F-35 Cancelled, then what ? [Archive] - Page 15

SpazSinbad

22nd Oct 2013, 14:21

Helmet? What helmet. Only one now...

F-35 Program Stops Alternate Helmet Display Development 18 Oct 2013 Bill Carey
"The F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) halted the development of an alternate helmet-mounted display system (HMDS) for the Joint Strike Fighter, signaling the resolution of a potentially serious technical complication the program faced. In September 2011, F-35 manufacturer Lockheed Martin awarded a contract to BAE Systems to develop an alternate HMDS after the Pentagon identified deficiencies with the original helmet system developed by Rockwell Collins and Elbit Systems of America. The HMDS is critical to flying the F-35, which was designed without a pilot’s head-up display.

The JPO announced on October 10 that it has decided to stop the alternate HMDS development to focus on bringing the second-generation, or “Gen 2,” helmet system that F-35 pilots are using for training and testing to a “fully compliant” Gen 3 standard. The Gen 3 HMDS will be introduced during F-35 low rate initial production lot 7 in 2016 and complete test and development the following year. The U.S. Marine Corps, which plans to declare initial operational capability of its F-35Bs in 2015, will start operations with an improved version of the Gen 2 helmet.

In a review of the F-35’s flight-test progress in 2011, the Department of Defense identified the HMDS as one of several program risks. It found that the helmet system was deficient in the areas of night-vision acuity, display jitter during aircraft buffeting and image latency from the F-35’s electro-optical distributed aperture system, which combined detracted from mission tasks and the use of the display as a primary flight reference. The Gen 3 helmet “will include an improved night vision camera, new liquid crystal displays, automated alignment and software improvements,” according to the JPO. It said that a “cost guarantee” made by Lockheed Martin, Rockwell Collins and Elbit resulted in a 12-percent reduction from the previous cost of the HMDS. The program will recoup $45 million in funds it had originally allocated for the development of the BAE Systems alternate helmet.

“During the past two years, the JPO and Lockheed Martin used a disciplined systems engineering approach and conducted dedicated helmet flight-tests to develop solutions to address the helmet’s technical challenges,” the program office said. “Improvements to the Gen 2 helmet are planned and being phased into production to support F-35 mission requirements.”

Lockheed Martin said more than 100 F-35 pilots have flown more than 6,000 sorties with the current helmet system. “The government’s decision to proceed exclusively with the principle helmet is indicative of their confidence in the helmet’s performance and the successful resolution of previously identified technical challenges,” stated Lorraine Martin, the company’s F-35 program executive vice president and general manager.

The Rockwell Collins HMDS joint venture with Elbit, formerly called Vision Systems International, has been replaced by a new organization, Rockwell Collins ESA Vision Systems. “We’re looking forward to the continued development and production of the third-generation F-35 HMDS, which will offer even greater capabilities while reducing overall cost for this critical program,” said Rockwell Collins CEO Kelly Ortberg."
F-35 Program Stops Alternate Helmet Display Development | Aviation International News (http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ain-defense-perspective/2013-10-18/f-35-program-stops-alternate-helmet-display-development)

SpazSinbad

23rd Oct 2013, 05:04

VFA-101 and the F-35C Published on Oct 3, 2013
"The VFA-101 Grim Reapers are the Navy's first F-35C carrier variant training squadron, based at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla. Hear from one of the original Grim Reapers and current F-35 pilots about how the F-35C will continue the squadron's legacy."
VFA-101 and the F-35C - YouTube

LowObservable

23rd Oct 2013, 21:52

Singapore will have to build special pads if it wants to VL F-35Bs routinely. And as for taking off in 550 feet with a full load, the author misses the fact that said road has to be moving at 25 knots into wind in order to do that.

WhiteOvies

23rd Oct 2013, 22:32

It depends a bit on what you call a full load, internals only or with heavy weight munitions on the externals as well. Presumably Singapore reckon the jet can do what they need it to do based on the zero head wind and cross wind trials conducted during Development Test already.

SpazSinbad

23rd Oct 2013, 23:37

Oh dear 'lilypads' required at austere/ordinary bases for F-35Bs. I wonder if that 'SoulKindOfFeelingLand' will go for some of 'em also. 'concrete' gets a lookin in this story - that is why I jest. :} But anyway....

Exclusive: South Korea nearing decision to buy F-35 fighters 23 Oct 2013 Andrea Shalal-Esa & Joyce Lee
"WASHINGTON/SEOUL (Reuters) - South Korea is nearing a decision to buy some Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 fighter jets, but will likely keep its options open for a limited purchase of Boeing Co's F-15, sources familiar with the country's fighter competition said on Wednesday.

South Korean officials could announce their plans as early as November to secure the funding needed to ensure initial deliveries of the F-35 in 2017, according to multiple sources who were not authorized to speak publicly. They cautioned that the decisions were not yet final, and an announcement could still be postponed if the decision-making process hits a snag....

...South Korean officials have said they are examining a mixed procurement approach that could help Seoul maintain sufficient numbers of fighters in its fleet if the F-35 runs into further delays. They are also looking at scaling back the size of the order to 40 or 50 planes....

...South Korean officials are under pressure to commit to at least some F-35 purchases soon, given their own budget deadlines, and the need to start buying certain "long-lead" materials needed for any jets that would be delivered in 2017....

..."South Korea will need to decide on a plan as soon as possible in order to secure (the project's) budget for next year," said one source with direct knowledge of a task force set up last month to review options for the delayed fighter jet buy.

U.S. officials say South Korea must make a commitment by the end of 2013 to secure a place in the ninth low-rate production contract for F-35 jets and ensure delivery of the first planes in 2017.

The Pentagon needs to include any South Korean jets in an advanced procurement contract for "long-lead" items, such as titanium parts, said a source familiar with the F-35 program.

Four additional sources familiar with the South Korean process told Reuters that they expected an announcement by early November. Two other sources expected a decision by year's end.

South Korea's parliament must put in place concrete acquisition plans by December to ensure funding for an initial batch of jets, which would have to be ordered in 2014....

...One of the sources said Seoul was expected to commit to buying F-35s without specifying an exact number, leaving open the possibility of a mixed fleet...."
Exclusive: South Korea nearing decision to buy F-35 fighters - chicagotribune.com (http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/sns-rt-us-korea-fighter-lockheed-20131023,0,1836263.story)

SpazSinbad

23rd Oct 2013, 23:43

As for operating F-35Bs from unprepared pads/roads etc. that are suitable to take the weight of 'em.... are we not forgetting the various VL methods available to the F-35B including a creepy landing to mitigate effects on ordinary but suitable temporary surfaces [not forgetting your gardenroadvariety runny landing]? After all the scenario envisaged probably requires moving on once a site has been used, to go to anotherie.

Roadways are usually longer than 550 feet; whilst starting from intersections will give suitable direction options for takeoff into available wind. Nothing to it really.

SpazSinbad

24th Oct 2013, 03:37

Korea aviation plan ‘a mess’ 24 Oct 2013 Bill Sweetman *The author is senior international defense editor of Aviation Week.
"Fighter procurements are ponderous, complicated and subject to political interference.

Whatever you think of the outcome of South Korea’s F-X III fighter selection - now leaning toward the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter - you cannot deny that it is a mess. The government first created a new agency to manage its defense procurements, set clear selection criteria for 60 new fighters and told the Defense Acquisition Program Administration to git’er done. DAPA picked the F-15SE, a decision that the government speedily set aside.

In accordance with a common definition of insanity, the luckless agency must now go through the same process in hopes of a different outcome. DAPA has caught one break: Eurofighter will be back for round two, so DAPA will not be tied across a sole-source barrel after throwing out binding offers presented in 2013.

Fighter procurements are ponderous, complicated and subject to political interference. The last-named attribute is a feature, not a bug: The price tag gets the Treasury involved, other military services have to vote, and the relationship between the supplier and its own national government will last longer than most marriages.

That said, Korea’s decision stands out because the government had tried to do better. After Dassault noisily bailed out of F-X1 in 2002, alleging that the fix had been in for a U.S. win from the outset, Korea tried to clean up its act by forming DAPA.

Whether or not it was based on a study of Sweden’s FMV, the Korean agency emerged with similar key features: civilian, not subordinate to the services, responsible to the whole of government, and including in its brief, domestic research and development. This would all have been fine had the government not responded to DAPA’s first controversial decision by folding like a cheap suit.

Overt pressure on the government came from 15 former air staff chiefs, who signed an emotional screed that not too subtly evoked a possible threat from F-35-armed Japan. There are a few problems with this sort of appeal.

Former generals have no more access to classified F-35 or threat data than the rest of us (or at least they should not). The Japanese threat might play to the man in the Seoul karaoke bar, but one does not need tinfoil headgear to suspect that. In the event of such a conflict, both sides’ F-35s would succumb to software maladies and stop working rather quickly. [QUE? Please explain.] And while the generals may all be motivated by pure patriotism, we know that if paying retired officers to influence decisions were illegal, the U.S. defense industry would have to move its business development activities to federal correctional facilities.

There may not have been any U.S. government pressure involved. And Barney might be a real dinosaur. Korea’s 60 near-term orders (the aircraft are needed to replace aging F-4s) are important for the F-35. As recent briefings have shown, the program needs 300 non-U.S. orders in the next 4-5 years to prime the production line and support an orderly ramp-up.

Failure to secure those orders may not kill the program, but they will make it harder to gain the sunlit uplands of building 150-plus per year and un-F-22-like costs. The Netherlands cutting its buy to 37 from 85, and the U.K. punting two-thirds of its nominally planned offtake into the long grass of the later 2020s, are not promising signs that the program’s founding partners are good for those early orders.

It would be understandable if Korea underestimated the importance of an F-35 order to Washington and assumed that an F-15 buy would be of equal validity. When F-X III was in its formative years in 2009, the Pentagon’s high sheriffs believed the F-35 program was blasting ahead toward initial operational capability this year. The Asian market was a sideshow, another dish to be gobbled up in due course.

Korea is in no position to ignore U.S. government warnings about the two nations’ strategic relationship. The next year or so will see how and whether Korea manages to reach a decision that meets the needs of its armed forces, its Treasury and its major ally, while restoring international confidence in the integrity of its procurement process.

Korea’s about-face is a tactical win for the F-35. However, the aircraft has yet to win an open, rules-based competition where all sides were expected to bid a fixed price. Most of its committed buyers, including the U.S. services, signed on when the aircraft was promised to be much earlier and cheaper than it is today. And given the repeated claims of advocates that the price of the F-35A is headed down into F-16 country, the fact that it was beaten on price by not only the massive twin-engine F-15 Eagle but also the Eurofighter Typhoon - from the people who make Aston Martins, Porsches and Lamborghinis - has to raise some eyebrows.

We’ll see what happens in the next open, rules-based, fixed-price, professionally executed competition. What? I’m not saying definitively that Barney can’t be some subspecies of theropoda."
Korea aviation plan ?a mess?-INSIDE Korea JoongAng Daily (http://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/news/article/Article.aspx?aid=2979318)

LowObservable

24th Oct 2013, 17:52

Singapore already has road bases, apparently for aircraft up to F-16 size, according to this video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBMD4QTSyqM

...which supposedly has aeroplanes in it somewhere. If you can make it past the presenter, the F-16s are using some serious aerobraking.

Clearly the RSAF could use the F-35B from road bases in a STORVL mode. Which raises the interesting question of why they don't look at the F-35A. A little hotter on landing and take-off than an F-16, perhaps?

Rhino power

26th Oct 2013, 08:37

Engine costs appear to be gradually decreasing...

https://www.f35.com/news/detail/lrip-6-f135-engines-contract

-RP

SpazSinbad

27th Oct 2013, 00:26

Probably not much to the S-3 resurrection / availability idea but the rest looks good for potential F-35B future sales to South Korea? Or am I dreamin'? :}

S. Korea Envisions Light Aircraft Carrier 26 Oct 2013 JUNG SUNG-KI
"SEOUL — The South Korean Navy believes it can deploy two light aircraft carriers by 2036 and expand its blue-water force to cope with the rapid naval buildups of China and Japan, according to a Navy source.

The service has been exploring ways of securing light aircraft carriers based on an interim feasibility study, the source said.

“It’s a hope,” the Navy source said on condition of anonymity. “There are no fixed requirements at the moment, but we’ve been studying ways of launching light aircraft carriers over the next two decades.”

Rep. Chung Hee-soo of the ruling Saenuri Party revealed the contents of a program in a feasibility report last week.

“To cope with potential maritime disputes with neighboring countries, we need to secure aircraft carriers as soon as possible,” Chung, a member of the National Assembly’s Defense Committee, said during a confirmation hearing Oct. 11 for Adm. Choi Yoon-hee, new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. “For more active international peacekeeping operations, our Navy should have carriers.”

According to Chung, the Navy envisions three phases:
- The first is to equip the second ship of the Dokdo-class landing platform helicopter ship (LPH) with a ski ramp to operate short-range or vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) aircraft.

The flight surface of the landing ship is already sprayed with urethane, which can withstand the heat created by the aircraft during operations.

Dokdo, with the addition of a ski ramp, could be deployed before 2019, according to the report, which suggests the Navy procure used VTOL jets from the US, UK and Spain if needed.

- Second, the Navy could build an amphibious assault ship, similar to the Spanish Navy’s Juan Carlos, before 2019.

- Finally, the service aims to build two 30,000-ton light aircraft carriers between 2028 and 2036, the report said. The carrier is to have specifications similar to the Italian aircraft carrier Cavour, which can support about 30 aircraft....

...The Navy also puts a priority on acquiring reconnaissance and surveillance aircraft. In particular, the service laid out plans to buy the Lockheed S-3 Vikings retired from front-fleet service aboard aircraft carriers by the US Navy in January 2009.

The service will purchase 18 S-3 jets and modify them into a new configuration meeting the Navy’s operational requirements. If adopted, it will be the first fixed-wing jet patrol aircraft operated by the South Korean Navy, which flies 16 P-3CK turboprop patrol aircraft.

“The S-3 introduction will offer a great opportunity for the ROK Navy to operate a carrier-based jet, as the service envisions deploying aircraft carriers in the future,” Kim Dae-young, a research member of the Korea Defense & Security Forum, a private defense think tank here. “From the operational perspective, the S-3 is expected to be used for various purposes, such as patrol, surface warfare and aerial refueling.”..."
S. Korea Envisions Light Aircraft Carrier | Defense News | defensenews.com (http://www.defensenews.com/article/20131026/DEFREG03/310260005/S-Korea-Envisions-Light-Aircraft-Carrier)

SpazSinbad

28th Oct 2013, 10:43

Marines fly first F-35 STOVL mission at Eglin 28 Oct 2013 Samuel King Jr., Team Eglin Public Affairs
"EGLIN AIR FORCE BASE, Fla. -- The 33rd Fighter Wing and the F-35 Lightning II program reached a new milestone when Marine Fighter Attack Training Squadron-501 completed its first short take-off and vertical landing mission here Oct. 24.

Maj. Brendan M. Walsh flew the hour-long mission in which the aircraft remained in the STOVL configuration for the entire flight. The aircraft flew pattern procedures around the base before gliding in, stopping in mid-air about 100 feet off the Eglin runway, performing a stationary right turn and slowly lowered to the ground.

"This mission made one of the key capabilities for this fighter an operational reality not just for VMFAT-501, but for the entire F-35B program," said Lt. Col. David Berke, the VMFAT-501 commander. "Our expeditionary operations are rapidly evolving, and STOVL capabilities give us a flexibility to stage our aircraft not just from major bases and carriers, but also out of damaged airstrips and other austere operating sites."

Walsh is the only pilot at Eglin qualified to fly in the STOVL configuration, but he said the flight paved the way to locally train F-35B instructors and new students in STOVL operations

"STOVL is going to quickly become a routine, administrative function of the F-35B, said Walsh. "We will upgrade all current pilots to a field STOVL qualification. This will facilitate the F-35B community training for shipboard operations in the near future, and it will allow more focus on training for tactical mission sets."

Walsh qualified in vertical landing operations six months ago at Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, Ariz.

"I came to this program as an F-18 pilot, so to become the first STOVL qualified instructor in the fleet without a background in vertical landings is a testament to the ease of operation of the F-35," Walsh said.

STOVL operations allow the F-35B to operate in austere conditions, and it is a key difference between the Marine variant and other F-35 variants.

The STOVL operation also marks a significant achievement in the program for some partner countries. VMFAT-501 hosts three pilots and 13 maintainers from the United Kingdom's Royal Air Force and Royal Navy."
Marines fly first F-35 STOVL mission at Eglin (http://www.eglin.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123368463)

LowObservable

29th Oct 2013, 14:36

Wot, they only just did that now?

Lonewolf_50

29th Oct 2013, 16:39

I think the guys at Pax River already did a bit of that ... this seems to be a milestone in standing up the training squadron and getting to IOC ...

SpazSinbad

29th Oct 2013, 17:52

Yes LO the USMC are real slow on the uptake.

SpazSinbad

31st Oct 2013, 00:10

F-35B strikes tank with guided bomb in test (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/f-35b-strikes-tank-with-guided-bomb-in-test-392372/) &/or U.S. F-35 fighter drops first guided bomb against ground target | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/30/us-lockheed-fighter-weapon-idUSBRE99T1IR20131030)

http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getasset.aspx?itemid=53217

http://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getasset.aspx?itemid=53216

First F-35 Guided Weapon Test
"Published on Oct 30, 2013
An F-35 Lightning II employs a Guided Bomb Unit-12 (GBU-12) Paveway II laser-guided weapon from the internal weapons bay against a fixed ground tank test target Oct. 29, at a test range at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif. The F-35's Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS) enabled the pilot to identify, track, designate and deliver the GBU-12 on target."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4amnP87r1a8

SpazSinbad

31st Oct 2013, 00:31

Pentagon's F-35 office eyes possible change in testing approach 30 Oct 2013 Andrea Shalal-Esa
"(Reuters) - The Pentagon on Wednesday said it is examining the possibility of saving time and money by more closely integrating developmental and operational testing of the new F-35 radar-evading fighter jet built by Lockheed Martin Corp.

Kyra Hawn, spokeswoman for the $392 billion F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, said discussions were under way with the Pentagon's "testing community" but no decisions had been made.

"It's trying to do what makes sense and is efficient, without up-ending the intent of having these separate and distinct review processes," Hawn said....

...Current plans call for the Marine Corps to start using the new planes operationally from mid-2015, followed by the other services in subsequent years, while operational testing is not due to begin until 2018.

In an "acquisition decision memorandum" dated Monday, Kendall ordered the Air Force general who runs the program to submit a reworked plan by November 15 for funding the development program that reflected the program's experience.

Hawn said that new plans would reflect changes made to the developmental program, such as earlier testing of the jet's ability to function during lightning storms...

...Retired Admiral Gary Roughead, the former chief of naval operations, welcomed efforts to better integrate testing and speed up the process of buying and fielding new weapons.

He said he would never put U.S. military personnel in an unsafe position, but thought the current level of testing required for new weapons had "gone way overboard."

"Time is money. We really need to look at how we get things to market faster and more efficiently," Roughead, a fellow with the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, told Reuters.

"How we test, how we learn, and how we make improvements has become overtaken by a slavish adherence to an ever increasing process," he said...."
Pentagon's F-35 office eyes possible change in testing approach | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/30/us-lockheed-fighter-testing-idUSBRE99T1JA20131030)

Rhino power

31st Oct 2013, 01:34

Something that strikes me as odd, maybe i'm missing something (highly probable...), the USMC are to begin using their F-35Bs 'operationally' from 2015, with other services following in coming years. What is it that makes the USMC's F-35s 'operationally' viable from 2015 yet, not any of the other services? Also, 'operational testing' is not set to begin until 2018(!), three years after being declared 'operational'! If this is the case then the USMC's IOC on the F-35B must spectacularly limited? Which begs the question what is the point? Is it purely in an effort to ensure that the F-35B survives given the USMC have more or less 'bet the farm' on the B model...

