F-35 Cancelled, then what ? [Archive] - Page 17

Engines

16th Jan 2014, 12:34

PhilipG,

Perhaps I can help here.

The first point to understand is that putting a capable cat and trap aircraft (like F-35) on to a ship is not just a matter of laying down catapults - the arresting gear requirements are also very demanding. The ship also needs to be big, fast, and able to carry the fuel and weapons required to support the desired sortie rate. The USN's experience over the past 40 years (and it's being borne out by the UK and China, as well as France) is that a ship design under around 65,000 tons is going to struggle to deliver a meaningful (i.e USN meaningful) cat and trap capability. It's probably going to need to be nuclear powered (mainly to provide the power required at an acceptable volume without having to trunk air down and exhaust up through the ship).

Bottom line (in my view, but happy to explain further) is that LHDs would definitely not be a practicable cat and trap platform. Too small, too slow and not enough internal volume (those tank decks and dock wells take a lot of space). (By the way, EMALS requires more volume than a steam catapult - and a whole lot more electricity). The books by Norman Friedman are an excellent reference source on this complicated matter.

As I've posted before, the genesis of F-35 was a series of failed US combat aircraft programmes. The people in the Pentagon came to the conclusion that the next attempt had to be a single seat single engined aircraft, so as to contain cost. At this stage, people will be jumping in and pointing out how much the F-35 has cost, and they'll be right to do so. However, that was the idea.

The next step in the Pentagon's plan was to make sure the design stayed single seat, single engined (because the USN really wanted a twin engined aircraft) , and they did this by adding in the STOVL requirement. At the time (early 90s) and even now, there are no feasible twin engined STOVL combat designs out there. STOVL adds in a powerful discipline to keep weight down (which LM went and forgot) and lower weight keeps down size, which keeps down cost.

The USMC had been working on advanced STOVL for many many years, via various open and 'black' programmes. The Pentagon planners just took in their STOVL Strike Fighter (SSF) requirements and added them to what was becoming JAST/JSF.

My view is that if the STOVL requirement had not been added to F-35, it would have been a very different outcome - and probably more expensive than the result we see today. But I recognise that many on this thread would differ. That's fine - it's a free forum, and all the better for it.

As far as the USMC's commitment to STOVL - I'd say total. It's long been a core ambition of theirs to deliver the capability to their amphibs and also to forward bases. As Spaz pointed out, these plans are based on a lot of doctrinal development, as well as the basic fact that the Marines want their close support aircraft, well, close, and under their control. They have a collectively scarred memory of failure by other services (USAF, USN) to deliver the support when and where required, and they are not going to surrender their ability to give the marine on the ground what they need. I had the pleasure of working with them for a few years, and it's vital to realise that they are not remotely interested in 'Air Power'. Every ounce of USMC combat capability is aimed at supporting the Marine on the ground.

Again, there are plenty of people who disagree with this vision, doctrine and approach. Fine. But the USMC have, over many years, fought their corner with skill, persistence and some cunning. They know where they are going, they make their arguments consistently and clearly, and the politicians support them.

Best regards as ever

Engines

draken55

16th Jan 2014, 14:35

Engines, as always an excellent contribution to the debate. Thanks.

You mentioned Norman Friedman. I would recommend another of his books to those who are interested. It's a short and at circa £13 well priced paperback he co-authored entitled "Innovation in Carrier Aviation". This confirms that most innovation in the immediate post war period was from Britain rather than the USA and suggests why this was the case.

Without steam catapults, the angled deck and mirror deck landing aid the USN would have found it much more difficult at that time to meet it's need to operate the large aircraft then required to carry nuclear bombs from it's carriers. The USN was unwilling to surrender this "Strategic" role to the newly formed USAF.

As you say the USMC is not interested in such broad concepts although I remain puzzled why the ski jump has remained the only significant British carrier innovation the US has not used.

Looking ahead the USMC and RN/RAF will not always share a common modus operandi for the F-35B. That will not stop a great deal of co-operation though.

l

Engines

16th Jan 2014, 16:30

Draken,

Thanks a lot for the steer to the 'Innovation' paperback - I'll be placing an order tonight! (And glad you appreciated the post)

Like you, I've been puzzled as to why the ski jump hasn't been taken up by the USMC, but I guess it was to do with the fact that their main AV-8B operating base was ashore, coupled with their requirement for a number of spots on the L class ships for a helo assault. (I was told by a senior USMC officer that they wouldn't sacrifice a single spot for the Harriers)

That may be changing - the MV-22 will be using rolling takeoffs as standard, and I would be intrigued to see if they could get a single ramp to give both the F-35B and the V-22 decent increases in launch load. This naval aviation stuff can be interesting, can't it?

Best Regards as ever to all those who ARE interested,

Engines

SpazSinbad

16th Jan 2014, 17:57

Some grist for the USMC non-existent skijumpmill. Plenty of USN/USAF testing of various ski jumps with various aircraft has been carried out over the years.

STOVL Air Power | The Ramps, Roads, and Speedbumps to Exploiting Maneuver Air Warfare
Major Charles R. Myers, 01 April 1996
“Amphibious Ships
page 9:“...The skeptics insist that ramps will displace landing spots. Tests prove otherwise. On a 12 degree ski jump approximately 150 feet long, the slope gradually increases from zero up to 12 degrees at the bow. The first half of the ski jump has a slope no greater than that of an LHA during wet-well operations with the well-deck flooded – both Harriers and helicopters can land on it...." [Major Art Nalls, USMC, "Why Don't We Have Any Ski Jumps," U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, November 1990, 81.]"
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a527872.pdf (50 Kb)

Lonewolf_50

16th Jan 2014, 18:27

I was thinking, if the Marines had not insisted on a VSTOL aircraft, say decided to put catapults on their new LPA ships. What do you actually know about naval vessels, and aircraft carriers in particular, Philip?
EMALS was demonstrated in 2011, but I think it was at NAS where the land based development has been ongoing for years.
The Navy Just Released This Video Of The F-35 Being Launched By An Electromagnetic Catapult - Business Insider (http://www.businessinsider.com/f-35-emals-2011-11)

The USS Gerald Ford will have EMALS. (http://www.businessinsider.com/the-uss-gerald-r-ford-reaches-a-construction-milestone-2012-5?op=1)

Engines: thanks for saving me the trouble on why we no longer build "jeep carriers" in the USN. :ok:

peter we

16th Jan 2014, 20:16

We can all recall that the USMC stated recently that only 10% of F35 flights would be VSTOL.

Actually what he said was 10% of a sortie would be in STOL mode.

kbrockman

16th Jan 2014, 20:26

I was lead to believe that the main reason the LHA-LHD's don't have a ski-jump was because of politics.
The NAVY basically cannot tolerate any vessel that can be seen as a direct competitor to it's big Super-Carriers.
A 40,000T+ LHD(A) with a ski-jump and a substantial VTOL/STOVL-jet fleet is a direct competitor with the large carriers and since the number of those is congressionally limited (these days 11 IIRC), the NAVY won't allow for them to exist, the LHA America class was already deemed too much of a carrier.

Fitting an extended ski-jump ala JUAN CARLOS class would be avery straightforward retrofit and by no means a limit to available deck-area, it would add enough capacity for them to be considered real aircraft carriers so we won't ever see it happening if not the military need demands it.
http://www.offiziere.ch/wp-content/uploads/Juan%2BCarlos%2B1%2Bclass%2BLHD.jpg

LowObservable

16th Jan 2014, 21:15

peter we - Negative. As already discussed here and elsewhere, previous Marine op cost estimates were based on Harrier stats. But, unlike the Harrier, the F-35B (1) lands/takes off quite normally in CTOL mode and (2) is easy to fly in STOVL mode, so STOVL will actually be done only aboard ship (small detachments, on not all deployments), when training for same, and on the Marines' once-per-war off-base operations (with cameras rolling). That's about ten per cent, or under 50 aircraft.

Should we have let that case drive so much of the JSF design? But... Marines! But... Guadalcanal! Too late now.

Engines & KB - I think the ski-jump aversion has to do with deck space. Once you add fixed-wing to the mix aboard the amphib, the last thing you want to do is give up even more helicopter spots.

Currently, the Navy, Marines and the shipbuilders are all scratching their heads about what to do with LHA-8 and subsequent ships. It appears to be agreed that the well deck has to come back, but replacing Harriers with F-35Bs, medium helos with V-22s and bringing on the bigger CH-53K places a strain on fuel capacity and other aviation spaces. Some years ago there was hope for a redesigned LHA-X, but after the Ford problems nobody wants to touch that with a ten foot pole.

So the result will be some sort of compromise that the operators will have to figure out as best they can.

Meanwhile, speaking of non-existent issues - even the brand-new America will have a restriction on F-35B operations:

SNA 2014: Heat From F-35, MV-22 Continue to Plague Big Deck Amphibs | USNI News (http://news.usni.org/2014/01/15/sna-2014-heat-f-35-mv-22-continue-plague-big-deck-amphibs)

SpazSinbad

16th Jan 2014, 23:35

'LO' said here: http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/424953-f-35-cancelled-then-what-158.html#post8008313
"...Some people are getting the Marine op cost story wrapped around their necks, by the way. CAPE's assumption was that 80 per cent of sorties would use STOVL, not that 80 per cent of flight time would be in STOVL, in which case the op cost per hour would be in six digits.

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

So what the Marines are saying now (it seems) is that they will use STOVL only on the boat, training to go to the boat, and in their once-per-major-war austere-base excursion, and that adds up to ten per cent of sorties."
My bold emphasis on "(it seems)". And does 'LO' have a source for "...what the Marines are saying now..."? It seems to me that 'LO' has just made that up.

Here is another journalistic viewpoint:

Marines Put F-35B Flight Costs 17 Percent Lower Than OSD 21 Aug 2013 Colin Clark
"...“We believe we are going to achieve much greater savings than we are currently being credited for,” Marine Lt. Gen. Robert Schmidle, deputy commandant for aviation, told me in an interview here.

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

Anyone who has watched the Harrier or the F-35B knows that Marines pilots rely sparingly on STOVL mode. It’s only used for a limited set of tactical moves and, usually, for taking off or landing the aircraft. The great majority of the plane’s flight time — could it be as much as 80 percent? — would be spent flying without using the lift fan and STOVL...."
Marines Put F-35B Flight Costs 17 Percent Lower Than OSD « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary (http://breakingdefense.com/2013/08/marines-put-f-35b-flight-costs-17-percent-lower-than-osd/)

And another journo viewpoint:

Pentagon cuts F-35 operating estimate below $1 trillion: source 21 Aug 2013 Andrea Shalal-Esa
"...Schmidle said the Marines would fly the planes in short takeoff, vertical landing, or STOVL mode just 10 percent of the time, far less often than the 80 percent rate factored into the initial estimates...."
Pentagon cuts F-35 operating estimate below $1 trillion: source | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/22/us-lockheed-fighter-idUSBRE97L01E20130822)

I guess what is crucial is what "...10 percent of the time..." means: 10% of sorties? 10% of total flight time?

My assumption is that the good generale speaks about 10% of total flight time. Already there has been a discussion on this thread I believe about 'not all F-35B landings will be vertical' with many practiced F-35B RVLs (Rolling Vertical Landings) to various available runway lengths, as well as VLs; which we seem to agree are much easier than with the Harrier. Throw in a few 'creeping landing' practices and we seem to start building up some STOVL Mode flight time for the F-35B - even when ashore. Not forgetting the STO (Short Take Off) requirements which come in many flavours apparently, depending on runway distance available, AUW, environmental conditions, etc.

The USMC plan to operate not only from luxurious golf course resort style crab airfields ashore but also from roads/damaged runways and other suitable austere locations where STOVL Mode is essential - not just from flat decks.
_________________________

Bad luck (sort of) for AMERICA eh. But anyways:
"...USS Tripoli (LHA-7) and the yet-unnamed LHA-8, “will be able to carry out “complete unrestricted operations” with the F-35 and MV-22, Mercer said...."

LowObservable

17th Jan 2014, 00:02

The 80 per cent of flight time report is plain wrong. If it had been the basis of CAPE estimates over the years the Marines would have been inept to have missed it. But it wasn't.

The new figure is ten per cent of sorties, not flight time. Think about it. Even if every sortie is STOVL, is the jet going to be in STOVL for 12 minutes in a two-hour sortie? That also makes sense by comparison with "80 per cent" of sorties.

And that in turn clearly implies that most STOVL ops will be shipboard.

Disagree if you want, get personal if you can't control yourself, but use common sense.

SpazSinbad

17th Jan 2014, 01:13

'LO' good to see you admit the USMC are not inept.
"... And that in turn clearly implies that most STOVL ops will be shipboard...."
I do not see that implication at all. You want to not acknowledge the other uses of STOVL mode that I have outlined. Why is this so?

glad rag

17th Jan 2014, 08:33

:p:p Epic fail. :p:p

SpazSinbad

17th Jan 2014, 09:09

'GladBag' is this the "epic fail" of which you speak?

'LO':
"...STOVL will actually be done only aboard ship..."

Engines

17th Jan 2014, 10:25

Guys,

Perhaps I can help here.

For all sorts of good budgetary reasons, the DoD has to make assumptions about how often the F-35 variants will be doing certain things. Take offs, landings, carrier landings, weapons carriage, weapon drops, STOVL ops, etc. - it's a long list and made more complex by the three variants. But these are 'assumptions', and no more. Their relationship to what is actually going to happen is approximately zero. And when those sorts of sums are being done, there are big differences between 'sortie' driven events and 'flight time' driven events. Oh, and sometimes people can get those sums wrong.

Where I think one is mistaken is to take a predicted percentage (sortie or flight time) spent in STOVL mode and then try to extrapolate a required F-35B force size from it.

To my mind (and I'm totally relaxed if anyone disagrees) the USMC has made the case to the DoD and the politicians for a STOVL capable force.(and no, they didn't get there by shouting 'Marines!' or 'Guadalcanal!' - sorry, you need to see how they actually operate within DoD and Congress - it's a little more mature than that). They have a well developed and ambitious future doctrine mapped out, available for anyone to read. In my view, almost any Air Force will disagree with it. That's because the Marines aren't interested in 'Air Power' for it's own sake. They are only interested in supporting the Marine on the ground as quickly and effectively as possible.

To do that, the F-35B needs to be able to go to the fight on L class ships and operate off short strips. That means STOVL. They need a force of F-35Bs that can do that STOVL thing sustainably. They've made those calculations, which have been scrutinised to death at all levels within the DoD (including the Joint Staffs) and Congress, and signed off. They are certainly more robust than the arguments used to justify, oh, let's think of an example - 232 Typhoons.

Anyway, just my musings - feel free to keep on at percentages, it's an open forum. But I don't think anyone's getting much out of the process.

LO. I get the ski-jump/deck space argument, thanks - my point in my previous post. You are right about pressures on LHD/LHA space and well deck omissions - and there are certainly 'Big carrier, Small Carrier' tensions within the US naval aviation community. In my direct experience, these are mostly driven by fears within the 'big carrier' community that a more capable 'small carrier' would be more attractive to politicians. Personally, I don't think that adding a ski jump to an L class to give an F-35 a few thousand pounds more fuel/weapons is part of the budget/political argument. But I could be wrong.

Best Regards as ever to all those who 'get' STOVL and what the USMC are trying to do. And best regards to all those who don't.

Engines

LowObservable

17th Jan 2014, 12:29

Engines,

Thanks for the thoughtful post.

I think the Marines could indeed make an excellent case for having CAS that is not dependent on large bases with long, well maintained concrete runways or a carrier strike group.

But that's not a case for a $138-million (total procurement cost full rate in FY2012$) stealth supersonic fighter. If my threat environment calls for that, dollars to doughnuts they also have ASCMs and AIP submarines and I would be a total loony to send in a Marine force without the EA, AEW and ASW that come with a CSG.

The second issue is that the Marines have not operated from austere bases very much, even with the Harrier, because it is difficult and restrictive. "Once per war" is not far off. Since I have still not seen a an F-35B VL or RVL on to anything other than AM-2-shielded asphalt, a refractory-concrete pad or a steel deck (almost six years into the F-35B flight test program), pardon me if I remain skeptical.

If 80 per cent of sorties are STOVL, I suspect that this is recognized. The remaining 20 per cent would be about right to cover normal ship operations (11 big amphibs is the target, 6 aircraft the normal detachment, only some of those amphibs being deployed with aircraft at any given time.)

Neither is this a "too late to turn around" issue. The Marines need to look to their future. If they end up with a lot of very high-cost kit that is expensive to operate (V-22 as well), the whole concept of forcible entry against an active threat will get questioned seriously.

I would give the Marines the A-10s for expeditionary ops, and restart the OV-10 (with DIRCM, laser-guided rockets, cheap SAR, ESM and satcoms) for the LHA/LHDs.

Engines

17th Jan 2014, 12:52

LO,

Thanks for coming back. Perhaps I can throw some light on this. (P'raps not...)

The USMC requirements for F-35 were quite specific - 1200 foot (now 1500) asphalt strip with no, repeat, no support. F-35 launches from ship, lands, shuts down, waits for the CAS call. Starts up, does the mission, returns to the ship.

Now I understand that many people will query this requirement, even using words like 'loony'. I worked with the USMC for a few years, and I could use lots of words about them. 'Loony' isn't one that springs to mind.

F-35B is designed to do that, and at some stage in the programme it will do so, if it's not already done it. LO, you may not see it, but with all due respect, you (or I) aren't the OT&E approving authority. However, having worked on the programme and having been closely involved in the very detailed ground erosion testing carried out for F-35B, I remain convinced that the jet will be able to operate from the required locations. You weren't, and you don't.

