PDA

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


Pages : 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49

Navaleye
9th Jul 2012, 23:15
Milo,

All very good questions, but they could equally applied to every aviation project since WW2. Nothing runs to plan. This project has the might of the US Military behind it, unlike ours which were run on a shoestring. See below:

F-35B Ship Suitability Testing - YouTube

Milo Minderbinder
9th Jul 2012, 23:33
This is the only aviation project since WWII in which the entire future of British Military Aviation has been gambled - at an unaffordable cost - on a single project with no backup alternative.
If the F-35 project fails, then the UK will have voluntarily disarmed its air forces.

Navaleye
9th Jul 2012, 23:48
Everything is a gamble, but you are where you are and things are never as good or as bad as they seem. Having spent a couple of weeks with the USMC in February, they seem pretty sure of pulling this off. Only time will tell. Best Rgds.

Bastardeux
10th Jul 2012, 08:48
and it will work

Like that other ultra expensive, excessively technical jet that's been grounded more times than I can think of, with a terrible serviceability record and even a history of killing its pilots?

WhiteOvies
10th Jul 2012, 13:05
Milo,

UK would have to pay to be different so it is not an option to build something that looks like an F-35 on the outside but is actually completely different underneath. The whole point of F-35 is economies of scale.

People talk about an indiginous aircraft - the last one of those we had was Sea Harrier. Jaguar, Tornado, Typhoon were/are all co-operative with other nations, just European rather than US. Helos are the same, with Merlin being half Italian. We cannot afford to be indiginous. Why are people so keen to buy F-18 or Rafale instead which have NO UK involvement. At least Gripen is partially BAES.

A lot of the test engineers and test pilots involved in F-35 flight test are Brits from BAES and QinetiQ, the UK is an integral part of this project from the roots up. Labeling it as a Spamcan is grossly inaccurate.

F-35 will not be cancelled, it's too big and too important to the US services. It is expensive and late, so was Tornado, Typhoon, MRA4 and A400M so I don't know why F-35 is singled out as the only offender. Would we be further ahead in flight test achievements if this was a UK project? I really doubt it.

Define "works"? Did Typhoon in Block 1 config "work" compared to what it was supposed to do? Even with updates could it self designate for A-G when it needed to in Libya? Modern acquisition (and I'm not saying this is right) involves incremental improvements to add capabability through life so is "works" the ultimate end state?

Bastardeaux - no-one has been killed flying an F-35 yet. Not saying it won't happen, accidents do, but it's a bit rich to start throwing that around just yet.

Milo Minderbinder
10th Jul 2012, 13:23
I'm not suggesting we go it alone
What I was asking was whether - with the work already done - an F-35-lite could be put into production in the event of the USA shelving production because of cost overruns
If it has to be done, it won't just be the UK needing it.

Heathrow Harry
10th Jul 2012, 13:26
"F-35 will not be cancelled, it's too big and too important to the US services."

unfortunately it's the politicians who count - only the USAF really worry - the Army certainly wouldn't cry if it were cancelled and the USN are pretty luke warm anyway

WhiteOvies
10th Jul 2012, 13:43
Milo,
With the B off probation and already being delivered to the USMC this will not happen. Commandant Marine Corps is a huge supporter and the Marines punch above their weight in political lobbying.


Harry,
re: CNO's recent comments. Have you checked on CNOs background? Career submariner so not surprising he advocates advanced sub launched weapons delivery over carrier borne aircraft. The C variant was always due to be the last of the 3 variants to come into service, the classic C/D Hornet is running out of life and X-47 is well behind F-35 in flight test so the USN need it. They don't need it as quickly as we do though (due to Super Hornet), so that was part of the UK return to B decision

USMC and USAF have already started taking delivery of OCU jets at Eglin with more arriving on a regular basis. Building of facilities at several MCAS and AFB sites is well advanced. That's a lot of money and jobs to throw away. Economies of scale come into play, if one variant goes the others become too expensive and the whole thing falls flat. USN,USMC and USAF may not like being so tied together but that's the way it is.

Milo Minderbinder
10th Jul 2012, 13:46
"F-35 will not be cancelled, it's too big and too important to the US services."

And the Marines could make do by rebuilding their (and our) Harriers and stretching those out for another 10-15 years
Thats their plan B. Whats ours? Refit the few remaining Sea Harriers from the museums and ground schools?

WhiteOvies
10th Jul 2012, 14:02
The Marines have been sensible and bought our Harriers as insurance, that is their Plan B. They had always planned to operate AV8B til at least 2015 with a staggered transfer of personnel from Harrier to F-35. With spares becoming more expensive and Rolls not building anymore new engines buying our jets at a rock bottom price was a godsend for them. At the same time they are running out of F-18 airframes and may need to transition some aircrew onto AV8B until F-35 is ready in enough numbers.

What is our Plan B? Good question, to which my only answer would be sit and wait and hope we don't need the capability... Well above my pay grade but with the reversion to a STOVL carrier there isn't any other STOVL jet in the game. Mabe QE becomes a 'deck for hire' for the USMC/Spanish/Italians? Embarrassing for the politicians to see other nations Harriers operating off QE but it would at least help build the FW experience for the ship's company until F-35 FOCFT.

Bastardeux
10th Jul 2012, 15:26
no-one has been killed flying an F-35 yet. Not saying it won't happen, accidents do, but it's a bit rich to start throwing that around just yet.

I never said anyone has, I was talking about the F22...the hypoxia death trap that caused the death of an F22 pilot in Alaska and has had some of its pilots choosing to no longer fly it, for their own safety.


With the B off probation and already being delivered to the USMC this will not happen.

The B coming of probation was pure politics not technical qualification, many of the fundamental problems that landed it on probation, still exist unresolved.

The F35 still has c.75% and with it, the most challenging aspects of its flight testing still to finish. If that or the 90% of its mission codes yet to be written and/or verified throw some sort of curve ball that proves to be prohibitively expensive to fix, then the fact that the USMC have stood up a handful of jets in a skeletal OCU along with another few hundred million invested in airfield modifications, isn't going to stop congress pulling the plug.

I completely agree that a complete cancellation of the whole programme isn't going to happen, but the US navy withdrawing and/or a cancellation of the B after say 100 aircraft, is highly possible. Remember, the defence sequester is only 5 months...the clock is ticking with no sign of a compromise.

With the Netherlands openly talking about a withdrawal, I wouldn't be surprised if the whole thing ends up the same way as the F22; the original plan called for well over 1000 F35s to have been produced by 2018 and the current and most optimistic estimate is to have c.360 built by then...

WhiteOvies
10th Jul 2012, 16:54
Understood you were referring to the F-22, but the F-35 is not the same aircraft and has a different oxy system.

I'd disagree that it was pure politics whilst totally agreeing that there is a political dimension. However, going on the probation in the first place was a political decision by Gates, who in the same speech suggested a new bomber be developed (although that's all gone quiet).

The project had significant issues on a programme scale that needed sorting out but technical testing for the B turned itself around last year. Lack of Vertical Landing experience was resolved through 2011. I don't think that anyone thought that the initial sea trials would go on time, or be successful, but they did and were. The aux engine inlet door issue quoted by Gates was also fixed by modification, and proven by flight test, which did not significantly alter the weight (don't know about cost) prior to the probation being lifted. What other 'fundamental' issues are you referring to, apart from ones like HMD that affect all variants?

I'm sure more discoveries will come to light, that's what flight test does and the next years will be busy at Pax River. However, the USMC hand is now strengthened by the UK coming back to the B. We upset the Marine Corps by bailing on them once but they seem to have forgiven us and welcomed us back into the STOVL fold, sealed with a loving 72 GR9s.

Netherlands not buying A's would impact, as would Italy changing their buy. But the politicians have to remember that LM have it in writing that pulling out of the buy affects the industrial share of the build allotted to that country. As such any removal of aircraft would cost aerospace industry jobs.

kbrockman
10th Jul 2012, 18:50
Netherlands not buying A's would impact, as would Italy changing their buy. But the politicians have to remember that LM have it in writing that pulling out of the buy affects the industrial share of the build allotted to that country. As such any removal of aircraft would cost aerospace industry jobs.

Precisely that argument has come around a full 360° and bit the proponnents of the JSF in Holland severely in the ass.
The fear that LM can easily relocate work ,that was originally planned to be done in the Netherlands, to other sites in the US or other partner nations is indicative of the fairly low cutting edge technical level of involvement of the Dutch companies involved.
The US , and Bae in the UK/US, have made sure that almost all, if not all, relevant high tech technology stays in house while contributing tier 2 and 3 nations design/produce almost nothing which is cutting edge and gives them an edge in future projects, the only noteable exception seems to be Elbit from Israel, and a couple of optional pieces like eg. the Norwegian JSM.

Fact is that the F16's will need to be replaced and there are much more and interesting pieces of the pie to be had if countries like Holland choose to go with other projects ,like the RAFALE or EF or Gripen or F15, F18 or the F16V.
Many main and important subsystems need to be upgraded or developped from the ground up giving ample opportunities for the Dutch defense industry to participate when they decide upon what plane should replace their F16's.
This time they would have the opportunity to be invested in all kinds of interesting, and later useable in other business opportunities, technologies iso of being a cheap low tech-parts supplier of nothing but the F35.
The worldwide aftermarket for upgrades on the legacy fighters will be huge and those that don't have the expertise and equipment in house will have no part of it.

eg, hypothetically,... let's assume Holland, Belgium and Denmark (forget about Norway, they're to far up LM's ass) team up once again and decide to get involved in one of the running projects, let's say, for the sake of argument, the EF.
Their is enormous potential and opportunity on almost all fronts, weapons integration, Avionics apgrades, Radar, Pod's, engines, TVC, Ram materials, redesiging tailend, wingupgrades, etc, etc ,etc...... .

dermedicus
18th Jul 2012, 03:06
Then what?

There are rumours around online about the RAAF once being tentatively offered Sukhois. Does not seem like such a bad choice, although I very much doubt the RAF would receive the same overtures.

peter we
18th Jul 2012, 07:59
"Thats their plan B. Whats ours?"

Order a few dozen F-35B's for delivery, together with the other non-US customers over the next few years?

Besides that the F-18 and Rafale will operate with a slightly reduced MTOW in a STOBAR mode.

Heathrow Harry
18th Jul 2012, 08:21
After the presidential election whoever is in will have to find very large sums of money somewhere out of the current budget - I can't see the navy wanting to lose their new "Ford" carriers or the new SSN's - the Army couldn't give a toss about the F-35 sooooooooooo the USAF will be on their own

not a comfortable place to be

I also suspect once one "partner" pulls out the rush to the door will be amazing - thsi has happened on a number of "collaborative" projects worldwide. No-one really wants to be first but needs must when the devil drives

longer ron
18th Jul 2012, 13:21
Besides that the F-18 and Rafale will operate with a slightly reduced MTOW in a STOBAR mode.

As much an operational cul de sac as stovl...you still would not be able to operate fixed wing support a/c so therefore as much a total waste of money as F35b

orca
18th Jul 2012, 13:58
Just a quickie.

Super Hornet with full internals and a centre line tank needs just under 2000 ft of roll in Max AB.

STOBAR is therefore not really a player in my mind.

We have made our bed, we are going to lie in it. If US defence cuts add a gallon or two of 'no F-35B' urine to the equation well that's our fault for a) going down the STOVL route to start with b) attempting to let the UK build its own carrier - in yet another collaborative fudge- and c) making the best decision ever to go cat and trap, followed by the worst one since we left a small island nation with no MPA. (Which is in itself the worst decision ever and will probably never be beaten - although Hitler's crack at Russia does come close)

ORAC
12th Nov 2012, 03:15
Top Pilot: Air Force Should Put Brakes on All-Stealth Arsenal (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/11/all-stealth-force/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+WiredDangerRoom+%28Wired%3A+Blog+-+Danger+Room%29&utm_content=Google+Reader)


The latest critic of the U.S. Air Force’s ambitious — and pricey — plan for an all-stealth fighter fleet is one of the flying branch’s top stealth pilots.

Writing in the Air Force Research Institute’s Air & Space Power Journal, Lt. Col. Christopher Niemi, a former F-22 test pilot who later commanded a frontline squadron of the radar-evading jets, says the Air Force is making a big mistake by buying only the most expensive stealth fighters — namely, the F-22 and the newer F-35.

“An all-stealth Air Force fighter fleet deserves reconsideration (http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/digital/pdf/articles/Nov-Dec-2012/F-Niemi.pdf),” Niemi asserts (.pdf). ”Stealth technology demands significant trade-offs in range, security, weapons carriage, sortie generation, and adaptability. Stealth provides no advantage in conflicts such as those in Afghanistan or Iraq (since 2003), and (despite its obvious utility) it cannot guarantee success in future struggles with a near-peer adversary.”

“Most importantly,” Niemi adds, “the cost of F-22s and F-35s threatens to reduce the size of the Air Force’s fielded fighter fleet to dangerously small numbers, particularly in the current fiscal environment.”...............

A A Gruntpuddock
12th Nov 2012, 07:39
"Which is in itself the worst decision ever and will probably never be beaten"

I think the idea of building two carriers then selling the only planes we had which could fly off them must be neck and neck.

Even as a civilian with an interest in aircraft I could see that every 'non-Harrier' VTOL ever built was too badly compromised by the extra weight and complexity.

airsound
13th Nov 2012, 16:19
Just noticed this snippet in a Flight International piece by David Majumdar dated 6 Nov. My bold.
The F-35 (http://www.flightglobal.com/landingpage/Lockheed%20Martin%20F-35.html) is in its infancy, but the stealthy type is already proving to be relatively stable from a maintenance standpoint, says Col Andrew Toth, commander of the 33rd Fighter Wing.
"The system right now is behaving as advertised, [although] occasionally, we will have some issues with it on the ground," he says. However, this is usually easily fixed by shutting the aircraft down and then restarting it.
I love it. Microsoft, I presume?

"Come on, Bloggs, call for take off for chrissake...."
"Sorry, Sir, I'm just restarting the jet."

airsound

f4aviation
13th Nov 2012, 16:23
"Ctrl...Alt...Del"

"Do you want to start your F-35 in safe mode..."

Finningley Boy
13th Nov 2012, 16:48
I occasionally I find my laptop won't fire up, I have to disconnect the power lead and hold the power button down to the count of 30 before re-connecting and re-starting, apparently it clears any build up of static and allows the machine to fire up again!?

I wonder if that may also be a problem with the F35? I imagine it won't do during a QRA scramble should F35s find themselves mounting such.

FB:)

FODPlod
13th Nov 2012, 18:42
FB - The same routine can apply to wifi mice, too. Symptoms of static build-up can include the mouse 'double-clicking' despite the button only being pressed once.

ORAC
16th Nov 2012, 14:26
I'm getting a sense that reports like this are becoming more and more common. Is someone running a PR campaign to get people ready for a major cut or even cancellation of the USN F-35B/C order?

Navy's Move To Growler 70% Complete; Build-Up Reflects Stealth Doubts (http://defense.aol.com/2012/11/15/navys-move-to-growler-70-complete-build-up-reflects-stealth-d/)

LowObservable
16th Nov 2012, 14:55
ORAC - Not surprising. There are lots of Hornet/Growler people who think that they can take on pretty much anybody for the next decade-and-a-bit, and know that they will have to, anyway, with the rate that the F-35 is going; they also recognize that the F-35C won't, for a long time, have some of the tricks that are on the Block 2 Rhino today. And in the meantime they could use some of the money that is being spent on the F-35B/C.

Not_a_boffin
16th Nov 2012, 15:31
"Is someone running a PR campaign to get people ready for a major cut or even cancellation of the USN F-35B/C order?"

I think someone in Seattle is trying very hard to make people think that's a viable option..........

orca
16th Nov 2012, 17:04
The F-35C won't have the F-18E's second engine for an awfully long time ;) -which fuels some of the pro-Rhino arguments.

I think Boeing would be very happy to see LM's product be side lined.

kbrockman
17th Nov 2012, 16:51
Let's see what the impending fiscal cliff combined with a (final) second term presidency that is obliged to cut deeply in all levels of government is going to do with the DoD budget and more specifically the F35 program.
If the Stimson think tank is anything to go by the longterm faith of the F35 looks rather pale and the B-version might not make it at all.
http://www.stimson.org/images/uploads/research-pdfs/A_New_US_Defense_Strategy_for_a_New_Era.pdf
“Under Strategic Agility, if budgetary pressures necessitated cuts, the number of F-16s squadrons could be reduced and F-35s purchased in smaller numbers, in order to free resources to invest in next-generation technologies.”

...

“The Air Force budget would be cut by 25 percent from its FY13 level, although much of those cuts would come from the nuclear reductions, as well as the F-16 and F-35 cuts.”

...

“The F-35 short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft in development may no longer be required, and if budget reductions necessitate cuts, the Marines may want to forego acquiring this aircraft to free resources to invest in the system a generation beyond this manned aircraft, much as the Navy is doing.”

WhiteOvies
18th Nov 2012, 04:08
Isn't the point of F-35 that it is next generation technology? A reduction in A's for the USAF seems realistic given the history of F-22, but I still see the C as the most at risk variant, not the B.

With USN investment in UCAS and UCLASS, the F-35C being the smallest buy, the C having the latest ISD and a submariner in charge of the USN, I can see this being the obvious variant to chop. The USMCs only option for future airpower is the B as they're hornets are running out of life and they're Harriers won't last forever.

Any reduction in numbers pushes up the cost for everyone else though, which would start a slippery slope of cancellations by partner nations.

