View Full Version : F-35 Cancelled, then what ?


Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 22

LowObservable
4th Dec 2013, 11:36
Spaz - O ye of little faith.

Feature - LO: how the F-22 gets its stealth (http://www.tyndall.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123359148)

Feature - AVHOF: Giving jets a checkup (http://www.tyndall.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123355227)

Engines - It's good that some lessons have been read back, and yes, "better than a B-2" in terms of supportability means "you won Miss Congeniality, but the only other competitor was Rosa Klebb".

Mind you there was an excuse for the B-2, which was that there was only one mission planned. The alert aircraft would have sat in shelters, gorped and sealed and ready to go; the aircraft on training flights could be allowed to degrade, and the fleet would have rotated depot-alert-training on a regular cycle.

Upgrades will have to be much less expensive to develop than the F-22 if the punters are not going to get sticker shock. $0.5-1 bn in annual R&D is $1-2 m a year per aircraft on a 500-aircraft fleet and is still a lot at 1,000-aircraft out in the mid-2020s.



Blue Bottle
4th Dec 2013, 16:43
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/game-changing-lightning-ii-impresses-raf-pilot

Engines
4th Dec 2013, 17:57
LO and others,

Useful posts on F-22 LO maintenance, which confirm how hard it has been to keep that jet stealthy. It's been publicly released (and I can confirm) that the F-35 uses a different set of treatments and compounds to achieve LO, one of the main drivers being the need to be able to maintain an LO jet without the need for as many of the special facilities mentioned in the F-22 report.

However, this doesn't mean that LO maintenance won't be a challenge - it will. Yes, my reference to B-2 was made in the knowledge of how bad that aircraft was. As I say, I don't believe the publicity - I try to work on facts. The facts are that F-22 learnt from B-2 and F-35 has learnt from F-22. The US have spent a shedload of money on getting smart people to work the issues. They won't have fixed all the problems. But they will have fixed some.

ORAC, I stand by my view on weapons bay capacity (but please feel free to differ). The F-22 has broad, but relatively shallow bays which were designed for AIM-120s. The two side bays take just one AIM-9X each. Early in the design, they were looking at bigger bays with a better air to ground load out, but that had to be traded out to meet air to air requirements. F-22 has been able to accept 250 pound Small Diameter Bombs (SDBs), and there have been test drops of 1000 pound JDAMs, but I've not seen that released to service (anyone know if it has been fielded?)

F-35 bays are deeper than F-22 bays, so as to be able to accommodate the 1000 and 2000 pound stores, plus AIM-120s, as well as SBDs plus AIM-120s.

As I've previously posted, the F-22 is not a bad aircraft - it's an astonishingly good air superiority machine. But it's not a strike aircraft - F-35 is. Different requirements, different result.

Best Regards as ever to all those working to meet those requirements

Engines

kbrockman
4th Dec 2013, 18:21
The weapons bay on the F22 is indeed limited to 1000lbs bombs but only because they won't compromise (like the F35 has all over its body) and accept something like a bulbous weapon bay door design, it is by far a more flexible and voluminous bay than the one on the F35, certainly compared with the even more limited F35B which IIRC has also a 1000lbs weapon limit (not 100% sure but I recall reading that somewhere).

Engines
4th Dec 2013, 18:34
KBrock,

I have to disagree, but it's a discussion forum. I'm familiar with the relative sizes of the bays and I don't think the F-22 bays can be described as 'more flexible and voluminous'. If it were they'd put a 2000 pounder in it. But I don't think they can. But happy if we disagree.

The F-35A and F-35C bays were each sized to accept a 2000 pound JDAM plus an AIM-120. The F-35B bay is the same cross section, but shorter, and accepts a 1000 pound JDAM plus an AIM-120. Plus other load outs. These bays meet the stated requirements for the variants. F-35B always had the smaller weapon inn its requirement. LM tried for a bigger (2000 pound capable) bay on the STOVL, but physics (weight, drag, space) beat them in the end.

The F-22 bay couldn't accept a 'bulbous' door because it has to get its drag down far enough to do super cruise. The F-35 has certainly compromised 'all over its body'. So did the F-22. That's called the design process.

What might help is this: there is no mileage in trying to compare the F-22 and the F-35. They are different aircraft doing different jobs. Their designs are equally good, but with different compromises. The big difference is that there are 180 ish F-22s, and there will very probably be over 3,500 F-35s. Not 'good', not 'bad', just different.

Best Regards as ever

Engines

SpazSinbad
4th Dec 2013, 18:35
Only USAians would care about maintaining F-22 stealf. But anyways....
still no explanation about the particular photo cited by 'LO' earlier.

F-35 Stealth Coatings Applied to F-22 07 Apr 2011 Shane McGlaun
“...With the F-35 being the newer aircraft, it has more advanced radar-absorbing coatings on the surface than the F-22. Lockheed has announced that it is now integrating some of the more advanced coatings the F-35 uses onto the F-22 fighters coming off the assembly line.

"Some of the [low observables] coatings system and gap-fillers that the F-35 had an advantage on, we have incorporated into the Raptor," said Jeff Babione, vice president & general manager of the F-22 program for Lockheed Martin. Defense News reports that Babione claims that the new coatings don’t change the radar cross section of the F-22. The coatings according to Babione are simply to reduce maintenance costs. He said, "[The F-35 program] had some more robust materials that were more durable & we were able to pull those back on to the F-22. So our system is better, & the life-cycle cost of the F-22 is reduced."..."
DailyTech - F-35 Stealth Coatings Applied to F-22 (http://www.dailytech.com/F35+Stealth+Coatings+Applied+to+F22/article21321.htm)

Courtney Mil
4th Dec 2013, 18:44
As Engines has stated, these are very different platforms for very different purposes. I wouldn't say "the F-22 isn't a bad aircraft", I would say it is a magnificent aircraft for Air Supremacy - exactly what it says on the tin. The whole idea of an uncompromising design ethic comes from its intended role - remember, they did exactly the same with the F-15. "Not a pound for air-to-ground." The later development there was massively successful, but came at a price to the original role. Of course.

Back to today (or tomorrow in the case of F-35), it's designed as a light strike fighter. It will do AD for itself to a point, but is unlikely to match F-22 in that area - again, not designed to, but gradually being talked up in that area.

Horses for courses and a lot yet to be proven.

If you think of F-22 as as a 21st century F-15 and F-35 as a 21st century F-16/Harrier, it makes sense.

SpazSinbad
4th Dec 2013, 21:18
As a companion to the 'ORAC' graphic above: http://www.cdi.org/pdfs/stevenson%20f-22%20brief.pdf (2.4Mb)

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/F-22F-35F-16comparoEDforum.gif~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/F-22F-35F-16comparoEDforum.gif.html)

Just This Once...
4th Dec 2013, 21:23
If I was looking to do air-to-mud from high level, above cloud in an contested environment would I prefer a:

F-35B carrying 2 x 1000lbs JDAM + 2 x AIM120

or

F-22 carrying 2 x 1000lbs JDAM + 2 x AIM120 + 2 x AIM9 + 480 x 20mm

http://www.ausairpower.net/USAF/F-22A-JDAM-Bay-2S.jpg

(Clearly I also know which one has lower RCS, goes further, higher, faster, bleeds less energy and can fire or release its weapons from a greater stand-off range.)

SpazSinbad
4th Dec 2013, 21:34
Youse would have to be an amerikanski then to do that eh. :suspect:

Courtney Mil
4th Dec 2013, 21:41
You guys don't listen, do you?

LowObservable
4th Dec 2013, 21:46
Spaz - If you follow the first link I gave this morning and scroll through the photos at top right, you will find the pic that I linked, with the caption:

Airman 1st Class Keenan McCormack, 325th MXS Low Observable apprentice, chisels damaged coating off of a panel Aug. 1 in the LO shop at Tyndall Air Force Base. The 325th Maintenance Squadron Low Observable makes sure the F-22 raptors at Tyndall maintain their stealth capabilities by restoring and maintaining the Low Observable coatings on the aircraft. (U.S. Air Force photo by Airman 1st Class Alex Echols)

CM - An AV-8B/F-16 replacement is fine if it had an AV-8B/F-16 price tag, for acquisition and operation. The B and C, even at full rate, are much, much closer to the F-22.

SpazSinbad
4th Dec 2013, 22:44
'LO' thanks for the chiselled link. Gen. Carlisle thinks F-35 is good value and that is the rub - value for the money. Is there extra value for the extra money? Some people clearly think so.

The Reshaping of Pacific Defense: Interview With PacAF Gen. Hawk Carlisle
By Robbin Laird and Ed Timperlake on November 26, 2013
"...“The F-35 is the finest sensor-enabled aircraft ever built. (http://breakingdefense.com/2012/11/will-stealth-survive-as-sensors-improve-f-35-jammers-at-stake/)The F-35 is orders of magnitude better than the F-22 (which is the greatest air to air fighter ever built) as an electronic warfare enabled sensor-rich aircraft...."
The Reshaping of Pacific Defense: Interview With PacAF Gen. Hawk Carlisle « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary (http://breakingdefense.com/2013/11/the-re-shaping-of-pacific-defense-an-interview-with-general-hawk-carlisle/)

FoxtrotAlpha18
4th Dec 2013, 23:08
...there is no mileage in trying to compare the F-22 and the F-35. They are different aircraft doing different jobs. Their designs are equally good, but with different compromises.

Arguably the smartest thing ever said on this thread! :D

kbrockman
4th Dec 2013, 23:19
All these discussions in the end boil down to price, how much do we pay for it and what can it do.
Like General Bogdan so poetically said not too long ago, the risk is that we'll be paying for a Ferrari while getting a Chevrolet.
The F22 or Typhoon might well be also Ferrari or Porsche priced but they do deliver accordingly with plenty of room ,spare space, weight growth margins, engine margins, etc... to make them good for at least the following 40 years, I'm even less convinced today that the F35 has the same margins.

Raytheon had a good piece about the doubtful future of Stealth a couple of weeks ago, the best part of the F35, it's sensor suite, is perfectly usable by all kind of weapons platforms be it partially or as a whole ever since 2010 according to Northrop,
Even the Chinese are not betting on stealth for their next mainline fighter(s), the J20 will be a low volume fighter bomber, the J31 is deemed only good for export, they are going with 1200 J10's + all the Sukhoi ripoffs they are currently building.
The PAK-FA level of stealthiness is nowhere near that of any of the US
LO fighters, it is first and foremost a very high performance machine a la F22 and EF.

I just don't see how a 1 engined 60,000 or 70,000 lbs fighter is useful for nations like mine or as the main fighter for the US DoD, about 1/3-1/2 more fuel consumption ,also means 1/3-1/2 more tanker offload need.

It is too much machine for the bulk of the conflicts we fight or will fight in the future and it is the wrong weapon to fight it's sole credible adversary (the Chinese) if things ever come so far.

As an example, just look at the S-Koreans, please tell me why they need the F35, apart from numbers the N-Koreans have nothing that even remotely poses a threat to the S-Koreans and in the unlikely event the S-Koreans need to strike first (the nuclear danger), Long range SAM weapons , cruise missiles, Drones (think X47/Taranis-like) or brute full frontal attack are all more suitable than a limited force of F35's with a very limited weapon-load in case they want to stay stealthy.

It's bad for our finances
It's bad for our forces.
It's bad for our future defense industry.

SpazSinbad
4th Dec 2013, 23:58
Interesting to see how toxic the F-22 is for some....

http://www.0x4d.net/files/AF1/R11%20Segment%2012.pdf (6.8Mb)

LowObservable
5th Dec 2013, 00:18
First, I believe that some people could interview Kim Kardashian about the F-35 and the published result would have her using the (squishy) term "synergy" eight times.

Second, Spaz, you need to upgrade your reading skills because Gen Carlisle never mentioned value for money, or the cost of the F-35, at all. He's already inventing ways to deploy F-22s in four-packs because the jet was too costly to buy in planned numbers. And he (and his successors and the AF in general) will have to decide what they want to sacrifice to get the F-35.

SpazSinbad
5th Dec 2013, 01:24
Ooohh we are being pedantic today. Got any more turkey photos?

SpazSinbad
5th Dec 2013, 02:02
The last para is a worry if correctly quoted - perhaps quote refers to actual tests on a carrier rather than previously reported ashore testing this month?

Pentagon focused on weapons, data fusion as F-35 nears combat use 04 Dec 2013 Andrea Shalal-Esa
"...But the plane's ability to combine data from a host of different sensors and share it with other aircraft made it "a vastly superior airplane" than current warplanes, he [Bogdan] said.

"What makes the airplane leaps and bounds better than legacy airplanes," he said, "is the ability to know what's going on around it when it comes to other airplanes and other threats, and its ability to take that information and give the pilot a very clear picture and then give that picture to a lot of other people who don't have the sophisticated sensors that we have."
He declined to give details since some of those attributes are classified, but said testing of the software that would provide the "360-degree situational awareness" was going well.

"Some of that stuff is in the classified realm, so people don't understand it and we can't talk freely about it," he said. "Until we get out there and prove that, people are going to be naturally hesitant because that is a leap above what we have today. It makes everybody in the battlespace smarter."...

...Bogdan said the Navy version of the new fighter was also making progress, and testing of a redesigned tail hook that allows the plane to land on aircraft carriers would begin in coming months after completion of a critical design review."
Pentagon focused on weapons, data fusion as F-35 nears combat use | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/05/us-lockheed-fighter-idUSBRE9B401Y20131205)

ORAC
5th Dec 2013, 08:56
and then give that picture to a lot of other people who don't have the sophisticated sensors that we have." Bullshit of the finest water. We've been through the F-35s lack of connectivity, so bad they're going to have to spend untold billions on a gateway platform - which will be non-stealthy and unable to accompany a formation into a threat environment.

LowObservable
5th Dec 2013, 12:48
Good point, Orac. Short of a dedicated gateway that problem is far from solved.

And wossis about hook testing in the coming months, after a CDR? Last month there were going to be hook tests this month.

And apropos of value, nobody asked the General whether he thought two 400nm/2000 lb F-35Bs were worth as much as three 600 nm/4000 lb F-35As.

peter we
5th Dec 2013, 19:14
Its 584 nautical miles for the F-35A versus 469 nm for the B

F-35's Range Falls Short of Predictions | Defense News | defensenews.com (http://www.defensenews.com/article/20110512/DEFSECT01/105120304/F-35-s-Range-Falls-Short-Predictions)


Comparing the B to the Harrier would be more relevant,

Courtney Mil
5th Dec 2013, 20:04
It would be a very expensive Harrier. But that was what I was trying to tell you on the previous page.

Just This Once...
5th Dec 2013, 20:14
Given the cost it would be quite a few Harriers...

Courtney Mil
6th Dec 2013, 07:31
We need to be careful now, JTO, lest we waken the "Decision to axe Harier was Bonkers" crew. :sad:

kbrockman
6th Dec 2013, 14:40
The T-X is going to be a potential serious contender for much of the potential order volume of the F35.
Today SaaB and Boeing officially team-up.
Boeing, Saab team up for USAF T-X requirement (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-saab-team-up-for-usaf-t-x-requirement-393868/)
Under the two companies' joint development agreement, Boeing will act as the prime contractor and Saab the primary partner, Boeing said in a statement. The partnership will deal with all aspects of the bid, including design, development, production, support, sales and marketing.....

The T-X competition is likely to be among the USAF’s biggest acquisition programmes in the coming decade. The USAF strategy for the T-X is still evolving. The service had released proposed requirements for an off-the-shelf aircraft, with the Korea Aerospace/Lockheed Martin T-50, Alenia Aermacchi T-100 derivative of the M-346 and the BAE Systems Hawk T2 each expressing interest.

The Boeing/Saab partnership for T-X raises the strong possibility that the pair’s offer will draw heavily on the Swedish company’s single-engined Gripen fighter.

About the T-X
One of the driving requirements for the new trainer will be to help prepare pilots for the increased complexity in some areas, particularly information management, that are a part of fifth generation jet fighters like the F-22 Raptor and the F-35 Lightning II. The aircraft and simulation system will have to fulfil several basic training roles; basic aircraft control, airman-ship, formation, instrument and navigation, advanced air-to-air, advanced air-to-ground, and advanced crew/cockpit resource management. Furthermore, there are five advanced training roles that the system is expected to fulfil; sustained high-G operations, aerial refuelling, night vision imaging systems operations, air-to-air intercepts, and data-link operations. The 2009 Request For Information (RFI) mentions that some tasks, such as aerial refuelling, may be performed in the simulator and not on the aircraft itself.[8]

Additionally, while the RFI is specifically for a USAF trainer, it asks potential suppliers about the feasibility of a fighter/attack variant of the aircraft and a carrier-capable variant for the United States Navy.[8] However, the requirements manager for the program, Dave McDonald, has stated that it is unlikely that potential combat performance will be considered.

Even with the question of areal refuelling and the somewhat vague statement that " it is unlikely that potential combat performance will be considered" this whole project seems ever more likely to be the version of today's real LWF.

2023 would be about perfect for most of the current M2000, F5, F16 and F18 users, even the US NAVY might somehow still be involved , certainly with something like an Americanized Gripen.

peter we
6th Dec 2013, 15:51
this whole project seems ever more likely to be the version of today's real LWF.

The requirement is for an off the shelf aircraft aircraft with an emphasis on low cost and risk. A new aircraft, with capabilities never requested or used, seems to be neither.

