decide to buy lots of shiny new jets because they want them. They buy a specific number because they believe that number will give them the capability they need for their national interests. If they suddenly decide to reduce their fleet to less than half the original, planned size that must mean that they are no longer getting the capability they need.

Or are they so taken in by certain posters here that they now realise that the jet's so good that they only need 30-40 of them now?

kbrockman

10th Sep 2013, 13:36

The original theme of this thread seems to be overtaken by reality by now, however a severe reduction for all, or most parties, involved seems to be ever more likely.
Even its US biggest supporters are more and more aware of this;
When it comes to the F-35, numbers count - The Hill's Congress Blog (http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-a-budget/319711-when-it-comes-to-the-f-35-numbers-count)

....
They’re right. Yet chatter about deep cuts to the F-35 continues even as the program has stabilized and production costs are coming down. It’s alarming because it suggests Pentagon leaders still have not fully connected with taxpayers and lawmakers as to why and how the F-35 is vital to national security.
....

Which begs the question , what if this becomes reality?
Maybe Boeing are positioning themselves very strategically by teaming up with SAAB to go for the TALON replacement contract
Sources: Boeing, Saab in Talks to Partner on Trainer Bid | Defense News | defensenews.com (http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130909/DEFREG02/309090010/Sources-Boeing-Saab-Talks-Partner-Trainer-Bid)
WASHINGTON — Boeing and Saab are discussing a partnership on the US Air Force’s trainer replacement program, multiple industry sources have told Defense News.

If the arrangement goes forward, it opens the door for each to capture a long-delayed, highly prized Air Force contract to replace its aging T-38 trainers. The service intends to purchase 350 new trainers, likely pushing the contract award into the billions of dollars.

Talks between the companies are advanced and likely to lead to an agreement, the sources said. One said the deal is being held up primarily as a result of an Air Force decision to delay the program due to budget woes.

This would then open the door for more deliveries to make up for the numbers lost by the F35 saga,
An Americanized advanced Gripen with the latest GE414 engines, Raytheon avionics all supported by Boeing might be the solution for the USAF and maybe even (far fetched maybe) the NAVY (Navalized Gripen)
could well be the low cost solution the US DoD needs to make up for the F35 debacle.

Also this would be a real solution for many of the potential customers who prefer to buy American (Big advanced supply chain, preferred partnership) but just cannot afford the F35 in sufficient numbers.
A real light weight, low cost but advanced enough mini Super Hornet.

Heathrow Harry

10th Sep 2013, 14:35

Courtney Mil wrote

"If they suddenly decide to reduce their fleet to less than half the original, planned size that must mean that they are no longer getting the capability they need."

maybe not what they need but what they can afford.............

Courtney Mil

10th Sep 2013, 14:43

Yes, I understand that it's all they can afford, but that's not the point. My point is that if, say, the Netherlands have calculated that they require 85 F-35s to fulfil their defence needs and then only buy, say, 30 then their defence requirements a clearly not going to be fulfilled. In other words, they will now have one or more capability gaps. If their previous fast jet was able to meet their defence needs then the F-35 (due to its price and lateness) will have decreased the Netherland's capability instead of increasing it.

LowObservable

11th Sep 2013, 05:45

An interesting DN story. I suspect that Boeing could make a Gripen that costs less than a LockMart-made KAI T-50, and it would be a much better lead-in trainer for F-22/F-35/F-XX, and thereby offload hours from those expensive aircraft.

Of course it's not a long jump from the training squadrons to the Guard/Reserve, who already do air sovereignty and CAS.

On numbers - it depends what you want to do with your fighter force in a national strategic sense. One argument for the F-35 is that it will be the USAF, so that if you want to contribute to a US-led coalition it is what you want to bring to the party.

How many total aircraft do I need, in order to:
1 - Deploy a dozen or so jets to a coalition operation outside my own region,
2 - while maintaining security in my homeland airspace, and
3 - do both the above without generating a bow wave of deferred training and aircraft upgrades?

I don't know the answer, which also depends on a lot of factors and may be different for different cases (eg how much airspace you have), but I would guess that it is not less than 25 and not much more than 50.

CoffmanStarter

12th Sep 2013, 11:09

Nice vid from S/L Jim Schofield covering the UK's first "at sea" takeoff ...

RAF Pilot performs first UK takeoff of F-35B Lightning at sea - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYy0XR6ESkM&feature=youtu.be)

Heathrow Harry

12th Sep 2013, 11:21

Courtney

the trouble with going with "calculated needs" you ALWAYS finish up with large numbers - it's just human nature

I calculate I need an annual after tax income of £850,000 but......................