Heathrow Harry
18th Nov 2012, 09:26
Actually, given the time its taken, it's last generation technology

It has been increasingly clear for a long time that no-one can build a state-of -the art fighter without over expending vast sums = cuts = increased unit price etc etc

N R Augustine's Law 16, still holds

Defence budgets grow linearly but the unit cost (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_cost) of a new military aircraft grows exponentially (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth): In the year 2054, the entire defence budget will purchase just one aircraft. This aircraft will have to be shared by the Air Force and Navy 3½ days each per week except for leap year, when it will be made available to the Marines for the extra day.

cokecan
18th Nov 2012, 09:41
F-35B is not the USMC's only airpower option, its the USMC's only fixed-wing airpower option.

the nasty, grotty truth is the USMC's CAS needs would be far better supplied by 3 times as many AH-64's as F-35B, as F-35B doesn't have a gun, is so expensive that it can't be forward based where it might get walloped ala Bastion, and is so expensive that the USMC's buy will be too small to provide them with the on-call, right-now, everywhere-we-are CAS that they require as a high-end expeditionary force.

the only people really driving this programme are the USMC, and they are the people who's doctrine least needs a stealthy, high-cost, no external ordinance, based-far-from-danger platform - everyone else is getting F-35 because the USMC need the other services to buy it to allow them to have their version.

longer ron
18th Nov 2012, 09:54
The USMC does at least have the option to fly (say) newer F18's (not to mention some 2nd hand harriers :) )...it is the brit FAA who do not have a plan B at present,because their guvmint decided to build a carrier without cats etc LOL

cokecan
18th Nov 2012, 10:10
sorry, i was talking about important people. us wanting - really, really wanting - to buy 50 F-35's does not put us in that bracket.

JSFfan
18th Nov 2012, 10:11
well they better hurry up and cancel it, the first operational F-35 unit (VMFA-121) F-35 got it's first F-35B and they are standing a full squadron next year
VMFA-121 gets first operational F-35B - YouTube

Just This Once...
18th Nov 2012, 11:07
JSFfan,

This is a site for military aircrew and those that support them; it is not a fanboy site. To help your education there is a gulf between operating an aircraft and making it operational. There is even more work required to turn an operational aircraft assigned to a squadron into an operational squadron. Yet more to turn it into an operational capability.

Please keep in mind that flying the F-35B around is far from operational. Operational aircraft need to be able to fly at night, fly in cloud, fly at meaningful speeds, at meaningful altitudes with meaningful software with key systems fitted and switched on.

For an aircraft designed to carry ordinance it worthwhile to remember how many live IR missiles have been fired, how many AMRAAM, how many gun rounds, how many live stores from how many cleared stations. Beyond that you may wish to remember how many electrons the EW systems have moved about and how often any of this has been tied together as a complete package.

The aircraft has a long way to go to being operational vs giving the pilots and support elements something to do.

JSFfan
18th Nov 2012, 11:23
it might help if you read what I wrote "the first operational F-35 unit (VMFA-121) F-35 got it's first F-35B"

and I said they were "standing a squadron" not that the squadron or the f-35b will be IOC

hval
18th Nov 2012, 13:21
Cokecan,

sorry, i was talking about important people. us wanting - really, really wanting - to buy 50 F-35's does not put us in that bracket.

You have upset me now. I am going to sulk. Are you telling me that Mrs Hval is the only person that thinks I am important, and possibly not her either?

LowObservable
18th Nov 2012, 17:17
The problem is that the UK, by reverting to the B, has made STOVL the key to its biggest defense equipment plan.

The F-35B in the US is also sustained by the thesis that STOVL fast-jet air is a strategic necessity, but will you find that view supported in public by anyone except the Marines and their support network.

And if you think that Carrier Navy is happy about more than half the service's TacAir recap budget going to the Grunts, think again.

NaB - The campaign that you mention is a reality. What's gradually changing is that, a couple of years ago, to talk too loudly about whether Hornet/Growler is a better investment for the Navy, at least for the next 10-15 years, was not career-enhancing. Now that a lot of Hornet/Growler people are rising to flag rank, it's different.

JSFfan
18th Nov 2012, 17:31
Even Australia said the Shornet is fine for the next 10-15 as day one, but you can't swap the fleet over in one year for the needed numbers of f-35 for 15+ years and that's the reason we are getting our first delivery in 2014...so there is no gap in the switch-over.

The USMC isn't happy that the USN is getting 50% of TACAIR funds either, sounds normal.

ORAC
19th Nov 2012, 19:41
The aircraft has a long way to go to being operational vs giving the pilots and support elements something to do. Indeed...

Marines’ First Frontline Stealth Fighter Lacks Vital Gear (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/11/marines-jsf/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+WiredDangerRoom+%28Wired%3A+Blog+-+Danger+Room%29&utm_content=Google+Reader)

Squirrel 41
19th Nov 2012, 20:52
ORAC, thanks

It seems to this unreconstructed cynic that the USMC may be pushing ahead this hard in order to make Dave-B a fait accompli when the budget cutters cut their deal to avoid the fiscal cliff over the next few weeks.

However, it's so transparently absurd to claim that VFMA-121 is combat ready, or will be anytime soon, that if anything it focusses attention on whether the USMC needs Dave-B at all? If so, is it worth the (very considerable) price?

Given that, as LO points out

And if you think that Carrier Navy is happy about more than half the service's TacAir recap budget going to the Grunts, think again.

Yup!

I hope saner heads prevail in DC, and that the B is dumped after setting as many FAI World Records as it can. Leaves us in the untreated sewage, but will force HMG to find the cash to convert CVF to CATOBAR and order Dave-C (which was, arguably, the most sensible decision in SDSR - not that there was a lot of competition for that award.... :hmm:)

S41

eaglemmoomin
19th Nov 2012, 21:58
You do realise that the B being cancelled now would mean the death of fixed carrier air in the UK. Anyone who wants the B cancelled wants fixed RN aviation dead at this point. It's far far too late, 2010 was far too late.

CVF was always going to be STOVL if you read all the presentations and design synopsis it's always in terms of STOVL. 2010 would have been a rubbish mickey mouse part time carrier capability, it was one carrier only, 1 fricking carrier what's the point. You need at least two to provide 365 day a year 24/7 carrier capability. The reasons it was going to be expensive to do then are even worse now.

Right now two gigantic sections of QE (mostly internally fitted out) are sat in Roysth No 1 Dock with large sections of the rest of it sat on the side of the dock. EMALS won't be certified on the G Ford until 2015 (there is absolutely no guarentee that this will actually happen). The POW will be mostly built by 2015, in fact large blocks of it are well underway all over the country.

I'm willing to bet a one of two reasons that the cat and trap cost was so high would have been delaying the POW build several years (the carriers build start has already been delayed a year and added a billion on in costs). The sheer cost involved in ripping one completed and one mostly completed aircraft carrier apart will be eye watering (plus the ships were built in many different blocks so the skills and knowledge to do it is scattered across the country not all in one place, it'd be an expensive logistical nightmare) not to mention the cost of redesign work, certification the whole smash.

Then factor in that the navy wouldn't be getting an aircraft carrier in 2016 for trials but an indeterminate time afterwards 'capability holiday' indeed. All the planning gets totally screwed, which leads to yet more costs. If the B gets cancelled then its likely that the government completes the carriers and then either moth balls them or sells them which is what the SDSR was going to do with one of them lest we forget. It's going to be a lot harder justifying getting rid of one of them in 2015 if you can just pop the planes off QE and onto POW to give that year round capability. I'd rather have two carriers flying aircraft we are already buying (we own two already) and a year round capability.

West Coast
20th Nov 2012, 01:27
Good thing the Marines have a degree of perspective when it comes to programs judged in the media and on the hill. Generally they've come out on top.

It is somewhat curious what the squadron designation lost with the transition, VMFA 121 used to be VMFA 121 (AW). The AW standing for all weather, the norm with two seat D models.

GreenKnight121
20th Nov 2012, 02:24
When I was with them in 1985-87, they were VMA(AW)-121, with A-6E Intruders (note the lack of fighter function?).

Designations change, as do capabilities, when aircraft types change.


However, it's so transparently absurd to claim that VFMA-121 is combat ready, or will be anytime soon,

Since NO ONE actually claimed that, this statement shows your bias against the aircraft very well.


VMFA-121 has been, and still is, an operational squadron... one that conducts combat deployments and missions... and not a developmental or training squadron. THAT is what has been said, and it is utterly true!

Yes, it will be ~3 years before the earliest that VMFA-121 could attain operational capability with the F-35B (and possibly longer), but that is the goal, and delivery of the first aircraft to this squadron is the first direct step in the process.

West Coast
20th Nov 2012, 02:34
Indeed, I remember them in the A6. Wasn't 121 the squadron that bombed the departure end of 7R at NZJ?

Not sure if one can infer anything from the loss of the AW designation. Have to ask around.

GreenKnight121
20th Nov 2012, 04:57
I can't remember... I am pretty sure it was an A-6E squadron (I was there at the time), so it would be either -121 or -242 (Black Bats, with whom I spent 6 months of 1984 in Japan & the Philippines).

-242 is now renamed "Batsmen" to appease the political-correct brigade. This despite the name & mascot not possibly being mistaken for a racial slur... except by those who get paid for each "racially-insensitive" thing they "uncover", and who thus find offensive things that any half-intelligent or more person is able to recognize as absolutely non-racist.

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b336/Bager1968/other%20stuff/VMAAW-242logo.gif

The sticker I had on my USMC ID card in 1985-87:
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b336/Bager1968/other%20stuff/USSRangerIDcardsticker.jpg

chopper2004
20th Nov 2012, 07:54
Best of luck to the boys and girls of VMFA-121 with their new toy.

Slightly digressing here but Green Knight, I do recall the filming credits of Top Gun been allocated to USS Ranger as well as the other 2 carriers (can' remember) and prior to the films release, in 86, must have taken a year or two of preparation and filming so were you on board when Hollywoods finest came to film out of interest?

Back to the F-35 discussion so far the unit allocations been

33rd FW : VMFAT-501, 58th FS, VFA-101 'Gim Reapers'

and now front line VMFA-121 .

anyones guess what the next frontline VFA/VMFA/FS going to be? Anyone squadron with a rich heritage. Umm looking further ahead albeit minus the crystal ball, would it be safe to assume the F-16 USAFE units left in Germany and Italy be the next to receive the 35 following on from the Korean based units?

Cheers

oldmansquipper
20th Nov 2012, 10:29
F-35 High Angle of Attack Testing - YouTube

Interesting spin recovery chute config (for squippers, anyway):)

Lowe Flieger
20th Nov 2012, 15:14
I hope ... the B is dumped .... Leaves us in the untreated sewage, but will force HMG to find the cash to convert CVF to CATOBAR and order Dave-COr provide an easy target for complete cancellation of both carriers and associated naval fighter, so saving a whole bunch of capital and operating costs to be spent wisely on other deserving causes instead. I don't think it automatically follows that there would be an immediate substitute. Much easier to 'kick the can down the road' as our American friends are fond of saying, maybe until SDSR 2020, or whenever.

I therefore hope F35B happens. Not because I am bowled over by it but because the alternative could easily be much, much worse.

I would have gone cat&trap with Super Hornets (on lease if feasible) pending greater certainty of both cost and performance of F35. But we are past that now. If it was £2bn to fit EMALS 3 months ago, it will be an even bigger number and more delay now.

LF

GreenKnight121
20th Nov 2012, 21:51
Slightly digressing here but Green Knight, I do recall the filming credits of Top Gun been allocated to USS Ranger as well as the other 2 carriers (can' remember) and prior to the films release, in 86, must have taken a year or two of preparation and filming so were you on board when Hollywoods finest came to film out of interest?

Yes, my squadron was assigned to Ranger's Air Wing (CVW-2) during the filming of both Top Gun and Star Trek IV (the scenes aboard ship were filmed on CV-61, not CVN-65) in late 1985-early 1986... but when the ship is in home-port (NAS North Island, Ca.) the squadrons are back at their home bases.

These were NAS Miramar, Ca. for the F-14A & E-2C squadrons (VF-1, VF-2, VAW-116), NAS Whidbey Island, Wa. for the Navy A-6E and EA-6B squadrons (VA-145 & VAQ-131), the airfield side of NAS North Island for the S-3A & SH-3H squadrons (VS-38 & HS-14), and MCAS El Toro, Ca. for VMA(AW)-121 (80 miles or so north of NAS N.I.).

Therefore, only the Ship's Company were present during the filming of the on-board scenes (which took no more than a couple of days in reality for each movie). Few of the ship's crew even knew about the filming in advance, only finding out when the studio crews showed up... we in the squadrons only learned about it later, weeks or months after the fact!

RAFEngO74to09
21st Nov 2012, 15:07
Local news item on delivery of first 2 x F-35B to VFMA-121. A total of 16 are due to be delivered by end-2013.

F-35 squadron makes debut in Yuma | azfamily.com Phoenix (http://www.azfamily.com/news/F-35-Squadron-makes-debut-in-Yuma-180284881.html)

ORAC
22nd Nov 2012, 03:27
What the Marines’ Stealth Fighter Can’t Do (http://www.warisboring.com/2012/11/20/what-the-marines-stealth-fighter-cant-do/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+WarIsBoring+%28War+Is+Boring%29&utm_content=Google+Reader)

Last week the U.S. Marine Corps accepted the first combat-designated F-35B stealth fighter at its air station in Yuma, Arizona. The Corps is racing to prep its first frontline F-35B squadron for Initial Operating Capability sometime in the 2015 timeframe. A reputable source provides some context:

The Marines’ early-IOC force is a maximum of 33 jets — the F-35Bs in LRIP-4 through 7, the last of which should be delivered in 2015 if they ever get back on schedule. These are the only Bs that have Block 2B software. Given training and test needs, plus concurrency mods, I don’t see more than one squadron.

These aircraft are limited to 550 knots airspeed, Mach 1.2 and 5.5 G and carry internal weapons only. Of the internal weapons, the only useful weapon for CAS is the GBU-12 LGB. They don’t have AIM-9X, so they are at a disadvantage against almost any air threat unless the ROEs allow BVR engagement with radar only.

FoxtrotAlpha18
22nd Nov 2012, 04:14
I think that reporter has an Axe to grind...I'd like to see his sources...:hmm:

The IOC Block 2F will have AIM-9X, AMRAAM, LGB & JDAM, as well as centreline gun pod.

JSFfan
22nd Nov 2012, 08:17
the guy is clueless, the f-35 has over 600 data points for ID's, radar is only a part of it. I don't know what the limits are on 2B software because I'm not following it that close, but I speculate even in 2B software it will be a beast

eaglemmoomin
22nd Nov 2012, 13:05
Or provide an easy target for complete cancellation of both carriers and associated naval fighter, so saving a whole bunch of capital and operating costs to be spent wisely on other deserving causes instead. I don't think it automatically follows that there would be an immediate substitute. Much easier to 'kick the can down the road' as our American friends are fond of saying, maybe until SDSR 2020, or whenever.

I therefore hope F35B happens. Not because I am bowled over by it but because the alternative could easily be much, much worse.

I would have gone cat&trap with Super Hornets (on lease if feasible) pending greater certainty of both cost and performance of F35. But we are past that now. If it was £2bn to fit EMALS 3 months ago, it will be an even bigger number and more delay now.

LF

I totally agree. F35B going means two mothballed/sold (but to who) aircraft carriers and no more UK fixed wing air. There is no extra budget to do it unless you want to bin the T26, MHPC replacement (patrol vessel/minehunter/survey ship) and the Merlin based Seaking ASac replacement which would be a decision of monumentally towering stupidity.

Anyway EMALS is a non starter for us. Just based on when we started building our carriers. It's still testing and won't be certified aboard G Ford until 2015 (assuming nothing goes wrong:hmm:) well past when the QE will be complete and nearing the final stages of stitching POW together. When Converteam had the rug pulled on the UK version of EMALS which had been in protype form and test for quite a while and no funding you knew Cats and traps was off the menu.

SDSR was always a daft decision purely because it effectively deleted one carrier. You have to have at least two preferably three to do 365 day 24/7 carrier ops. SDSR would have had one carrier and one brand new one in mothballs/sold making it almost pointless. The time to go CATOBAR would have been before the steel was cut. The design allows space for cats and traps to be fitted (steam based with boilers, which was rejected anyway as being too hard on the airframes and being inefficient what with the ships being all electric) doesn't mean it'd be cheap with two complete ships so getting it into the design before build was the time to do it. Add in the extra delay to the RN getting the ships and potential risk associated and you just know the capability would be deleted.

Snafu351
22nd Nov 2012, 14:35
Hhmm so in response to an article that states what capabilities are available today your counter argument is "that's a load of rubbish, it will be able to take out tie fighters in the future."

Where have i heard that (non) "argument" before...:rolleyes:?

JSFfan
22nd Nov 2012, 15:12
No, I called BS and his lack of any knowledge on "These aircraft are limited to 550 knots airspeed, Mach 1.2 and 5.5 G and carry internal weapons only. Of the internal weapons, the only useful weapon for CAS is the GBU-12 LGB. They don’t have AIM-9X, so they are at a disadvantage against almost any air threat unless the ROEs allow BVR engagement with radar only."

For the USMC to call IOC at 2B it means that it reaches the initial CONOPS requirement for the USMC. It doesn't reach the CONOPS of USAF or USN and the partners initial IOC requirements, that is block 3-3+

Snafu351
22nd Nov 2012, 15:24
Sure... it is in no way a piece of PR propoganda so that politicans can be told the machine is in service.

JSFfan
22nd Nov 2012, 15:31
Fixed it for you
"it is in no way a piece of PR propoganda so that politicans can be told the machine is in service"

Snafu351
22nd Nov 2012, 15:43
Right. :rolleyes:
Did you get a pony when you wished weally weally hard for one?

WhiteOvies
22nd Nov 2012, 17:05
IOC is still a way off - fact.

The USMC is not claiming the stand up at Yuma as IOC, just the start of the process. Even the General in his speech said that they would be taking things slowly.
The aircraft still has a lot to do in testing, with 2013 being planned to be the busiest year, but these aircraft at Yuma are not 'test aircraft', they are not instrumented and have all the mission systems fitted.

Your perception of F-35 development can be coloured by what you compare it against. Compare the timescales for development and the air to air and air to ground capability at IOC against Typhoon and F-35 comes out very well. Its then a question whether the capability is worth the cost...

WhiteOvies
26th Nov 2012, 15:31
First U.K. pilots begin training to fly F-35 - Community - Crestview News Bulletin (http://www.crestviewbulletin.com/news/community/first-u-k-pilots-begin-training-to-fly-f-35-1.54149?tc=cr)

The UK has started to build its cadre of F-35 pilots to add to Sqn Ldr Schofield (current UK F-35 TP) with 1 RN and 1 RAF pilot.

Good news what with the recent videos from the Chinese!