I think Boeing are chancing their arm and as for the carrier version, are they proposing the navy throw away their Goshawks?

melmothtw
6th Dec 2013, 15:59
Quote:





Originally Posted by Engines

...there is no mileage in trying to compare the
F-22 and the F-35. They are different aircraft doing different jobs. Their
designs are equally good, but with different
compromises.

Arguably the smartest thing ever said on this thread! :D


Agreed, but Lockheed has to shoulder much of the blame for this by lumping them both into its "fifth-generation" marketing slogan.


...certainly with something like
an Americanized Gripen.


Just to be clear, the Boeing/Saab T-X teaming has nothing whatsoever to do with the Gripen. Boeing is working on a clean sheet design, and Saab has been brought to the table on account of its track record of delivering on budget and on schedule.

LowObservable
6th Dec 2013, 16:00
Not sure about that. The USAF should really set a minimum spec and go for lowest through-life cost - Boeing has courted Saab for that, not for the Gripen design per se.

On the other hand, the USAF uses T-38s and the Navy uses F-5s for a lot of non-training things, like companion aircraft for expensive F-22s and as aggressors. If I was writing the T-X requirement I would not let those things drive me to a supersonic T-X, but I might consider what I could do with a low-cost, modern fighter as a lead-in/aggressor/companion.

And if I was Boeing-Saab I would be sniffing around Guard and Reserve units and pointing out that it might be a long time before they get F-35s, and wouldn't they rather be doing air defense and CAS with a hot new fighter rather than flying UAVs?

Peter We - T-X is not a T-45 replacement and there is no requirement that it be off-the-shelf. Even the "existing airframe" designs will (according to all precedent) end up being highly customized.

http://s.quickmeme.com/img/79/7914b94a8b661ebf463d5332b9fd4989a952fb3c03b8dabe6f6e20f4797e565d.jpg

peter we
6th Dec 2013, 19:01
Sorry, I mere quoted the article, as its FlightGlobal which I would consider trustworthy.

The service had released proposed requirements for an off-the-shelf aircraft, with the Korea Aerospace/Lockheed Martin T-50, Alenia Aermacchi T-100 derivative of the M-346 and the BAE Systems Hawk T2 each expressing interest.

But you never miss the opportunity to demonstrate what a ****head you are, do you?

LowObservable
6th Dec 2013, 21:41
Now, if that quote was indeed accurate, would it not be rather odd that Boeing would be proposing something that the USAF had specifically ruled out?

That's not even fact-checking. It's called thinking. And of the many posters here, you are building up one of the worst track records of making assertions that are simply not true.

"The F-35 is NOT in production"

"The LIRP prices for the B includes the Liftfan (but not the engine)"

"Once production numbers start being built in 2017 the F-35 will probably cost the same as a SH. Possibly less"

& so on. So regardless of what your **** means, I haven't even started being the kind of ****head I can be, but I promise that I'll get there if you don't start engaging your brain before hitting the keyboard.

peter we
7th Dec 2013, 08:45
LO:

You have a personal hatred for everything Lockheed and a corresponding love for Boeing don't you?

Anyone would think Boeing were paying your mortgage.

ORAC
7th Dec 2013, 08:58
AW&ST: Did you see the one about the F-35 and F/A-18? (http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:c455a63a-99ea-44ac-a45d-21c193b8adec)

Here's a PR piece targeted at Canada's fighter competition, in case you haven't seen it yet.

The authors, RaceRocks 3D, work for Boeing but reportedly made this video on their own while pursuing a contract with a Boeing subsidiary. (The fact that the title says F-18 and not F/A-18 supports this idea.)

If you're interested, read more in Reuter's story: Video wades into Lockheed-Boeing battle over Canadian jet orders. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/04/loockheed-boeing-video-idUSL2N0JJ01Z20131204)

IWJeqrvoF6M

Courtney Mil
7th Dec 2013, 11:06
You have to admit, that is a brilliant ad! :D

But you never miss the opportunity to demonstrate what a ****head you are, do you?

Yeah, but he is quite a well-informed and interesting ****head!

:p

peter we
7th Dec 2013, 12:35
he is quite a well-informed and interesting

Agreed and it might be for a good reason.

LowObservable
7th Dec 2013, 12:41
We, We, We....

You have a personal hatred for everything Lockheed and a corresponding love for Boeing don't you?

Wrong again, sunshine! F-16s, SH-60s, tactical missiles, U-2s and quite a few other things are out there staying within budget and doing what it says on the tin. And you have not heard my views on the 787. Nor is it "personal" when you're paying the bills for the F-35 overruns.

Anyone would think Boeing were paying your mortgage.

No, they're just making the payments on the second Lamborghini.

peter we
7th Dec 2013, 15:11
The Navy plans to buy the last F/A-18E/F Super Hornets and EA-18G Growlers, a radar-jamming variant, in the fiscal year 2014 budget now very much up in the air on Capitol Hill. “If nothing is done, the last order closes around 2016,” Aboulafia told me. The Saint Louis factory still has some guaranteed work through 2018, building F-15 Eagles for Saudi Arabia, though further F-15 sales are much in doubt. The Hornet/Growler production line shuts down in 2016, however, and the supplier base starts withering well before: Boeing told me they’ll have to make key decisions on long-lead items in early 2014. “When you lose a line,” said Aboulafia, “you almost never get it back.”

That’s why Forbes wants the Pentagon to consider keeping the line — and its options — open. Forbes doesn’t represent Missouri, where the Hornet is built, but his homestate of Virginia builds every Navy aircraft carrier and is homebase to half the fleet, so the he’s profoundly concerned about the aircraft those carriers launch. Once the Hornet/Growler line goes cold, he points out, “the Department will be left with a sole-source tactical aircraft program for the Navy.” In fact, when the F-15 line in Saint Louis shuts down in turn, Boeing will be out of the fighter business altogether, leaving a Lockheed Martin monopoly.

The F-35 is designed to replace the Hornet, the F-15, and a host of other US aircraft. But, as Forbes notes in his letter, the Navy F-35C variant won’t enter service until February 2019 — assuming no further delays. Boeing and its allies have taken repeated shots at the troubled Lockheed Martin program, including in the video above from a would-be Boeing supplier.

Forbes Champions More Super Hornets; F-18 Vs. F-35, Round Two « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary (http://breakingdefense.com/2013/12/forbes-champions-buying-super-hornets-f-18-vs-f-35-round-two/)

LowObservable
7th Dec 2013, 15:57
This (the bits in bold) is new or relevant exactly how?

Monopoly has been the JSF business plan for 18 years at least. And (from the full story) speaking of people who do get their mortgage payments from industry...

“Some Navy factions seem to be pretty impressed with the Advanced Super Hornet,” said [Loren] Thompson, “but it is a physical impossibility to make it as stealthy as the F-35.” Because even a souped-up Super Hornet would build on an airframe design dating back to the 1990s, he said, “it could never match the survivability of a plane that was conceived from day one to have integrated stealth.”

Freedberg's kinda slipping there, since even Dr T concedes that he's getting cash from LockMart.

Courtney Mil
7th Dec 2013, 16:28
The F-35 is designed to replace the Hornet, the F-15, and a host of other US aircraft.

As a former F-15 instructor, it would take a lot to convince me that the F-35 could even start to touch that role. Especially the Air Supremacy bit.

Heathrow Harry
7th Dec 2013, 18:40
Correct Cm - teh problem is that the F-35 just takes a bigger and bigger slice of the budget and so it has to "replace" more and more types ......

I'm waiting for it to take over the C-135's as well...........................

PhilipG
7th Dec 2013, 18:51
The F35 as is said, is going to take over everything, the problem is some aircraft may be sacrificed to fund the development, there was talk of the A10 being retired early to release funds for F35 development. If there are then no A10 squadrons or bases left, there is less demand for the F35, or is my logic non LM?

peter we
7th Dec 2013, 19:23
there was talk of the A10 being retired early to release funds for F35

Its probably not talk, sequestration is unstoppable.

They say the F-35 will be the last to go, so if its not the A-10, what fleet to you want to drop? The F-16? F-18? other? Which one to save the A-10?

Willard Whyte
7th Dec 2013, 19:30
If the faffing continues much longer, the answer to the original question (in the USA) will be 'a drone'.

And in this country? A government surplus.

PhilipG
7th Dec 2013, 20:15
I am not a champion of the A10, the point I was trying to make was that if you get rid of classes of aircraft, then it looks a bit strange to expand the USAF once the F35 gets to a reasonable IOC..

Heathrow Harry
8th Dec 2013, 10:05
it won't expand - they'll just say "we've scrapped all those cranky A-10's to pay for 150 F-35's - but they can do all they A-10's did and more so we don't plan any direct replacement numbers... make do with the 150 we've got for strike/ASW/air defence..."

Something like this happened with the F-18 TBH - which seems to have "replaced " all just about everything but AEW and COD on USN carriers

Turbine D
8th Dec 2013, 15:48
Original Quote by Peter We: LO:

You have a personal hatred for everything Lockheed and a corresponding love for Boeing don't you?

Anyone would think Boeing were paying your mortgage.
Hmm, you don't have to be a Boeing lover or a L-M hater to see what is happening here.

Then President Eisenhower foretold of today's problem back in 1961 when he said: "We annually spend on military security alone more than the net income of all United States corporations."
"We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex." The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted."

Sadly, Eisenhower was correct and Lockheed-Martin together with an inept United States DoD have proven his point in three of the most recent large military procurements. It is well documented here and everywhere the missed cost targets and technological shortcomings of the F-22 and F-35 "frontline fighter" aircraft. In fact, the F-35 remains unproven technology relative to what had been promised and what it will cost. To illustrate this point, look no further than Lockheed's performance on the LCS USN Ship building program when real testing begins (sorry for the diversion here):

After the USN accepted the USS Freedom, an inspection discovered 2,600 total discrepancies, of which 21 were considered high-priority deficiencies.

USS Freedom experienced three electrical power outages in March 2013 and one further power outage in July 2013.
During trials in 2011, the USS Freedom experienced 17 known cracks in its hull. These cracks limited the ship to a speed of 20 knots as opposed to its designated speed of 40 knots. Many of the cracks were identified in identical locations on either side of the hull. This suggested that the cracks were due to flawed ship design.
In September 2010, the starboard Rolls-Royce MT30 gas turbine broke down and the ship had to use diesel engines to return to port.
USS Freedom experienced three electrical power outages in March 2013 and one further power outage in July 2013.
The congressional cost cap per ship has increased from $220 million in FY2006 to $480 million in FY2010.
The per ship price goal of $400 million, including mission modules, has been exceeded significantly. In FY2010 a single Freedom seaframe excluding mission modules cost $637 million.
Building all of the planned 52 ships will cost the Navy at least $35 billion.
Each ship is expected to cost around $36.6 million to operate and support.
In total, the LCS program will cost taxpayers over $120 billion over its lifetime.

But here is the real clincher:
On 15 January 2013, the Defense Department’s director of operational test and evaluation released a judgement of the LCS in an annual study. The report said that the USS Freedom was "not expected to be survivable" in combat.

At the moment, it is only United States' tax money being pissed down the drain by the military-industrial complex. When the UK takes delivery of the F-35, you will share in the cost burden of the most expensive aircraft program, ever.

Courtney Mil
8th Dec 2013, 21:36
Thank you, Sir, for a well considered and informed post. Plenty of food for thought there. I go to digest.

peter we
9th Dec 2013, 07:42
At the moment, it is only United States' tax money being pissed down the drain by the military-industrial complex. When the UK takes delivery of the F-35, you will share in the cost burden of the most expensive aircraft program, ever.


Not so, around 20% of the work is done in the UK. The tax take from this more than pays for the UK purchase of F-35's. They are 'free'.

Courtney Mil
9th Dec 2013, 09:52
around 20% of the work is done in the UK

Lockheed Martin don't agree, it would seem.

https://www.f35.com/global/participation/united-kingdom-ip

I know we had this discussion here a few months ago. It takes a lot of creative accounting to call them "free", but you are right to point out that there will tax revenue for the UK.

LowObservable
9th Dec 2013, 12:35
15 per cent of the work is in the UK, right. So how much of that ends up as additional government tax revenue? Say one-quarter, so 3-4 per cent of the cost ends up in the government coffers. So your magic break-even occurs at 3400-4600 aircraft for the UK's 138-jet buy. That's what I call a long-term investment.

By the way, there is an economic fallacy here: The government might get better or equal returns spending the money another way.

kbrockman
9th Dec 2013, 12:55
IIRC 20% of the B version, less for the other 2.
Also these are numbers from the early days of the F35 program, without the later entry of ISRAEL as an unforeseen major supplier of some of the most advanced and highest value systems (eg, ELBIT).

The truth is that it is Bae systems (+RR on the F35B) that are the only ones that are given the assurance of a certain part of the work, it remains to be seen how much work they will actually offset in the UK, much will depend on where it is cheapest for them to produce these parts (labour costs, exchange rates, ....).

Non of the other ones is certain of their part of the work-share, the only thing they are certain of is that they have a right to bid on work, the lowest bidder that can deliver is going to be the winner, losses generated by unforeseen costs and fluctuating exchange rates after the
bidding and signing of the contract are all taken by the bidders, never by LM.

With the entry of new possible clients it could very well be that work share will decay even further, just look at Japan (a non tier partner) who have the right to produce up to 40% of the Japanese parts in their own industry, Korea will probably also demand something similar , same for other possible new clients.

The only ones who can be certain on a ROI are first and foremost LM and P&W, Northrop, Bae systems and RR and now also ELBIT who factually became a new tier 1 partner because some very crucial things cannot be done without them.
Countries outside the US will not benefit nearly as much as all contracts are in US $.
The notion that they will be free for any nation is just plain ridiculous.

Just read this one year old article and then combine it with what General Bogdan was saying about property rights and the possibility to always go for the lowest bidder in the future and conclude yourself how much anybody will be making outside the key companies.
F-35 Reality Check Ten Years On, Part 2: The Jobs Mirage and Other Stories (http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/feature/135384/f_35-reality-check-part-2%3A-the-jobs-mirage-and-other-stories.html)

peter we
9th Dec 2013, 19:43
15 per cent of the work is in the UK, right. So how much of that ends up as additional government tax revenue? Say one-quarter, so 3-4 per cent of the cost ends up in the government coffers. So your magic break-even occurs at 3400-4600 aircraft for the UK's 138-jet buy. That's what I call a long-term investment.

Actually the tax take is 39%, List of countries by tax revenue as percentage of GDP - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDP)

So 138 would equal 2400 aircraft, but only 48 aircraft are definitely going to be ordered, the 138 number is a 'long term investment'.

Is it 15% or 20%? as the Lift-fan is an expensive add on (as you said) and its 100% UK manufactured.



By the way, there is an economic fallacy here: The government might get better or equal returns spending the money another way.

Whats a better than aerospace jobs? I can't think of anything.

Courtney Mil
9th Dec 2013, 19:56
Wow, you guys are doing a lot of arithmetic just to try to prove a point. Sadly the assumptions are far to simplistic and, unfortunately, over-blowing the gains to UK plc. These jets will not be "free" no matter how you cook the books.

JFZ90
9th Dec 2013, 20:53
even if its not free, the returns will be quite impressive though if they make 3000 - thats is alot of tax.

the price of these things seems to vary so much i can't keep track - what is a,b or c version supposed to cost these days? i guess the uk content of the b is the one approaching 15/20%, and the a/c is lower? does baes still make the back ends of all 3000?

I guess the scottish eo/laser goes in all of them.

LowObservable
9th Dec 2013, 21:14
CM - There's some industrial-base argument that you gain by buying into a 3000-aircraft program. In much the same way as the U.K. stopped building VC10s and Tridents and threw in its lot with Airbus, with the result that it made more money from commercial aviation and gained market share.

Of course, that all depends on whether you get to 3,000 aircraft - a distant and unlikely goal given that the acquisition and operating cost is no longer F-16-like, which was the business case at the start of the program.

I agree that the "it's free because of tax benefits" is bogus. You have to spend the money to get the money back, and just because your average tax burden is 39 per cent doesn't mean that 39 per cent of that particular revenue (which is in contract payments from LockMart and P&W) makes it back to HMG.

ShotOne
9th Dec 2013, 21:42
The industrial base argument is valid in the commercial instance, Low obs since a percentage of a big pie like Airbus is better than building all of 54 VC10's. But that argument doesn't extend to our F35's being"free" or even partly so. I agree that argument is bogus. Indeed that's an understatement....Churchill explained it by saying " trying to gain prosperity through taxation is like trying to lift a trunk while standing in it".

JFZ90
9th Dec 2013, 21:56
Whilst the sentiment about taxation is correct, there are rather interesting offset percentages at play for JSF - at least from the numbers presented.

If the UK really has 15-20% of the work on all JSFs, it could well end up free to buy (if not support) if they make 3000 and we only buy 48; 48 aircraft would only represent 1.6% of a total buy of 3000.

I would be very impressed if those percentages applied across all 3000 - I suspect UK content on the F35A for example must be much lower than 15%.

Thinking about it, key UK bits are on the smaller volume variants - liftfan & other STOVL bits obviously is only on B, refuelling probes are only on B/C, etc.

Engines
9th Dec 2013, 22:57
Just to help a bit,

UK (BAES) builds the aft fuselage, fins and tails of all the variants. They also supply parts of the fuel systems. MB has the seat, Smiths have a fair amount of electrical gear. RR gets all the lift fans, rear swivel nozzles and the roll posts for the B variant. Probes for the B and the C from Cobham.