Yes, austere base ops are restrictive. Yes, they are difficult. But that doesn't mean they can't happen. It often means challenging 'Air Force' centric views of what 'ops' mean. After around 30 odd years of doing this sort of stuff, I've come to the conclusion that it's far more about determination, imagination and hard work than the technology you are using. The USMC have all of those qualities in spades. (Yes, I happily admit to admiring the USMC).

Honestly, your suggestion that what the USMC really needs is aircraft designed in the 1960s, built in the 70s and since scrapped or retired is not exactly, in my view, suited to the actuality. However, it's always great to think about fresh ideas.

To me (and I know not to you) it's straightforward. The Marines want a credible strike jet that can operate off an L class or a forward strip, survive in current threat environments and talk/communicate with modern battlespaces so that it can do the job. That's F-35B. They've got it and I think they will make it work. You don't. That's fine. Not sure we gain much more by restating those views, so this is my final post for now.

Best regards as ever to all those thinking this stuff through,

Engines

kbrockman

17th Jan 2014, 13:57

About the ski-jump on the L ships, I didn't get the idea about the NAVY's
opposition to the installation of ski-jumps on the LHD/A's from the internet, I actually was told by a former MARINE AV8B pilot on why it never would be allowed to be installed (safe for some big unforeseen war which pretty much requires the ski-jump added capacity).

An LHA with a ski-jump would factually be a real carrier, the loss of a heli landing spot is a bogus argument, besides the fact that it would only be 1 spot there is an added benefit from operating with a ski-jump.
Without the jump, at MTOW the STOVL operations need the full deck to manoeuvre and take-off leaving helo operations temporarily severely restricted.
With a ski-jump they could operate from an intermediate point on the deck leaving the backside open for continued helo ops or as an emergency fighter-jet recovery zone while continuing take-offs.
The lifts could be used much more efficient also with the middle elevator functioning separately from the rear elevator effectively making much better use of the deck.
The ski-jump itself would be , for the biggest part, a semi-width forward extension construction , something which would be a fairly easy retrofit on both the latest AMERICA and the WASP-class, further eliminating helo-pad loss and increasing available take-off length (think +40-50ft).

The only reason it is not done until today is because of NAVY politics regarding their big carriers, that was what I as told anyway.

The MARINES operated from the ILLUSTRIOUS about 5 years ago with great succes (and a hell of a lot of sorties) and where lyrical about the ski-jump.
they already tried the ramp on land;
http://images.ookaboo.com/photo/s/YAV_8B_Harrier_testing_a_ski_jump_s.jpg
And the LHA(D) are set up perfectly for a Ski-jump already,
http://www.militaryfactory.com/ships/imgs/uss-america-lha6_2.jpg

Engines

17th Jan 2014, 16:11

LO,

I'm posting one last time, not to get back at anyone, but to make it clear to all where I'm coming from here.

As I possibly didn't make clear, I was pointing out what the F-35B performance requirements are, and how that affects the design, and the programme. As to how the USMC use that capability - well it's their shout I suppose. Not mine, not yours, I'd suspect. What I do know is that they have an endorsed set of doctrine and concepts that they are working through. They probably have some idea what they are doing. Again, feel free to disagree.

What I won't get into is a 'What about this bit of kit, what about their CONOPS eh?' discussion. Mainly because I'm an engineer, not a warfighter. Secondly, LO, because I really don't think any information (not opinions) I might post is going to change the way you look at the F-35B and the USMC. That's your right and your opinion.

Have a nice thread, all,

Best Regards as ever

Engines

NITRO104

18th Jan 2014, 00:17

My assumption is that the good generale speaks about 10% of total flight time.
Come on, really? :}

SpazSinbad

18th Jan 2014, 00:59

'Engines' from whence came this quote:
"The USMC requirements for F-35 were quite specific - 1200 foot (now 1500) asphalt strip with no, repeat, no support. F-35 launches from ship, lands, shuts down, waits for the CAS call. Starts up, does the mission, returns to the ship."

'NITRO104' probably some kind of matrix of sorties to sortie length with specifics about mission, where start / finish is located and on and on may well have short sortie durations with plenty of STOVL mode use. As pointed out by others it is guess work and not some specific rule. OK?

NITRO104

18th Jan 2014, 12:15

Ok?

Not sure how, since the F35B is STOVL not VSTOL.
Quick calc shows about 7-10min in hover on common bringback weights.
So, what you're assuming means the airframe will fly 1-1.5h sorties all of its life?
Obviously, this begs the question why inbuilding 3+ hours worth of fuel in it in the first place and the whole myriad of weight related problems.

The term vertical is quite self explanatory, so why would the 'good generale' use term vertical for something that isn't a vertical flight?

SpazSinbad

18th Jan 2014, 15:35

'NITRO104' this is what the generale is quoted as having said:
"...Schmidle said the Marines would fly the planes in short takeoff, vertical landing, or STOVL mode just 10 percent of the time, far less often than the 80 percent rate factored into the initial estimates...."

At issue would be the words "of the time". Perhaps one day this will be cleared up. Otherwise we guess. You guess - I guess.

John Farley

18th Jan 2014, 16:46

LO. You seem surprised at the USMC requiring a ground based cab rank capability with their aircraft. They certainly used it from the time they had Harriers and I believe before then. After all it only means landing during a sortie, shutting down to save fuel and starting up again if a shout comes or you reach the end of your shift. With a conventional aircraft this requires a suitable airfield runway closer to the target than your operating base, plus of course having an internal start capability. With the Harrier they expected to find a secure site within 50nm of the battle because they considered a response time from the shout to being on target needed to be 15 mins or less. The cab rank operating site flexibility of the Harrier was one of the key capabilities that made them want the aircraft.

As an aside the RAF required a loudspeaker in the nose wheel bay of the GR1 so that the lad (it was lads only then) could get out and doze off against the nose leg until the shout came.

Hey ho.

NITRO104

18th Jan 2014, 17:41

You guess - I guess.

You can technically also argue that the sky isn't blue...quite an odd argument for someone giving himself right to call others 'fans', 'JSF haters' and whatnot, wouldn't you say so?

Anyway, it's the other half of the sentence that actually explains the first and it goes:
far less often than the 80 percent rate factored into the initial estimates....
Why on Earth would anyone factor in an 80% vertical flight time even in a helicopter let alone an aircraft then?

SpazSinbad

18th Jan 2014, 18:31

'NITRO104' point out where this has occurred:
"...someone giving himself right to call others 'fans', 'JSF haters' and whatnot..."
Probably the point of contention is exactly what is stated - without further explanation from the general we can only guess. You guess - I guess.

LowObservable

18th Jan 2014, 20:06

John - On reflection I am not surprised that such a capability was in the original spec. The question is whether "no support" is viable in the conditions of warfare observed over the past decade: at least, a forward base is going to require extensive security measures.

I remain flummoxed by comments such as those from the clearly sincere and well informed Engines (on the program's technical side) contrasted with the documented work of Navy construction engineers with their pizza-oven-concrete landing pads. Both sides cannot be right.

NITRO104

18th Jan 2014, 20:15

without further explanation from the general we can only guess.
But it is explained, as shown.
Why insisting on something that isn't there?

Think Defence

18th Jan 2014, 21:48

Surely the biggest threat to the forward austere base CAS as provided by the F35 is a range of rapidly maturing precision guided ground launched weapons.

I think during the conceptual development of the F35 things like GMLRS, Excalibur and guided 120mm mortar rounds were not around. Now we have those, plus loitering munitions and various UAV's the need for CAS gets less.

It will never be reduced to zero of course but the fact is, for putting explosives onto the heads of enemies, the USMC, and of course everyone else, has many more options.

I still think the austere basing capability is an important thing to retain, flexibility is never a bad thing, surely?

GreenKnight121

19th Jan 2014, 06:31

I remain flummoxed by comments such as those from the clearly sincere and well informed Engines (on the program's technical side) contrasted with the documented work of Navy construction engineers with their pizza-oven-concrete landing pads. Both sides cannot be right.

Ah, Yes... the difference between an improvised temporary operating location which is good for AT MOST a dozen or so landing/take-off cycles by a single F-35B (and likely fewer, at least in that particular 1,500' length of asphalt/concrete) and a permanent landing field intended for hundreds of landing/take-off cycles by a dozen or more F-35Bs over the period of an extended operation (or thousands by scores of F-35Bs over 3 decades or so for permanent facilities) is SOOO hard to comprehend.

:ugh::ugh::ugh:

LowObservable

19th Jan 2014, 08:15

GK121

How about researching some facts before you try to demonstrate your wisdom?

http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/NAVFAC/INTCRIT/fy10_01.pdf

"Likely to spall the surface of standard airfield concrete on the first VL."

These specs are current, landing pads are being built to them, and to date the F-35B has not been observed doing VL on any surface except such pads, concrete shielded by AM-2, or ship decks.

SpazSinbad

19th Jan 2014, 09:53

Hmmm, how about some more F-35B STOVL Mode with 'creeping landings' and even perhaps Running Vertical Landings on long enough bits of suitable landing areas. Perhaps some rougher landing areas are even protected with AM-2 Matting - some not - if not required. Then there are the many variations of Short Take Offs, with a perhaps a Vertical Take Off from a suitable pizza oven?

Courtney Mil

19th Jan 2014, 10:04

All possibilites, of course, Spaz, but form the RAF perspective this was spotted as a bit of an operating issue over 8 yeears ago. The plan then was to spend a lot of money providing the surfaces at a secret base in northern Scotland for the B. The only problem was that it meant you couldn't operate it from any other UK base.

LowObservable

19th Jan 2014, 11:31

CM - That's the Republic of Scotland to you, sassenach.

Spaz - Creeping and rolling verticals? Will they be tested before IOC is declared? Not to rip on Arizona, but I'm sure there are a few byways in the desert around Yuma that could substitute for Nowhereistan-quality runways. VTO? Possibly if there's a tanker orbiting overhead.

ThinkDefence - Correctamundo, Sir. And a problem identified some years ago by a bloke in Washington who is tipped to be in a Very Senior Position in the 5-Sided Squirrel Cage.

ORAC

19th Jan 2014, 15:36

This is far more interesting than it seems at first glance. Not only does it imply that the USA is looking at totally withdrawing from the tactical nuclear role - and the protection that implies in Europe from Russian tactical nukes - but also that the USAF will be putting all it's cards into the B-2 and the next generation bomber as their nuclear force.

Former USAF Chief of Staff: Move Away From Nuclear F-35 (http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140117/DEFREG02/301170028/Former-USAF-Chief-Staff-Move-Away-From-Nuclear-F-35)

SpazSinbad

19th Jan 2014, 16:39

As I recall info is on this thread already (I'll look) that the 'creepy VL' and the RVL have been and I'll assume are being tested where ever the F-35B is at moment. The 'not every F-35B landing will be vertical' stuff has been out there for ages.

CreepyLandings for F-35B: http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/424953-f-35-cancelled-then-what-post7767702.html?highlight=Creeping#post7767702

BTW, here is an 'LO' quote from the legendary past on another thread about the USMC strip length requirement [no reference given however]. Yes I have seen other references to the 3,000 feet required for the C-130s but not the 1,500 etc.... (quote near bottom of page reference below)

"...USMC F-35B CONOPS do envisage forward strips, I think the strip length is 1200 ft. (Could be 1500, not sure).

I have never seen a KPP for land-based STO. However, as a practical matter the Marines never talk these days about less than 3,000 feet (it was 4,000 feet in their latest talking points to Congress). I suspect that has to do with getting KC-130s in and out...."
No cats and flaps ...... back to F35B? [Archive] - Page 4 - PPRuNe Forums (http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-478767-p-4.html)

awblain

19th Jan 2014, 17:03

Didn't the gradual advent of precision guided munitions remove the point of having air-launched tactical nuclear weapons? Assisted by deterrence now being applied on smaller scales by moves to allow land and submarine launched ballistic missiles to adopt a sub-strategic role?

Is the idea of a nuclear-armed F35A not just a carry over from an early 1980s picture of a F4/F16/Buccanneer-led slow-motion approach to armageddon in the Fulda Gap?

An opponent who's earned themselves a nuclear strike is quite possibly in possession of a sufficiently integrated air defense system to make the reliable arrival of weapons from any sort of F35 at the target unlikely.

In this context, the USMC's proposed use of F35Bs against a colonial coast seems perhaps to be rather more realistic.

Bastardeux

19th Jan 2014, 19:01

Hang on, did the government not rule out any alternative to Trident on the basis that no alternatives really exist (that we could utilise), without being as, if not more expensive than Trident? Yet here we are talking about a nuclear strike capability on an aircraft we've been planning to acquire for over a decade and the lead customer claiming they need more people wanting a nuclear capability on it to make it viable...

Is it the whole national sovereignty nonsense that eliminated this option?

I've always been of the persuasion that we don't have nuclear weapons for the purpose of keeping us safe these days, but to keep us as a permanent member of the security council etc. This is of course my very humble opinion.

Courtney Mil

19th Jan 2014, 19:36

An opponent who's earned themselves a nuclear strike is quite possibly in possession of a sufficiently integrated air defense system to make the reliable arrival of weapons from any sort of F35 at the target unlikely.

Given that the (internal) weapon load being carried should make no difference to the platform's survivability, does it follow that the reliability of any weapon from F-35 at the target is unlikely?

awblain

19th Jan 2014, 19:54

CM,

You're right - a nuclear-armed F35 shouldn't be any more vulnerable than a non-nuclear-armed one. I'm just concerned that an opponent able to rile you to a nuclear attack is probably able to field an air defense able to deal with an F35 arriving to deliver it.

If the F35 is to fire a stand-off weapon, then would it not just be cheaper and easier to use more conventional and cheaper tools to carry it to the launch point?

LowObservable

19th Jan 2014, 21:00

The French appear to think the fighter needs some help...

http://www.defense.gouv.fr/var/dicod/storage/images/base-de-medias/images/air/actualites/images-2012/images-juin-2012/tir-asmpa-01/1832675-1-fre-FR/tir-asmpa-01_article_demi_colonne.jpg

rh200

19th Jan 2014, 23:07

Could a tactical nuke be used as some sort of last minute defence against incoming hypersonic vehicles? No idea just thought I would throw it out their!

Willard Whyte

20th Jan 2014, 12:59

rh200, probably not - I don't think all out nuclear warfare was expected to result in any nuclear fratricide with one's own warheads being taken out by previous detonations.

Depends how close the explosion was really, and any system designed to take out (somewhat faster) ICBM warheads should be able to deal with, if perhaps needing some modification, hypersonic vehicles. Anyhoo, getting a bit off topic.

rh200

20th Jan 2014, 23:05

I don't think all out nuclear warfare was expected to result in any nuclear fratricide with one's own warheads being taken out by previous detonations.

Most likely correct, was just throwing a possibility for a nuclear armned F35. It was along the lines of whats been mentioned previously about that being away to take out incoming bombers in the cold war.

I think they did a demo of someone standing underneath on the ground whilst they set off a tactical nuke overhead. With the possibility of the Chinese being mass produce hypersonic vehicles I was wondering the brute force method had a place.

SpazSinbad

22nd Jan 2014, 05:20

F-35 Pilots Will Begin Flying Improved 'Gen 3' Helmet 21 Jan 2014 Bill Carey, AINonline
"F-35 test pilots will begin flying this year with a third-generation helmet mounted display system (HMDS) that incorporates modifications to the earlier-generation display system, which the Pentagon has identified as an F-35 program risk. The fixes the fighter program developed for the “Gen 3” helmet system persuaded the Pentagon’s F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) to stop funding an alternate helmet-mounted display.

“I definitely have confidence that we are on the right track; we have the right plan for these fixes in place,” said Marine Lt. Col. Matthew Kelly...

...An ISIE 11 sensor based on Intevac Photonics’ patented electron bombarded activated pixel sensor (EBAPS) technology brings the system’s night-vision acuity closer to the 20/20 vision NVGs can provide....

...The Gen 2 helmet system’s latency, or response time at importing DAS imagery—measured in milliseconds—was not the problem testers thought it would be, Kelly said. Pilots just hadn’t had the opportunity to use the DAS sensor array during flight testing. Test pilots experienced display jitter in areas of the F-35 flight envelope that hadn’t been approved for training, he said. The program addressed the problem by integrating micro inertial measurement units and filtering algorithms in the HMDS to cancel out jitter effects. Pilots flew the fixes using a modified Gen 2 helmet.

“It’s still not perfect, but it’s the 95-percent solution and the major issue there is resolved,” Kelly said."
F-35 Pilots Will Begin Flying Improved 'Gen 3' Helmet | Aviation International News (http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/2014-01-21/f-35-pilots-will-begin-flying-improved-gen-3-helmet)

LowObservable

22nd Jan 2014, 15:03

So we have spent how much for sub-NVG acuity?

Oh well, I suppose this will hold things together until the contractor team can make a few more billion selling an "enhanced" helmet (and possibly a HUD backfit) using optical waveguide technology.

Squirrel 41

22nd Jan 2014, 16:12

ORAC, thanks for this.

The nuclear F-35 requirement is interesting: it supposedly will cost $400m and the USAF isn't supposedly interested in paying for it.

However, the real question is what impact this has on the NATO allies who operate B-61s under dual-key (e.g., Germany, Netherlands, Italy) as part of NATO nuclear burden sharing. It isn't obvious that any of these states actually want B-61s (modernised or not), or what the actual military rationale for these weapons is.

However, IIRC, the political rationale is that Poland and the "new NATO" members are keen to have tactical nukes in Europe to deter the Russians. But, under the understanding with Moscow when the new members joined, there was an agreement / tacit understanding that no nuclear weapons would be deployed to the new NATO states, leaving the existing B-61 operators to continue to burden share.

What does this mean? Well, if the 200-odd B-61s are still politically valuable to the Alliance (and the Obama Administration seems less than convinced) then the burden sharers will need some nuclear capable aircraft post F-16/Tornado - meaning F-35s and Typhoon, presumably.