-RP

SpazSinbad

31st Oct 2013, 02:24

The services are able to decide their own IOC parameters and have done so. This is what Gen. Amos said recently:

USMC Gen. Amos testifies before Congress on F-35B 15 May 2013 Barry Graaf
"...“When asked about the status of the software he said:
“…the fact of the matter is that the program officer, program manager, General Bogdan, went on record here just a little bit ago saying that he had confidence that (F-35) 2B software would be ready to go in time to meet the IOC (Initial Operating Capability) of the Marine Corps of 2015. The software in 2B will provide a more capable platform than we currently have in the entire United States Marine Corps today. It will provide an airplane that will deliver more weapons, be more capable, be stealthier, have more capabilities, more information assurance, more information dominance, than anything we're flying today in the United States Marine Corps.”"
http://whythef35.blagspot.com.au/2013/05/usmc-gen-amos-testifies-before-congress.html

CHANGE 'blag' in URL to 'blog' and it will worketh good.
_____________________

F-35 Initial Operational Capability June 2013
"...Executive Summary
Air Force F-35A initial operational capability (IOC) shall be declared when the first operational squadron is equipped with 12-24 aircraft, and Airmen are trained, manned, and equipped to conduct basic Close Air Support (CAS), Interdiction, and limited Suppression and Destruction of Enemy Air Defense (SEAD/DEAD) operations in a contested environment. Based on the current F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) schedule, the F-35A will reach the IOC milestone between August 2016 (Objective) and December 2016 (Threshold). Should capability delivery experience changes or delays, this estimate will be revised appropriately.

Marine Corps F-35B IOC shall be declared when the first operational squadron is equipped with 10-16 aircraft, and US Marines are trained, manned, and equipped to conduct CAS, Offensive and Defensive Counter Air, Air Interdiction, Assault Support Escort, and Armed Reconnaissance in concert with Marine Air Ground Task Force resources and capabilities. Based on the current F-35 JPO schedule, the F-35B will reach the IOC milestone between July 2015 (Objective) and December 2015 (Threshold). Should capability delivery experience changes or delays, this estimate will be revised appropriately.

Navy F-35C IOC shall be declared when the first operational squadron is equipped with 10 aircraft, and Navy personnel are trained, manned and equipped to conduct assigned missions. Based on the current F-35 JPO schedule, the F-35C will reach the IOC milestone between August 2018 (Objective) and February 2019 (Threshold). Should capability delivery experience changes or delays, this estimate will be revised appropriately....

...United States Marine Corps F-35B IOC Date and Capabilities:
Marine Corps F-35B IOC shall be declared when the first operational squadron is trained, manned, and equipped to conduct CAS, Offensive and Defensive Counter Air, Air Interdiction, Assault Support Escort, and Armed Reconnaissance in concert with Marine Air Ground Task Force resources and capabilities. The F-35B shall have the ability to conduct operational missions utilizing SDD program of record weapons and mission systems. The aircraft will be in a Block 2B configuration with the requisite SDD performance envelope and weapon clearances. The first Marine Corps F-35B operational squadron shall have 10-16 primary aircraft and shall be capable of deploying and performing its assigned mission(s). Support and sustainment elements shall include spares, support equipment, tools, technical publications, training programs and devices, and Autonomic Logistic Information System V2.

Marine Corps IOC is capability based and will be declared when the above conditions are met. If the F-35 IMS Version 7 executes according to plan, Marine Corps F-35B IOC criteria could be met between July 2015 (Objective) and December 2015 (Threshold). Should capability delivery experience additional changes, this estimate will be revised appropriately.

The criteria stated above will provide sufficient initial combat capability for the threat postulated in 2015. However, in order to meet the full spectrum of Joint warfighter requirements in future years, the Marine Corps will require enhanced lethality and survivability inherent in Blocks 3F and beyond...."
F-35_IOC_Joint_Report_FINAL[1].pdf (http://www.scribd.com/document_downloads/144894824?extension=pdf) (116Kb PDF)

SpazSinbad

31st Oct 2013, 06:35

Sea Power - November 2013 (http://www.seapower-digital.com/seapower/november_2013#pg28)
‘A Balance of Risk and Reward’ Nov 2013 By OTTO KREISHER, Special Correspondent
"Marines face long, slow grind to achieve F-35B initial operational capability...

...The F-35Bs flown now by Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 121 have the block 2A 2.5 software, but will not be combat-capable until the block 2B software is installed, and development of that system is running slower than expected....

...The types of missions and the range of speed and maneuvers the pilots can fly are limited by the early version of the critical computer software that manages aircraft performance and its sensors and mission-control systems, as well as some airframe issues.

VMFA-121’s Lightnings currently have the block 2A 2.5 software, but expect to get the first aircraft with the more capable block 2A 3.1 soon, Wyrsch said. With that software, they will be able to fly at night and in weather conditions requiring reliance on instruments, he said.

However, the F-35 will not be combat-capable until it has the block 2B software, and development of that system — with its 9 million lines of computer code — is running slower than expected, said Air Force Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, the F-35 program executive.

Wyrsch said the squadron is “hoping to get actual aircraft configured for 2B in the spring of 2015,” which would mean that by “summer or fall of 2015, we’ll have pilots that actually are capable of deploying with the aircraft if called upon to do so.”...

...VMFA-121 is flying with an early version of the sophisticated helmet, which allows the pilot to see aircraft flight information and the operational situation through the helmet visor, rather than looking at the instrument panel. Although that helmet has some operational deficiencies, the program office said the squadron could achieve IOC with it. The new model of the helmet is in final testing.

Flight maneuvers also are restricted until the squadron’s F-35s receive some of the required airframe modifications, including a fix to the roll post doors, which help control the aircraft during STOVL operations....

...Wyrsch said he has conducted STOVL operations only in the F-35B flight simulators, but echoed the observation of program test pilots who have said that making the transition from STOVL to conventional flight and back in the Lightning is much easier than in the Harrier.

“It’s really just a push of the button,” he said.

Although test pilots have performed dozens of STOVL operations at sea on the amphibious assault ship USS Wasp, the Green Knights do not expect to be cleared for shipboard operations until closer to IOC.

Wyrsch noted that VMFA-121 has been “using Marine maintenance since Day 1 … where the Marines are maintaining all the aircraft.”..."
http://www.seapower-digital.com/d2acea823527d176cfbbc11462eed454/5271e995/seapower/november_2013/data/seapower201311-dl.pdf (8.2Mb)

Rhino power

31st Oct 2013, 12:48

Thanks for the links Spaz...

-RP

LowObservable

31st Oct 2013, 16:59

"The software in 2B will provide a more capable platform than we currently have in the entire United States Marine Corps today."

Whoopity :mad:ing whoop. It's slogans like this that undermine the credibility of the Corps and of the program.

Seriously: The Marines today fly Classic Hornets designed in the late 1970s, and Harrier IIs, an early-80s mod of a 1960s design. Just as well that 35-50 years and $xx billion have produced something better.

In the real world, Block 2B has little or no capability against moving targets (except what can be done with an LGB), no gun and no AIM-9X. The latter means that it is somewhat dodgy in an environment where the air threat is uncertain, and of little use for CAS (particularly since it doesn't have Rover either).

The squadron (there are only enough Block 2B jets for one) is staffed with hand-picked pilots and maintenance people. There may be advantages to this kind of early operational test, but it costs you (in resources that could be applied to developing the KPP-compliant aircraft).

As for the Reuters bit, how often have you heard of a program that's confident of performing on schedule, but wants to use a shortcut? Me neither.

Lonewolf_50

31st Oct 2013, 17:38

As for the Reuters bit, how often have you heard of a program that's confident of performing on schedule, but wants to use a shortcut? Me
neither.
There is a never ending push in most big dollar programs to find ways to declare "look at the money we saved" regardless of where the larger program is taking things. (I saw this in a few programs a while ago ... )

Someone does a risk assessment, and either goes for the savings route or says "not likely enough to let's just maintain course and speed."

With the larger program in such cost and time deficits, anything they can roll out that smacks of 'look what a nice change of trend here!" is going to be rolled out, if only to appease Congressional (money source) critics.

peter we

31st Oct 2013, 19:30

Seriously: The Marines today fly Classic Hornets designed in the late 1970s, and Harrier IIs, an early-80s mod of a 1960s design. Just as well that 35-50 years and $xx billion have produced something better.

Its takes time to develop weapons and aircraft.

It also takes a lot of money.

The F-35 is still in development, it will get better.

Do you understand?

LowObservable

31st Oct 2013, 19:36

Its takes time to develop weapons and aircraft.

It also takes a lot of money.

The F-35 is still in development, it will get better.

Thanks for that frightfully enlightening comment. I really did not know any of those things before.

Courtney Mil

31st Oct 2013, 21:48

Sitting here in the middle of all this, I'm delighted to see a liitle discussion rather than just continuous quotes from other web sites. I can get an RSS feed any time I want.

So it's back to the Acolytes (who shall hear no bad spoken against the new Wonder) against the Rebels (who have seen too many programmes go badly wrong to take it without question). I would score this round as one to the Rebels on the basis of a glib attempt to state the bleedin' obvious.

Next round please. :ok:

Just This Once...

31st Oct 2013, 21:53

I agree and would be grateful if Spaz can turn-down the quotes a little. They may be relevant and some are very interesting but it does break-up the discussion somewhat.

:ok:

Willard Whyte

31st Oct 2013, 22:56

Its takes time to develop weapons and aircraft.

It also takes a lot of money.

The F-35 is still in development, it will get better.

How long?

How much?

It'd better, given the answer to the first two is 'lots'.

VMFA-121’s Lightnings currently have the block 2A 2.5 software, but expect to get the first aircraft with the more capable block 2A 3.1 soon, Wyrsch said. With that software, they will be able to fly at night and in weather conditions requiring reliance on instruments, he said.

Reassuring that it will be capable of IF 5 years after it first flew.

SpazSinbad

31st Oct 2013, 23:28

Oh so sad.... no droneing on and on shootdown.... :}

F-35B launches air-to-air missile in test (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/f-35b-launches-air-to-air-missile-in-test-392434/)

peter we

31st Oct 2013, 23:33

who have seen too many programmes go badly wrong to take it without question

You think if the F-35 was stopped and restarted the result would be any better? I don't.

Cancel the F-35 and start again and you will end up with something just as crap, twenty years later and X hundreds of billions wasted.

Its far better to stick with a plan and go all the way to its conclusion. Keep plugging away with improvements.

Its far, far too late to change now, the program was designed to be un-cancellable - and it is.

As for this thread; the discussion has stopped as everything has been said. Spaz is quite right to post links and articles about the programs progress, no need for a slagging match. The F-35 is going to happen..

Courtney Mil

31st Oct 2013, 23:56

It is really good news that the jet has made a successful, guided launch. But I have to say that the statements made by Lockheed in the press release are dreadful.

The drone was identified and targeted using mission systems sensors and the target’s “track” information was passed to the radar-seeking missile, say Lockheed.

The weapon launched from the aircraft’s internal weapons bay, acquired the target and flew an “intercept flight profile,” says Lockheed.

If that means the radar and the missile worked, then good. Just like fighters have been doing for many decades. Incidentally, AIM-120 is not a "Radar-seeking missile". I think Raytheon might tell you it's a bit smarter than that.

WhiteOvies

1st Nov 2013, 13:34

The trouble is that the debate is rather polar between the regular contributors, which is not surprising given the strength of feelings on both sides. These feelings are aided by poor reporting and poor press releases (dumbing down perhaps?) with inaccuracies in reports taken as gospel. The Reuters OT start date is just plain wrong.

Getting a balanced view is difficult without speaking directly to the personnel involved or working on the programme yourself (few opportunities for either option for most posters on this thread I would suggest).

As such Spaz posting updates is useful, if nothing else to see which way the various media outlets try to spin the progress made. The programme is a lot further forward than it was when this thread started, but there is still a way to go. What are the successful criteria for this aircraft? Measured against which other contemporary aircraft/procurement programme?

The companies and militaries involved are not going to put everything out in themedia to satisy the curiosity of internet users (and the Russians/Chinese/Iranians etc). In my opinion there is too much already out there in the public domain...

The debate will continue to rage about 'is it worth it?' but how many people raised that vocally when Typhoon had to buddy laze with a Tornado over Libya after all those years and money spent on design and test?

IMHO the discussion over blurring the line between Development Test and Operational Test is not surprising and is not a new concept in the flight test world. If it gets capabilities integrated and onto the frontline sooner then great.

Lonewolf_50

1st Nov 2013, 14:20

The question has always been: canceled by whom? The US won't be cancelling, but that doesn't mean other players won't eventually fold their hands. It seems to me that such was the concern when this thread began.

Maybe I misunderstood.

LowObservable

1st Nov 2013, 18:13

The program will end eventually, as all programs do. The question is when.

At this point, entry into service with the USAF is all but inevitable. The service has painted itself into a corner and needs to replace old aircraft, and the F-35A will probably be a serviceable bomber.

I would bet much less money on the F-35C, even given that it passes carrier quals. If it dies, the Marines may end up with a handful of F-35Bs - having already admitted that the aircraft will be used for STOVL missions only ten per cent of the time.

In both cases (B&C), the Adv Super Hornet is the classic example of an 80 per cent solution at a fraction of the cost.

For the B&C, the driving factor right now is probably not program performance but the economy and pressures on defense budgets. The years between now and 2020 are likely to be very tough - and the budgets that, according to Kendall &c, "protect" the JSF start with an FY15 plan that does not reflect the Budget Control Act's sequester provisions.

Meanwhile, the export customers have to look at the number of aircraft they can afford to buy and operate.

Those are just the programmatic issues. Next come the "operational" questions. Is the JSF over-reliant on one attribute? Have potential adversaries (given a quarter-century to work on it) compensated technically for that advantage?

And we did not even get to the strategic issues, to wit, is betting the ranch on short-range fighters what we want to do?

Finally: Its [sic] far better to stick with a plan and go all the way to its conclusion.

Not really. If the plan's flawed or circumstances change (both have happened in this case) inflexibility can lead to catastrophe. Any fund manager will tell you that there is a time to suck up the losses and unload before they get worse.

peter we

1st Nov 2013, 18:25

- having already admitted that the aircraft will be used for STOVL missions only ten per cent of the time.

That 10 percent is when they are actually fighting a war. The rest of the time they can go cheap.

SpazSinbad

1st Nov 2013, 18:31

This is certainly a funnyforum in some respects. What the heck.... :E :}

Yeah when the F-35B flat deck users need STOVL - they really need so Fruck the 10% malarkey - but youse knew that - right? LO's mother must have been scared by a marine when he was in the womb I reckon. What's the deal with bashing the USMC - constantly? :confused:

Australia's F-35 Buy Unaffected by US Sequestration 31 Oct 2013 NIGEL PITTAWAY
“Aircraft Begins 'Mate' Process With Lockheed CANBERRA, AUSTRALIA — Australia’s F-35A program is on track despite recent delays to flight tests caused by budget sequestration in the United States, according to the country’s head of New Air Combat Capability (NACC). However, Air Vice Marshal Kym Osley said the NACC Project Office estimates there may be up to seven months of risk remaining in the development of the war-fighting capability software, known as Block 3F (Final). While this isn’t likely to affect Australian operational capability, which is not due until the end of 2020, it could affect US Marine Corps and Air Force plans....

...The Australian government reaffirmed its commitment to acquiring 72 F-35A fighters to replace its older F/A-18A/B Hornet fleet in May and has a potential requirement for 28 more, depending on future decisions involving its Super Hornets. The initial program of record for 72 aircraft is valued at AUS $3.2 billion (US $3.08 billion), based on 2009 figures. Fourteen F-35As are approved. But so far only two have been ordered, with the second aircraft set to roll out in Fort Worth on Aug. 1. The first two will be used to train Australian F-35 pilots at Luke Air Force Base, Ariz., before being delivered to Australia in 2018....

...Osley noted that testing of the F-35A variant is 40 percent to 45 percent complete and he saw no “showstoppers.”...

...Bogdan has briefed international partners that the advanced training software, Block 2B, is on track to support US Marine Corps IOC in July 2015, but the Marines have a fallback plan of late 2015 if required.

The next software version is Block 3I (Initial), which has the same capabilities as Block 2B (the initial war fighter) but can be used outside the continental US by other nations, and Osley said it is on track for the end of 2015. With Australian confidence high for on-time delivery of its F-35As, Osley said he is now focusing on ensuring local infrastructure and training will be in place to stand up the first operational squadron, representing IOC, in late 2020.”
Australia's F-35 Buy Unaffected by US Sequestration | Defense News | defensenews.com (http://www.defensenews.com/article/20131031/DEFREG03/310310023/Australia-s-F-35-Buy-Unaffected-by-US-Sequestration)

Courtney Mil

1st Nov 2013, 18:31

Peter we, and many others, I couldn't easily work out whom you were quoting there, so your post didn't make much sense. Any chance you could identify your quotes. You know, like:

That 10 percent is when they are actually fighting a war. The rest of the time they can go cheap.

:ok:

Courtney Mil

1st Nov 2013, 18:36

but youse knew that - right?

...has become your standard report meaning, "I'm right, you're wrong, although I really know that the point is open to debate (that you're not going to get)" :D:=

SpazSinbad

1st Nov 2013, 18:44

'CM' you are a funny chap also. You are allowed to interpret my comments any way you please and I'll do the reverse. What a strange interpretation of my humour. Lighten up.

peter we

1st Nov 2013, 18:47

Peter we, and many others, I couldn't easily work out whom you were quoting there, so your post didn't make much sense. Any chance you could identify your quotes. You know, like:

Unlike every forum out there there is no quote on this site. I've figured it out now.
The syntax is QUOTE=Courtney Mil within [] brackets

...has become your standard report meaning, "I'm right, you're wrong, although I really know that the point is open to debate (that you're not going to get)"

Because he, like a few others have given up and gone elsewhere rather than getting into a 'discussion' that isn't.

Courtney Mil

1st Nov 2013, 18:56

I thought this was a discussion forum. I like the diversity of opinion. Without it there isn't much to discuss.

peter we

1st Nov 2013, 19:01

Expressing an opinion on your own assumptions isn't a discussion, its borderline trolling.

Courtney Mil

1st Nov 2013, 19:31

It would seem it is, if you don't agree with the stated opinion. But, to be fair, although there is a very broad spectrum of views here, I don't think there are too many posters here that anyone could reasonably call a troll. One less now.:eek:

Squirrel 41

1st Nov 2013, 19:50

Getting back to the point....

I would bet much less money on the F-35C, even given that it passes carrier quals. If it dies, the Marines may end up with a handful of F-35Bs - having already admitted that the aircraft will be used for STOVL missions only ten per cent of the time.

In both cases (B&C), the Adv Super Hornet is the classic example of an 80 per cent solution at a fraction of the cost.

For the B&C, the driving factor right now is probably not program performance but the economy and pressures on defense budgets. The years between now and 2020 are likely to be very tough - and the budgets that, according to Kendall &c, "protect" the JSF start with an FY15 plan that does not reflect the Budget Control Act's sequester provisions.

LO, thanks for this.

I agree on the USAF would be left with an awful lot of tired F-15C/Ds & 16s by 2030, along with a (comparatively) tiny number of F-22s and (probably quite tired) F-15Es. This isn't big or clever, so they'll go out of their way make JSF work as a sort of stealthy F-16CG/CJ (or whatever the current nomenclature is); this will come at a price of >$120m a copy, meaning that most of the allies will have either tiny offtake or will buy something else.

On Dave-B, I just can't see what it does in CONOPS terms for the USMC that makes it make sense. And sorry for being a stuck record on this, but the US will have to make budget cuts, and Dave-B is an easy saving to make - and that's before you end up with it being the most expensive variant which has the lowest payload / range capability. (Let's hope it does get binned so that the UK buys a proper carrier jet.... :E)

Dave-C? Your point about Avd Super Hornet being 80% of the solution is surely right. Do you think that they'd really go for it and leave the USAF with the stealth capability, esp. if X-47C etc doesn't come off?

So I keep returning to a compromise - Dave-AC if you will; in essence, save a pile of cash by making Dave-C the main production variant, and modifying it (a la F-110A/F-4C) with a UAARSI for the USAF. I know it has lower g loading and has poorer transonic acceleration, but if the USAF is looking for a bomb truck, then a modified Dave-C would be fine. Less clever for the air-to-air aircombat mission, but that's hardly the point.

Thoughts?

S41

PhilipG

1st Nov 2013, 22:32

S41, Totally agree with you, the Dave C has longer legs, just what is needed in the Pacific, if the F35 works as advertised, the USAF would have a good bomb truck and a platform for the stealth carriage of a number of A2A weapons. Having one version must make everything easier to develop thus cheaper.

peter we

1st Nov 2013, 22:52

In both cases (B&C), the Adv Super Hornet is the classic example of an 80 per cent solution at a fraction of the cost.

The Super Hornet is around $85m, the F-35a around $125m in LIRP. Once production numbers start being built in 2017 the F-35 will probably cost the same as a SH. Possibly less, as its only one engine.

Some fraction - for a 80% 'solution'. What is a 80% solution, BTW, 20% dead?