I believe that total UK share a few years ago was around 12% to 14%. However, these figures will already be out of date. Any figures will be less than exact, but at the time I was around the programme, for the SDD phase UK plc had already got about $10bn worth of work for a Government spend of around £2bn.

I'm not trying to argue that anything is free here - but F-35 is not the worst deal the taxpayer has had, so far.

Best Regards

Engines

kbrockman
9th Dec 2013, 23:15
It seems that nobody here is following the latest events unfolding in the US, more specifically those between the partnering companies and the Pentagon/DoD.
General Bogdan and the other parties of the evaluation and acquisition departments are on the war pad against LM and consorts with the property rights as the big objective.

What they will do if they get what they want, be it partially or as a whole, is going to upset the work share among all partners drastically, 15% for the UK might be believable 10 years ago but it seems ever more likely that these "agreed upon " percentages and numbers are no longer guaranteed once full scale production comes into effect.

Basically the lowest bidders will win, thereby sharply reducing profit margins (and therefore also tax returns to the UK government) and making long term contracts (10-20-40 years) ever more unlikely for most of the F35 parts, certainly the more basic, simple pieces.

Like said before , the biggest winners might well be the later entries, non-tier customer-countries who can negotiate offset packages completely separate from the rest of the original partnering nations.

With a program of this size whereby much of the future of both the industry and Air Forces is betted on 1 single candidate many things can and will happen.
First and foremost, the biggest client, the US will simply not allow that the US work-share diminishes too much, much of the support in congress comes from the fact that 48 of the 50 states are actually getting work out of the F35, the support for this project is directly related to the work share these congressmen bring home.

Second, if the US can save billions by choosing alternate sources, something that can be triggered by such an arbitrary ,but almost non steerable, event like a high pound vs dollar price, they will not hesitate to pull work out of the UK, Bae might still get it but Bae can also mean Bae Australia or Bae Canada or Bae whereverelse.

Third,.. for those contracts that can be negotiated there are also the other Tier 2 and 3 nations that can and will bid, I doubt that they will simply roll over easily and leave the ever diminishing piece of the pie to the UK or any of the other competing partner countries/companies.

Believing that the F35 comes free is just wishful thinking, on the contrary, just look what happens when you don't support your own industry, today EADS announces big layoff rounds, jobs that will most likely never come back.
I won't go as far as saying that the F35 is to blame, but it certainly didn't help, the problem in the long run is that you loose this potential and it will be very hard, if not almost impossible to get it back.
Something the UK should know better than anyone else.

Maus92
10th Dec 2013, 03:14
“Some Navy factions seem to be pretty impressed with the Advanced Super
Hornet,” said [Loren] Thompson, “but it is a physical impossibility to make it as stealthy as the F-35.” Because even a souped-up Super Hornet would build on an airframe design dating back to the 1990s, he said, “it could never match the survivability of a plane that was conceived from day one to have integrated stealth.”

Freedberg's kinda slipping there, since even Dr T concedes that he's getting cash from LockMart.

- Examine Breaking Defense's "Board of Contributors," and you will find several LM-friendly proponents. Following the money, you can figure out where BD will land on issues surrounding the F-35 program.

typerated
10th Dec 2013, 06:10
As I understand it, the original USAF plan was to buy enough F-22's (i.e. replace F-15's near one for one) so that the F-35 could happily be a bomb truck that could just defend itself to some extent.


With the F-22 order slashed and the USAF still flying lots of F-15s to make up the numbers it does seem the F-35 will have to take up the slack in Air Superiority by default.
I doubt Lockheed envisioned that the F-16 replacement would also have to be an F-15 replacement also!


I think they need some Typhoons to help out the F-22's in A2A?

orca
10th Dec 2013, 07:06
Typhoons! Good one!

They'd be really handy right up to the edge of the MEZ.

ORAC
10th Dec 2013, 09:21
They'd be really handy right up to the edge of the MEZ. Yeah, but speed is the new stealth (http://www.rusi.org/analysis/commentary/ref:C527914DFE0ACE/), or hadn't you heard? ;)

I wonder if they'll bring back the XB-70. My favourite airplane of all time....

jmcGufvCI30

oL46Kh4vOjc

SpazSinbad
10th Dec 2013, 09:35
Good to put faces to names....

Inside the Pentagon's $1 trillion jet-fueled piñata (5:33) VIDEO Interview by Andrea Shalal-Esa
"The F-35 fighter jet has drawn heavy fire from critics, not the least of whom was Pentagon program chief Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan. Now he says the plane is on track to be combat-ready in 2015."
Reuters TV | Inside the Pentagon's $1 trillion jet-fueled piñata (http://www.reuters.com/video/2013/12/05/reuters-tv-inside-the-pentagons-1-trillion-jet-fuel?videoId=274804887&videoChannel=117850)

Violet Club
10th Dec 2013, 12:32
I suggest we make a note in our diaries then, because I think those words will come back to haunt the General just as they have every other well-briefed individual making confident prophesies about this programme.

He should know better. We are told that he does.

Let's see...

Because as Yogi Berra famously said; it's tough to make predictions – especially about the F-35.

LowObservable
10th Dec 2013, 14:15
Combat-ready? As long as the combat in question doesn't require anything smaller than a 500 pound bomb, or AIM-9s, or a gun (funny that the last two are shown in the image when Shalal-Esa is asking about IOC), or more than two AIM-120s, or Rover compatibility. I don't, incidentally, recall too many fighters (not bombers) going into action in the last 20 years without one or more of those things.

The comments get controversial towards the end. First he downplays maneuver and kinematics. So the F-22 was a huge mistake, and everyone else in the fighter business is wrong?

Second, unless you have some kind of flying gateway, the F-35 doesn't "make everyone else in the battlespace smarter". Without breaking its own stealth bubble, it can't talk to anything except another F-35.

Turbine D
10th Dec 2013, 17:22
Original Quote by peter we:
Not so, around 20% of the work is done in the UK. The tax take from this more than pays for the UK purchase of F-35's. They are 'free'.

Nothing in this world today is "free". Don't count your chickens before they hatch. You need to understand the contracts on the F-35 Program benefits only two entities, Lockheed-Martin, the world's largest defense contractor by sales and the United States DoD. For LM, it means they can and will go to the lowest cost supplier/suppliers to stem program financial losses and/or increase profit margins. LM is being squeezed in the USA by revenue loss across the board, minus 5.4% or greater this year alone. LM's CEO, Ms. Hewson, is on a campaign to expand abroad as money runs out on the big ticket programs, been to the Middle East three times to expand LM's international business. For the DoD, the benefit is simply when Gen. Bogdan goes to Capitol Hill to resell the F-35 program and beg for more funding/follow on funding. Part of the selling points will be freedom to go to the lowest cost suppliers. Bogdan will be able to confirm this point with the helmet contract split between Israeli Elbit Systems and Rockwell-Collins located in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, BAE was left out.

Original Quote by kbrockman:
First and foremost, the biggest client, the US will simply not allow that the US work-share diminishes too much, much of the support in congress comes from the fact that 48 of the 50 states are actually getting work out of the F35, the support for this project is directly related to the work share these congressmen bring home.

Absolutely correct! It is the most visible and costly military-industrial complex program and with general elections coming up in 2014 and 2016, the Congressional folks mostly all want to get reelected, i.e., "Look at the jobs I brought to our state."

Original Quote by kbrockman:
General Bogdan and the other parties of the evaluation and acquisition departments are on the war pad against LM and consorts with the property rights as the big objective.

This could be settled law. If the United States government funds and then awards a contract for something to be designed, developed and produced, the government retains the full property rights to whatever it is. Recall back to the GE F404 engine for the F-18 when during the Reagan administration, Secretary of the Navy, John Lehman, ordered GE to turn over all the details of the F404 engine design and build to Pratt & Whitney and awarded Pratt an F404 engine contract. In fact, government property rights date back to WWII.

Original Quote by Violet Club:
I suggest we make a note in our diaries then, because I think those words will come back to haunt the General just as they have every other well-briefed individual making confident prophesies about this program me.

Good point! The problem is the concurrency situation, with less than 50% of the testing program completed, the odds are in "Murphy's" favor. I should also point out the more things that are found wrong or lacking that require fixing, the less money there will be to build new aircraft and the 3000 number shrinks. Additionally, the LIRP unit costs are down slightly, but not as much as had been previously forecasted. Any new concurrency problems and costs associated with LIRP 6 and LIRP 7 builds will have to be absorbed by the government, not split with LM. BTW, the cost for procurement of 2,443 F-35s is now pegged at $392 billion over the next decades.

Courtney Mil
10th Dec 2013, 19:00
Thank you, Turbine. A number of points there that quite a few others here have been trying to make for a while. Hopefully a lot of optimistic claims put to bed. Now we can get on with (again, hopefully) watching the programme progress.

For us in the UK, we are in the programme and we need it to be successful.

Fingers crossed.

JFZ90
10th Dec 2013, 19:34
It comes as no surprise to see above that the UK workshare could be under serious pressure.

But then again there are other drivers that could see it retained - at the end of the day the incumbent suppliers should be able to offer the ability to fulfill production orders at the most competitive price (as they understand the property rights the best, even if the DoD offers those rights to the lowest bidder) - so if price is a driver, the UK suppliers may do well.

Also the level of profit UK suppliers make is not the primary concern for taxpayers - even if e.g. $5m of work per aircraft goes to UK suppliers with absolutely minimal margins, that work will still be used to pay the wages of thousands of UK employees who:
a. will pay tax, many probably at 40%
b. will spend the remainder in the UK economy
(with only 2000 aircraft that is still $10Bn, though I wouldn't expect UK share of the F35A to be near $5m)

Whilst superficially, 'just' making the fins, rear fuse, refuelling probe, ejector seat, bits of one engine variant and other bits and bobs doesn't sound like much, it could prove to be a really 'good thing' for the UK, in a similar way to the A350 with Trents (>50% British....).

LowObservable
10th Dec 2013, 21:02
Turbine D - When I see Bogdan and others suggest that they may be about to try and wrest the intellectual property (IP) rights from the primes, in order to allow competitors to break into the logistics services end, I shake my head.

The F404 case notwithstanding, the government's ownership of the designs that it has paid for has not been established by law, as far as I know. The contractors maintain that the IP does not reside in the design but in the heads of their employees and in the processes that they have invented to make airplanes and engines happen.

Given the amount of dosh involved in F-35 lifetime support, the watchword for LM and PW lawyers will be that of Verdun: Ils ne passeront pas.

peter we
10th Dec 2013, 22:04
the government's ownership of the designs that it has paid for has not been established by law, as far as I know.

And didn't the UK fund the development to the tune of $1.5bn?

kbrockman
10th Dec 2013, 22:17
One thing is certain, the first party of real winners are already identified, the lawyers who can now begin to battle it out in the courtroom(s).
80+ billion $ spend so far by the US DoD and for the first time since many decades they somehow forgot to legally obtain the proprietary rights for one of their most important weapon systems from the getgo.

Just remember a couple of years ago when EADS/Northrop won the KC-45 competition and how people got upset of the possibility to be dependant on the wims and wishes of a foreign supplier/country and how this could possibly hamper supplies of parts in case there would be conflict between the US and one or more of the EADS nations which was complete BS because all rights would belong to the DoD anyway.

One wonders what the DoD and the government where thinking when they agreed on these JSF contract terms.


About the General Bogdan video, who I regard very highly btw, look at what he says in the last part of the video, this is something I've seen happening more than once in programs that start to derail and have to be put on its tracks again.
First set a clear set of performance goals, after things go seriously haywire lower the performance bar enough for the items that are deemed unsolvable (in the F35 case => kinematic performance) and than reason yourself out of it by claiming that these goals are no longer important because the rest of the project makes up for it.

Fact is that the original JSF was meant to be a nimble fighter, something that was obviously originally an important part of its philosophy, now that this seems impossible to achieve it miraculously becomes a non-issue.
Looking at the set-up and mission profile of the stealthy F35 some serious questions remain, on a VLO mission (which it will have to be able to do with minimal direct support) probably in the first days of war against a serious contender it has a very limited amount of defensive weapons ,max 4 but probably only 2 rockets, a cannon with a very limited amount of rounds for a Gatling type of gun, an enormous non stealthy, big IR signature backside with no where near enough speed, acceleration or manoeuvrability to get heroically but quickly out of the danger zone.

Sure the sensor suite is fantastic when it works (and I'm sure it will) but let's call a cow a cow and a cat a cat, nobody buys an expensive car just because it has the coolest sound system, it is (by Northrop's own account) a subsystem that can be used on a myriad of other platforms including other fighter jets.

sensor fusion, datalink , etc are the future, I completely agree, but that goes for basically every other new or upgraded weapons system.
About fusion and linking, they must realize that it is both a big potential force multiplier and a big potential danger.
Multi static radar tech will become more mobile when not just ground radars link up but also all kind of different arrays on a multitude of platforms, air, sea and land based, when that happens (and this is something for the next decade) stealth will be almost a non issue.

Willard Whyte
10th Dec 2013, 23:32
I'm not so sure stealth will become a non issue, but it will require some serious advancements to become an entirely effective methodology. It isn't enough to reduce or deflect reflected em radiation, it must be (completely) passively absorbed or actively negated.

peter we
10th Dec 2013, 23:52
It isn't enough to reduce or deflect reflected em radiation, it must be (completely) passively absorbed or actively negated.

Which won't be possible if longer wavelengths are used. However this has its disadvantages from the practical viewpoint -

http://www.ausairpower.net/Other/KBR-Vostok-E-6S.jpg

TBM-Legend
11th Dec 2013, 00:05
Vaporise that site with a few HARM's...:E

Problem solved..

kbrockman
11th Dec 2013, 00:08
Ok I agree with that, maybe I was not being clear enough, I meant stealth as it is now.
I'm sure new forms and technologies of Stealth will appear in the future ,as will new and more effective ways of detecting threats.
The technical race in weaponry is a fact , now more than ever but that is no reason to give up on the basic principles of weapon tech design, in case of fighter-jets, performance , numbers (affordability), maintainability matter just as much as it did in the 40's or 50's.

As an analogy look at other segments in the military, look at it's most basic component , the soldier, just like 200 years ago you need a well trained, physically and mentality fit soldier to begin with, everything extra you can expand upon only if the basics are ok.
Same goes for hand-weapons, ships, rolling equipment, etc... .
The F35 doesn't deliver on some of the basics (for the right price) and is therefore compromised from the very beginning.

kbrockman
11th Dec 2013, 00:13
This
http://www.ausairpower.net/Other/KBR-Vostok-E-6S.jpg
combined with this as a defence measure
http://defense-update.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/130594_1.jpg

and a new weaponrace can begin.

it never ends.

LowObservable
11th Dec 2013, 00:48
Or you combine this..

http://www.aviationweek.com/media/images/fullsize/Defense/Miscellaneous/55Zh6ME-VHF-BillSweetman.jpg

With this...

http://www.ausairpower.net/PVO-S/96K6-Pantsir-S1-Revised-Radar-1.jpg

What, they're already doing it?

Courtney Mil
11th Dec 2013, 10:08
This is worth a look.

RUSSIAN RADAR CAN NOW SEE F-22 AND F-35 Says top US Aircraft designer - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_vXqtCkVy8#t=61)

SpazSinbad
11th Dec 2013, 12:26
Norway authorizes purchase of six more F-35s
"Dec 11 (Reuters) - Norway's parliament authorised the government to purchase another six Lockheed Martin Corp (http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/overview?symbol=LMT&lc=int_mb_1001) F-35 fighter jets for about 4 billion crowns ($654.7 million), the parliament's foreign affairs and defence committee said on Wednesday.

The six jets, to be delivered in 2018, bring the Norwegian order to 16 planes...

...Norway (http://www.reuters.com/places/norway?lc=int_mb_1001) plans to buy a total of 52 F-35s by the end of 2024, but purchases for each year have to be separately approved by parliament...."
Norway authorizes purchase of six more F-35s | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/11/norway-f-idUSL6N0JQ1KE20131211)

LowObservable
11th Dec 2013, 16:13
CM - I find it hard to believe that the F-35 program was not designed against a projected threat that would improve during its lifetime. Also, the susceptibility of stealth at the F-117/F-22/F-35 level to VHF radar has been known, even publicly, since the year dot.

The primary countermeasure was to avoid such radars and prevent extended tracking, thus preventing a hand-off to a higher-frequency radar that had the accuracy to manage an intercept. Avoidance was pre-planned on the F-117 (mostly if not exclusively) while the F-22 and F-35 are supposed to be able to locate and evade pop-ups.

We do know that JSF is eight or nine years behind schedule and consequently will face improved threats - more mobile, more powerful and accurate, AESA-based VHF, sensor-fused with AESA tracking radars. All of that makes pop-ups more of a problem, as well as creating the potential recognized by Eurofighter of herding the penetrators into gap zones where they can be more easily detected by fighters.

For the US, the answer may be to improve SEAD/DEAD with Next Generation Jammer, MALD-J, LRASM (which certainly has potential against big emitters on land as well as at sea) and (cough, ahem) certain other assets. It's easier using these assets to get your stealth airplanes through, than to blast a path for radar-shiny jets, so score half a point for stealth. Difficulty: Ivan ain't dumb, hence the Pantsyrs (CIWS for Aegis-on-wheels) to defend the key nodes in the system. (And as KBrockman points out, this is a good early application for DE.)