For the UK, this would also open the road to a freefall capability instead of SSBNs and massive costs savings to be re-rolled within the procurement budget. Won't happen, of course.

S41

MG23

22nd Jan 2014, 18:35

I think they did a demo of someone standing underneath on the ground whilst they set off a tactical nuke overhead.

Yes, the Genie with a warhead of a couple of kilotons. Pretty sure that was one of the tests they mentioned when I went on a tour of the test site a few years ago.

Courtney Mil

22nd Jan 2014, 18:38

Yep. There's even a home movie of it.

Five men at atomic ground zero - YouTube

I wonder if they still qualified for the company health insurance plan after that?

awblain

22nd Jan 2014, 19:12

Of course.

They even saved themselves the cost, and dose, of an X-ray by standing on a big plate.

Courtney Mil

22nd Jan 2014, 20:37

awb,

Maybe a discount on their next examination then :ok:

Next question. Why on Earth did they want to do that?:confused:

awblain

22nd Jan 2014, 21:06

Presumably they volunteered, on the offer of some trivial inducement.

They weren't so badly off, being about 4000m away; as long as none of the crud came down, but drifted up and away.

I imagine the main risks were rocket and safety (safety? In 1957?) failure, leading to the warhead going off rather nearer than they expected, or some fallout catching them at the time or later.

Courtney Mil

22nd Jan 2014, 21:12

Well, yeah. But there would have been some hard radiation from the detonation. As you mentioned, X-Rays plus gamma, etc. Still seems a strange thing to do, without knowing the purpose, of course. That said, if someone tod them it was safe, perhaps it just seemed like a good idea at the time.

awblain

22nd Jan 2014, 22:43

Neutrons are the unusual dose they would have taken. Neither X-rays nor gamma will be coming through very strong after 4km of air, broadly equivalent to a couple of meters of water, despite the facetious film-rug statement.

There's some more information about them here:
Five Men Agree To Stand Directly Under An Exploding Nuclear Bomb : Krulwich Wonders... : NPR (http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2012/07/16/156851175/five-men-agree-to-stand-directly-under-an-exploding-nuclear-bomb)

All but one were officers, and presumably reasonably well-informed by the standards of the day.

rh200

22nd Jan 2014, 23:00

Next question. Why on Earth did they want to do that?

I was under the impression it was mainly a PR stunt. Keep the nervous natives calm. The threat of waves of incoming nuclear armed Soviet bombers could be taken out safely:p.

The cold war, what interesting times.

Lonewolf_50

23rd Jan 2014, 13:33

I agree with the USAF general on "where should we be spending our money?"

Tactical nuke certification on fighters/attack birds strikes me as the wrong place.

fieldsnail

23rd Jan 2014, 14:37

Reuters starting to report UK may order 14 F35B as early as next week:

'Their sources, who requested their names were not used because they were not authorized to speak publicly, said the order was for 14 aircraft and that the announcement could come before the end of January ahead of a visit by Britain's defence secretary, Philip Hammond, to Washington on February 4-6.'

kbrockman

24th Jan 2014, 08:45

Exclusive: Pentagon report faults F-35 on software, reliability | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/23/us-usa-lockheed-fighter-idUSBREA0M1L920140123)
(Reuters) - A new U.S. Defense Department report warns that ongoing software, maintenance and reliability problems with Lockheed Martin Corp's F-35 stealth fighter could delay the Marine Corps' plans to start using its F-35 jets by mid-2015.

The latest report by the Pentagon's chief weapons tester, Michael Gilmore, provides a detailed critique of the F-35's technical challenges, and focuses heavily on what it calls the "unacceptable" performance of the plane's software, according to a 25-page draft obtained by Reuters.

The report forecast a possible 13-month delay in completing testing of the Block 2B software needed for the Marine Corps to clear the jets for initial combat use next year, a priority given the high cost of maintaining current aging warplanes.
...
The report, due to be sent to Congress this week, said the aircraft is proving less reliable and harder to maintain than expected, and remains vulnerable to propellant fires sparked by missile strikes.

MARINES 2015 IOC, out the door?

OTHER CRITIQUES

Earlier this week, the nonprofit Center for International Policy said Lockheed had greatly exaggerated its estimate that the F-35 program sustained 125,000 U.S. jobs to shore up support for the program.

It said there is also little margin for any weight growth, and the airplane's increased use of electrical systems makes it vulnerable to lightning and missile strikes.

Bogdan said extensive studies had showed the plane's radar-evading capabilities, advanced sensors, ability to fuse data, advanced countermeasures and electronic attack equipment greatly reduced the chance that it would be hit by enemy fire.

That is one mighty big leap of faith, certainly knowing what happened to that other stealth bomber that got hit by a 1950's weapon over former Yugoslavia.

Monday, January 10, 2011
Dutch interview with military expert Pierre Sprey: "This is a very vulnerable airplane"

LowObservable

24th Jan 2014, 12:12

Probably best to wait for the full DOT&E report, but note two things:

1 - The Reuters reporter that KB links to has been very F-35-friendly lately, publishing stories that puff the jet's prospects in MidEast (not as long as there's one AIPAC lobbyist left standing, buster) and Asia-Pacific (more accurate to say that Korea and Japan are the high-water mark for the next decade) and uncritically reporting that the -35A cost is the same as the Super Hornet. The leak and the access to Bogdan look like a controlled detonation.

2 - An IOC slip would be a surprise to exactly nobody.

More F-35 Delays Predicted (http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_07_01_2013_p23-592154.xml)

peter we

26th Jan 2014, 09:03

Block '61' F-16 are priced at $200million. Each. :ooh:

UAE raises possible deal for "Block 61" F-16 - 1/24/2014 - Flight Global (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/uae-raises-possible-deal-for-quotblock-61quot-f-16-395235/)

LowObservable

26th Jan 2014, 11:14

Block '61' F-16 are priced at $200million. Each

No, they aren't. (And if they were, it would be a good argument against buying anything from LockMart since it's >2 x the price of an F-15.)

Whether or not the notional $5 billion is correct, the full deal also includes research and development for the Block 61 Mid Life Update and upgrade kits and installation for the existing fleet (60 aircraft minus a few losses).

The UAE is now recognizing the full costs of buying a unique aircraft configuration from a high-cost supplier. When it comes to MLU they have you over a barrel, because your options are to pay up or retire the jets. (If you have a vanilla F-16 you now have a choice between LMT and BAE Systems upgrades, thanks to the ROKs.)

I would be willing to bet that the UAE MLU unit cost will be more than the Swedes pay for turning 60 JAS 39Cs into 39Es (which is basically new airplane apart from the nameplate and a few miscellaneous parts), and it will take longer.

peter we

26th Jan 2014, 14:33

Thanks for clearing that up, any expert comment on this (unsurprising) report?

dna exclusive: 100% price escalation on Rafale fighter aircraft to Rs 1.75 lakh crore likely to dent IAF's strike capability - India - DNA (http://www.dnaindia.com/scitech/report-dna-exclusive-100pct-price-escalation-on-rafale-fighter-aircraft-to-rs-1-75-lakh-crore-likely-to-dent-iaf-s-strike-capability-1957107)

LowObservable

26th Jan 2014, 15:33

Anyone who would draw conclusions from a single report in the Indian press, which is (at least) no better than average when it comes to strategically planted propaganda, qualifies as an expert.

An expert :mad:er, that is.

PhilipG

26th Jan 2014, 16:16

How much of the reported price 'increase' in local currency, is due to the foreign exchange movements and how much , if any is due to factory gate inflation in France? Today 85 Rupee purchase 1 Euro, two years ago you only needed 65...

Bevo

26th Jan 2014, 23:37

Or it could be issues in India being able to develop/build the necessary manufacturing facilities.

Eighteen of the 126 planes will be purchased directly from Dassault, while Hindustan Aeronautics Limited will manufacture the other 108 under a licence, at an upcoming facility in Bangalore.

ORAC

27th Jan 2014, 08:09

AW&ST (Bill Sweetman): Math Is Hard (http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:e14a3e0c-3267-4c81-a2fd-01dff925bdf3)

Squirrel 41

27th Jan 2014, 13:49

Thanks ORAC - Sweetman all over the numbers, as usual. It shouldn't be a surprise that Dave is more expensive than SH; stealth isn't free. But it is telling that the Loren Thompsons of the world (aka LM JSF Booster-du-jour) are trying so hard to manipulate the numbers.... in another world, this could lead nasty cynics to think that there was something to hide.

S41

Courtney Mil

27th Jan 2014, 21:36

ORAC,

Thanks for posting that. I've read through it twice now and spent some time "doing the math". It's hard to find fault in his figures, although I'm sure someone will oblige with an explanation. As long as aid explanation comes with some equally compelling facts, I look forward to it.

I would still love to think that this new jet is worth it.

Think Defence

27th Jan 2014, 22:45

A counter to Bill

Elements of Power Blog - Math is Hard - Analysis is Even Harder

You might have to Google it because I can't get the link to embed for some reason

Rhino power

27th Jan 2014, 23:01

I can't get the link to embed for some reason

The forum software doesn't allow 'b l o g s p o t' in links for some weird reason...

-RP

kbrockman

28th Jan 2014, 00:06

That's a pretty weak reply and a questionable way of using
dubious accounting tricks to skew the costs of the F35 compared with the F18.
He's basically using 'economy cost' to try to prove that the F35 is really no more expensive than the F18SH which is nonsense.

Economy cost is actually a tool one might use to compare the cost-weight of big programs spanning multiple decades, eg; comparing the cost of the MANHATTAN project in the 40's with the APOLLO project in the 60-70's and the SHUTTLE program in the 80-90's would be a good example for using economy costs (essentially the weight of these programs on the total economy as a percentage of nominal GDP).

Comparing the cost of the F18SH and the 5-10yr younger F35, 2 fighters that will operate for most of their lives side by side is just ludicrous when trying to use the 'economy cost'-tool.

Between 2001 and 2013 the nominal GDP rose from 10,226 billion US$ to 16,912 billion US$ which means + 65% (even with a severe shrink in 2008), this does not mean that therefore it is justified that the F35 can cost more just because the economy got so much bigger, fact remains that the SH's main development costs are already written of and it can be produced and upgraded at least as long as the F35 if the need and orders require it to be.

the F35 is at least 40% more expensive and will, at best, always remain
that more expensive versus the F18SH, (with the current unresolved issues it could even become much more but let's give it the benefit of the doubt for now).

The question(s) remains up until today,
-Is this extra cost justified, how long and to what degree will its STEALTH characteristics be a deciding factor?
-What is the added value of a limited internal weapons load contrary to a therefore much increased clean drag due to a very bulky body ?
-Is this a real successor for LWF's like the F16/18/M2000, the A2G specialist aka the A10 or a true air dominance fighter like the F15 ?
-Does the fused sensor package really makes this F35 so exceptional or can it be partially or in its entirety be used on other platforms even older ones)?

And last but not least, something this blogger conveniently passes over as if not important, how about operational cost difference, the F35 does not fair well in this regard with other current fighters like the SH, something which is maybe more important in the long-run than the initial acquisition costs.

ORAC

28th Jan 2014, 07:27

:E:E The Kronies (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/369545/meet-some-state-unions-winners-kronies-veronique-de-rugy)

UdxBhJ0ceQw

NITRO104

28th Jan 2014, 09:03

And last but not least, something this blogger conveniently passes over as if not important...
Read the article but found no substance and a lot of flare which seems to be aimed at Sweetman's defamation.
From a quick blog overview it seems the author has serious misconceptions about the entire subject.
Posts are packed into an attractive eloquent package though. :}

LowObservable

28th Jan 2014, 20:39

Sarge Mac-and-Cheese is an online exemplar of the Dunning-Kruger effect...

Meanwhile, with bonus first-line link to the DOT&E....

Behind The Threatened F-35 Delays (http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:3c44fd3a-5cf2-4564-8a52-855d902cf829)

Block 3 IOC in 2020, anyone?

John Farley

29th Jan 2014, 08:26

Guys

Clearly there are a lot of people here trying to make points about the costs of this programme.

I would ask a couple of simple questions - and please before you answer imagine it is 2024 not 2014:

1 Could the US (and others) afford to have only today’s existing types and capabilities in service at that time?

2 Could the US (and others) afford to have no currency and ongoing R&D in the sort of technologies that are involved with this programme?

My answer is no to both and I suspect those actually in charge of defence feel the same otherwise they would have binned the programme way back.

Older people (and there are few older than me) have seen these issues crop up several times over the years.

LowObservable

29th Jan 2014, 11:28

John Farley

29th Jan 2014, 15:35

Lo.

I take your points but I believe that the USMC genuinely want to be an all STOVL force and have done so for a very long time (and whether they are right or wrong does not matter in this context). Therefore they are prepared to do/pay whatever is necessary to that end.

Personally I don't think they need stealth and supersonics for their STOVL ops and I suspect some of them would agree but having been gifted the UK aircraft
they are now able to see their way to 2027 without serious 35B availability.

Lucky them as it turned out.

Lyneham Lad

29th Jan 2014, 15:37

However, the F-35 brings two unique capabilities to the party: STOVL, and a degree of stealth that (I think most sources agree) is between that of a Rafale or Advanced Super Hornet and an F-22.

Except perhaps, this Rafale:-

Dassault completes first test flights of new 'heavily armed' Rafale (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/dassault-completes-first-test-flights-of-new-39heavily-armed39-395166/?)

Think Defence

29th Jan 2014, 20:12

So as an operator, I ask "do I want STOVL and how much is it worth?" and "I probably want to exploit stealth - but am I better off with F-35, or with Rafale/ASH levels + good EW + a few very stealthy UCAVs?"

I think that's two great questions LO but isn't the problem twofold

1. We are where are
2. That would depend on the advances in enemy AD systems over the next couple of decades

On the STOVL question, surely it comes down to the degree of flexibility you want for the price you are willing to pay for it and the true answer to that flexibility appetite is going to manifest itself infrequently

We can point to a number of instances ourselves where STOVL flexibility was in the 'more than nice to have' column so for the UK, a mix of Typhoon and F35B, plus a longer term goal of the mythical UCAV, seems like a pretty sensible option

Courtney Mil

29th Jan 2014, 20:31

...seems a pretty sensible option, as you say, as long as the trade-off for temporary, part-time stealth against range and payload et al is what you decide to choose. Not because it's all we have, because it's what you choose having weighed-up exactly what you requirement is and what you think it might be.

LowObservable

29th Jan 2014, 22:43

A lot of decisions can't be taken back. The UK is committed (see the story about the pig and the hen).

John, the only point I would raise - even though Spaz will have a Spaz - is that the Marines don't pay for anything. F-35B is on the Navy budget, but more important, I am not aware of anything the Marines have had to give up to get it. They still have their CH-53Ks and MV-22s and the large-deck amphib fleet is still aimed at 11 ships.

tdracer

30th Jan 2014, 00:12

It occurs to me that what the Marines need is a close air support aircraft. The A-10 is arguably the best close air support aircraft ever built, and it has neither speed nor stealth. The ability to go supersonic is of minimal value when the task is attacking ground targets, and stealth isn't all that helpful when the guys shooting at you have a visual lock.

Worse, the F-35 design makes it excessively vulnerable to ground fire (big, single engine, not a lot of redundancy). In short, the only feature the F-35 brings to the table that is of much value to the Marine mission is VSTOL (and that is a highly questionable need in the real world).
Perhaps what we really needed was to add VSTOL capability to the A-10 http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/badteeth.gif

I have several friends who worked on the Boeing JSF entry. Fourteen years ago - shortly after the Lockheed entry won out and effectively cancelled the Boeing entry - they all predicted that Lockheed wouldn't be able to build the F-35 for twice what they were quoting. What they claimed was that the features of the Lockheed entry that made it so appealing to the military types would also make it unaffordable.

So far, what I pretty much dismissed at the time as 'sour grapes,' is sounding pretty prophetic.http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/puppy_dog_eyes.gif

GreenKnight121

30th Jan 2014, 00:14

F-35B is on the Navy budget, but more important, I am not aware of anything the Marines have had to give up to get it. They still have their CH-53Ks and MV-22s and the large-deck amphib fleet is still aimed at 11 ships.

LO - here's some reality to observe:

01 January 2012: USMC = 202,000 personnel.

Pre-sequestration plan: 182,100 by 2016. That's a 10% reduction. The plan will reduce the number of infantry battalions to 23 from 27 to take account of the smaller size of the force. Aircraft squadrons would be reduced to 58 from the current 70. Three headquarters units also would be cut.
Marines to cut four battalions, 12 air squadrons | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/15/us-usa-defense-marines-idUSBRE82E00Y20120315)

Possible new total = 174,000 by 2016. That's a 14% reduction.
Commandant: USMC Should Shrink to 174,000 Under Sequestration | USNI News (http://news.usni.org/2013/09/17/commandant-usmc-shrink-174000-sequestration)

500N

30th Jan 2014, 00:16

"Perhaps what we really needed was to add VSTOL capability to the A-10 :}"

Or a dirty big cannon to an Osprey :}

GreenKnight121

30th Jan 2014, 00:23

To compare the numbers above, the USMC force size when I enlisted in July 1980 (pre-Reagan buildup) was 186,000 personnel - and 212,000 when I left active duty in June 1989.

John Farley

30th Jan 2014, 08:15

Lo

Yep I do realise that the USMC aircraft come out of the USN budget but they still have to 'pay' for wot they get - ie argue with the USN. With the original first year's buy of the AV-8A the USMC were so keen to have it when the USN said no they gave up a batch of F4s (24 if my memory serves) already agreed in their part of the USN budget.

ORAC

30th Jan 2014, 14:44

And the cuts everywhere else to pay for it continue to leak out, drip by drip.....

