F-35 Cancelled, then what ? [Archive] - Page 14

Courtney Mil

17th Sep 2013, 18:04

I thought we'd been through all this months ago, remember? Just before we discussed how to interpret Turn Rate/Radius/SEP graph?

Here's the thing. There are, generally, three groups here:

1. Those that are (with some good reason) highly suspicious that LockMart can really deliver all they promised. We already know that the standards have been lowered (we discussed this and please let's not go through all that again), the delivery date delayed (the original one has already passed) and the price has gone up by a factor of [insert your own figure here]. They know that a lot of claims have been made based on optimistic and best case modelling under selected circumstances.

2. Those that recognize the numerous issues and challenges that are, frankly, plaguing the project and that have seen enough of these problems before to understand how this is likely to end. Group 1 also see this. These people understand that so much is invested in this that it had better bloody well work or we are in serious trouble. We get that really good people are working very hard to make it work and we know, money and politics permitting, they will deliver the best they can. But we know that it is highly likely that there will also be disappointments. We acknowledge the good news and the bad.

3. A couple of folks that, for some reason refuse to see any bad in the project, will only choose to post the most glittering and positive reports, claiming that their sources are reliable and everyone elses' are biased, poisoned or ignorant. But still quote amazing news at every turn.

As JSFfan has chosen to bring up the 6:1 claim again, I shall refresh the flaws in this claim once more. JSFfan, you admitted to no knowledge of the technicalities involved in these evaluations, but stated that you are happy to accept the views of (I paraphrase) those that know. You claimed that you are smart enough to know which sources are reliable and which are not. However, as soon as I challenged you (repeatedly, if you recall) to explain why the simulation used was able to produce the 6:1 figure, you eventually had to agree that that you could not even state what scenarios, modification states, weapons or adversaries had been used in the simulation. How, therefore, could you make a personal, informed judgement about the trial and it's conclusions? I suspect it's more likely that you chose to cling onto and repeatedly quote that figure because it suits your optimistic view of the project and your blinkered and entrenched stance of its successes AND FAILURES.

Much better for your credibility if, once in a while, you accept that all is not perfect and actualy engage in a debate about them and their potential solutions and/or impacts on eventual capability instead of stonewall denial of any blemish on your object of wonder.

Just a passing thought.

The Helpful Stacker

17th Sep 2013, 18:28

This may come in useful 'JSFfan'.

http://ways2bargain.com/catalog/images/at_home/emergency/704-443064.jpg

Lonewolf_50

17th Sep 2013, 19:03

This reminds me of the "force multiplier" arguments of the US/NATO air forces of the 80's vis a vis F-16 and F-15 versus the hordes of Migs expected to darken the skies over the Fulda Gap and points north and south.

If the planning assumption on force levels is 4:1, but you don't quite get that, and when the 8 show up and you lose one of yours and three of theirs in opening rounds, the 5v1 begins to take on the macabre reality of air to air combat ... in the missile age.

I don't really care what the advertised exchange ratio is. The point is, as Manfred von Richtoffen once pointed out, to see and shoot your enemy before he shoots you. Nowadays, it takes more than a hot fighter to do this. It takes a mix of assets, to include EW, jamming, and robust BVR weapons and Target ID methods to achieve such an advantage, since you don't want to waste your misiles on drones of decoys.

"We're invisible, so we'll get the first shot."

Interesting planning assumption. If you aren't actually invisible, then what?

Better have some team mates who have your back in the EW and jamming department, eh?

GeeRam

17th Sep 2013, 19:31

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpazSinbad
Dutch to purchase 37 F-35 fighter planes
When you reach numbers like this, one has to wonder, why even bother?

Given that these F-35 are supposed to be replacing their F-16 fleet...... 37 x F-35 is only one more than the number of F-16's the RNLAF has lost from it's fleet over the past 30 years :eek:
So, how long will it take the RNLAF to get to a fleet of 0 x F-35......and what happens once the F-35 lines are shut down and your attrition rate of your small numbers of 'wonderjet' are such that it's an unsustainable fleet....?

Madness......:ugh:

Courtney Mil

17th Sep 2013, 19:40

Er, good argument, GeeRam, but aren't you assuming that the F-35 can be shot down or crashed? :=

glad rag

17th Sep 2013, 20:00

Train hard Fight easy. Errr...

SpazSinbad

17th Sep 2013, 21:08

Netherlands cuts F-35 fleet plan to 37 fighters 17 Sep 2013 Craig Hoyle
"...Citing the need for “careful consideration and astute choices” during a time of budget pressure, the government notes: “Opting for a modest number of the best aircraft attests to a sense of reality.” The F-35 was selected on “operational, financial and economic grounds”, and “is also the most future-proof option”,...

...However, the statement notes: “If, within the given financial parameters, room is created in the coming years to purchase more aircraft, the defence organisation will do so. This may be the case if the [10%] contingency reserve is not used in full and if the price per unit of the F-35 turns out to be lower than is currently expected.”...

...The positive decision should also clear the way for two test aircraft already delivered to support initial operational test and evaluation activities to be returned to flight status. The pair were grounded earlier this year, pending the outcome of the formal selection decision...."
Netherlands cuts F-35 fleet plan to 37 fighters (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/netherlands-cuts-f-35-fleet-plan-to-37-fighters-390647/)

JSFfan

17th Sep 2013, 21:15

It's time for you guys to change your song

F-35?s Ambitious, New Fleet Management System (http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_09_16_2013_p45-614645.xml)
After years of technical problems, overruns and delays, Pentagon officials are saying the F-35 aircraft is largely a known quantity. They are now focused on delivering on promises and helping the U.S. Marine Corps to declare initial operational capability in 2015 with the U.S. Air Force only a year behind.
But a lesser known factor in the success or failure of fielding these first squadrons is implementation of a new fleet-wide information support system..the Autonomic Information Logistics System (ALIS)

Courtney Mil

17th Sep 2013, 21:21

Ooh look. It's all brilliant. My point, exactly. Did that report forget to mention 6:1?

SpazSinbad

17th Sep 2013, 21:54

Exclusive: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s - source 17 Sep 2013 Andrea Shalal-Esa
"(Reuters) - U.S. government officials have briefed the Belgian government about the capabilities of the Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N) F-35 fighter jet, as Brussels prepares to replace its aging fleet of 60 F-16s, a source familiar with the matter told Reuters on Tuesday.

The source, who was not authorised to speak publicly, said Belgium was considering buying 35 to 55 of the new radar-evading F-35 jets. No decisions are expected until late 2014 at the earliest after next year's elections in Belgium....

...Lockheed's F-35 programme manager, Lorraine Martin, declined comment, saying that foreign military sales are handled by the U.S. government.

U.S. defence officials had no immediate comment...."
Exclusive: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s - source | Reuters (http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/09/17/uk-lockheed-fighter-belgium-idUKBRE98G14820130917)

SpazSinbad

17th Sep 2013, 22:12

Pentagon [b]says not worried about 'death spiral' of F-35 costs/orders 17 Sep 2013 Andrea Shalal-Esa
"(Reuters) - The Air Force general who runs the Pentagon's F-35 fighter program on Tuesday said communications with top contractors Lockheed Martin Corp and United Technologies Corp had improved greatly in the last year.

Air Force Lieutenant General Chris Bogdan told the annual Air Force Association conference that the F-35 program was making slow but steady progress, and that he saw strong support from the U.S. military services and foreign partners.

Given that support, he said he no longer worried that the F-35 program would be afflicted by a so-called "death spiral" in which cuts in rising costs lead to lower orders which in turn further boost prices.

Bogdan said he saw no indication that the U.S. Air Force, Navy or Marine Corps planned to significantly reduce their total orders for the F-35 program, despite mounting budget pressures...."
Pentagon says not worried about 'death spiral' of F-35 costs/orders | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/17/us-lockheed-fighter-idUSBRE98G18I20130917)

kbrockman

17th Sep 2013, 22:13

Nonsense article, 2014 is a big election year, not 1 single party will burn their fingers committing to such a big-Euro(€) defence project before the elections are over and the new government is formed, something which can take quite some time, just remember what happened last time.

Also the biggest and most powerful fraction are (going to be again) the Walloon PS (Parti Socialiste) who are very French oriented when it comes to military purchases, if they decide on replacing the F16 , the JSF is certainly a possibility but far from a certainty like it is with the current JSF partners.
Offset industrial packages, mainly for SABCA, are very important, I doubt sincerely that the JSF consortium has at much to give as the others (SAAB-BOEING-DASSAULT).

to be continued.................

Also, the ALIS in the F35 runs on Windows 7 it seems with a centralized hub, makes you wonder how secure it will be once it is deployed all over the world in all kind of different hands?
just saying...

kbrockman

17th Sep 2013, 22:40

This thing is now already taking so long that important parts of it are already obsolete, years before it is coming on line.
SEAPOWER Magazine Online (http://www.seapowermagazine.org/stories/20130916-f35-ew.html)
Lockheed Martin, prime contractor for the F-35 Lightning II joint strike fighter, has been awarded a $149 million Naval Air Systems Command contract for the “the redesign and qualification of replacement F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter Electronic Warfare system components due to current diminishing manufacturing sources,” according to a Defense Department contract announcement.

This change is a technology refresh beginning with aircraft in Low-Rate Initial Production Lot 7 that is necessitated by diminishing manufacturing sources, otherwise known as parts obsolescence. Hardware modules within the EW System are being updated with new components to address these obsolescence issues.

kbrockman

17th Sep 2013, 22:49

Let's forget about STEALTH, and do the next better thing.
STEALTH won't safe the day, Speed however could be the better answer;
Think Fast | Defense News | defensenews.com (http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130917/DEFREG02/309160022)
WASHINGTON — For much of the past decade, the buzzword A2/AD — anti-access/area-denial — has been closely linked with stealth technology. But with many nations slowly developing their own stealth capabilities, the US Air Force is looking for new advantages it can create to counter a foe’s A2/AD threats.
...
“So what comes after stealth? I’d argue part of the answer is speed.”

Stealth technology is based on a simple concept: If the enemy doesn’t know you are there, he can’t stop you. Speed, Lewis argues, takes that calculus and turns it on its side. A platform or weapon coming in at extremely high speeds will likely light up a radar system, but it’s also coming so fast that an enemy will not be able to react in time.
...
“I don’t know if in 20-30 years stealth or speed will be the best way to penetrate defenses,” he said during a Sept. 3 speech. “But I do think it is a critical issue that needs to be taken [into] account.”

“At a time when there was a lot more money available, it was OK to say all forms of solving the problem should be investigated,” he added. “At a time of fiscal austerity, I think it’s important to prioritize the option that carries the least risk of failing to fulfill military goals. The question is comparing risk.”

Rhino power

17th Sep 2013, 22:56

“If, within the given financial parameters, room is created in the coming years to purchase more aircraft, the defence organisation will do so. This may be the case if the [10%] contingency reserve is not used in full and if the price per unit of the F-35 turns out to be lower than is currently expected.”...

Utter ballox, if the current 'given financial parameters' are only allowing the Dutch to commit to 37 aircraft, then the unit cost has got to come down by a spectacularly unrealistic amount for them to be able to even consider buying maybe one or two more jets 'in the coming years'! Seriously, an original plan for 85 jets more than halved to 37?!, Time to pack it in and buy 'more' of what you can actually 'afford'!

-RP

SpazSinbad

18th Sep 2013, 01:13

From the same 'kbrockman' "Lets forget about stealth" article Think Fast which to me is all about hypersonic missiles and missiles today we have this quote (not reported above):

"...While high-speed weapons may be the future, they are unlikely to replace stealth technology.

“I don’t think of it as versus stealth; I think of it as in-addition-to stealth,” Lewis said. “You want to have a mix of capabilities. That’s the direction I think the Air Force will ultimately be moving towards.”..."

SpazSinbad

18th Sep 2013, 05:12

A Year After Blasting Contractors, F-35 Program Head Sees Progress | Bogdan says 'sequestration will not break this program' 17 Sep 2013 Aaron Mehta
"...As an example of that cultural change, Bogdan highlighted the creation of a “cost war-room” set up between Lockheed, Pratt and the JPO. The companies are picking up the tab of the entire operation, with Lockheed providing half a floor at their D.C.-area office for free.

That office will feature cost analysts and experts taking a look at potential cost-savings in maintenance, reliability & maintainability (R&M), and the supply chain. Bogdan cited CEO-level buy-in on the project from the companies as proof of a new culture and said he was “cautiously optimistic” it will find good results.

Getting costs out of the program remains a priority, because, as Bogdan said, “If nobody can afford it, [a 5th-generation fighter] does you no good.”..."
A Year After Blasting Contractors, F-35 Program Head Sees Progress | Navy Times | navytimes.com (http://www.navytimes.com/article/20130917/NEWS04/309170036)

FoxtrotAlpha18

19th Sep 2013, 01:06

Here's the thing. There are, generally, three groups here:

Courtney - you (conveniently or otherwise) forgot there is a fourth group:

A couple of folks that, for some reason refuse to see any good in the project, will only choose to post the most negative reports regardless of their source, while claiming that their sources are reliable and everyone else's are biased, poisoned or ignorant.

SpazSinbad

19th Sep 2013, 05:50

"...This autumn will see a futher two Flight Test Group organised lectures, the first of which taking place on September 19th, ‘Revolutionising STOVL Flight Control for the Joint Strike Fighter‘, will describe the flight tests conducted on the Harrier, how and why the evaluation was set up as it was, and the results achieved...."
Flight Test activity at the Society | Events | The Royal Aeronautical Society (http://media.aerosociety.com/news/2013/09/11/flight-test-activity-at-the-society/9497/)

Flight Test Group Lecture
REVOLUTIONISING STOVL FLIGHT CONTROL FOR THE JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER
JUSTIN PAINES, CHIEF FLYING INSTRUCTOR - FIXED WING, EMPIRE TEST PILOTS’ SCHOOL
LONDON / 19 SEPTEMBER 2013
"The Harrier was one of the most iconic aircraft in RAF and RN service, but it’s unique capabilities came at a price in the complexity of the piloting task. As a result, a number of research programmes in the US and UK sought to simplify STOVL flight control for the next generation of STOVL aircraft.

The debate was complicated by the US research effort taking a strong different line to the UK effort, which was pioneered at RAE Bedford, and the resulting transatlantic impasse threatened to leave the Joint Strike Fighter programme with no clear direction on how to improve the Harrier’s complex piloting task. As a result, the UK research effort took a step back, implementing a variety of concepts for international evaluation by a mixed team of Harrier and non-Harrier experienced pilots, using the UK’s Vectored-thrust Aircraft Advanced Control (VAAC) Harrier.

The challenges in conducting the flight test were matched only by the challenges of what continued to be a heated and emotional debate between the research teams. Pilot opinion was deeply divided and based strongly on prior experience and apriori opinion. A seemingly endlessly controversial topic that could only be solved by hard data, led ultimately to a decision to adopt the preferred UK strategy.

This lecture will describe the flight test conducted, how and why the evaluation was set up as it was, and the results achieved. But it will also chronicle one of the most controversial and revolutionary decisions in flight control history. With the benefit of hindsight, the F-35 well into flight test and many pilots now operating in STOVL mode, the lecture will also look at the question “Were we right”?

Justin Paines entered the RAF in January 1988, joining the Harrier force in 1990. After a long tour on No 1 (Fighter) Squadron, including operational duties over northern Iraq, he completed Test Pilot School at Edwards Air Force Base, flying all the main US fighter types and several historic aircraft over that year. He joined Boscombe Down as a Test Pilot on the experimental (VAAC) Harrier programme and also flew test programmes in Harrier GR7 and T-10, Hawk and Tucano aircraft. He returned to the US to join the Joint Strike Fighter programme and flew the X35 A, B and C experimental aircraft.

After a tour as an Instructor on ETPS, he left the RAF and joined QinetiQ, once again flying the VAAC Harrier programme, developing advanced control concepts for the F-35B STOLV aircraft, and innovative landing technologies for Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers.

Justin rejoined ETPS in 2009, where he now serves as Chief Flying Instructor (Fixed Wing)."
http://aerosociety.com/Assets/Docs/Events/Lectures/L101_Flight_Test_lecture.pdf (100Kb)

Courtney Mil

19th Sep 2013, 06:22

FoxtrotAlpha,

Yes, I see your point. Four groups, then. I had hoed to sweep them up in group 1, but in hindsight the definition doesn't quite fit. Not inentional.

JSFfan

19th Sep 2013, 07:13

As JSFfan has chosen to bring up the 6:1 claim again, I shall refresh the flaws in this claim once more. JSFfan, you admitted to no knowledge of the technicalities involved in these evaluations, but stated that you are happy to accept the views of (I paraphrase) those that know. You claimed that you are smart enough to know which sources are reliable and which are not. However, as soon as I challenged you (repeatedly, if you recall) to explain why the simulation used was able to produce the 6:1 figure, you eventually had to agree that that you could not even state what scenarios, modification states, weapons or adversaries had been used in the simulation. How, therefore, could you make a personal, informed judgement about the trial and it's conclusions? I suspect it's more likely that you chose to cling onto and repeatedly quote that figure because it suits your optimistic view of the project and your blinkered and entrenched stance of its successes AND FAILURES.

what are you on about?
I listen to the dozen air forces and LM who are doing these evaluations
they claim a simmed 6:1 with 4 vs 8 red and better than 6:1 when they are piloted.
I certainly give the above more credibility than a blogger

I don't consider this main group blinkered
Joint Strike Fighter Program - C-SPAN Video Library (http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/JointStri)
Defense Department officials testified on the cost, schedule, and performance of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program.

glad rag

19th Sep 2013, 07:32

http://paulbuijs.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/treadmill-image.gif

I think most people will by now be aware of your stance JSF.