Which raises the question: if I can't afford all the above enablers (and JSF is doing a very good job of trying to squeeze them out of the US budget), am I on the right track - or would I be better off loading my Typhoons/Gripens/Rafales with standoff weapons + fielding some stealthy UCAVs?

Heathrow Harry
11th Dec 2013, 16:18
I guess every time we fill up at the pump we're helping Norway pay for its F-35's
:*:*:*

Courtney Mil
11th Dec 2013, 16:41
LO,

Stealth is governed by the law of diminishing returns. Adding a bit of stealth is quite cheap - call it signature reduction. Even an 80% solution isn't too bad, but beyond that it gets really expensive and the broader the bandwidth you want to cover the worse it gets. Because of its size, JSF was always going to be a tough one which is why it suffers in the rear sector and down in the VLF region. B2 is a much better size and shape for this kind of thing.

As much of its stealth in is its shape, there's not that much that can be done to develop it further, so as it falls behind, it stays behind.

Given the choice, I'd go for the stand-off weapons next.

Lonewolf_50
11th Dec 2013, 16:52
This
(picture of a radar)
combined with this as a defence measure
(picture of a point defense weapon)
and a new weaponrace can begin. it never ends.
Just a thought to remind you: there are counters to counters, and you can't jam gravity. There are entire families of iron bombs, with various guidance packages, that render that suite vulnerable.

PS: the weapons race never ended, so a "new" one need not begin. :ok:

PS:
What Courtney Mil said, about diminishing returns.

ORAC
11th Dec 2013, 17:33
Huffington Post: F-35 Contract May Be the Worst Deal the DOD Has Ever Made (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/reese-schonfeld/f35-contractmay-be-the-wo_b_4400220.html)

LowObservable
11th Dec 2013, 17:39
Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan said that "little attention was paid to the F-35 data rights ownership issues until about 18 months ago and it is a high priority issue today." The "Pentagon and its lawyers are working with the JSF program's main industry participants to sort out data rights ownership questions, many of which remain unresolved."

http://www.edvard-munch.com/Paintings/anxiety/scream_3.jpg

M609
11th Dec 2013, 19:02
I guess every time we fill up at the pump we're helping Norway pay for its F-35's

And keep on filling them cars up, you need to pay for my pension as well! ;)

PS: The pice by piece funding of the Norwegian F-35 is a formality, all 48 will be bought, it´s just that funding must be voted on each each year as part of the annual national budget. As it happens 6 aircraft are on the 2014 budget.

peter we
12th Dec 2013, 23:14
General Mark Welsh III, the US Air Force’s Chief of Staff, explained during an AEI event that there are big swaths of the budget that his service can’t touch, leaving little space to adjust to sequestration.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=-b30Nast_CY

kbrockman
12th Dec 2013, 23:54
I was under the impression that sequestration is out of the window now because a new budget is probably a fact now that the democrats and republicans have come to an agreement.

First real budget since 2009, immediate effect for the DoD is at least a budget increase of 21 billion$.
House approves budget deal aimed at averting shutdown - CNN.com (http://edition.cnn.com/2013/12/12/politics/congress-budget/index.html?hpt=hp_t3)


edit for link

SpazSinbad
13th Dec 2013, 00:41
Is the BILL the same as this one on earlier date 10 Dec 2013?

Lawmakers Reach Deal on U.S. Defense Authorization Bill 10 Dec 2013 Roxana Tiron
"U.S. House and Senate negotiators settled on a $552.1 billion defense authorization bill for fiscal 2014... and approve the Pentagon’s request for F-35 fighters....

...F-35 Purchases
Under the bill unveiled yesterday, the Pentagon would be allowed to buy the 29 F-35 jets it had requested. The fighter, made by Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT), is the military’s costliest weapons program.

The Pentagon’s current five-year plan calls for increasing F-35 production to 42 jets in fiscal 2015, which begins Oct. 1, 2014, from 29 this year and in fiscal 2013. The rate would increase to 62 in 2016, 76 in 2017 and 100 in 2018, according to internal Pentagon budget documents. The new plan will be released next year with the Pentagon’s fiscal 2015 budget plan.

The Pentagon’s projected price tag of $391.2 billion for a fleet of 2,443 aircraft is a 68 percent increase from the projection in 2001, as measured in current dollars. The number of aircraft also is 409 fewer than called for in the original program...."
Lawmakers Reach Deal on U.S. Defense Authorization Bill - Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-10/lawmakers-reach-deal-on-u-s-defense-authorization-bill.html)

kbrockman
13th Dec 2013, 01:13
I believe so, yes.

SpazSinbad
13th Dec 2013, 02:05
Hooking at Pax River this month, with Lakehurst not ready yet apparently...

Lockheed: New Carrier Hook for F-35 12 Dec 2013 Dave Majumdar
"Lockheed Martin is set to deliver a production version of the tailhook for the carrier-based F-35C Joint Strike Fighter after an engineering glitch forced a partial redesign of the system.

“CF-3 is the test aircraft that is modified to conduct tailhook testing,” Lockheed spokeswoman Laura Siebert wrote in an email to USNI News on Dec. 12. “The airplane is in the final stages of preparation for test with the new tailhook module installed.”

The modified F-35C test aircraft will conduct flight test at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md., until facilities are ready for trials at Naval Air Engineering Station Lakehurst in New Jersey to conduct roll-in testing.

“It will be ready for planned testing when the facilities at Lakehurst are ready,” Siebert said. “In the interim, expect checkout flights at Pax River this month.”

Roll-in testing is required to verify that the F-35C will be able catch a cable on a set of carrier arresting gear installed onshore at the Lakehurst facility. After the aircraft demonstrates that it can catch a wire on land, the F-35C will have to be tested at sea.

Arrested recoveries at sea should take place onboard the USS Nimitz (CVN-68) in the first part of 2014 according to Lockheed officials. However, while the current plan calls for the F-35 to perform its sea-trials onboard the Nimitz, it could be another ship depending on the availability of carriers at the time.

Demonstrating that the F-35C can recover onboard a carrier is critical for a naval aircraft. The tailhook has been a vexing problem on the F-35C variant when it was discovered in 2012 that the hook could not reliably engage an arresting wire.

Lockheed and the Joint Strike Fighter program office ultimately traced the problem back to the shape of the hook and a faulty wire dynamics model supplied by the Naval Air Systems Command.

The solution was to reshape the hook point and adjust the system’s hold-down damper, which helps prevent the hook from bouncing around upon touchdown...."
Lockheed: New Carrier Hook for F-35 | USNI News (http://news.usni.org/2013/12/12/lockheed-new-carrier-hook-f-35)

SpazSinbad
13th Dec 2013, 03:27
VIDEO HERE: F-35 fighter jet passes bomb accuracy test | Video | Reuters.com (http://uk.reuters.com/video/2013/12/11/f-35-fighter-jet-passes-bomb-accuracy-te?videoId=274892828&videoChannel=1)
Weapons release completes F-35 flight test milestone 12 Dec 2013 australianaviation.com.au
"Lockheed Martin has proclaimed a successful test flight and verification year for weapons integration following the successful employment of a GBU-32 JDAM from an F-35B’s internal weapons bay against a fixed ground test target.

The F-35B aircraft, BF-18, launched from the Air Force Flight Test Center at Edwards Air Force Base was piloted by US Marine Corps test pilot Lt. Col. Jon “Miles” Ohman, and operated with Block 2B software. The 100 [1,000] pound GBU-32 was released from an altitude of 25,000 feet.

Lockheed Martin vice president of F-35 test and verification said: “This milestone completed the 2013 U.S. Government and Lockheed Martin integrated test force team commitment to perform a Weapon Delivery Accuracy test for each of the Block 2B software weapon types, which includes the AIM-120, GBU-12, and GBU-31/32.”

It was the final weapons test of 2013 for the program."
Weapons release completes F-35 flight test milestone | Australian Aviation Magazine (http://australianaviation.com.au/2013/12/weapons-test-completes-f-35-flight-test-milestone/)

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/F-35B_GBU-32_AccuracyINITIALforum.jpg~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/F-35B_GBU-32_AccuracyINITIALforum.jpg.html)
http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/F-35B_GBU-32_AccuracyFORUM-1.jpg~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/F-35B_GBU-32_AccuracyFORUM-1.jpg.html)

orca
13th Dec 2013, 08:27
That will shut the doubters up - or they may question how much of said accuracy is in the jet and how much is in the JDAM. Hmmm, tricky.

Heathrow Harry
13th Dec 2013, 08:28
not the smallest target I've ever seen................

Squirrel 41
13th Dec 2013, 09:07
"JDAM hits 40' x 40' target under test conditions" shocker.... :rolleyes:

S41

FODPlod
13th Dec 2013, 10:32
Impact point seven feet above target dead centre? Get the designator some spectacles! :)

orca
13th Dec 2013, 11:59
Errr, suspect weapon went through dead centre of target mass and not totally convinced of the need for a designator. But good banter nonetheless.;)

Willard Whyte
13th Dec 2013, 12:03
That will shut the doubters up - or they may question how much of said accuracy is in the jet and how much is in the JDAM. Hmmm, tricky.

Looking at a list of compatible a/c, my money's on JDAM.


Have 'we' got anything like it, or are we playing our usual game of catch-up whilst pompously announcing that nothing is rotten in the state of Denmark.


suspect weapon went through dead centre of target mass

Were I a pprune pedant I would probably suggest it went through the centroid :p (Which admittedly for shipping containers is pretty much one and the same.)

Turbine D
13th Dec 2013, 14:23
First real budget since 2009, immediate effect for the DoD is at least a budget increase of 21 billion$.

I think I said before the United States DoD was inept, a better word might be dysfunctional. If you go back to the Reagan administration and adjust defense spending for inflation, we currently have one half the forces and capability we had then, but at today's higher levels of expenditures. Instead of 600 ships, we have 280 ships, instead of a 20 division army, we have a 10 division army and we have less than one half the number of bombers and fighter aircraft as we had then. Now you might say, but the ships, planes and army are more capable today than then but that not necessarily true. The average cycle time now for all weapons procured by the DoD under DoD acquisition regulations is 22 years. Whatever technological advantage included in the prolonged cycle is tempered or mitigated, only shortened time to market produces the technological edge, with longer times, others catch up.

Furthermore, over half the active military personnel sit behind desks or are on staff jobs. Additionally, DoD currently have 1.5 million civilian employees divided between civil servants and contract personnel, more than double that of 25 years ago. Joint Task Force staffs have increased from 7 in 1987 to 250 today. It is costly bureaucracy at its finest. There is ~$400 billion in unfunded cost growth in current Pentagon programs. It is no wonder we have less of everything. The budget increase of $21 billion will be quickly swallowed up, but not by funding more equipment, but by paying for the bureaucracy and bureaucrats.

Courtney Mil
13th Dec 2013, 15:47
Aren't we being a tiny bit scathing? Agreed, it should be able to hit a barn door, but always good to see that it can and that the end-to-end system check was successful.

Heathrow Harry
13th Dec 2013, 15:52
http://http://www.fleetmon.com/en/vessels/Emma_Maersk_57307/photos/433483

Well it can take out the "Emma Maersk" anyway

EMMA MAERSK (IMO: 9321483, MMSI: 220417000, Callsign: OYGR2) ship photo by Lichtschrijver - 433483 - FleetMon.com (http://www.fleetmon.com/en/vessels/Emma_Maersk_57307/photos/433483)

ORAC
13th Dec 2013, 15:56
Well it can take out the "Emma Maersk" anyway You really think 2 x 1000lbs exploding somewhere amongst 14,000+ containers is going to sunk it?

They'd probably wonder what the bang was and spend days looking for the problem*.......

*Hypebole, but you get the point.

Heathrow Harry
13th Dec 2013, 16:07
Orac

I suspect there aren't any people on the Emma Mearsk anyway.................. it's all run from an office in Copenhagen...............

after all if anyone gets in the way they can just run over them.............. :E:E

orca
13th Dec 2013, 18:30
Courtney,

On reflection you are probably correct. It is actually great to see a Gen 5 aircraft loosing off a GPS guided weapon 5 years prior to ISD and 35 years before it's OSD. I am led to believe that the 'stealthy as a breeze block' Eurofighter 2000 might even field PW4 next year a mere 14 years past the gate and with only 17 before the scrap heap beckons.

Have a good week end all, it's red wine o'clock!

Courtney Mil
13th Dec 2013, 18:36
It is red wine o'clock, my friend.:ok:

kbrockman
13th Dec 2013, 20:24
It's Friday ,as in fish eating day, as in no red but white whine day.
http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/glass-white-wine-fish-chips-23078919.jpg

Fox3WheresMyBanana
13th Dec 2013, 21:15
Now Red Wine O'clock over the Pond. Cheers all :ok:

Contact Approach
13th Dec 2013, 21:22
order c152's and be done with it.

SpazSinbad
13th Dec 2013, 22:00
Choke on your Banans (Swiss Variety) or regurgitate youse vino but now the UK has 3% and the Dutchies 2% of the F-35 produce:

Lockheed Martin Celebrates 100th F-35 Lightning II · Lockheed Martin (http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2013/december/131213ae_lockheed-martin-celebrates-100th-f-35.html)

'Fox3WheresMyBanana' I have the location of the A-4 banan dispenser if you require it. :}

Fox3WheresMyBanana
13th Dec 2013, 22:29
PM appreciated. I've been asked to go back to two former jobs this week already - best to be prepared :ok:

SpazSinbad
13th Dec 2013, 23:25
I reckon the location of the vending device can go pubelik these days - only WarBirds, Draken and Brazilian Navy flog A-4s these days..... No?

One happy chappie - suckcess....

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/A4bananaVendingMachinePDFforum.gif~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/A4bananaVendingMachinePDFforum.gif.html)
http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/A-4bananaVendingMachineNATOPSforum.gif~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/A-4bananaVendingMachineNATOPSforum.gif.html)

CoffmanStarter
14th Dec 2013, 10:38
Good grief ... we've had Obama and Cameron doing a selfie this week ... and now Fox3 is at it too :cool:

SpazSinbad
15th Dec 2013, 08:49
A lot of new equipment purchases in latest 5-year defense plan 14 Dec 2013 KOJI SONODA
"Japan's new five-year Mid-Term Defense Program includes outlays for 17 new Osprey tiltrotor aircraft and three Global Hawk surveillance drones to help it respond to China's growing presence in the East China Sea.

The plan, revealed Dec. 13, starts in fiscal 2014. It is expected to be approved in a Cabinet meeting on Dec. 17 along with the National Defense Program Guidelines....

...Further spending will include [additional to first 42] 28 F-35 Lightning fighter jets for the Air Self-Defense Force..."
A lot of new equipment purchases in latest 5-year defense plan - AJW by The Asahi Shimbun (http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/AJ201312140033)
____________

Japan to hike mid-term defense spending by 5% ? Japan Today: Japan News and Discussion (http://www.japantoday.com/category/politics/view/japan-to-hike-mid-term-defense-spending-by-5)

"...The spending plan includes an additional purchase of F-35 fighters..."

Heathrow Harry
15th Dec 2013, 12:07
I'll bet they'd rather have F-22's...............

downsizer
15th Dec 2013, 12:43
100 odd airframes now, anyone still think it'll get canned?

LowObservable
15th Dec 2013, 12:52
Are they going to stop dead and torch the existing airframes? No.

Will they get anywhere near 4000, or even 3200 (target for the US + original partners)? Good question.

Will the UK get its 138 aircraft? Another good question.

Would the program have been cancelled if the truth about cost and schedule had been known when this thread started, three years ago? Good question, but wades into the swamp of alt.history.

SpazSinbad
17th Dec 2013, 12:24
LEAP OF FAITH 17 Dec 2013 Craig Hoyle
"The UK's involvement in the Joint Strike Fighter's development has enabled its services to prepare the ground for their future STOVL F-35B fleets...

...Thanks to years of flight control law trials and other work performed in the UK in support of the STOVL JSF's development, the F-35B's capability as a carrier-based asset will also represent a jump from previous-generation aircraft, such as the nation's retired BAE Systems Harrier GR9. "It's taking the mystique out of VSTOL [vertical/short take-off and landing] operations," says one pilot of the new type's handling characteristics.

COMFORTABLE LANDINGS
While a vertical landing is likely to be the typical means of recovery in peacetime, a UK-pioneered shipborne rolling vertical landing technique will allow pilots to return to an aircraft carrier with its typical stores "bring-back" limit of around 2,270kg increased by between 908kg and 1,810kg. This will be achieved by approaching the carrier on a 7˚ glide path while flying at around 60kt. The use of a UK-developed "Bedford array" will enable the pilot to maintain a constant aiming point on the deck, despite vessel movements in rough sea conditions.

"Pilots will require less training and operating the aircraft will be much safer than legacy types," says Schofield.

"The aircraft, right from the outset, was developed to have high reliability and a high sortie-generation rate," another UK pilot adds, with a full prognostic support system to be available by around 2020. "Operating the aircraft at sea will be no different to landside, in terms of maintenance hours."

In order to ensure a smooth introduction and through-life employment of the F-35, the UK is making a major investment in simulation, with 50% of its pilot training planned to be performed using synthetic environments. Four full mission simulators will be acquired and installed at RAF Marham, with other equipment including a deployable mission trainer also to be purchased.

The use of advanced synthetic training devices will allow the UK's F-35 pilots to get the most out of every live flying hour, one RAF pilot notes. "When you PIN into the aircraft, if you're not booked into the training system or don't have currency on the aircraft, you cannot get into it and fly it," he adds....