F-16 Upgrade Dropped From US Budget Proposal, Sources Say (http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140127/DEFREG/301270023/F-16-Upgrade-Dropped-From-US-Budget-Proposal-Sources-Say)

LowObservable

30th Jan 2014, 15:06

Not surprising. The problem is that everyone and his aunt will be able to jam the bejeesus out of APG-66/68 in the next few years.

Some time ago I started comparing the JSF to a fledgling cuckoo - in order to thrive, it has to toss all the other birdies out of the nest. And so it begins...

John Farley

30th Jan 2014, 15:07

Of course another perspective would be that it is nice to see that one of the insurance programs devised to cater for a failure of the F-35 development programme is now not considered necessary.

glad rag

30th Jan 2014, 17:53

Or possibly that the contract for the [Taiwanese] modifications were won by British Aerospace :suspect::suspect::suspect::suspect:

Heathrow Harry

31st Jan 2014, 14:06

LO - the UK maybe "committed" but those of us who lived through Sandys, the Labour Govt of the mid 60's etc etc know just how strong those "commitments" are

ORAC

2nd Feb 2014, 16:08

Canceled F-16 Upgrades Put Jet's Combat Value in Doubt (http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140202/DEFREG02/302020016/Canceled-F-16-Upgrades-Put-Jet-s-Combat-Value-Doubt)

Taiwan, Singapore Were Banking on Now-defunded Program

TAIPEI AND WASHINGTON — As officials in Taiwan’s Ministry of National Defense (MND) were busying themselves for Chinese New Year celebrations last week, they received potentially devastating news for the Pacific nation’s air defense plans. The US Air Force plans to defund the combat avionics programmed extension suite (CAPES) program, as budget constraints could force the service to move remaining money from CAPES to the F-16 service-life extension program (SLEP), according to sources. While a lower profile program in the US, CAPES has huge implications for Taiwan. The program would upgrade 300 US F-16s and 146 Taiwanese F-16s with top-line avionics. While more US F-16s would receive the upgrade, the Taiwan piece represents a larger percentage of its overall fighter fleet. And without the program, Taiwan could be stuck with an aging fleet of F-16s as it continues to worry over China’s intentions.........

“I would think this would increase the pressure on the US to approve new F-16s for Taiwan, but that option is fast disappearing if it hasn’t already,” said Ed Ross, former principal director, Security Cooperation Operations, US Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA). “All that would leave for Taiwan would be F-35s and, frankly, I don’t believe the US will ever approve F-35s for Taiwan.” Ross said the technology is too sensitive, “and there is a growing fear in Washington of US technology falling into Chinese hands one way or the other.” Ross said better relations between Beijing and Taipei has had unintended consequences, “one of which is the reduction in high-tech arms sales to Taiwan.”.......

“My guess is that the [Air Force] will do its best to come up with a solution, but Taiwan may not be able or willing to afford it,” Ross said. “I expect, at best, this will cause a major delay in the program,” he said. “Worst-case scenario, the F-16 upgrade program gets canceled or indefinitely delayed and Taiwan is left with an aging fleet of A/Bs. With no new F-16C/Ds approved for Taiwan, its Air Force is up a creek with not much of a paddle; and I’m not sure there is anyone in the Obama administration that gives much of a damn,” said Ross, president of the consultancy EWRoss International...........

ORAC

2nd Feb 2014, 16:26

Some Embarrassing Details From the Pentagon’s Latest Stealth Fighter Report (https://medium.com/war-is-boring/2ef94297330d)

Delayed, over-budget F-35 still riddled with flaws

The Pentagon’s latest weapons testing report is not kind to the $400-billion F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the military’s biggest and arguably most troubled program. The annual report by the Office of the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation includes 20 pages listing the Lockheed Martin-built JSF’s ongoing problems.

A jack-of-all-trades radar-evading jet meant to replace no fewer than 2,400 existing fighters in the U.S. Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps, the F-35 has been dogged by budget overruns, schedule delays and redesigns. Overly complex in order to satisfy the diverse needs of three military branches, the F-35 is slower, less durable and less reliable than many of the planes it’s slated to replace. Most damningly, the 2013 test report predicts months of delays in the development of the F-35’s millions of lines of software, which could cause the Marine Corps and Air Force to miss their planned first deployments of combat-ready JSFs in 2015 and 2016, respectively.

But the DOT&E report also includes lots of other embarrassing details.

Only one third of F-35s are flight-ready

The military manages to keep around three quarters of its warplanes ready for flight at any given time. Even the Air Force’s devilishly complex F-22 stealth fighter—another Lockheed product—is ready 69 percent of the time.

But the roughly 50 F-35s in test or training squadrons in Florida, California, Nevada and Arizona are ready just a third of the time, on average. That’s because the jets need frequent design fixes and because Lockheed’s automated supply system isn’t working.

Now, it’s not uncommon for a new warplane to start out a tad unreliable and get more ready over time. But the F-35 has been flying in one form or another off and on for 14 years. “The design is becoming more stable and opportunities for reliability growth are decreasing,” the report notes. “While the relatively low number of flight hours shows there is still time for program reliability to improve,” the report continues, “this is not likely to occur without a focused, aggressive and well-resourced effort.”

Which is to say, making the JSF more flight-ready is going to also make its development more expensive.

The F-35 will get you lost

The JSF is designed to fly and fight against the most determined foe—even a foe capable of jamming or destroying America’s Global Positioning System satellites, depriving U.S. forces of their preferred way of knowing exactly where they are in the world. But the F-35’s independent “inertial” navigation gear—which determines the plane’s position by constantly computing starting point, direction, speed and time—is off by a few degrees. That’s just enough to make it useless in combat. “These errors prevent accurate targeting solutions for weapons employment in a GPS-denied environment,” the Pentagon warns.

A software fix is in the works, but “further flight testing will be required.” Again, that takes time and money.

The JSF’s main air-to-air missile doesn’t fully work—and it’s not clear why

The F-35 needs three basic weapons in order to be cleared for combat in 2015: a laser-guided bomb, a satellite-guided bomb and the AIM-120 air-to-air missile.

The nav system problems slowed the addition of the satellite bomb—basically, the munition didn’t know where to land. That, at least, was a known unknown—and engineers were able to solve it with a “fix in the mission systems software,” according to the report. But the AIM-120 isn’t working on the F-35, either. And in contrast to the bomb problem, testers have not been able to resolve the missile issue because they can’t quite duplicate it. “Problems involving integration of the AIM-120 medium-range missile have been difficult to replicate in lab and ground testing,” the report notes.

It is, in other words, an unknown unknown. And who can say what the solution is.

The F-35 confuses itself

To defend against increasingly sophisticated Russian- and Chinese-made air defenses, the JSF includes a cluster of high-tech cameras and sensors able to detect incoming missiles—and automatically deploy heat-generating flares or radar-foiling chaff to spoof the enemy guidance. But the so-called “Distributed Aperture System” doesn’t work. “The DAS has displayed a high false alarm rate for missile detections during ownship and formation flare testing,” the testing report reveals. Basically, the system cannot tell the difference between an enemy missile and one of the F-35’s own hot flares.

Imagine the feedback loop that could result. An F-35’s DAS detects an incoming missile and pops flares. DAS then mistakes those flares for another missile and pops more flares, then still more flares to spoof them. So on and so on until the F-35 runs out of countermeasures … and is defenceless.

It takes just one bullet fragment to shoot down an F-35B

The Marines’ F-35B variant includes a built-in vertical lift fan—a downward-blasting engine—to allow the plane to take off of and land on the Navy’s small amphibious assault ships. But adding a bulky lift fan made the JSF heavier, more complex and easier to shoot down.

That’s especially true for F-35Bs flying low to support Marine infantry on the ground. A lone enemy soldier firing a single bullet could seriously damage an F-35B. “Analysis showed that fragment-induced damage could result in the release of more than 25 percent of a single lift fan blade, resulting in a catastrophic … system failure,” the DOT&E report warns. And if the F-35B has to fly through high-tech air defenses in order to reach the beachhead, it’s even more likely to get shot down. “More severe threats, encountered at low altitude or in air-to-air gun engagements, will likely cause catastrophic damage.”

All this means that even if the JSF manages to meet its 2015 deployment deadline, it could fly into combat unreliable, confused, defenseless, toothless and vulnerable.

HardBall21

2nd Feb 2014, 21:44

John,

I agree to both 1 and 2. Operators need to spend money on new technology.

However, the F-35 brings two unique capabilities to the party: STOVL, and a degree of stealth that (I think most sources agree) is between that of a Rafale or Advanced Super Hornet and an F-22.

I will even cede that (probably not in Block 3 but possibly in Block 5 by 2024) it will have better sensor-fusion and networking smarts that anything in service today. However, that's something that is retrofittable.

The question "are STOVL and F-35 stealth worth the money?" was never supposed to be relevant, because the F-35 was promised to be cheaper to buy and operate than anything else. Costs are now crucial, because the price of F-35 is cutting force numbers.

So as an operator, I ask "do I want STOVL and how much is it worth?" and "I probably want to exploit stealth - but am I better off with F-35, or with Rafale/ASH levels + good EW + a few very stealthy UCAVs?"

Hypothetically say that we decide to cancel the F-35 program, would there be a mix of 4.5 and 5th gen aircraft that could work.

If say we can restart the production of F-22s, and double the # of Raptors in service, that should ameliorate some of the issues of not having stealth LWF and medium range interdiction. Along with purchasing more 4.5 G type aircraft (Superhornet, F-15E, Rafale, etc), seems should be sufficient for US and allies until 2040 or so. Does that sound like a workable solution?

West Coast

3rd Feb 2014, 00:15

The callsign of the 4.5 guys will be bullet catcher. Bet AF guys will overlook the obogs issue to get the F-22.

GreenKnight121

3rd Feb 2014, 04:41

A lone enemy soldier firing a single bullet could seriously damage an F-35B.

That is also true for every jet fighter or strike aircraft in the whole &%$## world!

LowObservable

3rd Feb 2014, 11:57

GK - Not quite true.

There is a vulnerability spec for the F-35 (as for all US fighters since VN, I believe, hence the live-fire testing) that probably includes something to the effect that no single projectile or fragment (from an AAM or SAM warhead) above x grams and y meters/sec shall cause loss of aircraft.

The lift fan is light (no high-speed birdstrike requirement) and relatively exposed. The risk identified by DOT&E is that the fan is damaged and nobody knows it, and consequently fails just when the flight/propulsion control system thinks that it is starting to produce thrust, and as the aft nozzle is moving downwards. Result: large pitch moment that there is nothing to counteract.

How important this is in the big survivability picture, I don't know. But the spec is there and presumably this is a risk of a miss, because that's what DOT&E's terms of rerference are.

ORAC

3rd Feb 2014, 14:10

GK/LO.

I believe the comments on survivability relate to the increased risk as a result of removing the fueldraulic valves and PAO shut-off valves and dry bay fire suppression (http://www.worldtribune.com/2013/01/15/pentagon-reports-major-defects-in-all-f-35-variants/) as a weight saving measure. All of which they want restored but without a weight increase.

That's in addition to the OBOGS system not being able to maintain fuel tank inerting through critical portions of a flight profile (http://www.navytimes.com/article/20130114/NEWS/301140305/Report-Lightning-a-threat-to-the-F-35). Resulting not only in the combat risk, but the F-35 being currently unable to fly in forecast lightning conditions...

But apart from that, it's OK.........

PhilipG

3rd Feb 2014, 14:30

Can anyone enlighten me as to how LM is going to get the F35B past the MoD?

Thinking of the software problems with the Chinooks, C130 fuel tanks and the present problems that seem to be arising with the Rivet Joint(s)?

There must be some way that LM have to show that the aircraft is slightly fit for purpose, I would have thought that not being yet able to fire its main armament and not really knowing where it was, if we are to believe the quoted report make the aircraft slightly unsuitable for deployment from a carrier...

NITRO104

3rd Feb 2014, 14:56

“The DAS has displayed a high false alarm rate for missile detections during ownship and formation flare testing,” the testing report reveals. Basically, the system cannot tell the difference between an enemy missile and one of the F-35’s own hot flares.

This is a very serious and complex problem indeed, which is why some users called for an active MAWS.
25 or so years ago, some super smart mathematicians did a camo pattern study for the grunts, using the smartest computers of the time.
The result was that the 'computer' actually managed to construct the worst pattern, as reported from forward observers, the testers in this case.

This is just to illustrate the complexity of the recognition algorithms issue in general. LANTRIN had serious issues in Bosnia and now JSF has 5 of them pointing more or less down. :}
False alarm rate is bound to be astronomic if you want sensitivity.

In other news,
2015 budget preview ? Army-Guard fight gets ugly ? OSD turns down Navy request to take a ?break? from F-35 - POLITICO Morning Defense - POLITICO.com (http://www.politico.com/morningdefense/0214/morningdefense12888.html)

Rumor has it...USN wants out?

LowObservable

3rd Feb 2014, 15:09

Nitro - Politico report is the capstone on rumors since last summer - the USN put a three-year delay in F-35C at least (probably the B as well) into its ALT POM, the budget proposal that anticipated the real budget. (The baseline assumed more money that the Pentagon will get.)

Hence also the barrage of propaganda from LMT and its representatives about how cheap the F-35 will be compared to the F/A-18 - that is, as long as production plans are not changed by one iota.

The Navy is not ready to say/has not decided that it wants out completely. However, there seems to be strong feeling that the F-35C will not be much better than F-18 until it gets a couple of blocks beyond Block 3F (which itself does not arrive before 2019-20).

SpazSinbad

3rd Feb 2014, 16:56

Start of a momentous year for Carrier project 3 February 2014 David Downs
"...On the upper deck, the catwalks around the edge of the flight deck are being prepared and will shortly be painted with a heat resistant paint scheme. This will survive the thermal effects of the exhaust of an F35 jet while hovering on the approach to a vertical landing. This work also entails application of the thermal metal spray coating to the edges of the flight deck. This coating system will later be applied across the whole flight deck....

...Meanwhile recognising that access to the ship and craneage is much easier while the ship is in the dry dock, served by the Goliath crane, than when afloat in the non-tidal basin, the chance is being taken to install anything that might be difficult to do later. This includes the platform at the stern for the SPN 41 Precision Approach Radar, the seating’s for the Glide Path Cameras and some CCTV cameras. It looks like 2014 is going to be another busy but very interesting year."
Start of a momentous year for Carrier project | Opinion | The Engineer (http://www.theengineer.co.uk/home/blog/guest-blog/start-of-a-momentous-year-for-carrier-project/1017934.article#ixzz2sGrXdsvd)
"Queen Elizabeth in drydock, with the [Lower Portion of the] bow section of Prince of Wales alongside"
http://www.theengineer.co.uk/pictures/482xAny/P/web/f/a/i/carrier_500.jpg

awblain

3rd Feb 2014, 17:22

It's not a huge surprise that flares dazzle IR cameras, no more so than it is that searchlights take away night vision adaption. The direction the flares go is the opposite to that of an incoming missile; however, you still can't see little distant sparks through the big nearby ones. Not firing repeated flares because it can still see flares should be a relatively easy fix.

How does it react to being dazzled with IR lasers? Does it fire off all its flares like a christmas tree, potentially providing a detection method? Then again... from behind it's bright and hot anyway, providing a detection method.

Just This Once...

3rd Feb 2014, 18:22

The F-35 will get you lost

The JSF is designed to fly and fight against the most determined foe—even a foe capable of jamming or destroying America’s Global Positioning System satellites, depriving U.S. forces of their preferred way of knowing exactly where they are in the world. But the F-35’s independent “inertial” navigation gear—which determines the plane’s position by constantly computing starting point, direction, speed and time—is off by a few degrees. That’s just enough to make it useless in combat. “These errors prevent accurate targeting solutions for weapons employment in a GPS-denied environment,” the Pentagon warns.

A software fix is in the works, but “further flight testing will be required.” Again, that takes time and money.

As an aside, I wonder why the F-35 and F-22 do not use a Stellar-Inertial Navigation System to help avoid the GPS-denied problem?

ORAC

3rd Feb 2014, 18:25

Sounds great, if your on top of the cloud deck........

Just This Once...

3rd Feb 2014, 18:47

Orac, they do work in surprisingly difficult conditions and are fitted to a number of platform types.

ORAC

3rd Feb 2014, 18:52

DARPA are working on something a bit smaller and internal (http://gpsworld.com/northrop-grumman-demonstrates-micro-gyro-prototype-for-darpa-program/)....

awblain

3rd Feb 2014, 21:26

Surely installing a high-functioning INS isn't beyond the wit of the F35's huge marching army?

LowObservable

3rd Feb 2014, 22:17

Astro-inertial is making a comeback here and there, with the advent of cheaper and better electro-optics. If the EO-DAS was half as good as they say it is, they could use those sensors as star trackers...

ORAC

4th Feb 2014, 08:04

New Tests Find Significant Cracking In The F-35 (http://www.businessinsider.com/tests-find-cracking-in-the-new-f-35-2014-1)

The U.S. Defense Department’s newest and most advanced fighter jet has cracked during testing and isn’t yet reliable for combat operations, the Pentagon’s top weapons tester said in new report.

The entire F-35 fleet was grounded last February after a crack was discovered in a turbine blade of an F-35A. While the order was subsequently lifted, more cracks have been discovered in other areas and variants of the Lockheed Martin Corp.-made plane, according to the latest annual report by J. Michael Gilmore, director of Operational Test and Evaluation.

Durability testing of the F-35A, the Air Force’s version of the plane designed to take off and land on conventional runways, and the F-35B, the Marine Corps’ model that can take off like a plane and land like a helicopter, revealed “significant findings” of cracking in engine mounts, fuselage stiffeners, and bulkhead and wing flanges, according to the document. A bulkhead actually severed at one point, it states.

“All of these discoveries will require mitigation plans and may include redesigning parts and additional weight,” Gilmore wrote in the report.