Courtney Mil

1st Nov 2013, 23:12

F-35A may cost 125M a shot, but it won't replace SH, of course.

Serious question, where do we think the prices will end up? It would be great to think that the cost really will continue to drop, but will LM really do it, especially if they are now having to absorb any increases? How many previous projects ever went down in price?

Squirrel 41

1st Nov 2013, 23:45

How many previous projects ever went down in price?

Quite. I'd be (very pleasantly) surprised if the UK saw any Dave-Bs at under £100m a copy in 2013 money.

S41

peter we

2nd Nov 2013, 00:05

It would be great to think that the cost really will continue to drop, but will LM really do it, especially if they are now having to absorb any increases? How many previous projects ever went down in price?

The project costs may increase as its basically R&D, but the manufacturing cost is determined by volume. And the number built will have a major effect on cost per unit.

The F-35 is not in production yet, so yes, cost will come down significantly when three or four times as many are build on the same line.

The low cost of the F-16 and other American aircraft (B737?) is not low due to brilliant design, its entirely down to mass production.

LowObservable

2nd Nov 2013, 01:47

P we..

"That 10 per cent is for when they are actually fighting a war"

You do realize that you are not on a fan forum? Do you think that the idea is that the Marines will wait until hostilities approach to train for shipboard and austere-base ops?

Spaz - Try to think this through. Sure you need STOVL to op from a ship without cats and traps. But if 300-some jets are doing this one-tenth of the time, that tells me that all this pain has gone into putting 30 extra jets on the front line. Good strategy?

SpazSinbad

2nd Nov 2013, 04:00

I have been reading that the USN CNO has been canvassing the idea of reducing CVN numbers. I'm no fortune teller however if this happens and no USN / USMC LHAs are affected by the draw down then these flat decks become that more useful in the light of fewer CVNs. Shirley?

And I have thought it through. What exactly is your point about 10%. Please explain. STOVL is useful when it is required. If someone is attempting to quantify the future use of the STOVL bits then good on them - exactly what is that criteria. Do you know? If you do then as they say in the classics.... "Please explain".

Courtney Mil

2nd Nov 2013, 10:46

I can't fault your maths, LO, but it's more like a lot of the 300 doing STOVL 10% of the time rather than 10% doing it all the time. You know what I mean.

peter we

2nd Nov 2013, 14:18

His maths isn't wrong, its his logic.

Do you think that the idea is that the Marines will wait until hostilities approach to train for shipboard and austere-base ops?

The vertical landing element only takes up 10% of training whereas it took significantly more with the AV-8B (especially with the Marines). This makes for a much cheaper training for the F-35B, which is an advantage. Isn't it?

LowObservable

2nd Nov 2013, 16:14

Er, no. The pilot training is only part of the operation. The entire unit has to train and practice in sea or austere-base operations. What the Marines are admitting is that STOVL ops will actually comprise small detachments on some, not all, of the amphibs. This is a strategically nonsensical misalignment of resources given the costs that STOVL has imposed on the project.

Just This Once...

2nd Nov 2013, 16:23

That's the way read it too. Once you are embarked STOVL ops are the only option so the only way to reduce the % is to fly from land and use CTOL.

NITRO104

2nd Nov 2013, 20:46

peter we (http://www.pprune.org/members/82067-peter-we),
If you want to cite $125m for the F-35A, it'd be only fair to use the same criteria all around by which metric the SH measures $54m per unit (URF).
Also, I believe MC proposed a 10% of the entire service life ops to be conducted in STOVL, which was then the basis for calculating LCC for B.

Courtney Mil

3rd Nov 2013, 00:07

His maths isn't wrong, its his logic.

I almost said that in my post, but I don't think that's completely true. It was just maths applied too literally. If maths can be literal. Anyway, LO does make some very good points about training effort and the compromises of going down the STOVL route. But, if the CVLs are being cut, I suspect the figure could rise way above 10%.

Anyway, too many figures for this time of night.

Bon nuit.

P.S. Nitro, good point made about like for like costs.

peter we

3rd Nov 2013, 17:01

If you want to cite $125m for the F-35A, it'd be only fair to use the same criteria all around by which metric the SH measures $54m per unit (URF).

Its difficult to get like-for like comparisons. However S. Korea has just been give the costs for the F-15, Eurofighter and F-35 for 60 units, everything included. for a defined requirement.

The F-15 and Eurofighter were offered (eventually) on budget at $7.9Bn (direct commercial sale). The F-35 came in at $10.8bn (Foreign Military Sales process)

Fighter jet bidding extended again (http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2013/06/116_138313.html)

Which indicates the F-35A is currently 37% more expensive than comparable aircraft (10.8/7.9= 1.37). Still, its 80% (according to LO) of the functionality for 73% of the price

The F-18 will surely come in at the same ball park (ref - Australia's A$10billion+ SH program Australia?s 2nd Fighter Fleet: Super Hornets & Growlers (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/australia-to-buy-24-super-hornets-as-interim-gapfiller-to-jsf-02898/) )

oldmansquipper

3rd Nov 2013, 17:49

Technical fault left RAF pilots unable to see where they were flying the £100 million aircraft | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2485533/Technical-fault-left-RAF-pilots-unable-flying-100-million-aircraft.html)

So its back to the future then? :sad:

SpazSinbad

3rd Nov 2013, 17:58

Yep it is - future backup helmet no-go - most Brit newspapers belong in the 19th century but anyways...

F-35 Program Stops Alternate Helmet Display Development | Aviation International News (http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ain-defense-perspective/2013-10-18/f-35-program-stops-alternate-helmet-display-development)

NITRO104

3rd Nov 2013, 18:04

peter we,
to clear any doubt, http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-130408-079.pdf
which shows Congress allocating about $125m in FY14 (LRIP6) to manufacture each JSF 'A'.
I don't think Korea will be getting LRIP6 but subsequent and less expensive batches, so $180m export price in '18 or so doesn't look encouraging, particularly since souped-up Eurofighter is being offered at a comparatively modest $130m.

peter we

3rd Nov 2013, 19:09

Nitro

The Korean requirement is immediate, I don't think they can wait to 2018.

For interest, FWIW. Flyaway unit cost in FY 2018 $96.152milion, Gross/Weapon System Unit Cost $107.14

(Flyaway unit cost includes recurring flyaway, non-recurring flyaway, and ancillary equipment.)

Squirrel 41

3rd Nov 2013, 21:10

Peter we

The Korean requirement is immediate, I don't think they can wait to 2018.

Well, in that case they'd better not buy F-35s as the JSFs aren't going to be combat ready in a meaningful sense until 2018/20 or so. :ugh:

Can't have it both ways, I'm afraid.

S41

SpazSinbad

3rd Nov 2013, 21:33

Some recent info for the squirrel.... who opined:
"...they'd better not buy F-35s as the JSFs aren't going to be combat ready in a meaningful sense until 2018/20 or so...."

Lockheed Martin touts F-35’s strengths in future combat 31 Oct 2013 Song Sang-ho
"..."...Observers and officials are concerned the decision [South Korean next-generation fighter jet project reset] could cause a delay in the plan to deploy 60 high-end warplanes from 2017-2021.

Scott expressed confidence about the delivery commitment despite worries about a possible delay.

“The offer that the U.S. government and Lockheed Martin submitted included deliveries beginning as early as 2017, and we can still maintain those deliveries if there is a decision made to proceed forward in the near future,” he said.

Touching on the acquisition cost, Scott reiterated that Korea would be in the “sweet spot” of the cost curve as the production of the F-35 would ramp up with more customers placing orders.

“The cost of the F-35 has come down substantially. From the first-year production to the seventh-year production, we decreased the price by 55 percent and we will continue to decrease that price as we increase the production rate,” he said.

“The U.S. government projects the F-35A model ordered in 2018 and delivered in 2020 will be $85 million for the airplane. To that, we need to add spares, support and training and other things that go to create a full capability for the ROKAF (Republic of Korea Air Force). But that is a very competitive price compared to current generation planes.”...

...Scott said the development of the F-35 software was on track. Now, the “Block-2A” software is being tested with a plan to complete the final combat-capable Block 3-F version in late 2016...."
Lockheed Martin touts F-35?s strengths in future combat (http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20131031000781)

SpazSinbad

3rd Nov 2013, 21:45

Exhibition shows life on board new aircraft carriers at Yeovilton 02 Nov 2013 Western Daily Press
"...visitors to the Fleet Air Arm Museum at Yeovilton in Somerset can experience what life will be like aboard ship and for their new generation of fighter pilots.

A new permanent exhibition on HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales has opened at the museum near Yeovil. It plots the history of Royal Naval flying from its earliest days and features films showing the unique 'building block' construction process of the new carriers, which are the largest and most powerful surface warships ever built for the Royal Navy. Interactive displays allowing the user to manoeuvre aircraft on the flight deck and take off....

...The Royal Navy's first F35 pilot, Lieutenant-Commander Ian Tidball is contributing to a blog in the new gallery."
Exhibition shows life on board new aircraft carriers at Yeovilton | Yeovil People (http://www.yeovilpeople.co.uk/Exhibition-shows-life-board-new-aircraft-carriers/story-20024423-detail/story.html)

peter we

3rd Nov 2013, 23:18

Well, in that case they'd better not buy F-35s

The Typhoon bid was rejected because they only included 6 twin seaters. There was no requirement for two seat aircraft and, of course, the F-35 is a single seater.

Nothing is as it seems in this 'competition'.

Squirrel 41

4th Nov 2013, 07:12

...Scott said the development of the F-35 software was on track. Now, the “Block-2A” software is being tested with a plan to complete the final combat-capable Block 3-F version in late 2016...."

Exactly my point, Spaz. Even assuming that the Block 3 is on time and to budget (draw your own conclusions based on the performance so far.... :hmm:) in late-2016, then if you're South Korea:

- Take delivery of 60 JSFs;

- Train air and ground crews;

- Integrate JSF into the RoKAF.

None of this happens overnight, so even if the "late-2016" timeline is right, a JSF operational capability for RoKAF is most unlikely before 2018. Hence, if you are South Korea and want something useable before then, you don't buy JSF.

S41

SpazSinbad

4th Nov 2013, 07:52

What South Korea does in what timeframe is up to them. Perhaps this development may help them along - if all goes well.

Pentagon's F-35 office eyes possible change in testing approach (http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE99T1JA20131030)

airborne_artist

4th Nov 2013, 08:09

Meanwhile the cost of the carriers "is expected to be almost twice the original estimate, the Ministry of Defence is expected to confirm this week (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24801942)"

"A government source said it had inherited a flawed contract that was now being renegotiated to ensure industry shared the burden of any future rises.

During the course of the project, an order for carrier jump jets - capable of short take-offs and vertical landings - was switched to jets with a longer range that could carry more weapons.

However, in February last year, the MoD decided to revert to the original jets for logistical and financial reasons."

chopper2004

4th Nov 2013, 09:57

Think you've see all this? RAF pilots left ?blinded? at 1000 mph by helmet technical glitch - Home News - UK - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/raf-pilots-left-blinded-at-1000-mph-by-helmet-technical-glitch-8919504.html) I saw it on the Air Forces Monthly FB link

SpazSinbad

4th Nov 2013, 10:56

'chopper2004' perhaps you were blinded by the light of this very similar report here: http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/424953-f-35-cancelled-then-what-179.html#post8133193

With a reply here below that link. Rptd here: F-35 Program Stops Alternate Helmet Display Development | Aviation International News (http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ain-defense-perspective/2013-10-18/f-35-program-stops-alternate-helmet-display-development)

LowObservable

4th Nov 2013, 15:52

I believe that the Korean journo may have been confused. At best, 3F will be delivered to test sometime in 2016. If it was to be ready for operations at that time, the USAF and USN would be falling all over themselves to use it operationally.

FoxtrotAlpha18

5th Nov 2013, 02:19

Hence, if you are South Korea and want something useable before then, you don't buy JSF.

So what's your alternative?

Advanced F-15 - not likely before 2020.
Eurofighter T3 - ditto!

peter we

5th Nov 2013, 10:44

Eurofighter T3 - ditto!

Not so. The first T3 will be flying before the end of the year.

First Tranche 3 Eurofighter completes engine ground runs (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/first-tranche-3-eurofighter-completes-engine-ground-runs-392507/)

DAPA described it as 'risk free'

melmothtw

5th Nov 2013, 10:48

Advanced F-15 - not likely before 2020.

Not true. Advanced F-15 / Silent Eagle will be ready to field and combat capable long before then, especially if they were not to opt for the conformal weapons bays.

LowObservable

5th Nov 2013, 11:58

But in JSF Troll World, all these things are true. It's just a matter of perspective.

By the way, another funny from the Korean report:

“The cost of the F-35 has come down substantially. From the first-year production to the seventh-year production, we decreased the price by 55 percent"

Yes, indeed - but you get to that 55 per cent by including the two FY2007 aircraft, which cost in the region of $400 million. Otherwise....

http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/fig3.png

peter we

5th Nov 2013, 17:09

“The cost of the F-35 has come down substantially. From the first-year production to the seventh-year production, we decreased the price by 55 percent"

He's talking about the purchase cost, not how much its costing the US government, under the relevant accounting system.

The foreign customers are only interested in the purchase price.

Why is it using 'then year', as it meaningless in a comparison chart like this? The dollar scale is therefore wrong.

Just This Once...

5th Nov 2013, 20:19

peter we, the extract above has a pretty impeccable source which is also referenced. If you think the DoD has got it wrong be sure to drop them a note.

peter we

5th Nov 2013, 22:08

Its not wrong.

But the number is an accounting figure, unless its defined how the figures are calculated its difficult to know the relevance.

How is it the USAF budget figures (http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-130408-079.pdf), equally 'impeccable', report figures in the region of $175million or LIRP orders quote $95million.

Which is the 'correct figure'?

Which is why I prefer to stick to the actual purchase price given by, in this case, S Korea.

Its the price you would pay if you bought 60 aircraft at a certain date and its directly comparable to the price for an identical number of EF's and F-15's.

Its still damned expensive at 40% more than the F-15/EF. (130 v. 180)

LowObservable

6th Nov 2013, 11:50

I prefer "accounting" figures to "salesman", "politician", "media relations" or "fantroll" figures.

Fact is that the F-35 unit costs (flyaway, APUC, whatever... the numbers are different but the trends are the same) have budged little since Lot 2.

And as you correctly point out, what was originally advertised and sold with an F-16 price tag has been beaten on cost (for 2017+ deliveries, after ten years of production) by the F-15SE and Typhoon.

And that's the A model, the B and C being 40-50 per cent higher. Now wonder why the USN ("erroneously", my :mad:) has been soliciting quotes for more Super Hornets and why the UKG is talking about only 48 jets in the next ten years.

peter we

6th Nov 2013, 13:00

I prefer "accounting" figures to "salesman", "politician", "media relations" or "fantroll" figures.

Anything but the actual sales price, eh?

has been beaten on cost (for 2017+ deliveries, after ten years of production) by the F-15SE and Typhoon.

The F-35 is NOT in production.

And that's the A model, the B and C being 40-50 per cent higher.

Where did your claim of 40-50% difference in price come from?

Lonewolf_50

6th Nov 2013, 13:34

The F-35 is NOT in production.
I agree with you on the sales price issue, but you confuse me with the above statement.

IIRC, F-35 is in LRIP.
Here are links to FY 14 and Fy 15 delivery (https://www.f35.com/news/detail/lrip-6-7-contract-agreements)orders. FY 14 started 01 October 2013. (Take a few grains of salt on the dollar figures if you like, it is a L/M site ... )
This contract signing clearly states that they are at LRIP 6 and 7, which means that LRIPs 4 and 5 are already alive and well. Low Rate Initial Production. The P in LRIP stands for "Production."

Peter, please explain what you mean by "it is not in production." :confused:

EDIT: LO, great minds think alike. :)

LowObservable

6th Nov 2013, 13:36

The F-35 is NOT in production.

I see. The low-rate initial PRODUCTION contracts that have been issued over the past seven years (at rates in the same order as full-rate for anything else) are nothing of the sort. They are in fact secretly funding the reverse engineering of alien spacecraft in Pigeon Forge, TN, in a facility covertly disguised as Dollywood.

peter we

6th Nov 2013, 14:24

low-rate initial PRODUCTION

Low rate, high price. How many hundreds of F-18 have been built? 500+ isn't it?

All the cost have been amoritised over that number and paid off. Which why the F-18 is cheap.

peter we

6th Nov 2013, 17:17

Leave out the abuse.

PhilipG

6th Nov 2013, 18:03

LO To show my lack of understanding of the accounting systems, are you saying that the way the LRIP costs are calculated exclude the initial R&D costs and any capital costs incurred in the set up of the production line.

In other words the LRIP costs are the semi marginal costs of producing the required output of planes that year?

So to get to the shall one say final cost to the public purse of a post tech refresh software version 3F lane for the USAF, it could be argued that it is the LRIP cost + a proportion (say 1/2,500) of the capital cost of R&D and setting up the production facility etc, + the cost of engineering out of the early batch planes the concurrency issues?

LowObservable

6th Nov 2013, 18:47

PG -

There are two basic budgets - R&D and Procurement (=production)

The production system is designed and planned under R&D. The production line itself is built, staffed and operated under procurement.

However, each year's procurement contract is self-contained and fully funded. The result is that the first year's unit cost (for two aircraft) was very high - and this is why it is silly and misleading to use that as the basis for "price cuts" in subsequent years.

So, as the production rate increases year over year, the unit cost should come down as less of the total is spent on building tooling and factories, and more of it on building aircraft (buying raw materials and parts and paying workers).

Another big factor driving down unit costs over time is that production engineers (who are there in large numbers to beat bugs out of the system) finish their jobs and go away.

However, it's odd that as we get into Lots 7 & 8 of the JSF program, with rates of 30+ aircraft a year (more than Gripen or Rafale, pretty close to F/A-18) the unit costs are budging by no more than a few per cent versus Lot 2.

You can compute a unit cost by rolling in a share of R&D, but it's not very helpful because (1) R&D has been sunk and (2) what share you assign to each aircraft depends on how many aircraft will be built, and we don't know that answer until 2030-something.

SpazSinbad

6th Nov 2013, 19:32

Perhaps 'peter we' meant to say "Full Rate Production" (as defined by LM below) rather than [LRIP] "Production"? Anyhoo....

LM FAQs F-35:
...“What is the cost of an F-35? How is that cost determined?
The estimated cost for an F-35A conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) aircraft purchased in 2018 and delivered in 2020 (the first expected year of full rate production) will be about $85 million in inflation adjusted “then year” dollars. This is equivalent to about $75 million in 2012 dollars. That price includes the airframe, engine, mission systems, profit and concurrency.

F-35 unit recurring flyaway (URF) costs have been going down with each successive lot of aircraft. Lockheed Martin and Pratt & Whitney have track records for delivering the airframe and engine below government SAR estimates and we expect this trend to continue in the future.

This Joint Program Office average unit recurring flyaway (URF) calculation is based on the 2011 Selected Acquisition Report (SAR) to Congress and derived from actual F-35 cost on early production lots. These URF calculations take credit for learning from projected U.S. and international F-35 quantities (716 International/2,443 U.S. DoD).

What is full-rate production, and how does the overall production strategy affect the cost of the program?
Full-rate production of the F-35 Lightning II will be a pace of more than 200 jets per year, or about one completed each working day. At this volume, all F-35 customers benefit from economies of scale in both aircraft price, and in providing components and systems.”...
https://www.f35.com/resources/faqs/category/economic-innovation

Lonewolf_50

6th Nov 2013, 19:59

If Peter had bothered to be that concise and accurate, I'd not have had to ask him what he meant. ;)

No matter how one slices it, this bird is expensive.

LowObservable

6th Nov 2013, 20:19

Spas - Wake me up when the line hits 200 per year. That's actually a good definition for LockMart to use because the chances are that they will never get there, and so when they fail to hit the promised price points they will have an excuse.

NITRO104

6th Nov 2013, 20:24

To condition cost threshold with annual production rate of 200 planes is rather strange, since the F-16 probably the most successful recent western fighter, managed only a bit above 100 so far.
EDIT: F-16 managed to do over 200 planes annually only 10 out of about 40 years so far.

Anyway, FWIW Red Bear's take on observability issue.
Google Translate (http://translate.google.co.in/translate?act=url&hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http://vpk.name/blog/fundamentalnye_i_prikladnye_problemy_stels-tehnologii/&sandbox=0&usg=ALkJrhgON0EqecysCwyrv2gZtvwMD_2QsA)

http://vpk.name/file/img/stels-7.png

SpazSinbad

6th Nov 2013, 22:46

Another reference for FRP? Could it be 60+50+50? Or only 60 USAF and 50 combined USN/USMC? Probably the first one because the 'USN/USMC' have an almost equal number of aircraft requirement. I'll dig around for more definitions of FRP.