...Once operational, the F-35 will receive upgrades on a two-yearly cycle, alternating between software modifications only, and both software and hardware changes which will be implemented every four years...."
http://www.flightglobal.com/fg-club/in-focus/uk-f-35/

Courtney Mil
17th Dec 2013, 16:06
The aircraft, right from the outset, was developed to have high reliability

Ah, that's where the designers of previous aircraft went wrong, then.

SpazSinbad
17th Dec 2013, 21:01
Hagel: U.S. Committed to Singapore Relationship 12 Dec 2013 Claudette Roulo, American Forces Press Service
"...Yesterday, Ng visited the Republic of Singapore Air Force's Peace Carvin II F-16 Fighting Falcon training detachment at Luke Air Force Base in Arizona, which was celebrating its 20th anniversary. The detachment also held an integrated live-fire exercise as part of the annual Forging Sabre exercise, and U.S. Marines demonstrated the F-35B Lightning II joint strike fighter aircraft, Ng said....

...Singapore is “seriously looking” at replacing its F-16 fleet with the F-35B, Ng said. But, he continued, “We're in no particular hurry, because our F-16s are still very operational, and they're due for upgrades. But it is a serious consideration.”"
Defense.gov News Article: Hagel: U.S. Committed to Singapore Relationship (http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=121333)

LowObservable
17th Dec 2013, 22:26
Singapore is “seriously looking” at replacing its F-16 fleet with the F-35B, Ng said. But, he continued, “We're in no particular hurry, because our F-16s are still very operational, and they're due for upgrades. But it is a serious consideration.”

Hmm, not quite what was being reported in April...

Pentagon sees Singapore's decision about buying F-35s by summer | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/24/us-lockheed-fighter-singapore-idUSBRE93N19R20130424)

GreenKnight121
18th Dec 2013, 01:47
There is a difference between making the decision to buy, and actually buying them.

I don't expect Singapore to actually sign a contract for 2-3 more years, and to not receive their first aircraft until ~2020.

SpazSinbad
18th Dec 2013, 02:10
Latest quote from Dr.No hisself.... :}

Transcript of Joint Press Conference between US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and Singapore Minister for Defence Dr Ng Eng Hen (Excerpts) 13 Dec 2013
"...Question: For Minister Ng, could you tell us about Singapore's interest in the F-35B. I know some of you were watching that demonstrations this week in Arizona.

Dr Ng: I've said in Parliament during the last budget that Singapore is seriously looking at the F-35s to replace our F-5s. We're in no particular hurry because our F-16s are still very operational, they are due for upgrades but it is a serious consideration and during my visit here to Luke Air Base, the US marines were kind enough to have a demonstration of the F-35Bs and it's quite an engineering marvel. We recognise that there are aspects to consider and we will make our deliberate decision because as I said we are in no particular hurry but we are seriously considering."
MINDEF - Resources - Transcript of Joint Press Conference between US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and Singapore Minister for Defence Dr Ng Eng Hen (Excerpts) (13 Dec 13) (http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/press_room/official_releases/sp/2013/13dec13_speech.html)
___________________

And this is wot El Bog Dan said in the quote above mentioned by LO:
"...He said he was also cautiously optimistic that South Korea (http://www.reuters.com/places/south-korea) could decide to buy the radar-evading F-35 in its 60-fighter competition, with a decision expected there in June...."
Pentagon sees Singapore's decision about buying F-35s by summer | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/24/us-lockheed-fighter-singapore-idUSBRE93N19R20130424)

Prescient huh.

SpazSinbad
18th Dec 2013, 08:10
Perhaps some more Bs for Japanese?

News Analysis: Japan's MOD eyes F-35 multirole stealth jets as ASDF's mainstay fighter 18 Dec 2013 Jon Day
"TOKYO, Dec. 18 (Xinhua) -- Japan's Ministry of Defense (MOD) on Wednesday said it is mulling to increase the number of Lockheed Martin F-35 multirole stealth fighters it plans to add to its Air Self-Defense Force (ASDF) contingent, with an eye to making the fifth-generation jet its mainstay fighter.

Following approval by the Cabinet on Tuesday to broaden the scope of Japan's defense and security guidelines, the MOD is considering focusing more of its attention on achieving what it has described as "superior air-combat capability," as five year mid-term and longer-term defense and security protocols and the allocation of funds become pivotal focal points for the Cabinet and the MOD henceforth.

The MOD's new consideration is to possibly replace the ASDF's aging mainstay F-15 fighters with the F-35's, officials said, adding that they had already decided to retire the force's F-4 fighters and replace them with 42 F-35's....

...Japan's MOD is particularly eyeing two of the F-35 models for their vertical and short take off and landing ability, and officials here have said that the jet could be used along with ground troops and amphibious vehicles for rapid deployment operations to remote islands off Japan...."
News Analysis: Japan's MOD eyes F-35 multirole stealth jets as ASDF's mainstay fighter - Xinhua | English.news.cn (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/world/2013-12/18/c_132978121.htm)

Courtney Mil
18th Dec 2013, 09:37
The article seems to point to their agenda to get Mitsubishi involved in workshare in some form. That would make sense of their slightly odd decission to buy F-35 as their fighter replacement. Remember their F-15Js were build under licence - good for their employment and technology transfer. I would be interested in the negotiations that have gone on since their initial order two years ago.

LowObservable
18th Dec 2013, 15:28
Rapid deployment operations to remote islands off Japan

Are they talking about the Senkakus? Because if so, I perceive a potential problem.

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2012/9/17/1347889055740/Senkaku-islands-008.jpg

Courtney Mil
18th Dec 2013, 15:33
Wrong, LO. Tracy Island looks pretty useless for mounting operations, but International Rescue seem to manage alright.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/05/31/article-2152507-135FF30A000005DC-135_472x274.jpg

Courtney Mil
18th Dec 2013, 15:39
Actually, that's the one from Stingray, but the same applies...:rolleyes:

Biggus
18th Dec 2013, 16:00
CM,

I'll be the first to say it......

You're wrong, that's definitely Tracey Island from Thunderbirds! :=

ORAC
18th Dec 2013, 16:12
There's always a way to launch with a full fuel and weapon load, and a pad will do for landing for the F-35B.... :p

oImq1glnOds

Oh yeah. The Ruskies did it too. Nice bit of film of the MIG-19 as well...

cRg4FKFBpBI

p.s. They're actually thinking of using Shimojijima Airport (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2013/01/17/Fighter-jets-may-be-deployed-near-isles/UPI-61501358398966/)/ Shimoji Air Base (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shimojishima_Airport)

Courtney Mil
18th Dec 2013, 16:16
Well, I wondered about that, but here's Stingray in front of it...

http://www.technodelic.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Stingray/TracyIsland.jpg

Hmmm :hmm:


And a documentary on Tracy Island...

http://www.technodelic.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Stingray/TracyIsland.jpg

SpazSinbad
18th Dec 2013, 16:21
Fanks 'ORAC': ThunderBirds are GO! Shimojishima Airport/Shimoji Air Base

"...
In 2010, there were renewed protests against proposals to turn Shimoji Airport into a permanent USMC post.

As of early 2013, serious consideration was being given to basing a detachment of JASDF (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JASDF) F-15J (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_F-15J) fighters out of the Airport, in order to provide better air defense coverage over the Senkaku Islands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senkaku_Islands). The airport already has a 'shadow designation' as Shimoji Air Base as part of its Type-3 status."
Shimojishima Airport - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shimojishima_Airport)

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/800px-Stratos4_TSR-2MS_flight_profile.png~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/800px-Stratos4_TSR-2MS_flight_profile.png.html)

Biggus
18th Dec 2013, 16:35
CM,

I can't deny that image, but I spent enough of my childhood watching Thunderbirds to know Tracy Island when I see it!!

Courtney Mil
18th Dec 2013, 16:42
Yeah, can't argue, Biggus.

Biggus
18th Dec 2013, 16:48
Now that's settled...... back to the "bun fight"!! :(

SpazSinbad
18th Dec 2013, 17:00
[Japan] NATIONAL DEFENSE PROGRAM GUIDELINES for FY 2014 and beyond (SUMMARY)
"...e. Response to an attack on remote islands
- In order to ensure maritime and air superiority, the SDF will strengthen its ability to deal with attacks by aircraft, naval vessels, and missiles, etc.

- The SDF will develop full amphibious capability, in order to land, recapture and secure without delay in case of any invasion to any remote islands...."
page 8: Document: Japan's 2014 National Defense Program Guidelines | USNI News (http://news.usni.org/2013/12/17/document-japans-2014-national-defense-program-guidelines)

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/JapanNATIONALDEFENSEPROGRAMGUIDELINES2014chartFORUM.gif~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/JapanNATIONALDEFENSEPROGRAMGUIDELINES2014chartFORUM.gif.html)

CoffmanStarter
18th Dec 2013, 17:09
Courtney ...

Didn't you have a hand in developing the Sidewinder fit for the TTF :E :ok:

http://i1004.photobucket.com/albums/af162/CoffmanStarter/TitanTerrorfish_zpsc628050d.jpg

Courtney Mil
18th Dec 2013, 18:38
Indeed, Coff. It was a Gen 5 platform. And note the internal weapons bay, LO shape and RCS reducing coating. Of course, it had its own data link. Despite having 120 TTFs, they were still unable to gain space supremacy against one Gen 4 Stingray commanded by Troy Tempest.

ORAC
18th Dec 2013, 18:56
The Luftwaffe did ZELL trials with the F-104G. Looking at the video it must have been..... interesting......

6orVE5FDCwE

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/37/F-104G_ZLL_at_Luftwaffenmuseum_Berlin_Gatow.jpg/640px-F-104G_ZLL_at_Luftwaffenmuseum_Berlin_Gatow.jpg

CoffmanStarter
18th Dec 2013, 19:07
ORAC ... Double Widow Maker :eek:

glad rag
18th Dec 2013, 19:41
So after a few wee tweaks the second trial worked?

Anyway did you check out those overalls on the Lockheed dude? :cool::ok: and "want!"

kbrockman
18th Dec 2013, 20:17
Customer base for NG Gripen strongly improved today;
President Dilma Rousseff Announces Brazil Is Buying Sweden's Saab Gripen Jet Fighters (http://www.ibtimes.com/president-dilma-rousseff-announces-brazil-buying-swedens-saab-gripen-jet-fighters-1514060)

President Dilma Rousseff Announces Brazil Is Buying Sweden's Saab Gripen Jet Fighters
By Patricia Rey Mallén and Alberto Riva
on December 18 2013 1:29 PM

Heathrow Harry
19th Dec 2013, 10:48
ZELL!!

The answer to all those problems about expanding Heathrow!!! :ooh::ooh:

LowObservable
19th Dec 2013, 12:17
Just looked at Orac's video... Holy :mad:ing :mad:.

The pilot was apparently not named Darwin. Either his girlfriend had just run off with his best buddy, his truck and his dog, or the VP Engineering was holding a Luger to his mom's head.

SpazSinbad
20th Dec 2013, 18:44
Inside Japan’s New Defense Plan 20 Dec 2013 Kyle Mizokami
"...Japan is also sending fighters southward. Naha Airport will receive a second squadron of F-15J air superiority fighters, doubling the number of fighters based there from 20 to 40. Fighter squadrons will increase from 12 to 13, with the number of fighters set to grow from 260 to 280 units. Japan will acquire 28 F-35A Joint Strike Fighters during the five-year period covered by the Mid Term Defense Plan, with another 14 to follow later. Japan is considering a second F-35 purchase, possibly including the F-35B vertical takeoff and landing version for deployment on Japan’s Izumo and Hyuga-class helicopter destroyers....

...Like the U.S. Marines, the amphibious unit will also be airmobile, thanks to the purchase of 17 V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft. The first Osprey will be procured in April 2014 and the procurement process is expected to last five years....

...The Mid Term Defense Plan and National Defense Program Guidelines represent a significant change in Japanese defense policy. New capabilities, such as ISR assets, joint operations, and amphibious units will go a long way toward addressing gaps in Japan’s existing defenses. The reorganization of the Self Defense Forces, as well as procurement initiatives for equipment such as the Osprey and Global Hawk will create a foundational basis for the defense of Japan’s southern islands."
Inside Japan?s New Defense Plan | USNI News (http://news.usni.org/2013/12/20/inside-japans-new-defense-plan)

Heathrow Harry
21st Dec 2013, 14:14
not sure the Hyuga's deck can take F-35's

they would have to be F-35B's and the deck was only designed for helicopter operations

the new 22DDH's may have upgraded decks but as they were designed and ordered a coupleof years back they also might need a major upgrade

John Farley
21st Dec 2013, 19:37
When it comes to big steel decks .........

The Chinooks max AUW must be 50,000lb or perhaps even more.

As for the heat underneath an F35B landing do you notice that it has rubber tyres? Funny they don't mind.

Seriously the myths and deliberate items of misinformation (plus sheer ignorance) surrounding jet VSTOL since 1960 is quite remarkable.

One of my favourite myths was the "fuel consumtion penalty of doing a VTO"

At Dunsfold we asked people to define a conventional takeoff so that the fuel used could be measured. We setttled for from startup to being on heading towards the first way point in level flight at 250ft. With a Harrier this was always less from a VTO compared to a conventional or short take-off in the same aircraft. But what would you expect given no taxiing needed let alone the runway or strip not pointing in the direction to the first way point. A VTO into wind then yawing round to the desired heading before accelerating away was always going to win.

Of course there was a penaly associated with a VTO. A big one. But it was about payoad available not fuel consumption.

Hey ho.

BEagle
21st Dec 2013, 19:59
But what about vertical landings, John? How much fuel did the Harrier use from breaking into the circuit abeam the pad to landing on it vertically?

Compared to, say, a Hunter F(GA) 9 completing a normal break and landing?

cuefaye
21st Dec 2013, 20:45
Beags


How very dare you ! But in doing so, you make a very valid point.

VTOL/STOVL is, IMHO, and always has been, a wasted asset. Very unique, payload and range limited, and useful only in limited scenarios ( which is great, when needed; but how often since its inception?) All of which makes it an expensive option. No matter how much revered.

I knew John light years ago, and we'll still differ, and we had differences over what was then Eurofighter. But given its short take off and landing capability (not rough field, I accept), and its payload/range/and inbuilt air-to-air capability, Typhoon is an enormously preferable acquisition.

May F35 prove me wrong!

John Farley
21st Dec 2013, 21:46
BEags

Of course the Hunter (or any other well flown fighter) would use less fuel when landing. I would never say otherwise.

However there is a huge but at the end of the sortie.

And that but is that you can join the ship or a circuit to land vertically with 2 mins hover fuel remaining, use half of it and think how boring it was to sit in the hover for 30 secs doing nothing. The twitch when you must trap or do a reasonable conventional approach (especially when the vis is poor) is just not there if you can VL (anywhere).

Quite a lot of the fuel tankage difference between the F-35B and the other versions will be needed to give sensible landing reserves - although I don't expect that to be understood by many.

Romulus
21st Dec 2013, 22:36
As for the heat underneath an F35B landing do you notice that it has rubber tyres? Funny they don't mind.

The issue with deck heat comes down to the auxiliary power unit (or whatever the military guys call it) as I understand it. In the F-35 that points down rather than directly out back. So any hold position or other position that has the location of the exhaust point relatively stationary must take that into account - continual exhaust heating up a very small area.

Or at least that was something that had to be incorporated into the design of holding areas for land based aircraft. The RAAF use tarmac for cost reasons, the holding areas had to be concrete for the APU reason given above.

cuefaye
21st Dec 2013, 23:09
"The twitch when you must trap or do a reasonable conventional approach (especially when the vis is poor) is just not there if you can VL (anywhere)."


And just how many times has that capability been employed in reality?


"although I don't expect that to be understood by many."


Oh, please!



(edit facility still not working correctly Roj ?)

SpazSinbad
21st Dec 2013, 23:55
'Romulus' I have not seen any complaints about IPP for some time now, especially aboard USS Wasp now two times. Here is some forum info:

IPP Info on 21 Jul 2011 'SSSETOWTF':
"...In current flight test, IPP management is a total non-issue. When we first started flying the jet we were slightly concerned about stopping on asphalt in bleed-and-burn mode for any length of time - because the testing hadn't been done to assure us that everything was going to be ok. So there's a switch in the cockpit that the pilot can use to force the IPP into bleed mode whenever he has to hold on asphalt. LM are working on a number of minor tweaks to the design (including possibly making the exhaust come out at a more acute angle to the ground) and at an opportune point in the test program the team will take the time to figure out if the effects on asphalt are in line with the worst case predictions, or if they've been over-egged (which the safety folks have a habit of doing).

Any possible issues with ship integration will be thoroughly flushed out on the first deployment to USS Wasp later this year. Anyone who's telling you otherwise is living in the world of the ppt warrior.
Regards, Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly"
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/457522-select-committe-carriers-5.html#post6584909
____________
IPP Info on 21 Jul 2011 'Engines': (2 links)
"...The heat issue from the exhaust is something I was closely involved with while on the project. The exhaust from the IPP is actually less hot and fast than that from the current APU on the F-18, and the assessment at the time was that while it posed a potential issue, it was manageable, using the same sort of techniques the USN and USMC had done for some time. If that's changed since I was on the team, I'm not aware of it.
Best Regards as ever, Engines."
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/457522-select-committe-carriers-5.html#post6584076
&
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/478767-no-cats-flaps-back-f35b-29.html#post7157268

Romulus
22nd Dec 2013, 00:11
Spaz, no problems with that mate, the IPP comment concerns the previous post


not sure the Hyuga's deck can take F-35's

they would have to be F-35B's and the deck was only designed for helicopter operations

the new 22DDH's may have upgraded decks but as they were designed and ordered a coupleof years back they also might need a major upgrade

and a couple of follow up posts.