LowObservable

19th Sep 2013, 14:33

Just waiting for all the JSF cheer squad to start praising Bogdan's success in "saving" the program, even though none of them would have acknowledged two years ago that it needed saving in the first place.

What Bogdan did, in fact, was to walk into the cockpit of AF447 and yell STICK FORWARD YOU STUPID :mad:S, and for this he deserves credit for doing his job.

Killface

19th Sep 2013, 15:31

Just waiting for all the JSF cheer squad to start praising Bogdan's success in "saving" the program, even though none of them would have acknowledged two years ago that it needed saving in the first place.

I love it when bold unsubstantiated claims are countered with bold unsubstantiated claims. "no one" who thinks the JSF might actually be good could acknowledge the program had troubles?
People who are realistic about the JSF will quickly concede the procurement has been harsh nasty brutish and long. The problem I have is when people equate that to combat capability. That issue gets confused on both sides, as the JSF fans feel they must defend a horrific procurement system in order to defend the JSF's future combat virtues. I see nothing wrong with claiming the program was in dire straights and in a lot of ways still has issues ahead, but will produce a good aircraft in the end. I say this because procurement has been so messed up for so long, yet still produces capable machines despite the issues.
Thats the problem here. procurement, cost, capability, politics, etc just gets lumped into one giant messy furball and no one bothers to separate one from the other, so in a single paragraph you will get hit with a procurement issue, massive costs/delays, future fleet sustainment ("1 trillion dollars!") and then Wheeler talking about battle damage. Claiming that Wheeler doesn't know his sphincter from a hole the ground doesn't suddenly mean you think the program is a peach, and a trillion dollars to sustain a fleet of 3,000 aircraft over 50 years is excessive.

kbrockman

19th Sep 2013, 21:58

The political leader for the Dutch Socialists party (one of the two ruling parties) just stated on TV that they cannot approve the F35 because the accounting office determined that one of the key parameters can not be met with the low amount of aircraft on order (37).
Minimally the Dutch must be able to operate all missions on a continuing base abroad with at least 4 Aircraft, something that is deemed impossible with only 37 Aircraft in the fleet.

A top up order to compensate for this shortfall is out of the question, failing to deliver on this key-parameter is an automatic no-go.
Also if this order goes ahead , the official order will only be set in the course of 2015, all price changes or substantial €/$ exchange-rate changes that lead to a price-increase and therefore a further reduction in numbers will automatically lead to a cancellation of the whole order.

It looks like the Dutch are putting all their eggs in a further partnership with Belgium and as such regaining the benefits of a combined Air Force of sufficient scale.

Whatever happens between now and 2015, it is going to be interesting one way or the other.
One possible and interesting solution could be that a combined split buy to reduce overall costs could mean that the total amount of F35's might be upped to 48 (11 extra for Belgium) and a fleet of 36-48 NG Gripens with limited specialised tasks like Air support, QRA, recce, .... .
One thing is certain, like our NAVIES before, we will melt together as one combined Air Force with one Airspace.
A330,Vip fleet, A400M's(3 or 4 extra) , NH90's, A109, ALPHAJET'S and the new fighters (F35+JAS39 ?) from Belgium combined with NH90, Chinook, Apache, F35 and KC10-DC10 from Holland with 5 airbases (Florennes, Kleine Brogel, Volkel, Gilze Rijen, Leeuwarden) and 1-2 extra station(Melsbroek or/and Eindhoven).

SpazSinbad

19th Sep 2013, 22:09

Politics is a wonderful thing...

Dutch to buy the F-35 jet fighter 17 Sep 2013 Andrea Ahles
"...Netherlands Government Statement:
...After comparing the candidates in 2001 and 2008, and updating the relevant information in 2013, the government has decided, on operational, financial and economic grounds, to select the F 35 as the new fighter aircraft for the Netherlands armed forces.

The F-35 is a well-considered choice for a high-tech, future-oriented air force. From a military operational perspective, the F-35 offers the greatest number of options. It is also the most future-proof option. The aircraft is best able to deal with the proliferation of mobile air defence systems and offers vastly improved observation capabilities, which are of great value in any type of mission. In addition, the aircraft offers great potential for follow-on development, particularly in the area of network-enabled operations. Also important are the possibilities for international cooperation in areas such as training, sustainment and deployment. NATO’s analyses underpin the Netherlands’ decision.

With this decision, which concludes a process of almost fifteen years, the Netherlands is responding to the Alliance's call for investment in quality and, consequently, in the collective security of the Alliance....

...International cooperation is the ideal way to further optimise operational effectiveness. An important step in this respect is the intention of Belgium and the Netherlands to patrol the Benelux airspace together. These Quick Reaction Alert (QRA) and Renegade tasks currently place heavy demands on the pilots and aircraft of the two separate countries. Cooperation will therefore significantly benefit both countries. A treaty will be required in order to be able to carry out these tasks in each other’s airspace....

...Compared with the current fleet of F-16s, the air force will in future be able to deploy fewer F-35s for longer periods of time. In addition to the permanent deployment for the protection of Dutch and Allied airspace, with 37 F-35s the Netherlands will continue to be able to deploy four fighter aircraft, simultaneously and continuously, to support Dutch ground troops as was done in Uruzgan and is still being done in Kunduz...."
Sky Talk: Dutch to buy the F-35 jet fighter (http://blogs.star-telegram.com/sky_talk/2013/09/dutch-to-buy-the-f-35-jet-fighter.html)

kbrockman

19th Sep 2013, 22:16

Spaszinbad,

Politics being what it is, your news is already old news, Mr Samson just categorically stated on TV that his fraction is going to vote against because the arbitrary advice given by the national accounting office stated that the 4 aircraft per mission on a continuing base is apparently impossible.

Pauw & Witteman: do 19 sep 2013, 23:00 - Uitzending Gemist (http://www.uitzendinggemist.nl/afleveringen/1366660).

SpazSinbad

19th Sep 2013, 22:50

Good for them and good for you... we will see eh. But I'll not watch the Dutch TV news - English web news reports will do fine. Meanwhile 'the SHERIFF' says this:

Twenty-Two Percent is Real 19 Sep 2013 John A. Tirpak
"Press reports about F-35 lifecycle costs—indicating that the new estimate is $857 billion versus the previous estimate of $1.1 trillion, or 22 percent less—were accurate, said F-35 Program Executive Officer Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan. "We're working well" with the Pentagon's independent cost-assessment shop to get to figures both teams can agree on, he said during a Sept. 17 interview. One difference of opinion: the cost-assessment office's estimates assume seasoned maintainers will be doing the repair work, since senior people have been tapped for the program so far. But eventually those jobs will be done by two-stripers, said Bogdan. Such assumptions make a "huge difference" in cost over the 53 years for which the cost estimators are required to forecast. Bogdan asserted that opponents of the F-35 have "too many opinions, not enough facts." He considers himself an honest broker and is not afraid to tell bad news about the F-35, or in this case, good news."
Twenty-Two Percent is Real (http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pages/2013/September%202013/September%2019%202013/Twenty-Two-Percent-is-Real.aspx)
________________________________

Turning the Corner 19 Sep 2013 John A. Tirpak
"The F-35 program is "really, really close" to turning the corner and becoming a truly healthy program, Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, F-35 program executive officer, told the Daily Report. He said he'll be satisfied the program has really turned around when production "really starts to ramp up" and after the next year or so of software and weapons testing—all the "really hard stuff" of operational testing. Once past that point, Bogdan said he thinks the program will not only be on track, but will cost less than fourth generation fighters. Progress has been good and costs are consistently coming down, he noted in the Sept. 17 interview. In his speech that same day at AFA's 2013 Air and Space Conference in National Harbor, Md., Bogdan said the services "are committed not to breaking this program" and will do what's necessary to keep it moving forward. In 10 years, Bogdan predicted, "people will look back and say, 'What was all the fuss about?'" The F-35, he said, will by then be seen as the obvious solution to "what we need" and will still have "great growth potential.""
Turning the Corner (http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pages/2013/September%202013/September%2019%202013/Turning-the-Corner.aspx)

Rhino power

19th Sep 2013, 23:18

In 10 years, Bogdan predicted, "people will look back and say, 'What was all the fuss about?'"

Yeah, right... Funniest thing I've read all day!

-RP

kbrockman

19th Sep 2013, 23:23

If anything, General Bogdan might be the best advocate for the F35, he (and his colleagues) seems genuinely concerned with what is best for the USAF iso being an extension for the interests of LM and partners.
I fully agree that the F35 is a reality for most of us but I think vigilance is now more than ever necessary and I can only hope we'll never again do big purchases in this manner any more.

As far as the B-NL cooperation goes, it might solve most of both of our biggest problems, having a large enough potent but sustainable Air Force
with enough F35's or IMHO a split fleet of F35's and JAS39's

FoxtrotAlpha18

20th Sep 2013, 00:59

FoxtrotAlpha,

Yes, I see your point. Four groups, then. I had hoed to sweep them up in group 1, but in hindsight the definition doesn't quite fit. Not intentional.

All good! :cool::ok:

SpazSinbad

20th Sep 2013, 01:05

Pass the Dutchie on the left hand side....

Labour members rebel on JSF, audit office says figures don't add up 19 Sep 2013 "The cabinet may have agreed to spend €4.5bn on 37 JSF fighter jets, but criticism of the decision is mounting both inside and outside parliament.

The government's audit office said on Thursday it had doubts about the defence ministry's spending plans and that there are gaps in the calculations about use of the JSF.

'The audit office does not support the statement that the defence ministry's vision will lead to a financially and operationally sustainable armed forces,' the statement said.

Missions
The ministry says four JSFs will always be available for international missions but there are doubts about whether this is possible, audit office chief Saskia Stuiveling said.

Savings which the ministry assumes will be made by working together with the Belgian airforce are unproven and questions remain about the ministry's chronic problems with aircraft maintenance, she is quoted as saying by the Financieele Dagblad.

In addition, the assumption that maintenance will cost €270m a year is 'unlikely' to be the case, Stuiveling said.

Labour MPs
Defence minister Jeanine Hennis outlined her vision for the armed forces on Tuesday, during the presentation of the annual budget. The plans include the loss of a further 2,400 jobs and the closure of four barracks.

Although the cabinet's decision is supported by Labour ministers, Labour MPs are not so happy with the greenlight for the JSF. [Must be the DutchTeePartay]

According to RTL news, party members are planning to submit a motion against the JSF to Saturday's party conference. The motion calls on the party to 'take all necessary steps to leave the JSF project, as agreed in last year's motion'.

And a number of Labour MPs told the Volkskrant on Thursday they feel they are being forced to accept the decision by the party leadership."
DutchNews.nl - Labour members rebel on JSF, audit office says figures don't add up (http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2013/09/labour_backers_rebel_on_jsf_au.php)

WhiteOvies

20th Sep 2013, 02:39

It looks like Dutch politics are going to cause the biggest problems for the Dutch AF. There are currently 2 Dutch F-35A flying and yet they still can't decide if they actually want them! Meanwhile are there any Dutch pilots or maintainers going through the Eglin training pipeline? It makes the UK procurement and political coalition look positively streamlined!:ouch:

Mk 1

20th Sep 2013, 03:23

I love it when bold unsubstantiated claims are countered with bold unsubstantiated claims. "no one" who thinks the JSF might actually be good could acknowledge the program had troubles?
People who are realistic about the JSF will quickly concede the procurement has been harsh nasty brutish and long. The problem I have is when people equate that to combat capability. That issue gets confused on both sides, as the JSF fans feel they must defend a horrific procurement system in order to defend the JSF's future combat virtues. I see nothing wrong with claiming the program was in dire straights and in a lot of ways still has issues ahead, but will produce a good aircraft in the end. I say this because procurement has been so messed up for so long, yet still produces capable machines despite the issues.
Thats the problem here. procurement, cost, capability, politics, etc just gets lumped into one giant messy furball and no one bothers to separate one from the other, so in a single paragraph you will get hit with a procurement issue, massive costs/delays, future fleet sustainment ("1 trillion dollars!") and then Wheeler talking about battle damage. Claiming that Wheeler doesn't know his sphincter from a hole the ground doesn't suddenly mean you think the program is a peach, and a trillion dollars to sustain a fleet of 3,000 aircraft over 50 years is excessive.

You hit the nail on the head with this post. The aircraft on the face of it seems like a dud, yet people that have access to info we don't seem to believe in the aircraft. Maybe the Lockmart marketing /and or bribery department can convince the airforce/government of Kameria that they have a wunderweapon, but to believe that the airforces of the US, UK, Australia et al are also drinking the 'kool aid' or suceptible to bribes is frankly an insult to the professionalism and integrity of these organisations and more importantly the people at the upper echelons. Armchair warriors like some on here, enthusiasts like others and even former fast jet pilots do not have access to the kind of data that making an informed decision on the relative merits of this airframe would require.

The JSF may be a compromised design due to trying to fulfil too many roles with one airframe, but it seems to be the best compromise available. Suck it up, it will succeed because too many countries cannot afford for it not to.

FoxtrotAlpha18

20th Sep 2013, 05:32

There are currently 2 Dutch F-35A flying...

Not flying, in storage!

SpazSinbad

20th Sep 2013, 05:46

Dutch maintainers are being trained to help look after the aircraft in storage to be able to supervise ongoing storage maintenance but that is going to change since recent decision I'll wager. Meanwhile - back at the ranch....

Crew Interviews from F-35B Ship Trials
"Published on Sep 19, 2013
Hear from the Marine and Navy aviators and maintainers that were aboard the USS Wasp for F-35B ship trials in August 2013."
Crew Interviews from F-35B Ship Trials - YouTube
__________________

Ship Trials Bring F-35B Capability, Operational Utility Into Focus
"FORT WORTH, Texas, September 19, 2013 - Recent ship trials for the Lockheed Martin [LMT] F-35B onboard the USS Wasp [LHD-1] underscored the fifth-generation fighter's unique capabilities and operational utility according to Marines and sailors alike.

In a video released today, U.S. Navy Capt. Erik Etz stated, "A fifth-generation aircraft, such as the F-35, will open up threat areas where previous legacy fighters that operate off L-class ships weren't even invited to play. So, an F-35B operating from this type of ship really gives a joint war-fighting commander different options to affect change in the world wherever it is necessary."

Marine Corps Capt. Mike Kingen, an F-35 test pilot, added, "Ship-borne capabilities are important for the F-35B because they are important for the Marine Corps. Having F-35B, having a stealth platform that's organic to that unit will allow us to support the Marines…. The F-35 is going to allow future pilots to worry less about stick and rudder skills and more about executing the mission."

"The fact that the Harrier was not fly by wire at all, there was nothing in between me and the flight controls," said Marine Corps Maj. Michael Rountree, an F-35 test pilot. "So, I could do things in the Harrier that would very specifically get me killed if I did them incorrectly. Whereas in this airplane there is a level of protection between me and those flight control surfaces. So in a mission - you know up and away from the ship - that's going to allow me more time to think about the tactical picture, thinking about how I'm going to support the Marines on the ground."

During the 18-day long ship trials, two F-35Bs conducted a series of tests to determine the aircraft's suitability for sea-based operations. The aircraft completed 95 vertical landings, 19 of which were conducted at night, and 94 short takeoffs. The ship trials, known as Developmental Test-II, were a key milestone on the Marine Corps' path to Initial Operating Capability which is scheduled for 2015...."
Lockheed Martin · Ship Trials Bring F-35B Capability, Operational Utility Into Focus (http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2013/september/130919ae_ship-trials-focus-f-35b-capability.html)

The Oberon

20th Sep 2013, 06:01

I could be putting my foot in it but all those launches and recoveries seemed to be under ideal conditions, flat calm and no headway. Has it been done with the deck rising and falling etc.?

rab-k

20th Sep 2013, 07:22

LiveLeak.com - RAF Pilot performs first UK takeoff of F-35B Lightning at sea

Wonder how the deck will hold up over time given the heat it must endure during the final phase of the recovery.

Courtney Mil

20th Sep 2013, 07:39

Excellent piece of film. :ok:

Will the Royal Navy ever forget that the first UK sortie from a ship was flown by a Royal Air Force pilot? :E

SpazSinbad

20th Sep 2013, 08:09

Video for 'The Oberon'....:} (I was raised by a toothless bearded CAG)

The Rolling Stones - Jumpin' Jack Flash (Lyrical)
"I was flown in a cross-fire hurricane
And I howled at CAG in the driving rain,
But it's all right now, in fact, it's a gas!
But it's all right. Im jumpin jack flash,
F-35B - Lightning II..."
The Rolling Stones - Jumpin' Jack Flash (Lyrical) - YouTube

MSOCS

20th Sep 2013, 11:26

Oberon,

F-35B on QEC will use a ramp instead of the USMC 'flat top' as shown in the USS Wasp videos. This will give more aircraft performance margin to UK F-35B launches for a given weight (i.e. higher payload compared to a flat deck launch for a given deck run, or, same load can be launched at higher ambient temp/low air pressure than flat deck run). In direct comparison to a flat deck launch the ramp's profile will help mitigate the condition where an F-35B leaves the deck as the ship approaches the bottom of a pitch down while also starting to heave upwards - i.e. you get less of a face full of sea, relatively speaking.