The F-35C, the Navy’s version of the plane designed to take off and land on aircraft carriers, has also had cracks in the floor of the avionics bay and power distribution center and, like the F-35B, in the so-called jack point stiffener, according to the document.

The hardware problems, along with ongoing delays in software development, among other issues, led Gilmore to conclude that the fifth-generation fighter jet’s “overall suitability performance continues to be immature, and relies heavily on contractor support and workarounds unacceptable for combat operations.”..........

cuefaye

4th Feb 2014, 09:28

I'm told that these issues described by ORAC are of recent and huge concern at Samlesbury.

kbrockman

4th Feb 2014, 09:52

This is the reason we, the smaller single fighter type nations have no real use for the F35, it needs an air superiority fighter to do its job optimally according to the USAF.
Air Combat Command's challenge: Buy new or modernize older aircraft | Air Force Times | airforcetimes.com (http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20140202/NEWS04/302020005)
Q. What about upgrades to the F-22?

A. The F-22, when it was produced, was flying with computers that were already so out of date you would not find them in a kid’s game console in somebody’s home gaming system. But I was forced to use that because that was the spec that was written by the acquisition process when I was going to buy the F-22.

Then, I have to go through the [service life extension plan] and [cost and assessment program evaluation] efforts with airplanes to try to get modern technology into my legacy fleet. That is why the current upgrade programs to the F-22 I put easily as critical as my F-35 fleet. If I do not keep that F-22 fleet viable, the F-35 fleet frankly will be irrelevant. The F-35 is not built as an air superiority platform. It needs the F-22. Because I got such a pitifully tiny fleet, I’ve got to ensure I will have every single one of those F-22s as capable as it possibly can be.

Also this is how far the USAF is tied to the faith of the F35, and probably the reason why the US NAVY is not allowed to look for alternatives,
Q. Are there any programs you would fight tooth and nail for in the budget?

A. I am going to fight to the death to protect the F-35 because I truly believe the only way we will make it through the next decade is with a sufficient fleet of F-35s.

If you gave me all the money I needed to refurbish the F-15 and the F-16 fleets, they would still become tactically obsolete by the middle of the next decade. Our adversaries are building fleets that will overmatch our legacy fleet, no matter what I do, by the middle of the next decade.

I have to provide an Air Force that in the middle of the next decade has sufficient fifth-generation capability that whatever residual fourth-generation capability I still have is viable and tactically useful. I am willing to trade the refurbishment of the fourth gen to ensure that I continue to get that fifth-gen capability.

I am fighting to the end, to the death, to keep the F-35 program on track. For me, that means not a single airplane cut from the program, because every time our allies and our partners see the United States Air Force back away, they get weak in the knees.

Q. So you remain committed to the 1,763 figure that has come out?

A. Absolutely. Not one plane less.

The part bolded and underlined is IMHO an enormous overstatement of the future capabilities of the most potent adversaries the USAF and partners are likely to face, namely the Chinese and Russian forces.
China just decided on going with 1,200 J10's as their main fighter in addition to a number of land and sea-based SU27 derivatives, the J20 will most likely be a stealthy bomber in low volumes and the J31 will only be for export, so not very likely to be very cutting edge.
The PAK-FA is a long way from being a viable adversary, certainly when we look at the comments coming from INDIA and the Russians are nowhere near capable of fielding any kind of credible aerial opposition against any of the biggest western forces.
Fact is that the most likely adversaries will be MiG29 and SU27 derivatives for a long time to come, even some latest upgraded MiG21's, MIII and a couple of other types might be used for many years to come.

The SAM threat is unlikely to be fooled by current stealth technologies past 2020, certainly not by fighters like the F35 which have only a limited amount of all aspect stealth and certainly nothing to hide its enormous heat signature.

Also interesting to know that while the USAF is unlikely to upgrade its legacy fighters any time soon, it most certainly is planning on keeping them in use for many years to come, the current overhaul program may have been put on hold for now but I wouldn't be surprised if in a decade or so it is back on the table, certainly knowing that a large amount of F16's are in use al around the world and will most likely not be replaced for another 20-30 years.

The idea that an 80's USSR designed fighter with all the possible updates (with all due respect) is going to outperform our latest fighters , also with added kit & capabilities is just plain ridiculous.
As long as we invest cleverly in our men (training, education,...) and use our money wisely when it comes to equipment, we will keep the edge for a long time to come.
The F35 is just not the right tool for most of the smaller air forces, better (read more economically sustainable but potent enough) solutions are available and should be considered.

I can see why the UK likes its F35's, the way the carrier(s) are going to be set up just makes the F35B the winner by default, same goes for the MARINES and maybe also all the other forces that want fixed wing on non CATOBAR carriers.
The USAF always liked big fighters ,why , I don't really know ???
They hated the F16 and A10 but smarter people where able to force their hand, that option has gone now and the F35 has no real competition in the USAF.
The NAVY seems to be not really in love with the whole F365 idea but are forced to order to keep production volumes up.

For nations like HOLLAND, NORWAY, DANMARK, BELGIUM, CANADA and even AUSTRALIA,... it just seems like complete overkill in one way and underachievement in another way.
The South KOREANS decision of going for the F35 iso EF or F15 is just plain bonkers.

PhilipG

4th Feb 2014, 10:13

I keep wondering about the 1,763 number of F35As that the USAF "Needs".
If as seems likely, the USAF wants to take the A10 out of service, closing down the whole logistical and training chain to make the required savings, implicitly thus reducing the USAF headcount, there will be no need, personnel, or indeed funding, to replace these A10 squadrons with more expensive F35A squadrons, that must have an impact on the unit costs...

LowObservable

4th Feb 2014, 10:58

I don't pay much attention to the 1763 number, for one reason:

The Congresscritters who vote on the last 800 or so of them are still serving their time in aides' offices, on school boards and in state legislatures, and the late 2020s (the buy years) are as far away from us as the year 2000, when you had to talk into a telephone, your data ran at a screaming 56 kb/sec and you could get on an airplane without being groped by high-school-dropout members of the Waffle-SS.

glad rag

4th Feb 2014, 17:50

A bulkhead actually severed at one point, it states. pfft nothing to be concerned about, a few squillion $$ worth of Araldite will not only fix but improve the airframe.

http://mi.vidyasury.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/ignorance-is-bliss.jpg

CoffmanStarter

4th Feb 2014, 18:16

Very amusing :ok:

F-35 Delayed After Fourth Prototype Becomes Self-Aware And Has To Be Destroyed

Duffelblog (http://www.duffelblog.com/2014/02/f35-delays-sentience/)

Rhino power

5th Feb 2014, 13:15

You beat me to it Coff, I was jus about to post this latest, troubling news myself! :}

-RP

kbrockman

5th Feb 2014, 19:44

deleted Irrelevant post

SpazSinbad

5th Feb 2014, 20:10

The 'kbrockman' above link is to 05 Jan 2012 news?

Here is something much better. Great footage of the F-35 - the guys? - not so much....

The jet that ate the Pentagon 03 Feb 2014
"bravenewfilms
F-35 Bad Deal (http://www.f35baddeal.com/) "
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTF_a1DuIyE

kbrockman

5th Feb 2014, 20:12

You are absolutely right, the ADM Venlet reference should've been a clue

Lonewolf_50

5th Feb 2014, 21:30

The c*nts in the little youtube clip talk about "war profiteering" and use some buzzwords that make me want to slap them with a fish. These are sensationalist sorts who cherry pick quotes and do all of the dishonest things journos do.

That said, their core message isn't all wrong.

I am on board with the criticisms of the program that was already eating a sizeable portion of acquisition budget over ten years ago. JSF was the 800 pound gorilla in the room that basically aced out two modest programs I was working on. We were in meetings to do with how and where the first training base was to be chosen, how and where the maintenance training site was to be chosen, and much else that was non trivial in terms of planning and programming. The number of attendees at these conferences was in three digits.

The other two programs never got more than a dozen people in a room.

There is some truth in the "F-35 is the plane that ate the Pentagon."
Three of our four services have significant monies tied up into it, sunk costs, and the prospect of it being continually expensive to own and operate. :mad:

Turbine D

5th Feb 2014, 23:01

Lonewolf_50
There is some truth in the "F-35 is the plane that ate the Pentagon."
I am a firm believer in learning from history, nothing describes the F-35 Program better than this:

January 17, 2014, 53 Years To The Day That Eisenhower Warned Of The Military-Industrial Complex

In the councils of government, 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. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

One has to be brainwashed or brain dead to believe the F-35 program represents anything more than a boondoggle for the complex at taxpayer's expense.

GreenKnight121

6th Feb 2014, 02:49

There is some truth in the "F-35 is the plane that ate the Pentagon."
One has to be brainwashed or brain dead to believe the F-35 program represents anything more than a boondoggle for the complex at taxpayer's expense.

U.S. Military Aircraft Programs | Spending, Purchases, Sequestration (http://www.bga-aeroweb.com/DoD-Aircraft-Programs.html)

Lets see... of a total of $351bn in 2012 the US spent a total of $9.1623bn on the entire F-35 program.

That's 2.61% of total expenditures for the year.

In 2012 the US spent $3.4986bn on the various H-60 models, $2.9849 on the V-22, $2.9115bn on the P-8A, $2.5163bn on the F/A-18, $2.5065bn on the C-130, and so on.

The site above contains links for the other parts of the DOD budget as well.

For example, in FY2013 the USN spent $4.87bn on the DDG-51 program, $4.81bn on the Virginia-class SSN program, and $2.33bn on the LCS program.

But lets not let facts and reality get in the way of a good paranoid anti-defense industry rant.

Biggus

6th Feb 2014, 08:29

There are lies, damned lies and statistics. Like everything else, it depends on how you look at it.

Presumably $351bn is the total US defence budget, this includes bullets, beans, wages, fuel, etc and an element for the procurement of new assets. The largest portion of the budget will be spend on running and maintaining current assets and personnel, how big is the procurement budget?

If $9bn was spent on the F-35, then presumably this almost all came under the heading of procurement spending? What % of the procurement budget is being spent on the F-35, possibly to the detriment of other projects.

With regard to your comparison with spending on other aircraft, if, for example, $2.51bn was spent on the F/A-18, how many operational airframes was this expenditure spread over, compared to the 100 odd non operational F-35s? Is it in the region of 300-400 F/A-18s? So a comparison of cost per airframe between spending on F-35 and F-18 might be nearer 10:1.

Presumably spending on F-35 will also ramp up as production increases further...

ORAC

6th Feb 2014, 09:38

Navy F-35 Set For Sea Trials After Tailhook Redesign (http://www.nasdaq.com/article/navy-f35-set-for-sea-trials-after-tailhook-redesign-20140205-00953)

The naval version of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is due to start flight tests on an aircraft carrier at sea in October after Lockheed Martin Corp. said it had fixed the tailhook used to arrest the plane's landing on a ship's deck. Lockheed was forced to redesign the tailhook, and said Wednesday that the naval version of the advanced jet--known as the F-35C--was "on schedule and progressing well for sea trials" after a test plane successfully landed 36 times with the new version during trials on land...........

The Pentagon on Wednesday cautiously welcomed progress on the carrier version of the jet after the testing of the new tailhook, which has a different shape to catch the arresting wires used to slow and halt the plane on landing. "We're not declaring victory. We have a lot more testing to do and more data to collect, but the initial results have been promising," said a spokesman for the F-35 Joint Program Office in an emailed statement.

The landing system faces another three to four months of land testing before being cleared for sea trials on the USS Nimitz, currently scheduled for October.......

SpazSinbad

6th Feb 2014, 10:04

Slightly different story here:

Navy’s F-35 Tailhook Passes Initial Tests; Carrier Flights In October 05 Feb 2014 Colin Clark
"...Joe DellaVedova, F-35 program spokesman, said in an email. “We’re not declaring victory but last month (9 to 16 Jan) the F-35 team accomplished 36 successful roll-in arrestment tests at Lakehurst with the redesigned F-35C arresting hook system on CF-3.”

CF-3 is the first F-35C to be fitted with the redesigned Arresting Hook System, as it’s formally known. The plane has returned to the Navy’s Patuxent River test facility where for the next three to four months it will undergo “field-based ship suitability tests, including fly-in arrestments.” Those tests are expected to lead to a certification of the F-35C for carrier flight trials, planned for October aboard the USS Nimitz (CVN-68)....

...Here’s some background on the tail hook problem. The initial design did not reliably engage the cable and wasn’t strong enough. “Improved damping and optimized hookpoint shape addressed part one,” DellaVedova said. And they basically redesigned the tail hook and made it, and where it connects with the airframe, much stronger."
Navy?s F-35 Tailhook Passes Initial Tests; Carrier Flights In October « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary (http://breakingdefense.com/2014/02/navys-f-35-tailhook-passes-initial-tests-carrier-flights-in-october/)

LowObservable

6th Feb 2014, 12:44

GK121's numbers are indeed distorted. Not exactly sure what the $351 billion is (less than the based defense budget) but what is important is that the F-35 program is $13.2 billion in FY18 and rises to $14.5 bn in 2021, sustaining that level throughout the 2020s.

This is one-third of the current budget for all aircraft R&D, production and modernization. No way can it be covered without reducing force numbers and (most likely) deferring any other major new programs.

PS - On the roll-in tests: "Good news" for the F-35 is now "catastrophe avoided". I don't recall such a release being issued for the Super Hornet, or any previous Navy program.

Not_a_boffin

6th Feb 2014, 14:27

PS - On the roll-in tests: "Good news" for the F-35 is now "catastrophe avoided". I don't recall such a release being issued for the Super Hornet, or any previous Navy program

In the interests of balance, ISTR the SuperBug had one or two issues of its own back in the day, yet I don't recall the SH programme being subjected to quite the same level of Pte Fraser commentary with every developmental and test snag.

If the commentariat screams that the sky is falling, it can hardly complain when someone points out that its fall has now been arrested (sorry!).

Heathrow Harry

6th Feb 2014, 15:47

the trouble is the saga just goes on and on and on and.....

it has been a few years from in service for over a decade

I'm struggling to think of a major US programme that has taken so long and not delivered anything ..........

tdracer

6th Feb 2014, 16:11

The problems with the tailhook and a pricey new pilot helmet had become symbolic of broader issues with the F-35 program as the complexity of trying to develop three different models simultaneously with a high level of shared parts led to a cascade of technical problems and cost overruns.

So, making three different models with a high level of shared parts has lead to cost overruns? Wasn't the whole idea of having multiple models of the same airplane with a high level of commonality supposed to DECREASE costs, not INCREASE costs?

It appears that what we've ended up with is three versions of the same airplane - none particularly good at their primary mission due to the compromises necessary to allow commonality with the other two versions - which is costing more and taking longer to develop than would have been the case for three unique, mission specific aircraft that shared common technologies.

Brilliant, absolutely brilliant :ugh::ugh::ugh:

I wonder if it's too late to build more F-22s. They may have been expensive, but at least it was able to effectively perform their primary mission.:rolleyes:

Not_a_boffin

6th Feb 2014, 17:04

So, making three different models with a high level of shared parts has lead to cost overruns? Wasn't the whole idea of having multiple models of the same airplane with a high level of commonality supposed to DECREASE costs, not INCREASE costs?

It appears that what we've ended up with is three versions of the same airplane - none particularly good at their primary mission due to the compromises necessary to allow commonality with the other two versions - which is costing more and taking longer to develop than would have been the case for three unique, mission specific aircraft that shared common technologies.

The decrease in costs was only ever likely to occur in terms of in-service support (although qualification could be expected to have played a part).

I wouldn't necessarily disagree with your second statement however. It's at least worth a look in hindsight, although the up-front NRE of running three broadly concurrent programmes would likely be beyond anybody's budget, even assuming the people to actually execute the task could be found.....

ORAC

6th Feb 2014, 17:07

So, making three different models with a high level of shared parts has lead to cost overruns? Wasn't the whole idea of having multiple models of the same airplane with a high level of commonality supposed to DECREASE costs, not INCREASE costs? As the Rand Corp (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-17/lockheed-f-35-bad-deal-as-one-jet-for-all-report-finds.html). as pointed out, it was inevitable.

They'd learn't the lesson from the TFX/F-111 programme, till the snake-oil salesmen came around and told them laws of nature had changed. The first column here (http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1971/1971%20-%200233.html) before the conclusions here should give pause for thought......

SpazSinbad

6th Feb 2014, 17:12

Over page 'LO' said:
"...PS - On the roll-in tests: "Good news" for the F-35 is now "catastrophe avoided". I don't recall such a release being issued for the Super Hornet, or any previous Navy program."

I do not recall anyone complaining about the 'three years' taken to fully test the SHornet hook either. Already pointed out on this forum AFAIK. As far a press releases go I wish there were more, especially in olden tymes for the F-111 for Oz. OMG that took a lifetime to arrive in these dog internet years nowadays. AND what a dog it turned out to be. Who knew. :}:}

LowObservable

6th Feb 2014, 19:32

HH - Too true. The official schedule in late 08 called for full Block 3 IOT&E (the official end of SDD) to be finished in early '14, just under six years.

Today, the "threshold" date - the likely one - for that is August 2019 - just over five years. If DOT&E is right, and he has not been proven overly pessimistic yet, this will slip another year.

So yes, the program has made no progress at all (in terms of being nearer to getting finished) in the past six years.

Spaz - Ref the F-111: we are now 12+ years into the JSF development contract. The last F-111 was delivered 14 years after the development contract was signed. And while it wasn't a complete dog, it didn't live up to expectations since the Navy F-111B was canned, and neither the 158 As nor the 96 Ds (out of 563 aircraft) were much use for anything.

WhiteOvies

6th Feb 2014, 19:36

PhillipG,

Way back down the comments you asked how the F-35 was going to 'get past' the MOD, or more specifically the MAA.