SpazSinbad

15th Sep 2013, 21:58

USAF Weighs Scrapping KC-10, A-10 Fleets 15 Sep 2013 MARCUS WEISGERBER & AARON MEHTA
"WASHINGTON — Faced with steep budget cuts and the desire to keep existing procurement initiatives on track, the US Air Force is considering scrapping its entire fleet of KC-10 tankers and A-10 attack jets, according to multiple military and defense sources.

Also on the chopping block are F-15C fighter jets and a planned $6.8 billion purchase of new combat search-and-rescue helicopters, these sources say.

While these proposals are far from final, the options show the magnitude of the decisions facing Air Force leadership as the service wrestles with the prospect of cutting billions of dollars in planned spending over the next decade.

“You only gain major savings if you cut an entire fleet,” Gen. Mark Welsh, Air Force chief of staff, told sister publication Air Force Times last week. “You can cut aircraft from a fleet, but you save a lot more money if you cut all the infrastructure that supports the fleet.”...

...Retiring the F-15C would save maintenance and upgrade costs, Rebecca Grant, president of IRIS Research and a former USAF official, said. The service could then use those funds to speed procurement of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.''...'"
USAF Weighs Scrapping KC-10, A-10 Fleets | Defense News | defensenews.com (http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130915/DEFREG02/309150004/USAF-Weighs-Scrapping-KC-10-10-Fleets)

Rhino power

16th Sep 2013, 14:32

What a state the USAF is getting into, considering scrapping one of the most capable tanker/transports available and a tried, trusted and proven CAS platform... All so they can continue to pour money into the never ending financial black hole (money goes in, nothing comes out!) that is the F-35...:hmm:

-RP

SASless

16th Sep 2013, 15:28

Boeing has been showing off a highly modified F-18 with conformal fuel tanks and an integral bomb bay.....which they can mass produce with ease at far cheaper costs than the F-35.

They are hedging their Bets....in case the F-35 finally is cancelled as it should be.

The program is failing.....just the FJ Mafia refuses to admit it.

Anyone care to bring up the McNamara TFX disaster for reference?

Just This Once...

16th Sep 2013, 17:24

Reading the link above I was puzzled by the suggestion that the A-10 is not particularly useful for COIN.

Are they talking about a completely different A-10???

Willard Whyte

16th Sep 2013, 17:37

I had always thought of COIN as involving psyops, int, surveillance, air-ground against soft targets etc. - not really an A-10s cup of tea. CAS on the other hand...

SpazSinbad

17th Sep 2013, 00:48

U.S. Air Force vows to shield three weapons programs from budget cuts 16 Sep 2013 Andrea Shalal-Esa
"The top U.S. Air Force official on Monday vowed to protect three weapons programs from sweeping federal budget cuts: Lockheed Martin Corp's F-35 fighter jet, a new refuelling plane built by Boeing Co and early work on a new bomber.

The top U.S. Air Force official on Monday vowed to protect three weapons programs from sweeping federal budget cuts: Lockheed Martin Corp's F-35 fighter jet, a new refuelling plane built by Boeing Co and early work on a new bomber.

Acting Air Force Secretary Eric Fanning said the Air Force was convinced of the need to invest in those three programs to ensure continued U.S. military superiority the future. But he said other single-mission aircraft programs would likely face cuts if lawmakers did not reverse a second round of across-the-board cuts due to hit the Pentagon in fiscal 2014.

"You can't get savings of the magnitude necessary by reducing all of your fleets. You have to take out some fleets entirely in order to get the whole tail that comes with it in terms of savings," Fanning told reporters at the annual Air Force Association conference.

Fanning declined to comment directly on reports that the Air Force's plan for coping with continued budget cuts called for retirement of its fleet of A-10 attack planes and KC-10 refuelling planes, saying only that some single-mission aircraft would clearly be affected....

..."It's a series of very painful decisions and painful cuts that are really damaging, in my view, to readiness and national security, and will be very expensive to fix later in the future if we try to," Fanning told reporters. He said the Air Force's sequestration budget envisioned a smaller force but gave no details."
U.S. Air Force vows to shield three weapons programs from budget cuts | 4-Traders (http://www.4-traders.com/NORTHROP-GRUMMAN-CORPORAT-13763/news/US-Air-Force-vows-to-shield-three-weapons-programs-from-budget-cuts-17272069/)