As John Farley has explained previously, ramps do cause issues with nose oleo compression/bottom-out at high AUW and/or ramp exit speeds so there is a trade off to be considered.

IMHO I'm glad UK went for a ramp option for QEC as I believe it provides the safest margin through-life as engine wear takes its toll on performance.

glojo

20th Sep 2013, 11:47

How happy would folks be if they had to operate this aircraft in contested airspace with little or no AEW capability?

We are all hearing how Crowsnest will be available sometime in the 'near future' but talk is cheap, deeds perhaps not quite as cheap and then how will that capability compare to a conventional fixed wing aircraft capability?

I am sure the T45 will give an adequate air early warning for those airborne threats that are kind enough to fly high enough to be detected but what about the threat that is not so obliging?

Will the carrier always have to operate under the protection of shore based assets or is it going to project power as per the First Sea Lords latest utterances.

Going slightly off topic, I was VERY surprised to hear these ships will be expected to operate with a crew of less than 700?? That would be an amaing achievement especially as they try to suggest this will be the numbers for when they are fully operational with a full complement of aircraft?

Not_a_boffin

20th Sep 2013, 12:49

Going slightly off topic, I was VERY surprised to hear these ships will be expected to operate with a crew of less than 700?? That would be an amaing achievement especially as they try to suggest this will be the numbers for when they are fully operational with a full complement of aircraft?

Don't know who "they" are, but I've never heard anyone reputable suggest that complement will be less than 1200 with full CAG embarked.

The ships complement (inc Air and AE depts) is I believe around the 700 mark as per CVS. The CAG and any Flag element will obviously bring more bodies.

LowObservable

20th Sep 2013, 14:27

Re Mk1's post -

When I hear people say that the JSF program must be all good, because the professionals who have the security clearances all say that it's good, which clearly trumps the opinions of armchair experts (dunno who they are, I never type in my armchair)...

I remind them that, exactly 100 years ago, the smartest military staff in the world, commanding the world's best trained and equipped army and with access to unique and advanced technology, was compiling the latest version of a plan that they firmly believed would gain them dominance of continental Europe in a matter of months.

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ltjrvpTKQo1qav1sxo1_1280.jpg

glojo

20th Sep 2013, 14:39

Hi Not a Boffin,
'They' were Captain Petitt RN but on reflection it may well be WITHOUT the embarked aircraft. He talks of a complement of 632. Many apologies for speaking before confirming :uhoh:

It is still a very, very small complement :O:O

glad rag

20th Sep 2013, 17:21

Suck it up, it will succeed because too many countries cannot afford for it not to.

What do you class as success though? A big order book [at massive cost to those involved] is a success?

orca

20th Sep 2013, 18:36

Oberon,

Just a case of crawl, walk then run - as one would expect.

I wonder if the ease of handling extends to some clever way of not following the deck when she's moving!

SpazSinbad

20th Sep 2013, 23:28

Lockheed Martin Girds for Combat Jet Choices as Dutch Back JSF 21 Sep 2013 Robert Wall
"...Norway and the U.K. have agreed to cooperate on their [F-35] maintenance and use. The Norwegian government said Sept. 17 it would seek to extend that cooperation to the Netherlands.

Those relationships should help lower usage costs across Europe, which would be further aided by U.S. F-35s jets deployed in the region, O’Bryan said. It would clear the way for a sharing of parts and experience...."
Lockheed Martin Girds for Combat Jet Choices as Dutch Back JSF - Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-20/lockheed-martin-girds-for-combat-jet-choices-as-dutch-back-jsf.html)

glad rag

21st Sep 2013, 08:39

Lockheed Martin Girds for Combat Jet Choices as Dutch Back JSF 21 Sep 2013 Robert Wall

Lockheed Martin Girds for Combat Jet Choices as Dutch Back JSF - Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-20/lockheed-martin-girds-for-combat-jet-choices-as-dutch-back-jsf.html)

"The country trimmed its purchase to 37 planes from an initial plan to procure 85. "
Well, once again [and as usual ] the spin drs rule this program.

John Farley

21st Sep 2013, 12:05

It seems to me that most posts on this topic have less connection with the thread title than possibly any others on PPRuNe.

Time to shut it and start a more realistic thread?

After all, does even the most anti camp (whatever their motives) really believe the programme is going to be cancelled at this stage? The USAF have made it clear it is one of the three programmes they want to keep even if it means loosing all sorts of others and the USMC is the USMC once they have made up their mind (and they have never lost a procurement battle since 1970).

Heathrow Harry

21st Sep 2013, 12:11

yes John but there's never been a financial mess like this one

Always a first time for the USMC to lose..................

Ronald Reagan

21st Sep 2013, 13:43

Its also possible the US will collapse totally due to its debt levels. If that happens I wonder what will happen to F-35! I also wonder what will happen to all of us as we likely will have a collapsed economy to.
The debt cannot keep building up like this, something has to give!

John Farley

21st Sep 2013, 13:50

HH

Sorry I don't know what financial mess you are refering to. The cost escalation? If so I don't see that as other than normal for all projects. As for the USMC why bin the B when it has done everything it has been asked to do as a flying machine (late doesn't count because evey project is always late and honestly what is another couple of years in a 40-45 year sevice life?

I am totally opposed to a close air support aircraft spec including supersonics (let alone stealth) so I am anti the USMC B but that does not mean I think it should or is likely to be scrapped. Funnily enough in my view a supersonic vertical lander makes more sense for the UK than the USMC. How about that for irony.

kbrockman

21st Sep 2013, 14:13

I doubt most here are seriously doubting an all out cancellation of the JSF program is written in the stars, that being said there are many scenarios possible for a lot of the current customers whereby the original order changes so much that alternate set-ups for their Air Forces are very likely.

Al least in Europe, and possibly also Canada and to a lesser extent Australia, the original order volumes seem more than ever unlikely to materialize.
There are many ways where the losses are going to have to be made up by other options, combined Air forces, more integration between different forces concerning maintenance, training, etc... (UK-Norway-NL-....?), maybe even cheaper to use platforms to make up for lost numbers (K50, NG-Gripen, F16V,F18SSH).
There are even scenarios out there whereby the biggest customer (USAF) might have to look at a second, cheaper to use platform to assist the F35 over its lifespan (weaponised TX).

The JSF , as it was originally conceived , seems to have gone through enough changes for this thread to warrant its existence and ,for now, to be kept alive.

glad rag

21st Sep 2013, 14:18

RR, the US or the UK?

glad rag

21st Sep 2013, 14:22

JF perhaps a thread title change would suffice?

:E

dat581

21st Sep 2013, 14:33

The F35 Hampster Wheel?

LowObservable

21st Sep 2013, 16:30

The thread starter was referring to the UK's program...

The full program is unlikely to be cancelled at this point.

The largest customer - the USAF - has painted itself into a corner. Even if the JSF is acquired as planned, it will still have a majority force of 40-year-old jets by 2030.

The US Navy is internally split (hence the CNO's hot-and-cold pronouncements on JSF and stealth in general) and hence is easy for the Pentagon top bosses to keep in line.

The Marines want the B, of course, because it is their own air force (neither the USAF nor big Navy wants the B). But it's not (in the Marine view) their money.

For the SecDef and joint leadership, cancellation would be a vast loss of face.

"Too big to fail" means "too big to face the consequence of failure".

longer ron

21st Sep 2013, 16:34

Any year now a 'B' will actually fly off a ski jump :)

Ronald Reagan

21st Sep 2013, 17:33

Probably both the US and UK glad rag! Would imagine if the US does go it will take us down to plus much of the western world. It would likely make the 1930s look like a picnic! :(
If it does happen I wonder if anyone will be able to afford to fly anything at all let alone buy large numbers of F-35.

Bastardeux

22nd Sep 2013, 04:13

The US isn't going to go down, the gilt yields on its borrowing aren't going to be rocketing through the roof any time soon so it is easily capable of servicing all it's debt. The total level of debt, by enlarge, isn't the big issue, but rather the timespan and cost of repaying the debt.

Ronald Reagan

22nd Sep 2013, 07:49

Bastardeux, what happens if the debt keeps growing over the next 10 to 20 years at around the current rates? Assuming that it can last that long. I would imagine the idea of to big to fail comes into play but how long can that last for!? Your far more optimistic than I am.

Bastardeux

23rd Sep 2013, 03:33

It's highly unlikely to keep growing at the same rate over the next 10 to 20 years, hence the budget control act. They recognise their current spending is completely unsustainable and that they need to cut their deficit as soon as possible. I would never say never, but it's wholly unlikely.

SpazSinbad

23rd Sep 2013, 07:53

The Making of a Joint Strike Fighter Pilot Welcome to the fifth generation.
By Art Tomassetti Air & Space magazine, November 2013
"...Center stick pilots need to become side stick pilots. Push button and analog pilots need to become touch screen and digital pilots. Head-up-display pilots need to become helmet-mounted-display pilots. Fourth generation pilots need to become fifth generation pilots. We’re still learning what the F-35 can do, and we need people who know the airplane and can continue to drive it to its ultimate performance...."
&
"Colonel Art Tomassetti retired from the U.S. Marine Corps in August after 27 years of service and 3,200 hours in 40 types of aircraft. He served two tours as an AV-8B pilot, including combat missions in Operation Desert Storm."
The Making of a Joint Strike Fighter Pilot | Military Aviation | Air & Space Magazine (http://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/The-Making-of-a-Joint-Strike-Fighter-Pilot-223970321.html)

Heathrow Harry

23rd Sep 2013, 13:22

JF wrote "Sorry I don't know what financial mess you are referring to."

The Congressional Budget office shows that Federal Debt as a % of US GDP is set to rise from around 80% today to 100% in the late 2020's and 200% by 2038

On October 1st 35% of annual budget requires re-authorisation by a totally split Congress who aren't even talking to each other

Sounds like a bit of a mess to me John................ something has to give and as it's unlikely to be federal Salaries, Medicare, pensions, interest on the national Debt, homeland security etc

peter we

23rd Sep 2013, 16:35

something has to give and as it's unlikely to be federal Salaries, Medicare, pensions, interest on the national Debt, homeland security etc

You do realise that sequestration is an automatic 10% cut to many budgets each year until the politicians can agree on a budget.

And so the deficit issue will solve itself eventually.

The pentagon was voted the ability to choose where its cuts apply but every other department loses a further 10% each year without any discretion whatsoever. Apparently, the F-35 will be the last budget to be cut, everything else will go first..

Heathrow Harry

23rd Sep 2013, 16:46

except the pay of generals, admirals and other SO's no doubt....................

CBO projected in February 2013 that under the sequester and Budget Control Act caps:

Defense spending outlays (including "overseas contingency operations" for Iraq and Afghanistan) will be reduced from $670.3 billion in 2012 to approximately $627.6 billion in 2013, a decrease of $42.7 billion or 6.4%. Defense spending will fall again to $593.4 billion in 2014, a decrease of $34.2 billion or 5.5%.
Defense spending will rise gradually from $593 billion in 2014 to $714 billion by 2023, an annual growth rate of 2.1% during the 2014 to 2023 period and 0.6% for the 2012-2023 period. The 2.1% growth rate approximates CBO's projected rate of inflation and is well below the annual spending growth rate of 7.1% from 2000-2012.
Defense spending will fall steadily from 4.3% GDP in 2012 to 2.8% GDP by 2023. Defense spending averaged 4.0% GDP from 1990 to 2012, ranging from 3.0% GDP to 5.2% GDP.

The Pentagon sent Congress a report (in June) providing details of $37 billion in sequestration cuts affecting defense contractors from Lockheed (LMT) (http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/LMT:US) Martin Corp. to Huntington Ingalls Industries Inc. (HII) (http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/HII:US)

(http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/HII:US)
The report, provided yesterday and required by the current year’s defense appropriations measure, lists the amounts that Congress appropriated for the Pentagon’s 2,500 programs, project and budget activities, and shows how much each will be reduced by the automatic spending reductions that took effect March 1.

The Air Force’s $2.5 billion to buy 19 F-35 jets made by Lockheed reflects a sequestration cut of $503 million, according to the report. The Navy’s final $808 million to buy four carrier-model F-35s incorporates a $157 million cut, and its $1 billion for six Marine Corps short-takeoff-and vertical landing fighters reflects a $146 million reduction.

While the report doesn’t spell out the number of weapons cut in each program, defense companies will be able to use the report to determine “what funding is available for that particular program for the fiscal year,” John Roth, the Pentagon’s deputy comptroller for programs and budgets, said in an interview.

The purpose is to provide Congress a baseline of Pentagon funding that defense committees will review as they consider a Pentagon reprogramming request to move $9.6 billion between categories and mostly into readiness accounts.
V-22, Drones

In other weapons cuts, the Navy’s $1.3 billion appropriation to buy 18 additional V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft from Boeing Co. (BA) (http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/BA:US) and Bell Helicopter Textron Inc. (TXT) (http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/TXT:US) reflects an $18 million reduction.

The Air Force’s final $82 million on 717 laser-guided Lockheed Hellfire missiles fired by Predator and Reaper drones incorporates a cut of $313,000.

On shipbuilding, the $1.74 billion Congress approved for construction of Littoral Combat Ships made by Lockheed and Austal Ltd. (ASB) (http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/ASB:AU) reflects a cut of $43.6 million, and $437 million provided as a down payment on DDG-51 destroyers built by Huntington Ingalls and General Dynamics Corp. (GD) (http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/GD:US) reflects a $28 million reduction.

The $3 billion for two additional Virginia-class submarines made by Huntington Ingalls and General Dynamics reflects a $227 million reduction.

FoxtrotAlpha18

24th Sep 2013, 00:24

The Making of a Joint Strike Fighter Pilot Welcome to the fifth generation.
By Art Tomassetti Air & Space magazine, November 2013

Tomasetti is a guy worth listening to...if he hasn't done it in the Harrier, X-35 and F-35, it ain't worth doing!

kbrockman

24th Sep 2013, 15:09

Another chance for the F35 in S Korea.
Boeing Spurned as South Korea Plans New Tender for Jet Fighters - Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-23/boeing-favored-to-win-7-7-billion-south-korean-jet-fighter-deal.html)

Boeing Spurned as South Korea Plans New Tender for Jet Fighters

Courtney Mil

24th Sep 2013, 15:18

Someone's playing a very canny game there. It will be interesting to see if LockMart budge on their price. Of course, if they did, all the other customers will want the same deal.

John Farley

24th Sep 2013, 15:58

HH

Having read my post again it might have been better if I said which financial mess not what financial mess.

I do not suggest that there are not all sorts of financial messes around in the US the UK and the world.

My water bag just does not happen to feel that any of them will lead to any F-35 related cancellation.

Heathrow Harry

24th Sep 2013, 16:04

well the Dutch cited costs in cutting their planned order in half and they didn't rule out further cuts if the price continues to escalate

the Dutch have been one of the first, but not the last, out of several programs over the years IIRC

ORAC

24th Sep 2013, 16:07

How to Make Sense of the U.K.'s F-35 Buy: Hire Better Sub Editors (http://www.angusbatey.com/index.php?id=770&category=blog)

.....had I dreamed up the whole thing about the government cutting the Labour administration's order? Wasn't it all part of an SDSR that had stressed how the purse strings had to be tightened and that the profligacy and reckless over-commitment by the previous administration had to come to an end? I went back to the SDSR: but no, it's still there - page 26/7. So I called the MoD press office to ask how it's possible that the prime contractor and the minister seem to be proceeding as if the SDSR had never happened.

"We'll get back to you," they said. And, on Friday morning, they did. The planned reduction in the number of aircraft was, it turns out, tied to the decision to buy the C rather than the B. The thinking - unpublished in the SDSR but known to its authors - was that the greater range of the C meant that fewer aircraft would be required to deliver the same military capability. When that decision was reversed, and the STOVL version went back on the UK's shopping list, the reduction in fleet size was also reversed, and the planned UK buy went back from the unspecified lower number to 138.

As if all of this wasn't already reading like a draft for a plot line in a future episode of Yes, Minister or The Thick of It, the reason for my confusion seals the deal. I have been confounded by a point of grammar.
The item at the top of page 27 reads, in full: "...reduce our planned number of Joint Strike Fighter aircraft. Installing a catapult on the new aircraft carrier will allow us to switch to the more capable carrier variant." Had those two sentences been rearranged and written as one - perhaps, for instance: "...Installing a catapult on the new aircraft carrier will allow us to switch to the more capable carrier variant, reducing the number of Joint Strike Fighter aircraft we need to acquire" - the meaning would have been clear.

The cut in numbers is not a separate issue from the change to cat-and-trap planes - and had those two points not been in separate sentences, everyone would have known for all this time that Britain was still buying 138 jets. My colleagues in the aerospace and defence media who have been writing those detailed editorials and speculative future-force analysis pieces for the past three years could have saved themselves all that brain hurt had a sub-editor in Whitehall managed to grasp the utility of the semicolon. Three years of everyone in the world (apart from staff at Lockheed Martin and the MoD) assuming that the spiralling financial crisis that has seen unprecedented cuts to the British armed services would not, after all, affect the amount of money the country is intending to spend on the most expensive defence equipment programme in history could have been avoided with a little more care in the presentation of two sentences in a single government publication.