Like everything you just do your engineering to cover the issue.

SpazSinbad
22nd Dec 2013, 00:26
'Romulus', Fair enough, and here is a graphic of the IPP - just because.... nobody asked for it.... :} from:

http://www.asetsdefense.org/documents/Workshops/SURF-FIN-TempeAZ-02-08/Briefings/Fetter-F-35.pdf (2.5Mb)

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

WhiteOvies
22nd Dec 2013, 03:42
The Hyuga class would probably need a coat of Thermion or something similar (like USS Wasp and QEC) but not because of the IPP heat. This may have been a concern early on, but the programme is well past the point of worrying about the IPP melting its way through metal.

The bigger issue would be the frames under the steel deck to support the weight and repeated force of the landing of a V-22/F-35B. The ship designers will be doing the maths and it may limit the number of landing spots and/or parking spots. This is no different to Ospreys landing on Ark Royal/Invincible/Illustrious, you just have to work round it.

Romulus
22nd Dec 2013, 08:39
Spot on whiteovies, there is always an answer,it just needs to be found.

I would suggest that the IPP issue isn't literally melting the metal away, it is to do with the metallurgical aspects of steel, heat and repeated heat cycles.

There was a whole lot of work done post 911, take a look at Fig 2.2 in this one and consider a straight heating issue from the IPP.

Heating steel frame thesis (ftp://jetty.ecn.purdue.edu/sozen/MIAMIS/Thesis.pdf)

As previously any related issues can undoubtedly be solved, it just means a reconsideration of the design criteria and suitable modification. Whether that is cost effective or not remains to be seen. I'm not sure Thermion has the scale and wear capability that would be required but it may well do. As always one of the key benefits of military expenditure is we get a lot of domestic applications from the technology they invent.

GreenKnight121
23rd Dec 2013, 01:06
I'm not sure Thermion has the scale and wear capability that would be required but it may well do.

By that remark it is apparent you have no idea what Thermion is.

It is the new ceramic/steel/aluminum-composite flight-deck coating for the USN's CVNs, LHDs, and LHAs (and will be applied to other USN flight decks where MV/CV-22 operations are expected).

In addition to vastly better heat-insulation characteristics compared to existing flight-deck non-skid coatings, it is also expected to last in excess of 5 years between re-applications... compared to around 6 months for the current non-skid (less in high-wear areas)!

Heathrow Harry
23rd Dec 2013, 09:21
As I understand it the problem is that there would have to be some re-engineering of the 22DDH's and the two Hyuga's would need quite a bit of work - unspecified but we know what the costs of even thinking of re-engineering the RN carriers has been............

Since the Japanese Navy has based its whole strategy without their own carrier strike arm it would be a major change and it would only give them a small number of aircraft - maybe 5-6 per deck. Probably better to bulk up their destroyer force and their ability to deploy Marines in the offshore islands

Courtney Mil
23rd Dec 2013, 09:33
There's a lot of fuss made about Thermion. Folks seem to think it's some kind of expensive miracle coating required by the new, expensive miracle jet when, in fact, it makes really good sense to apply it to all kinds of decks. As well as it's heat resitance, it's not particularly expensive, has excellent corrosion, wear and impact resitance, is easy to apply, has good friction properties and lasts for years.

So having to apply it to decks to operate F-35, Osprey or whatever is no great issue.

Here's how good it is. The picture below is from the excellent Aviation Leak article (30th August this year - F-35B DT 2 Update: A few hours on the USS Wasp (http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3Ae14de239-0201-4cd6-afd9-21344c382ecb) ) and shows where an F-35 landed on the edge of the Thermion coating. To the left is just the anti-skid base layer, to the right the Thermion coating. The difference is pretty obvious.

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

orca
23rd Dec 2013, 10:28
Unless the smudge was there previously from Harrier ops.;)

Courtney Mil
23rd Dec 2013, 10:34
Ah. Good point. So they just half painted over an old scorch mark to make it look good. Wish I'd thought of that.

SpazSinbad
23rd Dec 2013, 11:42
Nah, this is much more betta propaganda - unsullied after how many weaks of leeks?

http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/5/6/550adb45-a3fd-48c5-a612-fdd6dd8ea0f4.Large.jpg

orca
23rd Dec 2013, 12:19
That must be fake, there's no way they'd give away a towing arm serial number.

Heathrow Harry
23rd Dec 2013, 12:25
na - doesn't matter - that's the old one - the REAL ones will cost $ 500mm each and are still in software testing.............................

orca
23rd Dec 2013, 12:28
Courtney,

What is genuinely surprising from the picture is how little damage that guys boots took!

Merry Christmas all,

Orca.

Courtney Mil
23rd Dec 2013, 12:30
Thermion coated boots, obviously.

Engines
23rd Dec 2013, 12:44
Guys,

I have to agree with John Farley that the issue of deck heating (from various parts of the aircraft) seems to be one of those subjects that attract the ''Ah, but I bet you haven't thought of THIS....' type of comment, just in front of the 'I bet they'll have to modify/replace the decks' comment. Fair enough though, here are a few thoughts that might help the thread along.

As John so elegantly points out, the teams involved with STOVL aircraft are very well aware of the issues with pointing hot gas flows at any surface, be it asphalt, steel, or concrete. Research has been done, tests carried out, results analysed and designs adjusted/modified as required. (Incidentally, on F-35, this effort was led by quite excellent Brits using experience from the Harrier, then taking the depth of analysis, modelling and test to a whole new level).

Most importantly, on F-35 for sure, the customers were VERY well aware of the issues and made damn well sure that the design and test teams were getting the answers required.

And while I respect the right of anyone to have a go at LM, BAES or any other aircraft manufacturer (free forums and all that) it does seem obvious (to me at least) that they are probably not going to produce an aircraft that can't operate off potential export customers' platforms because it would melt decks.

The bottom line is that the F-35B is capable of working off any deck that can take the weight. As far as the IPP goes, its exhaust has proved to be entirely manageable. The original upward firing exhaust (which SpazSinbad posted above) had to be changed on the F-35B, as it took up too much space, cost too much fuel and added too much weight. The downward firing exhaust, as Whiteovies points out, is not a concern.

The main engine exhaust is the one to really watch, and here there has been more test and analysis than in any other STOVL programme. (All the test rigs have been built and operated in the UK, by the way). To date, the new coatings (e.g. Thermion) are looking very promising, and no showstoppers have (to my limited knowledge) been identified.

Trying to summarise - deck heating with the F-35B was a potential risk which the design and test teams have taken great care and pains over. As a result, it's not developed into a real issue.

I don't suppose for one minute that this one post will stop deck heating being raised again. However, it would be nice to discuss topics a bit more relevant to STOVL ops at sea.

Best regards as ever to all those working the details, doing the testing and applying the results at sea,

Engines

glad rag
23rd Dec 2013, 12:53
Can you get this "Thermion" paint online yet :confused:










:E

Heathrow Harry
23rd Dec 2013, 17:34
Just to be clear the articles I read didn't specifically mention deck heating as an issue - just that the JSDF designed them for a small number of helicopters.

"Hyuga" carries a max of 10 x SH-60 and has landing spots for 4, the new 22DDH's will carry up to 14 helicopters but will normally embark 7 x ASW + 2 x Minesweeping/transport helicopters on 5 spots

Presumably modding them to be able to fully operate, rather than just demonstrate F-35 landing & take-off on a single spot, is just not attractive

It will be interesting to see if the Japanese decide to order more DDH's with increased capacity in the near future but their current emphsis is to buy more DD-115 class destroyers I believe

SpazSinbad
24th Dec 2013, 00:38
Navy’s F-35 Starts New Tailhook Tests 23 Dec 2013 Dave Majumdar
"The Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) has begun testing a new carrier arresting hook for the Navy’s version of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lighting II Joint Strike Fighter at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md.

Aircraft CF-3, which is the first F-35C fitted with a production tailhook, caught an arresting wire at a shore-based test rig on Dec. 19 at the Navy’s primary flight test center according to Naval Air Systems Command. The aircraft was flow by Lt. Cmdr. Tony Wilson.

Testing will eventually move to Naval Air Engineering Station Lakehurst in New Jersey in January 2014 for additional testing with a shore-based arresting gear. Fly-in testing is required to verify that the F-35C will be able to consistently catch an arresting wire...."
Navy's F-35 Starts New Tailhook Tests | USNI News (http://news.usni.org/2013/12/23/navys-f-35-starts-new-tailhook-tests)

"Navy F-35C test plane CF-3 successfully catches a wire during testing at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md. Lockheed Martin Photo"

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/F-35CprodHookArrest19dec2013.jpg~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/F-35CprodHookArrest19dec2013.jpg.html)

BEagle
24th Dec 2013, 08:59
Whatever happened to "If it looks right, it'll fly right"?

The F-35 really is an ugly-looking horror.....

.....although not quite as ugly as the XF-36 :yuk:

Courtney Mil
24th Dec 2013, 10:23
Confirming that BEags does have an eye for beauty. :ok: F-35 won't be winning any beauty contests.

I do like the confidence Spaz's quote:

the first F-35C fitted with a production tailhook

If this is the production model we'd better hope it succeeds during testing.

Merry Christmas to all that are working hard to make the project work.

LowObservable
24th Dec 2013, 11:36
I think that's a roll-in arrestment. And probably a little dosh for L-M for getting it done before anyone starts singing Auld Lang Syne.

Engines
24th Dec 2013, 12:59
LO,

I could be wrong, but with the nose gear off the deck looks like a 'fly in' arrestment to me. But hey, you could be right. So could I. Ain't this fun?

Best Regards as ever

Engines

Just This Once...
24th Dec 2013, 13:20
All 'roll-ins' should be with the nose raised.

Engines
24th Dec 2013, 13:21
JTO,

Thanks for the info - much appreciated.

Engines

Courtney Mil
24th Dec 2013, 23:14
Guys, it's not rocket science. It's just a hook; admittedly made more difficult by the stealth constraints and the size of the internal weapons bay, but it's still just a hook. It will eventually work. Won't it?

longer ron
24th Dec 2013, 23:23
Yes it should eventually work...no problem compared to the problems that the 'B' will face LOL

SpazSinbad
25th Dec 2013, 05:34
From another 'sauce':
"Roll-in --
Jet is on the rwy at a target ground speed and the hook is dropped at a predetermined distance in front of the wire... not unlike taking the long field gear, or a precautionary arrestment like the USAF would do at mid-field."
My imagination says that accelerating any Naval Aircraft to a groundspeed where the nose can be raised and held up with hook dropped is fraught with undesirable possibilities - especially any non-view over the nose, ahead - and leaving the runway unintentionally.

Hooks do not like being dragged too far on a runway - I'll guess the pilots doing roll-in tests are good at dropping the hook exactly as required.
_____________

Addition: Grapevine says: "Prior to this fly-in, 3 successfull roll-ins were performed". I'll wager the smoke seen in the photo is not from a 'roll-in'.

FoxtrotAlpha18
26th Dec 2013, 06:55
Beags


What's an... ...XF-36...
Did you mean X-32?

kbrockman
26th Dec 2013, 08:34
Seeing all the tiresmoke, I would guess this is indeed an arrested landing,
not just a run-in, which IIRC already happened some time ago.

BEagle
26th Dec 2013, 08:42
Did you mean X-32?

Yes, sorry. Thanks for the correction.

Hideous looking thing - I remember seeing the mock-up at Farnborough and thinking "They cannot be serious!".

Talk about 'Guppy fish at feeding time'.....:uhoh:

John Farley
26th Dec 2013, 16:34
I am sure the USN have much data on what gives a succesful arrested landing given the matter of wire behaviour (after it is trampled by the wheels) just before the hook gets to it, as well as hook bounce following the hook hitting the deck (and before the aircraft has touched down).

I am no expert in this stuff but back in the 60s I did have to do far too may run in arrests in a Scimitar and a Sea Vixen to help Naval Air Department at Bedford develop various arrester gear retarding systems. It was always suggested to me (so far as an aircraft is concerned) that once you have completely sorted the run in case all you then have to fiddle with is the hook damper characteristics to sort out hook bounce.

cuefaye
26th Dec 2013, 22:29
"The twitch when you must trap or do a reasonable conventional approach (especially when the vis is poor) is just not there if you can VL (anywhere)."

John; just how many times has that capability been employed in reality?

I ask again; and the answer is?


Roj: edit still not working correctly

LowObservable
26th Dec 2013, 22:33
Beags... I remember looking at that mockup (it was a STOVL model) and thinking at first that then had sawn off part of the wing to fit the shelter, and then realizing with increasing horror that they had not.

John Farley
26th Dec 2013, 23:23
cufaye

John; just how many times has that capability been employed in reality?

For the reasons I gave it is employed every time you do a VL - when there is always a lack of twitch about fuel compared to traditional ways of landing aboard or on a runway. I am sorry if I don't seem to understand your point.

I didn't reply first time 'cos I thought you had made a mistake and I don't agree with criticising people as opposed to dealing with the topic. However you insisted so here I am.

WhiteOvies
27th Dec 2013, 05:02
The jet did both roll ins and a fly in, more to follow next year. Tony Wilson was also involved in the VAAC trials so maybe someone you have worked with previously Engines?

The X-32 is at the Air Museum at NAS Pax River, MD, opposite the X-35C, hence comparing and contrasting is very easy. The X-35 looks a lot more right!

My tuppence on other issues, Thermion is the name of the company that makes the deck coating, their website covers the USS Wasp trials.

The Japanese using only 6 jets on the Hyuga is not that dissimilar to the USMC conops or the number of jets the Italian Navy will git on their carriers. The biggest issue will be the Japanese post war Constitution with regards to aircraft carriers and getting the politicians on side. But with the Chinese now having a carrier and other local issues this may be straight forward.

GreenKnight121
27th Dec 2013, 09:49
No, the Japanese Constitution has nothing to do with aircraft carriers. Or exports of military equipment. Those are government policies, nothing more.

I seem to be posting this about once a year. :hmm:

Here... read it for yourself.
THE CONSTITUTION OF JAPAN (http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Japan/English/english-Constitution.html)


And the legal interpretation that allows a military that isn't a military:
I. Constitution of Japan and Right of Self-Defense (http://www.mod.go.jp/e/d_act/d_policy/dp01.html)

From the last link: The self-defense capability to be possessed and maintained by Japan under the Constitution is limited to the minimum necessary for self-defense.

The specific limit has a relative aspect of varying with the international situation, the level of military technology and various other conditions. It is defined in the Diet, the representatives of the people through deliberations about each fiscal year budget etc. However, whether or not the said armed strength corresponds to "war potential" prohibited under paragraph 2 of Article 9 of the Constitution is an issue regarding the total strength that Japan possesses and maintains. Accordingly, whether or not the SDF are allowed to possess some specific armaments is decided by whether the total strength will or will not exceed the constitutional limit by possessing such armaments.

But in any case in Japan, it is unconstitutional to possess what is referred to as offensive weapons that, from their performance, are to be used exclusively for total destruction of other countries, since it immediately exceeds the minimum level necessary for self-defense. For instance, the SDF is not allowed to possess ICBMs, long-range strategic bombers or offensive aircraft carriers.


Defensive aircraft carriers are perfectly OK.

Lowe Flieger
27th Dec 2013, 17:31
Commentary: Will the F-35 Dominate the Skies? | The National Interest (http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/will-the-f-35-dominate-the-skies-9618)

A link to an article I found on Aviation Week's Frago blog. Quite brief and easily digestible. I have no knowledge of the author's credentials either way.

In summary, while he does not endorse the way in which F35 has monopolised funding and procurement budgets, he is of the view that it has survived the 'death spiral' and as it is what many countries are going to get, they will have to make the best of it.

LF

rh200
28th Dec 2013, 01:11
In summary, while he does not endorse the way in which F35 has monopolised funding and procurement budgets, he is of the view that it has survived the 'death spiral' and as it is what many countries are going to get, they will have to make the best of it.

Indeed, once it goes past the point of no return it becomes a "to big to fail item", hence it will be made to work no matter what.

What worries me is an over an over reliance on a single platform by to many of the same allies at once. Imagine every thing starting to go to hell in a hand basket after its been in service for a while, and a sudden a problem surfaces with it that can't be ignored.

TBM-Legend
28th Dec 2013, 01:34
What worries me is an over an over reliance on a single platform by to many of the same allies at once. Imagine every thing starting to go to hell in a hand basket after its been in service for a while, and a sudden a problem surfaces with it that can't be ignored.


Remember this from the same stable and it worked out real fine...The mighty F-16 series once touted as the "deal of the Century" [1975] when NATO allies placed big orders and are still flying them! The type spread around the world and is still in limited production 39 years after its first flight>>

I think the F-35 and her derivatives will ultimately do fine...

rh200
28th Dec 2013, 02:37
I think the F-35 and her derivatives will ultimately do fine...

I guess your right. Though, the backbone if you will of western allies has generally been the US. They have generally had a good spread of aircraft across vastly different airframes. Hence a major problem with one, hopefully would not be a total game changer.

Though I suppose, as they are phased in over time and the others are phased out, it will give a large spread on airframe hours before we are totally reliant on them.