The answer is with continuing a lot of hard work by people at Abbey Wood, Crystal City, Pax River, Eglin, Edwards and Beaufort (I'll add Warton and Samlesbury too!).

What helps is that the UK has had design and programme input from the very early days of F-35B, have had RN and RAF engineers working hands-on with F-35 for over 5 years, have had the MAA involved early and the fact that the F-35 is built in the era of safety cases and risk matrices (unlike Airseeker).

A lot of work continues to go on but we have 3 aircraft already flying on UK Military Flight Test Permits, on the UK register. Despite the comments F-35 is the only current UK aircraft with a modern AESA radar so a lot of work is done keeping the MAA up to date with the technology involved. UK personnel embedded with Flight Test, including Sea Trials and Handler trials have fed back info that should make QEC integration easier.

There is still have a way to go but the UK has a lot of very good people slogging hard to make this jet a success for the UK.

Willard Whyte

6th Feb 2014, 19:42

Despite the comments F-35 is the only current UK aircraft with a modern AESA radar

Almost completely irrelevant. It certainly has nothing to do with the numerous airframe, and any flight performance, issues.

It cannot be denied, nor I'm sure would anyone seek to, that software these days is a considerable development (i.e. cost) fraction of any new aircraft. If only it were the only problem.

There is still have a way to go but the UK has a lot of very good people slogging hard to make this jet a success for the UK.

No one is criticising the nanny for looking after an ugly baby.

SpazSinbad

6th Feb 2014, 20:21

Unnatural Acts of Landing The Kneeboard | Spring 2012 Page 4
"...Ground Loads Testing... Its sink rate (how fast it descends) is high (as much as 26 feet per second!)...

...During Super Hornet development, Ground Loads Testing required 125 test flights, 370 catapult launches, 471 traps, and three years to complete. Incidents included blown tires and various airplane parts (other than the wheels and tailhook) hitting the deck."
http://api.ning.com/files/8OBnZkm85rrIMYQKeV*ggLdFOJeVqjQZZd6TVym3edKjcGDND6Xeiz4Pmo1q dQel3UuSwHY4oOAYEPGPr3FYJaGwJlDafX1q/KneeboardSpring2012.pdf (1Mb)

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

Lonewolf_50

6th Feb 2014, 20:42

GreenKnight, I appreciate what you are saying, but those Blackhawks were actually delivered and actually did something for the operational forces. The Army has been riding its helicopters pretty hard for the past 12 years.

351 billion is not the sum for last years defense budget, the numbers are closer to 600 billion. Last time were were around 350 billion was early GW Bush administration.

There are, in the budget, significant "sunk costs" and "day to day running costs" that leave discretionary spending as a fraction of the whole budget.

Thus, the discretionary spending on a particular warfare area, strike/fighter aircraft (SASless seems to make this argument about V-22 whenever he can) is an opportunity cost that eats and hurts a great many other important areas of capability and readiness.

As to the MilIndustrial complex, Ike was speaking to CONGRESS, FFS! The problem that gets labeled Military Industrial Congress comes when Congressmen and Senators add the third leg to the stool. That is why Ike was warning them, becase THEY are the key to the problem: did you spend it in my district? Yes? OK, it's not really a problem. His point goes hand in glove with JFK's premise in the book "Profiles in Courage" about what makes a good, or bad, Senator.

Without Congressoinal complicity, the MIC cannot exist. Congress is who authorizes the money. If ever there was a classic illustration of this, it was in BRAC 1 and BRAC 2. The military in good faith tried to get efficient the first time around, and got blasted for their troubles. Blasted by Congress and "what about my district" crying.

As for acquisition ... never mind ... all I can say is :mad::mad:

LowObservable

6th Feb 2014, 20:47

Spaz - That rather takes the cake for sheer irrelevance, does it not? Will the initial F-35C carrier landings - four years behind the end-2007 schedule - not be followed by tests of off-nominal landings? I should think so. Should those off-nominal tests in the story you link be counted as delays to the SH program? Why?

We now return to regularly scheduled reality.

Bob Work Expected To Be Named Deputy SecDef - Defense One (http://www.defenseone.com/management/2014/02/bob-work-expected-be-named-deputy-secdef/78239/?oref=d-channelriver)

Loves UCAVs. As DepSecNav, directed staff to look at ways in which the Navy could be less dependent on F-35...

Information Dissemination: Navy Reviews Options for JSF (http://www.informationdissemination.net/2011/08/navy-reviews-options-for-jsf.html)

WhiteOvies

6th Feb 2014, 21:37

SpazSinbad

7th Feb 2014, 00:01

'LO' you have a habit of attributing stuff to me that is not there. Take a powder. I do not claim to know what will occur in future F-35C hook (AHS) testing however the Super Hornet testing is indicative of the thoroughness of said testing, Shirley. I'll guess the F-35C AHS will be tested to the satisfaction of all concerned before it is allowed anywhere near a CVN. Go figure.

Likely the testing of both hook systems for both the Super Hornet and F-35C will have taken and will take a similar amount of long time. Just to be thorough. Who said anything about delay? Where is the suggestion that the SHornet hook testing delayed it? Have a good lie down.

NITRO104

7th Feb 2014, 00:25

'LO' you have a habit of attributing stuff to me that is not there.
You lost me there, so why then posting pictures of F-18's irregular landings, when the F-35 hasn't completed even the regular ones yet and what's the F-18's testing schedule relation to F-35C's?

Willard Whyte

7th Feb 2014, 10:57

Willard,

You've missed off the end of my sentence in your quote, which is what makes it relevant. For the MAA to sign off on something they like to understand it. When the technology is new (and admittedly the theory behind AESA radars is not) that has to be explained to them. Radar safety is a big issue that is just one of several addressed.

I accept that, but I don't believe that the MAA's understanding, or current lack thereof, is relevant to the ongoing delays and difficulties in the F-35 program. It may well delay its introduction into service over here, so be it - but that's our (self-inflicted) problem. Or are you saying that the MAA is affecting the entire program? I don't believe the AESA radar is of any relevance to the overweight, compromised, and fragile airframe.

PhilipG

7th Feb 2014, 11:59

Willard,
I was referring to the "self-inflicted problem" as you you put it, when I questioned how the MoD could sign off on the F35 considering some recent issues. I cannot see one rule, that relies on the US certification, for the F35 and another for the Rivet Joints.

FoxtrotAlpha18

7th Feb 2014, 20:26

I don't recall such a release being issued for the Super Hornet, or any previous Navy program.

Similarly, I don't recall such an amount of oversight and vitriol for the Super Hornet, or any previous Navy program...

Courtney Mil

7th Feb 2014, 21:54

...but this isn't just a USN programme (assuming they want to stay in it). We've all seen programmes having problems, but none as expensive nor questionable as this. As one who would love to see it work, even I have to say that the oversight is somewhat welcome and concerning.

WhiteOvies

8th Feb 2014, 07:37

The MAA is mainly only affecting the UK intro to Service, which was what I was referring to in answering PhillipG's question. However, the UK requirements (and getting the aircraft fully accepted into Service is obviously a big one) have always been an important Programme level milestone as we are the lead partner nation. That is why we have key UK RN and RAF personnel embedded within the JPO and NavAir, why the PT desks are working hard to ensure UK requirements are met and why actually the MAA can affect the entire programme (although to a lesser extent than if it was a UK only jet).

The difference between Rivet Joint and F-35 is the age of the platform and hence the level of documentation available to be reviewed to ensure the UK is satisfied with the safe operation of each aircraft and the risks involved. Whilst X number of years of safe operation is good, there is a difference in what the US authorities will accept and what the UK will accept when it comes to Airworthiness. When Rivet Joint was designed and built there was not the same emphasis on risks, hazards etc. which the UK now puts the spotlight on post Haddon-Cave.

There is also a difference between how the USAF and USN do Airworthiness, as they work to different standards/guidelines in some areas. In the UK we are small enough not to have this issue any more!

Navaleye

8th Feb 2014, 13:23

It doesn't look like cancellation is likely. Main gate 5 for the bulk buy is going to be 2017 according to Jane's. Good news if true. Two dark and light blue Sqns?

UK to approve bulk F-35B buy in 2017 - IHS Jane's 360 (http://www.janes.com/article/33540/uk-to-approve-bulk-f-35b-buy-in-2017)

sense01

8th Feb 2014, 17:07

Apologies for the copy and paste, but the following is very interesting:

(Source: Air Force Times; published Feb. 2, 2014)

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/images/spacer.gif http://www.defense-aerospace.com/images/spacer.gif http://www.defense-aerospace.com/images/spacer.gif PARIS --- Below are selected excerpts from a candid interview given to Air Force Times by Gen. Michael Hostage, head of the US Air Force’s Air Combat Command. The interview took place on Jan. 27, and was published Feb. 2.
“The F-22, when it was produced, was flying with computers that were already so out of date you would not find them in a kid’s game console..… But I was forced to use that because that was the spec that was written by the acquisition process when I was going to buy the F-22. …/…That is why the current upgrade programs to the F-22 I put easily as critical as my F-35 fleet.

“If I do not keep that F-22 fleet viable, the F-35 fleet frankly will be irrelevant. The F-35 is not built as an air superiority platform. It needs the F-22.”

F-35 irrelevant without F-22s.... dam! And this from the head of the command that will operate the greatest number of F-35s worldwide. He could simply be justifying the F-22 fleet, but then nobody is talking about getting rid of any F-22s, so should this comment be taken at face value?!

melmothtw

9th Feb 2014, 10:18

F-35 irrelevant without F-22s.... dam! And this from the head of the command
that will operate the greatest number of F-35s worldwide. He could simply be
justifying the F-22 fleet, but then nobody is talking about getting rid of any
F-22s, so should this comment be taken at face value?!

I was at the IQPC International Fighter Conference last year, and there was a very interesting divergence of opinions on this from the RAF and Italian Air Forces.

The Italians stood up and said that the F-35 is not an air-to-air platform, and that its role will primarily be ground attack (nothing too controversial there).

However, the RAF then chimed in that the F-35 will be the UK's principal air defence platform, with the Typhoons playing a supporting role. Make of that what you will, but it seems to fly in the face of accepted orthodoxy re the F-35's capabilities.

Ivan Rogov

9th Feb 2014, 11:25

History would support that Melmothtw, we never seem to learn our lessons. Just as we get a performance advantage/parity all the reasons for it are ignored and we get compromised/inferior equipment and then hope our tactics will bridge the gap :ugh:

Biggus

9th Feb 2014, 12:57

How can the F-35 possibly be the UK's principal air defence platform when we are only getting 40 of them, enough for 2 Sqns, and 22 of those will be spending half their life on a carrier somewhere in the middle, or far, east, attending cocktail parties.....

UK air defence, only available when the fleet's in? :ugh:

melmothtw

9th Feb 2014, 13:03

We're not only getting 40 of them Biggus. 48 have so far been committed to (though none yet signed), with the first 14 expected to be financially approved in the coming days (Maine Gate 4). The main buy for upwards of 120 aircraft (assuming the programme of record of 138 jets still is even remotely accurate) will be financially approved in 2017 (as per the Jane's article linked a few posts ago) - Main Gate 5.

Final UK F-35 numbers to be disclosed in SDSR 2015.

As to how can the F-35 be the UK's principal air defence platform? Well, that's a good question (but not for the reason of aircraft numbers).

Biggus

9th Feb 2014, 13:21

melmothtw,

Apologies, the figure of 40 was incorrect (I thought I'd read that somewhere). Depending on your point of view, I should either have used 17 or 48. If anyone seriously expects us to ever get anywhere near to 138 they are living in cloud cuckoo land.....

As to the F-35s air defence capabilities (weapon load, range, manoeurvability, etc), I appreciate what you're saying, but you can put whatever asset you like on air defence (F-2 with blue circle radar?), its effectiveness in that role will only be tested in the event of an actual conflict, in peacetime it will probably be capable of doing the job....

melmothtw

9th Feb 2014, 13:28

I agree that most people now regard the 138 number as being at the top-end of what the UK's likely to get, but the final fleet size will be significantly larger than the 48 currently committed to.

Don't forget, at the time of the last SDSR the Harriers were divested because the 78 (ish) fleet size was deemed to small to support contingency operations.

With respect, a 747 is capable of doing air defence in peacetime (I'm being facetious, of course, but you take my point).

Biggus

9th Feb 2014, 13:57

Only 57 Sea Harriers were ever built for the RN, and that was a fleet big enough to support combat operations.....

.... but hopefully you take my point! ;)

melmothtw

9th Feb 2014, 14:05

57 Sea Harriers which could be augmented by significantly more land-based Harriers if needs be (not to mention the many and varied land-based types that served concurrently to the Sea Harrier).

It's a different kettle of fish when you're down to fielding just two fast-jet types...total.

You obviously didn't take my point, but that's ok.

Edited to add: On reflection, my 'point' in that specific regard was to do with aircraft capabilties rather than numbers, but that's ok too.

Navaleye

9th Feb 2014, 15:36

You need to take sqn size into account. Sea Jet was originally set a 5 jets, then 7 or 8 and technically JFH at 9. I don't the RAF ever got nine to sea at the same time though post Sea Jet. The USMC could though. We should move to larger sqns as per USMC. 14-16 should do the job.

Wrathmonk

9th Feb 2014, 17:14

We should move to larger sqns as per USMC. 14-16 should do the job.

So, with what the UK MOD will be able to afford post SDSR 2015, once you have taken out the OCU, OEU, frames in depth etc that'll be just the one squadron then!:E

Engines

9th Feb 2014, 17:50

Guys,

Just to get some facts out there.

Sea Harrier FRS1 squadrons were originally 7 strong, augmented to 9 or 10 during the Falklands. In my time as an AEO (88 to 90) they were increased to 9. Numbers fell during the FRS1 to FA2 conversion programme to 6, occasionally 5, then recovered back to 8.

Of course, prior to JFH, those 57 could not actually be 'augmented' in their primary role at sea by RAF aircraft. There were regular exercises to bring RAF Harriers on board, but they only served to underline the fact that RAF units were, unsurprisingly, not ready to operate from the deck. Please note that this was not down to any lack of professionalism or ability, just the simple fact that their pilots and maintainers didn't have the required experience, qualification or currency in deck operations to do so at an operational rate safely. It just wasn't far enough up their priority list - and I can understand completely why the RAF thought that way.

RAF squadrons never had (and I don't know if they still do) a fixed 'establishment' as per their FAA counterparts. There were a number of assumptions baked into AP98, but on the ground, in my direct experience, squadrons swapped aircraft around on a daily basis. As the Fleet Manager for JFH, I can tell you there was a planning figure of 12 aircraft per RAF Harrier front unit, but that included aircraft in work at second line, so the actual figure of aircraft available was 9 gusting 10.

I admit to being somewhat amazed that anyone from the RAF is saying that F-35 primary role would be AD. After the billions spent on Typhoon, it has to be the nations' AD platform for at least another 30 years. F-35B is, as far as I was aware, being bought to deliver precision strike from the sea or land as required. I'm not going to go into it's air to air capabilities relative to anything else, but it's my view that it should be capable of looking after itself - FA2 showed what advanced sensors and weapons can do on a limited platform.

Hope this helps a little,

Engines

melmothtw

9th Feb 2014, 18:35

Thanks for the facts Engines. To go back to my original point though, the UK F-35B buy will be significantly larger than the 48 already committed to. Whether its the 138 currently listed as the programme of record is anyone's guess, and we'll have to wait until the SDSR in 2015 to find out.

As to the F-35B acting as the UK's primary air defence platform, I remember the RAF representative's comments raising a few eyebrows when he said it.

Courtney Mil

9th Feb 2014, 19:26

Or to go back a little further, F-35 was never designed to be, nor will it ever be an air superiority fighter. Some very good self-defence and, perhaps, some self-escort capability, but it would be fair to say that F-22 does all the above much better. Don't let anyone confuse the two platforms and what they are supposed to do.

It would probably stretch the imagination of some here to claim that the Typhoon will remain a better air-superiority platform than F-35, but I maintain the figures I offered to this Forum last year concerning energy agility and energy at launch. Big issues in the modern air war.

Over..

awblain

9th Feb 2014, 20:12

It seems astonishing that the Typhoon, designed to perform well in air to air combat, would be sidelined in UK air defense by the F35, which is designed to be stealthy from the front and to drop bombs.

Then again, the Tornado ADV fulfilled the role for long enough.

But it must be a slightly hairy prospect to routinely wander off to find Bears far out over a rough cold sea with that one engine.

melmothtw

9th Feb 2014, 20:22

But it must be a slightly hairy prospect to routinely wander off to find
Bears far out over a rough cold sea with that one engine.

While I take your point about the perceived wisdom of utilising the F(A)-35 as an air defence fighter, I think the single-engine issue is a red herring.

F-16 operators, such as Norway and Netherlands have been operating over the rough North Sea for decades, as have the Swedes with the Gripen in more recent times, and as the French used to do with the Mirage-series aircraft. Also, the USAF routinly flies its F-16s over Alaska, so the single-engine v twin-engine debate isn't the issue some make it out to be.

Getting back to F-35 air defence capabilities though, it is interesting that the majority of those signed up for it will not be operating mixed-fighter fleets, but will be fielding the Lightning II as their primary fighter. Will be v interesting to see how this develops...

Fox3WheresMyBanana

9th Feb 2014, 20:25

I believe the Norwegians have only lost 1 F-16 to engine failure.

Courtney Mil

9th Feb 2014, 20:52

Melmoth,

Good point there re not operating mixed forces. I wonder what imperative there is for that. I can only wonder if the early concept of the F-35 as a stealth platform still leads the customer to belive that it doesn't nead any escort. Maybe also that it can also perform a UKAD role. Typhoon will still be there for a long time yet, but could F-35 be the real all-purpose UK FJ as F-16 etc (as you rightly point out) have been for a number of countries?

melmothtw

9th Feb 2014, 21:02

One would hope that by the time the F-35 comes on stream for the UK, the Typhoon will have begun receiving the upgrades that will turn it into a full all-rounder also. If that happens, the RAF will in theory have two 'omni-role' (to coin the French term) fast jets to choose from.