Only one small issue remains unresolved. Presumably, therefore, at the time I first spoke to O'Bryan in 2011 - at which point Britain was committed to buying the F-35C - the British government's position was that it was buying fewer than 138 of them, but had not informed Lockheed Martin. Or maybe they did try to tell them, but they put a comma in the wrong place.

In the wrong hands, the English language can be a dangerous tool. At least, this time, its misuse will not - it would appear - end up costing British businesses millions. And for that, at least - and finally - I am thankful. I await Main Gate, and/or the next SDSR, with interest.

Heathrow Harry

24th Sep 2013, 16:12

ORAC - I'll bet we buy less than 64.................

ORAC

24th Sep 2013, 16:16

ORAC - I'll bet we buy less than 64................. I'll agree with that, but they've punted the decision into the long grass till after the next election. The later the decision the later any change to the programme and less chance of losing work share as well.

John Farley

24th Sep 2013, 16:22

FA18

I agree with what you say about Art. He did an excellent job on the X program when the competition pressures as well as the technical ones were considerable.

The write up linked above is worth a very slow and careful read. It only has one word wrong - camera instead of projector on the second page.

Heathrow Harry

24th Sep 2013, 16:22

but the higher the cost (or at least the headline cost as used by newspapers and politicos) and hence the greater "dividend" in cancelling

If Labour are thinking of ditching the HS rail link I can't see many F-35's surviving

Courtney Mil

24th Sep 2013, 20:04

Bloody hell! That is alarming to say to say the least. Now you have posted that, ORAC, I am re-reading earlier publications in a different light. All I can say is "Bugger". So now what? It's not being properly thought through, is it?

peter we

24th Sep 2013, 20:57

Lockheed have gone on record to say that as the UK hold 20% of the IP of the F-35, cutting the order won't make much difference.

SpazSinbad

24th Sep 2013, 22:13

Speculation on the Singapore B Buy has been well canvassed at this point.... Lotsa order speculation in the article.

Lockheed eyes dozens of orders for F-35 jets in coming months 25 Sep 2013 Andrea Shalal-Esa
"WASHINGTON, Sept 24 (Reuters) - Lockheed Martin Corp , nearing completion of its 100th F-35 fighter jet, anticipates dozens of international orders or commitments for the new radar-evading warplane in coming months, according to U.S. government officials and industry executives....

...And Singapore may announce an initial order of one dozen F-35 jets or more at the Singapore air show in February.

Military officials from the United States and eight other countries that helped fund development of the F-35 will meet in Istanbul this week to review progress on the fighter jet that will replace the popular F-16 and a dozen other warplanes now in use around the world, according to a Pentagon spokeswoman....

...FOREIGN ORDERS FIRMING UP
After years of political wrangling, the Netherlands last week became the seventh foreign country to make a firm commitment to buy F-35s, joining Britain, Australia, Italy, Norway, Israel and Japan....

...Meanwhile, Singapore was moving closer to formalizing plans for an initial order of F-35[B?]s, according to U.S. and industry officials, who say an announcement about a dozen or more jets could come at the Singapore air show in February...."
Lockheed eyes dozens of orders for F-35 jets in coming months - Yahoo Finance UK (http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/lockheed-eyes-dozens-orders-f-150727603.html)

Courtney Mil

24th Sep 2013, 22:14

IP is one thing. Numbers on the front line to do what we need is quite another. Clearly the current government's position on this is "confused" at best. A potential future Labour govenrment's position may be somewhat clearer. I don't know about you, but that worries me.

EDIT: Sorry, in the minute it took me to type this post, another great news post about the programme has appeared. Just to be clear, I was responding to Peter WE. My concerns are not about the programme as a whole, it's about Britain's fututre capability.

kbrockman

24th Sep 2013, 22:58

All this begs the question, if 5 years or more from now, the US DoD or one of its arms (NAVY, MARINES, USAF) come to their senses and decide to seriously reduce order volumes ,will they also cut back on the amount of work they (US Companies) get and use more suppliers from its 'partner' nations?
I somehow seriously doubt that.

There is a reason that even the Dutch with their "official" order for 37 planes will not fully and officially commit before 2015, like they said last week.

One thing seems ever more certain, some of the partners are going to be royally shafted when severe order reductions come into effect, the Americans have done it before with every single STEALTH program and most of the other big military programs, with the ongoing sequestration and the rapidly rising debt levels something will have to give.
All this combined with the fact that the US is once again in a post War period (not unlike Post-Vietnam) with an ongoing crisis and a declining popularity of the military ,not the men but rather the organization as a whole, could very well mean that the defense budget will be cut much more than many realize today.

Officially LM insists on keeping the original order volumes from all of its partners ,I bet even the Canadians who still seem to be suffering from severe cold-feet up until today.
Reality is that only the most oblivious F35 fans believe that the F35 will be produced in the quantities originally predicted, it all seems to come down to a game of chicken whereby the first ones to really officially reduce their orders with LM to more believable levels will be the ones that will have to suffer the most reduction in work share.
I wouldn't be to surprised if we see some surprise moves whereby the bigger customers decide to delay their orders (for whatever reason) just to make sure that they keep the option of cancelling most of their orders ultimately but keep as big a share of the work as possible (eg F35C for US NAVY, UK F35's, Italian F35's,....)

peter we

24th Sep 2013, 23:00

I thought it was confirmed a week ago, 138 is still the number and there is no chance of a split order - its the B.

Neither party will give up on the UK's aerospace industry and the F-35 is more important to the UK for that, than an military asset.

I wasn't aware of any serious calls to abandon the F-35 in the UK - from any party. Confusion? not really.

The Netherlands is a special case, their budget is seriously screwed up and they are no indication of what will happen elsewhere.

South Korea is interesting. Apparently the airforce had predetermined they wanted the F-35 and went through the motions of having a competition.

SpazSinbad

24th Sep 2013, 23:05

For 'kbrockman' This is the current LM F-35 official order book.
F-35 Lightning II Program Status and Fast Facts 09 Sep 2013
"...Planned Quantities*
USAF 1,763 F-35As
USN 260 F-35Cs
USMC 340 F-35Bs/80 F-35Cs
U.K. RAF/RN 138 F-35Bs
Italy 60 F-35As/30 F-35Bs
Netherlands 85 F-35As
Turkey 100 F-35As
Australia 100 F-35As
Norway 52 F-35As
Denmark 30 F-35As
Canada 65 F-35As
Israel 19 F-35As
Japan 42 F-35As
*Based on current programs of record...."
https://www.f35.com/assets/uploads/downloads/12648/f-35fast_facts.pdf (165Kb)

kbrockman

24th Sep 2013, 23:11

The Netherlands is a special case, their budget is seriously screwed up and they are no indication of what will happen elsewhere.

That is a somewhat simplistic representation of reality.
Budget troubles among the partners are more the rule than the exception, Italy, Denmark, Canada and even the US are all seriously suffering on this front, even Australia and Norway are far from certain.
The Japanese still have the right to completely abandon their order in case of further price increases.
The only reason that the Dutch are now in the picture is that politically they had to publicly commit to keep the minority coalition alive, they made it seem like they came to a final compromise between the liberals and labour (the 2 ruling parties) but that is more cosmetics than anything else, the devil is ,as usually, in the details, Samson (fraction leader Labour) clearly stated that they can make up their mind (read change) until 2015 or 2016 ,or even longer when extra in the program delays happen.

For 'kbrockman' This is the current LM F-35 official order book.
F-35 Lightning II Program Status and Fast Facts 09 Sep 2013

Thx Spaszinbad, like you can see, officially all partners keep their orders numbers, nobody wants to loose work share today thereby underwriting my previous statement that this is gong to be a game of chicken as to whome has to cancel first, and before anyone doubts this, it will happen with most of the partners.

Rhino power

24th Sep 2013, 23:15

Looks like LM's 'official' order book needs updating...

-RP

SpazSinbad

25th Sep 2013, 00:45

Over the years LM have made it clear the 'official order record' is changed by governments of countries notifying LM. Best get your government to change the official record. No?

Finningley Boy

25th Sep 2013, 04:15

Sir Michael Graydon: UK now lags behind Argentina - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/10326318/Sir-Michael-Graydon-UK-now-lags-behind-Argentina.html)

This may well have been read by many on here already, however, just in case, I've attached the link any road up. I have frustratedly thrown no end of objects which have come to hand at the telly every time someone from the Government
has said, in response to any suggestion/accusation that they have over cut HM Forces assets and personnel, that we have the fourth largest defence budget in the world!:ugh:

FB:)

SpazSinbad

25th Sep 2013, 05:28

Korea Dumps Boeing F-15 For Stealth; F-35 Pacific Sweep Likely 24 Sep 2013 Colin Clark
"...“This outcome is no surprise (I predicted it in the Financial Times on September 17). Boeing didn’t make any mistakes, but it lacked an offering that could match the F-35 in survivability, situational awareness and other key performance parameters,” Loren Thompson, member of the Breaking Defense Board of Contributors and top defense consultant, writes in an email. “South Korea’s decision indicates that Seoul valued combat performance more highly than price in its evaluation.”

And the likely choice of Lockheed Martin’s F-35A — that may well be supplemented by F-35Bs — will place another chain in the long link of F-35 countries in the Pacific: Japan, Singapore and Australia. Add to those the American F-35s at bases throughout the Pacific. Air Force F-35s probably will head to four bases: Misawa, Japan; Kadena, Japan; Osan Air Base, Korea; and Kunsan Air Base, Korea. And F-35Cs will fly from carriers and F-35Bs from other Navy ships and Marine bases in the region.

To get some idea as to why capabilities trumped price — something Reuters and other news agencies said yesterday was not likely to happen because of South Korea’s fiscal situation — consider that 15 former South Korean Air Force chiefs of staff publicly argued that their country must buy a stealth aircraft.

Below are some excerpts from two interviews with them. Note the comments that DAPA must take stealth into account and not focus solely on price...."
Korea Dumps Boeing F-15 For Stealth; F-35 Pacific Sweep Likely « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary (http://breakingdefense.com/2013/09/24/korea-dumps-boeing-f-15-for-stealth-f-35-pacific-sweep-likely/)

JSFfan

25th Sep 2013, 06:37

The full program is unlikely to be cancelled at this point.
The largest customer - the USAF - has painted itself into a corner. Even if the JSF is acquired as planned, it will still have a majority force of 40-year-old jets by 2030.
LO that's a bit early to switch tack, the naysayers song changes verse at IOC doesn't it?

SpazSinbad

25th Sep 2013, 09:18

F-35: New fighter creates new culture for 21st Century and beyond 25 Sep 2013 Air Force News Agency

F-35: New fighter creates new culture for 21st Century and beyond | Aviation & Air Force News at DefenceTalk (http://www.defencetalk.com/f-35-new-fighter-creates-new-culture-for-21st-century-and-beyond-49176/)

PhilipG

25th Sep 2013, 09:25

I notice that the USAF is still on record as wanting to purchase 1,763 F35As.
What is unclear to me is what they are going to do with them, if as we understand the c350 A10s are to be retired early, and the USAF has according to various sources between 1,000 and 1,100 active F16s, this is before any sequestration cuts to fund the F35 program.

Soon after some more cuts it would seem that the USAF plan would call for each active F16 to be replaced by 2 F35s.

Could someone please point out the error in this analysis.

If I am correct and the USAF has to reduce the number its purchases, by about 800 the unit price will go through the roof, making it even less affordable.

peter we

25th Sep 2013, 10:27

Could someone please point out the error in this analysis.

I'd guess, its over a 40 year period, so early models would be retired

Courtney Mil

25th Sep 2013, 10:32

the naysayers song changes verse at IOC doesn't it?

The problem there is, to you, a naysayer is anyone who ever spots a problem with the program or dares to express any opinion other than total faith and public worship.

JSFfan

25th Sep 2013, 11:27

Come on CM, that's a logic fail to say that the air forces are in a corner and it's the usual shift from LO and the clowns when their 'cancelled tomorrow' nonsense even looks silly to them

Ronald Reagan

25th Sep 2013, 13:33

Ha ha the idea of the USA getting 1,763 F-35As is just not going to happen. They will be lucky to get 763!!!!! I can imagine them having something like 500 or 600 or so. The navy and marines will end up with far less to.
Even by retiring legacy aircraft now the cost is going to be to great to buy so many F-35s. Also once there is another round or two of BRAC cuts there will be a lot less bases and fighter wings.
I remember when the USAF wanted 700 or so F-22s, then it was 380 and in the end they got 180!

t43562

25th Sep 2013, 13:35

FWIW this whole thing seems familiar to me - big project, can't fail, sacrifice more and more and more to it because you've removed all other options.

Success becomes an arbitrary issue - eventually you can make all sorts of **** designs work if you are indomitable enough and have a lot of cash reserves.

The end of it is whether other people can do better.

I've been in this position - indomitable big spender gets killed by another entity whose assumptions about what matters were more realistic. They appeared to do more with less although that wasn't true. We just did a lot of things that weren't actually important and not enough of what was. Mostly we tried to make unworkable things work which costs a lot of time and energy.

Right up to and after the coup-de-grace management went on pouring out oodles of bull****. Hence I have no respect for public companies or their statements about how good anything is - they are there to represent a particular viewpoint which is one that favours their stock. They may stop short of lying but that still allows enormous leeway.

Rhino power

25th Sep 2013, 14:29

Over the years LM have made it clear the 'official order record' is changed by governments of countries notifying LM
I think the Dutch government 'notifying' LM of their decision to more than halve their original order of the Joint****eFighter from 85 to 37 is offiicial enough, don't you?

-RP

ORAC

25th Sep 2013, 14:57

"...Planned Quantities*
USAF 1,763 F-35As No more money to cover F-35 delays, says USAF (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/no-more-money-to-cover-f-35-delays-says-usaf-369838/)

The US Air Force's top civilian leaders say that orders for the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will be cut if costs continue to rise.

"We have told the contractor and the programme office that there is no more money," USAF secretary Michael Donley told the US Senate Armed Services Committee on 20 March. "To the extent that if there continues to be cost growth or challenges it's going to be paid for by tails." Donley said that a fiscal year 2013 budget decision to defer production of some aircraft will cost money, but that those numbers are not yet available. Some of the deferred conventional take-off and landing F-35As would be bought later, "or not at all", he added......

LowObservable

25th Sep 2013, 15:01

But you need the "official" partner numbers to maintain the production ramp-up, and technically, nobody can say for sure that the Cloggies won't buy 48 more jets, or that the UK won't take another 90, until the production line closes.

On the other hand, if they do start seeing more FMS numbers outside the partnership, and don't need the UK and Netherlands orders as badly, they will point to their reduced offtake as they take work away from the Eurobacksliders and use it to lure new customers into the program.

For the record, by the way, "prediction is very difficult, especially when it concerns the future" and saying that the JSF program should be cancelled is not the same as saying that it will be cancelled. I have generally avoided the latter because I do not underestimate the power of inertia and human vanity.

PhilipG

25th Sep 2013, 15:32

LO The point I was making was the FMS numbers are nothing compared to the USAF numbers, if the A10 is to be retired early as well as some F16s units going then the number of F35As required to directly replace (1:1) the active F16 fleet would be in the region of 8-900 not the ordered 1,763.

I cannot see the USAF being granted the funds to nearly double the size of its fighter / attack fleet materially in the future.

If this is the case then the unit cost must go through the roof, it has been the most expensive development project in the US DOD's history, unless someone is just going to wright off all the development costs..

Lowe Flieger

25th Sep 2013, 18:09

Angus Batey - weblog / archive (http://www.angusbatey.com/index.php?id=770&category=blog)

The link is to an item I came across courtesy of Aviation Weeks' Ares blog.

According to this reading of the MoD's current position, the UK requirement officially remains at 138 F35Bs. You may detect a certain scepticism in the writer's language, but there is obviously a tricky balance to be struck between a higher unit price and possible industrial penalties for a reduced order, yet still trying to balance the defence procurement budget.

Sophistry rules?

LF

SpazSinbad

25th Sep 2013, 19:02

'RhinoPower' said:
"Quote:
Originally Posted by SpazSinbad
Over the years LM have made it clear the 'official order record' is changed by governments of countries notifying LM
I think the Dutch government 'notifying' LM of their decision to more than halve their original order of the Joint****eFighter from 85 to 37 is offiicial enough, don't you?
-RP "

What is your point? The quoted official list from LM dated 09 Sep. Dutch make known new numbers 17 Sep. Have the Dutch officially changed their order with LM. I do not know. Do you?

JSFfan

25th Sep 2013, 20:50

ORAC what your post doesn't tell you is that they are referring to SDD money and LRIP tails being shifted right
never take a naysayer at face value

Lowe Flieger, thanks for your post and its answers
The planned reduction in the number of aircraft was, it turns out, tied to the decision to buy the C rather than the B. The thinking - unpublished in the SDSR but known to its authors - was that the greater range of the C meant that fewer aircraft would be required to deliver the same military capability. When that decision was reversed, and the STOVL version went back on the UK's shopping list, the reduction in fleet size was also reversed, and the planned UK buy went back from the unspecified lower number to 138 .