Pentagon Updates F-35 Cost Estimates, Schedule AIN Defense Perspective 13 Apr 2012 Chris Pocock
"The latest Selected Acquisition Report on the Lockheed Martin F-35 program has updated the Pentagon’s cost estimates. The eight international partners may take some comfort from the predictions of future unit recurring flyaway costs, once full-rate production begins. That is, if they defer the majority of their buys until then, which seems increasingly likely....

...The average unit recurring flyaway cost (URFC) is given as $78.7 million for the F-35A, $106.5 million for the F-35B, and $87 million for the F-35C, in 2012 dollars. But this assumes an unchanged ultimate U.S. Air Force procurement of 1,763 F-35As and 680 F-35B/Cs, plus an international partner buy of 697 aircraft plus 19 for Israel. The URFC does not include the cost of initial training, spares and support. However, AIN believes that it is a more useful measure than the average procurement unit cost (APUC), which is also quoted in the report, since this amortizes a number of other costs. Also, the average URFC figures mask the substantially higher URFCs of the low-rate initial production (LRIP) aircraft. For example, the LRIP F-35As are costing between $100 and $125 million, and the 19 for Israel are quoted at $144.7 million in this report....

...Full-rate production, meaning an annual rate of 60 F-35As for the U.S. Air Force and 50 F-35B/Cs for the Marine Corps and Navy, is now due to begin in 2018...."
Pentagon Updates F-35 Cost Estimates, Schedule | Aviation International News (http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ain-defense-perspective/2012-04-13/pentagon-updates-f-35-cost-estimates-schedule)
____________________________

F-35 factory: One aircraft per day by 2016 July 2008 Grace V. Jean
"...Modern warplanes typically have been built in small quantities over the course of many years. The Navy’s F/A-18, which has been in production for more than 20 years, is being built at a rate of 42 aircraft per year. But the F-35 Lightning II is expected to be built at an unprecedented rate — as many as 230 fighters per year.

...Once the line ramps up to full-rate production — possibly as early as 2016 — the company estimates it will assemble about 21 fighters per month, or roughly one aircraft per working day.

The moving assembly line is the only way to reach that rate of production, O’Bryan says. The F-35 measures 51 feet in length. “If the plane doesn’t move 51 feet a day … you’re not going to produce one a day.”..."
F-35 factory: One aircraft per day by 2016 (http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2008/July/Pages/F-35fact2282.aspx)
______________

USAF Reserve Definitions of their stuff:
"Full Rate Production. Contracting for economic production quantities following stabilization of the system design and validation of the production process."
Air Force Reserve - Definitions - FRP (http://afreserve.com/105-frp)
________________

This'll be a doozy def: http://at.dod.mil/docs/DefenseAcquisitionGuidebook.pdf (30Mb)

ORAC

7th Nov 2013, 05:52

"...Modern warplanes typically have been built in small quantities over the course of many years. The Navy’s F/A-18, which has been in production for more than 20 years, is being built at a rate of 42 aircraft per year. But the F-35 Lightning II is expected to be built at an unprecedented rate — as many as 230 fighters per year. F-4 History (http://www.tomcattersassociation.org/F4/f4-history.htm)

............In the 1960s, most of the thousands of McDonnell employees were involved in delivering the Phantom. Between 1966-67, production averaged 63 F-4 aircraft each month. Production peaked at 72 Phantom aircraft a month in 1967........

kbrockman

7th Nov 2013, 12:05

Some mixed messages it seems; only a couple of days ago General Bogdan said they had no definitive target price for the F35 starting 2019 but the price has to come down no matter what, he said.

Also uncertainties continue past 2016 acc. to the General, what is certain that there will be no more future orders beyond 2400 for the US DoD, the US NAVY is still not 100% on board to take all of its F35's ,the latest promising successes with the X47 and SH are still a serious reason why the NAVY might choose to save some money and partially opt out of the JSF somewhere in the next decade.

Also the 78.7-106.5-87 million for the A-B-C is still without the engine, and with the original order volumes which is still a big IF, also all new discovered issues which lead to extra costs have to be paid by the customers from now on, and that's a big risk with so many things left untested.

What is certain is that LM, the Pentagon and the other parties involved have gotten the press fully under control, it is downright laughable to read article upon article in various press sources who are all literally identical word for word and no more than statements straight out of the LM press map.

LowObservable

7th Nov 2013, 14:05

What is certain is that LM, the Pentagon and the other parties involved have gotten the press fully under control, it is downright laughable to read article upon article in various press sources who are all literally identical word for word and no more than statements straight out of the LM press map.

Damn straight. Villainous reptiles.

LM has also played "new media" quite well - but it's a field where the contractor has the advantage because there is very little money in it. For instance, there's one DC-based defense news site that has two fully-paid-up LockMart shills on its "board of contributors" and (surprise) takes a pro-JSF line.

As for "FRP": the legal definition doesn't include a fixed units-per-year number. Under the reforms that introduced LRIP, production is normally restricted to "low rate" until the system has passed IOT&E. The total of LRIP is formally limited to ten per cent of the planned complete production run, although there is a waiver provision that JSF will have to use. In fact, JSF LRIP rate is supposed to get higher than any other fighter since the Cold War days of the F-16 - and that's what counts if you want to make cost comparisons.

ORAC

8th Nov 2013, 07:42

On the other hand, the number could shrink.....

Dutch Parliament Clears F-35 Purchase (http://www.defensenews.com/article/20131107/DEFREG01/311070015/Dutch-Parliament-Clears-F-35-Purchase)

WASHINGTON — The Dutch Parliament has ratified the government’s choice of the F-35 as the Netherlands next-generation fighter, putting an end to a 15-year debate.

The vote on whether the stealthy plane will replace the Dutch fleet of F-16s occurred the evening of Nov. 7.

“This is a very important moment in history: Finally we can give clarity to our military and to our international partners,” Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, the Dutch minister of defense, said in a statement released by the government. “With this choice for the F-35, we provide the Dutch Armed Forces with the best aircraft available to deal with the challenges of our time and of the future.”...........

The purchase will be for 37 of the F-35A conventional-take-off-and-landing variants, which will be the most widely produced model of the jet. The US Air Force intends to purchase more than 1,700 F-35As.

The Dutch have budgeted €4.5 billion (US $6 billion) for the F-35, which they believe will cover the 37 planes — a number the government’s statement says could grow. “If, within the given financial parameters, there is room to purchase more aircraft in the coming years, the Netherlands will do so,” the statement read..............

kbrockman

8th Nov 2013, 09:57

The Dutch have budgeted €4.5 billion (US $6 billion) for the F-35, which they believe will cover the 37 planes — a number the government’s statement says could grow. “If, within the given financial parameters, there is room to purchase more aircraft in the coming years, the Netherlands will do so,” the statement read..............

As a compromise to get the Socialist party finally on board they agreed that under no circumstance there would be a top off order, so it seems 37 will be it.

LowObservable

8th Nov 2013, 10:36

The statement about increasing numbers later seems to be an acknowledgement that 37 is not enough.

Squirrel 41

8th Nov 2013, 10:41

LO,

Quite right. Presumably because 37 actually translates into about 24 in the operational fleet. But then at a £100m a copy (or more), I doubt that the Dutch will be the last to face this issue.

S41

kbrockman

8th Nov 2013, 11:03

It most certainly is not enough, that's why the cooperation with Belgium will be intensified to provide air cover (QRA) with enough jets.
Also it won't do all tasks the F16 had, most notably the nuclear task, according to the defense minister , the Dutch JSF will no longer have a nuclear role like the F16 had before, also some other tasks, like Recce will be done with drones iso dedicated F16's.

As for the Belgians, it seems ever more likely that we will also join the JSF party, probably with an even more insignificant number of jets (23-28), certainly now that our Minister of Defence, P de Krem is a candidate for the position of NATO-Chief , the chance becomes ever more likely that our Air Forces interests will be coupled with the political ambitions of some ambitious politician and everybody knows that without the support of the US, nobody can become chef of NATO.

So a combined force of 60-ish jets seems not unlikely.
But honestly, what does all this matter it's not like we're going to do anything useful with those jets anyway.

What struck me as funny is how almost everyone these days is mainly emphasising on how important the F35 is as a jobs program, Politicians and almost all others involved with this program both on this side of the pond and in the US and Canada are almost all hammering solely on the economic importance of the F35.
Military reasons have taken a back-seat completely in this whole debate.

At least they're being honest about it.
The latest discussions however have put some serious question marks at the economic spin off numbers as initially promised.
With the volume of work already allocated to Japan and Israel, the Tier 1 level certainties the UK has and the addition of new partners (Korea and Singapore very likely) and the knowledge that the Dutch are the firts that have officially reduced their orders by more than half it becomes very unlikely that the promised work-share remains the same.

LowObservable

8th Nov 2013, 15:58

The spin-off argument was always "2 per cent of 3000/4000/5000/6000 jets is better than 20 per cent of 300 jets, or even 100 per cent offset on your 50-jet order".

Both numbers are under pressure, the percentage from work packaged out to FMS customers, and the top-line from reality.

SpazSinbad

9th Nov 2013, 04:27

For 'NITRO104' interest in South Korean F-35 situation:

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/424953-f-35-cancelled-then-what-179.html#post8133223
S.Korea would get F-35s with full combat capability -Pentagon 07 Nov 2013 Andrea Shalal-Esa
"Nov 7 (Reuters) - If South Korea decides to order Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 fighter jets for delivery in 2017, the aircraft would come with the software needed to carry a full load of weapons, Lockheed and the Pentagon's F-35 program office said Thursday, refuting a claim made earlier this week by a Boeing consultant....

...officials with Lockheed and the F-35 program office told Reuters the 3F software would be released to the F-35 fleet in the third quarter of 2017. That would allow the jet to achieve its full combat capability and carry a full load of weapons in time for the delivery schedule that South Korea is seeking, they said.

Lockheed planned an initial release of the 3F software for developmental flight testing in September 2014, said company spokesman Eric Schnaible.
South Korea has said it needs delivery of the first new fighter jets in 2017 so it can start replacing its aging current fleet of warplanes. To ensure delivery in 2017, Seoul would have to place initial orders of F-35 jets in the ninth batch of jets, which is expected to carry the 3F software.

"If (the South Koreans) decide to procure F-35s, then aircraft ordered in lot 9 or later will be configured with 3F software," said Rear Admiral Randy Mahr, deputy F-35 program manager, in a statement responding to a Reuters query....

...He [Mahr] said there was "some risk" in the current schedule for completion of the 3F software, since it depended to some extent on the success of the 2B software, and the 3I export version....

...One defense official, who was not authorized to speak publicly, said both the Marine Corps and Air Force had clearly decided that the F-35 offered so many additional capabilities that they were moving ahead with the 2B software rather than wait for completion of the later software.

"I'd rather go across the line with the 2B software in the fifth-generation F-35 than an advanced version of the fourth generation fighters out there today," said the official."
S.Korea would get F-35s with full combat capability -Pentagon | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/08/lockheed-fighter-idUSL2N0IT02420131108)

SpazSinbad

11th Nov 2013, 00:49

Lockheed-Martin Now Sole Candidate in Fighter Project [email protected] / Nov. 11, 2013
"Lockheed Martin's F-35 is emerging as the sole qualified candidate as Korea's search for a new-generation fighter jet starts all over again.

The Defense Ministry in September decided against Boeing's F-15SE because of its unsatisfactory stealth capability.

The next-generation fighter project is worth W8.3 trillion (US$1=W1,065).

"The Air Force has recently revised requirements for the F-X project and recommended them to the Joint Chiefs of Staff," a government source said...."
The Chosun Ilbo (English Edition): Daily News from Korea - Lockheed-Martin Now Sole Candidate in Fighter Project (http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2013/11/11/2013111100777.html)

SpazSinbad

12th Nov 2013, 02:41

Here is a MOD story about the final RAMP up + FOURTH F-35B ordered for the testing innit:

The final section of the flight deck of HMS Queen Elizabeth has been fitted onto the Royal Navy's new aircraft carrier. 11 Nov 2013
"...The 300-tonne section of ramp, which is 64 metres long and 13 metres wide, is the final exterior piece of the aircraft carrier to be fitted. At its highest point, the take-off ramp is 6 metres above the flight deck, which will allow aircraft to be propelled into the air.

The pictures come on the same day as MOD announces that a fourth Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter aircraft has been ordered from Lockheed Martin. The UK has already taken delivery of 3 Lightning II jets and Royal Navy and RAF pilots are training on the aircraft in the USA.

This fourth jet, which is specially designed to be a test aircraft, will help boost the ongoing training available...."
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/royal-navy-aircraft-carrier-ramping-up

HMS Queen Elizabeth Bow November 11:
All sizes | HMS Queen Elizabeth Bow November 11 | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/qeclasscarriers/10797672293/sizes/o/in/photostream/)

Courtney Mil

12th Nov 2013, 06:14

A question, Spaz. If the fourth aircraft is "specially designed to be a test aircraft" will it ever be part of our operational fleet? I'm only going on previous pregrammes where the development and test airframes were never capable of becoming operational. For example, the development Typhonns have all been in museums for years.

SpazSinbad

12th Nov 2013, 06:59

Hmmm.... 'CM' I am not all knowing about the F-35 programme - particularly any country other than my own (I guess I'll have to include the good ole USofA because they have it all eh). AFAIK a test aircraft is 'orange-wired' which apparently means something (recording devices can be specifically attached for test purposes I gather). This aspect of the F-35 does not interest me that much. You will gather I'm interested in NavAv. Your question has not been answered though - perhaps others more knowledgeable will have a go?

The 'test' aircraft will have to be able to send back the data for recording also according to this video:

Test Pilot Tuesday Episode 25 Published on Apr 16, 2013
"F-35 test pilot Paul Hattendorf answers the question, "Since the F-35 is a single seat aircraft, how is data from test flights provided to engineers?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKdM5v-VK08&list=PLDF92451CB0870E9E&index=90

Courtney Mil

12th Nov 2013, 18:28

Something like that, Spaz. Dunno about this one, but in every programme that had test and development aircraft they were built very differently to the "real thing" and could not later be adapted to become part of the fleet. So perhaps the UK wants to be seen to be owing test beds. That said, because they are so different to the production jets, I wonder what use they will be for training as the article claims. The potential result is that we now own four aircraft that, given the US could be doing all the testing with appropriate jets they halready have, that will be redundant and ready to go to the RAF Museum in a couple of years. Or are they test beds for greater things?

Anyone have any thoughts on that?

FoxtrotAlpha18

12th Nov 2013, 21:45

Some test jets are so 'heavily' wired that it would be difficult to make them operational due to non-compliance with current approved operational configuration.

For example, the USAF recently retired a CV-22 to its museum after it was deemed to be too different to the operational birds' config to be brought up to that standard...probably had a few hours on it too!

The other issue with test jets is, although they typically have lower total airframe hours on them (the two RAAF ARDU F/A-18s are by far our lowest time jets, despite one of them being the first built), they spend more time at the edge of the performance envelope and thus have a very different fatigue life index.

GreenKnight121

13th Nov 2013, 01:47

However, modern aircraft like the F-35 run everything through their computers... even the operational aircraft.

All flight data, including data from sensors that only special test aircraft used to have but which are now installed on production aircraft - flight profiles - everything.

Operational examples of the F-35 and similar aircraft now record and can transmit to other aircraft or ground stations data that only specially-equipped test aircraft used to be able to gather.

SpazSinbad

13th Nov 2013, 04:24

Perhaps this phrase from the UK fourth F-35B report needs to be fleshed out:
"...This fourth jet, which is specially designed to be a test aircraft..."

I have seen comments that if the 'test' aircraft are required back in the operational fleet then, as is the situation for any LRIP aircraft being upgraded airframe and otherwise, there is sense in going through that process at the appropriate time; which may minimise expense of same. Probably I would have thought the 'test' aircraft are going to be useful for UK specific future testing - even when the overall F-35 tests are over? Perhaps they will be useful for UK specific tests back in UK such as SRVLs and whatnots.

FoxtrotAlpha18

13th Nov 2013, 06:00

However, modern aircraft like the F-35 run everything through their computers... even the operational aircraft

True...to a point. Some test aircraft still require strain gauges for flight sciences work and a box to collect and from which to dump data, while others require orange wiring or cabling to measure and record new weapon release parameters.

peter we

13th Nov 2013, 08:03

I thought the four aircraft were training not test aircraft.

The f-35 has a removable recording module that is fitted into the bay when required.

WhiteOvies

13th Nov 2013, 13:55

To set things straight:

ZM135, 136 and 138 are all instrumented for Operational Test and will go to 17(R) Sqn.
ZM137 will go to 617 Sqn.

All are LRIP aircraft so built to exactly the same standard as the others in their batch.

ZM135, 136 and 137 are all at Eglin as pooled assets for training, prior to the start of OT.

Whilst the early Development Test jets from Edwards and Pax River may get retired in a few years time when their mission is completed, the UK jets have got years of life ahead of them. The principle point of the current Main Gate 4 is to buy the operational jets for 617 Sqn and 809 NAS in due course.

Does that clear things up?
:8

Squirrel 41

13th Nov 2013, 22:00

WhiteOvies,

Thanks - what 809 and not 800/801 NAS? Forgive me if this has been done to death elsewhere, I've been away.

S41

Courtney Mil

13th Nov 2013, 22:10

It appears that my concerns were unfounded, not totaly, but suffice to say that the new airframe will be a lot more productive than, say, a Eurofightter DA frame. It will not form part of the operational fleet but it will continue to form part of the UK fleet in certain roles. So it's good news after all.

The speculation on this page of the debate is just that, speculation. But good stuff all the same.:ok:

GTPerformer

14th Nov 2013, 14:14

The difference between Typhoon DAs is that they were pure development, built many years before any production aircraft and any production contract.

The Instrumented Production Aircraft (IPAs) were more aligned and BT005 came straight off the BAES production line direct to the flight test dept for a few years before being upgraded/converted and given back to RAF. Although I am unsure how instrumented this was, if any. I was under the assumption F35 doesn't have the same development plan and uses something equivalent to the IPAs?

BAES and partners used the DA program to understand and fix many problems prior to production which helped enormously.

Courtney Mil

14th Nov 2013, 15:28

The fourth UK F-35 is not a development jet, far more aligned to the EF IPA airframes. And that was really my initial question. Anyway, suffice to say that UK No 4 will not be joining the UK op fleet, but it will most likely have a complete and fulfilling life.

SpazSinbad

14th Nov 2013, 17:43

F-35 on track to meet IOC targets, official says 14 Nov 2013 Craig Hoyle [F-35 according to Hoyle?]
"...Speaking at IQPC’s International Fighter conference in London on 13 November, the Joint Program Office representative said flight testing involving a new tailhook design for the carrier variant F-35C should be completed at the US Navy’s Lakehurst site in New Jersey “next month”. The type should begin its first carrier-based trials “late next summer”, he adds, on the way to a first active duty deployment in the fourth quarter of 2018."
F-35 on track to meet IOC targets, official says (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/f-35-on-track-to-meet-ioc-targets-official-says-393029/)

WhiteOvies

14th Nov 2013, 19:23

Squirrel - 809NAS was announced as first RN F-35 Sqn a short while ago. Phoenix from the flames etc, probably to represent the 're-birth' of fixed wing Carrier Aviation for the FAA, whilst sticking with a Sea Harrier & Falklands connection.

The equivalent of the DA and IPA Typhoons are the early jets at Pax River (for B and C variants) and at Edwards (for the A variant). UK involvement at both sites avoids the requirement to have UK specific DA/IPA type aircraft.

One of the benefits of stumping up alot of money upfront to be a level 1 partner....

PhilipG

14th Nov 2013, 20:08

I always understood that all of the LRIP airframes would eventually be updated to 3f software and associated hardware standard, there has been a lot of talk about the cost of concurrency, which I understood was the cost of bringing most of the LRIP planes to Full Rate Production standard. Is my understanding flawed?

WhiteOvies

14th Nov 2013, 20:14

Phillip,
I think that is the plan. Not sure of the costs involved, though I'm sure someone will.