Countries such as the Norway, Netherlands, Denmark, and Turkey will be fielding the F-35 as their sole type so you'd hope for their sakes that it has a more-than-credible air defence capability.

Actually, despite what I said earlier half of the nations currently singed up will have a mixed fleet, so interesting to see how they task the F-35 in relation to their other assets. Until I heard the RAF comments, had always assumed it would be roled a bomber, with the 'other' type (Typhoon/F-15/F-16 etc) acting as the fighter, but now not so sure.

Courtney Mil

9th Feb 2014, 21:04

Indeed. Like you, I am surprised by the quote.

Courtney Mil

9th Feb 2014, 21:27

A bit off thread, but I thought this was an interesting pic...

http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/190cpoj894tumjpg/ku-xlarge.jpg

glad rag

9th Feb 2014, 21:33

I believe the Norwegians have only lost 1 F-16 to engine failure.

quick goolie gives 3 to 2003.......

awblain

9th Feb 2014, 21:48

It'll be interesting to see whether the F35 can stir up that much fog.

If its reported time to accelerate through mach 1 is correct, then the mist display would at least be visible for a long time.

I've only ever seen F22s in the desert, where there's no special effects from mist - apart from the visually very impressive performance (and heat haze from those many many tens of thousands of pounds of thrust).

LowObservable

9th Feb 2014, 22:14

Melmoth -

I was there too and don't have my notes in front of me. But if I recall correctly, the comments were more to the effect that the F-35 would be the RAF's high-end capability - due to stealth and avionics - with the Typhoon in a supporting role.

However... The force-structure question is how much land-based, expeditionary capability is left over from 48 jets supporting the carrier air wing. The CVF idea, after all, was always based on the idea of delivering sustained attack sorties while providing air defense beyond SAM range, which requires a certain number of aircraft on the ship - the number I heard in 2002 was 24-30.

Anything close to that will monopolize 48 aircraft, regardless of the squadron number. Moreover, it's hard to see those 48 aircraft sustaining even a 12-jet air wing and an expeditionary deployment at the same time.

melmothtw

9th Feb 2014, 22:31

Hi LO,

I wonder how many other PPruNers were there! I've just rechecked my notes, and the RAF speaker said that the F-35 will represent the UK's 'top-end air-to-air capability' with Typhoons in a supporting role, so no ambiguity there (unless he 'mispoke', of course).

Again though, you're coming back with this 48 number for the future F-35B fleet. This is not the final number - this is the initial committment (the first 14 of which will be financially approved later this week in all likelihood). The final number will be announced in the SDSR in 2015.

Maus92

10th Feb 2014, 04:16

There have been several F-16 successful USAF deadstick landings, and a number of losses due to engine failures - but these almost always have occurred over land. There have also been plenty of precautionary engine shutdowns of F-18s, a number over water - luckily, the other engine almost always was working. All in all, it's nice to have options, particularly when your jet costs $150M.

melmothtw

10th Feb 2014, 07:58

it's nice to have options

Can't argue with that Maus, but as ever it comes down to a trade-off between having 'options' and the savings to be made through reduced operating and life-cycle costs I suppose. Let's not forget also that the Sea Harrier/Harrier operated over water with a single-engine perfectly fine.

edited to add: Admittedly, the Harrier was never USD150 million a pop....

ORAC

10th Feb 2014, 08:08

Seems to be quite a few (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Harrier_Jump_Jet_family_losses) if you include all Mks; even more if you presume the bird strike losses were due to subsequent engine problems.

melmothtw

10th Feb 2014, 08:16

Wonder how many of those (admittedly many) losses were down to it being a single-engine type, and how many were down to it simply being a difficult plane to master.

Maus92

10th Feb 2014, 13:24

Yes, but in the case of F-35 vs. F-18A-F (and other singles like F-16 / Gripen, the F-35) LCC is predicted to be higher by a significant amount.

ORAC

10th Feb 2014, 15:32

Italian Lawmakers Consider New Cuts to JSF Purchase (http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140209/DEFREG01/302090010/Italian-Lawmakers-Consider-New-Cuts-JSF-Purchase)

ROME — Eight months after the Italian parliament suspended new orders of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), members of the country’s biggest political party may try to halve the total purchase.

A source within the center-left Democratic Party said the members were preparing a policy document for approval in parliament which could seek to cut Italy’s planned purchase of JSFs from 90 to around 45. The country has already reduced its total buy from the originally planned 131 aircraft. But a second source said that debate inside the party is still continuing, and that the final document may merely threaten a cut if Italy does not obtain better conditions on the U.S.-led program.

Both sources said the document — which could be ready this month — would strive to make Italy invest in the multirole, ground attack version of the Eurofighter. Italy, a partner in the Lockheed Martin JSF program, has hitherto shown relatively little interest in the European plane. “We are really looking to push for European defense integration,” said the second source.

The Democratic Party is currently a partner in a coalition government led by party member Enrico Letta. In December, the party elected a new secretary, Matteo Renzi, who has been tapped as a candidate to win elections and form a Democratic Party government next year. Renzi, who has in the past talked about cutting JSF purchases, would need to approve the evolving party policy document on defense before it is turned into a resolution for voting on in parliament, where the Democratic Party already has a majority in the lower house.

The first source said that 75 percent of Democratic Party members of parliament want to scrap the JSF program altogether as Italy struggles through an economic crisis. Recent criticism by the Pentagon’s top testing office has also spurred opposition to the program, he said. The final report, he said, could call for a “drastic cut” in F-35 orders, potentially as much as half.

But the second source suggested the move to cut — or not cut — could hinge on whether Italy can wring better work share, better technology transfer and lower prices from the program. The source also suggested that savings could be found on other programs as an alternative to JSF cuts, such as the army digitalization program. An early draft of the report complains that the program costs too much and lacks interoperability with NATO standards............

Courtney Mil

10th Feb 2014, 15:47

I guess it shouldn't come as too much of a surprise, given the state of the Italian economy. Can we have some concessions too?

sense01

11th Feb 2014, 17:07

Looks like 617 will definitely have some jets to fly...

From the BBC News website:

The UK is about to commit to the F-35 fighter project, a US-led effort to produce 3,000 aircraft which is set to cost more than £600bn globally.

The initial UK order for 14 F-35Bs will, with support costs added, cost about £2.5bn, Newsnight has learned.

Defence Secretary Philip Hammond said the F-35B was an expensive plane, but one with an "incredible capability".

See their website for more... or perhaps someone with 'link' privileges could post it..?

Courtney Mil

11th Feb 2014, 17:17

Here you go, Buddy.

BBC News - UK to spend £2.5bn on F-35 fighters (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26124894)

We can all do that, btw. Use the link symbol (a little globe with a chain link) to enter the address. :ok:

CoffmanStarter

11th Feb 2014, 18:23

See their website for more ... As per Courtney's link

Also see the Newsnight F35 piece to be broadcast tonight 22:30 BBC2 ... and then on iPlayer thereafter :ok:

BBC Newsnight F35 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006mk25)

glad rag

11th Feb 2014, 20:47

the savings to be made

Very good Centurion, very good indeed.:D:D:D

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSlzGsrhiW99osZbusyQ3pZh19pZhBbxRm0XSKiV9-rkP_kNhBhqA

Royalistflyer

11th Feb 2014, 21:14

Squirrel 41

11th Feb 2014, 22:07

Sorry but I persist in thinking that EMALS with F/A18s would have been by far the better bet. Aircraft that we know would work and more of them. I feel that we are spending money that we will seriously regret.

But can a Rhino hover and bow at an airshow.... :E

S41

(Come to think of it, never seen Dave-B do it either. Sure the bootflap mafia are working on it though. Why, oh, why, did we cancel EMALS and the -C? :ugh:)

Torquelink

12th Feb 2014, 10:03

A source within the center-left Democratic Party said the members were preparing a policy document for approval in parliament which could seek to cut Italy’s planned purchase of JSFs from 90 to around 45. The country has already reduced its total buy from the originally planned 131 aircraft. But a second source said that debate inside the party is still continuing, and that the final document may merely threaten a cut if Italy does not obtain better conditions on the U.S.-led program.

And they still plan on doing final assembly in Italy? - now that's going to be expensive on per unit basis.

SpazSinbad

13th Feb 2014, 04:24

'NITRO104' asked on page 208 of this thread: http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/424953-f-35-cancelled-then-what-208.html#post8305001
"...why then posting pictures of F-18's irregular landings, when the F-35 hasn't completed even the regular ones yet and what's the F-18's testing schedule relation to F-35C's?"
The hour long video referenced below offers explanations for several things including the hook testing. The audio answer is downloadable below here at 5Mb .WMA. It is said that 30+ roll-in successful arrests were conducted at NAS Lakehurst with subsequently 6 successful fly-in arrests (100%) at NAS Patuxent River recently. The 'Shake, Rattle & Roll' testing has started however it is early days the USN test pilot LCDR Burks admits.

The Super Hornet testing illustrated earlier gives an indication of what is in store for the F-35C, exactly what/when of course I do not know until that info is revealed to the public. I believe somewhere on this forum there is a VX-23 explanation about 'SRR' for the Hornet/Super Hornet which will be - we can imagine - is applicable to the F-35C over time.

5Mb .WMA audio file: http://tinyurl.com/nygtz8d

http://static.dvidshub.net/media/thumbs/frames/video/1402/321590/486x274_q75.jpg

Video: Joint Strike Fighter Roundtable: What Do Pilots Who Are Flying It Today Have to Say? 12 Feb 2014
"Joint Strike Fighter Roundtable: What Do Pilots Who Are Flying It Today Have to Say? at the WEST 2014 Conference. Moderator: Mr. Ward Carroll, Editor-in-Chief, Military.com Panelists: - LCDR Michael Burks, Senior Navy Test Pilot for F-35 - CDR Frederick Crecelius, Commanding Officer, VFA-101 - William Gigliotti, F-35 Lighting II, FW Site/Production Lead Test Pilot Lockheed Martin Corporation - LtCol Steve Gillette, Commander Officer, VMFA-121. (1hr)"
DVIDS - Video - Joint Strike Fighter Roundtable: What Do Pilots Who Are Flying It Today Have to Say? (http://www.dvidshub.net/video/321590/joint-strike-fighter-roundtable-do-pilots-who-flying-today-have-say)
________________

Two references to VX-23 'SRR' Shake Rattle and Roll testing here:

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/424953-f-35-cancelled-then-what-118.html#post7839095
&
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/528880-video-15-min-history-land-arrest-systems-go-whoa.html#post8180517

dragartist

14th Feb 2014, 09:48

Report from AVM Brecht last night at Cambridge University:

Gone too far to be cancelled.

This aircraft will be able to do ISTAR as well as drop bombs and missiles. I could not work out how the radar in the nose can see behind. probably some form of invisible mirror on a stalk out front!

Upbeat message about UK staff being embedded in the team. Must be hundreds of staff on long term detached duty across the pond. Even the OCU will be based in the US.

Interesting take on logistics and spares support. A common pool of spares for all nations. Only take title upon delivery. I wonder what happens if consumption of a particular widget becomes critical who has first call on the few left in the stores.

The young cadets in attendance have an interesting future to look forward too.

Just This Once...

14th Feb 2014, 09:59

AVM Brecht is a top bloke and has his head in reality land. However, he is mistaken about F-35 doing any ISTAR, more's the pity.

The aircraft should have good sensors and the ability to share some of this information co-operatively. Unfortunately there is no means to distribute any wideband information and no realistic means to record anything the sensors collect for post-flight analysis. Indeed, only the image of what the pilot has actively selected on his display is recorded. The aircraft is capable of so much more but the US is more interested in strapping everything down due to security concerns than allowing anything to be exploited post-flight.

Hopefully the iron-grip will relax as the aircraft matures.

LowObservable

18th Feb 2014, 10:51

JTO - Maybe the Navy will pay to fix the datalink....

Navy F-35C Prepares for Ship Trials, Faces Headwinds - Blog (http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=1415)

Navy guy, translated: "This is an expensive and complicated niche capability that may be useful when it gets a long-range, wideband LPI/LPD datalink". (Let us not forget that those three attributes tend to be mutually exclusive in a datalink, so this qualification has a small degree of "and if my Auntie had a :mad: she'd be my Uncle" about it.)

And it's nice for the LockMart guy to say that we need a new MRAAM after they have effectively propagandized against it for a decade or more, by claiming that the Armadillo will achieve air dominance with AMRAAM.

Maus92

18th Feb 2014, 12:38

For the F-35C to become a node in the NIFC-CA scheme, they have 4 choices: Link16, a multiplexed/stacked Link16 variant, Satcom, or a new LPI/HiBandwith technology. Only one comes with the jet off the shelf, and it is not stealthy - Link16. Satcom comes with Block 4. The other 2 have yet to be developed, and are not in the F-35 program roadmap. Ironically, the Super Hornets / Growlers will be have this capability with the first NIFC-CA equipped CVG in 2015 (scheduled for the Pacific.) It looks like the Navy will have to develop the new link waveform, since the USAF is not participating in NIFC-CA (although the Army is.) And of course, the USAF is complaining.

LowObservable

18th Feb 2014, 13:45

LO-compatible high-band satcom isn't exactly a walk in the park either (ask the B-2 program) and assumes that the bad guys don't jam the satellite.

AndyPandy068

24th Feb 2014, 23:06

I haven't read this thread, yet, as I thought it was all a bit of hype. But perhaps not, it looks like the writing is on the wall. I know it's the Mail but I imagine it will have wider publication in due course.

'American dominance in the seas, sky and space can no longer be taken for granted,' admits Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel as he slashes Army to smallest size in 74 YEARS | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2566638/Hagel-proposes-big-cuts-Army-2015-budget.html)

Heathrow Harry

25th Feb 2014, 12:27

they still spend more on their armed forces than the next 12 countries added together

BBC News - Pentagon's Chuck Hagel plans to downsize US military (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-26326969)

Pentagon's Chuck Hagel plans to downsize US military

Hagel: "American dominance... can no longer be taken for granted"

Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel has unveiled plans to shrink the US Army to its smallest size since before the US entered World War Two.
Outlining his budget plan, the Pentagon chief proposed trimming the active-duty Army to 440,000-450,000 personnel, down from 520,000 currently.
Cold War-era Air Force fleets - the U-2 spy plane and the A-10 attack jet - will also be retired.
The US defence budget remains higher than during most of the Cold War.
'Difficult decisions ahead'
Military spending doubled after the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks but has slowly started to decline in response to the country's budget crisis, and

Mr Hagel said the country no longer felt inclined to engage in the kind of long and costly operations it had mounted in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

It is not only fiscal pragmatism that has caused the US to curtail its military ambitions of course. After more than a decade of war the American people have clearly grown tired of conflict - and the impact it can make on the families of those on the front line.

On Monday, Mr Hagel noted the US military had come under pressure to downsize after two costly foreign wars.
"This is a time for reality," he said.
"This is a budget that recognises the reality of the magnitude of our fiscal challenges."
The number of active-duty US Army members was already expected to be pared down to 490,000, as the US prepares to end its combat role in Afghanistan later this year.
Mr Hagel added: "Since we are no longer sizing the force for prolonged stability operations, an Army of this size is larger than required to meet the demands of our defence strategy."
He said the administration would also recommend closing some domestic military bases in 2017, though such proposals have been rejected by Congress in recent years.
The Pentagon chief went on to unveil plans for changes to pay and benefits, including curbing housing allowances and limiting pay raises.
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/73202000/gif/_73202655_us_army_cuts_464gr.gif
'No retreat' However, Winslow Wheeler, a defence budget analyst with the Project on Government Oversight in Washington DC, criticised the proposal as "hype".
He said that even after the cuts in troop levels and the elimination of the A-10 and U-2 aeroplanes, overall military spending including for the war in Afghanistan and on the US nuclear weapons programme will remain near 2005 levels.
"That level is scores of billions above what we spent during the Cold War when the threats were real and huge," he told the BBC.
"We're making all the wrong decisions in terms of the bang for the buck that we're getting for the budget. We will be spending multiples of what China and Russia spend combined."
And even the relative modest cost-cutting drive could well cause ructions on Capitol Hill, which is gearing up for November's midterm elections.
Reaction to the proposal was swift, with Republican members warning such cuts could hurt military readiness.
"This is not the time for us to begin to retreat, and certainly not the time to cut our military," Republican Representative Michael Turner told Bloomberg News.
The proposed Army staffing levels would be the lowest since 1940, when the US employed 267,767 active-duty soldiers. The US entered that conflict in 1941 following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
By the end of World War Two, there were 8.2 million active-duty US Army members, according to figures provided on Monday by the Pentagon.
The number was 482,000 in 2000, a year before the attacks of 11 September 2001. After those attacks, the force peaked at 566,000 in 2010.
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/72789000/gif/_72789460_military_spending_624v3.gif

Ronald Reagan

25th Feb 2014, 12:59

I think a huge amount of money must be wasted and that many things must be way overpriced!!!!!

Hangarshuffle

25th Feb 2014, 13:16

Was highlighting the input a small private engineering firm in Stanley had in supplying small parts for part of the whole machine (last night on TV news). Complex machine tools, quite a few people involved, specialist work etc. Good for them, keeps money wheel going around, people in employment.
The programmed said substantial order for the aircraft was "imminent", to many peoples relief.
I haven't kept pace with the saga myself, life's too short.

Lonewolf_50

25th Feb 2014, 14:16

they still spend more on their armed forces than the next 12 countries added together
For the simple reason that the US underwrites global security, not just its own national security, as a matter of policy since about 1945.