LowObservable

25th Sep 2013, 20:53

The Dutch have ordered two F-35s, which have been built and (in the case of at least one of them) placed in storage at Dutch expense, because they were supposed to be used for IOT&E, which now won't happen for a few years and will be done with a different build standard of aircraft.

The production, sustainment and follow-on development MoU says 85 aircraft, but is about as binding as a bran muffin. The same goes for the UK's 138 aircraft.

The Cloggies are actually buying 35 more jets for a total of 37.

JSFfan

25th Sep 2013, 20:55

keep up, one is in storage, one isn't

WhiteOvies

26th Sep 2013, 00:31

Something to think about:

With JSF replacing Harrier and Tornado GR4 and the RAF committed to a 2 aircraft type fast jet fleet (Typhoon and F-35 by the 2020s) what do you replace Typhoon with in about 10 - 15 yrs time?

Whilst UCAVs look great for deep strike missions they really aren't a good shape for Air - Air combat. I don't see anyone friendly developing a new, manned fighter and 10 yrs from concept to IOC seems impossible these days.

Anyone want to bet 138 F-35 (prob mix of A & B) will be the only manned aircraft the RAF will have in the not too distant future?

Ronald Reagan

26th Sep 2013, 10:38

I think your right WhiteOvies. I am sure I read somewhere that the plan is to retire Typhoon and replace them with F-35, am sure it mentioned the A model. As you say the future is probably 138 or so F-35s and that its for the UK military. I think they were talking around the 2030 period for this.

Heathrow Harry

26th Sep 2013, 12:27

138?

Not a hope - if the next Govt is Lab or Lab/Lib they'll be looking for cuts in all military programmes

if its Tory or Tory/Lib they'll have to finish paying for the carriers and financing the replacement SSBN programme

We'll be "re-working" Typhoons to fill the gap

ORAC

26th Sep 2013, 12:50

With JSF replacing Harrier and Tornado GR4 and the RAF committed to a 2 aircraft type fast jet fleet (Typhoon and F-35 by the 2020s) what do you replace Typhoon with in about 10 - 15 yrs time? Whilst UCAVs look great for deep strike missions they really aren't a good shape for Air - Air combat. I don't see anyone friendly developing a new, manned fighter and 10 yrs from concept to IOC seems impossible these days. The Navy Kicks off the Search for Its Next Fighter (http://defensetech.org/2012/04/16/the-navy-kicks-off-the-search-for-its-next-fighter/)

.......As a top level summary of some of the required system capabilities, the air vehicle should be capable of addressing the following needs:

1.Capable of operating from CVN 68 and CVN 78 class aircraft carriers, as part of the Carrier AirWing (CVW), with minimal impact on the ship configuration and the operations of the rest of theCVW.

2.This aircraft will be a complementary CVW asset to the F-35C and an unmanned persistentintelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) vehicle with precision strike capability.

3. The ability to conduct persistent, penetrating operations in an A2AD operational environment.

4. The ability for an IOC in the 2030 timeframe. If a spiral approach to incorporation of systemsand/or technology to achieve full operational capability is employed, provide the timeline toachieve full capability..........

kbrockman

26th Sep 2013, 13:01

JSF Nieuws.nl » Japan: traditional F-35 stealth will be obsolete within 10 years (http://www.jsfnieuws.nl/?p=1032)
The Japanese newsagency NHK News report that Japan will invest in the development of radartechnology for detecting stealth aircraft.

Perfect stealth detection in 2020

The Japan Defense Ministry has reservered a budget of US$40 for the first step in 2013 to support the hightech Japanese industry to develop radar which will be capable of detecting and tracking stealth aircraft. Sources within the Japanse R&D Defence Institute said that the new radar would detect an enemy stealth fighter at a distance by emitting high-powered radar waves in a focused way. In addition, a new system will be developed to share positional information of the stealth fighter with a central control system to intercept it. The central system can be integrated with fighter-aircraft, ship airdefense and ground-based airdefense missile batteries by datalink technology. In this way each battlefield unit (aircraft, vehicle, ship) may share the data from these new type of radars. New high tech radar systems will be supplemented by other detection sensors (like infrared) in one integrated system.
....
Conclusion

These new detection systems could reverse a 30-year trend that has seen the U.S. Air Force gain an increasing advantage over enemy defenses. The long development time makes the F-35 obsolete when entering operational servies in 2020. It is an old concept, based on ideas of the nineties of the 20th century. The limitations of the stealth design will limit it operational lifetime and it will be impossible to use it as long (30 years) as the F-16. No any F-117 stealth fighter is still in use, after only 17 years of service……….

Cspook

26th Sep 2013, 13:35

According to JDW (18 Sept) Philip Dunne said at DSEI that a split buy of F-35B and F-35A was no longer being considered for the RAF/RN. "....very agonising decisions on which variant to buy (when B was briefly dropped in favour of C), and we have no intentions of reopening those discussions (wrt B and A)" This is at variance with what Hammond has said stating that a number of F-35As may be procured to offset the cut in numbers of B to 48.

The Helpful Stacker

26th Sep 2013, 14:39

The Japan Defense Ministry has reserved a budget of US$40 for the first step...

Thats not much.

Heathrow Harry

26th Sep 2013, 16:38

they used some LM figures as a guide..............................

Courtney Mil

26th Sep 2013, 17:10

It's an interesting idea that F-35 may one day be the RAF/RN's only fast jet. Not that fast, but it's a classification. If things work out well, F-35 could well serve its purpose as a small, multi-role war fighter, capable of self-escort up to a point and able to make a fist of most of the other associated, required roles. It should, that's the idea.

However, it isn't ever going to be a specialist air defence or air superiority (supremecy, or what ever next year's buzz word might be) fighter. It isn't designed with that in mind so it would be foolish to expect it to do that.

It may well come to that, but it is easy to see that we would end up with a very big and significant capability gap with just F-35 doing homeland defence. Unless the Government wants to face the worst possible scenario, a thread on PPRuNe titled "Scrapping the Typhoon was Bonkers", they might need to start thinking about the Typhoon replacement pretty soon. It does do the AD role rather well.

OK, a handful of people here will love to think that F-35 can do the pure AD job and that Typhoon is a dirty word. But, amongst its other, newer roles, it does do AD extremely well. Certainly better than F-35 will.

glad rag

26th Sep 2013, 18:09

HH = belter :D

General question, what was the service life of the F117?

ta

gr

Not_a_boffin

26th Sep 2013, 18:40

Unless the Government wants to face the worst possible scenario, a thread on PPRuNe titled "Scrapping the Typhoon was Bonkers", they might need to start thinking about the Typhoon replacement pretty soon. It does do the AD role rather well.

F/A XX should be just the job. And it'll fly off ships if required (assuming they ever got a catapult in the future!).

What's not to like?

WhiteOvies

26th Sep 2013, 18:43

ORAC - That may be in the spec but the flying wing design of X-47/Taranis/Neuron etc makes it difficult to build in a decent A-A radar, not to mention handling characteristics.

Glad Rag - Wiki has it as First flight - 18 June 1981, IOC - October 1983, Retired - 22 April 2008.

So UK plans to buy F/A XX from the US.....???

Heathrow Harry

27th Sep 2013, 09:42

Good post Courtney

the problem is that if we start looking at a Typhoon replacement NOW any estimate of costs will be based on 2014 - and by the time the damn thing flies it will be show a 500000000% increase and it will be up for cancellation in 2025 :{:{:{

Party Animal

27th Sep 2013, 10:00

Anyone want to bet 138 F-35 (prob mix of A & B) will be the only manned aircraft the RAF will have in the not too distant future?

I'd take a bet on that. I don't see any proposals on the counter to replace C-17, A400M, Voyager, Chinook etc, with unmanned versions. Do you?

ORAC

28th Sep 2013, 07:27

Italy, Norway Jets Part of $3.4B F-35 Deal (http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130927/DEFREG01/309270021/Italy-Norway-Jets-Part-3-4B-F-35-Deal)

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon awarded Lockheed Martin a $3.4 billion contract for 35 F-35 joint strike fighters, a contract that includes the first aircraft orders for Italy and Norway.

The deal is the DoD’s seventh production order for the stealth jets, which have experienced numerous issues throughout their development.

Four jets are for the US Navy, six for the Marine Corps and 19 for the Air Force. Italy’s first three and Norway’s first two conventional F-35A jets are part of the deal, which also includes one short-takeoff and vertical-landing F-35B model for the UK.

All deliveries are expected by October 2016.

SpazSinbad

28th Sep 2013, 07:45

UPDATE 1-Pentagon finalizes $7.8 bln in F-35 contracts with Lockheed 27 Sep 2013 Andrea Shalal-Esa
"(Reuters) - The Pentagon on Friday said it had finalized two contracts with Lockheed Martin Corp valued at $7.8 billion for 71 more F-35 fighter jets, citing what it called significant reductions in the cost of the new radar-evading warplane.

The U.S. Defense Department said it signed a $4.4 billion contract for a sixth batch of 36 F-35 aircraft, with the average cost of the planes down 2.5 percent from the previous deal. All but $743 million of that amount had already been awarded to the company under a preliminary contract.

The two sides also signed a $3.4 billion contract for 35 aircraft in a seventh batch, which reflected a 6 percent drop in the average price from the fifth group, it said in a statement.

The Pentagon's F-35 program office said the cost of each F-35 conventional takeoff A-model jet would drop to $98 million in the seventh batch of jets, excluding the engine, from $103 million in the sixth lot. It marks the first time the price of the jet will have dipped below $100 million.

The U.S. government buys the engines directly from Pratt & Whitney, a unit of United Technologies Corp, under a separate contract....

...The Pentagon said the price of the B-model that Lockheed is building for the Marine Corps, would drop to $104 million in the seventh group from $109 million in the sixth. It said the cost of the C-model variant, which will be able to land and take off from aircraft carriers, would drop to $116 million a jet from $120 million in the sixth lot.

The contracts also reduce the government's exposure to cost overruns, according to the Pentagon's statement, with Lockheed agreeing to cover any cost overruns. The government and Lockheed would share returns on a 20-80 split basis if costs come in below target, it said.

The two sides will share equally the costs of all known retrofits needed for the aircraft, while any newly discovered changes could result in higher contract costs, the Pentagon said."
UPDATE 1-Pentagon finalizes $7.8 bln in F-35 contracts with Lockheed | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/27/lockheed-fighter-idUSL2N0HN29Y20130927)

Courtney Mil

28th Sep 2013, 07:55

Some good news, there, and a bit of a step forward. A serious question here, does anyone know what the price of the complete aircraft will be from the latest batch, including the engine, etc? Clearly, there are many different ways to calculate unit cost as, for example, one could include all the required support equipment, the famous helmet, infrastructure and the like - many are one-time costs or difficult to ascribe to one airframe. I'm just wondering about the complete aircraft.

Any ideas?

kbrockman

28th Sep 2013, 08:10

The two sides will share equally the costs of all known retrofits needed for the aircraft, while any newly discovered changes could result in higher contract costs, the Pentagon said."

Like the saying goes, the devil is in the details.
This could potentially be a problem with so many issues unresolved and so many things left to test.

As for those who wonder what the engines costs.
Pratt, DoD Reach Agreement on F-35 Engine Lot | Defense News | defensenews.com (http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130827/DEFREG/308270012/Pratt-DoD-Reach-Agreement-F-35-Engine-Lot)
About 25-30 million a piece on average ,a bit more for the B version, a bit less for the A+C.

PhilipG

28th Sep 2013, 08:14

CM a good question, that I do not know the answer to, we have to remember that .ist if not all of these aircraft will need major work done on them to bring them up to "as advertised" performance, the downside of concurrency. So there is the cost of the plane now and the future cost of bringing it up to final specification...

JSFfan

28th Sep 2013, 09:12

From memory the aussies are allowing $5m to bring lrip6 to 3f, so under $10m would probably cover it

as to price the SAR gives an easy, accurate enough price

LowObservable

28th Sep 2013, 12:34

Squaring contracts with budgets or the SAR is a head-scratcher. In addition to the main contracts that get the headlines, LMT and PW get a lot of smaller production contracts. The SAR and P-40s are closer to the bottom line.

It also depends on international customers showing up in numbers and buying a lot of early aircraft before IOT&E and IOC.

JSFfan

28th Sep 2013, 14:55

That's because there is more than the plane in the contacts, the SAR has the URF NRF and total unit price.
GAO uses the SAR for their pricing in the annual reports. It is the standard used.
That clown Sweetman likes to use issued contacts and forward budgets to cause confusion by dividing the total by tails built, it doesn't work this way, but it is entertaining

glad rag

28th Sep 2013, 15:48

Some hope CM. ;)

dividing the total by tails built, it doesn't work this way,

Now why would YOU think that isn't a good thing? :hmm::hmm::hmm:

JSFfan

28th Sep 2013, 19:06

did you miss this bit?
"That's because there is more than the plane in the contacts, the SAR has the URF NRF and total unit price.
GAO uses the SAR for their pricing in the annual reports. It is the standard used."

NITRO104

28th Sep 2013, 21:14

JSFfan, I'm puzzled with you acquisition comprehension.
URF, NRF and total unit price (?), are used for micro analyzis of the manufacturing cost behavior and since GAO advises DoD, it's perfectly normal for them to use that metric.
However, that doesn't abolish taxpayer from paying the rest (WS, APUC, PAUC, LCC and total ownership cost), which is much more important then 'URF' or 'NRF' because it denotes the actual amount of money the government needs to pay if they want to see the aircraft on their tarmac.

JSFfan

28th Sep 2013, 23:36

NITRO104, the SAR takes it to PAUC,
what is skewing the numbers for the taxpayer on contracts and budgets is that a lot of long term costs are paid at the LRIP stage and if you divide that price between the LRIP tails. It gives a false price. There is a lot of stuff that needs to be divided between all the tails built, some 2,000+

As to lifetime cost, the good news that Sweetman won't tell you is that the lifetime costs have been reduced by 40% from 1.1 Trillion to some 800 billion

I bet you are happy about that:ok:

JSFfan

29th Sep 2013, 00:01

I just had a look at the single paragraph description of the LM contract from the dov and even by that, it seems those saying they are concerned about it haven't read it, It gave a couple of one off costs

NITRO104

29th Sep 2013, 08:35

what is skewing the numbers for the taxpayer on contracts and budgets is that a lot of long term costs are paid at the LRIP stage and if you divide that price between the LRIP tails. It gives a false price. There is a lot of stuff that needs to be divided between all the tails built, some 2,000+
Can you give a particular example?
NITRO104, the SAR takes it to PAUC, Indeed, so why claiming URF and NRF and total flyaway being 'standard'?
As to lifetime cost, the good news that Sweetman won't tell you is that the lifetime costs have been reduced by 40% from 1.1 Trillion to some 800 billionHe doesn't need to, if the rest of the media already covered the issue.
What's your point?

JSFfan

29th Sep 2013, 08:57

did you miss #3396 ?
there are examples given in what has been limited released

I said SAR was the standard GAO used

my point was that sweetman would cut off his hand before he typed something positive about the f-35

NITRO104

29th Sep 2013, 09:17

did you miss #3396 ?I didn't miss it but I didn't understand it, so care to explain in a non-illiterate way where exactly are those figures skewed?
A single example with links to actual articles will suffice.

Lone_Ranger

29th Sep 2013, 09:18

I gave up following the story of this shocking waste of human resources quite some time ago, but JSF, as the expert here can you tell me the current situation
re: f35 unit cost v f22 unit cost?

ta very much

JSFfan

29th Sep 2013, 09:30

fair enough, dov was meant to be Gov
Defense.gov: Contracts for Friday, September 27, 2013 (http://www.defense.gov//contracts/contract.aspx?contractid=5143)

NITRO104

29th Sep 2013, 09:46

JSFfan, I asked for Sweetman's article where he skews the figures.

On the other hand here's a dissection of JSF's program average WS costs over the past 6 years;
FY09 - $90m
FY10 - no estim.
FY11 - $95.6m
FY12 - $102.5m
FY13 - $120.4m
FY14 - $120.8m
(Air Force Financial Management & Comptroller - Budget (http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/budget/))
It was only in FY14 when Gen.Bogdan arrived, that things got more or less under control.

So how about that and your permanent trumpeting about program being on track?

SpazSinbad

29th Sep 2013, 11:47

16 Nov 2011 to 11 Apr 2012: Blogs (http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckTag=%20jsf&action=BlogViewTag) ARCHIVE

JSF - SAR Discloses Another Three-Year Slip 03 Apr 2012 Bill Sweetman

JSF - SAR Discloses Another Three-Year Slip (http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:77626f47-3e4e-4a75-99be-604b211bdf73)

NITRO104

29th Sep 2013, 12:12

JSFfan, my figures show JSF WS yearly cost increase of 5-7% on top of a 2% yearly inflation for the 5 years prior to Bogdan's arrival.
With a constant inflation rate, it's absolutely irrelevant in what year dollars it has been expressed because the relative difference adjusted by inflation always remains the same, so yes, it'd help if you knew what you're talking about.

Are you saying that each and every Sweetman's 'figures skewing' article is broken and so you can't link a SINGLE example?

LowObservable

29th Sep 2013, 14:46

APA clowns Sweetman nonsense cant remmeber were i red it mate

signed

JSFfan/Jackster/Jack412 (his mark)

Just This Once...