Though there are far more experianced and qualified people here who could comment on that scenario than I.

WhiteOvies
28th Dec 2013, 03:03
Green Knight, many thanks, I'll remember this year! ;)

I'd be intrigued to see how the politicians define a defensive carrier but as the wording allows for a change in the international situation (perhaps such as China having a carrier) that is a simple job for a Government lawyer.

TBM-Legend
28th Dec 2013, 08:29
Don't also forget that Lockheed produced more than 2,500 F-104 Starfighters mainly for NATO air forces including Canada plus Japan, Taiwan, Pakistan etc. It was a very advanced hot ship in its day again not without teething problems but stayed the course until recently from the 1950's...

kbrockman
28th Dec 2013, 09:50
Using the same logic, I fail to see why we should invest in the F35 in the first place.
Our forces do ultimately make it work, no matter what platform we choose.
Why then go for an overly expensive, complex and compromised fighter like the F35 iso something a bit more fiscally conservative like the Gripen NG, F18SH or even a F16NG type project?

The F104 analogy is not really underwriting the F35 logic, first and foremost, the F35's biggest client, the USA, didn't believe in it and deemed it useless and while it was ,in time, loved by its users, its effectiveness was very doubtful certainly compared with its rivals like the MiG-21, the MIRAGE III, Saab Draken.

Also the F35 is by no means build with the same philosophy as the F16, which was not really a project the USAF liked in the first place.
Looking at its size, weight and engine-needs, it is by no means certain that the F35 will be able to deal with the inevitable growth that comes with fighters that have to work for a couple of decades.

The Israelis themselves don't even consider its stealth architecture as being a useful item past 2020, sure they will make it work (it cost them nothing so why pass on it?) but they can make everything work, hell they could even make a useful weapon out of Montgolfier's hot-air Balloon.

The article is by no means supporting the case of the F35, it just shows what happens if you let get things out of control and create something that has the aura of being to big to fail.
At the same time it, rightfully, asserts that most of our forces have the knowledge and ability to make things work out for them, a testimony to their professionalism.
That does not mean we should now roll over and play nicely, it just means we should be vigilant, do as much damage control as possible, and use alternatives where possible.
All this could mean less F35's in the long-run, not an outright cancellation, that option has passed a long time ago now, but maybe the use of a cheaper platform which is capable enough in addition to the F35.

Heathrow Harry
28th Dec 2013, 12:22
what you forget was that, in their day, the F-104 and the F-16 were cheap compared to the alternatives (eg F-15, F-4) - same as the Mirage 3 and the Mig-21 - a lot of better aircraft around which were operated by the high end airforces and the others were sold in very large numbers to the mid range airforces

The trouble is the F-35 is the most expensive aircraft currenlty on sale (no F-22's for sale at all) and whilst it may, one day, be better than some of the opposition there is a lot of competition for the ever decreasing defence dollar in many place

bvcu
28th Dec 2013, 17:24
In terms of cost originally the F16 wasnt that cheap and only got the big orders with the USAF after the heavily modified A7 project forced them to drop the price to keep the much cheaper A7 out . Cant remember what it was called now !

Rhino power
28th Dec 2013, 19:40
bvcu, if you mean what was the modified A-7 called, it was the A-7F. The YA-7F was the development aircraft, it essentially turned the A-7 into a sort of updated F-8 Crusader look-alike, which ironically, is what the A-7 was based on in the first place!

-RP

GreenKnight121
29th Dec 2013, 02:21
"The F-16's big orders with the USAF" were placed in the late 1970s and early 1980s (entered service 1978, improved -C entered production 1984), while the YA-7F project didn't even start until 1985!

The YA-7F was to replace the USANG A-7D/Ks and the USAF's A-10s. The first prototype (a converted A-7D) made its first flight 29 November 1989, but the program was canceled in 1991 as part of the military reductions after the break-up of the USSR. The ANG bought F-16C/Ds and the A-10 remained in service.
Factsheets : YA-7F "Corsair II" (http://www.hill.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=5760)
Ling Temco Vought TA-7K Corsair II (http://www.joebaugher.com/usattack/newa7_7.html)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/YA-7F_Strike_Fighter.jpg

GeeRam
29th Dec 2013, 10:44
Don't also forget that Lockheed produced more than 2,500 F-104 Starfighters mainly for NATO air forces including Canada plus Japan, Taiwan, Pakistan etc

Except that almost all those NATO 104's were made by those respective NATO countries under licence not Lockheed themselves.....

And then there's the infamous Lockheed bribery scandal centered around the 104 deals.........:suspect:

longer ron
29th Dec 2013, 11:17
Cue Captain Lockheed and the Starfighters (Robert Calvert)
At about 6.20 is the G for Germany bit :)

Robert Calvert - Captain Lockheed & The Starfighters (Full Album + Bonus Tracks) (HQ) - YouTube

longer ron
29th Dec 2013, 11:20
Full Album cover :)

http://i695.photobucket.com/albums/vv316/volvosmoker/captainlockheed_zps1010b5d2.jpg

glad rag
29th Dec 2013, 13:20
:confused:

longer ron
29th Dec 2013, 14:01
You would have to listen to bits of it :ok:
Some parallels with many procurement program(me)s

SpazSinbad
29th Dec 2013, 19:14
Test Pilot Tuesday Episode 34 Published on Nov 5, 2013
"Hear from F-35 Test Pilot Dan Canin about what it's like to fly the F-35B in conventional and short takeoff/vertical landing mode with the same stick and throttle."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdSzJFVbZ3c

dctyke
29th Dec 2013, 19:24
Captain Lockheed & the Starfighters, epic satirical take on the through life of an a/c in Rock Music and Sketches.

SpazSinbad
29th Dec 2013, 20:41
Gov't replaces Koç with Spanish design in ship bid 29 Dec 2013 /İSTANBUL, TODAY'S ZAMAN
"A national warship project (Milgem) which was earlier awarded to Turkey's Koç Holding has been given to a Turkish-Spanish joint venture (JV) which used Spain's largest naval unit, Juan Carlos I, as a model.

The Turkish media reported on Sunday that the government made its final decision on a delayed tender to domestically design and build an amphibious landing platform dock (LPD) vessel for naval forces....

...Reports on Sunday said the Defense Industry Implementation Committee (SSİK) agreed last week to select the JV between Sedef and Spain's Navantia as the winner of the Milgem project, which is valued at $3 billion. This means the government chose an already existing model to a unique, local design. The first Turkish-made aircraft carrier will be modeled on the Juan Carlos I (L-61) belonging to Spain, which visited İstanbul last year. Desan, meanwhile, was offering to use a design based on South Korea's Dokdo class....

...In an effort to increase the Turkish military's naval power, Ankara plans to construct a 220-meter-long military base on the water. However, since the Turkish Armed Forces (TSK) currently do not have any planes that are capable of vertical take-off and landing, the project will initially be used as a helicopter ship. Turkey's first national aircraft carrier is expected to be equipped with a system that enables nonstop sailing for 30 days and 1,700 nautical miles. Its hangar and elevator systems will be constructed compatible with Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) planes which can take off and land vertically which Turkey will acquire in the coming years. It will also be able to carry up to 100 tracked military vehicles. Two landing craft air cushion (LCAC) hovercraft boats will be located in the pool section of the aircraft carrier...."
Gov't replaces Koç with Spanish design in ship bid - Today's Zaman, your gateway to Turkish daily news (http://www.todayszaman.com/news-335235-govt-replaces-koc-with-spanish-design-in-ship-bid.html)

Courtney Mil
29th Dec 2013, 21:40
There's a blast from the past. I can't remember when I last heard Capt Lockheed! Excellent. :D:D:D:D:D

LowObservable
29th Dec 2013, 22:13
Koc Holding?

Anyway... The Juan Carlos and similar ships are unlikely to be able to sustain an F-4-sized aircraft effectively, given the limited space allocated for aviation support, weapons and fuel. Same goes for the Japanese carriers.

SpazSinbad
29th Dec 2013, 23:28
Some more smoke on the water from LO but anyway the SpanGuvmnt thinks otherwise:

LHD "Juan Carlos I" (L-61)
"....AIRCRAFT Capability for up to 30 medium and heavy helicopters for amphibious operations or 10/12 F-35B or AV-8B+ and similar number of helicopters in her aircraft-carrier configuration.

The ship has been designed for 4 mission profiles:...
... • Aircraft-carrier substituting the old A/C "Principe de Asturias"."
http://www.armada.mde.es/ArmadaPortal/page/Portal/ArmadaEspannola/buques_superficie/prefLang_en/02_lhd-juan-carlos-i--03_lhd-juan-carlos-i-l-61

WhiteOvies
30th Dec 2013, 02:10
That would be 10/12 without anything else on board. Max number of harriers (mix of FA2 and GR7) was 18 on a CVS launch but we only did it once or twice as there wasn't much room for anything else. 12 was easy though with a mix of helos onboard as well.

As for F-35B sustainment you just need to do more maintenance on the back end of the flightdeck. Not ideal perhaps, but do-able with some constraints. By the time the Turks have this up and ready for Initial Sea Trials there will be a wealth of info out there on embarked ops, including QEC trials and ski jump trials at Pax River. The USMC may even have gone to war with F-35B and LHD by then!:eek:

LowObservable
30th Dec 2013, 03:56
WO - Mtce on the back of the flight-deck?

As a USAF colleague likes to tell Marines: "Check the signature levels out of the factory. You'll never see them again."

Spaz - We all know what the official numbers and brochures say. Take them back to your fankiddy forum buddies, who think that you're smart and well informed.

SpazSinbad
30th Dec 2013, 04:14
Is that all you have LO? For 'whiteovies' a compare:

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

Engines
30th Dec 2013, 10:08
LO:

Maintenance on the back of a flight deck?

Err...yes, actually. That's part of the thing called naval aviation. The F-35 has been designed expressly to be 'operable and supportable' from an LHD, and the facilities on those ships are really quite limited. That fact drove a number of design decisions on the aircraft. One of the areas most impacted, as I've posted before, was the whole area of LO maintenance.

Again, I'm not sighted on figures and numbers (and couldn't share them if I was) but I can state with some certainty that the LO schemes applied to the F-35 are some years on and quite different to those used on the 'legacy' LO aircraft such as B-2 and F-22. Most of those differences were aimed at providing the required supportability.

Will supporting an F-35 on the deck of any ship be a challenge? Yes. Can it be done? I think yes, having done that sort of stuff for some years. Can the FAA do it? Yes, just give them the tools and freedom to do the job.

LO, I don't expect you to agree with me - that's fine and good, it's a free forum. But I do sincerely hope that you don't think I'm a 'fankiddy forum buddy'.

Best regards as ever to all those who know something about naval aviation (and those who want to learn)

Engines

kbrockman
30th Dec 2013, 10:54
Just a question for those who know,
Given the difference in size and Fuel-need, can the F35 realistically replace the AV8B on a 1 for 1 base anyway ?
20 Harriers on a big US LHD might well be feasible for a limited amount of time but can they also operate 20 F35B's (not talking about the new LHA's or any of the other new non-welldeck carriers like CAVOUR and such).
http://navy-matters.beedall.com/images/jsfcompair.jpg

Spot size difference alone suggest a 33% difference, fuel needs probably even more.

Engines
30th Dec 2013, 13:51
Kbrock,

Good question - hope I can help out here.

CONOPS are always a moving target, but at the time when I worked the programme, the USMC was looking at embarking roughly the same number of F-35s as AV-8Bs on LHDs - which meant around 6, not 20. At LM, we did look at deck layouts for larger air wings, but as far as I know (and I could very well be wrong) embarking 20 F-35s on an LHD would not be a normal event.

You're quite right that an F-35's fuel requirements will be different to an AV-8Bs, but how different I couldn't say. They will very probably use a good deal more. In any case, a ship operating aircraft like the F-35 (even a CVN) will have a tanker in closed company.

Deck spotting factors are one of those things that the USN has made quite complicated, but with some reason. Length and span dimensions are larger wight he F-35, but spotting aircraft on a deck (and being able to move them around) also relies on location of landing gear on the aircraft, turning circles, and so on. Where overall dimensions really count is when looking at elevator spotting: the F-35 requirement specifically excluded a requirement to fit down the aft elevators on the earlier (already obsolescent) LHD class ships, so as not to force a folding wing.

Generally, the overall dimensions of the aircraft were driven by the need to get the weight inside the envelope that a STOVL aircraft could handle. Compliance with the required flight deck spotting factor basically happened as a by product of the weight drive. (We also had a 'maintenance box' requirement to meet).

What I can say as a fact is that the F-35B can operate from an LHD in the numbers required by the USMC. And yes, it's essentially on a one for one basis, but not at a hypothetical figure of 20 aircraft.

Hope this helps

Best Regards as ever to those shifting the jets around the decks,

Engines

t43562
30th Dec 2013, 14:37
Contractors Dispute F-35 Cost Report (http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_12_30_2013_p18-650263.xml)

glad rag
30th Dec 2013, 14:48
Perhaps LM should consider opening their books to independent audit.

Hmm, that could be entertaining.

ORAC
30th Dec 2013, 15:31
At LM, we did look at deck layouts for larger air wings, but as far as I know (and I could very well be wrong) embarking 20 F-35s on an LHD would not be a normal event. Since we're quoting the Spanish Navy for their F-35B numbers; let's do the same for the USN/USMC for the 'Sea Control" mission.....

http://www.jeffhead.com/usn21/lhar.htm (LHA-6 AMERICA CLASS)

Aircraft (Sea Control):

- 22 F-35B JSF
- 04 MH-60 SeaHawk
- 04 Other helo/vtol

Engines
30th Dec 2013, 15:55
ORAC and Others,

I try to be specific on this thread, but sorry if I didn't make myself clear in the previous posts.

The figures I gave reflected the original requirements for embarking F-35B on the LHD 'Wasp' class. (The aft elevator I mentioned was on the earlier 'Tarawa' class LHD). I don't think I mentioned Spanish Navy numbers, but I know that earlier posts did. The 6 aircraft set would be part of a larger Air Wing comprising V-22s, AH-1Z and UH-1Y and CH-53E. Those other aircraft, as much as the ship, limited how many F-35Bs could be embarked.

The 22 F-35B number on the 'jeffhead' site you linked to was referring to a proposed 'Sea Control' mission using the 'America' class LHAs, which are a good bit larger than the LHDs, with a longer and wider deck, and a full length hangar (but no well deck). This mission would add only 6 MH-60s to the Air Wing complement. (The site is a little inconsistent in the numbers of RW for this 'Sea Control' Wing) A more 'normal' wing would use 10 F-35Bs (from the same site). This is what I'd expect from a larger ship.

The larger the ship (like the America) the more aircraft can go on board. The smaller, the fewer. As ever, Air Wings will be tailored and built to meet the specific mission. One thing I think can be expected is that the USMC will try to exploit the F-35B's capabilities as fully as possible with the ships they have. This will very probably involve developing new CONOPS and operating techniques, and Air Wing numbers will probably change with them.

Best regards as ever to all those working to deliver 'air power' from the sea,

Engines

LowObservable
30th Dec 2013, 17:40
Engines - Thanks for the detailed response, which meshes with my understanding. The six-aircraft standard airwing (combined with the differences between the F-35B and Harrier, discussed earlier here) explains why the USMC can say that only 10 per cent of operations will be STOVL mode: at any given time, the number of JSFs deployed on amphibs will be < 6 x the number of deployed amphibs - because some taskings will be all-helo.

The two Americas are an interesting case, trading well decks for aviation capability. While better able to support a larger F-35B complement than the Wasps, or the follow-on subclass (which restores the well deck), they seem to be neither fish nor fowl, compromised both in fast-jet carriage and classic amphib-warfare support, which may explain why no more are to be built.

You'll forgive me for being somewhat skeptical about the F-35's stealth maintenance requirements, given the consistent track record of stealth programs in that regard. The pre-IOC discussions of the F-22 are an almost exact echo of what is being said about JSF.

Engines
30th Dec 2013, 19:05
LO,

Thanks for coming back.

The discussion over time spent in 'STOVL mode' is always going to be an exercise in prediction, as it rests on a number of assumptions about how many aircraft are shore based, how many afloat on what platforms. I'd suspect that for some nations, STOVL ops may comprise a bigger percentage. I'd also suspect that the USMC are looking very hard at deployed short field ops.

The key thing from the USMC aviation point of view is that you need to have STOVL to get on to the boat and to the war in the first place. And for the UK and the RN, STOVL is our only affordable way of getting these aircraft to sea. Given that, percentages of any notional total are less important.

You make a very good point about the design trade offs in the LHD, LHA(R) and follow on ships. The thing to appreciate is that ship design is always an exercise in compromise, and sometimes aviation capabilities have to take their share of compromise. In the case if the USMC, it's handy to remember that everything (and I mean everything) is built around getting Marines ashore and fighting. It's possible that the two America class LHA(R)s will end up being mainly used for aviation basing and personnel transport, plus possibly V-22 assault ops. Like I said earlier, the only certainty is that the USMC will seek to make the best possible use of the aircraft it has, and it has been planning the changes for some time.

LO maintenance - please carry on being sceptical. We all certainly were at Fort Worth. (We had some excellent ex FAA maintainers on our team who were incredibly experienced and not easy to convince on anything). The fact is that stealth technology has shown steady progress from the F-117, through B-2 to F-22. F-35 is nearly 20 years on from the Raptor. There's a clue in the way that the panel joins on F-35 look very different to F-22, that may indicate that the 35 is not aiming for the lowest levels of signature. (I say 'may' as I'm not read into that stuff).