SpazSinbad

14th Nov 2013, 21:23

Recent? Concurrency Costs Info:
Second Report to Congress on F-35 Concurrency Costs:
House Report 112-331, Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 2055 May 2013
http://www.aviationweek.com/Portals/AWeek/Ares/05-2013,%20Concurrency%20report%20on%20F35.pdf (0.4Mb)

Graphic from above PDF: [more readable in original PDF]
http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/th_F-35may2013ConcurrencyCostsLRIPlot.gif (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/F-35may2013ConcurrencyCostsLRIPlot.gif.html)

& from an earlier BOGDAN briefing (URL on graphic)
http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/th_F-35concurrencyBogdan21feb2013.gif (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/F-35concurrencyBogdan21feb2013.gif.html)

SpazSinbad

14th Nov 2013, 23:22

Special Operators to Test Digital Night Vision Goggles December 2013 Valerie Insinna
"...Intevac’s digital night vision cameras and goggles use an electron bombarded active pixel sensor, or EBAPS, which contains a “photocathode” that takes available light and magnifies it two to three hundred times, said Bill Maffucci, vice president and general manager for mission systems.

Other digital night vision sensors cannot amplify light, he said. “In other words, when you’re in low-level light conditions, they work with the light that’s available, but they’re not able to increase the sensitivity at all.”...

...They have already netted military contracts for night vision cameras that will be built into an aircraft and send imagery to a pilot’s display or helmet-mounted monocle....

...Intevac has delivered three prototypes so far, Brugal said. The cameras have a “standalone mode” whereby a pilot can see night vision images in his monocle, and a “blended mode” that fuses thermal and night vision imagery and shows it on the cockpit’s multifunction display.

Next year, Intevac will begin delivering upgraded night vision cameras for use in the F-35. Pilots have been using “placeholder” cameras with an older sensor that does not provide high enough resolution or image quality, Brugal said."
Special Operators to Test Digital Night Vision Goggles (http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2013/December/Pages/SpecialOperatorstoTestDigitalNightVisionGoggles.aspx)

SpazSinbad

16th Nov 2013, 07:22

BLUE SKY OPS [from Air International - F-35 Lightning II 46 page Publication c.Early 2011-2?]
Mark Ayton spoke with Peter Wilson, a former Royal Navy Sea Harrier pilot and now STOVL lead test pilot at NAS Patuxent River
"...Pilot’s View
The author was keen to hear what the F-35 is like to fly particularly at take-off which always shows dramatic acceleration. Peter Wilson explained: “The take-off itself is unremarkable, in afterburner the aeroplane accelerates dramatically, but it’s comparable with legacy fighters, and very weight dependent.”

Both the F-35A and the F-35C can carry more than 50% of their empty weight in fuel internally which gives an enormous variation of acceleration.

One very notable system on the F-35 is the side stick located on the right side of the cockpit. The mechanics of the side stick are well balanced with just the right amount of movement (about 1½ inches or 38mm) according to Peter Wilson who said: “You first notice this when using the stick to rotate and bring the nose up to establish an attitude at which the aeroplane’s going to climb away. The aeroplane feels absolutely rock solid, the handling feels precise.”

A very distinct feature of the F-35 is noise both inside the cockpit and out. “From the cockpit it’s not especially loud but it doesn’t sound like any other aeroplane that I’ve flown,” said the lead STOVL pilot.

The ride quality of the F-35 is also different, especially the precision with which the pilot can manoeuvre the aircraft using the side stick to put it exactly where he or she wants. “It’s most noticeable when you’re trying to do a tightly controlled formation task, like air refuelling. I’ve plugged into a tanker many times with a remarkably high success rate, higher than I would have had on the Harrier, and with a different technique. The pilot formates the air refuelling probe directly onto the basket of the tanker, sits behind it, and just plugs it when it’s steady and level.

Coming in to land is also precise. “Even in a cross wind it’s easy, the aeroplane points its nose in to wind very nicely and reduces side slip,” said Peter Wilson.

Symbology in the helmet-mounted display allows the pilot to see the aircraft track, confirming that he or she is aligned with the runway even if the nose is not because of crosswind. The side stick is extremely precise for both flaring (the technique used to gradually reduce the descent rate) the aircraft and adjusting any drift, but even if he or she does not make any correction the aircraft will land and straighten itself up “beautifully” according to Peter Wilson. “It’s the easiest aeroplane I’ve ever landed and really does look after you. When I tell you how easy it is to land, in the back of my mind, I am thinking ‘isn’t that going to be great for the young pilot who has worked hard throughout the mission and needs to get home when he is tired’,” he added.

To date all conventional landings have been carried out manually with the stick. An automatic system on the throttle allows the pilot to select the APC (automatic power control) mode that controls the angle of attack flown on final approach during which the throttle moves up and down in response to the changes. At touchdown the throttle automatically goes to idle, the pilot applies the brakes to stop the aircraft and exits the runway. “Once on the ground, I do not have any flap levers to move or any flight controls to reposition, and if I want to get airborne again all I have to do is put the power up and initiate the rotation,” said
Peter Wilson.

The throttle commands thrust and not the rpm of the engine, so at idle the engine is providing 10% of the thrust available and when pushed forward to the mil stop it provides 100% of the available thrust or full mil power. The throttle gives a linear variation of the percentage of thrust available with its position, which makes it subtly different to use. One hundred percent thrust means just that, with no variation (which can be the case with a legacy aircraft), so the pilot knows when the engine is providing all of the power that it can.

Landing Vertically
One of the most fascinating aspects of the whole programme is the way in which the F-35B achieves a vertical landing. When preparing to transition from conventional to STOVL mode the first thing the pilot must do is confi gure the aircraft to be able to fly at slow speed. This process is called conversion and from the pilot’s perspective it starts when the aircraft is moving at 250kts (460km/h) or less at which point he or she simply presses a button.

“Seconds later, assuming all has gone well, you are in the mode that allows the aircraft to go to the hover,” said Peter Wilson.

Nine external doors open in sequence taking about 8 seconds, after which the propulsion system (not to be confused with the engine) starts to spool up. The clutch engages to spool up the lift fan located behind the cockpit (which takes about 5-6 seconds) and the control laws change to make use of the propulsive effectors that have just been brought to life. The aircraft is now in STOVL mode and ready for a vertical landing. “You feel a little tingle in your back through the seat and it sounds like a very large mosquito buzzing behind your head,” said Peter commenting on the lift fan.

The lift fan nozzle and main engine nozzle move independently as per the control laws of the aircraft (the aircraft is programmed to position the nozzles where the force is required). Peter Wilson says the varying pitch of the engine can be clearly heard from the cockpit as the thrust changes during low speed manoeuvring.

Commenting on the hover, Peter Wilson told AIR International: “It is absolutely astonishing, the aeroplane is rock solid in the hover, and holds its position extremely accurately without pilot input.”

The aircraft can be accurately moved left to right, fore and aft, and up and down by 3ft (1m) at the preferred position of 100ft (33m) above the ground before descent. Control of the F-35B is governed by something called the unified control law, which was developed during research at Boscombe Down in the UK with the Vectored-thrust Aircraft Advanced Control (VAAC) Harrier in a project funded jointly by the UK and US as part of the Joint Strike Fighter programme.

And perhaps the real testament to the unified control law is the experience of pilots who had never before flown a STOVL aircraft. Having practised in the simulator, they have been able to step into an F-35B and complete a vertical landing with relative ease.

To descend from the hover and land, the pilot has to push on the side stick until he or she feels a stop, and hold it there until the aircraft detects the landing, at which point it returns the propulsion system back to idle and moves the nozzle to the correct position, allowing the pilot to taxi forward with nothing else to do. “The precision with which you can land is amazing – on the spot plus or minus 12 inches, every time consistently,” said Wilson.

Nine Hops
During STOVL testing in February 2010, Peter Wilson flew nine sorties from NAS Patuxent River in about four hours, all of which were less than 5 minutes in duration. Each sortie carried a relatively low fuel load allowing Peter to take off, and fly around for a brief period to ensure the fuel was at the right level in preparation for a landing test. “The highlights on the day were the take-offs. I took off as slow as 50 knots [92km/h] with the STOVL mode engaged, accelerated out to the normal pattern speed of 150 knots [276km/h], turned downwind, and positioned ready for a vertical landing,” he said.

Some of the vertical landings required extreme nose-down attitudes on the aircraft at various weights and phenomenal descent rates. Recounting the landings, Peter Wilson told AIR International: “I was trimming nose down to make the nose gear hit first rather than the main gear coming down as fast as I could, given the control law of the aeroplane. When the nose gear (underneath the pilot’s seat) hits first at that sort of descent rate it gets your attention because it’s a pretty heavy landing and a remarkable experience in the cockpit.”

F-35B Take-off Options
The F-35B STOVL variant has a range of take-off options using different modes to suit the basing. Take-offs from a ship, with either a flat deck or one with a ski jump, are also possible with a mode for each scenario. These are short take-off scenarios that can be achieved at speeds as low as 50kts with a deck or ground run of no more than a 200ft (60m). In the same mode, a take-off as fast as 150 knots is possible if the weight of the aircraft requires that speed. If the aircraft is light it can take off at a slow speed and faster when heavy.

Take-off at speeds as low as 5, 10, 15, 20kts (9, 18, 27 and 36km/h) are also possible, each of which is effectively a vertical take-off while moving forward. There are different ways of rotating the aircraft in STOVL mode, including the usual ‘pull on the stick’. Other ways are by pressing a button or programming a ground distance required after which, the aircraft control law initiates the rotation and selects the ideal angle for climb-out.

F-35Bs BF-01 and BF-02 are the only B-models currently undertaking STOVL testing and therefore performing take-offs in STOVL mode. Peter Wilson commented: “We have found a remarkable similarity between BF-01 and BF-02 which gives us the confidence to move on and get more aeroplanes [BF-04 followed by BF-03] into STOVL mode very soon.” At the time of closing for press in mid-April the first vertical take-off had not taken place...."
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=16&cad=rja&ved=0CGIQFjAFOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmilitaryrussia.ru%2Fforum%2Fdownload%2Ffile .php%3Fid%3D28256&ei=wR6HUq3GIYmMiQfenIGQAw&usg=AFQjCNGgKFKsgFDRGbgl-2SDXKzJdUi-Rg&sig2=b5M85z7aH1Q-OF9clMz5Nw&bvm=bv.56643336,d.aGc (12.8Mb PDF)

Just This Once...

16th Nov 2013, 07:34

Spaz, you are becoming an RSS machine. The forum is for discussion and for opinions to be shared, not pages of text from elsewhere!!

:ok:

WhiteOvies

16th Nov 2013, 15:07

It helps inform the discussion though!

A lot of flying and testing has been done since Wizzer's interview and my opinion is that the programme is in a very different position now to back then.

kbrockman

16th Nov 2013, 16:06

It helps inform the discussion though!

A lot of flying and testing has been done since Wizzer's interview and my opinion is that the programme is in a very different position now to back then.

I wonder how you can make such a bold statement, lately all info seems to be single sourced, directly from the LM good news show.
The little bit of information coming from other sources like the DoD, GAO all seem to be not always uniformly positive which is surprising given the number of years the program has been running already.

Also for me personally this is the first true fifth gen fighter, the real game-changing first-day air weapon
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/ea5bcca17384
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/x47/images/x-47pegasus_5.jpg

WhiteOvies

16th Nov 2013, 17:36

Because it's an opinion formed on actual knowledge rather than media reports...

Not saying that X-47 isn't a fantastic technology demonstrator and a clear indicator of the future, but it's a long way off where the overall F-35 programme currently is. The difference between being an X jet and being an F jet has allowed X-47 to solve issues encountered quickly and the fact that the programme managed to get funding to continue is testament to a lot of hard work and recognition of its potential.

SpazSinbad

16th Nov 2013, 19:08

What is to discuss? Is this a surprise? Will the F-35 be cancelled? Stay tuned...

S. Korea Joint Chiefs set to back deal for 40 Lockheed F-35s -sources 15 Nov 2013 Andrea Shalal-Esa
"Nov 15 (Reuters) - South Korea's Joint Chiefs of Staff were expected to endorse an "all F-35 buy" of 40 Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 fighter jets and an option for 20 more at a meeting on Nov. 22, two sources familiar with the competition said on Friday....

...The sources said there was still a chance the committee that is chaired by the South Korean defense minister could reverse the expected Joint Chiefs decision, but that was seen as unlikely."
S. Korea Joint Chiefs set to back deal for 40 Lockheed F-35s -sources | Reuters (http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/11/15/airshow-dubai-lockheed-fighter-idINL2N0J00JQ20131115)

Mach Two

16th Nov 2013, 22:20

Just this Once, a RSS feed gives you all the news on a subject, it doesn't select and edit quotes down to just the "good news". This is, for some reason no one here knows, a propaganda feed, not RSS.

What is to discuss?

Says it all, really. Not interested in any opinion that does not conform to the Lockheed line. That's what we need.

LowObservable

16th Nov 2013, 23:20

What is to discuss is how South Korea's entire procurement process was overturned in weeks. Or how the budget for 60 Eagles suddenly covers only 40 super-affordable wonder jets.

The only sure thing here is that this decision has Sweet Fanny Adams to do with economics or operational effectiveness.

Meanwhile, I was just listening to someone explaining how 48 F-35Bs will be able to fill in for all the remaining GR4s at the same time as they sustain a carrier air wing. Good luck with that.

WhiteOvies

17th Nov 2013, 08:35

With the close links between LM and KAI, the upcoming USAF T-X competition (featuring the KAI/LM T-50) I am not surprised that Korea is leaning towards F-35. It doesn't sound exactly like a free and fair competition but when are these things ever fair?

Regional politics come into play too, a case of keeping up with the Jones (or Japan in this case).

Anything but F-35 would appear to be the wrong answer....

John Farley

17th Nov 2013, 09:44

I sent this to Av Wk and they printed it.

Bill Sweetman’s article (A Wimp-Out With Style) makes a good case for South Korea (or anybody else) buying F-15 or Eurofighter aircraft if you are thinking about now. However look 20 years ahead and who would bet them against what the F-35 will be like then?

t43562

17th Nov 2013, 10:24

How much more "upgradability" is there in the F-35 than in the other aircraft?

They are all going to be very outdated in 20 years - could the relative difference then seem trivial compared to the new aircraft that could be designed?

Will people not design new and possibly much better aircraft because they're still struggling to absorb the costs of the existing ones?

John Farley

17th Nov 2013, 17:12

t43562

For many reasons new combat aircraft are not fully capable when they first enter service. 20 years later they start to look seriously useful bits of kit.

Don't take my word for it just look at the history of any type that first entered service since say 1970.

After 40 or so years of service various factors start to make the type look as if it has peaked and so should be replaced before too long. In my view 20 to 40 are likely to be the best operational years.

t43562

17th Nov 2013, 17:32

JF
Thank you - that makes sense.

WhiteOvies

17th Nov 2013, 22:53

Like most jets F-35 is having its capabilities improved over time with the various Block upgrades discussed in the links in the many pages above. The discussion is really whether the 2B configuration is sufficient to give the USMC something useful when they declare IOC.

The USMC and LM say it does, others say it doesn't. For the UK we need to see what standard 17(R) Sqn are going to be testing on our aircraft, how they do during that testing and how the USMC are doing with IOC before we declare IOC.

ORAC

18th Nov 2013, 06:29

For many reasons new combat aircraft are not fully capable when they first enter service. 20 years later they start to look seriously useful bits of kit. Don't take my word for it just look at the history of any type that first entered service since say 1970. The weight also goes steadily upward eroding margin.

Just This Once...

18th Nov 2013, 06:45

Whilst I heartily agree with JF with the development cycle and capability peak for convention fast jets (and ORAC's observation regarding weight growth) I think the true elephant in the room is how long the signature reduction of the F-35 will remain relevant.

Time and technology is already eroding the capability peak of the F-35.

dctyke

18th Nov 2013, 06:53

Then when money is tight (as it always is) we always end up with fleets within fleets. The latter years of the F3 was awash with different mod states causing major headaches. I remember the 'Golden (insert number)'.

John Farley

18th Nov 2013, 09:36

Just this once

I agree re stealth. I don't see how stealth could improve with time as all the other capabilitiess can (except weight) indeed quite the reverse. Given the tremendous compromises caused by providing stealth (aero, structural, systems, maintenance etc to say nothing of cost) I personally would not include it on any wish list of mine - especially for a close support role where operating site flexibity is so useful.

But hey ho when did OR chaps ever not ask for the moon and when did manufacturers not agree a more complex spec if there was more work to be paid for (as well as a natural desire to be at the cutting edge?)

LowObservable

18th Nov 2013, 10:54

Through-life growth and adaptation is essential, I agree.

Unfortunately, the F-35B differs from most aircraft in having no margin for weight growth at all, absent a major uprating of not only the engine, but also the lift fan and transmission, which would in turn be constrained by jet effects on the ground. It will also be costly because much of the work will be confined to 400-some B models.

There is also a problem with growing stealth platforms, which is that you can't add capability through pods, or even add antennas or apertures without installing cavities and stealth-compatible radomes/windows. This can be done, but is expensive. Of all the stealth aircraft deployed so far, the F-117 is the only one to have had major upgrades, and that mostly to replace stuff that was initially borrowed from other aircraft.

Now consider that the F-35 architecture is just not the way you'd do things today, being built around two massive central processors. A problem with this is that you can't just port technology over from other programs (newer AESA tech for instance).

And, sure, you can do a lot with software - but S/W and hardware go hand in hand.

Even the modest upgrades to the F-22 (not even AIM-9X yet) have cost a bomb.

As to JTO's point, Raytheon is now preaching that line on-the-record. RCS is locked-in, but detection is progressing quickly.

SpazSinbad

18th Nov 2013, 19:24

Anyone have any later references to F-35B weight growth since this one in March 2012? Tah.

F-35A Discussed in Australian Federal Parliament Committee 16 March 2012
"...Dr JENSEN: You were talking about weight not being an issue. The problem is that the JSF is already over the 28,948 pounds from the planned amount not to be exceeded. It has already gone over the not-to-exceed weight. There are some problems in the system that have been identified, such as structural issues and so on, that will need to be fixed. That will ultimately result in not only more weight for the direct fix but more weight to make adjustments to the centre of gravity and so on. This is obviously going to adversely affect performance. Is this figured into your calculations for the future at all?
Air Vice Marshall Osley: I do not believe your statement about the F35 being overweight is correct. I do not have the figures here, but the latest estimate that I have is that it is around 90 pounds or so under its maximum weight. The conventional takeoff and landing aircraft last exceeded its allowable weight back in late 2004.
Dr JENSEN: The SWOT analysis?
Air Vice Marshall Osley: Yes. There was a very extensive program that went through and modified many, many parts in the aircraft to reduce the weight. They took several thousand pounds off the aeroplane and it has since been under the not-to-exceed weight and it continues to be under the not-to-exceed weight as of the latest reporting I saw yesterday at the JSF Executive Steering Board.
Dr JENSEN: It has certainly crept up. As I said, my info is that it has already gone over, but anyway—
Air Vice Marshall Osley: That is not correct....
...Senator FAWCETT: Weight margins on the aircraft: in terms of length of useful life of an aircraft, modifications, weight margin and also power available are critical factors, and my reading of available literature indicates that there is a very small weight margin available. Could you comment?
Mr Burbage: Weight is most critical on the short take-off, vertical-landing jet. That is the one that has the toughest requirement for taking off from and landing on small ships. You saw in the movie that we did that, this year. We predict the weight on that airplane to grow at about three per cent per year throughout the rest of the test program and it could grow some more throughout its life if more capability that has substantial weight goes on the airplane. If you look at the STOVL jet and you look at our weight charts, which you are more than welcome to see, we have now gone two years without any weight increase on the STOVL jet, and that is while accommodating engineering changes to the doors, which we have replaced with heavier doors, and other changes that were made to the airplane. We manage the weight very tightly on that airplane—for good reasons, because it needs to be. The other two airplanes are not as sensitive to weight. We are actually probably several thousand pounds away from the first compromise of the performance requirements of those two airplanes. We do, however, manage the weight very tightly on all three airplanes. The metric that we look at is when the weight growth curve levels off, that means your design has stabilised. You are no longer making lots of changes to the design. All three airplanes are now in that level-off phase. The best one is the STOVL where you can go back and see that we have not increased any weight at all in a full two years.
Senator FAWCETT: So having reached that steady state, you are saying you are some thousands of pounds away from—
Mr Burbage: On the non-STOVL jets.
Senator FAWCETT: So the conventional take-off and landing—
Mr Burbage: The key performance requirements that are weight-dependent have large margins still ahead of them. On the STOVL the key performance parameters are much tighter to the weight, because it is more physics than aerodynamics."...
...Dr JENSEN: You said quite explicitly that in the last two years the STOVL version had seen no weight increase.
Mr Burbage: That is correct.
Dr JENSEN: The QLR charts seem to indicate differently. I am referring to the quick look review that was conducted last year.
Mr Burbage: I could show you the chart if I had my computer here. We were actually planning to.
Dr JENSEN: I will show you the chart. I am afraid it is a bit small, but you can see there is January 2010 and there is January 2012. Clearly there has been a weight increase.
Mr Burbage: This increase right here is a ground rule change, not unlike other ground rule changes—when the weight of the electro-optical targeting system was added in, it is just a step function increase. If I bring this down and I measure that point directly back, it goes back two years to intercept that curve there.
CHAIR: Can I just pause there. For the benefit of Hansard, it is impossible to put up on record what you are talking about.
Dr JENSEN: I will get a copy of that chart and provide it so that it can be tabled.
Air Cdre Bentley: That quick look report is a US official use only chart. As such, it has not been released and therefore for us to comment specifically on it is quite out of the ordinary in this type of environment.
Dr JENSEN: Okay. In terms of the STOL weight, would it be true to say that the empty weight now is over NZW?
Mr Burbage: I do not know. I can find out for you. I will take it for the record and provide an answer to you.
Dr JENSEN: If you could take that on notice then.
Mr Burbage: The STOL weight has been very stable and the airplane is meeting all of its performance requirements, so I am not sure what the question is...."
House of Representatives Committees ? Parliament of Australia (http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House_of_Representatives_Committees?url=/jfadt/defenceannualreport_2010_2011/hearings.htm)

LowObservable

18th Nov 2013, 20:45

Spaz - That does not appear to show that the STOVL version has any margin for weight increase. The current OEW projection is 2300 pounds over where it was to have been in 2002, with no matching increase in vertical thrust.