29th Sep 2013, 14:56

So in the dim and distant past (2012) Sweetman blogs that the B will cost about $138M in 2018.

Skip forward to Sep 2013 and the Pentagon forecasts $139M reducing to $134M.

Well at least everyone is in the same ballpark.

:ok:

JSFfan

29th Sep 2013, 15:15

APA clowns Sweetman nonsense cant remmeber were i red it mate
signed JSFfan/Jackster/Jack412 (his mark)
LO, I read it on Avweek, NITRO104 asked about articles. Unfortunately it seems avweek has taken most of them down.

now as you may know, there is a rumour around that you are sweetman that I don't subscribe to. It would be too sad if sweetman deprived of writing his f-35 nonsenses on avweek, would come to the forums

re spaz's link.. sweetman likes to mix up urf apuc etc to give an apple orange, he bulled about the price of a f-22 to the f-35, but interestingly put the fa-18 at a similar price which is in contrast to his fa-18 is so much cheaper stories

If all goes perfectly according to plan, an F-35A delivered eleven years hence, at full rate, will have an APUC tag of $89 million. A Super Hornet today is $81 million, and it's a 50 percent larger airplane than an F-16.

What about the frugal, do-more-with-less Marines? At full rate, the F-35B costs $138 million in 2018, versus $117 million for the F-35C. That’s nearly 80 percent of the price of the last batch of F-22s – you remember, that extravagantly expensive toy for the white-scarf air force – but coming off a 110-per-year line. What would have been the F-22 price at 40 per year, rather than 20?

kbrockman

29th Sep 2013, 15:17

Correct me if I'm wrong but IOC did indeed slip to 2019 if they followed the OTE schedule like initially planned.
It's only because the MARINES opted to declare IOC themselves, a prerogative every service has, that we are maybe going to see an IOC as early as 2015.
I don't know if the USAF has done the same with their 2016 plan but I clearly remember GEN Bogdan commenting on the 2015 MARINES date.
Looking at all that needs to be done and tested ,2019 seems very likely which is why the NAVY sticks with it , it seems.

NITRO104

29th Sep 2013, 17:14

sweetman bulled about the price of a f-22 to the f-35JSFfan, last F22 batch came at $138m total flyaway cost in '09 dollars.
The latest SAR predicts Navy's JSF total flyaway cost in FY18 to be $105m, in '12 dollars.
Add to F22's cost 3 years of inflation and you're at 7x% difference, which is what Sweetman generally said and that's only a flyaway cost.
When it comes to cost you need to pay just to put the aircraft on tarmac (a WS cost) but still not operate it, the difference is probably even worse.
F22 WS cost in '09 was $151m.
By comparison, F35B's WS cost in '17 (got no data for '18, comptroller's site being weird so I can't get Navy's FY14 budget) is $189m and F35C's WS cost is $173m per plane, again in '12 dollars.

So now explain how did Sweetman talk bull, regarding F22/F35 costs and where did he mix URF, NRF, whateveRF?

Courtney Mil

29th Sep 2013, 18:50

Loads of good words and bluff there, thanks. The bluster and provarication in the answers so far does not fill me with a warm fuzzy feeling. Just the feeling that I'm looking at fuzzy thinking.

Let me break my question down into bite sized chunks for the hard of thinking. By the figures that are being used now, including all the cost reductions and excluding the "one offs" for infrastructure and support equipment and million pound helmets:

What will each B-Model airframe cost as delivered from LM?

What will one B-Model engine cost (just so we can fly the thing)?

What can we expect to have to pay to bring these block aircraft up to spec?

I can add those up, but feel free to do it for me.

Thanks.

JSFfan

29th Sep 2013, 18:55

Wouldn't you want to work out the UK price?

SpazSinbad

29th Sep 2013, 19:49

One day somebody somewhere will buy some F-35Bs and weeze'll all know eh. In the meantime....

F-35: New fighter creates new culture for 21st Century and beyond 24 Sep 2013 (by Rich Lamance) Courtesy of Air Force News Service
"..."Most pilots come from the F-16, F-15 and A-10 legacy aircraft. Sensors on the front of the F-35 allow us to have that 360-degree awareness. That was the big leap forward. Computer technology that is 30 years or more advanced than the legacy aircraft is what makes the F-35 so advanced."

Lt. Col. Anthony Pelkington is the 33rd FW chief of safety and was one of the first of the legacy pilots selected for the F-35 program. He said that for pilots transitioning from those legacy systems, the F-35 is a huge deal.

"For 10 years in the F-16, I dealt with essentially monochrome cathode ray displays - approximately 6 inch square - and I've got two of them. Now I move up to a contiguous 8 x 20- inch color display that is a huge step forward for the pilot's situational awareness. Plus, there's a lot more capability in the display itself.

"In the F-16, I had a radar display with a selectable, like turning pages in a book, something that would show my ordnances like I had a stick figure map with monochrome lines on a black background. It would try to give us a semblance of where we were to maybe a weapons system. But I had to choose. Every one of those displays was limited to the confines of that small 6-inch to 8-inch screen.

"In the F-35, we now have this massive amount of screen real estate. I can now see multiple sensors at once, which is great because I don't have to pick and choose. I don't have to take away my situational awareness with what the radar is telling me in terms of traffic to bring up situational awareness and what the target pod looks like. It's all there available for me."

Pelkington added that one of the best aspects of the fifth generation fighter is its ability to communicate with all aspects of the aircraft, as well as customize information to fit each pilot's needs. "The displays talk to each other, the sensors talk to each other, and a lot of information is displayed in sensible formats with other sensors in one combined picture. Now I can bring up large formats on displays so I can see things easier - I can even bring up many formats if I want with a different orientation on how the displays will look. Whatever I want to do to aid my situational awareness I can do and the reality, as a pilot, is that I can customize that setup quite easily to a format that best suits how a pilot understands."...

..."One of the biggest differences the F-35 helmet has over the others is that the new helmet encompasses multiple gadgets such as night vision goggles, and for that function you would have to modify the pilot's flying helmet and add the components on there," said Baskin. "With the F-35, it's all encompassed in the helmet. The cameras on the jet work in sync with the helmet and whatever the jet picks up visually will be displayed on the visor in the helmet."

From a pilot's point of view, Renbarger agrees that the nicest part of the new helmet is that everything is self-contained. "The best thing about the F-35 helmet is that it has a big visor with a big display, and we can display a night vision camera visual on the visor and then a distributor aperture system that is basically a set of cameras that are all over the airplane and work in the infrared spectrum. That can be displayed on our visor as well.

"When we get our helmet fit, there is actually a complicated scan process that takes an image of our heads and provides a laser cut-out foam insert for the helmet that is molded to our heads. Then there's ear cups that close the helmet around our head and a custom nape strap in the back that basically locks the helmet down on our heads. There's very little, if any, motion in the helmet when we move our head around. Very well balanced, a very well fit and it feels great wearing the helmet. It's very specific to each individual pilot."...

...He said that for pilots, training in the F-35 simulator is by far, the best there is. "I've flown in F-16 simulators and F-22 simulators and the F-35 simulator is truly state-of-the-art. They've got the best visuals, full dome coverage, 360-degree views, target set build-up, they have runways and very much replicates flying the airplane. I haven't heard one pilot say it wasn't the best simulator they've ever been in short of flying the airplane."

Renbarger added that because the F-35 is a single-seat plane, the first time a pilot flies the F-35, he's by himself, making the simulator even more critical. "The operational flight software that runs the airplane - that same software is in the simulator," said Renbarger. "In other aircraft I have flown, there have been differences between the simulator and the airplane. This is as close as I've ever seen between the simulator and airplane. Exact same cockpit. The cockpit sits on a rail and you sit in the cockpit and it drives forward and raises up inside the dome and the screens you see are the exact same screens you see on the jet."..."
F-35: New fighter creates new culture for 21st Century and beyond > U.S. Air Force > Article Display (http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/467082/f-35-new-fighter-creates-new-culture-for-21st-century-and-beyond.aspx)

Courtney Mil

29th Sep 2013, 19:53

Wouldn't you want to work out the UK price?

I think you understand the question. Some numbers would have been a better answer than a smart-arse dodging of the issue.

glad rag

29th Sep 2013, 19:55

This is a bit like the climate change scientific [???] evidence that is constantly manipulated by the interested parties...it's all BS to cover up a salary creation scene for the chosen few.....:rolleyes:

NITRO104

29th Sep 2013, 20:20

JSFfan, what freakin' APUC??
Who's talking about APUC, anywhere??
SAR doesn't and neither does the Congressional FY budgetary documentation, which are about the only documents providing these figures.
And who cares what F22 cost in 2005, when the last F22 batch to which Sweetman refered, was in 2009??
JSFfan, I've responded directly to what you quoted as Sweetman's 'figure skewing' (quoted below) and showed that he was NOT 'figure skewing', but compared apples to apples, so download the latest SAR and USAF comptroller's report for FY2009 (link provided in previous post) and crosscheck them yourself. It's not my problem you apparently don't understand what's written there, but if you wanna call people clowns better make sure you don't wear a clown hat yourself first.

What about the frugal, do-more-with-less Marines? At full rate, the F-35B costs $138 million in 2018, versus $117 million for the F-35C. That’s nearly 80 percent of the price of the last batch of F-22s – you remember, that extravagantly expensive toy for the white-scarf air force – but coming off a 110-per-year line. What would have been the F-22 price at 40 per year, rather than 20?

About this (supposedly quoting Sweetman);
F-35A delivered eleven years hence, at full rate, will have an APUC tag of $89 million [he doesn't say what f-35 year $] and was 80% of the f-22Pardon my French, but are you stupid??
Sweetman referred to FY18 F35B/C cost being nearly 80% of the last batch (FY09) F22 cost, not to F35A $89m APUC and there's no this quotation of yours anywhere in the text, so you just made it up.
JSFfan, according to USAF FY14 budgetary documentation the actual WS cost for the F35A in FY18 which is the year in which the FRP is supposed to start, will be over $107m per plane in '13 dollars! and APUC includes on top of WS cost spare parts and consumables, so Sweetman actually predicted over $18m per plane smaller cost than it stands today, which isn't strange if you consider the tempo in which the program runs.

Anyway, what else is there?
Let's clear all of this and be done with it.

JSFfan

29th Sep 2013, 20:35

now I did ask you to check before you type and make yourself look stupid
spaz's link JSF - SAR Discloses Another Three-Year Slip (http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:77626f47-3e4e-4a75-99be-604b211bdf73)
the APUC is in the SAR, perhaps in your haste to post, you didn't read it properly

CM I'd look up the sar, the contracts make no sense to me to get a unit price.
the easiest way is to take off the said 4% reduction for this year to last years price

NITRO104

29th Sep 2013, 20:43

JSFfan, the figure '80' appears only two times in the text you linked.
First time referring to FRP and the second time as I've already explained.
I know you got nothing better to do but troll this forum, but now I belive it's enough, so I'm gonna ask again, where does the "F-35A delivered eleven years hence, at full rate, will have an APUC tag of $89 million [he doesn't say what f-35 year $] and was 80% of the f-22" come from, because it surely doesn't come from the blog post you just linked?
So, in case you don't understand my question let me rephrase.
Where did you see Sweetman linking F35A's APUC with F22's cost via 80% difference?

Courtney Mil

29th Sep 2013, 20:50

JSFfan,

If you run back to page 95 and spend a few minutes reading through it, you will eventually come to your post number 1894 (the year coke bottles appeared) where you were very happy to come up with all sorts of figures. Do just read the entire page for the context, please. Elsewhere, you have quoted unit prices to prove what great value F-35 will be. Since then, you have told us about numerous cost reductions. Does your repeated flim-flam (word I heard and Army chap use once) mean you don't know, or that it is not determined?

At a time when we're talking about significant orders and production runs, surely someone should know what it costs?:ok:

LowObservable

29th Sep 2013, 20:53

This obsessional campaign to impugn someone's professional competence, combined with a complete failure to cite any evidence, or indeed to read a sentence or two accurately, is getting very tedious.

SpazSinbad

29th Sep 2013, 21:46

Back at these posts on this thread were [some] mentions of the BRONCO:

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/424953-f-35-cancelled-then-what-post7902366.html?highlight=Bronco#post7902366

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/424953-f-35-cancelled-then-what-post7731503.html?highlight=Bronco#post7731503
etc...

Here is anotherie....

Combat Dragon II OV-10G+ Bronco Demonstration Program Ends 25 Sep 2013 Robert F. Dorr
"Combat Dragon II program funding expires. The Combat Dragon II program ends September 30.

U.S. special operations forces have been demonstrating two North American OV-10G+ Bronco light combat aircraft in Combat Dragon II, also called a Limited Objective Evaluation (LOE), since 2012.
Now, the money has run out.

To those who support the program and want small, nimble warplanes operating over the battlefield in wars like the one in Afghanistan, the expiration of funding for Combat Dragon II marks a sad moment.
Attempts in recent years to put a light attack aircraft into the field have yet to produce a single operational aircraft — although one is coming.

LAS Remains Funded
The U.S. Air Force‘s Light Air Support (LAS) in which the Sierra Nevada Corporation/Embraer A-29B Super Tucano will equip the Afghanistan air arm, is still funded despite the budget crisis in Washington. A source told Defense Media Network an A-29B assembly plant in Jacksonville, Fla. will begin production of the “Super-T” by the end of the calendar year.

Beechcraft says there is a robust world market for a light attack plane like its AT-6. The company recently carried out a ceremonial first flight of a third AT-6 airframe built in Wichita, Kan. However, Beechcraft is facing financial issues and has no realistic prospect of selling an operational AT-6 to U.S. forces. The company has not identified an international launch customer it expects, but speculation is focused on Mexico as the possible first buyer of the AT-6.

Sources close to the Combat Dragon II program say it taught valuable lessons. Conceived as a four-plane demonstration under fire in the war zone in Afghanistan, it devolved into a demonstration of the two Broncos within the continental United States. The Broncos participated in numerous realistic military exercises and used various types of sensors and ordnance.

The two Broncos were on loan to the U.S. Navy from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and will be disarmed and returned to NASA."
Combat Dragon II OV-10G+ Bronco Demonstration Program Ends | Defense Media Network (http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/combat-dragon-ii-ov-10g-bronco-demonstration-program-ends/)

NITRO104

30th Sep 2013, 10:38

This obsessional campaign to impugn someone's professional competence, combined with a complete failure to cite any evidence, or indeed to read a sentence or two accurately, is getting very tedious.
Indeed and now he deleted 2 of his incriminating posts, in what I suppose is to be an attempt to cover up this whole mess he got himself into.
It's ok to disagree with someone and even get into a heated debate, but to outright lie and attribute non-existing stuff to a man with a real name over and over again, is just beyond contempt.
Doesn't this forum stipulate some kind of administrative measure for such behavior?

Snafu351

30th Sep 2013, 13:42

JSFfullo****e (JSFfos) and his alter ego JackJack have long plagued forums with bridge dwelling behaviour, generally lacking any substance whatsoever.
The best response is too completely ignore him. He soon goes away to find a forum where he does get a bite or, in an attempt to get attention, his trolling hits heights which result in him getting banned.
Thanks to all those others engaging in reasoned discussion and sharing of interesting information.

Just This Once...

30th Sep 2013, 17:26

Never understood why JSFfan has not attracted formal moderator action. Indeed, weak moderation has enabled individuals such as this to drag the military aircrew forum in all sorts of undesirable directions. As this individual is not military, nor aircrew, not a backroom boy or even respectful of those who are I am not sure what the forum gains by his presence.

Wholigan

30th Sep 2013, 19:55

Thank you for your well considered vote of confidence in our "weak moderation" Just This Once....

I wonder if you realise that the 2 people moderating this forum (which used to be completely unmoderated incidentally - I guess that was weaker moderation huh?) also have responsibility for other forums, and thus might find it a bit tricky to follow absolutely each and every post in the forums for which they have a responsibility.

Rather than whining about weak moderation, why not use the "report post" function and get our attention on such things. Oh yes --- somebody did just that, and you will find that the miscreant is "in limbo" for a while.

Stop whining and take action!

LowObservable

30th Sep 2013, 20:03

fanx

http://www.old-time.com/commercials/1940's/Ad%20Black%20Flag%20Super%20Insect%20Spray%202.jpg

Just This Once...

30th Sep 2013, 20:05

We are grateful.

Courtney Mil

30th Sep 2013, 20:29

I was about to post that we must all take our share of the responsibility for moderation. Our mods here police this area, not as paid professionals, so give them some latitude.

The secret is to use the buttons on the threads to alert them to posts or posters that cause you a problem.

Please don't get me wrong, I'm not criticizing your opinion about any posters, I'm simply putting forward my view, right or wrong, about this place works. The Mods aren't the people to attack for the behaviour of posters.

Sorry my post is a bit late, I had to take a long phone call in the middle of posting.

Hope you get what I'm saying. :ok:

Just This Once...

30th Sep 2013, 20:32

Yep, get it.

:ok:

Courtney Mil

30th Sep 2013, 21:03

Thnks, Buddy.

And, more importantly...