I don't, for one minute, believe that all will be sweetness and light. I don't think getting F-35B to the fight will be easy. But delivering high performance fixed wing naval aviation is never easy. It never was. It takes good people, well trained as a team on the ship, to do it. That's what the USMC does, and so did the FAA. The FAA will, given the time and the resources, do it again.

Best regards as ever to all

Engines

John Farley
31st Dec 2013, 15:17
I had a funny dream.

I was in charge of defending a target against attack by an aircraft.

Then I heard it was either a Lancaster or a B-17. So I got the youngsters in and told them to enjoy themselves as I was going to bed.

Then I heard it was an AV-8B. Mmm - Ok chaps let's put the A team on, check everything and stay awake.

Then I heard it was an F-35B. Shit - plan B chaps let's move back a bit.

Sure numbers matter but not on a 1:1 basis.

SpazSinbad
31st Dec 2013, 16:42
Navy: F-35C Will Be Eyes and Ears of the Fleet 31 Dec 2013 Dave Majumdar

Navy: F-35C Will Be Eyes and Ears of the Fleet | USNI News (http://news.usni.org/2013/12/31/f-35c-will-eyes-ears-fleet)

kbrockman
31st Dec 2013, 18:35
I had a funny dream.

I was in charge of defending a target against attack by an aircraft.

Then I heard it was either a Lancaster or a B-17. So I got the youngsters in and told them to enjoy themselves as I was going to bed.

Then I heard it was an AV-8B. Mmm - Ok chaps let's put the A team on, check everything and stay awake.

Then I heard it was an F-35B. Shit - plan B chaps let's move back a bit.

Sure numbers matter but not on a 1:1 basis.

I fail to see what you're trying to prove here?

I'm fairly certain you would have called for a plan B too back in the 40's with some B17's and Lancasters overhead, same thing in the 80's with the AV8B.
You really think that today quantity is no longer a factor with the F35?

Navy: F-35C Will Be Eyes and Ears of the Fleet 31 Dec 2013 Dave Majumdar
IT will be one of the eyes and ears, but according to the article, the Hawkeye is still very much needed, so are the F18's and the problem with the LO data-link still needs a solution for the F35 to remain stealthy enough (gateway).
From what we've seen in the past year it is ever more likely that, coming 2030 and beyond, not the F35C will be the ultimate eyes and ears but rather the derivative of the X47 program which according to the latest reports from the same NAVY could very well be used as a very advanced UCAV and sensor platform in the, not too distant, future.

Courtney Mil
31st Dec 2013, 18:55
Spaz,

You usually choose the articles about JS"F" you post rather carefully to shine good light on the programme. Have you not read this article or can you not recognize the stupidity of what it says? I'm not going to spend much time pulling it to bits, but here are a couple of howlers.

“Let’s say we’re in an anti-access environment and we’re going to go deep, we would launch all the airplanes off, get them all set, and we would push the F-35C way inside,” Rear Adm. Mike Manazir, the Navy’s director of air warfare told USNI News on Dec. 20. “He would go in there using his X-band stealth technology, and go in there and he would get radar contacts and surface contacts and would ID them for us.”

At least he recognizes that the stealth is X-Band technology; let's say missile guidence and AI radar in the main. Of course, ground based radars are going to be S or L band (or lower depending on where in the world he's thinking of).

He also seems to be implying (or perhaps from his words I'm inferring) that JS"F" will be the replacement for a host of ISTAR assets. This isn't the first FJ platform to have sensors and datalink and we haven't managed to phase out all the other gathering platforms just because they arrived.

F-35Cs flying deep inside enemy territory would also play a key role in providing terminal guidance for long-range stand-off weapons launched by other platforms such as Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet or a warship.

Oops, we still need the old platforms to carry and launch the stand-off stuff. Why?

However, the F-35C will need some data-link modifications

We knew that, we've discussed it before.

Lockheed Martin is working with other contractors to make that capability happen,

Yes, but let's hope it doesn't distract them from actually getting the platform out there and working.

In order to extend the F-35C’s range, the Navy hopes to refuel the stealthy new fighter from the service’s future Unmanned Carrier Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) aircraft

I hope so too. If the range needs extending, as he suggests, I would hope there is more in place than hope.

We need to have that link capability that the enemy can’t find and then it can’t jam.

Link is a radio. Never believe that it cannot be received (the people you want to receive it can, so it is receivable) or jammed. Technology always moves on.

But the Navy has never operated a stealthy aircraft with the kinds of sensors found onboard the F-35C before

Indeed. So the rest of the wishlist in the article is not only right, but necessary.

Manazir described a recent long-range air dominance simulation exercise in which there were Marine Corps weapons officers flying the F-35C.

Is he suddenly claiming that JS"F" can take on the Air Dominance role as well as everything else?

Not the best advert for the jet in terms of credibility because it claims a lot based on very little.

SpazSinbad
31st Dec 2013, 19:59
'CM' cannot I not post articles that are neither fish nor turkey? Being a 65 year old F-35 NAFYOB I always thought that was possible. I can see there are many rivers to cross for both the F-35 family and the F-35C in particular, as described, along with development of the UCLASS. Yes some of these ideas have been discussed earlier along with the maintainability of F-35B/C stealth on carrier decks, so revisiting earlier discussion bits is not out of the question - for some.

Perhaps I misled earlier by stating that F-35C arrested landings were easily faked. Just use a roll-in arrest with a smoke machine or two and bobs my uncle. Anyway I like the meeting of UCLASS 'Noddddddy' with 'BigEars' F-35C as seen here: [just to get in a cartoonie before 'LO' does]

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQgK48uj2BFlSrLpwziLQf9x1hL7iXaKC8VVA8vLKSLV6Favtp5eA

Courtney Mil
31st Dec 2013, 21:49
Yeah, right, Spaz. No sure I quite got that. Perhaps best just to say Happy New Year. :ok:

SpazSinbad
31st Dec 2013, 23:57
What would you like me to explain 'CM'?

Courtney Mil
1st Jan 2014, 00:28
Nothing much. I just didn't follow your post. It doesn't matter. As I said, Happy New Year.

SpazSinbad
1st Jan 2014, 01:13
Over page 'CM' said:
"Spaz,
You usually choose the articles about JS"F" you post rather carefully to shine good light on the programme. Have you not read this article or can you not recognize the stupidity of what it says? I'm not going to spend much time pulling it to bits, but here are a couple of howlers...."
My response not to the article in question but to the bit above from 'CM':
"'CM' cannot I not post articles that are neither fish nor turkey? Being a 65 year old F-35 NAFYOB I always thought that was possible. I can see there are many rivers to cross for both the F-35 family and the F-35C in particular, as described, along with development of the UCLASS. Yes some of these ideas have been discussed earlier along with the maintainability of F-35B/C stealth on carrier decks, so revisiting earlier discussion bits is not out of the question - for some.

Perhaps I misled earlier by stating that F-35C arrested landings were easily faked. Just use a roll-in arrest with a smoke machine or two and bobs my uncle. Anyway I like the meeting of UCLASS 'Noddddddy' with 'BigEars' F-35C as seen here: [just to get in a cartoonie before 'LO' does]"
Before responding to anything else I think I should explain the above. There is a perception that I am an 'F-35 fanboy' - hmmm. What I am is a gatherer of information in an effort to understand it and I welcome the excellent responses to the NavAv items on this thread from those who know it.

I take issue with the article critique as outlined by 'CM'; interested that it is seen in such a negative light. Manazir points to a possible future; but that future is uncertain; hence the use of 'hope' for a future UCLASS, which is still under negotiation as far as I can see in public information. The X-47B thread about recent UCLASS events seems to have become mangled. I could go back to post some of the missing recent news but as someone pointed out 'I was talking to myself', so I thought not to do that (my life is as short as anyone else). So I'm glad to post articles about the F-35 that interest me. If that seems to be more on the positive side - then so be it. It seems the negative side is well catered for here. NAFYOB=FANBOY whilst being 65 that term flatters me unnecessarily.

The rest is clear enough referring to an earlier discussion on this thread about F-35 stealth robustness and maintainability. Do I need to find it for you? UCLASS is in the X-47B thread (mangled at the end). The claim that a photo of a fly-in arrest recently was only a 'roll-in' was ludicrous - but you knew that. Many months ago when a video of an earlier fly-in F-35C arrest with the interim hook design was released I made a comment (tongue in cheek) that these things can be easily faked. I then posted a slow motion video of the same sequence to show this 'fakery'. Anything is possible I suppose.

As for the cartoonie of Noddy and Big Ears. It refers to the title of the piece under discussion '...Eyes and Ears of the Fleet'.

Now the critique by CM.... Perhaps assumptions have been made by 'CM' that I myself do not follow. I would have thought Majumdar has more or less accurately reported what RADM Manazir said. I would guess that the RADM was circumspect deliberately; and also hoped for certain future outcomes with UCLASS (yet to be decided). The USN plan is to populate their CVNs with a mixture of Shornets, F-35Cs and now UCLASS. So why not use them co-operatively? The discussion about no MADL for other aircraft is on this thread also, with a future possibility of a new network yet to eventuate, which will cater for the linkages, bearing in mind a group of F-35Cs in a daisy chain can pass MADL info back to rear echelon receivers.

I like that the RADM has acknowledged the work of the USMC with F-35Bs, the USMC will also fly F-35Cs from the CVNs, after the F-35Bs of the USMC have got going. Nice one. As for 'air dominance' that is the future for some Air Forces, such as the RAAF, in concert with our own Shornets/Growlers and whatever is left of the Hornets and the other networking assets. The US Navy, like the USMC, works with what it has - I see no F-22s for them or the RAAF.

And 'CM' why ask if you are not interested? I'm happy to humour myself - if no one else. At least there are no Turkey/schoolboy cartoons - a bit sad I know.

FoxtrotAlpha18
1st Jan 2014, 05:45
Don't worry Spaz

I couldn't quite work out why, on the one hand he was criticising you for posting mostly positive articles on the F-35, and then, on the other was criticising the article you posted... I mean, what would a RADM 'Navy’s director of air warfare' know anyway...???

As you said, the negative side of the argument has been well catered for here in these pages, although perhaps not as much as it used to be... could that be because there is more positive news coming out of the program these days.

Yeah LO, I know...."at last...", "...it's about time..." n'all that! I'm sure you and your cadre will conjure up more negatives in the new year...I hear they have a long (but ever shrinking) list!

longer ron
1st Jan 2014, 07:17
As you said, the negative side of the argument has been well catered for here in these pages, although perhaps not as much as it used to be... could that be because there is more positive news coming out of the program these days.

Or maybe people realise that it is going to happen 'warts and all' no matter what !
I think also many people have forgotten that the OP was about the F35B in particular !
I have not changed my views on the F35B at all - I still think it is a very bad design,and also we will end up with a 'wastospace' carrier that is big enough for 'real' aircraft but is going to be limited by the vstol/ski jump cul de sac - a missed chance !
I did laugh when wastospace put in the horrendous price for converting them to be 'real' carriers and also was bemused by the fact that people still believed that the ski jump carrier would be completed at the original price :)
Once again wastospace win and our forces end up with a bad 'Rolls Royce' solution that we cannot afford anyway - I say good luck to the poor technicians who will have to service them - but at least they will not have to do any heavy maintenance on them because wastospace will have that sewn up as well :)

LowObservable
1st Jan 2014, 18:15
I think it is just awesomely fantabulous news that (according to a reporter who's been quite solid lately on Navair news) the Navy director of air warfare is talking about

when it enters the U.S. Navy’s arsenal in large numbers in the 2030s.

OK, that might just be a typo. On the other hand, Manazir goes on to explain that the Navy has a specific role for the F-35, as an armed ISR platform; and that, having already told the JSFPO where to stuff the Block 3I compromise, the Navy now sees a long-range, LPI/LPD datalink, not yet defined, let alone included in Block 3F, as essential.

Also, the talk about "datalink modifications" suggests that just strapping a gateway like NGC's JetPack on to a Hawkeye is not the solution the Navy's looking for, nor is the MADL daisy-chain approach.

Oh and PS - the fankiddies were perfectly ready to dump all over Majumdar when he wrote about the F-35B's (and by extensio, the A's) super:mad:ingawesome supersonic performance...

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

SpazSinbad
1st Jan 2014, 19:33
Interestingly this last sentence was omitted from the Majumdar paragraph quoted by 'LO' above:

F-35B sea-trials aboard the USS Wasp 30 Aug 2013 Dave Majumdar
"....The kinematics are basically F/A-18C-like, though that was apparently exactly what was expected."
F-35B sea-trials aboard the USS Wasp - The DEW Line (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2013/08/f-35b-sea-trials-aboard-the-uss-wasp/)

Maus92
2nd Jan 2014, 02:50
Daisy-chaining MADL is a poor way to network critical data. One plane/node out of position/destroyed, and there goes your net - not to mention a waste of limited F-35C platforms. Satcom will probably be an interim solution for the 2020's, however hobbled by latency and bandwidth. No doubt by the 2030s, there will be a new datalink / waveform, though not limited to F-35Cs - probably retrofitted to most tacair platforms like UCLASS, Growlers, and SH as well as E-2s, P-8s, Triton, etc.

LowObservable
2nd Jan 2014, 15:28
SS - Specifics>Generalities

Maus - I agree. Staying LPI/LPD while remaining timely, responsive and reliable is a challenge in a flight-of-four scenario and starts to get much more interesting beyond that. Discussions that I have heard suggest that stealth operators so far are wary of committing to anything that tries to go outside the "red bubble".

Meanwhile, both the Russians and Chinese are working very hard on TDOA intercept systems that can also function as passive radar, while ERA - who made the Vera back in the WarPac days - is still very much alive, paying the bills with commercial ATC systems and improving its defense products.

As for Satcoms - it's been hard enough to do LPI/LPD, high-bandwidth, two-way satcoms on the B-2 so far...

SpazSinbad
2nd Jan 2014, 16:06
Perhaps 'LO' you would be kind enough to explain what is meant by all of this then please. Thanks.

F-35B sea-trials aboard the USS Wasp Dave Majumdar on 30 August, 2013
"...An interesting factoid, one of the USMC test pilots mentioned this little tidbit—they have to use a modified Rutowski profile in order to get the F-35B and C up to Mach 1.6. Basically, you do one push over, unload the jet and accelerate, get up to 1.2, turn and repeat until you hit 1.4 Mach, turn and repeat till you hit Mach 1.6. It just barely gets there and barely has any gas left over afterwards. The kinematics are basically F/A-18C-like, though that was apparently exactly what was expected."
F-35B sea-trials aboard the USS Wasp - The DEW Line (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2013/08/f-35b-sea-trials-aboard-the-uss-wasp/)

The F-16.net discussion starts on this page: F-35's max speed conundrum - General F-35 Forum (http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=24496&hilit=Rutowski)

LowObservable
2nd Jan 2014, 16:31
It means that Mach 1.6 is not in the practical envelope for the F-35B, so that its tactically useful maximum is somewhere between 1.2 and 1.4. How different this is from a Marine F/A-18C (heavier than an A but with the same -400 engine and frequently seen with a Sniper on centerline), I cannot tell you.

Also, the most sensitive instruments known to science could not detect, let alone measure, my level of interest in what the repulsive crew of Walts, toadies, sciolists, sociopaths, frauds, pseuds, dimwits, basement-dwelling pizzavores and rhymes-with-bankers at some other board thinks about this subject, or indeed anything else.

PS - Ecclesiasticus 13:1

Courtney Mil
2nd Jan 2014, 16:46
LO, get off the fence, Dude. If you don't like them, just come out and say so.

kbrockman
2nd Jan 2014, 16:58
Nifty looking new toy that looks pretty useful, certainly on the carriers.

https://navynews.co.uk/assets/upload/files/20140101ax-1.jpg
https://navynews.co.uk/archive/news/item/9655

Courtney Mil
2nd Jan 2014, 19:27
kbrok,

Don't get too excited. It's just the trolley that tops up the screen wash.

SpazSinbad
2nd Jan 2014, 21:20
'CM' I won't get excited either because I see no 'fanboys' (of any aircraft) included in the 'LO' spray / dummy spit above. Still and all I would like an explanation for the fakery in the 'roll in arrest' photo on recent previous pages.

Courtney Mil
2nd Jan 2014, 23:09
OK, no problem. I'll have a look back in the morning and do so. I shall attend to it as you request, Spaz. Although I don't recall commenting on roll-ins.

BTW, I did know it's not a screen wash trolley. I just thought it was a good caption.

SpazSinbad
3rd Jan 2014, 00:18
'CM' thanks for your consideration but it was the comment started here by 'LO' that I had in mind:

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/424953-f-35-cancelled-then-what-197.html#post8231703

Further addition: 'LO' has responded via PM so case closed.

glad rag
3rd Jan 2014, 17:38
"Case" ? Sounds all internety scary serious that does. :hmm:

Courtney Mil
3rd Jan 2014, 18:41
Indeed, GR. It's all gone a bit weird here lately. Apparently there's fakery, fanboys. spray/dummy spit and case, which is now closed. No idea whatsoever.

SpazSinbad
3rd Jan 2014, 21:31
The magic of words eh.

mantog
6th Jan 2014, 11:17
Not sure if this has been posted before? Apologies if it has

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/5c95d45f86a5

A rather scathing, and seemingly biased, but interesting article about the F35.