SpazSinbad

18th Nov 2013, 21:12

Why is 2002 significant today when a lot has changed in the last decade; and what does 'OEW' mean? (Operating Evaluation Weight is one guess). There was a small thrust increase a few years back on the STOVL engine, that from memory gave an extra 100lbs of thrust vertical - maybe more? I can post a link to that info if required.

LowObservable

19th Nov 2013, 00:23

Spaz, it's like this:

371 years ago Mr and Mrs Newton had a baby that they named Isaac, and he was really REALLY smart...

The challenge with any vertical landing aircraft is that the landing speed is by definition zero, as is the wing lift. So the total landing weight is less than the thrust, by a margin sufficient to give you some control, and the operating empty weight (OEW) is part of the landing weight. If it goes up the useful load at landing (fuel reserve and weapons) goes down, and there's nowhere to run. I can't tack on a few knots of touchdown speed and use my brakes a bit harder. (That's basically how other fighters, particularly the F-16, have absorbed growth - with bigger brakes.)

None of that has changed in last decade, any more than the laws of gravity. And they did pull out a small vertical thrust increase during the great weight panic of 2004, but not anything like as much as the net weight gain.

SpazSinbad

19th Nov 2013, 00:59

Thanks for defining OEW. How is a 2002 specification - which you have not specified (a link would be nice) for OEW be relevant now in 2013? It is obvious is it not that the F-35B is able to operate in STOVL mode according to KPPs. Where is the issue? If you have up to date figures that define OEW today that would be good. Do you have also the max. vertical landing weight on a specific temp/altitude day also for the F-35B? Humour me some more.

LowObservable

19th Nov 2013, 03:08

Who knew? Wikipedia does. Pretty common term.

The weight was quoted as 29735 lb in 2002 and if you look at this thread in May 2013 you will find that number cited with a source by someone who is familiar to you.

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/424953-f-35-cancelled-then-what-116.html#post7835852

The current 32300 lb figure is in LM's own Fast Facts.

The issue is not whether the jet can make KPPs but growth margin, of which there is none.

SpazSinbad

19th Nov 2013, 05:48

Still no specification of the 'growth margin'. How about that detail. Thanks. And yes I'm familiar with old figures - what I'm asking for are specific 'uptodate' details rather than the blather given so far about 'growth margin'. And I did not realise WickedPedia was a source as reliable as that. Who'da thunk.

PhilipG

19th Nov 2013, 09:21

To be a bit of an anorak, or possibly just being precise, the quoted 32,300 lbs is for an F35B in what configuration?

Is this the weight after the technical refresh and the placement of all the sensors in the airframe or is this the weight now?

Also what has or has not been factored into this weight to reflect the as I understand it need to replace some of the spars with stronger, probably heavier, components. These were the spars made of the lighter than Titanium alloy.

Interesting point on the F16 brakes, I will be interested to see how performing an SRVL with a heavy load effects the brakes.

As has been stated not a lot of room for growth in weight.

peter we

19th Nov 2013, 09:47

The F-35B is about 300lb below its KPP weight, which isn't very much for growth. However the lift fan and engine are capable of another 10% growth in VLBB, but its not required or requested. The KPP bring back includes 6% engine degradation, apparently.

Rolling landings will/could increase bring back by 2-4000lb.

Still no specification of the 'growth margin'. How about that detail.

Indeed. I thought the main growth factor was adding electronics for additional weapons which is impossible with the F-35 as it has to be done with (weightless) software. The other is structural improvements, the recent of which was quite low weight.

What is to discuss is how South Korea's entire procurement process was overturned in weeks. Or how the budget for 60 Eagles suddenly covers only 40 super-affordable wonder jets.

The only sure thing here is that this decision has Sweet Fanny Adams to do with economics or operational effectiveness.

Why are they doing it? Why are so many countries so keen on the F-35 despite the issues and costs. Do they know something we don't?

SpazSinbad

19th Nov 2013, 10:45

That WickedPedia sure has a humour of sense: The Story of O

List of U.S. Air Force acronyms and expressions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._Air_Force_acronyms_and_expressions#O)

Courtney Mil

19th Nov 2013, 11:02

OFO is good!

OEW is defined at Operating empty weight - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OEW) if that helps.

LowObservable

19th Nov 2013, 11:15

Exactly. OEW is a common term, and just like Spaz's demand for citations on numbers that he quoted himself a few months ago, it's simply a way of acting like a dumb:mad: to derail the discussion, like another Australian around these parts did until the Mods threw him in the loony bin.

We - "Capable of growth" is squishy marketing-speak, and ten per cent of VLBB is at best around 800 lbst, which is 2 per cent of thrust and unexciting. And thrust loss with life is a common factor in engines, so no brownie points for providing margin there. It's essential to ensure that the aircraft will meet KPPs by the time its engine is reaching its overhaul point.

Korea doesn't know anything that they did not know when their (new formula with Reduced Politics!) procurement process picked the F-15SE, but they do know that they can't afford to annoy the USA, and this program has to be kept looking good through November 2016.

For some reason the current administration may not wish to be linked to a giant technical/management flop.

Courtney Mil

19th Nov 2013, 11:27

Any talk about "growth margin" is a bit premature, given that the baby is struggling to come in under weight at the moment. Even if it is delivered at the nominated mass, further growth isn't simply mitigated by adding more thrust. Any additional mass will affect all sorts of areas - including its already reduced operating g limits, for example.

SpazSinbad

19th Nov 2013, 12:02

'LO' you can imagine all you wish about me. It is clear who I am and I have said so at least once on this forum. Who are you? Still no quantification of your mythical growth margin eh.

As for 'CM' I have cited people who know testifying to the Australian Parliament still you insist on saying what you are saying. Any proof?

Engines

19th Nov 2013, 12:36

LO, Courtney and others,

Perhaps I can help here on the subject of F-35B VLBB and margins.

First, it's important to say clearly that any powered lift aircraft (i.e. a zero kts flying speed machine) will have a weight challenge (problem, issue, crisis, the term used depends on your viewpoint). It's just physics and maths. Helicopters have the same problem. Harrier had it, as does V-22. In looking at F-35B, it's sometimes useful to keep that fact in mind. It's not a failure because it has to deal with weight.

Actually, most modern combat aircraft have had severe weight problems during development. However, they've not been reported in anything like the detail offered by the F-35 programme. F-22 had a seriously bad weight crisis, which was resolved by removing many pounds of metal that had been put in to support air to ground requirements. That's why you don't hear much about the Raptor's ground attack capabilities.Typhoon had a thoroughgoing nightmare with weight, went unreported, and again was solved by a major airframe weight reduction programme. Of course, a conventional aircraft can solve lots of max weight issues by just using more runway. Lots of runway, sometimes, but that can give problems when the aircraft wants to deploy to a hot and high airfield.

I've posted before on the causes of the F-35's weight problems, and won't repeat them here. LM did a poor job of controlling weight early on and had to undertake a major programme of work to get the design back in the box. That's on the record, too. It's important to remember that all three variants had the problem - but the STOVL aircraft was the worst affected due to those pesky physics.

Margins. The F-35's VLBB calculations are based on many hundreds of assumptions, and I certainly don't have all the detail - even if I did, it wouldn't be public forum stuff. However, I can tell you that the VLBB assumptions include not only weight growth, but a 'fully degraded' engine at the end of its service life. They also include a 'reserve weight margin' (somewhere over 500 pounds) that the US DoD applied to make LM work harder at weight reduction. They also include a higher weight for the propulsion system (which is Government Furnished Equipment), again to get some margins in place.

What has improved quite a bit over the past year is that the weight of the design has stabilised - there have been changes required as a result of flight test, but the risk of more airframe changes is decreasing as the test programme moves forward. However, the risk hasn't gone away.

These facts don't 'make it all better'. As I said at the start of this post, managing weight on a powered lift aircraft is a very, very hard thing. LM, the DoD and the UK MoD know and understand that and are working the issues.

And guys - let's play nicely, shall we? Differing opinions are good, strong opinions are good. We should all respect that. It's what we post that should matter, not who we are. (And if anyone wants to know who I am, just PM).

Best Regards as ever to all those working hard to make the F-35 a success.

Engines

peter we

19th Nov 2013, 12:50

We - "Capable of growth" is squishy marketing-speak, and ten per cent of VLBB is at best around 800 lbst, which is 2 per cent of thrust and unexciting.

I said, quite clearly, 10% engine and lift fan thrust growth not VLBB.

The F-15SE IS marketing speak by your definition, it doesn't exist, but thats ok as its from Boeing, right?

Korea doesn't know anything that they did not know when their (new formula with Reduced Politics!) procurement process picked the F-15SE, but they do know that they can't afford to annoy the USA, and this program has to be kept looking good through November 2016.

What about other countries? For some reason they want the F-35, warts and all. Why is that?

LowObservable

19th Nov 2013, 15:25

You said "However the lift fan and engine are capable of another 10% growth in VLBB." That seems eminently clear, but I accept that it's not what you were trying to say. However, it contradicts what P&W said when they were trying to scupper the GE engine, which is that the lift system would require major redesign to deliver more VL thrust.

I don't understand your point about the F-15SE. There is clearly some risk involved in any innovation but it is a quite small step beyond the fully funded F-15SA.

As for other countries: They bought into the JSF on cost, schedule and industrial participation projections that are rather different from what they see today. They are under enormous pressure externally to remain loyal (see Wikileaks) and, internally, deal with AFs that have long relationships with the USAF and are very reluctant to switch suppliers. It's thus very easy to do nothing and hope it will all turn out right in the end, since at least the partners have not been stuck with the development overruns.

Engines - Would not disagree with any of that. However, the long life of most modern fighters in production and service has been achieved through adaptability to new technology and new missions, and this has been accompanied by increases in empty weight, useful load and thrust. An F-16 Block 60's empty weight is a lot greater than that of a Block 10.

Courtney Mil

19th Nov 2013, 15:49

As for 'CM' I have cited people who know testifying to the Australian Parliament still you insist on saying what you are saying. Any proof?

Proof of what? I'm just saying that it's too early to be able to put a figure on "growth potential" (margin or whatever) until we know what masses the three models eventually weigh in at.

Engines

19th Nov 2013, 18:11

LO,

Thanks for the posted reply.

Wouldn't disagree at all on factors that aid long life. However, for a powered lift aircraft those changes through life will have to be accomplished with much more control over weight. It's a price you pay for that STOVL capability. If you're on land and blessed with lots of long runways you can always get to, then it's probably not worth paying.

But if you need to go to sea without cats and traps, or need to go to hot and high runways, it might be. F-16 is a good example as it happens - a very capable aircraft, but can't operate out of some expeditionary runways. As ever, it's all down to requirements and operating concepts. Just because they're not always what one Air Force might do doesn't make them wrong.

There is certainly some growth in the F-35B's lift system, but it will be constrained by the need to get the extra air and heat through the aircraft and out of the exits in a controlled and sustainable manner. Again, that's not limited to STOVL aircraft - look at the issues the Jaguar had with its supposedly simple Adour upgrade. And the F-16 had to have a new intake to handle the more powerful engines, plus LOTS of internal strengthening.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that when designing and building very high performance combat aircraft, there are always severe challenges, and nothing is ever straightforward.

Hope this helps,

Best regards as ever

Engines

SpazSinbad

19th Nov 2013, 19:08

Thanks Engines. Some news on the F-35C Hook which is behind it. :} I if not we await test results. News report below has the main thrust at the end with the context of the news otherwise and as always for those wanting to cast aspersions it is always best to read the entire original news at the URL provided.

US Navy committed to F-35 despite talks about more F/A-18 buys 19 Nov 2013 Andrea Shalal-Esa
"Nov 19 (Reuters) - The U.S. Navy remains committed to the Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program, but is also looking at options to buy additional Boeing Co F/A-18 fighter jets, a senior U.S. Navy official said on Tuesday.

Richard Gilpin, deputy assistant secretary of the Navy for air programs, told Reuters at the Dubai Airshow that the Navy's current plans still called for purchases of the Boeing F/A-18 and EA-18G electronic attack planes to end in fiscal 2014....

..."Let me be clear. The Navy is very committed to moving to JSF. I wouldn't want you to get the impression that the Navy is not committed to JSF, because we are," Gilpin said in an interview at the air show....

...CONFIDENT ABOUT NEW TAILHOOK ON F-35 C-MODEL
Gilpin said a budget-driven pause in procurement of the Navy's F-35 C-model would not derail the program, although it could potentially increase the cost of each airplane.

He said the Navy continued to work with Lockheed on driving down the cost of the airplanes, and was "on a good path there."

He also said he was "very confident" about the reworked tailhook on the F-35C, which will be tested at a Navy facility in December. "The tailhook thing is behind us, literally and figuratively," he said...."
UPDATE 1-AIRSHOW-US Navy committed to F-35 despite talks about more F/A-18 buys | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/19/airshow-dubai-navy-fighters-idUSL5N0J43CT20131119)

LowObservable

20th Nov 2013, 00:07

I'm glad that Mr Gilpin is so comfortable about declaring success in tests that have not happened yet. And that the Navy is committed to the F-35...

Of course, given the fact that the Navy got caught soliciting an FY15 bid for more Super Hornets (the programmatic equivalent of one's S.O. discovering a stray fire-engine-red press-on nail adhering to one's boxers) there was not much else Mr Gilpin could have said without incurring a stand-up, no-tea-and-biscuits meeting on his return to DC.

And refer to the QLR report of Nov 2011 for why catching the wire is not necessarily the end of the story.

SpazSinbad

20th Nov 2013, 20:54

UP to date info in November about the F-35C and the HOOK + and the other JunkOnBoard: (one hour audio presentation + PDF download)
F-35C+superHornetHooksDownVFA-101forum | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/92758306@N06/10968087135/)
Event Lobby (EVENT: 694934) (http://event.on24.com/eventRegistration/EventLobbyServlet?target=lobby.jsp&eventid=694934&sessionid=1&key=5A43D513D9A63EDCEED0C4F6E8DAB02E&eventuserid=90520094)
"F-35C: Delivering Stealth Technology to the Carrier Strike Group
Event Date: On Demand
Over the past year, the team behind the F-35C carrier variant has made tremendous progress delivering the first jets to the U.S. Navy, standing up the first training squadron and accomplishing test points.
Join us as an F-35 expert and an F-35 test pilot discuss the largest F-35 variant, the capability it will bring to strengthen the carrier strike group and upcoming milestones. We’ll take a deeper look into what the future holds for this 5th Generation fighter, including:
• CV ship trials [Hook Changes Explanation - Some changes already being manufactured on current F-35Cs in production]
• Deliveries to the first Naval Air Station
• Preparation for the Navy’s Initial Operating Capability"
CLICK ON 'LAUNCH PRESENTATION' Button
3.2Mb PDF: http://wcc.on24.com/event/69/49/34/rt/1/documents/slidepdf/webinar_slides_defnews.pdf

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/F-35CsuperHornetHooksDownVFA-101forum-1.jpg~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/F-35CsuperHornetHooksDownVFA-101forum-1.jpg.html)

SpazSinbad

21st Nov 2013, 02:05

From the 19 Nov 2013 seminar (audio) on the F-35C is the short segment on HOOK testing, LM Test PIlot Bill Gigliotti is the speaker:

F-35C LM Nov 2013 Seminar Arresting Hook Test Progress 21 Nov 2013

F-35C LM Nov 2013 Seminar Arresting Hook Test Progress - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vH81pvh6Ww8&feature=youtu.be)

glad rag

21st Nov 2013, 16:41

Thank you for that interesting and indeed stimulating addition to the discussion.

Courtney Mil

21st Nov 2013, 18:20

Well, it's lovely to hear a LM employee being so enthusiastic about the new hook and to feel his faith in the shiny, untested, unproven version. Exactly the sort of thing that would fuel the sceptics' imagination. Maybe not a great answer to any lingering doubts here.

In my view, I am certain that it is not beyond man's capability to build a functioning hook. I am certain they will get it right and that the C model will be a good jet. I am not certain that we need to cling on to Lockheed's propaganda just because we want it all to OK today. As I said before, it's bit early yet, but they will get there.

NITRO104

22nd Nov 2013, 10:02

South Korea to obtain 40 F-35As (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/south-korea-to-obtain-40-f-35as-393402/)

Apparently, Korea is a done deal.
If squeezed within original budget, it's about $192m per plane, in 2018 (the year when FRP is supposed to begin?).

Courtney Mil

22nd Nov 2013, 10:39

It can only be good news for the programme if it is as reported.

LowObservable

22nd Nov 2013, 10:58

It is, aside from sending a rather glaring signal that the real-world price is much higher than F-15 or Typhoon and that the JSF is noncompetitive absent political strong-arming.

peter we

22nd Nov 2013, 11:45

absent political strong-arming.

From whom, exactly? The politicians choose the F-15 and Korea military objected, apparently they wanted stealth.

SpazSinbad

22nd Nov 2013, 18:14

South Korean reasoning for choice; and as always best to read entire article at source:

S. Korea picks Lockheed Martin's F-35 as main fighter jet 22 Nov 2013 Yoo Seungki
"SEOUL, Nov. 22 (Xinhua) -- South Korea picked Lockheed Martin's F-35A stealth fighter as its main combat aircraft to better respond to possible nuclear and missile attacks from the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) said Friday....

...Seoul-driven counter-attack strategy, which pre-emptively detects and intercepts missiles and nuclear threats from Pyongyang. Seoul and Washington agreed in October to first strike the DPRK if signs of Pyongyang's nuclear attacks are detected...."
S. Korea picks Lockheed Martin's F-35 as main fighter jet - Xinhua | English.news.cn (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/world/2013-11/22/c_132910352.htm)

LowObservable

22nd Nov 2013, 21:49

The kill chain system refers to the Seoul-driven counterattack strategy, which preemptively detects and intercepts missiles and nuclear threats from Pyongyang. Seoul and Washington agreed in October to first strike the DPRK if signs of Pyongyang's nuclear attacks are detected.

Somebody please tell me this is Chinese disinformation, and that the U.S. administration is not setting highly subjective redlines against a nuclear-capable nutterocracy, in order to sell jets.

Courtney Mil

23rd Nov 2013, 08:20

I'm trying to get my head around the concept of a pre-emptive counter-attack. Confidence through paranoia, perhaps?

Heathrow Harry

23rd Nov 2013, 08:23

LO - they are not "highly subjective redlines"

just as simple a statement as they can make in an effort to get through to the Young Leader

Normal diplomatic waffle gets nowhere

peter we

23rd Nov 2013, 10:10

in order to sell jets.

I would have thought that hundred supersonic, LO, cruise missiles with nuclear warheads would be more effective.