Edited to add:as well as the 3 BAES UK F-35 Test Pilots of course!:cool:

Temp Spike
27th Nov 2012, 08:06
Personally I think we should GIVE Great Britain a couple or three F-35 wings and a couple F-22 wings as well just for being the friends they’ve been. We could probably sell Guam to the Chinese to offset the cost. Never liked Guam anyway.

Romulus
27th Nov 2012, 09:08
Personally I think we should GIVE Great Britain a couple or three F-35 wings and a couple F-22 wings as well just for being the friends they’ve been. We could probably sell Guam to the Chinese to offset the cost. Never liked Guam anyway.

Treat them like shaving equipment - give away the base unit and then charge wildly for the consumables over the life of the thing!

Heathrow Harry
27th Nov 2012, 10:58
Anyone seen this weeks "Flight"?

Editorial about the Marine Corps history of rushing aircraft into service and counting the bodies afterwards ( I paraphrase ;))

teeteringhead
27th Nov 2012, 11:13
Treat them like shaving equipment - give away the base unit and then charge wildly for the consumables over the life of the thing! ... or computer printers! :(

Temp Spike
27th Nov 2012, 12:31
[Treat them like shaving equipment - give away the base unit and then charge wildly for the consumables over the life of the thing!]

 

Well no uh…we could leave the Guamians. Wouldn’t want to cheat China.

ORAC
29th Nov 2012, 07:13
DEW Line: Canada might be issuing RFIs for F-35 alternative soon (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2012/11/canada-might-be-issuing-rfis-f-1.html)

Canada's National Post is reporting that the country's Conservative--or Tory if you prefer--government will soon issue requests for information (RFI) to Boeing, Eurofighter and possibly Dassault for a potential alternative to the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The move is designed to signal that the Harper government is serious about considering alternatives to the stealthy single-engine fighter, the purchase of which is mired in controversy in Canada.

Read the story here (http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/11/23/harper-government-seeking-alternatives-to-troubled-f-35-fighter-jet-sources/)

The Post reports that the RFI is not a formal tender but more of a market analysis. Canada's minister of public works, Rona Ambrose, is apparently setting aside the Royal Canadian Air Force's stated requirements for its next generation fighter while a new analysis is conducted. "We are looking at all options on the table at this point," Ambrose says.

The Post's sources say that officials inside the public works ministry are "not comfortable" with the Canadian Department of National Defense's stated requirements for a new fighter. They're doing their own "due diligence."

The alternatives that Canada will likely consider are Boeing's F/A-18E/F Super Hornet (and possibly versions of the F-15, but that's probably not likely), the Eurofighter Typhoon, the Dassault Rafale and probably the Saab Gripen. The Super Hornet, Typhoon and Rafale have twin engines, which at least for some Royal Canadian Air Force pilots, is a major benefit when patrolling the vast reaches of the Canadian Arctic.

But US Air force pilots who have flown in similar Arctic conditions don't necessarily buy that argument. "F-16s have been flying out of Eielson AFB for 20 years and haven't had many problems with their single engine," one senior USAF pilot says. Another USAF pilot with similar experience in Alaska says: "I don't buy the 'can't use a single engine aircraft for alert ops' argument that some Canadians are using. We always wore gear suitable to survive long enough to get rescued. If you make the assumption up front that there's a chance you'll have to bail out, then the probability of bailing out shouldn't really matter...especially if it's extremely negligible."

BEagle
29th Nov 2012, 07:32
The combat performance of the Rafale impressed the RCAF during the Libyan campaign. Its multi-role reliability and the ability to refuel quickly from the CC150T were of considerable interest.....

I never understood why Canada was intending to require the F-35A though - the F-35C appeared to me to be rather more suitable and is also fully compatible with the CC-150T, whereas the 'standard' version of the F-35A is not.

Surely it's a two horse race between the Super Hornet and Rafale?

glojo
29th Nov 2012, 08:41
For several months the Canadian government have been EXTREMELY critical of the ongoing saga regarding all the well publicised issues surrounding the F-35 and this is just one of many, many stories that are continually being published.

Is the F-35 aircraft simply becoming far to expensive and most countries are now realising they might not be able to afford to buy the numbers required to have a viable air wing?

PhilipG
29th Nov 2012, 09:51
As I see it, it is not just the cost of the F35 that is the problem in this Austerity world that Governments are baulking at, it is the delay in availability of the F35 that is requiring some of the funds that where meant to be used to purchase F35s being used to keep the present fighter fleets flying, that may well reduce the final number of F35s purchased.

cokecan
29th Nov 2012, 09:59
Glojo, i think you're right - not only is the absolute cost astronomical, but the relative cost is astonishing.

a single F-35B is going to buy you 130+ brand-spanking new Tommahawk Land Attack Missiles, and 30 F-35B's are going to buy, what, 45 - 50 top of the range F/A-18E SuperHornets with full weapons integration and immediate service.

its difficult to justify F-35 when a) its unlikely to be a mature airframe/weapon for another 12-15 years, b) the 'christ!' price tag covers a relatively small part of what most airforces are buying it for - which is everything, c) there are already doubts about its ability to do the first day of war task given the ever increasing capabilities of radar systems, and d) the observation that it would be far cheaper to 'stealthify' an air launched cruise missile and fire it from an F/A-18/Typhoon/Rafale to lop off the AD network that it would be to build a LO aircraft, fly it right into the LO network and drop Paveways onto it.

JSFfan
29th Nov 2012, 10:32
Aussie Labour gov was publicly anti f-35 and had a "market analysis" too when they won power...guess what we are getting. If you use the real price of the f-35, you may come to the same conclusion as the italians and the f-35 is cheaper

eaglemmoomin
29th Nov 2012, 12:37
The thing that troubles me is that the F18E/F is now approximately a 20 odd year old design so the avionics etc will be in need of a refresh/update hence all this 'Silent Hornet' stuff which suprise suprise is going to cost additional money. So if you want an equivalent to the avionics packages in the F35 and the data linking and global maintenance network for which the r&d and testing of the software and firmware will be the main cost there will be an indeterminate development period while Boeing go and redevelop the wheel that LM has already expensively designed. Given how long software and firmware take to develop I can't say that I'm suprised that Boeing haven't self funded development and have been trying to flog the concept to a buyer for the past two years.

LowObservable
29th Nov 2012, 14:24
Beags - The F-35C's OEW is a piffling 5500 pounds more than that of the F-35A, which has a performance impact, and the giant wing is not going to do wonders for your transonic acceleration.

If someone forced me at gunpoint to buy an F-35 (which is pretty much the US marketing strategy anyway) I would ask for an A+ with probe-and-drogue and no internal gun. It would have nearly as much internal fuel as the C and weigh 6000+ pounds less.

And srsly, folks, if you get in a guns fight in a JSF you (a) have already :mad:ed up and (b) deserve what is about to happen to you. And strafing in a single-engine, densely-packed jet, in an era of mini guided weapons? :mad:!

Funny thing is that they switched to the Gatling from the 27 mm Rheinmetall in 2003 because they thought that they had a big weight margin to play with.

ColdCollation
29th Nov 2012, 14:39
Cokecan - nail on the head, mate.

kbrockman
29th Nov 2012, 15:37
NY Time has a decent article about the past ,present and possible future of the whole JSF program;
In Federal Budget Cutting, F-35 Fighter Jet Is at Risk - NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/29/us/in-federal-budget-cutting-f-35-fighter-jet-is-at-risk.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&hp)

Software, price, software, helmet , range (?) and software still seem to be the biggest hurdles.
iso 2443 they might be lucky to get 1200-1800, foreign orders more than ever needed to make the unit price low enough to be manageable .

Also the most competition the whole program will likely face will come from the future new stealth bomber (range, payload) for the USAF and the X47 which has started its first on board testing with the US NAVY and will be able to fly considerably further than the F35C.

etc... .

Not_a_boffin
29th Nov 2012, 15:44
And srsly, folks, if you get in a guns fight in a JSF you (a) have already ed up and (b) deserve what is about to happen to you. And strafing in a single-engine, densely-packed jet, in an era of mini guided weapons? !


Without wishing to divert the debate, I'd just point out that similar things (obviously not the single engine bit) were probably said regarding the F4 forty-odd years ago.

The advent of widespread small PGW would logically seem to have changed the game, but can we be sure? The inventors of the Falcon and Sparrow were probably pretty sure themselves........

Justanopinion
29th Nov 2012, 16:27
Quote:
And srsly, folks, if you get in a guns fight in a JSF you (a) have already ed up and (b) deserve what is about to happen to you. And strafing in a single-engine, densely-packed jet, in an era of mini guided weapons? !



VID,
No missile has a PK of 1,
Afghanistan, number of strafing runs?
No idea what single engine has to do with it.

Engines
29th Nov 2012, 20:58
LO,

I was around on the programme when the gun was switched. The reason given for the switch was that Mauser had not managed to demonstrate a working linkless feed system for the cannon, as well as blast issues.

They switched to the 25mm Gatling, citing better effectiveness and easier integration. However, in my view the real reason for the switch was a very strong and effective lobby from US gun makers that exploited the US user community's long standing preference for Gatling designs. The analysis that was offered by the F-35 team that led the change did not mention the increased volume, increased weight, reduced duration of fire and quite significantly reduced effectiveness, especially in the air to ground scenario, of going to a 25mm Gatling. (The 27mm round is really very good indeed - the 25mm isn't bad, but the 27 beats it all ends up).

The main problem at the time was that LM had taken their eye of the weight ball - big time. They didn't think they had a big weight margin, they just weren't really thinking about weight (of any of the variants) at all. Big mistake for a combat aircraft.

I'd respectfully disagree about strafing - modern gunsights are damn good and getting better with a good EOTS to help aim them. Guns offer a very effective 'low collateral' weapon, in my view. If it really is 'too dangerous' for jets, well, perhaps we had better get a few more attack helicopters to fill the close support gap.

Best Regards as ever to those working the programme,

Engines

WhiteOvies
30th Nov 2012, 01:10
LO,

The trouble with your favoured version of the F-35 is that LM aren't building it and no one else is saying they need it. Hence, you are making an already expensive aircraft even more expensive. As this would be just your requirement you would be expected to front up all the costs for design, development, test etc adding further to the cost. Bottom line is that none of the partner nations would be able to afford it.

If you want probe and drogue without the lift fan you have to buy the C, or an F-18/Rafale etc.

On the point of single engined jets strafing targets, GR7 and 9 did it quite successfully in Afghan for a fair while, all be it with rockets rather than a gun. The number of engines was not an issue.

GreenKnight121
30th Nov 2012, 05:57
If you want probe and drogue without the lift fan you have to buy the C, or an F-18/Rafale etc.

Reference probe and drogue and F-35A

A: O’Bryan: “We anticipated a number of the operators would want probe-and-drogue refueling in the F-35A and we kept that space empty on the F-35A to accommodate probe and drogue refueling. We‘ve done a number of studies – funded studies, not projects – funded studies to evaluate that, paid for by the countries who want that to happen. It’s a relatively easy … doable change.”
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/06/19/lockheeds-comprehensive-qa-on-the-f-35/

mike-wsm
30th Nov 2012, 08:59
Sorry, I'm a non-mil novice.

Does anyone have a cost comparison for F-35x probe-and-drogue fit versus buying proper flying-boom tankers, please?

Thanks!

ORAC
30th Nov 2012, 09:28
Quote: and we kept that space empty on the F-35A to accommodate probe and drogue refueling

Quote: Does anyone have a cost comparison for F-35x probe-and-drogue fit

This is the F-35 equivalent of having left the space on the QE2 carriers to fit catapult equipment, which could be then be fitted at reasonable cost when required, right? :ouch:

SpazSinbad
30th Nov 2012, 09:48
Check this link for Canadian concerns about whatever concerns them for whatever reason about refuelling their F-35 bits:

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/221116-future-carrier-including-costs-160.html#post7504156

eaglemmoomin
30th Nov 2012, 11:22
This is the F-35 equivalent of having left the space on the QE2 carriers to fit catapult equipment, which could be then be fitted at reasonable cost when required, right? http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/shiner.gif

This one actually gets my goat as it's often used as a bit of a stick to beat the ACA with without properly thinking about whats involved.

The carriers were designed big enough to take catapults and traps without having to rebuild an entirely new vessel, doesn't mean that it wouldn't be an invasive and long process. However when the carriers were designed EMAL's wasn't a known locked down design which we (the UK) would have had access to. So any 'reserved' space would be based on assumptions and previous experience my understanding is that the original design reserved the spaces needed for steam cats and traps so it's not totally suprising that the possibility of fitting an unknown design with a totally different footprint and form factor (EMALS is only going in new build US carriers, AAG will though) into the ships has resulted in a big design replan hence massive costs and risks and through life support costs which I'll bet that big figure bandied about includes, not just the cost of the 'parts'.

IF it had been a properly serious goer when the true number of design changes needed for EMALS appeared then they would have gone for steam cats and traps but if you read through freedom of information requests relating to that perfectly reasonable question the MOD were dead set against installing steam boilers in the ships thus steam cats and traps was always a non starter.

ORAC
30th Nov 2012, 12:27
eaglemmoomin,

The point here being, how much do you think LM will charge for the design work, software changes for CoG envelope and installation? Cheap? I think not.

eaglemmoomin
30th Nov 2012, 12:44
Oh I imagine for the physical parts and connectivity quite a bit of design and recertification work. But I'd expect the software that controls the refuelling to not change too much the aircraft S/W package already supports probe and drogue refuelling so I'd expect the boom control module s/w for the boom on the A to be replaced with the probe and drogue control module s/w used for the B. So the esting and integration regime should be somewhat less as it should be able to take the work already done for the B and C.

cokecan
30th Nov 2012, 13:16
Eaglem...

you may well be technically correct - however isn't the lesson that leaps out from JSF (and everthing else we've ever built/bought), that 'a little modification, nothing serious', soon becomes 'fcuking how much!'?

my cynicism is driven by the fact that when i was a kid, JSF was going to be a 60-80% parts commonality airframe, it would be more manouverable than an F-16, it was going to cost $60m apiece, and it was going to be in service in 2006 or so.

this is a platform that burns £50 notes to such an extent that no one is looking at developing something as simple as an external fuel tank to hang off it because of the cost that seems to develop when anything, regardless of how simple a process it should be, goes near an F-35.

mike-wsm
30th Nov 2012, 13:37
But it seems so incongruous to use a modern fj with Cobhamesque ifr. Why not buy the full kit, kc-xxx included.

LowObservable
30th Nov 2012, 14:36
Re: Strafing. Having been through quite a few intensive conference sessions on CAS and heard the A-10 presentations... I agree that the gun is low collateral damage, but it also has limitations.

The final gun firing decision starts quite a long way from the target (rounds are fired at about 1 km IIRC) at an angle that foreshortens the view on the range axis. In at least one Blue-on-Blue that was briefed, what the rounds hit was on the same line as the target (error in range, not in azimuth).

This was an A-10 discussion - and the A-10 is draggy with huge speedbrakes, so presumably can dive more steeply and slower (less foreshortening and more think time) than an FJ.

At the same time, very low yield PGMs are being developed, that can even be redirected if they have a laser component. Even gunships are going to these.

Something on which I don't know the final answer: During the gun discussions and up to critical design review, there was a debate about the gun angle. Fighter jocks like a little upward bias, strafers level or down. (Again, I believe this is why the F-15 gun is little use in A-G although I am ready to be corrected.)

Engines - I was told that the Gatling switch was a through-life cost issue. The GAU-22/A (it was said then) used rounds that were already in DoD. (Of course, more recently, there's been a move to a new round because the existing ammo doesn't cover the full range of targets.)

And remember that there is no gunsight at all until they get the helmet fixed...

WhiteOvies - It would be a new version, for sure, but none of the individual components needs to be redesigned completely. It would basically be an A with a forebody made of a mix of C and A components.

mike-wsm
30th Nov 2012, 14:48
Can confirm significant bias downward from boresight in A-10, so much so that the HUDS has substantial spherical trigonometry compensation.

BEagle
30th Nov 2012, 15:20
But it seems so incongruous to use a modern fj with Cobhamesque ifr. Why not buy the full kit, kc-xxx included.

That's about as logical as having to buy a new hangar because you didn't check whether the aircraft you bought would actually fit..... No-one's made that mistake, have they.....:hmm: Remind me how big the Timmy hangar is at RAF Mount Pleasant - and the wingspan of the Wanderer?

Modification / certification and training costs associated with fitting a heavy piece of LeMayesque irrelevance to the CC150T would be huge. It wouldn't even be possible on the CC-130H....

As for re-plumbing the F-35A to take a probe, anyone who believes "It’s a relatively easy … doable change.” is probably equally interested in buying London Bridge :rolleyes: !! Or has never studied the words of Miss M Rice-Davies.....:(

Engines
30th Nov 2012, 15:30
LO,

You are quite right that any gun has limitations, but these can be alleviated nowadays. Also quite right that an air to ground gun is normally depressed below the line of flight (or you do as the Russians do and mount them in a pod and angle them downwards for the strafing run). Air to air guns are commonly mounted slightly elevated.

However, with modern flight controls it's now possible to do a much better job of hitting the target, if you go for an Integrated Fire and Flight Control (IFFC) system. Trialled by the USAF in the 70s, and fielded by the Swedes in the Viggen, so I was told. You can use EOTS as well as radar to give you a really good ballistic solution, with the IFFC handling a lot of the workload. Add that to clever flight controls that can adjust the angle of the fuselage for you and you can get some impressive Pk figures. You can certainly fire further out than 1km with a 27mm round, depending on how accurate you need to be.

As ever, it's the requirements - what do you want to do to what, at what range, under what conditions?

I saw the through life cost arguments made for the Gatling on the JSF - and the use of an existing round was a big factor. But that argument relied on not using the 27mm rounds already available and NATO cleared - unfortunately, the US gun and ammo firms were able to convince the F-35 team that the 27mm round 'would be a problem'. You are quite correct that they are now looking for a better 25mm round, a move that was entirely predictable 10 years ago. Actually, there is already one, the 25mm MultiPurpose (MP) round developed by Raufoss and licence built in the US. Equally predictably, using a round not designed in the US is a solution that seems not to find favour.