JSFfan,

Please take this in the spirit in which it is meant. I think you should be aware from reading posts here that you're not making a great impression just now. Attacking the people for whom this thread was created by using phrases such as:

"now I did ask you to check before you type and make yourself look stupid"

"it seems those saying they are concerned about it haven't read it"

"keep up"

"that's a bit early to switch tack, the naysayers song changes verse at IOC doesn't it? "

Don't ridicule the people here who understand far more about this business than you do with your reading on press articles on the internet. More particularly, back off with your attitude of accusing everyone who raises questions, debate or doubts about the F-35 program. Just expressing an opinion that doesn't match your expectation does not make that person a "naysayer".

The whole purpose of this forum is debate between mil aircrew and the "folks on the ground without whom, etc..." on matters such as these. I could be a great debate if you would just moderate your tone and attitude a bit. Again.

If you piss off enough people here the mods will see it. Why not join the debate rather than try to kill it? You may just learn something more if you try.

Offered in good faith.

Courtney

ORAC

30th Sep 2013, 21:05

Personally, I just put him on my block list. Why expect the moderators to do what I can do myself?

hanoijane

2nd Oct 2013, 07:30

I never considered the 'head in the sand' technique to be a useful attribute for a military professional, whatever the annoyance may be.

One day the annoyance may say something useful and relevant. Then who would be the fool? Though I do admit that in this case it's somewhat unlikely... :-)

Courtney Mil

2nd Oct 2013, 08:04

I take your point, Hanoi, but I think you misunderstood my position. I most certainly do not want anyone at all to refrain from posting here. I'm simply asking that some stop being abusive when those associated with Mil Av express opinions or raise concerns about the F-35 project. The forum is for discussion, not for non-mil enthusiasts to start throwing their weight around.

Lonewolf_50

2nd Oct 2013, 16:28

As regards Spazsinbad's post and link apropos the OV-10 test and eval ...

1. What can an OV-10 do that an A-10 can't?
2. With armed helicopters aplenty in the order of battle, what does the OV-10 bring to the table that an attack helicopter can't?

The "Light Heavy Mix" argument is a multifaceted stone, reflecting light in a variety of colors. The objective seems to be that "light CAS" means "inexpensive CAS" which means "limited capability CAS" and runs into what class of military operation CAS fits into.

In some cases, it's airborne Fires, which is a subset of Fires. True for JSF as for Cobra as for F-16 as for Reaper and for that matter, artillery and mortars.

The "eyes on" feature of any CAS platform has been supplemented immensely (as the ground commander sees it) with entire families and ranges of small to medium sized RPV's and UAV's. Getting eyes on target is sometimes all that is needed to call in fires.

A lot of fires are beginning to take advantage of Smart Rounds and Brilliant munitions, with something like Copperhead being an example of a growing familiy of fires provided that are at least partially guided by the party calling for fires. We are back to the scouting roll that aircraft originally took on over the trenches of WW I, in that regard.

I question the point of the OV-10 proposal, and am not sorry to see it go back to NASA.

Courtney Mil

2nd Oct 2013, 21:34

Good post, Wolf. And lots for us all to consider concerning fires. I often think, probably with inexcusable ignorance, that the term CAS is becoming somewhat misused - at least, questioning its literal meaning, if you see what I mean. When we start talking about very expensive platforms, designed to stand off, I wonder if that's really CAS, the flexible, eyes-on, on-call asset?

dat581

2nd Oct 2013, 23:32

Would the question be what do the blokes on the ground want from CAS aircraft? After all CAS is only there for them and not an end in itself.

orgASMic

3rd Oct 2013, 05:22

Lonewolf_50 makes a good point about confused roles.

In some cases, it's airborne Fires, which is a subset of Fires. - For my money, this is CAS.

(Why there is a difference between CAS (by FW ac) and CCA (by RW ac), I don't know. They are performing the same function using some of the same weapons, just at different speeds and heights. Not being qualified to control either but having seen plenty of both, can someone comment as to what the difference in doctrine is, because it is not obvious from the observer's POV?)

The "eyes on" feature of any CAS platform has been supplemented immensely (as the ground commander sees it) with entire families and ranges of small to medium sized RPV's and UAV's. Getting eyes on target is sometimes all that is needed to call in fires.
and We are back to the scouting roll that aircraft originally took on over the trenches of WW I, in that regard.- isn't this part of what used to be called Army Cooperation? This should be able to facilitate the targetted use of any sort of fire, either by spotting for the FST on the ground or controlling it from the air (does the RAF still have any FAC(A)s or the AAC any AbFACs?)

Either way, the important word is 'close'. If the aircraft is not close to the troops it is supporting, isn't it doing battlefield air interdiction?

ORAC

3rd Oct 2013, 06:11

JSP 3-09.3: Close Air Support (http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/dod/jp3_09_3.pdf): ...

US Army describes close combat attack (CCA) as a hasty or deliberate attack by Army aircraft providing air-to-ground fires for friendly units engaged in close combat as part of the Army combined arms team. Due to the close proximity of friendly forces, detailed integration is required. Due to capabilities of the aircraft and the enhanced situational awareness of the aircrews, terminal control from ground units or controllers is not necessary. CCA is not synonymous with close air support (CAS).......

For further guidance on US Army helicopter operations and associated tactics, techniques, and procedures for CCA, refer to Field Manual (FM) 3-04.126, Attack Reconnaissance Helicopter Operations........

GreenKnight121

3rd Oct 2013, 07:13

So for the US Army, CCA is aircraft operating independently of the troops on the ground, while CAS is aircraft under the control of the troops on the ground.

Lonewolf_50

3rd Oct 2013, 12:44

So for the US Army, CCA is aircraft operating independently of the troops on the ground, while CAS is aircraft under the control of the troops on the ground.
Greenknight, I don't think so. When you are danger close, you have to be in contact with the supported unit. Also, CCA seems to be Army organic aircraft, which means one less layer of C2 to deal with in terms of the comms plan. CAS for the Army (unless it's an attack helo) tends to be USAF/MARINE/USN assets on the ATO. An Army friend of mine did a staff college paper/treatment on Apache as CAS. I suppose CCA may be what that is in current Army Doctrine.

Fire control measures are still an issue, regardless of the source of fires.

Appreciate all of the responses, gentlemen.

JSF may be envisioned by the Air Forces and our Navy as a "strike" / "interdiction" asset. (Yes, CAS and Interdiction have some overlap. It all depends upon how "deep" a ground commander is able to see or think, and at what echelon he operates.)

In that regard, the percentage of the time one would expect to call upon JSF assets for CAS may be low. This of course depends upon the phase of the operation one is in, what is available, and what the ground commander needs. I would expect that the B/Marine variant in the US concept of OPS would be more often called upon in the CAS role, if MAGTF's remain more or less as they are organized today.

For other Joint Task Forces, the force mix and timing will dictate how often the high dollar fighters get called upon for CAS.
Would the question be what do the blokes on the ground want from CAS aircraft? After all CAS is only there for them and not an end in itself.
Bingo.

You might be surprised at the trouble I had with convincing "strike" and "interdiction" minded USAF folks of that fact. Their role was to be the supporting actors, not the stars. (Heh, you try telling a fighter pilot that ... :}:8 )

Courtney Mil

3rd Oct 2013, 14:53

An interesting pdf here of the Inspector General's report into the F-35 programme, published on Monday. It does expose a number of the problems with the programme, but it should also be noted that some of the issues cited in the report have already been either identified or fixed.

http://www.dodig.mil/pubs/documents/DODIG-2013-140.pdf

The reaction to the report from the F-35 Project Office was “thorough, professional, well-documented and useful to the F-35 Enterprise.”

Wrathmonk

3rd Oct 2013, 15:55

The reaction to the report from the F-35 Project Office was “thorough, professional, well-documented and useful to the F-35 Enterprise.”

Having quickly scanned through the document my thoughts would include the words "frightening" and "worrying" as well! Or is this the norm for major aviation projects such as this? A lot of the faults found seem to be what I would consider (as a non-engineer I hasten to add!) basic engineering practice (tool control/management and test equipment calibration are just two highlighted under BAE).

From an aviators point of view page 61-63 does not make comfortable reading. Whilst I accept there will always be an element of risk in flying to ignore public law and DoD policy with regards to critical safety items is surely just asking for trouble.

On a positive point at least the faults have been highlighted now rather than 10 years down the line!

Wonder how this went down in Whitehall?

PhilipG

3rd Oct 2013, 16:49

Having also skimmed the pdf, it pointed out some very scary things that hopefully are being dealt with as regards for the most part the physical plane and its systems.

What I feel is far more concerning is the situation with the software and the way that the discreet parts of the plane are going to talk to each other: -
"Software remains the biggest risk of the F-35 program, according to U.S. Air Force Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan
Lockheed Martin’s scheduled delivery of the full-capability Block 3F software in 2017 “highly depends” on the performance of interim Block 2B and 3I software releases, Bogdan said. Block 2B software, released for flight test in February, is the “initial warfighting” software that adds sensor capabilities missing from the training software releases, plus the AIM-120 air-to-air missile, GBU-12 laser-guided bombs and the GBU-32 Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM). Lockheed Martin plans to release Block 3F software to the services in 2017."

As I understand the process of getting planes ready in 2017 with Block 3F software requires the plane's hardware to be upgraded so that it will work with 3F software.
This in my mind highlights two serious issues: -

What planes are built just prior to 2017, are they the new spec hardware planes that need 3F to fly or at what standard are the planes built?

How does the training for the teams on the present early build planes, transfer to the new hardware and more integrated software 3F planes?

Any one got any ideas?

t43562

3rd Oct 2013, 18:24

As a programmer, I am amazed that software ever works properly.

It's always underestimated, there are umpteen ways to design anything and many will never deliver what is wanted. Customers want the earth promised to them at no extra cost. Bull**** rules at every level. Nobody can agree on the best method to work to.

It's only a success as an industry because there's so much competition that eventually someone gets it right and produces a worthy product that kills off the other 9 contenders that never really delivered value.

I just can't imagine how one could set out to produce a great bit of aviation software from scratch and have any confidence at all that it would be ok. I'd almost say you need to have 3 competitors for every subcomponent and pick and choose the best after the fact.

dervish

3rd Oct 2013, 18:43

That report does not make good reading. 150 aircraft fielded before interchangeability can be assured? The cost of the retro-programme could be a showstopper in its own right.

Easy Street

3rd Oct 2013, 19:14

Yes, CAS and Interdiction have some overlap. It all depends upon how "deep" a ground commander is able to see or think, and at what echelon he operates at.

To be pedantic, there is no overlap between CAS and Air Interdiction in current US doctrine. A battlefield support mission is CAS if it requires detailed integration with the fire and movement of friendly forces. If it doesn't require detailed integration then it's Air Interdiction. Typically the split between the two types is denoted by the FSCL, but other control means can be used to temporarily remove the need for integration. :8

It might be more accurate to say that most attack aircraft overlap between CAS and Air Interdiction roles, because if you can do one, you can do the other!

Lonewolf_50

3rd Oct 2013, 19:15

On a positive point at least the faults have been highlighted now rather than 10 years down the line!
I do not believe that the folks writing the report discovered these issues in a vacuum. The people within the program are doubtless well aware of them, and have an IPTL, costs, risks, and timelines for each correction. Whom does any of you think were the sources of the information contained in that report?

The "it's frightening" response from military aviators (really) puzzles me.

You're still here. :p

Every ******* thing you ever flew was built under minimum bid.

The "work out the bugs process" in this day and age puts the development of what most of us ever flew to shame. While the days of writing flight manuals in blood are not behind us yet (see F-22 and pilot Oxygen system for a fine example of systems integration messes), the number of wrecks on the way to IOC are down.

This is a good thing.

How expensive F-35 is ... well, that's another story. :uhoh:

PS: from the report, I am not surprised to see that DCMA got a right bollocking. While I agree with a few of the "huh, you have to be kidding me" comments in re the CSI program, I'll not comment further on that other than to say that unless a CC is clearly identified, established, and then tracked (be it by the prime or a vendor a few rungs down) you certainly can find yourself in a "for want of a nail a kingdom was lost" situation.

Lonewolf_50

3rd Oct 2013, 19:17

Easy Street: Well said, sir.

FSCL and "other measures" are indeed where the line tends to be drawn.

As someone noted elsewhere:

"Some guy down there needs a bomb on a target. Provide him with one." ;)

MG23

3rd Oct 2013, 19:27

As a programmer, I am amazed that software ever works properly.

Whenever I think about all those circuit board traces shovelling electronics around at a large fraction of the speed of light to create signals that switch more than a billion times a second with a shape that better resembles a mound of jelly with spikes shoved in it than a square wave, in order to run billions of instructions translated from human-readable text into numbers by a piece of software with bugs and fed into an instruction decoder that converts them into microinstructions before being processed by a CPU that has bugs, and runs thirty-two instruction threads at the same time which all read and write to the same memory, and executes instructions before it knows whether they'll actually be reached and later decides whether to keep the results or throw them away... I have to go and lie down for a while.

Yet, somehow, it does mostly work out in the end.

t43562

3rd Oct 2013, 20:55

Yet, somehow, it does mostly work out in the end.

Quite a lot in the hardware world is stepwise improvement of the items that did succeed. i.e. we chose what we liked and it had a chance to evolve. Many things that weren't ok died out.

To be on the other side of that equation - starting out from the beginning and making something new that must work well - seems quite a risk to me.

Willard Whyte

3rd Oct 2013, 21:00

Yet, somehow, it does mostly work out in the end.

Hmm, so did hairy string and coat hangers.

Courtney Mil

3rd Oct 2013, 21:03

MG23, you've made us all feel so much better...

http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/1229/explorererror.png

Willard Whyte

3rd Oct 2013, 21:13

Perhaps the next great leap forward in military capabilty will be to adopt Mac's OS across the board and ditch MS?

Courtney Mil

3rd Oct 2013, 21:29

I do not believe that the folks writing the report discovered these issues in a vacuum.

Indeed not and I did try to make the point that at least some of the issues raised are not new - they had been investigating the situation since early last year . So a lot of these challenges are already being addressed. I wasn't trying to be alarmist, but it is a useful document in the sense that it draws together a lot of points, with any luck in a constructive way.

Too many project before this one suffered from allowing the difficulties to be buried for too long. It's good to highlight them and get them fixed. Especially as there isn't much of a plan B just now.

GreenKnight121

4th Oct 2013, 05:36

but it should also be noted that some of the issues cited in the report have already been either identified or fixed.

.....

So a lot of these challenges are already being addressed.

You could say that. And more than "some".

From another board:
Military Aviation News-2013 - Page 43 (http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?121532-Military-Aviation-News-2013&p=2069981#post2069981)
Lockheed F-35 Quality Failings Cited by Inspector General (http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/148244/pentagon-ig-finds-343-faults-in-f_35.html)

Military Aviation News-2013 - Page 43 (http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?121532-Military-Aviation-News-2013&p=2070013#post2070013)

Why link to a short excerpt about an article instead of the article itself?

Lockheed F-35 Quality Failings Cited by Inspector General - Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-25/lockheed-f-35-quality-failings-cited-by-inspector-general.html)

Here is the MAIN part missing from Defense-Aerospace's excerpt:
As of yesterday, 269 of the 343 “corrective action plans” have been fully implemented, according to data provided to the inspector general by the Pentagon’s F-35 program office.

All of the corrective action plans are scheduled to be in place by April

dervish

4th Oct 2013, 06:27

kbrockman

4th Oct 2013, 08:33

The point is missed. If a company can ignore basics on F-35, they can on other aircraft as well. If 150 aircraft are fielded before a basic safety process is fixed, then it is wrong to spin it as "It's good to highlight them and get them fixed." How long has the F-35 program been running? The reality, IMO, is they've been caught out by an excellent audit and their priority now will be working out how to transfer the cost to the DoD.
That little problem has been fixed with the last contract negotiations
for LRIP 6 and 7, basically every new problem can/will lead to a price increase.The two sides will share equally the costs of all known retrofits needed for the aircraft, while any newly discovered changes could result in higher contract costs, the Pentagon said."
UPDATE 1-Pentagon finalizes $7.8 bln in F-35 contracts with Lockheed | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/27/lockheed-fighter-idUSL2N0HN29Y20130927)

dervish

4th Oct 2013, 09:08

Kbrockman

Glad to hear the commercial & financial aspects have been resolved, but is the audit report correct? The problem I highlighted is one of many in the same vein. Recent contract amendments may just have papered over long term cracks.

kbrockman

4th Oct 2013, 09:19

but is the audit report correct? The problem I highlighted is one of many in the same vein. Recent contract amendments may just have papered over long term cracks.

The audit is pretty much spot on, as stated by the pentagon, LM and all others involved.
The real question is , with so much left untested, more specifically most of its combat systems, what problems are they going to find next?
Given the past of this program, there should be some anxiety about that , I suspect.

glad rag

4th Oct 2013, 09:41

Meanwhile back in the big nasty old real world...

idphrGSK0RI

Courtney Mil

4th Oct 2013, 09:59

Wow. Pretty impressive. And they even produced a hook that works! JOKE, before I start another row.

kbrockman

4th Oct 2013, 10:23

Meanwhile back in the big nasty old real world...

Not all that good, apparently,
No match for a U.S. Hornet: “China’s Navy J-15 more a flopping fish than a flying shark” (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3072786/posts)
No match for a U.S. Hornet: “China’s Navy J-15 more a flopping fish than a flying shark”
...
According to the Sina Military Network, that has (weirdly) criticized the Flyng Shark calling it a “flopping fish”, the recent tests with heavy weapons have limited the attack range of the J-15 to a distance of 120 kilometers from the carrier: whilst it is said to be capable to carry 12 tons of weapons, when the aircraft is fully loaded with fuel, it can’t carry more than 2 tons of missiles and munitions, meaning that only two YJ-83K anti-ship missiles and two PL-8 air-to-air missiles could be carried (in an anti-ship configuration).