NITRO104

23rd Nov 2013, 15:19

Thx for the effort Spaz, although the 'official resoning' leaves a lot to be desired.
"The kill chain system requires a jet that can infiltrate secretly into and strike a target," Col. Eom Hyo-sik, JCS spokesman, told reporters at a briefing.
The F-35 jet is known to be shown on the radar as a bird size, making it almostimpossible to detect the fighter.Infiltrate secretly? Birdsize RCS impossible to detect?
Even civilian officials should refrain from escapades like this if they want to be taken seriously and recent KEPD350 purchase in particular speaks volumes in that regard.
On a much more prosaic note, there's still no explanation how will two squadrons perform a three squadrons worth of work.

SpazSinbad

25th Nov 2013, 05:05

There were some other 'mangled Engrish' news stories about similar ops against NorK but anyway...

The Italian Approach to the F-35: A Discussion with Rear Admiral Covella 08 Nov 2013 Robbin Laird
"...The Cavour will see some changes as well; there are no structural changes necessary but some adaptations such as dedicated secure networks and laying down a new type of surface treatment [THERMION?] for the ship flight deck....

...The Cavour will be eventually be stocked with the F-35B Joint Strike Fighter, replacing the aging Harriers. It has room for ten F-35Bs in the hanger and six on the deck....

...The head of the Italian Air Force had underscored during his interview that the 60/40 split between the As and Bs was being done because the Air Force saw the need for expeditionary flexibility. “We want to go to the mission, not the airfield.”"
The Italian Approach to the F-35: A Discussion with Rear Admiral Covella | SLDInfo (http://www.sldinfo.com/the-italian-approach-to-the-f-35-a-discussion-with-rear-admiral-covella/)

http://www.sldinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/the-cavour-is-one-of-italys-two-aircraft-carriers-and-will-host-the-f-35-jsf.jpg

LowObservable

25th Nov 2013, 11:04

Since Cavour was laid down in 2001 specifically to operate JSFs, it would indicate a serious lack of competence if it did need modifications.

peter we

25th Nov 2013, 13:26

India has "issued a tender expected to be worth over Rs 25,000 crore for building LHD's"

They want four, possibly Cavour design.

LowObservable

25th Nov 2013, 13:50

In that case someone should tell them that Cavour isn't an LHD.

peter we

25th Nov 2013, 14:08

They want helicopter carriers. Everything else is speculation.

LowObservable

25th Nov 2013, 15:23

D in 'LHD" = Dock or Dockship. By definition, capable of carrying other watercraft and floating them in or out.

SpazSinbad

25th Nov 2013, 17:32

The Juan Carlos I LHD flung together starting 2005? should be good to go then as required. Anyways....

Rolls-Royce Bags Contract To Produce & Support LiftSystem For F-35 Lightning II 25 Nov 2013
"...Moreover, the F-35B fleet nears multiple major milestones. In more than 450 flights of Mode 4 operation, F-35B aircraft have completed over 1,000 short take-offs, 640 vertical landings, comprising over 150 aboard the USS Wasp, 550 slow landings and 250 hover test points...."
Rolls-Royce Bags Contract To Produce & Support LiftSystem For F-35 Lightning II (http://www.rttnews.com/2229092/rolls-royce-bags-contract-to-produce-support-liftsystem-for-f-35-lightning-ii.aspx)

Courtney Mil

25th Nov 2013, 18:27

450 sorties just to operate the Mode 4?

SpazSinbad

25th Nov 2013, 19:25

The kind test pilots want to ensure that Mode 4 works well for youse UKkers - crabs & birdies alike. And let us not forget the USMC - Sir Yes Sir. :}

LowObservable

25th Nov 2013, 20:43

"As we expand our field support, we remain focused on efficiency and further increasing the affordability of LiftSystems for the F-35B Lightning II."

"Increasing the affordability" of a bag of tricks priced at $36 million a shot is, I fear, marketing-speak.

SpazSinbad

25th Nov 2013, 21:04

And... the LiftSystem is TOO well tested for some... <sigh>. There is just no end to it. We need a GoldyRocks F-35 - not too this and not too that - but just right. I know the F-35A wot takes off and lands in equal numbers. Good oh.

Squirrel 41

25th Nov 2013, 22:14

$36m for the LiftSystem alone? :hmm: Does this include the engine?

It would be great to be able to answer the equation, One LiftSystem = N% of an LRIP Dave-A and R% of an LRIP Dave-C.

I suspect that N and R are currently known only to Dr. Who, JSFfan and SpazSinbad.

What we do know is that Dave-B's still the most expensive version for the weakest payload/range/weapon options. It won the 2001 Collier (:cool:) and should be able to set loads of V/STOL records (whupping the Yak-141 FREESTYLE)... and then put it to pasture and tell the USMC to fly more -Cs. (And the FAA, too. RAF? Cs too, presumably).

S41

SpazSinbad

25th Nov 2013, 23:58

Heheh, sadly I only have ayes for the F-35A becuz weeze buying 'em in OzLand like. However my interest is in the NavAv versions mostly. They are the most interestin'. And worth repeatin'. One can haggle about lots of things; however I would have thought the UKers here would be more interested in what they are buyin'. Perhaps they are in their different Pommy manner. :} BTW the latest Update is here:

F-35 Flight Test Update 12 25 Nov 2013 Eric Hehs

Code One Magazine: F-35 Flight Test Update 12 (http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=129)

Lightning II jets in vertical night landing tests Published on Sep 13, 2013 [Happy RAF Camper]
"F-35 Operations onboard USS Wasp with interviews. Over the last few weeks, RAF and Royal Navy pilots and ground crew have been involved in the second round of Carrier testing onboard the USS WASP. The testing has been used to expand the operational envelope, with aircraft flown in a variety of air and sea states, landing at day and night, all while carrying internal weapons. This was the first time that vertical night landings had been conducted at sea."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jwstn1R24c&feature=youtube_gdata

LowObservable

26th Nov 2013, 11:09

S41 - The Selected Acquisition Report has the F-35A hitting a rock-bottom price of $89 million (average procurement unit cost for the USAF, including engine) at peak production. The full-rate price of the B is $138 million - $49 million for the lift system and all the associated doors and stuff on the airframe. That ($138M) is 80 per cent of what the last batch of F-22s cost.

For that, of course, you get an aircraft with much less fuel, a smaller weapon load and no internal gun, plus a LiftSystemTM that goes back to Mr Royce every now and then for overhaul. And the UK CONOPS, as I understand it, requires almost equal at-sea and land-based time, so no dodging these costs as the Marines do, by only flying STOVL ten per cent of the time.

DISCLAIMER - Actual prices may vary based on program performance, and may cause headaches and extreme allergic reactions. In the case of a transition lasting more than four hours, seek immediate medical help.

LowObservable

26th Nov 2013, 11:17

This is very interesting with reference to JSF onboard and offboard software, where delays and risks are still admitted to by the project office.

» Healthcare.gov and the Gulf Between Planning and Reality Clay Shirky (http://www.shirky.com/weblog/2013/11/healthcare-gov-and-the-gulf-between-planning-and-reality/)

A few excerpts:

The preferred method for implementing large technology projects in Washington is to write the plans up front, break them into increasingly detailed specifications, then build what the specifications call for. It’s often called the waterfall method, because on a timeline the project cascades from planning, at the top left of the chart, down to implementation, on the bottom right.

Like all organizational models, waterfall is mainly a theory of collaboration. By putting the most serious planning at the beginning, with subsequent work derived from the plan, the waterfall method amounts to a pledge by all parties not to learn anything while doing the actual work. Instead, waterfall insists that the participants will understand best how things should work before accumulating any real-world experience, and that planners will always know more than workers.

(I would add that "waterfall" is pretty much how all major defense S/W is done.)

Intoning “Failure is not an option” will be at best useless, and at worst harmful. There is no “Suddenly Go Faster” button, no way you can throw in money or additional developers as a late-stage accelerant; money is not directly tradable for either quality or speed, and adding more programmers to a late project makes it later. You can slip deadlines, reduce features, or, as a last resort, just launch and see what breaks.

Ooops...

Lockheed Reassigns Workers to Fix F-35 Software | Military.com (http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/06/19/lockheed-reassigns-workers-to-fix-f35-software.html)

Maus92

26th Nov 2013, 12:02

Even the USN's new America class LHAs will require modification to operate F-35s, as well as the older LHA/Ds .

t43562

26th Nov 2013, 12:20

LO

In the software industry "Waterfall" is very much not the cool thing. It's "Agile" all over the place now because we all know waterfall is bad.

The problem is that people pretend to develop stuff in an agile way and yet really don't. Their entire modus operandi is to "promise the moon" to customers and once you've done that, what else can you do than set out on a waterfall approach - you can't reduce the scope of what you're doing because you've only got the contract based on your promises.

peter we

26th Nov 2013, 15:55

Agile is not suitable for safety critical and huge, well defined projects (like ship building), its for handling constantly changing customer requirements.

henra

26th Nov 2013, 21:04

Agile is not suitable for safety critical and huge, well defined projects (like ship building), its for handling constantly changing customer requirements.

Or if you're lacking the ability to precisely specify the requirements upfront.
It covers the human deficiency to deal with abstract desciptions how things will look like or work once complete.
That said it is surely not a suitable approach for huge monolithic complex Projects since it doesn't start from an integrated detailed design.
For those Waterfall will remain relvant for the foreseeable future.

Squirrel 41

26th Nov 2013, 22:02

LO, thanks

The more you hear, the worse Dave-B gets. :ugh:

Out of interest, what is the Dave-C SAR price? And do we have operating cost/hr yet in any meaningful way?

S41

SpazSinbad

27th Nov 2013, 01:44

'LowObservable' said above:
"...And the UK CONOPS, as I understand it, requires almost equal at-sea and land-based time, so no dodging these costs as the Marines do, by only flying STOVL ten per cent of the time...."

My question is: what is the estimate (given this statement about UK Ops) of the STOVL flying time be in the case of the UK?

SpazSinbad

27th Nov 2013, 04:15

From around this post there was a 'PhillipG' question [ http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/424953-f-35-cancelled-then-what-102.html#post7812431 ] about the F-35 simulator. Necessarily the long winded excerpt is needed with otherwise 'the bad bits' missing. So best read it all at source.

Lockheed Installs F-35 Sims at New Training Site 26 Nov 2013 Dave Majumdar
"Lockheed Martin is installing high-fidelity F-35 Lighting II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) full mission simulators (FMS) at Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort, S.C., in anticipation of the service’s Joint Strike Fighter training squadron moving to the base next year....

...Right now, pilots are testing the software loads on the two FMS simulators to make sure they work to the required specifications.
“We’ve got a test load of software in there and we’ve had pilots actually flying the test load to make sure our installation is solid,” Luntz said. “Then we will be installing the Block 2A software into the full mission simulator.”
Block 2A is the latest hardware and software configuration for the F-35 aircraft. It includes better air-to-air and air-to-surface modes and initial Multi-Function Advanced Data Link (MADL) capability and some simulated weapons.

The Block 2A software in the FMS is a re-hosted version of the same code that is on the actual F-35, Luntz said. In addition to the operational flight program for the jet, the FMS is installed with the same computer models that govern the functionality of real F-35 hardware.

For example, the aircraft’s Pratt & Whitney F135 afterburning turbofan uses a virtual model of a perfect engine to benchmark its performance—that same virtual model would be used in the simulator.

As the F-35 matures and further configuration blocks are completed, the FMS will be upgraded with the latest software. Luntz said that the current plan calls for the FMS to be upgraded with the Block 2B software prior to the USMC’s planned F-35B initial operational capability date in mid-2015.
“Our plan is to have that Block 2B full mission simulator software completed at the end of 2014, first quarter of 2015, so that we can support the training for the Marine Corps starting in April of 2015,” Luntz said.

Lockheed expects that the FMS is realistic enough that actual flying sorties in a real aircraft could be cut by 50 percent, he said....

...In the meantime, the software load in the simulators installed at the joint F-35 facility at Eglin AFB will be upgraded so that training can start with the jet’s upgraded Block 2A configuration on Dec. 2 of this year.

“We’ve got our courseware loaded and installed and ready to go for that at Eglin,” Luntz said. “The software for the full mission simulator will follow that very shortly.”
Lockheed Installs F-35 Sims at New Training Site | USNI News (http://news.usni.org/2013/11/26/lockheed-installs-f-35-sims-new-training-site)

t43562

27th Nov 2013, 05:31

Agile development is really more suited for huge monolithic developments because those are the ones where people actually know least about what they're doing upfront. Creating a technology demonstrator is an example of an agile strategy.

Building a smaller modular ship before building an aircraft carrier would be another example. It's about finding an incremental path. If you try to do otherwise you just end up spending the money anyway and more on all the mistakes that you make but you haven't had a chance to limit the scope and cost of those mistakes.

peter we

27th Nov 2013, 08:49

The more you hear, the worse Dave-B gets.

Actually you heard nothing really new. The LIRP prices for the B includes the Liftfan (but not the engine), so we already knew the B cost more than the A and less than the C.

The $36M is for more than the LiftFan as it includes support ('plus sustainment, program management, engineering and field support'), so its still not very clear.

LowObservable

27th Nov 2013, 13:08

Peter W - Not so. All customers buy via the USG, and under USG terms the LiftSystem is P&W's responsibility under its prime propulsion contract. RR's contracts come from P&W.

SS - As I understand it from a recent conference presentation, the idea is that the two operational squadrons in the currently planned 48-aircraft batch will both be fully trained for at-sea and land operations.

This implies that to keep current (and carrier ops as you know well are much more than landing and taking off) you would need to maintain one squadron on the carrier at all times. You would probably want to train occasionally with 18-24 jets aboard, if the idea is to keep that capability as an option. So, a lot of STOVL operation.

The Marines, by contrast, plan to have 340 aircraft. The normal complement aboard an LHA/LHD is six. Today there are eight Wasp LHDs in commission + the obsolete Tarawa-class Peleliu - the total is planned to rise once the second America-class is commissioned. Moreover, amphibs today don't always deploy with jets and this is likely to continue. Since austere-base ops are a PR job, this makes it unsurprising that the Marines estimate that only 10 per cent of ops will be STOVL.

SpazSinbad

27th Nov 2013, 17:55

'LowObservable' correct me if my assumptions are incorrect.

You seem to be saying that one F-35B squadron will be on a CVF at all times. AFAIK it is still undecided if two CVFs will be in service, meaning that one would be available most of the time, with one in reserve/maintenance. I do not think if two CVFs are available that one will be at sea all the time. How much at sea time I do not guess at - perhaps you have been briefed on that in your recent conference presentation attendance (which was wot/where pray tell)?

Then with USMC 10% F-35B STOVL Ops you seem to imply that only 10% of total missions will be STOVL (either ashore or afloat). IF this is the case then not all that mission time will be Mode 4 STOVL - my guess then is that 1% of the time will be in STOVL mode. Does my assumption accord with yours in this case?

It has been made clear that ashore the USMC will be landing on runways in conventional mode (non-STOVL) with occasional STOVL/RVL/VL landings for practice (because these are easy in the F-35B and it is easy to remain current it is thought - unlike Harrier Ops). Also use of the FMS simulators will allow fewer actual sorties to remain current (along with real sorties) in STOVL ops.

Apart from exercises why would the USMC want to operate from 'austere-bases', unless required to do so in wartime situations. The USMC have implied that more F-35Bs, rather than less, will be onboard LHAs as I understand, because these aircraft have more capabilities than AV-8Bs. As an aside it is stated that USS America can embark 19-20 F-35Bs if required.

And lastly why would USMC 'austere-base' exercises be "PR Jobs"? If that is the case then any exercise by any armed forces are in effect just 'PR Jobs'? What a funny attitude you have - especially of course to the USMC - and now by implication to any other users of the F-35B. What gives?

Squirrel 41

27th Nov 2013, 18:11

And lastly why would USMC 'austere-base' exercises be "PR Jobs"? If that is the case then any exercise by any armed forces are in effect just 'PR Jobs'? What a funny attitude you have - especially of course to the USMC - and now by implication to any other users of the F-35B. What gives?

I can't speak for LO, but his/her posts throughout this thread have been well informed, insightful and polite: s/he, JTO, Engines and Mr. Farley have added a great deal for which I'm very grateful.

I take it from LO's comments that the USMC will not routinely be doing STOVL with their Dave-Bs, and that as a result, the wear and tear on LiftSystem (TM) will be much lower and less expensive to maintain than the UK ones where a much greater proportion of sorties will be STOVL. This will be expensive for the UK!

S41

peter we

27th Nov 2013, 19:11

and polite
:)

He described Lockheed Martin as 'villainous reptiles'.

Unbiased, nope?

Knowledgeable, certainly.

SpazSinbad

27th Nov 2013, 19:25

'Squirrel 41' I'm glad to concur with your assessment of 'Engines and Mr. Farley' with no offence to 'JTO' (I would have to search the forum for those 'JTO' posts but do not know enough to assess 'JTO'). As for 'LO'. Wot?

As for the rubbery assumptions (except for a statement that '10% of USMC Ops will be STOVL' which has never been sorted out to my mind, what that means in 'STOVL Mode 4 flight time') in this thread about percentage of STOVL Ops flight time, for different operators, that again is in the eye of the beholder - much the same as any assessment of any input on this forum. And I do not take myself nor anyone else here that seriously - seriously. However I try to support my assertions here with articles/reports etc from those who are likely to know. And if the named persons above are who they purport to be then, from their assertions, one can gain good knowledge and I respect them for providing that info. Again any input from the '30 year student of LO' that 'LO' has claimed - nuhuh - with constant bias at least against USMC ('liar liars'). Puhleeze and if you want to be all serious then be our guest 'Squirrel41'.

Just This Once...

27th Nov 2013, 19:30

Why do you feel the need to assess me Spaz?

SpazSinbad

27th Nov 2013, 19:40

'JTO' (Just This Once) perhaps a poor choice of words but at the time I did not know what/who 'JTO' was. Now I know. :}

alfred_the_great

27th Nov 2013, 21:23

Spaz - in common with every other RN Ship, QZNL will be looking at completing at least 660 days away from baseport in a rolling 3 year period.

SpazSinbad

27th Nov 2013, 22:17

Thanks 'alfred the great' for that info. So we can carry out some rubbery maths of 220 days per year at sea (with only one CVF available at any one time). Not all days will be flying days most likely. What is a guesstimate for that statistic? How many F-35Bs will be aboard in this first 3 year period? I guess there will be surge exercises with a lesser usual number for long cruises, showing the flag and scaring the natives.

For onboard CVF F-35B ops once trials and deck quals complete then I would imagine out of an hour sortie that only five minutes will be in STOVL mode. One minute for short take off and four minutes for a VL (with any SRVLs perhaps upping that time a little perhaps - whereas we are told SRVLs will ease engine loads but increase brake maintenance perhaps).

Not forgetting it is likely the CVFs will have at least one portable FMS onboard to also help 'remaining current requirements' to be eased.

LowObservable

28th Nov 2013, 01:37

We...

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/424953-f-35-cancelled-then-what-181.html#post8139965

Was I referring to LM? Please learn to read. It saves bunches of time. I may sound harsh but so many of your comments are based on misread information.

ORAC

28th Nov 2013, 06:17

Op-Ed: More Creative F-35 Bookkeeping: Backers Play Fast and Loose with F-35 Costs (http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?shop=dae&modele=feature&prod=149795&cat=5) (Source: Defense-Aerospace.com; published Nov. 27, 2013)

peter we

28th Nov 2013, 09:01

LowObservable

28th Nov 2013, 12:47

ORAC - Good find. Working out how 40 aircraft have that impact on program costs hurts my head. And anyone who cites New Zealand and Malaysia as sales prospects has suffered a recent blow to the head.

Maus92

28th Nov 2013, 13:18

New Zealand has no plans to buy F-35. At a recent Pentagon meeting with SecDef Hagel, Defense Minister Jonathan Coleman told reporters when asked about a F-35 purchase: “That’s just not part of our horizon. We’re a small defense force. We’re very niche in what we do. We need capabilities that support those very specific things we need to do, largely in our backyard.”

LowObservable

28th Nov 2013, 16:13

A good Thanksgiving to one and all....

but isn't the price of turkey getting outrageous these days?

http://gallery.photo.net/photo/5629965-md.jpg

http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/images/F-35B-100th-flight-03-2011.jpg

SpazSinbad

28th Nov 2013, 16:28

Some Body has had some 'Wild Turkey' today eh.

LowObservable

28th Nov 2013, 16:35

Evan Williams Black Label here, cobber. You think I work for a defense contractor?