Best Regards as ever

Engines

Courtney Mil
30th Nov 2012, 16:31
an air to ground gun is normally depressed below the line of flight

Not quite. An air-to-ground installation may be depressed from the longitudinal fuselage datum and an air-to-air gun level or above. Traditionally. 'Line of flight' (or velocity vector) constantly changes with airspeed and loading.

In reality and as you explain very well, on a reasonably modern airframe the middle of the road compromise works perfectly well for both roles.

WhiteOvies
30th Nov 2012, 17:54
GreenKnight:
Thanks for the link, I had not seen that before. Whilst apparently technically feasible, which I still wonder about personally, it is still going to cost someone an awful lot of money to do it. If Canada is worried about the cost now, I cannot see them findig extra funds to push this solution. Any design modification will then be along way downstream in the build process, adding years to any procurement. It would not be as easy as 'cut and shut' a C forward fuselage to an A centre fuselage section.

LO:
Obviously the B and C have a gunpod mounted on the centreline station, making things a bit easier for strafing (which is what the USMC wanted as they're used to a gunpod set up with their Harrier fleet).

Beagle: There is an interesting adaptation to the hangar doors out at Pax River where they have had to fit a P-8 into a P-3 hangar!

Engines
30th Nov 2012, 19:45
CM,

Thanks for the correction - absolutely right. The point I was (badly) trying to make is that these days combat aircraft with fully integrated flight and propulsion controls have a much better range of options for handling velocity vector and aircraft attitude so as to point a gun.

Interestingly, in the 1970s trials on F-15, the USAF used a standard 20mm Gatling fitted with a gimballed mounting that allowed very rapid application of gun barrel deflections of around 5 degrees. This allowed an 'inner loop' set of corrections to be applied to the ballistic solution without pointing the aircraft.

It's a fact that development of combat aircraft gun fire control systems in the West has just about stalled over the last 30 years or so. If you look at the sensors now available (e.g. radars that work very reliably down to around 300 yards, excellent high definition EOTS) then add these to modern mission systems computing capability and stir in modern flight controls, then gun systems should be achieving very, very much higher values of Phit than before.

And they are. But not on fixed wing aircraft, but on attack helicopters. The AH-64D gun fire control is an extremely capable system. It's my view that, for all sorts of good reasons, the fixed wing community in the UK have given gun systems a really good ignoring for some while now. Again just my view, but we can't go on engaging the guy in a ditch with an AK-47, or a soft skinned vehicle with a £300K bomb or a £500K Brimstone. The economics will beat us.

Best Regards as ever to all those doing what they have to with what they've got - the lot of every soldier since the start of time

Engines

Milo Minderbinder
1st Dec 2012, 20:47
this report from yesterday seems to have passed you all by
DOD, Lockheed Martin Agree to More F-35s (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2012/11/mil-121130-afps04.htm?_m=3n%2e002a%2e670%2ewd0ao019wo%2elx1)

"WASHINGTON, Nov. 30, 2012 – DOD and Lockheed Martin have reached an agreement in principle to manufacture 32 F-35 Lightning II joint strike fighter jets, Pentagon Press Secretary George E. Little said today.

The jets are part of Low-Rate Initial Production batch 5 -- the fifth production lot of the aircraft. Unit-cost data will be made available once the contracts are finalized and signed, Little said.

“Production costs are decreasing and I appreciate everyone’s commitment to this important negotiation process,” said Navy Vice Adm. Dave Venlet, the F-35 program executive officer.

The agreement also covers the costs of manufacturing support equipment, flight test instrumentation and additional mission equipment, he added.

“It was a tough negotiation,” Little said, “and we’re pleased that we’ve reached an agreement.”

According to a news release from the F-35 program office, Lockheed Martin will produce 22 F-35A conventional take-off and landing variants for the Air Force, three F-35B short takeoff/vertical landing variants for the Marine Corps and seven F-35C carrier variants for the Navy.

Aircraft production was started in December 2011 under a previously authorized undefinitized contract action, the release said. Undefinitized contract actions authorize contractors to begin work before reaching a final agreement on contract terms.

The agreement sets the program to move forward according to improved business timelines, Little said. “It’s good for all nations that are partnered with us in this important effort for our future national security.”

kbrockman
1st Dec 2012, 22:05
Milo,

The fact that LM and the DoD came to an agreement on LRIP5 and are litterally forcing LRIP6 through the pipeline to get it signed before the end of 2012 is in no way indicative of the succes or good evolution of the JSF program, between LM and the DoD there have never been more problems and ill feelings than exist today, mostly because of this JSF debacle.

However both of them fully realize that 2013 is comming and the Budget Control Act of 2011 will go into full effect which could have severe consequences all throughout the defense organization.
Everything they sign and get before january 1st 2013 is considered outside of the reach of this control act, if they would get away with it they would have signed all production lots, costs and consequences be damned.

Preparing for Sequestration and Budget Cuts - Government Contracts Issue Update - Wiley Rein LLP (http://www.wileyrein.com/publications.cfm?sp=articles&newsletter=3&id=7833)

Heathrow Harry
2nd Dec 2012, 15:59
once one foreign airforce pulls out the rush to the door (and to get in the F-18 queue) will be instant

JSFfan
2nd Dec 2012, 20:59
Internal politics saying stuff means nothing, all partners are still committed. The eurocanards, f18 systems are only good as a first day till 2025, some say going by Libya, without US support, euro systems are up against it to even do first day now.

Heathrow Harry
4th Dec 2012, 12:06
that's not really the aircraft - its the numbers and the backup & support systems that make the Europeans hardly effective

A JSF without refueling, intelligence and recce support will be no better than a Typhoon or a Rafale TBH - and there will be even fewer of them due to the extortionate cost

JSFfan
4th Dec 2012, 13:08
agree with your first point, I said the euro systems and meant 1st day non-fighter and the ongoing support platforms, which gave the fighters good access
There is an ongoing misunderstanding with the price of the f-35. Australia still holds the price of full rate production of $75m URF and $130m full procurement, although LM is aiming for full production 2012 yr $'s of $67m urf.
The F-35b should come in around $100m full production URF 2012 yr $'s

glad rag
4th Dec 2012, 13:15
There is an ongoing misunderstanding with the price of the f-35. Australia still holds the price of full rate production of $75m URF and $130m full procurement, although LM is aiming for full production 2012 yr $'s of $67m urf.
The F-35b should come in around $100m full production URF 2012 yr $'s

quoted for posterity......

JSFfan
4th Dec 2012, 13:30
perhaps the SAR will have more weight with you, they have over bid every LRIP so far and it has come in cheaper

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae/articles/communiques/F-35Dec11FinalSAR-3-29-2012.pdf

Page 62 page 65
TY (then year) US dollars for the combined F-35 A,B,C buy to year 2037

The Program Acquisition Unit Cost (PAUC) inc. engine = $161 M

The Procurement Unit Cost (APUC) inc. engine = $137.4 M

BY2012 (base year)

$M US dollars for the combined F-35 A,B,C buy

The Program Acquisition Unit Cost (PAUC) inc. engine = $134.5 M

The Procurement Unit Cost (APUC) inc. engine = $109.1 M

As per
Page 61, F-35 Aircraft Unit Cost Report Page 64 F-35 Engine Unit Cost Report
Average F-35 price over the total buy
F-35 A Unit Recurring Flyaway (URF) Cost inc. engine = $78.7 M

(This is close enough to the 2008 yr $'s of $75m DMO estimate for me, although the Aussie average URF will be slightly less because we are buying in specific years. As per page 39 and 54 (RF/60=URF) for year 2018, the F-35A is $72.5 M URF in BY2012$.)


Average F-35B Unit Recurring Flyaway (URF) Cost inc. engine = $106.5 M


Average F-35C Unit Recurring Flyaway (URF) Cost inc. engine = $87 M

ORAC
4th Dec 2012, 14:14
As of December 31, 2011.....

June 2012 (http://gao.gov/assets/600/591608.pdf) .......What GAO Found
Joint Strike Fighter restructuring continued throughout 2011 and into 2012, adding to cost and schedule. The new program baseline projects total acquisition costs of $395.7 billion, an increase of $117.2 billion (42 percent) from the prior 2007 baseline.......

JSFfan
4th Dec 2012, 15:14
have a look at the GAO and you will find they quote and use the SAR/dod costings, there was a shift from 2002 yr dollars to 2012 years dollars and there were other unrelated to the actual f-35 cost increases during those years that is a large reason for the rise

FoxtrotAlpha18
4th Dec 2012, 23:22
Jack - please shutup...you do the cause no good whatsoever!

JSFfan
5th Dec 2012, 00:31
ORAC, did you note that page 21 and 22 of the SAR gives the $$395.7 billion that the GOA uses?
As I said their is general misunderstanding of the f-35 costings and the Average F-35B Unit Recurring Flyaway (URF) BY2012 Cost inc. engine = $106.5 M is the correct number from SAR. Although as I said LM believes it can get it lower.
Also like Australia, the UK will be buying FRP in specific years and so will pay less than the average price in those years


@FoxtrotAlpha18, this is the second time you have posted simply to have a shot at me, do us both a favour and put me on your ignore list

Courtney Mil
6th Dec 2012, 10:21
Then this. And we can scrap the new carriers too!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOOhjsJe7lY

ORAC
6th Dec 2012, 10:35
I prefer the Brit version. :ok:

IXuZzyzyIco

glojo
6th Dec 2012, 10:35
Nice link and in really rough weather it could have a vertical take-off capability :ok:

Courtney Mil
6th Dec 2012, 10:36
Thanks, Mate. Got there eventually.

Or with this we could scrap all the submarines as well!

http://www.subsim.com/books/images/FlyingSub.jpg

glojo
6th Dec 2012, 10:44
Listening to the narrative, I wonder if those premature lift-offs in heavy seas might cause premature ejeculation!! :sad::uhoh:

ORAC
6th Dec 2012, 10:49
:p:p:p

AcHFD0E1SFA

Willard Whyte
6th Dec 2012, 11:16
As long as they change the uniforms ORAC.

Well, maybe not for everyone.

http://ufoseries.com/photos/skyOp.jpg

LowObservable
6th Dec 2012, 15:44
Actually, there was a Skunk Works seaplane fighter study in the early 1980s, probably because of the difficulty of cratering a lake.

And you could probably use active ride control/smart actuators to alleviate the Sea Dart's most serious problem, which was that the high-speed on-water ride caused the pilot's body parts to vibrate into places where God did not intend them to be.

GreenKnight121
7th Dec 2012, 04:22
Whot... the "at-home" Brits too busy reminiscing about 1970s TV... shows... to pay attention to the doings in the colonies? ;)

Apparently JSFfan is still asleep "downunda"...
http://www.pprune.org/7552617-post356.html
Internal politics saying stuff means nothing, all partners are still committed.Federal government cancels F-35 fighter purchase (http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Federal+government+cancels+fighter+purchase/7663407/story.html)

Federal government cancels F-35 fighter purchase

By Michael Den Tandt, The Ottawa Citizen December 6, 2012 10:06 PM

OTTAWA — The F-35 jet fighter purchase, the most persistent thorn in the federal government’s side and the subject of a devastating auditor-general’s report last spring, is dead.

Faced with the imminent release of an audit by accountants KPMG that will push the total projected life-cycle costs of the aircraft above $30 billion, the operations committee of the federal Cabinet decided to scrap the controversial sole-source program and go back to the drawing board, a source familiar with the decision said.

This occurred after Chief of the Defence Staff Thomas Lawson, while en route overseas, was called back urgently to appear before the committee, the source said.More details at link.

JSFfan
7th Dec 2012, 07:09
keep reading, there was a gov release stating it isn't true, sorry to disappoint you, again it is internal politics and means nothing.

Heathrow Harry
7th Dec 2012, 07:41
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/502234-canada-pulls-plug-f35.html

They are "considering alternatives" and the CoS was hauled back from overseas .... sounds like they're getting their coats on to me

cokecan
7th Dec 2012, 08:02
JSF fan,

no, the government press release said that the article contained a 'number of innaccuracies'. it didn't say what those inaccuracies were - it could, for example have been refering to spelling mistakes, or specific stuff that doesn't really impact on the thrust of the story which is that JSF is in very deep poo in Canada, and that the government has, according which version you believe, either already decided to cancel JSF, or decided to have a new competition in which it may well cancel JSF.

if there were no truth whatsoever in the story, the government would have said so - it did not...

glad rag
7th Dec 2012, 08:47
Hmm.

For the life of me I can't understand what Canada wanted it for in the first place.

TEEEJ
7th Dec 2012, 09:06
F-35 deal not cancelled, Tories insist. Update on the government's plan to purchase new fighter jets expected next week

The Harper government says it has not made a decision on the F-35 as a replacement for Canada's CF-18 fighter jets, but the government now appears to concede that alternative fighter purchase options will be considered.

The Prime Minister's Office denied a media report Thursday that the F-35 purchase was dead, calling the report "inaccurate on a number of fronts" and promising to update the House of Commons on its seven-point plan to replace the jets before the House rises for the Christmas break at the end of next week.

That plan is now expected to involve a real competition.

F-35 deal not cancelled, Tories insist - Canada - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/12/06/poli-f35-pmo-government-fighter-jets.html)

kbrockman
7th Dec 2012, 10:33
That plan is now expected to involve a real competition.

Not that I'm doubting the average intelligence of those that decide on these massive purchases but wouldn't that have been the first thing to do before comitting to 1 specific product?
Or is that just me using an excessive amount of rational thought???


Anyway if they are going to have a 'competition' , the outcome can be pretty much whatever they want, the F35 for the RCAF might be as alive as before , with a slight political detour to safe face in the longrun.

Competitions can have all sort of dubious outcomes, last times it was the Gripen vs Rafale in Switzerland, the EF vs Rafale in India and also the strategic tanker debacle for the USAF are still fresh in the mind.

JSFfan
7th Dec 2012, 11:14
They aren't having a competition, they are having a review, big difference.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
7th Dec 2012, 11:31
The Harper Government cannot be seen to be ignoring the financial side of the F-35 deal (now that it's out in the open), as they are using the same arguments on other big policies.
Whilst Canada remains officially committed to the program, Canadian companies retain their share of the manufacturing work, which is not guaranteed otherwise (read: more likely to be kept the longer it stays committed).
The end result could be anything from cancelling & buying Super Hornets to a whitewash review & F-35 continues, with any amount of delay.
Unless anyone here knows what's going on in Stephen Harper's head, I suggest we wait and see.

JSFfan
7th Dec 2012, 11:56
The procurement cost numbers for Canada hasn't changed and both sides are using the same group of numbers. The different cost numbers count different things. Canada wants a 5th gen jet and they have said there is only one 5th gen jet available to them. The rest is a political side show

Canada News Centre - National Fighter Procurement Secretariat announces bid for review of acquisition process (http://news.gc.ca/web/article-eng.do?mthd=tp&crtr.page=1&nid=703519&crtr.tp1D=1)
National Fighter Procurement Secretariat announces bid for review of acquisition process

The goal of this independent review is to:

determine whether the shortcomings the Auditor General identified in the acquisition process have been addressed;
confirm whether the steps taken in the acquisition process for the period up to June 2012 were in accordance with government policies, procedures and regulations; and
provide lessons learned and propose recommendations for changes, if any, to current practices and policies for acquisitions of a similar nature
Frequently Asked Questions - National Fighter Procurement Secretariat (NFPS) - Military and Marine Procurement - Buying and Selling - PWGSC (http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/stamgp-lamsmp/snacfaq-nfpsfaq-eng.html)

Fox3WheresMyBanana
7th Dec 2012, 12:48
they have said there is only one 5th gen jet available to themYup, they said that, but the new COS isn't singing from quite the same hymn sheet.

F-35 not only jet that meets stealth needs, top general says - Politics - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/11/30/pol-lawson-committee-f35-stealth-options.html)

"But when asked by Liberal defence critic John McKay whether there is only one airplane that can meet the standard of stealth set out in the Canadian military's requirements, Lawson said "no."
"All options are on the table," Lawson told MPs."


As I said, I think you'd have to be inside the Prime Minister's head to know what all the secret agendas are here.


.

JSFfan
7th Dec 2012, 13:24
all options are on the table and the review will look at all options and will probably get the prices of the current 4th gen as a cost comparison, the option for a 5th gen jet is the f-35, do you know of another one available to Canada?
The Super hornet URF is $66m and the f-35a is $73m in 2012 dollars (LM thinks $67m) I don't know for certain the URF of the eurocanards, but I hear they are dearer

Heathrow Harry
7th Dec 2012, 13:57
So a politician is going to get up and say we are spending $30bn on a plane that isn't near delivery when we could buy twice as many of something almost as good for half the price

I don't think so - this is the first steps to EJECT

Fox3WheresMyBanana
7th Dec 2012, 14:03
f-35a is $73m in 2012 dollars (LM thinks $67m)

http://i931.photobucket.com/albums/ad153/jp5391xq95/Seekers%20Emoticons/023roflmao.gif

If the actual purchase price is anywhere near that I will buy you a beer!

Squirrel 41
7th Dec 2012, 14:06
JSFfan,

The Super hornet URF is $66m and the f-35a is $73m in 2012 dollars (LM thinks $67m) I don't know for certain the URF of the eurocanards, but I hear they are dearer

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. I suggest that if you're (remotely) interested in a balanced view (versus LM press releases), then you should check out the work of Winslow T. Wheeler (e.g. Winslow T. Wheeler: Primer on F-35 Performance, Cost, and Basing (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/winslow-t-wheeler/primer-on-f-35-performanc_b_562621.html)). Or the UK NAO Major Projects Report, or applying a critical eye to the JPO reports.

BLUF: I expect the Dave-A/C to be excellent aircraft IN TIME in their strike fighter role, with next-gen sensor fusion. Most of the time stealth won't matter in the air-ground role, and Dave-A/C isn't going to be a hot ship for Air to Air, but against most 4th Gen aircraft signature reduction will help in BVR. Doubtless you'll be able to tell us the proportion of kills scored since 1960 that have been BVR only, of course. :hmm:

So Dave-A/C will be made to work (after enough cash has been spent) because the USAF needs it to, and the USN probably wants it to. I've always been sceptical of the rationale for the F-35B - and given the "fiscal beach/cliff" in the US, I'd not be surprised if it gets binned in the New Year to save a lot of cash.

The resulting aircraft is unlikely to cost- including engines, weapons, spares - much less than, $125m a copy (and potentially a lot more). Of course, the more it costs the fewer countries can afford, driving the unit costs higher. And this will raise the costs beyond what some are prepared to pay - e.g. Canada today Federal government cancels F-35 fighter purchase (http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Federal+government+cancels+fighter+purchase/7663407/story.html)

S41

JSFfan
7th Dec 2012, 14:08
@Heathrow Harry (http://www.pprune.org/members/326184-heathrow-harry) I can't think of something almost as good for half the price, what jet are you talking about?

@Fox3WheresMyBanana (http://www.pprune.org/members/325574-fox3wheresmybanana) and Squirrel 41 (http://www.pprune.org/members/101074-squirrel-41)
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/424953-f-35-cancelled-then-what-18.html#post7555626

As per
Page 61, F-35 Aircraft Unit Cost Report Page 64 F-35 Engine Unit Cost Report
Average F-35 price over the total buy
F-35 A Unit Recurring Flyaway (URF) Cost inc. engine = $78.7 M

(This is close enough to the 2008 yr $'s of $75m DMO estimate for me, although the Aussie average URF will be slightly less because we are buying in specific years. As per page 39 and 54 (RF/60=URF) for year 2018, the F-35A is $72.5 M URF in BY2012$.)


Average F-35B Unit Recurring Flyaway (URF) Cost inc. engine = $106.5 M


Average F-35C Unit Recurring Flyaway (URF) Cost inc. engine = $87 M

Squirrel 41
7th Dec 2012, 14:11
I can't think of something almost as good for half the price, what jet are you talking about?

Perhaps you could ask Santa for some new Top Trumps then....

S41

LowObservable
7th Dec 2012, 14:13
Canada, A Short History

2010 - Under pressure from Washington to commit more deeply to JSF quickly, and without the awkward necessity for a competition, the Harper government decides to take advantage of a loophole that allows noncompetitive procurement if only one contractor can meet the requirement. The military hastily cobbles together a Statement of Requirements that (they say) rules out everything except the F-35.

2011-2012 - It emerges that (1) nobody in Canada checked to see whether anything else would meet the SoR and (2) the F-35 itself may not meet some of the mandatory requirements by the mandatory IOC date.

Late 2012 - LMT bets on Romney to win, openly challenging the competence of Pentagon customer. Woopsers, Romney loses. Message from Washington to Ottawa: "No guaranteed IOC date until mid-2013, and when there is one it may well be missing some Block 3F capes. Price TBD."

2013 - Hilarity ensues.

Squirrel 41
7th Dec 2012, 14:16
LO - LOL! But right across the board.

JSFfan - you do realise that the URF is an essentially manufactured number that bears little or no relation to the cost of a deployable capability, don't you?

S41

JSFfan
7th Dec 2012, 14:19
@ LowObservable (http://www.pprune.org/members/81203-lowobservable) well seeing Canada isn't going to place an order till 2014 for 2 trainers delivered 2016, mid 2013 sounds ok for the info they need


@Squirrel 41 (http://www.pprune.org/members/101074-squirrel-41) obviously you cant open the link, Ill repost it for you, the partners procurement and aquisition price wont be the same as USA because they are eating a lot of the costs on behalf of the partners

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae/articles/communiques/F-35Dec11FinalSAR-3-29-2012.pdf

Page 62 page 65
TY (then year) US dollars for the combined F-35 A,B,C buy to year 2037

The Program Acquisition Unit Cost (PAUC) inc. engine = $161 M

The Procurement Unit Cost (APUC) inc. engine = $137.4 M

BY2012 (base year)

$M US dollars for the combined F-35 A,B,C buy

The Program Acquisition Unit Cost (PAUC) inc. engine = $134.5 M

The Procurement Unit Cost (APUC) inc. engine = $109.1 M

As per
Page 61, F-35 Aircraft Unit Cost Report Page 64 F-35 Engine Unit Cost Report
Average F-35 price over the total buy
F-35 A Unit Recurring Flyaway (URF) Cost inc. engine = $78.7 M

(This is close enough to the 2008 yr $'s of $75m DMO estimate for me, although the Aussie average URF will be slightly less because we are buying in specific years. As per page 39 and 54 (RF/60=URF) for year 2018, the F-35A is $72.5 M URF in BY2012$.)


Average F-35B Unit Recurring Flyaway (URF) Cost inc. engine = $106.5 M


Average F-35C Unit Recurring Flyaway (URF) Cost inc. engine = $87 M

Squirrel 41
7th Dec 2012, 14:22
well seeing Canada isn't going to place an order till 2014 for 2 trainers delivered 2016, mid 2013 sounds ok for the info they need

Awesome, I claim the first backseat ride in a TF-35A, then. :E

S41

Fox3WheresMyBanana
7th Dec 2012, 14:29
My prediction. World economy continues to contract, which with Canada being a resource supplier reduces Government income. F-35 is sacrificed to save costs around March 2014, taking Super Hornet instead. This will be the reason given, though Heaven only knows what the truth will be.

You read it here first.

glad rag
7th Dec 2012, 15:07
How much do the engines cost?

[not that they are going to need that many ECU's for airborne failures] :ugh:

Jet Jockey A4
7th Dec 2012, 15:11
A CTV report from last night now says the cost of buying and maintaining the F-35 will be established at $40B over its lifespan.

I'm not against the Canadian Air Force replacing their ageing F-18 with something newer, more modern and better performing but I do not think we need to get a "stealthy" top of the line aircraft. And why would/should we get a single engine aircraft when we know how big and unforgiving our territory is?

One of the major reasons the F-18 won over its main rival, the F-16 back in 1980 was the fact that the F-16 was a single engine aircraft and the F-18 a twin engine aircraft and I quote... "two engines for reliability (considered essential for conducting Arctic sovereignty and over-the-water patrols)."

If it was good then why isn’t good today? Why would we want to change that logic just for the sake of a new aircraft?

The Canadian Air Force's role does not require the latest and greatest and I think that the newer and more modern and better performing Super Hornet would do just fine for our country. This aircraft is a known system, already operational and not under development so cost of purchase and maintenance are already available and a known factor and not a guessing game.

The other factor tha't got me worried about the F-35 aside from an unknown over all cost factor is it's longivity and how many aircrafts are going to be left in the fleet after lets say 25 years?

If we look historically at the F-18 program, it cost us to procure this platform $4B ($2.4B was the original cost estimate) for 138 aircrafts that were delivered between 1982 and 1988.

Today we have only 79 F-18s that still remain operational. So over a 24 to 30 year period the attrition of this platform was of 59 aircrafts or approximately 43% of the fleet through crashes, accidents and moth balling because the airframes were simply over used.

Apply those numbers to the F-35 platform and in 25 years down the line a 43% attrition rate would leave us with only 37 aircrafts in our fleet! That would make for a great Air Force with the second largest country to cover I don’t know how a 37 aircraft fleet would manage that.

In the end at a fly away cost of $67M for each F-18 Super Hornet which is 2.5 to 3.5 times cheaper per copy than the “estimated” fly away cost of the F-35, I think Canada should definitely look at that option (plus others).

For the same amount of dollars spent on the F-35 (at today’s estimated cost) we could buy between 162 and 226 F-18s and that would be a hell of a lot better than the 65 proposed F-35s.

JSFfan
7th Dec 2012, 15:59
how can I get you guys to understand that the SAR has a price of $66m for the super hornet and $73m for the f-35a ..both in 2012 year dollars for full production unit recuring flyaway cost

Lonewolf_50
7th Dec 2012, 16:17
JSFfan, they keep asking how credible the number is.

It appears that this is unknown until actual costs can be discovered.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
7th Dec 2012, 16:26
JSF Fan,
quite a few of us have been through this charade with previous generations of aircraft.
It will be late, overbudget and less capable than promised.

Every other one has been, and Governments and major manufacturers haven't changed character, so why should this one be any different?

Kitbag
7th Dec 2012, 16:56
Cokecan, you made oi larff

:D:D:D:D

JSFfan
7th Dec 2012, 21:35
JSF Fan,
quite a few of us have been through this charade with previous generations of aircraft.
It will be late, overbudget and less capable than promised.

Every other one has been, and Governments and major manufacturers haven't changed character, so why should this one be any different?

Tell me about it, we have gotten the tiger and nh90 and our procurement ignores advice from the ADF and the pollies decides and then blames the ADF/DMO when it stuffs up.

what I would like acknowledged is that the price of a f-35 being 2-3 times more than 4th gen is unsupportable, I have given the SAR which shows the URF super hornet is $66m and the f-35a is $73m, now unless someone can give a decent reason why this is so wrong. It is silly just ranting silly numbers

Squirrel 41
7th Dec 2012, 22:27
It is silly just ranting silly numbers

Yes, you do on a regular basis, JSFfan. :rolleyes:

The real answer is that you're comparing apples with (make-believe) oranges. The F-35 URF is aspirational (no F-35s have been delivered for this price - check the LRIP numbers) and you need to understand what the URF doesn't include - try support, spares, training, weapons. Hilariously, the 2009 (IIRC) didn't include the cost of the engine!

So bravo to you for your keenness. But harness this to a bit more critical thought and you'll do much better at ADFA selection / Point Cook (do they still do trg here?) in a few years' time. Remember, this thread is full of people who've forgotten more about this and other FJ programmes than either you or I know. Sit, listen, learn.

S41

Fox3WheresMyBanana
7th Dec 2012, 23:23
JSFfan,
Here are some numbers for the Eurofighter

Management of the Typhoon Project - National Audit Office (http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/1011/management_of_typhoon_project.aspx)

This is from the UK National Audit Office.

The Unit Price is 75% higher than the initial estimates.

In 1990, my posting officer told me I would be flying multi-role Typhoons by the year 2000. I laughed and left the RAF. It did not come into squadron service till 2006, and will not be fully multi-role till 2018.That's 180% wrong.

Go look at any other major aircraft and find me one that was In Service on time, fully capable and within budget.

Jet Jockey A4
7th Dec 2012, 23:41
In answering to JSFfan...

Hello you down under dudeness!

Perhaps seeing things from the other side of the world, make that upside down side of the world, numbers get reversed or scrambled. :-)

I do not pretend to know the whole story (and neither should others) because when it comes to the military, the governments that have a vested interest in keeping secrets and numbers low on a developing platform for obvious reasons, one should always take their "selling" numbers with a grain perhaps many grains of salt.

I for one do not believe your numbers. How could the new yet to be fully developed and far from being operational F-35 numbers be just a bit higher than the Super Hornet's numbers? BTW, it is said Boeing is ready to deal and sell the Super Hornet at a very good price these days so perhaps with a good order the F-18 could be purchased at a substantially lower price.

In regards to the F-35's fly away price a quick Google search with links to several US Government sites including the Pentagon's show their latest fly away price for the F-35A ranging from $125M to $165M per unit. Again I would tend to not believe even these prices because they are certainly low balling them to keep the US tax payers at bay.

This of course does not take into consideration that the price may further climb if partners like Canada drop out of the project by cancelling their own orders. The US itself may indeed reduce their own order because the price of the F-35 as gone ballistic. This again would bring the FAP of each unit even higher.

This of course is somewhat irrelevant to Canada. Many here feel that this "next generation" fighter is not required for our country because of the role our fighters need to perform. The whole "stealthy" aspect is over blown for our use IMHO. The Super Hornet is pretty stealthy itself perhaps not as much as the F-35 but then the F-35 is not as stealthy as the F-22.

Another concern about the F-35 is the noise it generates from that huge engine. It is said to be 2 times as noisy as the F-16 or F-15 aircrafts!

Also another major concern especially in Canada is the fact this aircraft is a single engine airplane. With our vast territory and much of it in inhospitable areas a twin engine aircraft is better suited and a lot safer for its crews. One of the major reasons the original F-18 won the fly off over its main rival, the F-16 in 1980 is the fact the military stated a two engine aircraft would be better/safer for its extended operation over Canada.

So why would that logic change 30 years later?

Jet Jockey A4
8th Dec 2012, 00:21
In the end I don't care what other countries purchase and at what price, that’s their business.

As a tax payer here in Canada I don't want to pay for an "unknown" aircraft and IMHO a fighter like the F-18 Super Hornet will do the job just fine at a lower acquisition price.

It will also be potentially safer operationally for our crews because of its twin engine design.

Jet Jockey A4
8th Dec 2012, 00:39
And why would they be good only until 2025 according to your country?

Our present F-18 have been around since 1982 so why a much shorter lifespan for the Super Hornet?

If Canada were to order the Super Hornet this year from Boeing, perhaps a couple of years would pass before our first delivery let us say 2015 and with a 25 to 30 year lifespan that would make them operational until 2040 or 2045.

Again Canada does not need nor can afford the latest and greatest toys. If Canada decides to spend that kind of money ($40B) on new aircrafts which I think in the present economic context around the world is insane then at least we could have a fleet of 140 F-18s which technically could cover a lot more airspace.

Squirrel 41
8th Dec 2012, 06:50
Have WEBF and JSFfan been seen in the same room? We should be told!

S41

ORAC
8th Dec 2012, 07:05
you will find that the UK and australia's procurement price hasn't changed in any significant way since 2008. Maybe, but ask the Dutch (http://www.courtofaudit.nl/dsresource?objectid=96350&type=org) and the Norwegians. (http://theforeigner.no/pages/news/norway-officials-as-stealthy-as-f-35/)

Note that the Dutch factor in the cost of modifying and extending the life of their F-16s to cover the delay in delivery/FOC of the F-35.

Squirrel 41
8th Dec 2012, 07:20
JSFfan

well seeing our price and canada hasn't changed, what price were they using? hopefully not what the usa low bid to get the contract was, no one with any sense uses that, it's just the way usa procurement works.

I think all this shows is that you've no idea how US procurement works. I'm sure that GK121 and others from the US will be able to tell you, but IIRC it is US Federal Law that the US cannot sell* military equipment abroad for less than the cost of the same equipment to the US forces.

S41


*MDAP is obviously different, but I always had understood that the aid element reduced the price paid by the consumer, not the sticker price.

ORAC
8th Dec 2012, 07:38
LM under bid boeing to get the f-35 contract and the first bid to get the contract is always wrong. That's drivel of the finest water - and also a direct allegation of federal fraud.

Just This Once...
8th Dec 2012, 07:44
JSFfan,

I know this is a rumour site and that we all have the cloak of anonymity but you must realise that you are arguing with some very F-35 savvy people who have, or continue to, work inside the programme. Initially you came across as naive, but you have readily embraced arrogance and appear to be drifting towards delusional.

Check yourself and think a little more before arguing against the great and the good who post on here as a welcome relief from the day-to-day. As it is you are arguing against a number of national governments and their respective judicial oversight by your attempts to claim that F-35 costs have not accelerated to the point that attraction national leader to national leader intervention. Indeed, the very fabric of NATO declared forces is being openly debated given the massive cuts in F-35 numbers to offset the interstellar price.

Read the Dutch analysis first as what was forecast has come to pass. The Dutch have not cut their F-35 budget (far from it) yet will only field a tiny F-35 force (if at all). This is a very real problem for a number of western nations (and please note I did not say air forces, but nations) so post with a little more care.

JSFfan
8th Dec 2012, 07:44
you mean like the low bid boeing tanker bid, that didn't even last a month before it was said to be more?

@ Just This Once... (http://www.pprune.org/members/109931-just-this-once-)I did read the dutch link
1.1.1 General


"In June 2012, the Ministry of Defence estimated the costs of purchasing

the JSF at EUR 7.478 billion, on the basis of 85 aircraft, and the operating

costs over thirty years at EUR 13.567 billion (2011 prices, planned dollar

rate USD 1 = EUR 0.75). The Rutte-Verhagen government appropriated

EUR 4.5 billion for the replacement of the F-16."

the current rate is .88 euro to the dollar and I said "your dutch link has at 2012, 85 f-35 at $113m usd for procurement, I don't think that is counted the same as australia or canada as we have about $130m for procurement"

ORAC
8th Dec 2012, 08:02
you mean like the low bid boeing tanker bid, You mean the firm fixed price contract? :hmm:

ORAC
8th Dec 2012, 08:17
which was low bid and wrong, boeing is eating that for now, will make it up on the future buys and i don't think it was a fixed price bid, perhaps you should check again...there is a limited usg liability in the over runs which boeing said it would exceed a month later No, Boeing deliberately undercut Airbus to get the contract, knowing the'd lose money. They have a fixed price contract with the DoD and they will have to absorb all additional costs. The only risk to the DoD is if they have to renegotiate as a result of sequestration.

May I suggest that when you are in a hole, you should stop digging.....

ORAC
8th Dec 2012, 08:24
Checked. (http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/logistics_material_readiness/acq_bud_fin/SARs/DEC%202011%20SAR/KC-46A%20-%20SAR%20-%2031%20DEC%202011.pdf) Questions?

On February 24, 2011, The Boeing Company was awarded the KC-46 contract. The Fixed Price Incentive (Target Firm) contract was awarded for the Engineering, Manufacturing, and Development (EMD) program phase, with Firm- Fixed-Price contract options for Low Rate Initial Production Lots 1 and 2, and Not-to-Exceed contract options with Economic Price Adjustment for Full Rate Production Lots 3 through 13.

WhiteOvies
8th Dec 2012, 17:31
The point about how much they cost could always be viewed as 'is it worth it?'

For the F-35's capabilities, is the expense worth it compared to a legacy jet? This depends on what the politicians/strategists etc envisage your country's military doing, and against whom, in a certain timeframe.

Then the next question is, for the Nation, is it worth the national expenditure? For the UK, with it's industrial share of building all the future F-35s, the answer is probably yes as the income and jobs generated covers the cost of the aircraft (according to some figures). This would not happen if we had bought off-the-shelf F-18s, Rafales etc but would have had a bearing on marinised Typhoon or Sea Gripen to a greater or lesser extent.

For the partner nations such as Australia and Canada there is some maths to do to figure out the overall cost to the economy of being in or out. The UK paid a lot of money upfront to be the only other Tier 1 partner but got a lot back for that National investment.