To the rest of you: you are welcome.

When you find that China is the 800 pound gorilla in the room, you will also find that they aren't as nice as the Americans were.

Good luck with your future.

LowObservable

25th Feb 2014, 15:53

Without getting too far off-topic...

It's not just "underwriting global security". Factors in the huge US budget include high personnel costs and benefits (including a hell of a lot of flag officers, and medical benefits that fall on the civil government's tab in many countries); a lot of expensive infrastructure that Congress insists on keeping, because in many places the military is the only employer above farm and Wal-Mart pay scales; and very large land forces as a legacy of a decade-plus of nation-building that had very little to do with global security.

peter we

25th Feb 2014, 18:42

AKA Republican Social Security.

henra

25th Feb 2014, 20:32

When you find that China is the 800 pound gorilla in the room, you will also find that they aren't as nice as the Americans were.

While I do agree that their relatively active Military procurement is not the best sign for their immediate Neigbours (mainly Taiwan plus some Japanese Islands) I would say that Economically they are the 800 Pound Gorilla.
From a Military perspective on the other hand they are still quite far from that. They don't have much global Reach and can't compare to the US Military and are still struggeling to effectively surpass Russia especially when it comes to stategic assets. They have a significant (Man Power) Army but not highly mobile nor particularly sophisticated.

China's real Threat potential to the Western World is a different one:
They effectively own a significant part of the World financially and could easily ruin the US and big Parts of Europe by simply claiming back all their Money they loaned to Western State Banks and selling their Shares in Companies at once. The whole economic Systems would immediately and totally implode.

Bastardeux

25th Feb 2014, 21:03

They effectively own a significant part of the World financially and could easily ruin the US and big Parts of Europe by simply claiming back all their Money they loaned to Western State Banks and selling their Shares in Companies at once. The whole economic Systems would immediately and totally implode.

Though technically true, I don't see why on Earth they would ever want to do this...they have been keeping the Renminbi artificially low in order to practice dumping with all their cheap tat in Western economies, financed by all the money they lend out; they would totally shoot themselves in the foot if they ever decided to do this!

And if the US and China ever do square up to each-other, the US (and the West) could just give two fingers to their debt obligations.

I have to say, I'm with Lonewolf; Chinese aggression seems to be advancing rapidly...we can think of it as nonsense sabre rattling, but I see trouble brewing.

Ronald Reagan

25th Feb 2014, 21:22

Chinese aggression? There is hardly such a thing when compared with US, UK, French and general western aggression! Sadly our nations seem to thrive on war and sticking our noses into the business of other nations. The Chinese on the other hand seem far more interested in doing business! I would imagine one reason for their large military build up is to counter against the considerable and soon to be increasing US military presence in the region. From their point of view they see Washington as dangerous and unpredictable, having a tendency to lash out and invade other nations etc. Having a massive military which they can easily afford to do is a good counter for that. When it comes to risking warfare I am far more concerned about the reckless actions of Washington and our own government than I am about China. China thrives on stability, the west thrives on chaos!

BEagle

25th Feb 2014, 21:31

Gone too far to be cancelled.

Probably the same thoughts 't Bungling Baron Waste o' Space had beforr 't Nimrrod MRA4 werr scrapped, tha' knaws....:rolleyes:

Bastardeux

25th Feb 2014, 22:44

RR, really? Afghanistan may be unpopular, difficult to win and improperly executed, but that doesn't make it unjustified...you may find it difficult to believe, but every source suggests (rather unsurprisingly when you think about it) that George Bush was very, very insular in his world outlook and therefore, foreign policy before 9/11.

Other than Iraq, what 'invasions' do you refer to as a result of a tendency to 'lash out'?

The last time I was aware, it was China that was openly publishing its ability to hit targets on the West Coast of the US, with their new class of ballistic missile subs, not the other way around.

rh200

25th Feb 2014, 22:57

For the simple reason that the US underwrites global security, not just its own national security, as a matter of policy since about 1945.

Yep as I have said before. Theirs a big heap of western countries that don't need to spend a hell of a lot due to the current situation. Australia is a classic example, without going down the nuclear path there's no way in the world we could practically afford to defend ourselves without the US.

busdriver02

26th Feb 2014, 03:14

RR, it's great power politics not a question of who's more at fault. Or in simple terms, who's the biggest kid on the playground? I don't really want to fight him, but I need to have a plan in case. In the end, if all my sneaky, skinny kid diversion tactics don't work to avoid a fight the surest way to not get my butt kicked is to just be the better fighter.

Ronald Reagan

26th Feb 2014, 11:40

Bastardeux, I should have maybe said ''attacked'' as well as invade.
But certainly Iraq, Libya, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia the Balkans.
Even Afghanistan has been handled badly, even now the US wants to remain there if possible!
As far as Britain is concerned since 1980 about the only thing I agree with is the Falklands war, but none of the rest.
When I think how close we came to getting involved in Syria its terrifying to!

As for such talk coming from China, I remember hearing various US politicians such as John McCain talking about attacking Iran, also openly talking about strikes upon Syria! There were many British politicians also doing the same.

I have no problem with the US having such a great military, it can do a great deal of good, often helping after natural disasters etc. But just because it exists does not mean it has to be used all the time in pointless wars which are mostly none of our business anyhow. Also there is no reason for Washington to be so provocative. If I was the US government I would be far more keen to keep more of my forces based at home in the US, possibly retaining a network of bases around the globe under care and maintenance. But not having forces based at them all the time. I would certainly have that policy when it comes to the Pacific with no permanent based US forces beyond say Hawaii. When one thinks of the money that could be saved! In the event of a problem you could likely deploy to the empty bases within say 48 hours.

It does seem harsh that Americans lose their local bases thus starving their local economies but much more money can be found to retain costly overseas bases thus helping foreign economies rather than that of the US.

melmothtw

26th Feb 2014, 11:55

Chinese aggression? There is hardly such a thing ...

Go tell that to Tibet.

Bastardeux

26th Feb 2014, 12:31

RR, you are talking as if we, in a highly globalised economy that relies very heavily on stable commodity prices and trading routes, could just sit back and let the world's problems fester.

All the Cold War proxy conflicts were, quite understandably, fought under the understanding of Communist containment...do you seriously think the West would just sit back and let all its trading partners capitulate to an ideology that was completely incompatible with Western Capitalism!? No. Do you think sitting back and allowing the former Yugoslavia to continue the way it was heading would have been a positive thing for the stability of Europe!? No.

Whether you like it or not, international interventionism is almost always the result of trying to maintain domestic standards of living, one way or another. So, unless you're happy for your way of life to be consistently challenged, with all due respect, get off your high horse!

skydiver69

26th Feb 2014, 12:57

Quote:

Chinese aggression? There is hardly such a thing ...

Go tell that to Tibet.

Or Vietnam or India

Cool Guys

26th Feb 2014, 13:07

You could interppret that as being agressive. Its a bit like saying the UK was agressive for invading the Falklands.

Rhino power

26th Feb 2014, 13:26

Did somebody mention the F-35? No? Oh, ok then... :ooh:

-RP

Ronald Reagan

26th Feb 2014, 13:30

But how about Iraq and Libya? I see how neither of those have helped our country or people. Also the desire of the political leadership to engage in action Syria, I fail to see how that is in our interests.

The US military action in Vietnam proved to be a total waste of time, sadly it was all for nothing. The communists still won and yet there was not much of a domino effect besides Laos and Cambodia.

As for Yugoslavia logically we could have kept strong military forces at the borders but not got directly involved. Amazing how Tito could hold it together!

China still has in my opinion been a lot better behaved globally than what we have. I don't see Russia or China as a major threat to the western way of life. Russia is a capitalist country, China although technically communist has embraced capitalism to a massive level. I see neither these days as any kind of threat to the current global system.
I do think that back in the day with the USSR especially the Stalin years there was a threat from the USSR but when the Cold War ended and realistic threat to the western way of life from Russia ceased. At worst Russia is a rival to the west not an enemy, in my opinion they could and should be a partner.

kbrockman

26th Feb 2014, 14:20

To bring the original topic back, I suggest we follow Stephen's suggestion
to go with the FU 435 Employmonator
The Word - Jobsolete - The Colbert Report - 2014-25-02 - Video Clip | Comedy Central (http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/433286/february-25-2014/the-word---jobsolete?xrs=share_copy)

Heathrow Harry

27th Feb 2014, 14:04

India?

They refused to negotiate, moved their troops even beyond their claim line and (criminally) hung their poor bloody squaddies out to dry

Remember the Chinese whopped them, then withdrew of their own accord AND returned all the weapons they'd captured in the rout......... made the Indians sign for them as well

RAFEngO74to09

10th Mar 2014, 23:31

The first of 144 x F-35A (6 x 24-aircraft squadrons) currently planned to be based at Luke AFB, Arizona arrived today:

http://www.azcentral.com/news/arizona/articles/20140310arizona-F35-luke-air-force-base.html

Also in Arizona, MCAS Yuma plans to have 5 x 16-aircraft F-35B squadrons and an 8-aircraft OEU (total 88).

https://www.f35.com/about/who-is-flying/Yuma

kbrockman

17th Mar 2014, 09:16

Another NETHERLANDS-style order cut, this time for Italy, originally 131,
than 90 and now the inevitable further cut(s).
NewsWires : euronews : the latest international news as video on demand (http://www.euronews.com/newswires/2405742-italy-considers-cutting-f-35-fighter-jet-order/)
ROME (Reuters) – Italy may cut its order for 90 Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter jets as part of broad reductions in public spending, Prime Minister Matteo Renzi said late on Sunday.

Renzi said Italy was seeking 3 billion euros ($4.18 billion)in savings on its defence budget over the next three years from closing barracks and from big-ticket items like the F-35.
....
The order has already been reduced from 131 aircraft and many in Renzi’s centre-left Democratic Party (PD), as well as in opposition parties, would like to see it cut still further or scrapped altogether.

TBM-Legend

17th Mar 2014, 12:40

Australian Govt set to approve 86 F-35A's for the RAAF. 14 already on order and first one being built...

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/raaf-spends-big-on-new-f-35-stealth-fighters/story-fnk1w5y0-1226852961019

FoxtrotAlpha18

17th Mar 2014, 23:03

That number 86 should actually be 72 (14 + 58)...seems the reporter added the original 14 to the 72.

Up to NSC next week, announcement due in early to mid April.

Fox3WheresMyBanana

19th Mar 2014, 12:40

F-35's French rival pitches 'Canadianized' fighter jet - Politics - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/f-35-s-french-rival-pitches-canadianized-fighter-jet-1.2577234)

Tempting, I suggest.... tech transfer, assembly, source codes, twin engine,....

LowObservable

19th Mar 2014, 13:33

Will they make it bilingual? (Rafale speaks English.)

Fox3WheresMyBanana

19th Mar 2014, 13:53

mais, bien sur!

Canadian Bacon - les Quebecois - YouTube

ORAC

20th Mar 2014, 13:34

Italian Lawmakers Back Cuts to JSF Purchase
(ttp://www.defensenews.com/article/20140319/DEFREG01/303190039/Italian-Lawmakers-Back-Cuts-JSF-Purchase)
ROME — Italy’s planned purchase of 90 Joint Strike Fighters (JSFs) was thrown further into doubt on March 19 as members of the Italian parliament signed off a report calling for “significant” cuts to the program and senior government officials ordered a new defense white paper to reassess Italy’s military strategy by year end. The developments came three days after new Italian prime minister Matteo Renzi suggested Italy would cut its purchase of JSFs as the Italian government struggles to bring down state spending.

The critical report was drawn up by members of the center-left Democratic Party to which Renzi belongs who also sit on the defense commission of the lower house of parliament. The document cannot yet be considered government, or even party policy. “It needs to be voted on by the commission, although I believe it will be since the Democratic Party is in the majority,” said Gian Piero Scanu, a commission member and one of the authors of the report. “Then it will be voted on in parliament itself,” he added.

The document criticizes Italy’s allegedly poor workshare on the JSF program, claims that the jobs generated by Italy’s JSF assembly line are insufficient and states that Italy’s lack of access to sensitive program data will lead to dependence on the US. Italy’s planned 12 billion euro purchase of 90 aircraft should be “significantly cut,” while ongoing orders should be halted until technical hitches are cleared up, the report adds.

While Italy has planned spending billions on the Joint Strike Fighter, it has scaled back its purchases of the Eurofighter. The report argues that instead Italy should be aiming to buy the ground attack version of the Eurofighter, which it claims would compete on level terms with the JSF, adding that the European program guarantees an industrial return equal to outlay.............

GreenKnight121

20th Mar 2014, 22:21

Does the "ground attack version of the Eurofighter" even exist?

Last I heard the most-capable strike/ground-attack upgrades had been dropped from the program.

NITRO104

21st Mar 2014, 00:16

Does the "ground attack version of the Eurofighter" even exist?
I suppose the reciprocating question would be is there a fighter version of F-35?

ORAC

21st Mar 2014, 05:37

I suppose the reciprocating question would be is there a fighter version of F-35? the reciprocal question would be does a ground attack version (http://spectrum.ieee.org/riskfactor/computing/it/f35-software-dods-chief-tester-remains-unimpressed) of the F35 even exist?

BEagle

21st Mar 2014, 07:51

It's clear that the RCAF were very impressed with Rafale during the Malian campaign....

Someone has also woken up to the fact that the wretched 'CF-35A' isn't compatible with the CC-150T tanker....unless Canada pays Lockheed yet more $quillions for an unique modification. Or switches to the F-35C? Or trades in its CC-150Ts for a Canadian version of the A330MRTT? All of which would cost a lot more than acquiring the Rafale, both in terms of money and time.

Vive Rafale!!

peter we

21st Mar 2014, 10:45

Last I heard the most-capable strike/ground-attack upgrades had been dropped from the program.

Nope, quite the opposite.

Rhino power

21st Mar 2014, 13:10

Nope, quite the opposite.

Indeed, Storm Shadow integration and trials are already well under way...

-RP

LowObservable

21st Mar 2014, 22:51

Rename it Arrow II.

ORAC

25th Mar 2014, 08:59

GAO: Software Delays Could Jeopardize F-35 Timeline (http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140324/DEFREG02/303240030/GAO-Software-Delays-Could-Jeopardize-F-35-Timeline)

WASHINGTON — Software testing delays could slow achievement of operational capability for the F-35 joint strike fighter, according to a new report by the US Government Accountability Office (GAO).

“Since the F-35 program restructuring was completed in March 2012, acquisition cost and schedule estimates have remained relatively stable, and the program has made progress in key areas,” GAO inspectors concluded. “However, persistent software problems have slowed progress in mission systems flight testing, which is critical to delivering the warfighting capabilities expected by the military services. These persistent delays put the program’s development cost and schedule at risk.”

The GAO’s report touches on concerns raised by the US Defense Department’s Office of Test and Evaluation in its annual report. It warned that deployment of the F-35B, the jump-jet variant built for the US Marine Corps, could be delayed by up to 13 months if software development does not stay on track.

The Marine Corps intends to achieve initial operating capability (IOC) with the Block 2B software in July 2015; the US Air Force is scheduled to follow with its F-35A by December 2016 with Block 3I, which is essentially the same software on more powerful hardware. The US Navy intends to go operational with the F-35C sometime between August 2018 and February 2019, on the Block 3F software.

“[I]f software testing continues to be delayed, if funding falls short of expectations, or if unit cost targets cannot be met, DoD may have to make decisions about whether to proceed with production as planned with less capable aircraft or to alter the production rate,” inspectors wrote.

The report concludes that the secretary of defense should assess the “specific capabilities that realistically can be delivered” for the planes by their respective IOC dates, something with which the F-35 joint program office agreed............

LowObservable

25th Mar 2014, 12:24

Already falling off the schedule published at the end of last May. Way to go there Sparky.

Plus, when did Venlet start talking about operating costs? Three years ago...

Meet The New Boss, Not The Same As The Old Boss (http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%253A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%253A5bc06431-d88e-4315-a325-f1ba7a5dc7c0)

Then Bogdan threatened to compete support (which could be vastly lucrative, high-margin work)...

The New Sheriff Ain't Happy (http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3A16281529-8b87-4942-8aca-099f3abaf493)

So what's been accomplished? Not a lot on the competition side, and the priority, unfortunately but inevitably, is to fix an unreliable jet and a hard-broke automated diagnostics and logistical system.

ORAC

26th Mar 2014, 09:01

Exclusive - U.S. set to approve international debut of F-35 fighter (http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/03/25/uk-lockheedmartin-fighter-idUKBREA2O1OM20140325)

(Reuters) - The U.S. Defense Department is poised to approve the first trans-Atlantic flight of Lockheed Martin Corp's F-35 fighter jet in July, when the new warplane is expected to take part in two international air shows near London, according to multiple sources familiar with the issue.

U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel is "very close" to a decision that would allow two or three F-35s to fly at two British shows, three sources, who were not authorized to speak publicly, said Tuesday. The shows are the Royal International Air Tattoo, or RIAT, an annual military air show outside London, and the Farnborough air show, held every other year..........

Britain, which contributed $2 billion (1.2 billion pounds) to the development of the new radar-evading fighter jet and plans to buy 138 F-35s in coming years, asked for the jet's participation to help showcase the increasing maturity of the new radar-evading plane. Britain was also the first international partner on the program.

Details of the F-35's international debut are being worked out, including how much it will cost to fly the planes to London and who will pay for it, but no issues have emerged to prevent the appearances, the sources said. The costs will likely be shared by Britain, the Pentagon's F-35 program office, the U.S. Marine Corps and industry.

The Pentagon's F-35 program office said it was evaluating the logistical, security and safety aspects of Britain's request for the jet's participation in both air shows and expected to make a recommendation to senior Pentagon leaders shortly.

Lockheed and Britain's Ministry of Defence declined comment.......