SpazSinbad

28th Nov 2013, 16:39

Two Turkeys Pardoned - I sense escalation:

Presidential pardon for turkeys | Sky News Australia (http://www.skynews.com.au/offbeat/article.aspx?id=928981&cid=BP_RSS_ODDSPOT_1_Presidentialpardonforturkeys_281113)

glad rag

29th Nov 2013, 22:07

Some Body has had some 'Wild Turkey' today eh.

Well one's a turkey for sure...

SpazSinbad

30th Nov 2013, 01:13

Slightly OLD NEWs but what the hey huh?

STRIKE TEST NEWS Air Test and Evaluation Squadron 23 Newsletter 2013 Issue [produced 11 Oct 2013]
"...Considerable carrier suitability testing was performed at NAS Patuxent River and NAS Lakehurst, bounding the scope of the technical challenges discovered with the landing and arresting gear systems on the F-35C. During this testing, CF-3 performed the first field arrestment during a roll-in arrestment to MK-7 arresting gear. Later in the year, CF-3 conducted over 40 successful roll-in arrestments to MK-7 and E-28 arresting gear and performed five operationally representative fly-in arrestments to MK-7 arresting gear...."
&
"...F-35B (STOVL) Flight Sciences aircraft
For each variant, Flight Sciences aircraft specifically go after flight test data requirements that would not be available in production configuration. Each has a unique set of instrumentation that has been incorporated throughout the airframe, and truly make these each one-of-a kind aircraft. They were the first to roll off the production line in Fort Worth, and each one is critical to the completion of the flight test program.

The Flight Science jets do not have full sensor suites installed and do not run the block software that provides warfighting capabilities of the jet...."
&
"...USS WASP Second Sea Trials (DT-II, scheduled for August 2013)
Building on the resounding success of the first sea trials for the F-35B on USS WASP in October of 2011, the team has completed significant efforts in preparation for expanding the envelope at-sea for the USMC/UK pilots who will operate F-35B aircraft at-sea. There is no better way to understand the performance of an aircraft than to take into the operational environment and make it work. The purpose of DT-II is to continue to expand the F-35B flight envelope, ultimately enabling fleet operations in operationally realistic wind and sea state conditions, at night, and with operationally realistic weapons load-outs. The first F-35B developmental test (DT-I) allowed the test team to evaluate the aircraft’s flying qualities and performance in conducting L-Class shipboard flight operations, mainly in the heart of the operating envelope. Additionally, F-35B maintenance and servicing functions will be evaluated. While onboard Wasp, the F-35B and various functions of the ship are instrumented with sensors that will collect data and allow for post-event analysis. Test findings may drive improvements to the F-35B for operations at-sea in preparation for USMC initial operational capability, currently scheduled for 2015...."
&
"...SHIP SUITABILITY PROJECT TEAM LCDR Thomas “Ub” Kneale, Department Head
...We have three basic responsibilities here at Ship Suitability: Precision Approach and Landing Systems (PALS); Shake, Rattle, and Roll (SRR) or “shakes;” and new ship systems. This year we’ve been heavily involved in all three. PALS certification is our bread and butter, and we perform it on aircraft carriers and L-Class ships at regular intervals and as required if performance starts to degrade. You can think of it as an FAA flight check for ship landing systems, except that the aircrew wear sunglasses more often, and we actually help to fix issues that might exist rather than just clobber the airspace at random and disappear. “Shakes” are the testing we do to the limit of shipboard conditions (maximum off-center arrestment, maximum sink rate arrestment, etc.) for new aircraft systems in order to certify them for shipboard use. This is challenging and rewarding flight test, which takes us right to the edge of the aircraft and launch and recovery system limits. Finally, new ship systems include projects like the Electro-Magnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) and Joint Precision Approach and Landing System (JPALS). These are exciting new technologies which will forever change carrier aviation....

...In the accomplishment of our ship suitability mission, one of the lesser known things we do here at VX-23 is operate a unique, shore-based TC-7 catapult and Mk-7 arresting gear. While the workload imposed on our 30 sailors on this shore tour is often arduous, it has rarely been more intense than for the months of 6-7 day work weeks imposed by the rigorous testing to qualify the X-47B Unmanned Combat Aerial System (UCAS) for the historic first shipboard arrestment of any Unmanned Aerial System (UAS). The hard work and professionalism exhibited by our highly trained and proficient site crew was critical to the success of the X-47 mission. I want to express my hearty thanks and job well done to our TC-7/Mk-7 personnel. BZ!"
http://www.navair.navy.mil/nawcad/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.download&id=767 (PDF 1.5Mb)

LowObservable

30th Nov 2013, 13:10

"...Considerable carrier suitability testing was performed at NAS Patuxent River and NAS Lakehurst, bounding the scope of the technical challenges discovered with the landing and arresting gear systems on the F-35C. During this testing, CF-3 performed the first field arrestment during a roll-in arrestment to MK-7 arresting gear. Later in the year, CF-3 conducted over 40 successful roll-in arrestments to MK-7 and E-28 arresting gear and performed five operationally representative fly-in arrestments to MK-7 arresting gear...."

Interesting language highlighted. "Bounding the scope of the technical challenges" is not exactly the language of triumphant breakthroughs. Note also that there were 40 roll-in arrestments, which are described as "successful" while the fly-in arrestments are not. And in a test sequence like that, would you not normally schedule more than five passes?

SpazSinbad

30th Nov 2013, 16:35

Check this out: http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/528880-video-15-min-history-land-arrest-systems-go-whoa.html#post8180517 [The amiable Butler quote]

AND... I'll look for more which AFAIK explains further why the INTERIM testing of the INTERIM design of the new hook design is what it is. But wait we have covered that already.
__________________

I'll assume that proper hook testing on the 'finished' hook system will look like this from Dec onwards? Probably this info posted already but worth repeating.... I'll look forward to future reports on the F-35C testing from VX-23 or anyone interested.

Naval Air Museum Association The Kneeboard Mag'n Spring 2012
Unnatural Acts of Landing Patuxent River
“For most people, the idea of flight testing means seeing how fast an airplane can go or how quickly it can maneuver. While answering these questions may be part of a flight test program, there is more to flight testing than speed and agility. Navy carrier aircraft must also withstand the stressful loads of repeated arrested landings (traps) that can exceed 6 Gs on the aircraft.

The landing gear must:
- Survive thousands of landing shocks
- Reduce the loads reaching the aircraft structures and crew
- Allow the pilot to stay in control of the aircraft’s behavior

Ground Loads Testing shows that an aircraft structure can withstand carrier operations at maximum takeoff and landing weights. Normal landings at these conditions are no problem. But testing must also show that an aircraft can absorb these loads when:
- Its sink rate (how fast it descends) is high (as much as 26 feet per second!)
- Its wings are not level when it lands
- Its tailhook catches an arresting cable to the side of the center line
- The carrier deck pitches and heaves...

...During Super Hornet development, Ground Loads Testing required 125 test flights, 370 catapult launches, 471 traps, & 3 years to complete. Incidents included blown tires & various airplane parts (other than the wheels & tailhook) hitting the deck."
http://api.ning.com/files/8OBnZkm85rrIMYQKeV*ggLdFOJeVqjQZZd6TVym3edKjcGDND6Xeiz4Pmo1q dQel3UuSwHY4oOAYEPGPr3FYJaGwJlDafX1q/KneeboardSpring2012.pdf (0.8Mb)
__________________________

More?....

Lockheed’s comprehensive Q&A on the F-35 By Philip Ewing, June 19th, 2012
"...Q: All right, we’ve talked about the helmet & the software. What about the C’s tailhook redesign?

A: Here’s what O’Bryan said: “The distance between the main landing gear and the tailhook on the F-35C is the shortest of any naval aviation carrier airplane that we’ve had. Because we have to hide the hook — because if you had a hook exposed you wouldn’t be as stealthy airplane, that distance is tighter than any other. So it means when you roll over the wire when you land on the deck, the wire goes flush to the deck, and then you have to pick that wire up as it’s generally on the deck. So what we’ve had to do is re-design the hook shank.

Every airplane’s hook shank — as you’d imagine, you ground those things down, dragging it around, so it’s a remove-and-replace kind of thing. It has a bolt through the back of it and it holds on to the hook and we’ve redesigned that to have a lower center of gravity, or in a more mundane way, to make it a sharper hook point. And that allows us to pick up the wire. And we’ve already done testing on that. We’ve done it at 80, 90 and 100 knots and we’ve got a good design for the hook point now.

The other thing we need to do is, we need to make sure that the hook stays flush on the deck. So what you don’t want — and I was a Navy pilot, so I apologize if I’m using a lot of vernacular here – you want to keep that hook on the deck so it doesn’t bounce, or the words we used was skip. It can do that a couple different ways. It can move laterally and it can hit other stuff and just bounce, if you will. Another technical term. So what we’ve done is we’re going to modify what’s called the hold-down damper, kind of a good name for a thing because it does exactly that, it holds the hooks down, it dampens any oscillation. We’ll increase pressure on hook to do that.

The whole thing is a remove-and-replace assembly so any modifications we make to it is an easy fix.”"
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/06/19/lockheeds-comprehensive-qa-on-the-f-35/
&
The day of the unmanned aircraft. Dave Majumdar 15 May 2013
“...The X-47B guys have had to redesign their tail hook a number of times now due to the same inaccurate Navy-supplied wire dynamics model that was partly responsible for the F-35C's woes....”
The day of the unmanned aircraft. - The DEW Line (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2013/05/the-day-of-the-unmanned-aircra.html)

LowObservable

30th Nov 2013, 17:36

I'll look for more which AFAIK explains further why the INTERIM testing of the INTERIM design of the new hook design is what it is.

O'B is talking in June 2012, just before that hook flunked its roll-in tests at Lakehurst. ("If anyone tells you five out of eight is good, it's not." - C. Bogdan, Sept 2012.)

The summer 2013 tests pretty much need to be the final hook point/damper for sea trials to happen next summer.

And as it said in the press release trumpeting the success of hook tests so far in 2013.... oh, wait, there isn't one. Dog, night-time &c.

SpazSinbad

30th Nov 2013, 17:46

As I recall the 'five of eight' [not always clear when people refer to numbers without other info] referred to fly-in tests with the INTERIM design when the 2 failures [referenced below] were due to the aircraft not being in a position to arrest as required on touch down. This is part of the amiable butler quote referred to earlier above with a different set of numbers from 19 Sep 2012:
"...In three of five recent attempts, the redesigned hook did capture the wire; the failures were due to the pilot landing the aircraft too far from the wire for a successful arresting. This testing “was highly successful in demonstrating that when presented the wire... it will grab the wire,” says J.D. McFarlan, Lockheed Martin’s vice president of test and evaluation for the F-35 program. He briefed reporters Sept. 18 during the annual Air Force Assn. conference in Washington. These failures to grab the wire were predicted by models based on where the pilots landed the aircraft, McFarlan says. This, he notes, helps to validate the modeling work done on the redesigned hook....”

Rhino power

1st Dec 2013, 00:15

"...In three of five recent attempts, the redesigned hook did capture the wire

Which is no better than '5 out of 8' really...

the failures were due to the pilot landing the aircraft too far from the wire for a successful arresting. This testing “was highly successful in demonstrating that when presented the wire... it will grab the wire,” says J.D. McFarlan, Lockheed Martin’s vice president of test and evaluation for the F-35 program

Seriously? Its all the pilot's fault?!!! OK.... :rolleyes:

-RP

SpazSinbad

1st Dec 2013, 01:26

Without supporting context / test dates the numbers become a bit meaningless anyway. Not long to wait. Meanwhile here is one test location at NAS Lakehurst with some info about that test site for those arresting moments.

Addition:
Scroll down long page to about midway (past the airship disaster) to see the more recent test facilities at Lakehurst:

Abandoned & Little-Known Airfields: Eastern New Jersey (http://www.airfields-freeman.com/NJ/Airfields_NJ_E.htm)
_______________________

T&E-01 RUNWAY ARRESTED LANDING SITE (RALS) NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND - LAKEHURST, NJ | 2013-4
“The Runway Arresting Landing Site
(RALS) site is unique in its ability to make both high speed ground roll-in arrestments and fly-in arrestments on either the Mk 7 Mod 2 or Mk 7 Mod 3 arresting gear, with the addition of the Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG) in the near future. Over 3,000 feet of runway are available to build up speed while the aircraft remains on the runway with over 8,000 feet after the arresting equipment. The runway arrested landing site includes an underground complex located on a 12,000 foot dedicated runway. MK-7 Mod 2, Mod 3, and Mod 3+ arresting gear are located under the runway, and accurately simulate a fleet aircraft carrier installation. It provides a place to test changes to aircraft recovery equipment and aircraft under safe controlled conditions prior to introduction to the fleet. The RALS is the only facility in the world capable of making both highspeed, ground roll-in and fly-in arrests on all types of recovery systems used in the fleet. The roll-in procedure is especially useful because it allows safe, repeatable test conditions. If the aircraft should bolter (miss the arresting gear wire), there is 7,000 feet of runway in which the aircraft can either takeoff or come to a safe stop.”
http://seniordesign.ece.drexel.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/2013Navair.pdf (2.4Mb)

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

SpazSinbad

1st Dec 2013, 21:51

't43562' enquired about F-35 "upgradability" [ http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/424953-f-35-cancelled-then-what-183.html#post8158179 ] here are some pointers to the future:

Climb Time for the F-35 John A. Tirpak Dec 2013
"...Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark A. Welsh III rarely misses a chance to advocate for the F-35 as crucial to the service’s future combat ability. Last spring, he also said the F-35 will have to bear a much greater part of the air superiority mission than it was ever intended to, because of the small number of F-22s.

“I believe the Chief is probably right,” Bogdan said in the interview. As a replacement for the F-16, the F-35 will inherit the Viper’s air-to-air role.

To give it more dogfighting capability, Bogdan said the F-35 program has a science and technology funding line that looks at future capabilities and growth potential for the fighter. “We are specifically targeting sensors and weapons that enhance our ability in the air-to-air realm,” he reported. “We … will make this airplane even better than it is today in an air-to-air role.”

There are block upgrade plans “already in place for the aircraft,” Martin said. There are “significant roadmaps” for electronic warfare, communications, weapons, and sensors, “not only to support the US but our partners as well.” The summit-level steering committee is “now in the process of looking at Block 4A and 4B for added capabilities,” she said.

The power plant is a likely improvement area. Bogdan said there could be modular enhancements to the F135 engine, or “a whole new engine 20 years from now.” The entire S&T community, he said, “continues to advance engine technology, and … the F-35 is going to use some of that someday. We have to.”

Moreover, the F-35’s stealth can be improved, he said.

“It’s not just coatings, … shape, [or] … countermeasures kind of stuff. There’s a whole host of things you can do” without affecting the aircraft’s shape or “mold line.” The program “would like to tap into that,” he said.

Bogdan acknowledged that Lockheed Martin offered stealthy external weapons or fuel pods on the stillborn FB-22 proposal, and something similar could extend the F-35’s range, even as the services are putting a premium on longer-range systems to defeat anti-access, area-denial threats.

However, combat commanders “have to decide in some form of trade if they’re willing to pay the penalty of maybe a little less stealth, a little less payload for increased range,” Bogdan said. “I’ve not heard that demand signal yet.”..."
Climb Time for the F-35 (http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2013/December%202013/1213f35.aspx)

http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Documents/2013/December%202013/1213f35.pdf (0.7Mb)

SpazSinbad

2nd Dec 2013, 04:09

RSS R US:

F-35B Lightning II Impresses RAF Pilot as Training continues in USA | Aviation & Air Force News at DefenceTalk (http://www.defencetalk.com/f-35b-lightning-ii-impresses-raf-pilot-as-training-continues-in-usa-49775/)

LowObservable

2nd Dec 2013, 11:09

Spaz - Re the first, of course there are upgrade plans. There were upgrade plans for the F-22, as well. How's that worked out for ya?

The Block 30 configuration, planned for 2008-2011, extends the growth seen in the Block 20. Side-looking radar arrays are envisaged to provide a significant ISR capability in the aircraft along with enhancements to provide full air defence suppression (Wild Weasel) and time-critical target engagement capabilities. A Satcom terminal will be added to provide continuous network connectivity during deep-strike profiles.

The post-2011 Block 40 aircraft is intended to be the definitive Global Strike configuration, including incremental enhancements to Block 30 additions, to provide full sensor networking, range enhancements, highly integrated ISR capabilities, and a Helmet Mounted Display similar to the JSF. Longer term planning for post Block 40 envisages an Electronic Attack variant, essentially replacing the lost EF-111A Raven. A stealthy stores pod for JDAM and SDB was also in development to enable carriage on external pylons.

Lockheed-Martin / Boeing F-22 Raptor; Assessing the F-22A Raptor (http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Raptor.html#mozTocId364417)

(And before you say anything about "bbbbut APA" this was an entirely accurate summary of 2006-07 plans. Just the only online source I can find before breakfast.)

And as for your second....

the ‘game-changing’ jet.

http://forum.sportsmogul.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=37038&d=1331699328

Because cliches.

Lonewolf_50

2nd Dec 2013, 14:11

LO in re Evan Williams, it's "bang for the buck" remains in a class by itself. Combination of smooth, tasty, not expensive.

The F-35? Remains to be seen. ;)

peter we

2nd Dec 2013, 16:20

There were upgrade plans for the F-22, as well. How's that worked out for ya?

Different aircraft, different times.

Any reason to pick the F-22 rather than another more successful aircraft?

You might as well say the West should give up building new aircraft because it will never succeed.

LowObservable

2nd Dec 2013, 17:39

No reason whatsoever except that the F-22 is the immediately preceding US fighter program, built by the same company, which advertises both of them as the world's only 5th GenerationTM fighters, and is more like the F-35 than any other aircraft in terms of technology, design philosophy and avionics architecture.

And if anyone has ever said "and this is why we have spent $500m - $1 billion in R&D a year on F-22 upgrades and accomplished much less than we expected, and here's how we'll do better next time", I missed it.

Engines

3rd Dec 2013, 14:48

Guys,

Perhaps these few thoughts could help.

I agree with LO that using the labels '5th Gen', '4.5 Gen' or whatever are not especially helpful. They're really a marketing tool to use with senior officer types, a sort of shorthand, and as ever with shorthand, the meaning can get lost in the translation.

Where I would gently depart from LO is the characterisation of the relationship between F-22 and F-35. Yes, both LM products - but one from Georgia, one from Fort Worth. That makes more difference than one might expect. And very different requirements. Taking the aspects as listed by LO,

Technology, yes, big pull through of stealth technology from F-22, but with major changes to address maintainability and the need for big moving panels and doors on a smaller aircraft. I was never 'read into' the details of LO signatures (even if I was I wouldn't be able to talk much about it) but what is open source is the fact that the F-35 has gone for a different balance between LO, aerodynamic performance and avionics capability, involving less aggressive targets for signature. Time will tell if it's a better balance. Airframe technology was very different to F-22, especially in choice of materials.

Design philosophy - F-22 was, in my view (please feel free to differ) the last of the 'ultimate' fighter projects, along with Typhoon, where the design was driven by very challenging aerodynamic performance requirements, including super cruise. These drove a large, twin engined design, dominated by two very powerful engines, big wings, and fuel. It's no surprise, therefore, that the F-22 weapons bays are relatively low volume - any design of that type will have severe restraints on internal space. It's also no secret that LM Fort Worth had decided some time back that the basic F-22 layout (side intakes, twin tails, blended wing/body) was the way forward for F-35, but with less aggressive air vehicle performance objectives. They may have been right - recent Russian and Chinese designs appear to have gone a similar way. Again, time will tell. F-35 is a more 'balanced design' than F-22, but the constraints of LO (restrictions on external pods as a solution to lack of internal space) still apply.

Avionics Architecture - this is one area where there are a number of significant differences in the way F-35 has gone about its business . The phrase 'it's not like legacy' (by which they meant F-22) was a constant refrain from LM avionics engineers. In particular, the software architecture is totally different, with the state aim of allowing easier downstream insertion of new technology. Upgradeability was a key target from the outset. Is it good enough? I don't know, and nobody else will until it gets into service. All i can say is that F-22 lessons were being heavily 'leveraged' (to use a 'yuk' US word) all the time in F-35 avionics design.

I suppose what i'm trying to put over is that any aircraft design is a response to requirements, and uses the best technology available at acceptable risk. F-35 is a full 20 years on from F-22, so it's not a surprise that it has used what worked on the Raptor, and used new stuff where it was available. It's a very different beast - time will tell if it ticks all the boxes.

Best Regards as ever to those who care about delivering the goods,

Engines