The squabbling about the actual unit cost is pointless. Early jets will be expensive, later jets less so. I am sure that long after the F-35 is combat proven the arguments will rage on about is it actualy worth all the money spent. For instance, was Typhoon worth all the time and money spent on it for the capability it delivered during the Libya ops, versus buying Rafale? It depends very much who you talk to, but what it has done is provide a lot of jobs in the UK that will continue as foreign sales are pushed.

There is a much bigger picture out there than just "$xxxM only buys you 1 jet" tabloid headline figures.:ugh:

Jet Jockey A4
8th Dec 2012, 18:17
In reply to WhiteOvies...

Some of your points are valid depending on the country.

In Canada's case we will not get the fallouts of the project like the UK and I doubt very much the "unit cost" will go down for Canada's purchase.

We are looking most likely at paying between $125M to $165M per unit if we believe the latest numbers which are provided by various US government agencies.

Also I believe and most Canadians believe we should play a secondary role when it comes to world affairs by our military. I for one, do not want Canada to take an "offensive" role (like many other countries) but rather a "peace maker" role meaning once a conflict is stable we go in under the "UN banner".

As such and knowing that Canada is not about to be attacked, an offensive style weapons platform like the F-35 is not required.

However an aircraft like the F-18 or some of its competitors, perhaps the newer generation F-15 would suffice in patrolling our skies with a pretty good punch none the less that would deter an enemy.

Finally it comes down to the bottom line... Money! We simply can't afford that platform!

WhiteOvies
8th Dec 2012, 18:45
JJA4 - So the answer in your opinion would be - no, it's not worth it. Can Canada make do with what it has then? Why replace your Hornet fleet at all? Can you 'make peace' on the ground when your Hornet takes a SAM or AAM before it drop it's weaponry? Going in under a UN banner doesn't always make a difference to the bad guys, as a Sea Harrier and several others found out over the former Yugoslavia.

Presumably your view differs from your (current) Government's, when's your next election or Defence Review which might change that?

LowObservable
8th Dec 2012, 19:22
WO - I don't think many people would object if anyone or everyone selected JSF after a competition in which all bidders were subject to the same rules, the competitors were scored on how well they performed against realistic threats in a typical basket of missions, and everyone took their best shot on price, operating cost and industrial participation.

What worries me and others is that the JSF program (backed by USG) has been trying to nail down commitments and orders from operators worldwide despite not having a firm price or an IOC date, and having yet to demonstrate most of its lofty claims of capability.

If it turns out to be unaffordable (like the last fighter from its stable) or its capabilities, overall, are not as war-winning as the PowerPoints would have it, we'll have some expensive catching-up to do.

Jet Jockey A4
8th Dec 2012, 20:15
in reply to WhiteOveries...

"JJA4 - So the answer in your opinion would be - no, it's not worth it."

I don't pretend to know all the answers but IMHO at this time Canada does not need a F35 type aircraft nor can it afford it.

I'd love to own a Porsche 911 GT3RS V2 for my track use but I simply can't afford to buy one so I make do with my Audi a4. :-)

"Can Canada make do with what it has then? Why replace your Hornet fleet at all?"

Our F-18s are now all approaching 30 years in service with only 79 of the original 138 still in operation. I guess we could maintain them as to get even more life out of them but it would remain an older platform which would be less capable than the newer versions.

"Can you 'make peace' on the ground when your Hornet takes a SAM or AAM before it drop it's weaponry?"

Lol you can't be serious! I don't care how modern or stealthy your aircraft is you still risk the chance of getting shot down. Remember the F-117 that got shot down by "primitive" weapons.

"Going in under a UN banner doesn't always make a difference to the bad guys, as a Sea Harrier and several others found out over the former Yugoslavia."

True... Any time one plays the role of a policeman, one gets a chance at getting in harms way. That's part of the risk in those kinds of jobs.

"Presumably your view differs from your (current) Government's, when's your next election or Defence Review which might change that?"

The current government never had an open and fair bid to decide which aircraft would replace our old F-18s and that's the problem. It was fixed from the get "go" so that only the F-35 would fit the criteria!

Now that the sh!t as hit the fan the government is back tracking and it is said that they are opening up to have a complete review of the whole purchase for the replacement. We just hope this time around the process if open and fair with "real" numbers so that the right aircraft is selected.

Also and I'm repeating myself here again but in 1980 when they were down to the last two contenders for the then new fighter, the F-18 won over its adversary the F-16 because one of the criterias was for a "two engine" aircraft because of the huge area, most of it inhospitable was deemed safer for its crews.

The question I pose now is why was that an important criteria then and now we are set on buying a single engine aircraft to patrol the same areas?

flighthappens
8th Dec 2012, 22:06
JJA4

"Can you 'make peace' on the ground when your Hornet takes a SAM or AAM before it drop it's weaponry?"

Lol you can't be serious! I don't care how modern or stealthy your aircraft is you still risk the chance of getting shot down. Remember the F-117 that got shot down by "primitive" weapons.
That risk is significantly reduced with an LO aircraft.


The question I pose now is why was that an important criteria then and now we are set on buying a single engine aircraft to patrol the same areas?

Engine technology and reliability has come a long way since the 50's. The predecessor to the Hornet for both RCAF and RAAF were that era of technology single engine jets (F-104 for RCAF, MirageIII for RAAF) and due to that both airforces lost plenty of jets and pilots. In the last 60 years the technology has moved on and the modern engines are far more reliable.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
8th Dec 2012, 22:07
Well I looked at the data for the Norwegian F-16s, and I think they've only lost a couple or three to engine failure in inhospitable areas, with the pilots all rescued.

That said, having shut down an engine on one's fighter in flight, it's really good to know it wasn't your only one.

glad rag
9th Dec 2012, 10:23
That risk is significantly reduced with an LO aircraft.


58N6Plr17GU

ORAC
9th Dec 2012, 11:51
JSFfan,

Yet again you are talking out of your arse, which 30 seconds research proves (http://www.afsec.af.mil/organizations/aviation/enginestatistics/index.asp).

Accidents reports can be found here (http://usaf.aib.law.af.mil). The latest F116/F110 engine failure related accident report I can see at a quick glance is this one (http://usaf.aib.law.af.mil/ExecSum2011/F-16C_New_Chester_7%20Jun%2011.pdf), dated June 2011. There are undoubtedly later, but it proves the point.

You have zero credibility and can only repeatedly put forward figures which also have zero credibility.

lomapaseo
9th Dec 2012, 12:13
... is more reliable than the f-15 with 2 engines ...

of course it's more reliable since an F15 has twice the chance of an engine malfunction.

So are we talking engines or aircraft?

RetiredF4
9th Dec 2012, 12:57
No intention on mixing up with your interesting discussion, but allow me a comment from the pilots side.

As a pilot you do not care about the statistics of the engine system itself, but about the statistics in the specific airframe.

And there a double engine layout has a definite advantage over an single engine layout, in peacetime and when bad guys are starting to shoot at you.

See f.e. the following graphs:

Two-engine aircraft (http://www.afsec.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-120807-023.pdf)
Single engine aircraft (http://www.afsec.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-120807-022.pdf)

The J79 was contributing to 60 times more engine related class a mishaps in single engine aircraft (F104) than in dual engine aircraft (F4)

As the engines got more reliable over the years, that advantage got less important, but it´s still there. If you loose one engine, the other one can save the day.

JSFfan
9th Dec 2012, 14:07
F110-GE-132 is the latest f-16 engine and about 10 years service and I don't recall the total units flying
edit... RetiredF4 (http://www.pprune.org/members/302846-retiredf4), thanks for putting up these charts, it jogged my memory, it was the F-16 F100-PW-229 with 299,368 EFH that was used in the one engine example great debate a few years ago and unless one of the 229 or 132 have engine crashed recently, it has a clean record

ORAC (http://www.pprune.org/members/18106-orac), also it would help if you wern't abusive especially when you are wrong and used an early f-16 engine

Just This Once...
9th Dec 2012, 14:54
JSFfan, I really wish you had taken all the hints. Now I wish you would just leave the forum.

Didn't think it was possible to annoy ORAC, but you managed it. Pat yourself on the back on find some other forum to bother.

JSFfan
9th Dec 2012, 15:14
it seems he annoyed himself by using an old engine and not the new ones

mike-wsm
9th Dec 2012, 15:33
This is getting to be fun, think I'll stay and watch . . .

Courtney Mil
9th Dec 2012, 16:26
Two engines. Greater probability of a technical, single engine failure. Some, but not huge, difference in probabilites of single and total power failure through FOD, birdstrike, combat damage, etc - although (again) double engine failure much less likely. Probaility of total power loss leading to loss of airframe, significantly less.

Single engine. Yep, smaller probability of a single engine failure, but when it happens the consequences are in a different league.

Why build single engined aircraft? Cost, weight, size. Fine for trainers or if you want larger numbers of airframes, but if you're building the country's new "do everything" fighter-bomber, logic dictates that two are better than one. It offers greater survivability and payload, although as soon as you go to vertical flying, you've already accepted that payload isn't near the top of your wishlist.

mike-wsm
9th Dec 2012, 16:47
...so you build the F-22, and it turns out too expensive, so they say "cut the cost" and you end up having to leave thing out..

Squirrel 41
9th Dec 2012, 16:55
Courtney - indeed, there's lots of cold water between Leuchars and 60N on the meridian. Just looking at the map made me shiver - and I never needed to fly the intercepts, I was always pleased that there were two RB199s for the crews.

JSFfan: Suggest you bin your military career aspirations and instead join either the JPO or apprentice yourself to some "leading" military thinkers - Air Power Australia or Lewis Page should be suitably impressed by your paranoid illogic. And feel free to apologise the ORAC, JTO et al on your way out, there's a good chap.

S41

John Farley
9th Dec 2012, 17:18
Considering whether one or two engines is safer today not is not a simple common sense issue.

My memory may be letting me down but I seem to recall that the first total losses of a Tornado, Alphajet and Erofighter were all total power faiulures.

In my experience the most likely cause of engine failure in a single engine aircraft is an engine control system problem rather than the mechanical bits letting go. Which is why we fitted an additional emergency Manual Fuel System in later Harriers.

When the USN specified a twin engine aircraft for their new (now current) trainer (way back) a single engine solution based on the Hawk was clearly non-compliant. Kingston submiited the case as to why in the modern world and for this job one engine was safer when flying from a USN carrier and were able to convince the USN by engineering arguement that this was indeed so. So the single engined Goshawk was chosen over a real twin (Alphajet based) and several US industry based paper twins.

Squirrel 41
9th Dec 2012, 17:22
JF,

Thank-you, very interesting - I always wondered how the USN selected T-45. Do you know if they have they subsequently lost any due to engine failures afloat?

S41

John Farley
9th Dec 2012, 17:27
S41

If so I have not heard of it - and even as a has been I think I would have been told.

JF

Squirrel 41
9th Dec 2012, 17:35
JF,

Thank-you very much - most interesting.

S41

John Farley
9th Dec 2012, 17:46
S41

Just to let you know I have just ammended my post to read total power loss rather then double engine failure. Both may be the same to the pilot but the associated engineering causes can of course be very different.

JF

WhiteOvies
9th Dec 2012, 18:59
Stats can prove whatever you want :ugh:

I seem to recall that the reason that Harriers weren't allowed to fly over London for fly pasts in recent years was that the risk of engine failure was too high given the chances of landing in a heavily populated area. Not helped by Harriers not gliding very well (JF feel free to comment as appropriate!) No such issues of course for Hawks.

Getting the lift fan/swivel nozzle mechanism to work with two engines would have been interesting. :confused: To keep things common that probably drove the single engine design across all 3 variants.

LO - With partner nations involved at the Programme Office and the Development Test sites feeding back info to their respective governments at least they don't have to rely on media reports or LM press releases to make decisions on. (Whether they listen is another question!)

ex-fast-jets
9th Dec 2012, 19:03
Apart from a brief interlude flying the Jaguar for a year - a twin engined aircraft with the total thrust of a single engined aircraft!! - I spent my military career flying on one engine - Trainers various, Hunter, Harrier, A-4, A-7, F-16 - and I never had an engine failure!!

Lucky? - Maybe.

But let's get the onevtwovmany argument in perspective!!

mike-wsm
9th Dec 2012, 19:19
White Ovies - Do31 had two Pegasus engines, along with eight other engines.

flighthappens
9th Dec 2012, 20:01
AFAIR from reading, there has not been an engine crash with the later engine which i recall is the f110? Inaccurate recall, factually proven wrong.

this concern is unfounded statistically In your humble opinion.... Disregarding the stats from the US that show that for all except one engine type the F-15 has been approximately 4 times less likely to have an engine related mishap. Note the F-15 has flown 4 times the hours with the single engine type you are insisting proves your argument, and in that time has had 4 mishaps.

glad rag, I don't know what better stats you want for the f-16/f110? than it hasn't had a engine crash yet and is more reliable than the f-15 with 2 engines as I recall No stats provided. Factually proven wrong.

These are direct quotes of yours mate. You need to be more specific, because by not being specific you are looking pretty silly And probably stop with the AFAIR stuff aswell, because it has now been proven 2/2 that your recall has been at worst dead wrong, and at best non specific and vague.

Gladrag, Nice video. I'm sure what a hand cued IR video of a Raptor taken against a blue sky background at a slant range of probably no more than a mile is trying to prove, or better yet maybe you could show how a non LO aircraft in the same situation as LO has a lower risk of being hit?

glad rag
9th Dec 2012, 20:42
slant range of probably no more than a mile

You just said it. Plus it makes a mockery of the LO notion.

non LO aircraft in the same situation as LO has a lower risk of being hit

None but the $$$,$$$,$$$.........:ok:

LowObservable
9th Dec 2012, 20:44
By the way, a little extra on the 1v2 engine argument...

If you look at the T/W ratio of jet engines over the years, you will get the impression that there is a square-cube law at work in that the biggest military jet engines have lower T/Ws than smaller ones. I think the best of the F110/F100 group manage about 8, but the F414/EJ200 are at 9-9.2 and neither has been through an uprate.

I have also seen it argued (I think in discussion of early 1v2 arguments on Typhoon) that two engines are shorter and may pack in there better.

As for safety, it seems logical that singles are subject to an aircraft-loss mode (loss of power internal to one engine) that does not affect twins... and I have yet to see anyone advocate single-engine airliners.

Justanopinion
9th Dec 2012, 20:50
10 years relying on the single Pegasus engine in the most demanding environments possible- 0 issues.

2 years flying a twin engine jet- 1 engine fire and one of a similar type
crash due engine perf on take off. (Not me!)

Ill take the single Pegasus thanks

Easy Street
9th Dec 2012, 20:56
I seem to recall that the reason that Harriers weren't allowed to fly over London for fly pasts in recent years was that the risk of engine failure was too high given the chances of landing in a heavily populated area. Not helped by Harriers not gliding very well (JF feel free to comment as appropriate!) No such issues of course for Hawks.True, but the only Hawks allowed were (and still are) the Red Arrows, presumably because the pilots' exceptional skill and judgement guarantee that they could point the thing safely into the Thames before ejecting after an engine failure. A 'standard' Hawk pilot is not trusted for this purpose!

Seem to remember that engine-related ejection from a Harrier was practically a monthly BTR for a while in the mid-late '90s (although to be fair there were a couple of pilot-induced ones, too).

WhiteOvies
9th Dec 2012, 21:52
Mike - Dornier 31 definately goes in the experimental VTOL pile!

Easy Street - Pegasus had a very FOD sensitive LP1 fan until the design was changed in about 2004. Unfortunately the redesign had a habit of chipping the snubbers when fitted in the FA2 (but not in GR7) which led to further compressor damage.

JSFfan
10th Dec 2012, 00:42
flighthappens,
The F100-PW-229 and graph from RetiredF4 (http://www.pprune.org/members/302846-retiredf4) http://www.afsec.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-120807-022.pdf and the F110-GE-132 are the latest engines and haven't had an engine crash and is factually right, it was the early enginens that were lawn darts.
ORAC (http://www.pprune.org/members/18106-orac)used an early engine F-16/F110-GE-129 (http://www.afsec.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-120810-037.pdf)that has had engine crashes

Archimedes
10th Dec 2012, 01:50
Hang on a minute, JSF Fan - you got the wrong engine. Not ORAC.


You were only dug out of the hole you'd inserted yourself into by the provision of the graphs (which you'd clearly not bothered to explore before your edited post thanking Retired F4).

And instead of doing the simple, straightforward thing - namely going on from thanking Retired F4 and saying something to the effect of 'Sorry, my mistake, it was indeed the Dash 229 I was thinking about', you're instead trying to make out that it was ORAC who was wrong originally. Even if it was necessary to have a pop at ORAC for his rather direct response (as opposed to being thick-skinned enough to let it pass), doing this by trying to make out - twice now - that he was wrong about the engine type beggars belief.

Still, on the bright side, it does at least suggest that you have the required levels of integrity to enter politics...:hmm:

Big Pistons Forever
10th Dec 2012, 02:18
The math seems pretty simple to me

1 engine fails = 0 engines left

1 of 2 engine fails = 1 engine left

I know what I would prefer.......

mike-wsm
10th Dec 2012, 05:14
Lindy preferred one.

ORAC
10th Dec 2012, 07:50
And Rutan preferred two (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutan_Voyager)...

There are many trade-offs to decide if one engine is better than two, the peacetime serviceability rates being only one. Then case was made that, if you did the maths for purchase price, running costs, MLU etc, over the life of an aircraft, that a single engined type was still cheaper even if additional aircraft were lost. However if you were the pilot floating down over the middle of the Bering Sea that might not be of great comfort.

There is also the factor of battle damage. The USN took heed of the number of F-18s which came home in GW1 with damaged tail-pipes and engines against the loses of AV-8Bs - and I am aware that was attributable to the nozzle locations of the Harrier making it susceptible to IR missiles.

I don't believe there is a knockout technical argument on either side. If you have to have VSTOL, then single engine is the only realistic option. If, like Canada, you don't, then it comes down to preference.

Having two engines does bring it's own problems. If you separate them then single engine handling issues, a la the Canberra, can cause losses. If you put them together then the failure of one can take out the other. The F-111 cured that by placing a large, heavy, titanium sheet between them. I saw one that landed at Newcastle with the entire fuselage ripped upon on one side. Impressive that it managed to keep flying.

Madbob
10th Dec 2012, 08:26
Justanopinion

Re. post #464, remember you always also had the option of an MB letdown in your single jet. Not always an option for the rest of us!

One reason why I am sceptical about flying something like a PC12 or a TBM 700/850 or even a Cessna Caravan even though the PT6 is a very reliable engine.....

I know that the F35 has a MB rocket seat but even so I do belive that two engines are better than one. How many Tornado's, F14's, F15's and Buccs (I won't count Jags as their SE performance was marginal at best :eek::eek:) have been saved by having two engines rather than one?

MB

kbrockman
10th Dec 2012, 09:31
If the Canadians keep their faith in the one engined option and after 'carefull' consideration decide to stay with the F35, because let's be realistic here , it's gonna happen even if the twin engined alternatives are in reality a much better solution, why not go again with a two type fighter force like they (and so many other nations) had before?

A F35 force of let's say 36-48 or so combined with another 36-48 cheaper but almost equally capable light weight fighters might make much more sense economically wise, even if they have to support 2 types iso 1.

F35 for first day war and mainly A2G missions afterwards combined with a more A2A orientated (and only secondary role A2G) F16 or Gripen type of fighter, both of which can be further developped through the V version for the F16 and the NG for the Gripen, might be the only workeable way for air forces like the Canadian ones to get good use out of their F35's.

It would also help with other issues , like the price associated with pilots getting enough quality fast jet time, the F16 and Gripen also come in a 2 seater version which is very valuable for certain training missions and they are top notch enough to fend off almost all threats in their A2A role with (AESA radars, Link16, METEOR for NG gripen, etc... ).

It worked fairly well before and with the price associated with the F35 , certainly operating costs, it might be the best way to keep a credible and (barely) affordable fleet.

This whole idea was vented a couple of years ago by a Dutch retired ex F16 pilot/general and it seemed very logical to me, so again, why not?

ORAC
10th Dec 2012, 09:44
This whole idea was vented a couple of years ago by a Dutch retired ex F16 pilot/general and it seemed very logical to me, so again, why not? Because the costs of setting up and running two different logistics/engineering support and ground crew/aircrew training systems for the life of the system far exceeds the difference in initial airframe price.

kbrockman
10th Dec 2012, 10:11
Given the very expensive to operate F35 and comparably much cheaper operating costs of both the F16 and Gripen, I wouldn't be so sure about that, each type operating from their home base (Bagotville, Cold Lake, or wherever else) needs a cetain amount of support tied with that base anyway , 2 F35 Bases will inevitabely be much more expensive to run than 1 F35 base and 1 F16/Gripen base.

Over a certain number of fighters it does make sense to buy and operate a fleet of 2 types.
36 of each might be the absolute lowest limit but given the large discrepancy in flightcost per hour it might be worthwhile to consider.

Also don't forget that if they choose the F35/F16 option , they could still be tied on al levels with the USAF, who as things look now, will be operating a substantial amount of F16's and future derivatives for many years to come, just wait and see until january first when sequestration will hit reality.
It is already decided that there will be no massive layoff rounds in the US DoD and the 1.7% payrise will go ahead even if sequestration comes into effect.
The acquisition programs will be hit hardest and the F35 is going to see some massive cuts for both the USAF and US NAVY, that is pretty much a given ,1800 iso 2400 is not impossible, even further reductions are possible.



Just to set things clear, personally I think that a twin engined alternative to the F35 is still a much better option (SH or EF) but I don't think that the powers that be are willing to give up completely on their F35 dream, nightmare or not.

LowObservable
10th Dec 2012, 13:53
Mike-WSM...

Lindy knew that with 1927 technology, engine failure = swimming lesson more or less regardless of number of engines. (The Do X was still on the drawing board.)

Other comments...

Small mixed fleets might not be as silly an idea as they once seemed. As aircraft become more reliable and the global supply chain becomes more efficient (how far am I from a FedEx, even if I'm deployed?) then you should be able to operate with a smaller fixed logistics base (no big warehouses or parts repair) or use a commercial-type base plugged into the global market (see Swiss AF/RUAG).

At the same time, the Intertubez, better relationships with potential coalition partners and the more widespread knowledge of a common language permit collaboration with other small operators.

ORAC
10th Dec 2012, 14:28
As aircraft become more reliable F-22 perhaps, as the last stealth aircraft? (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/f22-raptor-procurement-events-updated-02908/#controversies)

Maintenance & Readiness: As operational experience has built up, the F-22’s maintenance and operational costs have come under fire. The most celebrated instance involved a July 2009 Washington Post story that gave various details, followed by reports from the USAF that some of the Post’s statistics and allegations were untrue.

Official USAF responses say that maintenance and readiness targets must be met only when the aircraft reaches 1000,000 flight hours, but adds that from 2004 – 2009, F-22 readiness improved from 62% to 70%, while mean time between maintenance rose to 3.22 hours in Lot 6 (FY 2007) aircraft, which is better than the KPP (Key Performance Parameter) goal of 3 hours. Direct maintenance man-hours per flying hour dropped from 18.1 in 2008 to 10.46 in 2009, which is better than the target rate of 12 hours. According to the Washington Post, however:

“The Air Force says the F-22 cost $44,259 per flying hour in 2008; the Office of the Secretary of Defense said the figure was $49,808. The F-15, the F-22’s predecessor, has a fleet average cost of $30,818.”

The USAF responds that USAF data shows that F-22 flight hour costs include base standup and other one-time deployment costs, which the F-15 no longer needs. The USAF says that variable cost per flying hour is a better comparison, and 2008 figures were $19,750 for the F-22 and $17,465 for the F-15. Of course, that’s still higher, and the Raptor program had promised flying hour costs below the F-15.

That reality is not surprising. The F-22’s stealth coatings and tapes are part of this equation, something that has been true for all stealth aircraft to date, and may yet affect the F-35 program as well. Even without the stealth equation, however, every new American fighter for the past several decades has promised lower maintenance costs and higher availability rates than its predecessors – and failed to deliver. In practice, rising complexity means costs are consistently higher, and availability rates consistently lower. That lack of readiness makes the problem of smaller fighter stocks worse, creating an even deeper reduction in fielded numbers.

Engines
10th Dec 2012, 20:08
ORAC and Others,

Just a couple of thoughts on this discussion and especially F-22 operating costs. While it's absolutely true that the LO stuff on F-22 generates additional support costs, the main driver is that the F-22 is a very (very) large, heavy and complicated aircraft.

Two very powerful engines crammed into an airframe that is stuffed with fuel, lots and lots of avionics and four weapons bays results, all being pushed through the air at high speeds and high g means system complexity and lower reliability.

The F-22 is, in my view, the last of the gold-plated 'dinosaur' combat aircraft, where performance requirements were allowed to drive designs well beyond the bounds of affordability. It was the experience of the Raptor programme, plus a slew of other cancelled tactical fighter bomber programmes (all large twin engined aircraft) that led the Pentagon to devise JSF as a single engined design in an effort to control size and costs.

It's clear that F-35 costs have still been allowed to get well out of the box, but holding the aircraft to a single engined design has definitely constrained weight. And in the end, that will help control costs, although probably not as much as the programme's architects hoped.

Oh, and the nozzle positions of the Harrier actually helped against IR missiles, as they were fairly well shielded in many engagement aspects, reducing the chance of IR lock on. The cold front nozzles also helped reduce IR signature and improve the effectiveness of IR countermeasures. I ran a number of trials on IR stuff many years ago and I can tell you that it was conventional jet types like the Tornado that were simply massive IR targets. Of course, as missiles have improved the chances of any jet evading the b***ers has reduced.

Best Regards as ever to all those working long hours to deliver the F-35 to the people at the front line,

Engines

glad rag
10th Dec 2012, 20:58
Oh, and the nozzle positions of the Harrier actually helped against IR missiles

Interesting.

http://media.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/AIR_A-4N_Skyhawk_Israeli_lg.jpg

Engines
10th Dec 2012, 21:34
Glad rag,

Good pic and quite consistent with what I said. The Israelis learnt very quickly that exposed tail end jet pipes represented big IR targets. Their very practical response was to extend the jet pipes so that the relatively small warheads then in use would explode further away from the critical bits in the fuselage, blowing off just the aft end of the pipe and increasing their chances of surviving a missile hit.

Skyhawk also had a relatively long jet pipe, which helped reduce the IR signature. Jets with the engines located right at the rear (e.g. Tornado) had, in my experience, simply massive signatures, requiring fairly big (and heavy) flares to offer any real chance of protecting the aircraft.

Hope this helps

Engines

Thelma Viaduct
10th Dec 2012, 23:11
Please can we have more single engine aircraft over London???? :}

WhiteOvies
10th Dec 2012, 23:12
I had always understood that the Harrier nozzles reduced the IR signature too, but we still needed an advanced defensive pod from Terma to operate in the manpad threat in Afghanistan. Tornados had a similar pod fitted when it took over, but in a high speed capable fairing.

The constant drive of evolving threats vs defences which F-35 will have to face throughout its operational life.



Kbrockman - your argument holds true for the RAF with Typhoon and F-35 operating together for the medium term. Also Australia with its Growler and F-35 combination. Canada's options are limited unfortunately.

LowObservable
10th Dec 2012, 23:41
PP - They don't make single-engine Islan ... excuse me there is someone at the door WHAP SPLAT uuurgh.....

Thelma Viaduct
11th Dec 2012, 08:23
LO, why are you ejaculating on people at the door??? Ex bootie??

ORAC
11th Dec 2012, 08:58
Engines,

I understood the issue with the AV-8B in GW1 was the nozzle locations at the middle of the fuselage. All AV-8Bs hit by manpad were lost, whilst all F-18s which were hit survived.

Aircraft Survivability (http://jaspo.csd.disa.mil/images/archive/pdf/1999_summer.pdf)

........F/A-18 experience in Desert Storm provides valuable information for assessing fighter aircraft vulnerability to MANPADS. Additional information is available from F/A-18 joint live fire (JLF) tests conducted about 1990 at China Lake, California. Combining these data provides insight into the vulnerability of fighter aircraft and helps identify potential vulnerability reduction concepts.

In Desert Storm, four Marine F/A-18s were hit by MANPADs, and all returned to base safely. All impacts were in the engine bay, on or near the “turkey feathers” of the exhaust section. One aircraft with severe damage to both engines’ exhaust sections was able to fly 125 miles to a recovery base. Two of the aircraft lost one engine, demonstrating the survivability of a twin- engine design. By contrast, four single-engine AV-8B aircraft were hit, and all four were lost.............

The vulnerability of the AV-8B was recognised by the GAO (http://www.gao.gov/assets/140/136741.pdf) back in the 80s during design:

.......Engine thrust for the AV-8B is provided by a thrust vector- ing nozzle system. The engine has four rotatable nozzles which are mechanically interconnected. The nozzles, which protrude out from the aircraft, emit infrared’signatures which, in some cases, allow the AV-8B to be tracked and fired on from maximum missile ranges. Also, missiles travel faster than the AV-8B, further increasing its susceptibility. According to the Navy, counter-measures are not an adequate solution to this problem.

OPPORTUNITYEXISTS TO ENHANCE SURVIVABILITY

According to the Navy, it is less costly to design survivability into an aircraft than to modify existing aircraft for survivability. Navy officials acknowledged that it is possible to make many of the survivability improvements to the AV-8B before the aircraft goes into full production. They noted, however, that the changes necessary to enhance survivability will increase program costs and will diminish aircraft performance..........

Engines
11th Dec 2012, 11:34
ORAC,

As I might not have made clear, the Harrier layout, (with two of four nozzles cold and all four shielded to an extent) helped reduce IR susceptibility against early generation threats. Sorry for any confusion.

However, the location of the nozzles mid way along the fuselage always meant that a hit would be more serious than on an aft engined design.

Again, there is complexity, depending on the warhead size, angle of arrival and lots of other classified stuff that (thankfully) I am not up to speed with.

As missiles got more capable, the equation changed. That's again quite a normal state of affairs for this area of aircraft systems design.

I am familiar with the TERMA pod effort on GR7 and Tornado for the 'Stan, and would certainly agree with the Navy's assessment that it is less costly to design survivability into an aircraft than to try to add it on later. That, of course, is where the design of aircraft like the F-35 has headed, where just as much effort has gone into addressing IR signature as in the RF area.

There is absolutely no doubt that two engines offer key advantages in the area of survivability. Unfortunately, as I've pointed out, they also tend to lead to very large aircraft that are unaffordable. Nobody, as far as I know, starts out to design a twin engined aircraft that needs only one engine to achieve its required performance. (As ever, development of aircraft and engines go hand in hand - sometimes the engines lead, sometimes the aircraft)

Hornet may be an exception to the 'two engines too big' rule because: a) it started out as a light weight fighter design (YF-17) and b) the demands of carrier operations acted as a natural brake on weight growth.

Best regards as ever those doing the business,

Engines

glad rag
11th Dec 2012, 11:59
as much effort has gone into addressing IR signatureHmm

http://flyawaysimulation.com/media/images13/images/fs2004-b2-bomber.jpg

Willard Whyte
11th Dec 2012, 12:06
Single engine or not, I wouldn't like to see the results of an attempted vertical landing if a Lightning II had damage to the nozzle.

RetiredF4
11th Dec 2012, 13:22
Is the money for stealth aircraft like the F35 thrown out of the window in view of the following ?

passive radar detects stealth aircraft (http://www.defencetalk.com/cassidians-passive-radar-detects-stealth-aircraft-43859/)

franzl

LowObservable
11th Dec 2012, 13:50
RF4 - It doesn't make stealth obsolete.

However, it does make it more challenging than it was in the F-117 days, where you could get away with worrying about monostatic radars (transmitter and receiver in the same place), most of them operating in the above-UHF/microwave bands.

What it may mean is (1) that the difference between broadband/all-aspect LO, which really drives towards a tailless blended-body, and the evolved F-117/22/35 approach becomes more important and (2) that stealth still needs to be combined with other techniques and systems - tactics, standoff, EW &c.

glad rag
11th Dec 2012, 15:19
The particular characteristics of the omnipresent radio signals used for operation enable detection of even objects that are difficult to detect, such as stealth aircraft or stealth ships. A further advantage of the new technology is its increased detection capacity in areas of radar shadow such as mountainous terrain and its capability to locate extremely slow and low flying objects.



Seriously however, it must have some "range"issues, or is THIS the reason for the mobile phone mast explosion??:8

The Helpful Stacker
11th Dec 2012, 15:56
....and b) the demands of carrier operations acted as a natural brake on weight growth.

Doesn't always work so well though.

http://www.grummanpark.org/sites/default/files/nodes/images/f-111B.jpg

Perhaps a lesson that can be learnt from the TFX project is that trying to design naval aircraft whilst pandering to land-based requirements can prove difficult. History seems to suggest it is far better to design an outright naval aircraft and then offer it for land-based use afterwards.

RetiredF4
11th Dec 2012, 16:06
What it may mean is (1) that the difference between broadband/all-aspect LO, which really drives towards a tailless blended-body, and the evolved F-117/22/35 approach becomes more important and (2) that stealth still needs to be combined with other techniques and systems - tactics, standoff, EW &c.


That would be the even more money per unit approach, thus less airframes available for the same customer with a limited budget (are there others now or in the future?).

Where will that lead to? :ugh:

franzl

TEEEJ
11th Dec 2012, 16:35
Easy Street wrote

True, but the only Hawks allowed were (and still are) the Red Arrows

During the 25th Falklands Anniversary Flypast there were also 4 Hawks from 100 Squadron and FRADU. The Hawks were representing the Sea Harrier/Harrier.

4th Wave - 1 x VC-10, 2 x RAF Hawks, 2 x RN Hawks

XV105 Special marks (101 Sqn 90th anniversary)
XX248/CJ XX247/CM 100 Sqn
XX170/170 XX171/171 FRADU

Yahoo! Groups (http://dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/LondonCity/message/1781)

Apparently three of the Hawk Pilots were ex-Sea Harrier Pilots that had taken part in the conflict.

http://www.pprune.org/3357074-post109.html

http://www.pprune.org/3357429-post111.html

http://www.pprune.org/3352550-post106.html

Engines
11th Dec 2012, 19:25
Stacker,

Good example. The F-111B was a classic example of uncontrolled weight growth, triggered by a twin engined design with swing wings - both of which are known weight drivers. It's interesting that Fort Worth (having been responsible for F-111B) once again experienced severe weight growth problems on F-35. It was, to say the least, unfortunate that they didn't learn the lessons. In their defence, F-111B was many years before F-35 and most of the people involved had retired. Corporate memory loss and all that.

You are absolutely right that designing naval (cat and trap) aircraft usually demands a quite distinct design approach, which has to be informed by a lot of company experience plus a willingness to share information with the USN and, at times, accept direction from them. I also agree with you over transfer of designs from land to sea. I am quite happy to be corrected, but the only land based design that I know successfully moved over to cat and trap operations was the T-45, and that's just a smallish trainer. Even that took a substantial redesign to get it on and off the deck. (Mig-29 and Su-33 are doing STOBAR, (not cat and trap) but I'd love to know what their operational payloads and fatigue lives are).

The design challenge for F-35C (as part of a family of aircraft) is therefore a very severe one, almost as severe as that for the F-35B. Selling a single engined design to the USN was also hard work for the DoD (not LM or Boeing, but the DoD central staffs who drove the JSF concept through). However, the thing that clinched it was the availability of a very advanced and powerful engine that would deliver the necessary level of performance from a 75,000 lb class aircraft.

Retired F4 - I think your quote is absolutely spot on target, and very timely. F-35 is a more 'balanced' stealth combat aircraft design, and I'd suspect that many other techniques and systems are being used to improve survivability.

Best Regards as ever

Engines

glojo
11th Dec 2012, 19:32
What I find frustrating is the continual talk of a 'marinised' version of the Typhoon.

Crazy talk

Not_a_boffin
11th Dec 2012, 19:37
Care in the community has a lot to answer for......

Just This Once...
11th Dec 2012, 19:40
Engines,

Not sure where your commentary about IR missiles vs Harrier and Tornado comes from but it is fair way off the mark. Thankfully the truth is classified and not forum fodder.

glad rag
11th Dec 2012, 20:19
Engines,

Not sure where your commentary about IR missiles vs Harrier and Tornado comes from but it is fair way off the mark. Thankfully the truth is classified and not forum fodder. Whoosh...http://www.naturalencountersbirdingtours.com/photos/birds/CentralAmerica/RedLoredParrot.jpgwots that black Omega doin up there

Thelma Viaduct
11th Dec 2012, 21:02
Getting the RCS of an aircraft down to the size of a bee is very impressive, but how many bees are capable of 600kts?

I'd assume that this anomaly would stand out like a sore thumb, and a bit of radar computing power would raise the necessary alarm bells. ;-)

Engines
11th Dec 2012, 21:51
Glad rag,

Thanks for the reply. See yr PMs.

Best Regards

Engines

JSFfan
12th Dec 2012, 04:13
ORAC. If you want to know on the survivability, perhaps you should start at the testing

http://www.bahdayton.com/surviac/asnews/ASJ_Spring2012_V9_web.pdf
Quote:
The FUSL testing conducted on AA-1 was very successful meeting all defined test objectives and success criteria. Addressing synergistic effects, the electrical power and flight control systems successfully isolated failures and protected the redundancies built into these systems, allowing continued safe flight. The VSN architecture is robust, providing multiple paths to transfer data. Testing highlighted that fire is a significant threat to flight critical systems. The test team was able to verify that the actual ballistic damage response correlated very well to previous pilot in the loop simulator testing. Over the course of the test program, the LFT team witnessed firsthand the robustness of the F35 flight critical systems, no cheap system kills.

ORAC
12th Dec 2012, 07:22
Morning.

The F-35 may have passed a phase of testing but still has areas of vulnerability. Firstly such a Heath Robinson VSTOL reconfiguration has to be highly vulnerable to battle damage.

1XnZXQYG-LQ

Secondly, as part of a continuously active logistics network using ALIS (http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htmurph/articles/20121201.aspx), it's highly vulnerable to cyber attack. It may be possible to safeguard the network (though working in the business, I doubt it, it's a constantly changing battlefield), the problem is can you prove it?

Thirdly, there is the complexity of the actual software/firmware on the aircraft (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/30/lockheed-fighter-idUSL2E8EU8C420120330)itself. The same issues arise, both of V&V of the system and being able to prove that such a complex system is safe both from bugs and cyber attack?

ORAC
12th Dec 2012, 08:14
Time: More Bad News for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter? (http://nation.time.com/2012/12/11/more-bad-news-for-the-joint-strike-fighter/)

Back in March, we broke the news that the Pentagon’s oversight office was taking a gander at the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, estimated to cost potentially $1.5 trillion to develop, buy and operate over several decades (the Pentagon is so desperate to bring down the estimated cost to operate the plane they’re even hiring contractors to work on that!). The plane is the future of Air Force, Marine and Navy aviation, who plan to buy close to 2,500 of them: it’s the lone fighter in the pipeline.

The auditors’ report — on F-35 quality assurance management (essentially how they identify and prevent problems) – isn’t out yet, but some of their findings were contained in a one-paragraph summary in a report to Congress that came out this week. Turns out it wasn’t all rosy: In February 2012, DoD IG initiated the F-35 AS9100 Quality Management System assessment to review conformity to specified quality management system(s), contractual quality clauses, and internal quality processes and procedures for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. As of September 2012, more than 190 findings were identified and four notices of concern sent to the F-35 Program Office. All findings were accepted and will be addressed and implemented to the maximum practicable extent. While it’s not good news that problems were found, we don’t know how serious they are. Whatever the case, it’s good that the Defense Department inspector general is taking a look at this mammoth and important program.

kbrockman
12th Dec 2012, 16:25
Australia starts showing signs of nervousness concerning the way the F35 is evolving it seems
Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/super-hornets-considered-amid-fears-about-jsf/story-e6frg8yo-1226535732600)
THE Gillard government will consider buying up to 24 new F/A-18 Super Hornet fighter-bombers in a decision that would sharply reduce reliance on the troubled Joint Strike Fighter.
...
Although one of the options in a defence paper is to continue with the plan to purchase up to 100 JSFs, the government is believed to favour buying more of the cheaper and more immediately available Super Hornets.

If it does buy another 24 Super Hornets, that is likely to reduce the number of JSFs ultimately needed by the RAAF.

The Howard government ordered 24 Super Hornets in 2007 after the F-111s were retired earlier than intended because of safety concerns.

Australia has already spent $1.5 billion fitting out 12 of those Super Hornets with sophisticated Growler electronic warfare equipment able to paralyse an enemy's communications and missile systems.

In addition to the original 24 Super Hornets, the RAAF has 71 older Classic FA/18 Hornets.

Jet Jockey A4
12th Dec 2012, 21:39
The Canadian government just cancelled the F-35 purchase...

According to the latest numbers just released by a private accounting firm the cost for the F-35 went from the promised $9B to a whopping over $45B price tag!

The government is now launching a new more open and honedt bid for our old F-18 fighters.

Finnpog
12th Dec 2012, 22:06
Some links

| The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/canada-widens-search-for-fighter-jet-beyond-f-35/story-e6frg6so-1226535903698)

Canada to consider other planes besides F-35 : Stltoday (http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/canada-to-consider-other-planes-besides-f/article_b1cd721b-7b61-5378-8671-60c0af6a1a18.html)

Fighter jet plan 'reset' as F-35 costs soar - Canada - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/12/12/pol-f-35-kpmg-report-release.html)

Very Sneaky
12th Dec 2012, 22:26
The Canadian government just cancelled the F-35 purchase...

According to the latest numbers just released by a private accounting firm the cost for the F-35 went from the promised $9B to a whopping over $45B price tag!

The government is now launching a new more open and honedt bid for our old F-18 fighters.

Do you have a link for that? I couldn't find any articles stating a plan to cancel the program, only that they're reviewing it...

glojo
12th Dec 2012, 22:33
Is all this speculation a case of 'might be', 'maybe' or 'possibly'?

eaglemmoomin
12th Dec 2012, 22:50
Morning.

The F-35 may have passed a phase of testing but still has areas of vulnerability. Firstly such a Heath Robinson VSTOL reconfiguration has to be highly vulnerable to battle damage.



Secondly, as part of a continuously active logistics network using ALIS (http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htmurph/articles/20121201.aspx), it's highly vulnerable to cyber attack. It may be possible to safeguard the network (though working in the business, I doubt it, it's a constantly changing battlefield), the problem is can you prove it?

Thirdly, there is the complexity of the actual software/firmware on the aircraft (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/30/lockheed-fighter-idUSL2E8EU8C420120330)itself. The same issues arise, both of V&V of the system and being able to prove that such a complex system is safe both from bugs and cyber attack?What does it really matter if the VTOL system is 'susceptible' to battle damage any aircraft that takes hits in those areas will be in a lot of trouble and how do we define susceptible I can't imagine an F18 being hit amid ships is very pretty either. If the aircraft is badly damaged enough that it can't land vertically and is still flyable then it would be diverted to somewhere where a conventional landing is possible. Or the pilot would have to ditch the aircraft same as any other aircraft.

The greatest chance of loss would be in the landing and take off phase which is where a lot of the harrier accidents and loses seem to have occured with the caveat that the F35B is under computer control on a vertical landing not the manual control method of the harrier with it's wide margin for human error, reaction time, spatial awareness and ability to multi task 100% every time.

As far has hacking the ALIS network goes the obvious thing to reduce the ease of access would be to use a customised encrypted messaging protocol with rotating keys. Then maybe use radio datalinks for nodes that are completely seperate from the web and then utilising military satellite bandwidth to get data to the regional maintenance facilities and then on to the 'mothership'. Ultimately it seems to me that if you limit access to the system through using a seperate network to ao any other traffic and/or make that access reliant on a physical connection on say a military base with lots of big hefty men with guns and systems to purge machines when being over run then you'd get a long way to lessening your problem.

I'm not being funny but any large complex distributed software engineering project has these exact same issues with VV&T from the signalling system of a rail network to the ground control station of a satellite and everything in between. Thats why these things take years and years and years and why the software drops are so slow. But that's why the discipline is called software engineering and not 'programming'. Do you try to mitigate your risk and progress or never attempt anything 'complex' and stagnate?

eaglemmoomin
12th Dec 2012, 23:17
Is all this speculation a case of 'might be', 'maybe' or 'possibly'?

My understanding in simplistic terms is that the Canadians did hold an open competition so other political parties and so on want a 'do over'.

Personally I think the result will be if they do bin the purchase and have a 'proper' competition that Canada won't be getting any fighter jets for a long time. Because the Canadian military will tip up with a myriad list of requirements that the aircraft will have to fulfil to even get down selected thus lots of manufacturers will have to present what ever aircraft they have now with the bid team having to work really hard to prove that the 'roadmap' will result in aircraft that meets the militarys spec.

Then the buy will be so small relatively speaking for what has become a custom aircraft as they have to replace lots of now obsolecent parts with the additional testing and integration thats comes with that. then the capability will have to be salami sliced to produce an aircraft that's still years late and less than promised.

In other words repeating exactly whats happened with the F35 but with less planes, manufacturing scale, yet more wasted money and delay all while the exsiting aircraft start to crap out effecting your military capability (all of which applies to the F35, but all you really end up doing is extending the problem).

Then of course your support and sparing policy becomes a huge issue as the total fleet is pretty small parts and support is expensive so you start to canabalise your existing stock of aircraft. It's like you take all the crap parts of F35 and do them again but in new crappier ways, all because some bright spark assumes that because the unit cost of an older fighter thats been bought in the thousands will marry up to the cost of an aircraft that ends up being a custom job in a much smaller buy.

Or standard military procurement of a fast jet:O

Willard Whyte
12th Dec 2012, 23:32
If the aircraft is badly damaged enough that it can't land vertically and is still flyable then it would be diverted to somewhere where a conventional landing is possible. Or the pilot would have to ditch the aircraft same as any other aircraft. The 'can we have our ball back' scenario could be quite interesting in some areas of potential conflict.

At least a jet that isn't mandated to land vertically on a carrier has an extra choice as to where it might land - somewhere with repair and maintenance facilities, rather than ditch or divert.

JSFfan
13th Dec 2012, 00:41
Is all this speculation a case of 'might be', 'maybe' or 'possibly'?
I think that is even giving it too much credence, I seem to recall that the f(x)-35 has already beaten Boeing 5th gen in a comp. Best of luck if they want to switch their offereing to the fa-18ef 4th gen.

As well as diverting, the f-35b with a damaged nozzle can also be caught with the net [I assume the uk carrier will have a net catch system]

As for Australia, as per our current review, it has more SH as a plan B if the f-35 is futher delayed giving a capability gap, it's a non-story going by what both the ADF and gov are saying.
Defence Ministers » Minister for Defence and Minister for Defence Materiel – Joint Media Release – Australia’s future Air Capability (http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/2012/12/13/minister-for-defence-and-minister-for-defence-materiel-joint-media-release-australias-future-air-capability/)

Jet Jockey A4
13th Dec 2012, 01:29
Just to update on what I had said in the previous post about the F-35 being cancelled which was what I had seen/heard on TV in a news flash while waiting in a medical clinic was that effectively they are basically cancelling this purchase and restarting the whole process over in an "open bid" so that other manufacturers can apply into the competition to furnish our next fighter.

So it might well be that in the end the F-35 still comes up the winner but I can assure you this time around it won't be that simple with everyone looking into the process of the competition.

The two other front runners already being mentioned are the F-18 Super Hornet and the EuroFighter.

dat581
13th Dec 2012, 01:58
I'm pretty sure the barrier (net) on a carrier is connected to the arrestor gear just like the cables themselves. The net would be ripped out of it's mounts by the energy of a fast jet at a nominal landing speed and weight. The Uk carriers will have no arrestor system to hook the barrier into.

The only option if an airfield is not in range for whatever reason is a blue water divert and thus the loss of the aircraft.

On the other side of the argument if an F-35B is running to low on fuel to make it back to mother in an emergency just about any ship might do, just ask a bloke called Soapy Watson!

JSFfan
13th Dec 2012, 02:37
I was thinking more along the lines of a nylon tape, land based arresting system adapted to a net/barrier. If it was seen as a needed part of the conops and it doesn't look like it is.

Thelma Viaduct
13th Dec 2012, 03:41
Don't know why Canada bother tbh, they've got the US&A to the south and they weren't too happy about Cuba having USSR missiles on Cuban soil, but more importantly, who would want to invade a country with that many french people living there????

It's looking like anyone who buys JSF is mental, so that would probably include the MoD. :ok:

Turkeyslapper
13th Dec 2012, 06:20
THE RAAF's 24 Super Hornet aircraft, plus possibly another 24, are
set to play a central role in Australia's air defences for the foreseeable
future.




Defence Minister Stephen Smith said it had now become clear to all that the
Super Hornets were much more than simply a transition capability.


Initially acquired as a bridging force to cover the gap between the
retirement of elderly F-111 strike bombers in 2010 and the delayed arrival of
the Joint Strike Fighters (JSF), Super Hornets now operate alongside the JSF in
a mixed fleet.


This stems from the acquisition of the Growler electronic warfare version of
Super Hornet, launched in 2008 by then defence minister Joel Fitzgibbon and
confirmed in August when the government gave the go-ahead to equip 12 aircraft
with this very advanced capability.


"So we are now not just looking at Super Hornets as transition, but looking
at the longer-term potential of Super Hornets and Growler and Joint Strike
Fighters essentially as a mixed fleet," Mr Smith told reporters in Perth.


Announcing the acquisition of 24 Super Hornets in March 2007, then coalition
defence minister Brendan Nelson said he envisaged selling them back to the US in
2020 and acquiring a fourth squadron of JSF.


It now appears the RAAF may have only a single JSF squadron by 2020.


Analysts said the Growler acquisition meant Super Hornet was here to
stay.


Australia is looking to buy up to 100 of the advanced JSF aircraft as the
RAAF's principal combat aircraft from around 2020. So far it's firmly committed
to take delivery of just two in 2014. The next 12 are expected to reach
Australia around 2020.


JSF has experienced delays and technical problems and may be further delayed.
The RAAF'S 71 legacy F/A-18 Hornets entered service from 1985 and were
initially slated for retirement from around 2010. Their life has been extended
to around 2020.


In an update on Australia's future air combat capability, Mr Smith said the
government had assessed a transition plan prepared by defence, leaving its
options open except the one to proceed immediately to buy JSF.


Mr Smith said the options including buying 24 more Super Hornets on top of 24
already in service.


Australia was now seeking the latest information on cost and availability of
more Super Hornets by way of the US Foreign Military Sales program




Read more: RAAF Super Hornets are for long term:Smith | News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/national/australia-could-buy-more-super-hornets/story-e6frfku9-1226536135979#ixzz2EujTtr3l)

JSFfan
13th Dec 2012, 06:32
perhaps if you opened my gov link above, aussie media is just as stupid as UK and Canada

"The Australian Government has not made a decision to purchase more Super Hornets. The sending of this LOR does not commit Australia to purchase more Super Hornets. It is being sent so that the Australian Government can further consider all options in 2013 with the latest and best cost and availability information. This has been made clear to both US officials and to the Defence industry.
Following receipt of the LOR response, Government will further and fully consider Australia’s Air Combat Capability in 2013. "

jwcook
13th Dec 2012, 07:08
That's quite funny as exactly the same was said before they purchased the first 24!! :ugh:

ORAC
13th Dec 2012, 07:27
how do we define susceptible I can't imagine an F18 being hit amid ships is very pretty either. The point being that all F-18s which took hits to the engine nozzle feathers survived. The complex folding rear nozzle of the the F-35B was my area of concern.

The lift fan design used in the F-35B is totally different to the design of the AV-8B and not vulnerable to IR missiles, but the complex sequencing of dorsal and ventral doors will be also be susceptible to damage.

Damage or failure in either would presumably preclude a RVL as well as vertical.

JSFfan
13th Dec 2012, 07:36
jwcook (http://www.pprune.org/members/84656-jwcook), it wouldn't surprise me at all if they buy another 24, I'm sure boeing have a senior position going for a retiring polly, but it's going to mess up the plans of ADF and the SH aren't in those force development plans going forward.

ORAC
13th Dec 2012, 08:43
The Canadian government just cancelled the F-35 purchase...

Do you have a link for that? I couldn't find any articles stating a plan to cancel the program, only that they're reviewing it...

Ares: F-35 Reports Released by Canadian Govt ... (http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a1eb5c615-730c-42fc-9ca3-50613e0f081b)

The Canadian government has officially released the parameters for moving forward with an F-18 replacement and shelving its earlier evaluation that led to the selection of the Lockheed Martin F-35.

“Last April, we set out a Seven-Point Plan to hit the reset button on the process to replace the CF-18 aircraft,” the Honorable Rona Ambrose, Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for Status of Women, said in a press release. “With the release of the Terms of Reference that will guide the evaluation of alternative fighter aircraft, we are demonstrating that we are serious about looking at all available options to replace the CF-18’s.”

Here are the links to the pertinent docs:


National Fighter Procurement Secretariat’s Seven-Point Plan: Status Report (http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/stamgp-lamsmp/spr-eng.html);


Terms of Reference (http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/stamgp-lamsmp/torcc-torcf-eng.html) for the evaluation of options to sustain the fighter capability. This evaluation of options will review and assess available fighter aircraft, and each option will be evaluated against the roles and missions of the Canada First Defense Strategy;


National Defence’s Annual Update (http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/pri/2/pro/10/index-eng.asp#p2%E2%80%AC), setting out comprehensive life-cycle cost estimates for the F-35;


KPMG’s independent review of those costs, which establishes (1) a comprehensive life-cycle framework (http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/reports-rapports/ngfc-cng/lccf-cccv/lccf-cccvtb-eng.asp) for reporting costs, and (2) the review of the National Defence Annual Update (http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/reports-rapports/ngfc-cng/irlcc-eiccv/irlcc-eiccvtb-eng.asp); and


Industry Canada’s report on Canadian Industrial Participation in the Joint Strike Fighter Program (http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ad-ad.nsf/eng/ad03962.html).