Also the Chinese seem not to be interested to field a large Stealth fighter force themselves, this thing (J31) will probably only be for export.
http://rt.com/files/news/china-five-generation-lightweight-fighter-378/computer-generated-imagery-f-60-fifth-600.jpg

While at the same time they are building 1200 more useable and affordable fighters like the J10
Chengdu Aircraft Industry Group to produce 1,200 J-10 fighters?Politics?News?WantChinaTimes.com (http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20130919000093&cid=1101)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/86/J-10a_zhas.png

The Helpful Stacker

4th Oct 2013, 10:37

Quantity has a quality of its own?

kbrockman

4th Oct 2013, 10:52

For those that wonder if Stealth fighter development goes any better outside the US;
Warplanes: The 5th Generation Is Cursed (http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/articles/20131004.aspx)
October 4, 2013: The Russian answer to the American F-22, the “5th generation” T-50 (or PAK-FA) is in big trouble. Several key components are facing serious development problems.

kbrockman

4th Oct 2013, 11:05

Not a stab at the F35, just a FYI as to what the shutdown can and probably will do if it persists according to Gen Bogdan and LM.
Pentagon: Shutdown Affects F-35 Test Flights, Deliveries | Defense News | defensenews.com (http://www.defensenews.com/article/20131003/DEFREG02/310030028/Pentagon-Shutdown-Affects-F-35-Test-Flights-Deliveries)
Pentagon: Shutdown Affects F-35 Test Flights, Deliveries

Throughout the year, officials for the F-35 joint strike fighter have consistently said the program is on track. But if the US government shutdown continues for too long, a plane that has been long characterized by its historic delays could find itself falling behind once again, according to the head of the JSF program.
...
GEN BOGDAN
“The current closing of the federal government coupled with the furloughs from earlier this year has not been good for the F-35 program,” Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, the head of the F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO), said in a statement Thursday.

“The shutdown is negatively affecting our ability to conduct flight tests and other areas of the program, such as development, aircraft deliveries and sustaining the fleet, are also at risk of delay and disruption,” Bogdan said. “Maintaining a stable program is one of the key drivers to keeping the F-35 on track and on budget; we look forward to a quick resolution that will enable our government to properly function again so we can continue to carry on with our mission.”
...
LM and P&W
If there are no inspectors who can OK production as it occurs, prime contractor Lockheed Martin and engine manufacturer Pratt & Whitney could see delays — and delays mean extra costs.

While expressing disappointment in the shutdown, Lockheed released a statement saying it would continue to work on the F-35 unless the Pentagon asks it to stop.

“Unless we are directed otherwise by our customers, our facilities will remain open, and our employees will continue to receive their pay and benefits. We will monitor the situation and provide regular communications to our employees throughout this process,” the statement read.

“Various contracting activities for our military engines business have been suspended due to the shutdown,” a Pratt & Whitney statement read. “Lack of DCMA support is already affecting Pratt & Whitney production engine deliveries, spare part deliveries, and progress in engine component improvement programs. The government shutdown directly affects our ability to meet our military customers’ mission requirements.”

UTC, the parent company of Pratt & Whitney, has already said it intends to furlough its own workers starting Monday due to a lack of DCMA inspectors.

glad rag

4th Oct 2013, 18:29

Not all that good, apparently,

Now where have I heard that before :hmm:

WhiteOvies

4th Oct 2013, 21:45

It's interesting how much of the documentation regarding this 'stealth' aircraft is freely available on the web. I can't think of another aircraft whose issues are so publicly aired for allies and foes to analyse.

Given the Chinese habit of industrial espionage does the J-10 remind anyone else of the Typhoon?!

peter we

4th Oct 2013, 22:18

For those that wonder if Stealth fighter development goes any better outside the US;

You know that ALL the carbon fibre for the J-31 came from the US. I doubt we will see another example for a long time.

kbrockman

4th Oct 2013, 22:27

Given the Chinese habit of industrial espionage does the J-10 remind anyone else of the Typhoon?!
I was lead to believe that it was a LAVI rip-off.
http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/aircraft/lavi/lavi4.jpg
Janes - Israel Sent Lavi prototype to China (http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/6-52571.aspx#startofcomments)
Defense intelligence officials said this week that China's new J-10 jet fighter was built with the help of Israel, under the U.S.-sponsored Lavi jet fighter program canceled back in 1987.

Courtney Mil

5th Oct 2013, 20:04

F-16 with canards, anyone? Why should it look like anything else?

Lyneham Lad

8th Oct 2013, 16:38

I occasionally dip into this thread but would not claim to have read every post, so if the following point has already been made, I'll get my coat etc...

Published on Flight Global (http://www.flightglobal.com/fg-club/in-focus/f-22-upgrades/?cmpid=NLC|FGFG|FGFIN-2013-1008-GLOB) today is an article about the latest update to the F22 fleet. The USAF’s Air Combat Command (ACC) Gen Mike Hostage is quoted as saying:-

The USAF only has a total F-22 inventory of 186 aircraft remaining after four airframe losses. The inventory includes 123 combat-coded, 27 training, 16 test, and 20 attrition reserve Raptors. Small as the fleet is, it will be critical to the air superiority mission since the Lockheed F-35 can only handle that tasking with the backing of the F-22, Hostage says. (my italics)

And the RAF will do what?

MSOCS

8th Oct 2013, 16:51

The RAF will rely on the knicker-dropping air-to-air capabilities of Typhoon!

Though F-35 is not a pure-bred a-a platform can you honestly see the USAF saying that F-35 is better than F-22? It also depends highly on the tasking that the General speaks of, so I would be respectfully cautious of the language used by VSOs in such statements, especially if you had bought 190 of the F-22A at c.$185 million per frame! He may speak of a scenario that the UK (RAF/RN) would never see themselves in and does not necessarily decry the capabilities of the F-35 which has significant strengths in other areas.

Rhino power

8th Oct 2013, 22:27

...the F-35 which has significant strengths in other areas
Despite all evidence to the contrary... ;)

-RP

Willard Whyte

8th Oct 2013, 22:39

especially if you had bought 190 of the F-22A at c.$185 million per frame!

So, a bit more than a '35A, a bit less than a '35B or C - for now, at least.

I know which I'd prefer my tax pounds to be funding, and it's got two engines.

kbrockman

9th Oct 2013, 10:56

After the critique in Japan about the looming obsolescence of the whole stealth concept, the F35 itself is already facing obsolescence issues in some of its core systems.
F-35 project seeks to overcome EW obsolescence - IHS Jane's 360 (http://www.janes.com/article/28014/f-35-project-seeks-to-overcome-ew-obsolescence)
The United States has embarked on a technology refresh development track for the electronic warfare (EW) module of the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter to overcome obsolescence issues before the system has even made it into service.

This has seen the US Naval Air Systems Command place a USD149 million contract to Lockheed Martin, as a modification to a previous advanced acquisition deal and covers the "redesign and qualification of replacement F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter Electronic Warfare system components due to current diminishing manufacturing sources".

Principal components of the fifth-generation multi-mission F-35's integrated avionics suite are the Northrop Grumman AN/APG-81 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar, Northrop Grumman's AN/AAQ-37 Distributed Aperture System (DAS), the Lockheed Martin AAQ-40 Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS), a VSI (joint venture between Elbit Systems and Rockwell Collins) Helmet-Mounted Display System (HMDS), and BAE Systems' digital AN/ASQ-239 (Barracuda) system derived from the F-22 Raptor's AN/ALR-94 EW suite.

BTW, this falls outside the original upgrade program meaning this will be an extra cost for the customers, not automatically picked up partially by the suppliers.

LowObservable

9th Oct 2013, 13:46

KB - All upgrade costs will be picked up by the customers. Fortunately the unit costs will be low because upgrades will be applied across the 6,000-jet fleet that Gen. Heinz told us about in 2009.

Oh - Heinz who?

Not_a_boffin

9th Oct 2013, 13:53

kbrockman

9th Oct 2013, 14:09

Let's be honest here chaps. Obsolescence in electronic components and software operating systems is a major (and growing) issue in all modern bits of military kit. Using it as another stick with which to beat F35 may be satisfying to some, but is unlikely to be either honest or productive......

Obsolescence is indeed a problem for all high tech military equipment, but let's indeed be honest here, usually it becomes an issue a fair amount of time after it becomes operational, not before.

LowObservable

9th Oct 2013, 15:27

N-a-B...

True, but in the years to come there may be a big difference in the through-life costs of different aircraft, depending on how the obsolescence and diminishing manufacturing sources (DMS) issues were anticipated and managed.

What you want to see is an approach that (1) allows you to exploit COTS sources and (2) reduces the cost of change. In that respect I am interested in the Saab approach that emphasizes the partitioning of mission systems from flight-critical systems.

How JSF will work out, I'm not sure - but its precursor, in terms of an integrated architecture (sensors &c as peripherals to a big common processor) was the F-22, and that story has not been pretty.

So yes, it's everyone's problem; but that doesn't mean that it will hit everyone the same way.

peter we

9th Oct 2013, 16:01

Obsolescence is indeed a problem for all high tech military equipment, but let's indeed be honest here, usually it becomes an issue a fair amount of time after it becomes operational, not before.

Sorry, thats simply not true. Military electronics is always old technology compared to commercial electronics. High tech to the military is 5 year old tech.

Conservative, tested, stable, reliable, safe, approved and hardened is more important than 'new'.

SpazSinbad

10th Oct 2013, 00:25

F-35 Lightning II Program Surpasses 10,000 Flight Hours 10 Oct 2013
"FORT WORTH, Texas, Oct. 9, 2013 - The Lockheed Martin [NYSE: LMT] F-35 Lightning II program continues its operational maturation, surpassing 10,000 flight hours in September. More than half of the total hours were accumulated in just the past 11 months. Through September, F-35s flew 6,492 times for a total of 10,077 flight hours. The new milestone effectively doubles the safe flight operations of the F-35 in a year, compared to reaching 5,000 flight hours in six years...."
Lockheed Martin Corporation (via noodls) / F-35 Lightning II Program Surpasses 10,000 Flight Hours (http://www.noodls.com/viewNoodl/20429431/lockheed-martin-corporation/f-35-lightning-ii-program-surpasses-10000-flight-hours)

PhilipG

10th Oct 2013, 07:31

Is the fact that the F35 has achieved 10,000 hours flying time something to celebrate? As I understand it there is a long long way to go till software version 3f planes with fully signed off airframes are coming down the Fort Worth production line.
I noticed that the Rafale was celebrating 100,000 hours last week, a number of years after IOC was declared by the MN.
Is there a view on how many flying hours will be necessary before 3f software planes are signed off for use in squadron service?

LowObservable

10th Oct 2013, 10:47

It's most important that the aircraft are flying. Otherwise they would be sitting on the ground in long lines, and this would be embarrassing to the bosses at the Pentagon and LockMart.

PhilipG

10th Oct 2013, 14:50

Ok fine I think I understand, the display teams are grounded, many federal employees are not being paid, National Monuments are closed to the public etc.

However we need to keep racking up hours in a plane that is not fit for combat, none of the examples except a few F35Bs with the USMC will achieve IOC without a major overall of their systems at a depot and ground crew are being trained to maintain and fault find this complex plane that has yet in some cases to have all its systems working.

All this just so the DoD and LM feel good?

Lonewolf_50

10th Oct 2013, 18:21

When you are done grinding your axe, Philip, you can also stop mixing apples and oranges.

PhilipG

10th Oct 2013, 18:37

Which ones?

Royalistflyer

10th Oct 2013, 21:31

I still come back to the incredible stupidity of not putting a cat and trap on the new carriers. Is the carrier tied to the F35? Will it not outlast the F35? Even allowing for the fact that certain well-known personalities in the department/Navy are closely invested in the F35, nevertheless with a cat and trap the carriers could operate more types if necessary. As it is, they can't. So what happens if there really is a catastrophic F35 problem (which could yet happen) what then? Do we cart the carriers back to the ship yard and do a LOT of oxy cutting to get a catapult into them? And with the obsolescence of the stealth technology, I still think we would have been better with the FA-18. (which has already been said countless times here and elsewhere by others)

SpazSinbad

10th Oct 2013, 22:07

F-35 JPO drops development of BAE alternative helmet (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/f-35-jpo-drops-development-of-bae-alternative-helmet-391623/)

WhiteOvies

11th Oct 2013, 03:35

Phillip,

How do you expect the jet to mature enough to be 'fit for combat' and reach IOC on time (or at least in line with the latest declaration) if the testing and training stops? Look at the mess Typhoon got itself into with stopping training and testing of air to surface weapons when Libya started!

With the Marines declaring IOC with 2B capabilities, why the assertion that 3F is the most important capability standard?

hanoijane

11th Oct 2013, 07:59

With the Marines declaring IOC with 2B capabilities, why the assertion that 3F is the most important capability standard?

Perhaps because it's like paying for a Ferrari yet having to settle for the performance of a Mini?

PhilipG

11th Oct 2013, 09:33

WhiteOvies
The problem of concurrency is raising its head again, there was a post saying that the F35 had reached 10,000 hours, just recently I think I saw a post saying the Rafale had reached 100,000 hours.

As I see it the F35 has a number of hurdles to climb, vault or indeed fly over before it gets to the configuration that it was initially promised as minimum war fighting configuration, 3f software.

The F35B at least has problems with stress in some of the spars, that as far as I am aware have not been sorted with a new light weight alloy.

To achieve a platform that the 3f software can run on there has to be a technical refresh of the systems in the plane, this I understand to mean take the plane back to the depot strip it down and put a new loom and set of processors in, then run a whole raft of acceptance tests again.

There are still as I understand it issues with regard to how much G any of the F35s can be taken to at the moment.

There is the tail hook issue with the F35C.

The helmet that is meant to be central to the data fusion has yet to be proven of course I do notice that the back-up plan for the BAE helmet has just been shelved.

I am not against testing and developing the planes at all, it needs to be done, I was just questioning if all this flying, not necessarily done by test pilots was adding value to the programme.

As I see it at the moment, the flight envelope for the plane is uncertain and unproven, the software running it is very much Beta release, so will not necessarily have the touch and feel of the planned or actual initial war fighting software, so why train top grade line pilots to fly a plan that will change a lot prior to being declared ready for service?

In a similar vein, I would have thought that the test equipment required to analyse the post tech refresh F35s will be rather different, Moore’s Law etc, from that designed to be ready for service 5 or more years ago, not quite the difference between setting the ignition on a 1960’s motorcycle with a fag paper and a stick as compared with a modern ECU equipped machine but somewhere along that continuum.

I do understand that the concurrency that everyone bought into is why the programme is where it is, I do also understand that unlike is it the Dutch Government that has one of its planes in storage, the Pentagon wants to show some progress with the project as it is such a large part of its budget.

I have noticed the recent reports about the physical construction process of the F35, that paint a far from rosy picture, as well as the reports of supply chain problems with “old” technology, what does concern me is the software, it always seems to be late, nothing unusual in itself however do we know if any of the V2 or V3i software releases will work on the post technical refresh planes, or will these be built and then stored till the software is released?

To reiterate, the testing and development needs to be done and concurrency has resulted in a number of planes being delivered to the services and other countries that will need deep level maintenance to bring them up to the advertised capability, as adjusted.

peter we

11th Oct 2013, 11:20

F-35 JPO drops development of BAE alternative helmet

Great news, that was one of the big issues that there was concern about and the exponential increase in flight hours points to the F-35 program is going along very nicely.

Perhaps because it's like paying for a Ferrari yet having to settle for the performance of a Mini?

It can do a decent job.

But 95% of the F-35 fleet won't be flying with this version because the upgrade will be available before they are built.

CoffmanStarter

12th Oct 2013, 18:21

Looks like Paul Godfrey, according to his Tw@tter feed, has been promoted to Group Captain and is to be posted to High Wycombe on our F35 Programme ...

Many congratulations Sir !

Wg Cdr Godfrey joined the RAF in 1991 progressing through flying training on the Jet Provost and Hawk. Posted to the Harrier in 1994, he flew in various operations in the Balkans with IV(AC) Sqn, based at RAF Laarbruch in Germany between 1995 and 1998. Returning to IV(AC) Sqn as a Qualified Weapons Instructor, he moved with them back to the UK where he began an instructional tour on 20(R) Sqn, the Harrier OCU. In 2000, he was selected for an exchange tour as the first non-USAF pilot to fly the F-16CJ, serving on the 55th Fighter Sqn at Shaw AFB, South Carolina. Here he contributed to the post-9/11 homeland defence task and twice deployed on operations to the Middle East. On return from the USA Godders undertook a ground tour as a Typhoon Requirements Manager and, in 2005, was posted as a Flight Commander to 3(F) Sqn, the first Operational Typhoon Sqn. After completion of Staff College in 2009 he was posted to MOD as the Typhoon desk Officer and is now the Officer Commanding Operations at RAF Coningsby. He has also enjoyed three seasons display flying with the BBMF.

Apart from that impeccable background he's also flown WK518 ... which could hover with a 90 Kts headwind :ok: