F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

[Madbob]

If one were to take the view that the UK cannot simply afford a 5th Generation LO fighter/bomber of whatever variety - F35 A, B or C and simply went for a 4th Generation proven ac like the F18 Super Hornet or the Rafale and accepted that the F35 is just too costly - are we in a position to make any cost savings by reverting to a cat & trap configuration for the new CVA's?

If not then we are committed to either having very small number and expensive F35's and are only left with the option of binning the idea of force projection using the new flat tops (when they eventually enter service).

What is the latest cost estimate for fitting EMAL and wires and how much would this delay commissioning of the first carrier? What through life cost difference would there be for between say 35 F35's and perhaps as many as 48 Super Hornets/Rafales? Would this then open the door to allow us such luxuries as fixed wing COD and AEW platforms?

Just my 2c.

[Heathrow Harry]

EMAL is unproven and unknown - if we're worried about costs I'd stick with steam TBH - it may be dated but at least we know how to make it work

[Tourist]

HH

And the stream comes from where exactly?
All previous catapult carriers are steam ships. Our new ones are specifically designed to have the requisite electrical supply for emal, not the requisite steam production for cat launches.

EMAL may be new, but it has the backing and enormous funds of the US behind it. They have to make it work or their new carriers are dead. Better trust to the resourcefullness of uncle sam than a BAE steam bodge job any day.

[Not_a_boffin]

"We" no longer know how to make steam work, other than in the context of NSRP.

EMALS is currently getting less and less unproven by the day. It has shot all of the a/c in the US inventory, many with stores.

None of which is relevant to the UK unless the F35B is canned.

[Heathrow Harry]

"EMAL may be new, but it has the backing and enormous funds of the US behind it"


BBC News - Q&A: The US fiscal cliff (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20237056)

Q&A: The US fiscal cliff Falling off the fiscal cliff would have a global economic impact, analysts say
The US faces a deadline to agree new legislation that could make or break the global economic recovery.
The so-called "fiscal cliff" has been on the horizon for two years, but now the 31 December deadline is almost here.
Now that the presidential election is over it is hoped that policymakers will knuckle down to find a solution.

[kbrockman]

just to not be accused of only posting negative news about the F35....
NewsDaily: Pentagon cuts cost of F-35 fighters by 4 percent: sources (http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/bre8bb1u4-us-lockheed-f35/)
WASHINGTON, Dec. 12, 2012 (Reuters) — The Pentagon will pay about 4 percent less for each new Lockheed Martin Corp F-35A fighter jet when it signs a deal worth $3.8 billion with the No. 1 U.S. defense contractor on Friday, according to sources familiar with the deal.

Each of the 22 conventional takeoff and landing jets in the fifth production contract will cost around $107 million, excluding the engine, said the sources, who were not authorized to speak publicly.

That compares to a price of $111.6 million for the F-35As to be used by the Air Force that were included in the fourth contract with Lockheed.

The contract for 32 jets also includes 3 B-models for the U.S. Marine Corps, which can land vertically, and seven C-models to be used on aircraft carriers for the U.S. Navy.
.....
The Defense Department is negotiating a separate contract with Pratt & Whitney, a unit of United Technologies Corp , for the engines that will power the new warplanes. Pentagon officials hope to conclude that deal by year end.

So, 32 planes in total for 3.8billion makes for an average of 118.75 per copy , 22x107 for the A = 2.35billion which means 144.6 on average for the 3B's and 7C's.
Now only the engines and they can go flying.

Also , what's up with these ever lasting LRIP series, it used to mean a short lead in time before full production speed, now it just is an excuse to keep production going ,while not fully tested, with a substantial higher unit price.
LRIP5 will bring the total already over 100 units, and LRIP6 is already in the pipeline.


edited,
For those who wonder why all this is being puched through so fast;
Signing the contract before year-end will safeguard funds for the F-35 from $52.3 billion in automatic budget cuts due to kick in on January 2 for fiscal 2013 unless Congress acts.

[ORAC]

Also, what's up with these ever lasting LRIP series The problem is the concurrency cost of modification of early aircraft (http://www.defensedaily.com/free/GAO-Expects-Elevated-F-35-Concurrency-Costs-Into-2019_18104.html) to the eventual production standard. The more you buy to the pre-prod standard the higher the price - unless you scrap them....

[LowObservable]

There were always going to be a lot of LRIP batches and jets. The original schedule called for six batches with the last being 168 aircraft for US and UK (plus, in theory, a/c for the other partners). The idea was to ramp up gradually to the 200+/year production rate.

However, the risk was hedged... by the time you were fully funding LRIP 4, you were well into the testing of the USAF IOC capabilities under Block 2.

But what happened was that, as the SDD program slipped, nobody wanted to stop the line between the SDD and LRIP jets, so LRIP got started and more lots were added to the end, because you can't start full-rate (legally) until you've done IOT&E.

[Heathrow Harry]

I have a feeling RAND did some studies back in the ?80's? and showed that buying any aircarft WITHOUT prototypes (or LRIP types these days) almost always led to a horrible, expensive, balls-up

[Milo Minderbinder]

what degree of commonality is there between different LRIP batches?

In use will they have to be treated as discrete fleets, each with its own training and spares train, or will they be "common user" items?

[jwcook]

Well if you take the Raptor f-22 for an example there are ~60 airframes that are not combat coded, i.e. they are of various marks and builds that would be near impossible to field in a high tempo war environment and are used almost exclusively for training.

So about a third of the production run on previous experience

[kbrockman]

This was certainly more surprising than the Canadians or Australians.

Canada to consider other planes besides F-35 | Nation & World | The Seattle Times (http://o.seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2019891680_apcncanadafighterjets.html)
Japan has said it may cancel its plans to buy dozens of the F-35s



and a direct quote from the Japanese Defence Minister, Yasuo Ichikawa
Japan warns it will cancel F-35 fighter purchase if price rises | The Manufacturer (http://www.themanufacturer.com/articles/japan-warns-it-will-cancel-f-35-jet-purchase-if-price-rises/)

the Pentagon this month postponed orders for 179 F-35s over the next five years to save $15.1 billion, a move that a Lockheed executive said would increase the price of the radar-evading warplane for other purchasers.

“As for the first four planes, I expect an official contract to be concluded by this summer. If it turns out they cannot meet what they have proposed by that time, that would raise concerns about our defence capability,” Tanaka told parliament.

“I believe we would need to consider as a potential option matters like cancelling our orders and starting a new selection process if that is the case.”

....

Lockheed Martin has said it is committed to providing F-35s that meet the cost, schedule and industrial requirements of the Japanese government, but added that F-35 pricing is determined by talks between the Japanese and U.S. governments.

Japan’s defence budget has been under pressure with the country saddled by a public debt twice the size of its economy.

[Jet Jockey A4]

So Japan is paying approximately $125M per aircraft for its first batch of four to be delivered in 2017.

I wonder how much the subsequent aircrafts are going to cost.

[kbrockman]

So Japan is paying approximately $125M per aircraft for its first batch of four to be delivered in 2017.

Japan where planning on paying 125mill per AC, the deal needs to be signed in the summer of 2013, by then it is very likely that this amount cannot be maintained, certainly not if the US DoD is forced to scale back on its purchasing numbers forced by their fiscal problems.

More expensive contracts for the Japanese will almost certainly lead to a reconsideration of their F35 plans.

I wouldn't be surprised if they change their emphasis towards more effort in the A2A part of their Air Force tasks, which could possibly mean something else iso the F35, something more like a modernised F15, EF (very unlikely because not American) or maybe even more money for their indigenous stealth program.

[Jet Jockey A4]

In Canada they talk about the Super Hornet, the Rafale, the EuroFighter and possibly another aircraft as possible replacement for our older F-18s.

So not being an expert on these aircrafts, how much less stealthy are they when compared to the F-35?

Also if the Super Hornet is a candidate for the job, what about the latest version of the F-15? How much do those that aircraft cost?

I always thought the F-15 was the aircraft Canada really wanted back in the 80s but it could not afford it and settled on the F-18.

After all the F-15 is faster than both the F-18 and F-35, it’s probably got some of the latest electronics, it’s got two engines and is probably a better interceptor than both aircrafts.

So if today we are ready to spend money on the F-35, wouldn't a newer more modern version of the F-15 work for Canada?

[Milo Minderbinder]

I thought the aircraft the Canadians really wanted at the time was a locally built variant of the F-18L but Northrop were priced out of the market by McDonnells offering their version of the F-18A/B at subsidised rates......

[TBM-Legend]

Australia is about to order another 24 Super Hornets due to delays and costs of F-35. An FMS request is being made for price and availability.

[LowObservable]

JJA4 - The Eagle is still pretty expensive and burns a lot of gas. For the most recent users, it's pretty much in the medium-bomber class.

Also, Boeing really really really wants some more SH sales, because the Saudis are going to keep the Eagle line warm for quite a few years.

[Rulebreaker]

I wonder how much an f18 will cost to operate/ upgrade to remain relavent 30/40 years from now?

[Biggus]

Less than an F-35...?

[Jet Jockey A4]

Well in 30 to 40 years the F-35 will also need some upgrades and I fear because it is a far more complex aircraft it will be a very expensive one to maintain too.

[Thelma Viaduct]

F-18G should have been purchased for the FAA and then palmed off to the the RAF after 15 years once F-35 is mature or F/A-XX is available.

Hand over the F-18s to the RAF when they get replaced, reduces cost, reduces risk and gives a proven combat capability now as well as some post GR4 a/c for the RAF.

Also keeps the carrier future proof by proving AAR/AWACS compatibility for when we can afford it, and a platform for future UCAVs which I'm sure will be catapult launched.

What's so difficult about that MoD Muppets FFS !!!

[ORAC]

What's so difficult about that MoD Muppets FFS !!! Hmm, because it's politically impossible?

Labour picked the F-35B in the first place and got a lot of political capital in the Tories changing to the F-35C and then having to change back again.

The Tories lost enough face flip-flopping once, they can't afford to do so again.

[orca]

Are we totally sure that we can lay F-35B procurement at the feet of a political party or should we perhaps look at the military leadership who probably favoured STOVL as a direct Harrier replacement which also allowed us to think about a further procurement to replace the Tornado?

[ORAC]

Are we totally sure that we can lay F-35B procurement at the feet of a political party Not saying the politicians did the initial selection, though they would have been involved; rather that they have both subsequently invested a lot of political capital into the choice and justification.

Any change, as in Canada, is now so bound up in the politics, and in some cases careers, that it becomes the overwhelming factor, as in the Canadian EH101 order.

[GreenKnight121]

Biggus... you should know that aircraft get more expensive to maintain as they get older... and even new-build Super Hornets will be maintenance pigs in another 20 years... while the F-35s, having newer systems, should theoretically be cheaper to keep flying.

Compare the F-14D, old design, even the ones new-built in the early 1990s were low-time-between-failure maintenance hogs vs the early F/A-18E/Fs, despite being new they flew far longer between "breaking" and took less time & money to fix.

[kbrockman]

Biggus... you should know that aircraft get more expensive to maintain as they get older... and even new-build Super Hornets will be maintenance pigs in another 20 years... while the F-35s, having newer systems, should theoretically be cheaper to keep flying.


Planes at age are older to maintain, that has basically always been true, the idea that the F35 differs from that is substantiated by exactly nothing, certainly not by what has been claimed about it theoretically.

One of the main arguments it had going for it at its conception was that it was going to be no more expensive than the planes, like the F16 F18 and Harrier, it was to replace.
A promise which it broke on almost all accounts, maintenance will be no more different IMHO.

[Thelma Viaduct]

Hmm, because it's politically impossible?

Labour picked the F-35B in the first place and got a lot of political capital in the Tories changing to the F-35C and then having to change back again.

The Tories lost enough face flip-flopping once, they can't afford to do so again.What political capital??? voters couldn't give a flying picket what they buy.

I honestly believe it's just down to sheer incompetence, I doubt 2% of politicians could tell you the difference between the A, B and C versions let alone decide which one is required if at all.

The people that make the decisions haven't got a clue, politicians, MoD, whoever. They've got a bee in their bonnet about 'stealth' and it's something we can't afford, but to compound the issue, they decide to buy the version that is less capable and hamstrings the rest of the show.

[Courtney Mil]

they decide to buy the version that is less capable and hamstrings the rest of the show.

You are so right.

[andrewn]

I'd agree with PP's assessment; I doubt the politicos had any real clue what they were doing when they switched from B to C (and back again). If I was to hazard a guess I'd say they were bounced into the switch to C by lobbying, possibly from the Navy, and then bounced back to B once someone did the maths on both Carrier conversion costs and more importantly through life and currency costs.

B is obviously a compromise solution driven by economic factors. If money was no issue we'd likely have some A, some C and maybe some B as well:O

[lj101]

I'd say they were bounced into the switch to C by lobbying, possibly from the Navy,

Not true. Both the RAF and RN wanted the C.

[Bengo]

Leave us not forget the industrial lobbyand associated political considerations at a tactical level (jobs) and strategically (retaining an aircraft design capability). Rolls Royce and BAe both have big interests in the B model and would not have had such a good foothold had there only been CTOL versions.

N

[Heathrow Harry]

The only people who count, and can count, are the Treasury

[JSFfan]

Rulebreaker (http://www.pprune.org/members/190389-rulebreaker)
I wonder how much an f18 will cost to operate/ upgrade to remain relavent 30/40 years from now?



Janes said that australia costed the F-18 at $24k per hour and the f-35 at $22k per hour, this is also consistant what the ADF has said.
Upgrades are going to be every 2 years for software and 4 years for hardware.

UK, Canada and Australia also have their own software recoding partnership

[Two's in]

The maintenance burden for modern aircraft is in the upkeep of those modern systems. The mechanical systems are a lot more reliable, but there will already be microprocessors flying on the F-35 that are stockpiled by the supplier because they are obsolescent, or about to be obsolescent. At the same time, the price for "cracking the box" to modify software will start high and rise throughout the lifecycle. Despite processors being designed and installed with "X% spare capacity", the inevitability as systems and capabilities are added or modified is they will hit a processing ceiling and need to be replaced, with the associated integration and certification costs of complex software.

So just because there won't be a pool of leaking oil under each aging F-35, or a plethora of creaking systems with a 1 hour MTBF, don't assume anything got "cheaper". The costs just moved somewhere else.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

I think this ought to be the header for every page

"The CEO of LM is in the business of making money. Making aeroplanes is secondary."

[ORAC]

Janes said that australia costed the F-18 at $24k per hour and the f-35 at $22k per hour Maybe they should speak to NAVAIR...

http://ericpalmer.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/jan2010usnf35opscostgif.gif

[JSFfan]

why would we use that NAVAIR costings (which is in dispute anyway) perhaps you should do more research as to what the SH and hornet costs are in the aussie fleet, you should also be aware we are not buying the f-35 B or C. Next I'll expect an APA chart or a quote from Sweetman



Two's in (http://www.pprune.org/members/114718-two-s-in), your comment on microprocessors is relevant to 3/4th gen and even the f-22, it's not relevant to the f-35 and I also hear the SH block ll. You are spot on as I see it, that the costs are avionics, processors and software driven and not the oil leak, as you said.

[Milo Minderbinder]

"it's not relevant to the f-35"

don't talk tripe
Moore's law still applies, and is unlikely to fail anytime soon. Indeed, with rapidly changing data technology current microprocessors are likely to be superceded even more quickly
Consider the difference between a PC cpu now, and one from 20 years ago.
An 80386 running at 16MHz then, a multi-core I7 or similar running at 3GHz now. Future improvements are going to be at the same rate, and military grade chips won't develop any less slowly. Do you really think the current range of microprocessors are going to be available during the lifetime of this aircraft? Theres no chance
Its not like a 1950's technology aircraft where if you ran out of valves a skilled glass blower could knock up some more.........nowadays you need the correct silicon wafers, the correct machinery production lines and the correct clean rooms. All of that will be superceded in three years, let alone 20 years - or 30, or 40...........

Seems to me its coming to a point where it may be more sensible to regard military aircraft as throwaways, made to a lower life expectancy aqnd lower cost, chucking them away after three years, to be replaced with newer variants with newer integrated electronics. The airframe design may be frozen, but each iteration of the electronics would be the latest available. Don't retrofit, just replace. That would in itself increase the build numbers and reduce the unit price (OK I realise the total cost may well be similar)

[Rulebreaker]

Interesting comments I asked because I've heard it mentioned a number of times that f18 is so much cheaper (australian buy suggest otherwise mind) yet from what I've seen/read a similar exercise to the f35 kpmg 42 year costing has never been publicly done for f18. I don't see the us navy operating f18 for as long as Canada intends its next fighter to last and that must be a consideration in thru life cost also where the jets are in there development life cycle.

If they wanted a twin engine jet for homeland air policing with decent alround capability typhoon would be a better fit it will be around for some time cant see them buying European though.

[JSFfan]

Milo, I was refering to "but there will already be microprocessors flying on the F-35 that are stockpiled by the supplier because they are obsolescent, or about to be obsolescent."
The f-35 processors/design aren't like the others and will hit the wall for upgrades, for example. One of the design criteria was that the f-35 would spiral upgrade without hitting hardware walls. Block 3 has the first 'computer' upgrade for all the planes, there is no block obsolescence as if found on existing planes

[Milo Minderbinder]

"One of the design criteria was that the f-35 would spiral upgrade without hitting hardware walls"

I interpret that as you saying that all future software upgrades will run on the current hardware. Or plugin replacements for the existing hardware
Do you realise how conceptually nonsensical that is?
Do you realise how limiting that is? Basically you are saying the aircraft was designed with processors which will still be a valid design in 40 years time.

Two words
Utter bollox

[cokecan]

one of JSF's design criteria was that all three airframes would have 80% parts comonality, it would cost $60m, it would out-perform an F-16, and it would be in service by 2006.

hows that working out?

[ORAC]

If it's not Open Architecture (http://www.acq.osd.mil/osjtf/pdf/osala.pdf), then they've ****** up.....

[kbrockman]

As far as I can tell, the ICP is upgradable, through software upgrades,
but don't worry , it's really good ,LM says so themselves !

Quote from a LM whitepaper
We are simply upgrading the computers in order to run the next block of software.

Here’s an example we can all relate to: you buy a new laptop and you know the moment you buy it’ll be obsolete in six months. There’ll be something better by then. So what if the seller said, “In order to preserve your edge let’s plan on installing a better processor six months from now. We’ll make it as good as the one we’re going to sell in six months.” You would say, “Yea, that makes sense” because otherwise, as a consumer, you’d keep waiting in anticipation of a better laptop in six months.

That is exactly what the F-35 program did.


That sounds worryingly a lot like 'the ICP is so vital to the whole EWF package that it will be virtually impossible to use a whole new design once it becomes too obsolete to upgrade solely by giving it a software upgrade.

[JSFfan]

Milo, you can interpret it as you like, but given that I have already said there will be software upgrades every 2 years and hardware upgrades every 4 years, I think you are playing with me.

[Two's in]

I'll just add that there are some very swanky military aircraft flying today that have a team of logisticians figuring out 24/7 how to source replacement processors for the remaining life cycle. If LM claim to have cracked the code (pun intended) on how to avoid that particular conundrum, I have a bridge the JPO might be interested in buying...

[MG23]

If LM claim to have cracked the code (pun intended) on how to avoid that particular conundrum, I have a bridge the JPO might be interested in buying...

I worked for a chip company years ago and sudden military orders were always nice because a box of obsolete chips on a shelf that had previously been worth nothing would suddenly be worth many thousands of dollars. It was even more expensive when we had to do a new production run of half a dozen wafers specifically for them.

But there's no reason why you can't replace the hardware as well as the software, so long as the aircraft is designed to make that easy. The problem is the amount of testing you need every time you do so; I guess the question is whether that costs much more than the testing you'd need to do for pure software upgrades.

[Heathrow Harry]

JSFfan wrote

"I have already said there will be software upgrades every 2 years and hardware upgrades every 4 years"

I think you mean PLANNED upgrades - if there is no cash around in 4 years time there won't be no upgrade

[ORAC]

The F-22 was designed with plenty of room (http://www.f-22raptor.com/af_avionics.php#cip) for avionics growth and change, but weight wasn't a major issue.

The F-35 is designed without the expandability, but using COTS components with the ability to swop them out and replace with later generation components by using LM proprietary middleware (http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articles/print/volume-21/issue-2/news/news/f-35-joint-strike-fighter-leverages-cots-for-avionics-systems.html) [ (think in terms of the Windows Kernel having a Hardware Abstraction Level (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardware_abstraction#Microsoft_Windows)).

I just wonder at the cost and complexity of recertifying 24M+ lines of code at each change. Windows is a lot less complex, and I'd hate to end up with a BSD at 40K feet at night.

[glad rag]

You are spot on as I see it, that the costs are avionics, processors and software driven and not the oil leak, as you said.

Quoted for posterity :E

[Milo Minderbinder]

"The middleware enables systems designers to refresh key COTS components such as the Freescale PowerPC processors........."

Ah I see how it works now......the processors are a technological dead end so there won't be any significant upgrades available........

[JSFfan]

MG23 (http://www.pprune.org/members/302301-mg23), thanks for a bit of reason injected into this, for those that have their eyes shut, fingers in ears, yelling eurocannard. I think they are a bit miffed that europe is soon to be out the market of building their own tier 1 fighters.
The only thing I would point out to you is from ORAC's link below your post, that they didn't or refused to understand.
" the real key for the F-35 program is a Lockheed Martin-designed software middleware that enables experts to upgrade COTS hardware and software without rewriting millions of lines of code. “We built the middleware to protect us so we can make changes without overhauling the software code,” Branyan says."

[mike-wsm]

Avionics components are always obsolete. By the time an aitcraft gets into service the permitted components have long been superseded, sometimes incrementally but all too often by a quantum leap.

One of the worst cases was in a uk missile system which standardised on a 4½V logic family which was quickly superseded by 5V logic. Reluctant to update the entire system, the gw manufacturer went on buying the old logic family, and when it became unavailable had to buy a silicon foundry and go on making long since obsolete chipware.

The US does it differently, a good old warhorse like the B-52 gets new electronics fits as often as once a decade. Dave purchasers should provision for frequent total system refit costs.

[Two's in]

Not wishing to play duelling hyperlinks, but there is great non-sequitur in the 2 links provided by ORAC that shed some light on why software and systems remain problematical in Defense Procurement.

The F-35 Marketing blurb says...

Lockheed Martin also requires all software code to be written in the C++ programming language, which is the most common code in use today and enables faster code development, Branyan says.


While the F-22 Marketing blurb says...

90% of the software is written in Ada, the Department of Defense's common computer language. Exceptions to the Ada requirement are granted only for special processing or maintenance requirements.


Now both of these statements are true, but it perfectly illustrates how information needs to be read in context before a reasoned analysis can be made - just because it's on the interwebs doesn't make it true.

But back to middleware - the concept of putting a software "wrapper" around more complex or ageing applications is not new and has found some effective uses. But it doesn't make the problem go away, it simply migratges and transforms it. All the middleware in the world will not improve the throughput or thermal stress of some gasping wheezy system that is being asked to do more and more at every upgrade. Eventually the piece inside the "wrapper" will need to be replaced. As Milo remarked, Moore's Law applies no matter how decoupled or federated you think your design is.

I'm not actually arguing that the F-35 is anything than a major technological leap forward, I'm just saying that you can't reinvent the Laws of Physics through design. And you certainly can't do it through the gift of some very expensive and clever marketing material and some LM lobbyist provided soundbites.

[JSFfan]

As I understand it, middleware is software that interacts with the core software which is unchanged, it's like loading a program on your computer, load, plug and play.
The hardware is upgradeable as needed, there is no block obsolescence and it is across the whole fleet

[ORAC]

As I understand it, middleware is software that interacts with the core software which is unchanged But the core software runs on PowerPC chips, which have been abandoned by Apple in the commercial market and losing out to ARM chips elsewhere. Which means, at some stage, the core hardware will need replacing with an alternate more advanced type of chip - and the core software rewritten with a new OS - making the use of the middleware at best a temporary solution.

[eaglemmoomin]

Core OS?

It's a military combat aircraft it's not likely to be running Windows for its sensors or avionics. It'll either be some flavour of VXWorks or some massaged version of linux with a real time kernel and customised libraries and it'll be distributed across several procesors. Most likely that middle ware LM is talking about will be buildable for several different 'OS's and the 'core' software as you call it will be going via that middle ware thus reducing the amount of rework to the API that interfaces to the 'OS'.

[JSFfan]

as per wiki
PowerPC - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowerPC)

Given that powerpc chips are still the market dominant server chip, you may be writing the architecture off a bit quick.
I'll make an obvious guess and assume the unknown future 'new' quantum leap chip architecture will be backward compatible to the many OS that run on powerpc chips.

I honestly don't know if the 'whole' software will need to be rewritten in the future. I hope not, it sounds expensive

edit eaglemmoomin (http://www.pprune.org/members/400980-eaglemmoomin), you sound like you know what you are talking about, from what you know, do you think there is a problem that LM and the major air forces have missed?

[goates]

But the core software runs on PowerPC chips, which have been abandoned by Apple in the commercial market and losing out to ARM chips elsewhere. Which means, at some stage, the core hardware will need replacing with an alternate more advanced type of chip - and the core software rewritten with a new OS - making the use of the middleware at best a temporary solution.

Apple was a small player in the PowerPC world and were just about the only ones using it for desktop machines. The embedded market, servers and consoles are where PowerPC chips are most used. Every Xbox 360, PS3 and Nintendo Wii has a PowerPC CPU inside, and the next generations of these consoles will probably use them too.

If the LM middleware is similar to Java or .NET, then it is entirely possible to swap out the underlying hardware and OS with only minimal impact on the software running on top. Nothing with software is ever perfect, but it shouldn't require a massive re-write for every upgrade. And 24 million lines of code is not uncommon anymore. Windows passed that mark with the release of Windows 2000, which ran on multiple hardware platforms.

[Milo Minderbinder]

"Given that powerpc chips are still the market dominant server chip"

Thats a fundamental misreading of that wiki article
What it actually says is " For example, IBM's servers based on POWER have the highest revenue marketshare (53.9%) among UNIX servers"

Note - UNIX servers, which are a dying breed. Many more people use a Linux variant (which isn't Unix), while what about all the various flavours of Windows?
A majority share of a declining market, is still a declining share.

[peter we]

The PowerPC is mainly used in the Xbox360 but not the PS3. I believe the Chinese have copied for their 'homegrown' cpu.

The operating system in the F-35 is a Real Time OS from Green Hills software.

Moore's law is almost coming to an end, its getting very difficult to shrink much further and its not a given that the issues can be overcome.

The solution to upgrading processing power is not to add faster/newer designs but to add more processors and share the processing load among them - the F-22 takes this approach. But how much extra processing power is going to be needed, after all FPGA are used in the F-35 and that technology has a lot of mileage in it.

Ada was a disaster for development, apparently (some discussion of it on f-16.net).

[500N]

Milo

Maybe, but the OP was indicating that because Apple had dropped
it the Power PC is no longer a major used chip - which the posters
above have corrected.


And servers don't get changed willy nilly just because something
newer comes along. Companies can't afford to re write everything
for a new platform.

IBM System 36's were outdated ages ago but were still used by alot
of people in the 80's and 90's and some probably still are.

[goates]

The PowerPC is mainly used in the Xbox360 but not the PS3.

The CPU used in the PS3 is a PowerPC based processor. In fact the Xenon processor used in the Xbox 360 made use of some of the Cell processor development (wonder what Sony thought of this...).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_(microprocessor)

Cell (microprocessor) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_(microprocessor)#Xenon_in_Xbox_360)

Moore's law is almost coming to an end, its getting very difficult to shrink much further and its not a given that the issues can be overcome.

Moore's Law talks about the number of transistors in a processor not speed or anything else, and still appears to be valid. The difference is that now transistor counts are increasing through adding cores, GPUs and pulling in things like the memory controller.

[GreenKnight121]

Not to mention the A-6E Intruder... which used a repackaged IBM 360 as its main computer (AN/ASQ-133) from 1970* to the end of the 1970s, when it was replaced by the AN/ASQ-155 (IBM System/4 Pi) as part of the TRAM upgrade. However, the latter is simply an "improved 360", so the 360 ran the A-6E from 1970 to its retirement in 1997.



* The year the A-6E began production. The A-6A used the Litton AN/ASQ-61 computer.

[500N]

GreenKnight

Well, you learn something new every day :O

[eaglemmoomin]

JSF fan it's completely possible for them to have completely messed it up it all depends on their architecture and their road map. I'm just trying to point out that embedded processors running in a distributed system are a little different to the average IT system that you see in a an office and even the back end stuff.

Thanks Peter we I'd forgotten about Green Hills stuff.

[t43562]

I have no great worries about the power architecture disappearing but I have large worries about the stability and reliability of a large system written in C++. I have worked on such things and they tend to be absolutely riddled with bugs.

It is extremely hard to write code in languages like C++ that is truly correct in all ways. e.g. most programmers effectively assume that they will have infinite memory or infinite disc space. There are a huge combination of ways in which some complex procedure can fail and programmers hardly ever cover them all properly nor can one ever be 100% sure that one has managed to test for them all.

If you have magnificent testing, static analysis and everything is perfect, then you still end up with a huge codebase for which each area is only understood by the people who wrote it. In some reliable area, people spend very little effort so the creators leave, or move and later when it needs an update, new people have to relearn it and now they discover that it's not as well documented or designed as everyone thought. It gets to the point where the existing system is complicated and insufficiently well-known by one person that each update is hard and slow - another risk. Especially horrible is when some major assumption about the design constraints ceases to be true or where one needs to re-architect to add a new capability that was not thought of originally.

Such a lot depends on having wonderful programmers and a management that understands and all of that seems very hard to reproduce to me - spending lots of money guarantees nothing.

Their advantages (over making phones which was my area) are that they can limit the number of hardware types they have to support at one time and that the number of "third party" modules (apps) is going to be limited so the code can be fixed properly and you don't have to trying to keep compatibility with your own old bugs.

[MG23]

It is extremely hard to write code in languages like C++ that is truly correct in all ways. e.g. most programmers effectively assume that they will have infinite memory or infinite disc space.

Writing code that's truly correct in all ways is extremely hard in any language, particularly a compiled language, since your code may be perfectly correct but the compiler may turn it into machine code that doesn't do what you specified; I've seen bizarre crashes caused by a number of obscure compiler bugs in the past. More commonly, it may be perfectly correct according to the design, yet fail because the design is wrong.

The robust embedded code I've worked with in C/C++ typically allocates memory ahead of time, so it can't later fail due to excessive memory allocation or memory fragmentation. The problem then is that you have to ensure you configured it correctly ('this code will never need more than 64 widget buffers'), which comes back to whether the design is correct.

I have C++ and Java code that's been running 24/7 for years, and the only crashes I can think of were due to buggy third-party libraries, buggy device drivers, and incorrect design. They can happen in any language.

If you have magnificent testing, static analysis and everything is perfect, then you still end up with a huge codebase for which each area is only understood by the people who wrote it.

While C++ is more verbose than many, that's true of a complex system written in any language I've ever used, and certainly any that were commonly available when the F-35 was originally designed. In addition, a lot of boilerplate code can be generated from much simpler definitions using code generators that have been thoroughly debugged so millions of lines of that code may be produced by thousands of lines of definitions and scripts.

It's not the first language I'd think of for avionics (we were mostly Ada when I worked in that field in the 90s), but so long as the design and ground rules are sensible I don't see why it would be a bad choice. And if the design isn't sensible you'll fail no matter what language you use.

[MG23]

Ada was a disaster for development, apparently (some discussion of it on f-16.net).


I suspect one of the big issues is finding people who know how to write Ada code. It was still pretty new when I was working with it, so programmers were eager to learn, but it never really seemed to take off outside its military/avionics niche. There are probably thousands of experienced C++ programmers available for every experienced Ada programmer.

I'd be interested to know how it ended up being a disaster since it seemed a sensible design for that kind of environment even if it was excessively restrictive for general software development. I'll go poke around on f-16.net.

[eaglemmoomin]

Ada is just too restrictive and slow for complex distributed systems in my opinion and if you think about it with these sort of systems there are going to be instances when you need to either do something in assembler or you need a really efficient compiler which from memory the Ada one was pretty rubbish. Ada 95 was god awful and from memory Ada 83 didn't support threading.

I don't really see a barrier to using C++ for these sorts of projects they just need to be engineered as in using software engineering processes. Looser commercial development practices while great for cranking stuff out or 'prototype' code out quickly won't really cut it, which is why I assume the software component of the project is so long and has been marked as one of the biggest risks to be managed as there is probably a very onerous and long winded design, code, review, test, integration cycle going on.

[LowObservable]

Saab (on the Gripen E) are working with what they say is a new philosophy that segregates mission systems from flight-critical functions to a greater degree than in the past. They claim that it will result in faster validation and less expensive upgrades.

Also, consider history. Doing stealth in an air-to-air combat platform is much more difficult than stealth for ISR or fixed targets (moving or relocatable ground targets are in between) because of the need to provide SA and minimize radar emissions. You need sensor fusion and EMCON, the two being related.

In 1985 the only way to do this was with a supercomputer that was so large that it had to be time-shared among all the sensors and the CNI apertures, so the F-22 did this with Ada. The F-35 changes languages but uses the same architecture.

Today, you can put the memory and speed of the central supercomputer behind each of the sensors and feed information, not raw signals, back to the central processor. That option was not around when the F-35 started.

[Squirrel 41]

From Politico (http://www.politico.com/morningdefense/) this morning:

HAGEL, THE BUDGET BOOGEYMAN? The frontrunner to succeed Leon Panetta as Defense secretary has insiders on edge: Is the former GOP senator a budget hardliner? In a statement now reverberating throughout the Beltway, Hagel said last year that "in many ways, I think the Pentagon needs to be pared down." He has also faulted Democrats and Republicans alike for rejecting the Bowles-Simpson plan, which would have ended some of the Pentagon's dearest big-ticket items: the V-22 Osprey, the F-35B Lightning II, the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle and the Ground Combat Vehicle.

Nothing definitive, but nonetheless interesting. Potential for some "interesting" MB staff work in early 2013....

S41

[ORAC]

Experts: Canada’s Potential F-35 Cut Would Hurt Mission (http://www.defensenews.com/article/20121215/DEFREG02/312150002/Experts-Canada-8217-s-Potential-F-35-Cut-Would-Hurt-Mission?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE)

...........Better JSF News in Britain

Britain has committed to ordering 48 of the F-35B jump-jet versions in the current 10-year core equipment program, but Jon Thompson, the permanent undersecretary at the Ministry of Defence, told the parliamentary defense committee Dec. 12 that he expected the number of aircraft purchased to “rise over time to more than 100” aircraft.

The first production orders are expected to be placed after the government’s 2015 strategic defense review.

The MoD has taken delivery of two F-35s ordered for test and evaluation purposes and a third aircraft is in production. A fourth aircraft could be ordered next year for evaluation work.

The F-35 will fly first operationally with the Royal Air Force in 2018, followed by the Fleet Air Arm and soon after from new aircraft carriers, which are now in production.

[Squirrel 41]

Engines / LO / ORAC / N-a-B

Dumb question time - when the F136 was defunded, what was the status of the programme, and how much would be required to restart it and get the engine certified? I wonder partly as idle speculation, but also because it seems to me that the programme would benefit from engine competition (much as the F100 / F110 competitions have spurred advances) and that if Dave-B were to be binned, then having a nice payoff for RR / UK Plc in the form of F136 back in play could be a win-win deal for all concerned.

Thoughts pls!

S41

[ORAC]

Not going to happen. I wish it would, but chances are zero.

[Engines]

S41,

A quick search got this as of 2011:

(By early 2011) work totaled more than 800 hours of testing on pre-SDD and SDD engines. In early 2010, full afterburning thrust was reached in testing of the first production standard engine

Working in DC, I followed F136 very closely in the late 90s and was in touch with the DoD guys who were pushing hard for it at the time. Basically, there were too many people around who were scarred veterans of the US's 'Great Engine Wars' of the late 70s and early 80s, when they basically bet the farm on the PW100 engine and nearly lost the lot. Reinstating competition from GE resulted in a huge drop in costs and improved performance from P&W. (The USN in particular have shown a very strong preference for GE products ever since). However, as those older guys moved off the plot, their influence waned and more vocal opponents gained the upper hand in the Pentagon.

It's my own view (and as ever happy for anyone to disagree) that the US should have kept the F136 going, not only as competition to keep P&W honest, but also to offer an alternate engine source for international sales of the aircraft. Many potential customers have lucrative and well established deals with GE for engine support work - a P&W engined aircraft is going to be less attractive for them. I also believe (but don't know for certain) that the GE engine had lower temperatures and a better surge margin than the F135 - in large part due to the quite exceptional RR technology in it.

Sadly, despite the F136 having a large UK element in it, the MoD was very slow off the mark in getting behind it. As late as 99, senior UK MoD figures declined to support it at all, even when in the States. RR were speechless.

It seems that the F136, having been funded by Congress for many years against the wishes of the Pentagon, finally succumbed to the wider budget issues with the F-35 programme. In the end even Congress just could not find the money to keep it going. There are some good reports, with figures, available on the US Government's GAO website.

Sadly, I think that it's a goner, unless the F135 engine hits a really BIG problem.

Hope this helps a bit.

Engines

[Squirrel 41]

Thanks Gentlemen,

I rely on the wisdom available here to sort the wheat from a lot of chaff in these things.

Engines - I'm appalled but not surprised by this; I'd always understood that the F136 would offer a performance edge, and the NAO / GAO view IIRC was that on balance it was likely to cover the cost of developing it through life. This basically meant that it if the worst case was that you'd probably break-even, then it was obviously worthwhile pursuing. As you say, giving P&W a monopoly on the largest military engine programme going forwards seems like a pretty odd way of incentivising them on price or performance.

A shame!

S41

[ColdCollation]

... or it closes the market to non-US competition?

[LowObservable]

The other factor in the demise of the F136 (now acknowledged by GE insiders) was economic. The payoff for a competitive engine would be lower unit costs and lower operating costs (as a result of giving both sides a big incentive to fix squawks and extend on-wing life), with total benefit that is directly related to numbers of aircraft built. The speed at which the alternative engine would pay off is related to production rate.

As the final struggle over the F136 neared, it became increasingly clear that the rosy promises of 200+ jets a year by 2016, and a 5000-jet production run, were not anything on which one could hang one's hat. The payback was getting later and smaller but the upfront investment was the same.

Interesting question - what about a CTOL/CV-only engine with a core based on the new 737/A320 engine? Would it be big enough and if so, would it weigh and cost less than the F135 with its oversized LP turbine and shaft?

[Lonewolf_50]

Sometimes, the spin gets to be annoying. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/17/us-lockheed-fighter-training-idUSBRE8BG14920121217)
a few excerpts, and my comments ...


By Andrea Shalal-Esa WASHINGTON | Mon Dec 17, 2012 3:57pm EST
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Air Force on Monday approved the formal start of pilot training on the A-model of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter at a Florida military base, paving the way for 36 expert pilots to be trained next year as instructors for the new stealth warplane.

Is that a new USAF designation? I know about Command Pilots, but Expert Pilots? Is the journo maybe laying it on a bit thick, or is this extracted from a USAF PR release?

Rice said training pilots to fly the F-35 posed some unique challenges because it is the Air Force's most complex weapons system and there is a large degree of concurrency, or overlap, between development and production on the program
Maybe the pilots will be experts after the training, then. :E

Sorry, but sometimes I get annoyed with the PR machine.

[peter we]

core based on the new 737/A320 engine?

Both engines are far two big and low powered to be of any use whatsoever.

[LowObservable]

PWe - I assume you're aware that the core of the 32000 pound thrust GE F110-GE-132 is originally from the B-1's F101, and that the F101 core was also the basis of the CFM56? And that GE had a notion in the 1990s to develop a 40000 lb thrust fighter engine with the upgunned CFM56-7 core?

[JSFfan]

"paving the way for 36 expert pilots to be trained next year as instructors for the new stealth warplane"

I bet if you look it up, you will find that the 36 pilots are already experts in their field and are being further trained as f-35 instructors.
You don't really think that they take a pleb off the street for instant training as an instructor, do you?

[JSFfan]

"And that GE had a notion in the 1990s to develop a 40000 lb thrust fighter engine with the upgunned CFM56-7 core?"

If it has any merit, all they need is someone to fund it...FAIL
They also have a plan to upgrade the f414 for the USN if they will fund it...FAIL

[ORAC]

Ares: JSF Is Not F-16-Priced (http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:e70a68b6-0e96-4b6d-8721-c9adaa87f8d3)

[JSFfan]

You need better sources, Bill likes to skew numbers like this "The URF for the 2012 buy is $55.6 million, engines included. (http://www.finance.hq.navy.mil/fmb/13pres/APN_BA1-4_BOOK.pdf)" what he doesn't tell the reader is that the $55.6 URF is in base year dollars, the sar 2012 year dollar for a SH is ~$66m. He then compairs it to an LRIP 2016 price (surprise LRIP's are dearer than full producton which is ~$73m)..Sweetman is a funny guy, great sense of humour, but he fails as a credible journalist

[jwcook]

Which is a very funny thing to say, Bills prices and analysis have been proved right time and time AND time again.

Whats the real proof - the JSF would be here now and in service at US$50m as Lockheed and its apologists have maintained all along.


So who's right then JSFfan its a simple question!! reality or your assertions?

[JSFfan]

Sweetman underbid the FRP URF SH by ~$11m and over bid the f-35 by ~$11m both in 2012 yr dollars, if you think a $22m error isn't having a great sense of humour, I don't know what is. The guy is a clown who quotes Kopp for gosh sakes

[jwcook]

I see you went with your assertions over reality...:ugh:

I'm going to take notice of some very wise advice I was once given and take my leave.

"Arguing with idiot is like wrestling a pig in mud, you'll get dirty and the pig loves it"

[JSFfan]

It's funny how even the forum boss the typhoon site gets abusive, I guess eurocanard fanboys have nothing left.
the 2011 SAR for the fa-18 and the f-35
look up the 2018 FRP 2012 BY for f-35a ~$73m
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae/articles/communiques/F-35Dec11FinalSAR-3-29-2012.pdf

look up the 2012 TY for the SH ~$66.6m
http://www.dod.gov/pubs/foi/logistics_material_readiness/acq_bud_fin/SARs/DEC%202011%20SAR/F%20A-18E%20F%20-%20SAR%20-%2031%20DEC%202011.pdf

if you need help, you only need to ask

[JSFfan]

It's the people who knock the programme and go to extremes to use silly numbers that seem to care the most about the f-35 price.
Australia estimated the URF at $75m in 2008 and hasn't changed their opinion
we had one of those opposition 'reviews' back in 2007/8,
Canada will buy the f-35, they aren't stupid or corrupt and they aren't looking for a stop gap like australia did, ordering 24 SH/growlers

[glad rag]

You don't really think that they take a pleb off the street for instant training as an instructor, do you?


Nope, but you get a few turning up on here mind:suspect:

[Just This Once...]

I don't think he even realises what everyone else is thinking. I am going to try the ignore function for the first time.

[Lonewolf_50]

JSF fan, I am reasonably familiar with how the US Navy and US Air Force fill the billets in Fleet Introduction squadrons.

You first take pilots who fly something else, run them through a conversion course (which typically involves a lot of OEM experts, folks from the Test Center, folks who were involved in RDT & E, and so on) and from that create a training cadre for your first classes to go through and begin to populate / man / standup your line squadrons.

With most new aircraft, the FIT team itself (and what the USAF call it, I forget their term) is still in a learning mode after a number of classes have gone through.

I may just be a nitpicking old fart, but the term "expert" looks to me to be a bit of hyperbole.

How many Fleet Introduction Teams have you been on, JSF fan? ;)

[Heathrow Harry]

JSFfan

When the Govt pays up it pays in current dollars - not 2006 or 2008 or 1770 dollars - as it raises the money from taxpayers in that year - discussion of past prices is a nonsense as we never get to pay that number

The customers are panicking because they are faced with paying very substantially over the odds when and if the damn thing ever works

[Lonewolf_50]

Harry, it appears that two models work well enough to begin training the cadre, see above.

What do you mean by "if the damn thing ever works" there? :confused:

[Heathrow Harry]

as far as I know there are still issues with the software (see dozens of threads above) etc etc - it sure as hell is late and there is no definite in service date

My point on price is that JSFfan is constantly telling us the p rice hasn't gone up by much as its all in 1918 $$ or similar

I'd be happy if I thought LM would accept the number of dollars but they won't - they will bill for 2015 $ in 2015

[Lonewolf_50]

Harry, US media report a deployment to Japan in 2017 for an F-35 squadron, presumably to replace a USMC squadron currently in place.

I do not wish to quibble about price, as I agree that it's a pretty expensive bird.

As to growing pains, IIRC CF-18 and F-18A's had problems with tail (vertical stab) cracks early on. Somehow, F-18 turned into a decent tactical aircraft.

Are you sure that your doom and gloom view isn't overly influenced by the price problem?

[Lonewolf_50]

Delted, sorry, I meant to post a new thread.

[LowObservable]

LW50 - The Marines are doing things differently. They are going for an early IOC using an interim software standard (Block 2B) that only runs on pre-2016 jets, so as it stands they have about enough to equip one squadron, which is forming up with hand-picked pilots. 2B also has Mach, speed, altitude and g restrictions and has internal weapons only - JDAM, LGB and AMRAAM.

[Lonewolf_50]

LO: noted.

The weapons system (as with most things, part of a life cycle acquisition process) will get revisions and fixes throughout its life. I seem to recall a problem with the first or second F-14 in hydraulics, which lost the plane. For a long time the engines were subject to stall at high angles of attack during certain high demand maneuvers.

Did that make the aircraft NOT ready to deploy?

No.

When the F-14 finally got the better engines (and as some put it, the engines they should have had in the first place) that problem went away, but it had already been providing fine service before that.

I do appreciate the software issue being a potential show stopper. I am modestly familiar with CH-60 (now MH-60S) comms short comings early in its life, familiar with SH-60 block upgrades, and slightly familiar the weapons systems delays for AH-1Z. (Systems integration issues).

Each had a different impact on schedule and deployment, for sure.

[peter we]

PWe - I assume you're aware that the core of the 32000 pound thrust GE F110-GE-132 is originally from the B-1's F101, and that the F101 core was also the basis of the CFM56? And that GE had a notion in the 1990s to develop a 40000 lb thrust fighter engine with the upgunned CFM56-7 core?


No I wasn't but thanks for pointing it out. Its academic, given how close the F-136 came (and went) and the planned future engine developments.

[LowObservable]

LW - The problem is that it takes a long time to fix that stuff. There were 700 F-14s built and only 140 (new-build or retrofit) ever had the F110 engine. Out of 563 F-111s, 200 E/F versions were the only models deployed long-term overseas by TAC. The F-22 entered service with a huge wish-list of upgrades of which only a few will be done by 2020.

[Squirrel 41]

LO -

As ever, very interesting. I may have gotten my wires crossed, but in the dim and distant past, I always thought that Cannon's F-111Ds were involved in DESERT STORM? I'd heard that the D's avionics were a maintenance nightmare, but that when they worked, it was very impressive.

S41

[glojo]

LW - The problem is that it takes a long time to fix that stuff. There were 700 F-14s built and only 140 (new-build or retrofit) ever had the F110 engine. Out of 563 F-111s, 200 E/F versions were the only models deployed long-term overseas by TAC. The F-22 entered service with a huge wish-list of upgrades of which only a few will be done by 2020. :ok::ok:

I so wish that there was a way of thanking or recognising posts worthy of praise.

Low Observable has highlighted perfectly just how statistics can be altered or modified to justify just about any side of a debate.

Great points and thank you for taking the time to post them.

[JSFfan]

Lonewolf_50 (http://www.pprune.org/members/307224-lonewolf_50)
"JSF fan, I am reasonably familiar with how the US Navy and US Air Force fill the billets in Fleet Introduction squadrons.

You first take pilots who fly something else, run them through a conversion course (which typically involves a lot of OEM experts, folks from the Test Center, folks who were involved in RDT & E, and so on) and from that create a training cadre for your first classes to go through and begin to populate / man / standup your line squadrons.

With most new aircraft, the FIT team itself (and what the USAF call it, I forget their term) is still in a learning mode after a number of classes have gone through.

I may just be a nitpicking old fart, but the term "expert" looks to me to be a bit of hyperbole.
How many Fleet Introduction Teams have you been on, JSF fan? http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif"

I have no problem with what you wrote, however the topic is training the 36 instructors and not just pilot conversion.
I have no issue with the article saying ""paving the way for 36 expert pilots to be trained next year as instructors for the new stealth warplane"

Infact would be very surprised if the the 36 future f-35 instructors weren't already 'expert' qualified instructors or have reached an 'expert' standard deemed suitable to become instuctors. Average pilots don't become instructors as I see it.

[Tourist]

"Average pilots don't become instructors as I see it. "

And that quote clearly shows how little knowledge of aviation you really have.

[Biggus]

I have no great knowledge of the F-35 programme, nor am I either a fan or detractor, but I would offer the following general advice:


Several years ago I was in the position of visiting many aviation companies, both aircraft manufacturers, and sub contractors building everything from radars to wheels. Generally we were always met/briefed by one of three distinct types:

1. The recently retired (actually not normally very senior) ex-military type, recruited for his experience and social networking contacts - whose pitch was along the lines of "hello mate, you know me, so can trust me when I say this is a great piece of kit...."

2. The boffin or scientist who did actually have patches on the elbows of his jacket, and looked like he should have a piece of chalk behind his ear. Brain the size of a planet, and very enthusiastic about his subject. His main problem was being able to open the door to get in and out of the room.

3. The "company man". The phrase that springs to mind is "snake oil salesman"!

My point, one that hopefully is obvious to anyone with half a brain - treat what the company says with a heavy degree of scepticism. As a rule they only ever tell you the good news, and reluctantly tell you the bad (with a good spin) when it has become blinding obvious to everyone.


One other point I would make, the more software dependent (and system integrated) modern aircraft become the more a new series of problems, configuration, documentation and testing become, to the extent that operating cost comparisons might well be skewed such that modern aircraft actually become more costly to maintain than older generation ones - its just that the costs are not as apparent. Older generation aircraft costs are easier to appreciate if you see them sitting u/s on jacks in a hangar. More modern aircraft may look more effective, sitting serviceable on the flight line, but if they can't fly because of a software fault and you're literally burning far more money developing and testing your software which is the best option in reality?

In the world of computer software actually writing it is the sexy part, which people want to do. Correctly documenting it, preserving configuration and especially thorough testing is the cinderella part of the industry that it is difficult to find anyone who wants to do. Thorough testing of software (F-22 crossing from 179E to 179W?) is extremely difficult, if not actually impossible (given time and money constraints) to achieve, and normally needs repeating for even very minor changes.

I once knew a guy whose mantra was "there's no such thing as a simple software change", and I personally believe he wasn't very far from the truth!

[Courtney Mil]

Wise words, brother.

[LowObservable]

S41 - the D's never went to Desert Storm. The E/F versions had a detuned version of the avionics on the D. There is a great history at this link:

https://acc.dau.mil/CommunityBrowser.aspx?id=37599

There was a plan to fit the FBs, Ds, Es, and Fs with a common modernized avionics suite in the 1980s, but I believe that the post-Cold War drawdown cut it off before many actual mods had been carried out.

[Lonewolf_50]

Average pilots don't become instructors as I see it.
I did. I claim no greater skill than average pilot. I think my instructor tours made me a slightly better pilot.

I will concede that when a new aircraft comes on line, depending on what's afoot, there may be competition for the billets to get into the new community, or community managers may be able to influence assignments branch to require a screening or a "pack plus" performer for such assignment, or even above average pilots.

The 36 are the cadre I reffered to, if your go back and look at my post.
You first take pilots who fly something else, run them through a conversion course (which typically involves a lot of OEM experts, folks from the Test Center, folks who were involved in RDT & E, and so on) and from that create a training cadre for your first classes to go through and begin to populate / man / standup your line squadrons.
We all become as expert as we can.

OK, my grumpy response to PR stuff is ended.

Thanks, LO. Nicely framed point. :ok:

[tucumseh]

Biggus

One of many perceptive posts....

Correctly documenting it, preserving configuration and especially thorough testing is the cinderella part of the industry that it is difficult to find anyone who wants to do.

In 1987 I inherited all development, production, repair and PDS activity at a certain well known company. They had only one such software engineer covering the activities you list, because it was so difficult to find anyone. He was a Type 2. His wages were paid entirely from the MoD PDS contract, which covers the configuration work you mention and, ultimately, maintains the Safety Case.

In 1992, when the RAF Chief Engineer directed that such activities were to cease forthwith, and slashed funding, the company had no option to give him notice of redundancy. He was in the middle of doing a safety upgrade to Sea Harrier Nav Systems. I moved heaven and earth, transferred money around, cancelled lesser priority contracts and sold my mother to keep him in a job. I told the company to book his hours to something else. When the CE’s lackeys at Harrogate sought confirmation the work wasn’t being done, we all lied through our back teeth and assured them that, as instructed, the work wasn’t being done and the kit no longer safe.

[orca]

Don't let's forget that there are instructors and there are instructors...

There's one bunch that can fly on the numbers, present a stall package so polished it hurts your eyes to watch and who think that nought in military aviation is more important than the upwind turn. These people are a necessary evil and are essentially just the aviation equivalent of the broody hen. Cock all use but for the first bit of training (which ends when you fly a warplane)....and they even have ranks of uselessness, from B2 all the way to A1 - which only shows how long they've been off the frontline. (Some of the blighters haven't even flown a front line jet!)

I heard a rumour that F-35 didn't need any of these chaps. Allah be praised.

On the other hand there are the Air Warfare Instructors, Qualified Weapon Instructors, WTIs, Weapon School grads and other 'patch wearers'. They are experts.

Anyway...back to the thread.

[cuefaye]

OK, I'll bi--

Sod it, no - Merry Xmas instead:)

[Courtney Mil]

Who am I to argue?

[Cyberhacker]

Biggus wrote:In the world of computer software actually writing it is the sexy part, which people want to do. Correctly documenting it, preserving configuration and especially thorough testing is the cinderella part of the industry that it is difficult to find anyone who wants to do. Thorough testing of software (F-22 crossing from 179E to 179W?) is extremely difficult, if not actually impossible (given time and money constraints) to achieve, and normally needs repeating for even very minor changes.

Nail, meet hammer :D

Having said that, as a software/systems person (and yes, quite heavily involved with some aspects of certain JSF equipment) a cautionary observation: not all software faults are software related. It's often a convenient label to obfuscate an issue. It is amusing to watch software bugs being addressed by swapping PCBs/LRUs and reloading the original software...

[ORAC]

To give an indication, from personal experience, of the issues.

I worked on a large government programme where software changes were first raised at a software engineering review board; if successfully passed it would then proceed to a sub-system engineering review board; then a system engineering review board and finally a programme design review board.

At each stage about 10-12 different departments were represented who would raise questions and issues which would have to be actioned, reviewed and closed before proceeding to the next step. If things went without issue it might take a year, some changes were still being reviewed after 2 years - and this without the work actually starting.

On another programme changes were further graded by priority as the funding and engineering team size were both limited. Emergency and priority 1 changes would be added to the build list; priority 2 would be placed on a wish list; priority 3 would be dropped as it was accepted they'd never be implemented, always be pushed down by new emergency/priority 1 changes.

Once that was out of the way the changes then had to be added to a build list for a planned configuration change and into it's test programme.

And by the time all that had been done, the change may have been rendered either unnecessary because of a further software change, or another change required it to go back to stage 1.

The same went for documents. I worked on system interfaces and had to produce/update ICDs, the weeks and months involved attending boards, updating and changing minor changes such as acronym, data dictionary and name changes, let alone substantial changes. :ugh::ugh:

We had an entire, substantial, team who dealt with nothing except configuration control. We even had involved processes for defining under which category a document/change should be listed and numbered and 4 levels of change numbering.

[Heathrow Harry]

and if the balloon went up somewhere all that "process" would be canned instantly and the hardware put into action...

sad really

[JSFfan]

ORAC, you put up this link a few pages ago...did you read it?
in summary, the middleware cuts it back from 3-4 years to 6 months

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter leverages COTS for avionics systems - Military & Aerospace Electronics (http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articles/print/volume-21/issue-2/news/news/f-35-joint-strike-fighter-leverages-cots-for-avionics-systems.html)

[ORAC]

in summary, the middleware cuts it back from 3-4 years to 6 months That statement shows such appalling ignorance I'll let it stand as it's own evidence.

[JSFfan]

It was your link that you used as a source, now it seems you don't like it

"
.. Lockheed Martin-designed software middleware that enables experts to upgrade COTS hardware and software without rewriting millions of lines of code. “We built the middleware to protect us so we can make changes without overhauling the software code,” Branyan says.
The middleware enables systems designers to refresh key COTS components such as the Freescale PowerPC processors without major changes to the avionics, he continues. In the past, certifying a refresh of multifunction displays would take three to four years, now with the isolated middleware, the most recent refresh was completed in only six months, he adds
"

[Squirrel 41]

JSFfan

Please understand that people here are trying to help you - ORAC in particular. As has been said before, it's hard to listen when you're on transmit - and around here, there are many people who've forgotten more about military procurement in general and aircraft / Dave-A/B/C than you currently know - do yourself a favour and listen. Politeness also helps!

Merry Christmas to one and all.

S41

[LowObservable]

To continue the notion of software development... There are those who say "x million lines of code, bfd dude, there's more than that in Vista or a Lexus."

However, PC/Mac code and indeed most non-vehicle-related-code runs on ridiculously cheap hardware, so my "development test" force can include dozens of systems running 24/7. My OT force (Beta test) can be in the thousands. This will unearth glitches faster than a handful of jets flying a one- to two-hour sortie every other day, plus a flying test bed and a SIL.

A lot of systems (like automotive) are also not very integrated. Aside from getting power from the same place, I rather doubt that any automotive fuel injection control has any connection whatsoever to the GPS/entertainment complex.

Not that every military aircraft doesn't have challenges in avionics and software development. It's to be expected. However, in the case of JSF the scope of the task has been underestimated, on the testimony of multiple program leaders and reviewers.

[t43562]

I find it very interesting indeed to hear about how these things have worked in a Military context. It's not so different from the software industry at large. This kind of development is usually known as "waterfall" in the industry and it's out of fashion at the moment. The fashion is called "agile" but as in most of life people talk a lot about it and claim to be doing it but they're up to the SOS most of the time.

I think that in areas which are extraordinarily well understood and where one is really doing nothing even slightly innovative or new then you can plan and debate in advance. Fortunately I have never worked in such a boring place and I am not sure one exists. Normally you need to do a little bit of work and then have a think about it, change direction if needed and then do another little bit of work. Each bit of work you do has to function correctly and be useful so that your customer (or someone representing one) can try it out. In this way you don't end up going through a long procedure for the sake of an idea that ends up being a dead end or unnecessary. Your decisions are based on what you learned from your latest little bit of work and feedback and they tend to get better over time as you realise that your initial concepts were not quite right.

When it succeeds it's quite amazing but it's not easy to get people to work like this - it requires quite a lot of people skills. For example, you have only 1 input to your team and nobody is allowed to pester other individuals but they always try to so everyone has to learn to resist improper pressures. There is also only 1 feature list with one priority ordering which sounds logical but management always try to give you "5 top priorities" since they can't choose what they care about most and frequently forget several and add more.

But when it works, you get this wonderful, short feedback loop. You do something, try it out and get a response from your users quickly and then you learn more about what's important to them and the next time you're better.

You don't become faster but it's more a case of how many things you successfully don't do because they aren't really as important or useful as someone initially thought. This saves your time for stuff that really matters.

There has to be a realisation that one has to follow some things where they lead in preference to where you thought they would go.

It is difficult to arrange this flexibility to apply to large groups of people who are working on a planned project in which each team depends on the work of another. If you can design out this reliance then you are going to "win big".

Very successful software companies tend to have solved these issues in a way which suits their specific domain but it doesn't mean they have all the answers to suit everyone else. Anyhow in my line it's a "war-winning" ability to do all this well and all the harder because it's entirely about people who all differ in their perception and understanding.

[exMudmover]

OK Orca, as it’s Christmas I’ll bite:

Oh dear, oh dear - what a bitter rant against QFIs!

Did some nasty QFI imply once that you weren’t quite the ace that you thought you were?

As for your uncritical endorsement of all other forms of instructor I quote from a previous post of mine:

After that (being a QFI), I went to Chivenor to fly DF/GA Hunters and was appalled at the lack of professionalism of some of the PAIs. Quite a few of them made not the slightest effort to ‘instruct’ properly, expecting the student to get things right just from hearing the Phase Brief. On the ground their stock-in-trade consisted of constant humiliation of the students, (Particularly ex-Creamies), while their instructional patter during a demo pass might run to “S***t! I’m almost as spastic as you are”. On my Air-to-Air dual the PAI gave me so much hassle that I only fired the gun once. After a solo cine sortie I managed to teach myself the technique and achieved 45% average for the course on the flag, having had not a word of worthwhile airborne instruction from a PAI.

In my view people like that should have been 1020'd off the unit for deliberate dereliction of duty - for petulantly refusing to carry out the job they had been trained for.

Later on I discovered that a large part of the PAI course consisted of weapon sortie after weapon sortie (solo), just to build up the student PAI’s personal weapon skill, with not much time devoted to actual instructional practice. The resultant skill level allowed them to ‘lord it’ over their students.

Fortunately, not all PAIs were like that. Some could use correct instructional techniques and actually improve student standards.

[orca]

Errr, nope, 'twas meant as (accurate;)) banter and even re-reading it I'm not entirely sure which bit you could possibly call bitter. I even gave them a chuck up for their stall stuff and said they were useful up until flying a warplane...which is a reasonably long period of time.

One or two probably told me I was rubbish - but then again, I can't have been that bad...solely judging from the fact that I have never been forced to fly an aeroplane where I got any help.;). That was banter too. ;), for good measure.

Still, not to worry, happy christmas!

Banter, however rubbish or ill-recieved apart, when I was at Group LM put together a syllabus for F-35 that appeared to make QFIs unnecessary...when I left I think CFS were doing a study to see if they agreed. I assume they didn't.;)

[Easy Street]

some nasty QFI imply once that you weren’t quite the ace that you thought you were?Outside a QFI's remit to comment on ace-ness, that being the territory of the QWI or ACI conducting the annual tactical check. Unless you are referring to the pilot who flies the best visual circuits as the 'ace'? :E

PS always use ground features for the circuit at home base, after all that's where you'll do 90% of your check rides!

[cuefaye]

I said I wouldn't!

Tend to agree with Mudmover. I came from both camps - serving at Valley, Chiv and on Squadrons various, up to Sqn Cdr level. There was, in my now latent view, a need for all instructional disciplines, albeit the non-QFI chappies invariably seemed to have the better gift of banter and volume - as witnessed on several recent fora here. And how rear seaters could ever claim to be suited for the QWI qualification was always quite beyond me. None of them had even peered through a gunsight in the air, let alone having to fly the thing as well, yet all were experts on the cine debrief - which required little, if any, instructional technique. That said, I liked most, but only most, of them.

Aside from the general tendency to share the common line of "not like that you tw8t, like this", it was my experience that the few decent QWIs and TWIs etc all gained their instructional expertise from long and well-honed CFS practices. I think I did, albeit, I could never ever quite match their bull**** in the bar! A calm and subtle approach invariably had the more persuasive and lasting affect.

Now I'll sit back and wait for the inevitable :yuk:

[orca]

I, like, so can't believe you just threw a spear at the backseaters!

(That was my first go at youth speak...how'd I do?)

[Ali Qadoo]

While I'd admit that we of the QWI persuasion may've lacked the instructional technique finesse of CFS's finest, the QWI pay we received each month certainly made up for any feelings of inadequacy.

[glojo]

I have no right to comment on this specific issue but it would appear that some folks just do not get military banter.

We all sometimes like to say, 'Those who can, do.. those who can't, instruct'

But the bottom line is that all instructors are selected, they might not be perfect, but we all appreciate they are not idiots.

Are they selected because they are incompetant and have no idea of how to teach our pilots the basic skills that will set them on a path to fame, fortune, medals and glory, or are they selected solely to belittle and humilate? (humour folks, humour :E:))

Much respect to ALL instructors, but if you can't take a joke, get out of the kitchen. :ouch:

[cuefaye]

but if you can't take a joke, get out of the kitchen


There you go then - now we've put in our place. And by a fish'ed fcs:p

[Lima Juliet]

Is it just me, or are the similarities too obvious?

http://www.wash-a-wheelie.com/bin.jpg

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS82KCfY3NDsnbAkFGb3A7huzNTtarhyGkutDdhfNm VufXZnbjxcA

Can I be first to claim the nickname "the whisling wheelie bin" for the F35B? :p

LJ

[TurbineTooHot]

"PS always use ground features for the circuit at home base, after all that's where you'll do 90% of your check rides!"

Easy, I'm sure you did an ACO check on me once...:D

[The B Word]

I can see it now...here are some F35s being maintained on the flightline...

http://www.jamesbird.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/wheelie-bins.jpg

...and here are some wheelie bins awaiting collection...

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTDSfpb6dk7dwP5hq0sEefRv0k7D9VNsnj5gM8qLWz wd-bf-vRlHQ

:E

The B Word

[Willard Whyte]

Afterburning?

http://www.ruthlee.co.uk/shopimages/products/normal/burning-wheelie-bin.jpg

Or engine surge?

[The B Word]

Looks like a locked in surge to me!

[Lonewolf_50]

hot start: not enough air flow through the (combustion) can. :cool:

[glad rag]

You want to get a copyright on that, it might even stick!! :E

:D

[ORAC]

Defense News: Canadian Military Would Need To Outsource F-35 Refueling (http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130107/DEFREG02/301070004/Canadian-Military-Would-Need-Outsource-F-35-Refueling?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE)

VICTORIA, British Columbia — Canada will rely on either private companies or its allies for midair refueling if it decides to purchase F-35 Joint Strike Fighters to replace its CF-18 fighter aircraft. But critics and analysts say the decision raises key issues about Canadian sovereignty and military capabilities.

Canada’s Department of National Defence (DND) will not comment on the plan, but confirmation of the decision is contained in a brief passage in a government-ordered audit of Canada’s proposed F-35 buy. The 30-page audit by KMPG noted the cost of modifying the F-35s so they can be refueled in midair by Canadian aircraft is not included in the overall price tag of the fighter program because DND will not proceed with that option. “With respect to air-to-air refueling requirements, DND will rely on NORAD [North American Aerospace Defense Command], coalition partners, or commercial refueling assets to meet operational requirements,” stated the audit, “Next Generation Fighter Capability,” released Dec. 2.

The Royal Canadian Air Force hopes to purchase the F-35A, which uses a boom refueling system. The service’s existing CC-150 Polaris tankers use only the probe and drogue system, which is used by the F35-B and C.

Alan Williams, DND’s former head of procurement who approved Canada’s participation in the F-35 program, said the department’s plan makes no sense. “Are we going to spend a large amount of money on new fighters and then rely on allies to refuel aircraft over Canadian territory?” he asked. “Is Canada no longer a sovereign country?”

Defense analyst Martin Shadwick described the decision as a step backward for the Air Force. Canada went without strategic air-to-air refueling for a decade when it retired its older fleet of tankers in 1997, he noted. The Canadian Forces has a fleet of Hercules aircraft that can provide short-range tactical refueling to CF-18 fighters, but they are aging, Shadwick said.

Air Force commanders deemed the longer-range strategic air-to-air refueling capability critical, and 126 million Canadian dollars ($127.7 million) was spent modifying two Polaris aircraft for that role. Those aircraft became fully operational about three years ago but because of the decision not to modify the Canadian F-35s, the planes won’t be able to refuel those aircraft.

Shadwick said Canada’s ability to contribute to international missions could be limited. NORAD officials did not comment about whether U.S. tankers would be available for Canadian needs. A spokesman for the Joint Strike Fighter Office in the U.S. referred questions to Canadian military officials. Canadian military officials did not provide comment.............

[PhilipG]

I suppose that the Canadians could always ingratiate themselves with the USN and change the buy to the C, longer range, probe refuelling, tougher for landing at remote bases etc.

[airsound]

In view of the jets/bins confusion, I offer, without comment, one Winslow T Wheeler, writing in the American magazine Foreign Policy. There is only one thing to do with the F-35: Junk it. America’s air forces deserve a much better aircraft, and the taxpayers deserve a much cheaper one. The dustbin awaits. WTW is Director of the Straus Military Reform Project of the Washington-based Project on Government Oversight, aka POGO.

He's also the man who described the F-35 as the Jet that ate the Pentagonairsound

[GreenKnight121]

Sorry... anything that delivers the same level of intended capability WILL cost just as much per aircraft, and would require a complete new pile of "from-the-start" development money.

F-35 development is nearly complete, NONE of that money can be gotten back, it is gone. To than start all over would be idiocy... something POGO has shown it possesses in massive quantities.


POGO's ideal new strike-fighter would, to hold to their cost guidelines, end up being a new version of the F-5A Freedom Fighter/F-5E Tiger II... with little more capabilities than the originals had.

[airsound]

I don't disagree with any of that, o Green one. I merely posted Mr W's words as yet another example of the fairly widespread anti-Dave feeling, including in some quite influential places.

I suppose that a new F-5A would at least be rather prettier than poor old Dave.

Also, I still like that phrase "the jet that ate the Pentagon". And perhaps that's not so far from becoming conceivable.....

On a brighter note the UK MoD has issued a release Pilots prepare for landing on Royal Navy's new carriers

Published 8 January 2013

Pilots have been using a simulator in Lancashire to help prepare them for landing on the Royal Navy's new Queen Elizabeth Class carriers.



If you want to see the whole thing, it's at
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/pilots-prepare-for-landing-on-royal-navys-new-carriers

airsound

[AtomKraft]

I think the F-35 is just the latest unneccesarily overcomplex and over expensive warplane.

We'd be better off with a greater number of less sophisticated, but still very capable aircraft, and more money spent on non-aviation assets like troops, vehicles, small boats and so on.

I think the F-35 programme is likely to be scaled back more and more as the reality of the situation sinks in.

We don't need the thing. No-one does.

[The Helpful Stacker]

AtomKraft - Given your location I guess you'd rather more B-52s eh?:}

[AtomKraft]

;)

Can't deny it.

Really though, I was thinking that for the price of a new JSF, you could probably get an F/A-18E + 1000 air boats full of blokes from 'Keenie Meanie Services'.

Now, which would be more useful?

And here I intend to rest my case, your Honour.

[LowObservable]

GK - The "sunk cost" argument sounds powerful, but is not actually a guide to future behavior. As an investment-oriented friend reminds me, "every smart portfolio manager occasionally accepts ugly losses on disappointing investments in order to redeploy funds to better opportunities."

The big JSF money is still ahead - basically, the current plan eats most USAF and Navy/Marine aircraft procurement money between now and 2030, excepting the tanker and T-X. So, no new bomber, and even if all goes well (which it has not done so far) more than half the USAF fighter force in 2030 comprises jets ordered 40+ years before.

That's why most independent budget studies, other than those that isolate the Pentagon from fiscal reality (and have been dead letters since the election), call for changes to the JSF program. SecDef nominee Hagel has endorsed the Simpson-Bowles plan that cut back F-35A/C and whacked the B.

And "nearly complete" is an odd description for "seven years away from IOC with the original planned capabilities."

[Squirrel 41]

LO: spot on, as usual. If Hagel gets confirmed (and I think he will - personally, I think he'd do a good job), then Dave-B is (correctly) in deep smelly stuff.

From a narrow US focus (which is, largely speaking, Hagel's putative job), it's just really hard to see how USMC justifies Dave-B from a ConOps perspective. What is the mission set that demands:

- All aspect stealth
- Supersonic (dash, anyway)
- FOB'd STOVL

.. and when the USN wouldn't send a CVN BG?

I suppose it is (just) possible, but so unlikely that compared with the cost pressures elsewhere you'd never choose it. So, bin Dave-B, tell the USMC to suck it up, and fly Dave-C (which they're already getting (http://http://defensetech.org/2011/03/14/navy-and-marine-corps-f-35-purchase-plan-revealed/)) from the big deck CVNs - and keep the V-22s. V-22 seems to me to be much more important to the USMC than Dave-B.

So, cancellation of Dave-B would increase pressure on "Dave" Cameron... so, El PM go for the one named after you: Dave-C.

S41

[Bengo]

Squirrel,

That might be the right decision, but it wouldn't be the one I'd bet on hearing. Much more likely that if F35B gets canned so do the carriers and the Air Force gets a reduced buy of -A's.

Remember that SDSR only agreed to build the carriers because MoD couldn't cheaply get out of the contract and that it planned to sell/mothball one. Since then we have had (IMHO a pre-situated and over blown) appreciation of the costs of conversion for -C and there's still no current political capital behind the idea of a continuously available carrier force. Canning the carriers also saves a huge pile of through-life costs in ops, support and people when there still ain't no money ( and no votes in it either).

N

[Bastardeux]

That might be the right decision, but it wouldn't be the one I'd bet on hearing. Much more likely that if F35B gets canned so do the carriers and the Air Force gets a reduced buy of -A's.



Seems like a somewhat pessimistic situation to me, and from what I've heard coming out of people down in the MoD, at least one carrier was always a favourable option. And if the carriers get binned, then that'll be money that has never been wasted on such a colossal scale before.

The more likely option, if the B gets binned, is a typhoon/F18 fast jet fleet.

[Courtney Mil]

I fear you may be right. It's all starting to look a bit disastrous.

[JSFfan]

The weekly speculation of the imminent cancellation of the F35 goes on here....Meanwhile....in the real world where most people live.
Subs and F-35 are considered the priority for US procurement and will be the last to go.
and
Wires Brief: UK pilots practice landing F-35, next CIA chief takes heat, Pakistan-India skirmish erupts - DefenceReport (http://defencereport.com/wires-brief-uk-pilots-practice-landing-f-35-next-cia-chief-takes-heat-pakistan-india-skirmish-erupts/)
"BAE flight test trainers have been begun teaching RAF and Royal Navy pilots how to land the F-35B on the simulated rolling deck of the HMS Queen Elizabeth, reports the MoD. BAE says they are teaching pilots in their Lancashire-based simulators to use the shipborne rolling vertical landing (SRVL) method – a manoeuvre that requires the pilot to fly at about 60 knots (111 kilometres per hour) with a flight path of six to seven degrees in order to land on deck. This method, says BAE, allows the F-35B to reduce impact force of landing, preserving the air frame. Lockheed Martin incorporated the SRVL system for the UK at an initial cost of some USD 13 million (GBP 8 million). "
and
As to Canada, they also need a boom for their C-17 air refuelling. Buy, leased or contracted, Canada will have boom refuelling

[dat581]

If the F35B is cancelled can the UK claim back any of the investment in the JSF from the Americans? Would the MOD have been silly enough to sign a contract that let's the US off the hook for all the billions of pounds invested without providing the end product?

Or could the UK sting the US for the cost of converting the carriers to cat and trap ships?

[orca]

Well, given that the US thought it was possible to equip a CVN with cats and wires for $500 million and we considered it necessary to spend almost £3 billion doing the same - we might have to argue for a while as to how big the sting might be!

[kbrockman]

Just as an aside question, have the skijump launches at Pax river already
started?
Last I heard was that it was "imminent", that was back in july.
Anybody who knows more or has a video maybe?
I youtubed and googled but got nothing so far.

[Bastardeux]

JSFfan,


Many of the people 'speculating' know an awful lot more about the programme than you will ever come close to being privy to; your bias towards the F35 doesn't validate your opinion either.

As has been pointed out to you before, the skeletal beginning of a training regime is by no means a guarantee of its success. What do you expect them to do? Sit around on their arses for 6 months as speculation continues, but no firm decision has been made?

It's plain to anyone who can add up that there is another restructuring coming for this thing.

[Not_a_boffin]

If the F35B is cancelled can the UK claim back any of the investment in the JSF from the Americans? Would the MOD have been silly enough to sign a contract that let's the US off the hook for all the billions of pounds invested without providing the end product?

Or could the UK sting the US for the cost of converting the carriers to cat and trap ships?

Almost certainly not. The Tier 1 partnership bunce buys you a seat at the requirement definition table and (some) access to the technology as it develops. In essence you have a vote in the direction the programme goes in and you get some of the technical output. But it's all development - if you want the aircraft you have to pay the production cost. If the programme is canned, you don't pay the production cost.

However, despite the somewhat frenzied anticipation in some quarters, the US does not have a plan B. Simpson-Bowles as I understand it envisages some sort of F16 restart (configuration / block unknown) and an extension of F18E/F production.

Whether these actually meet a requirement or not does not appear to have been considered, which is a bit disappointing, especially considering the effort that has gone into the JIRD and JORD over the years. If I were an LM exec, I'd be lobbying my Congresstypes, suggesting that all sorts of legal challenges might be forthcoming unless there is demonstrable evidence that the requirement has changed. That could just run and run......

In essence, the detail of any Plan B is ephemeral at best and largely consists of people going "I like not this aircraft, bring me another aircraft", without the slightest idea of how that is going to be achieved, particularly for the USAF.

There is also the slight issue that (one assumes) the USMC still requires some sort of jet that can fly off the LHD/LHA. Whether it is day 1 stealthy or not (which is probably the only contentious bit) is to a degree irrelevant. The last time I looked, there isn't a frame in production anywhere in the world that would provide that capability. If that capability is required then you're looking at either re-starting a production line that's been dead for the best part of twenty years or designing a brand-spanking new STOVL jet. Neither is a particularly sensible choice.

[JSFfan]

Many of the people 'speculating' know an awful lot more about the programme than you will ever come close to being privy to; your bias towards the F35 doesn't validate your opinion either.

As has been pointed out to you before, the skeletal beginning of a training regime is by no means a guarantee of its success. What do you expect them to do? Sit around on their arses for 6 months as speculation continues, but no firm decision has been made?

It's plain to anyone who can add up that there is another restructuring coming for this thing.

There are some very knowledgeably guys here. However it isn't the ones quoting Wheeler, Sweetman or some out of the loop General or Politician.
It isn't the ones harbouring a delusional wish propagating the possibilityof the F-35b being cancelled or that a catobar carrier fitted the UK CONOPS.

I can't see the possibility of another USA restructure before LRIP 8 - 2016, when the proposed ramp-up starts. As has been said, the subs and F-35 are the priority procurement and will the last to get a funding cut.

[Squirrel 41]

JSFfan wrote:

There are some very knowledgeably guys here. However it isn't the ones quoting Wheeler, Sweetman or some out of the loop General or Politician.

Ah, so anyone who is a critic - or indeed a critical friend - of JSF is wrong. Good, helpful analysis.

It isn't the ones harbouring a delusional wish propagating the possibilityof the F-35b being cancelled or that a catobar carrier fitted the UK CONOPS.

And the CONOPS that makes Dave-B uncancellable are.....?

As has been said, the US fiscal realities are such that there will be significant defense (sic) cuts, and the size of the JSF program (sic) is such that it is virtually impossible to ignore. See the posts elsewhere in this thread on the impact of the red teaming over the last 12 months.

S41

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

It's plain to anyone who can add up that there is another restructuring coming for this thing.

Care to validate that comment with some facts?

Last I heard development and production was on or ahead of the current schedule set in 2011 and costs were coming down, albeit not as quickly as some would like.

Is there an actual need for another restructure, beyond the hopes of the vexatious querelents that is? :hmm:

...your bias towards the F35 doesn't validate your opinion either.

Agreed - JSFfan's comments are unhelpful to those who ARE in the know and who's belief in the program is based on fact. :suspect:

[JSFfan]

Ah, so anyone who is a critic - or indeed a critical friend - of JSF is wrong. Good, helpful analysis.

No, there is nothing wrong with being critical, but it does need to be reality based. The risks and problems are mostly public through reports to governments, with the block 3 software cited as the biggest issue for any further delays

Wheeler and co going, the F-22 and F-35 are just mumbug. The F-16 and A10 are all that's needed. If this makes sense to you..keep reading his ramblings of an old man.

[Bastardeux]

Care to validate that comment with some facts?

With the continuation of the bush era tax cuts to the vast majority of tax payers and capital gains tax going up by only 5%, rather than the 25% originally envisioned; the republicans are now completely closed to any further tax rises. The US will get away with not reaching the 195% of GDP debt ratio by 2035, but it will still pile well into the 100%-130% range if the current spending trends continue. At $1.5 trillion over a lifetime, do you think the F35 will make it through unscathed? I highly, highly doubt it!

The US navy may even be happy to sacrifice it, if some rumours are true!

And the appointment of Chuck Hagel, the DoD budget's equivalent of the texas chainsaw massacre, as Secretary of Defense makes the whole situation more depressing for them.

[LowObservable]

Foxtrot Alpha - There's good news, and bad news, and no news about progress since 2011.

The good news is that some recent flight-test milestones (those that were announced months in advance) have been passed on time, and production is making progress to being on schedule (whether that would be the case if they had attempted to stay on the pre-2011 ramp, I doubt). But that just means that the program is not getting further behind the original schedule.

The bad news is that some of the problems identified in the Quick Look Review report in late 2011, such as on-the-vizor night vision and the tailhook, are proving fix-resistant. Not that it can't be done but the first and easiest fixes don't seem to be working as hoped.

The no-news is that nobody dares predict an IOC date in public.

Bastardeux - Briefly: The attempt to exclude defense from budget cuts went down the tubes November 6. I can't cut defense without hitting procurement because there are limits to what I can cut in personnel, and I can't cut procurement without touching JSF.

N-a-B - If you can't afford what the JIRD/JORD resulted in, you have to try something else. The USAF is moving towards a stealthy/non-stealthy mix because that's what they can afford through 2030. Lots of the carrier navy would be happy with new Super Hs into the early 20s. Both the USAF and CV communities would happily tell the Marines to go pound sand, because the normal load of six jets per LHA/LHD is not strategically decisive.

[Bastardeux]

Briefly: The attempt to exclude defense from budget cuts went down the tubes November 6. I can't cut defense without hitting procurement because there are limits to what I can cut in personnel, and I can't cut procurement without touching JSF.

My point exactly, and I should think that politicians' ignorance to the capabilities of the aircraft will make it look like the behemoth in the room.

[WhiteOvies]

When Panetta took the B variant off probation he was given a full brief on the capabilities, a walk around the aircraft and some hands on in the sim at Pax River. It's only an hour and a bit from DC so you'd like to think Hagel would make the effort to get himself up to speed with a visit before dropping the axe....

Maybe I'm being optimistic about the politicians :rolleyes:

[Not_a_boffin]

N-a-B - If you can't afford what the JIRD/JORD resulted in, you have to try something else. The USAF is moving towards a stealthy/non-stealthy mix because that's what they can afford through 2030. Lots of the carrier navy would be happy with new Super Hs into the early 20s. Both the USAF and CV communities would happily tell the Marines to go pound sand, because the normal load of six jets per LHA/LHD is not strategically decisive.

LO - I don't necessarily disagree wrt JIRD/JORD. However - this side of the pond and I assume over there too - you can't just pitch up at the Treasury waving a note saying that you'd like half a dozen F16 and a bakers dozen of FA18 please. In order to get it through, you have to have a requirement for the kit and which the kit can definitively meet - not just "nearest" to.

What that will mean is a revisit of the JIRD/JORD, which may well prove fatal for B, but is likely to get a bit tricky for A and C - particularly given that F117 has gone to those lovely hangars in Tonopah. This is the bit that no-one is quite hauling aboard - if you want Day1 strike against double-digit SAM, 3-4Gen fighters and an IADS, you are now left with 18(?) B2 to cover everything. USAF has much reduced EW support, which is only going to get worse as the joint Prowlers retire, so the Strike Eagles even if some go "Silent" probably won't be enough, let alone the proposed F16s. USN is slightly better with Growler, but not by much. In any case, if they want to stay relevant against anyone armed more heavily than the equivalent of the peaceloving tribes of M'Boto Gorge, they really need something more than SuperBug. TLAM can pick up some of the slack, but not against all target sets.

That was my point - "savings" (if any) are going to be much harder to find than people suppose. Any requirement rewrite is unlikely to (credibly) come up with something that looks like more F16 and more F18. Silent Eagle might be something else, but that doesn't appear to be what is on the table.

[LowObservable]

Mr Boffin

Very true. There really is not a good way out but the Option A - damn the torpedoes and proceed with the program of record - is beginning to look like an economic impossibility, even if everything else is sacrificed to it.

The basic tenets of the AF/Navy requirement were probably close to achievable, but combining stealth with classic fighter performance is challenging. Unfortunately, adding STOVL + fighter performance (which in itself wasn't easy) to the mix made it next to impossible.

Then they threw in cost "estimates" that were not really estimates at all, but were derived from budget projections and force structure targets and the desire to close down everyone else's fighter programs, and the project was doomed before the JIRD/JORD thing started.

What now? Clearly there is no appetite for starting a new program based on JORD with less silly costs and no STOVL.

One starting point may be to say - We do need stealth in larger numbers than NGB (and on carriers) so how do we do it? Do we go for a subsonic tactical aircraft with better stealth (to knock the defenses down and keep them down) and extend the useful life of current and evolved designs?

[ORAC]

Not_a_boffin,

I believe that there is at least one stealthy, long endurance, UACV ECM capable platform deployable in the same time frame as the F-35..

[Not_a_boffin]

ORAC - I think we might need more than one!

LO - I assume NGB means the AF successor to Buff & Bone. If past performance (B1/B2 programs) is anything to go by, F35 will look like a model of acquisition in comparison.....

Unfortunately a subsonic attack frame will not do what everyone (certainly the USN and UK) will want from it. Does anyone seriously believe that a start again now approach will deliver anything usable (and by that I mean a few ET&OD frames) before 2030?

I knew folk should have stuck with F14 ASF.........

[WhiteOvies]

ORAC - are you thinking X-47? They're still working on the flight sciences aircraft but NGC have planned to get the cats and traps basics sorted first before adding the mission capabilities.

At least with F-35C the work done on A and B variants can be directly read across. Eglin should see its first F-35Cs relatively soon, and IOC should certainly well be before X-47 IOC.

Of course the hook issue needs fully resolving as LM did the testing the other way round to NGC...

[ORAC]

ORAC - are you thinking X-47? No. A black Northrop program. See here. (http://io9.com/5967163/is-the-pentagon-developing-a-stealth-drone)

[Pittsextra]

Did anyone go to this last night??

Royal Aeronautical Society | Event | The Joint Strike Fighter: Programme Progress (http://aerosociety.com/Events/Event-List/805/The-Joint-Strike-Fighter-Programme-Progress)

[LowObservable]

N-a-B...

One thing that we do have to do is stop running programs that take 25 years from first-serious-money to IOC. It was unknown before 1980 (it would be like the F-16 starting development in 1955) and it is unsustainable.

There's no reason that we could not replicate LWF (YF-16/17) today - a 4-year build and test program using off-the-shelf propulsion and systems. And if we look at the history books, LWF/NACF happened because the civilian leadership realized that replacing every F-4 in the inventory with an F-15 or F-14 was an economic nonstarter.

As for subsonic... It will be interesting to see how much supersonic time the F-35B (fuel fraction = clean F-16) and F-35C (heavy, big wing = transonic drag) actually see on any given sortie. I have heard the latter called "a stealth YA-7F".

[Not_a_boffin]

One thing that we do have to do is stop running programs that take 25 years from first-serious-money to IOC. It was unknown before 1980 (it would be like the F-16 starting development in 1955) and it is unsustainable.


Agree 110%. However, the political, threat and industrial landscapes have changed significantly since then. Once upon a time there were pollies who understood the need for military equipment, there was an (arguably) existential threat with real kit to counter, there was a civilian DoD or MoD establishment that knew how much and when detailed analysis was called for and there was an industry staffed with people who had learned hard lessons on numerous previous programmes. Oh and software performance was very definitely secondary in terms of cost and risk to airframe propulsion etc.

Now, there are relatively few pollies who understand that military equipment is a necessity; it is very difficult to identify a military existential threat; the DoD/MoD is staffed with people who believe that literally every element of performance and support must be analysed against detailed scenarios (but keep changing the scenarios and requiring different analyses) and have invented numerous processes that must be followed in every detail; most in industry have not undertaken the early-stage design of things (which is where you get the basics right) and have no scars. Oh and you can't even buy a simple switch that hasn't got some element of software in it.

That's where the time goes. As I'm sure you know.

LWF/NACF happened because the civilian leadership realized that replacing every F-4 in the inventory with an F-15 or F-14 was an economic nonstarter.

Bet they wish they had now!

It will be interesting to see how much supersonic time the F-35B (fuel fraction = clean F-16) and F-35C (heavy, big wing = transonic drag) actually see on any given sortie. I have heard the latter called "a stealth YA-7F".


It's the ability to do it in short bursts that will be important - at least for RN. I think X32 was probably closer to a SLUF-NG, if only in looks.....

[John Farley]

Pittsextra.

In a word yes.

[kbrockman]

Turkey Postpones Order for Its First Two F-35 Fighters | Defense News | defensenews.com (http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130111/DEFREG04/301110015/Turkey-Postpones-Order-Its-First-Two-F-35-Fighters?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE)

“Due to the current state of the JSF (Joint Strike Fighter) ... and the rising cost ... it was decided to postpone the order placed on Jan 5, 2012, for the two aircraft,” the Undersecretariat for Defence Industry (SSM) said in a statement.

The SSM, the public body responsible for Turkey’s arms purchases, said the decision was taken because the technical capabilities of the aircraft were ”not at the desired level yet.

After the initial purchase of the two jets, Turkey plans to order 100 units of the stealth fighter to replace its current fleet consisting mainly of F-4 Phantoms and F-16 Falcons, according to the statement.

No orders before 2014, the first examples cancelled, that sounds suspiciously much like a bad case of cold feet.

[Squirrel 41]

LO:

F-35C (heavy, big wing = transonic drag) actually see on any given sortie. I have heard the latter called "a stealth YA-7F".

If only... would be very useful!

JF - sorry I missed it. Your thoughts eagerly awaited.

S41

[ANCPER]

I think you people have an astroturfer in your midst.

[John Farley]

Squirrel

Sorry nothing to report. A typical programme run through. Only what one would expect really given the public forum and the post of the speaker.

JF

[high spirits]

Good, and informative article on the F35 in the telegraph magazine today. Worth a read to blow a few of the myths away.

[LowObservable]

Is there a link? Some of us are not conveniently placed to pop down to WH Smug.

[Andu]

There's quite a lot of information on the F35, all of it critical, to be found at http://elpdefensenews.bl*gspot.com.au/

* as usual, delete '*', insert 'o' to make the link work. Well worth the look, especially for anyone who believes the hype put out by 'Lockmart', as the man who runs that site refers to the manufacturers of the jet.

[Squirrel 41]

JF,

Thanks very much for this.

S41

[kbrockman]

San Diego Source > News > F-35 Marine Model Stress-Testing Halted After Cracks Discovered (http://www.sddt.com/News/article.cfm?SourceCode=20130112fd&_t=F35+Marine+Model+StressTesting+Halted+After+Cracks+Discov ered#.UPIYKmeyqGc)

Jan. 12 (Bloomberg) -- Durability testing on the most complicated version of Lockheed Martin Corp.’s F-35 was halted last month after “multiple” cracks were discovered in the fighter jet, according to the Pentagon’s testing office.

The previously undisclosed halt in high-stress ground testing involves the F-35B, the Marine Corp’s version that must withstand short takeoffs and landings on carriers and amphibious warfare vessels, according to an annual report on the F-35 that Defense Department testing chief Michael Gilmore sent to Congress yesterday. Flight testing wasn’t affected.

.....

Durability testing is intended to stress an airframe, assessing its capability to achieve a projected aircraft lifetime of 8,000 “equivalent flight hours.”

Testing for the Marine short-takeoff-and-vertical landing version was progressing this year until last month’s halt “after multiple new cracks were found in a bulkhead flange” on the fuselage’s underside during an inspection after the equivalent of 7,000 hours of testing, according to the report to Congress. The cracks were confined to that area.

Testing of the F-35B model had been restarted in January 2012 after a 16-month delay caused by the discovery, analysis and repair of a previous crack in the plane’s bulkhead. All three models of the F-35 are required to go through ground testing to the equivalent of 16,000 hours of flight.


A bit unsettling news in light of the already paperthin weight margins as described by the latest pentagon rapport.

[Biggus]

A mixture of good and bad news, but I'd say (and I'm neutral on JSF overall) more bad than good:

Pentagon report cites "lack of maturity" of Lockheed F-35 jet - Yahoo! News UK (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/pentagon-report-cites-lack-maturity-lockheed-f-35-012237872--finance.html)



As I said many posts ago, don't underestimate the software issues involved in such a "software intense" aircraft.....



As for the process of overlapping development, production and testing, mad as cheese in terms of the customer obtaining aircraft with a decent functionality, and subsequent having to retro fit or scrap - but no doubt good for the company as they get some of the production money much earlier in the programme.

[LowObservable]

Lots of stuff here:

http://media.bloomberg.com/bb/avfile/rboZtDuN4Gwk

The 20-second version:

A lot of remaining aero-mechanical problems on the B. No sign that they can't be fixed, but fixing to target lifetimes within the weight budget will not be easy. For example, clutch materials that avoid overheat while providing design lifetime are still in the research stage.

Still dealing with coatings on the H-tails getting heat damage at Max A/B.

Thermal management/aux power system still being pain in the a**.

Mach 0.8-1.2 accel time and sustained g specs relaxed. F-35C accel time increased by 43 seconds - I repeat BY not TO 43 seconds. (Total time is >110 sec by my calcs.)

Software continues to run late and fell further behind schedule in 2012.

[peter we]

The C had a 5 out 8 success rate with the new hook design in simulated landings. Not looking good.

F-35C
• A redesign of the arresting hook system for the F-35C
to correct the inability to consistently catch cables and
compensate for greater than predicted loads took place in
2012. The redesign includes modified hook point shape to
catch the wire, one-inch longer shank to improve point of
entry, addition of damper for end-of-stroke loads, increased
size of upswing damper and impact plate, addition of
end‑of‑stroke snubber. In 2012, the following occurred:
-- Initial loads and sizing study completed showed higher
than predicted loads, impacting the upper portion of the
arresting hook system (referred to as the “Y frame,” where
loads are translated from the hook point to the aircraft) and
hold down damper (January 2012)
-- Risk reduction activities, including cable rollover
dynamics testing at Patuxent River (March 2012), deck
obstruction loads tests at Lakehurst (April 2012)
-- Flight tests with CF-3 using new hook point and new hold
down damper design at Lakehurst (August 2012)
-- 72 of 72 successful roll-in tests with MK-7 and E-28 gear
-- 5 of 8 successful fly-in tests; 3 of 8 bolters (missed wire)


They have also reduced the turn performance for all three models.

The worst problem is the software, its way behind.

[Just This Once...]

I remember when the predicted sustained g performance of the more sprightly F-35A was just over 7.3g with a nod that more could be expected.

Then it was just under 7g.

Then it was a little above 5g.

Now I see the max sustained g for the F-35A is just 4.6g.

Awesome or what.

[Biggus]

Software, software, software......


It's a software centric aircraft, the software is behind most (not all, but most) of the clever stuff it does, and I'm not sure the airforces and politicians of the world (and maybe not even the aircraft manufacturers) have got their heads around the issues (i.e. problems), as opposed to just the benefits, that software brings with it....

[ORAC]

I remember when the predicted sustained g performance of the more sprightly F-35A was just over 7.3g.....now I see the max sustained g for the F-35A is just 4.6g. And the original performance was the equivalent of the F-16. The new performance is equivalent to?

[Just This Once...]

ORAC, no idea but as a blast from the past this is what it was supposed to do, back in the day:

http://www.nps.edu/Academics/Institutes/Meyer/docs/Joint%20strike%20fighter.pdf

Slide 12 promised more sustained g for the USAF variant than the F-16C...

[LowObservable]

JTO - They promised a lot of things...

How Could You Believe Me When I Said I Love You... - YouTube

Oh, and who could have expected acceleration issues with the F-35C?

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/javelin/javelin_13.jpg

http://www.navytimes.com/xml/news/2012/01/dn-design-blamed-for-f35c-tailhook-issues-011712/011712-f35c-800.JPG

[peter we]

What is the sustained G limit on, say, the F-18?

Military aircraft's G-limits - SgForums.com (http://sgforums.com/forums/1164/topics/297603)

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Buy Mirage 2000, must be a few secondhand. Try E-Baie.
11.2G, guns tracking an F-16 pulling 9G - I've seen it.

At some point, the political realities of deficits will mean a program this far over-budget and behind schedule will outweigh the military arguments. I think that point is less than 15 months away. If there is no significant increase in the threat from China/Russia,it will go in the budget cuts following next year's fiscal cliff, which will be even steeper than this year's. A couple of big money drains like Hurricane Sandy and it'll go sooner.

[dervish]

I think this is a refreshing approach on this programme, releasing details of technical challenges and resulting delays. Far better than MoD's head in the sand policy, denials and outright lies on the likes of Nimrod, while pouring money down the drain. It leaves room for an informed, cut-our-losses decision, galling as that may be.

[Courtney Mil]

What is the sustained G limit on, say, the F-18?

Depends on fit, AUW, etc. But it's not a 4.5g jet. As you know.

[airsound]

Courtesy of defense-aerospace.com, I’ve just had sight of what seems to be an about-to-be-released official US Government report that is absolutely excoriating about the current progress of the F-35 - all versions. It’s Michael Gilmore’s annual report - he’s Undersecretary at the Pentagon for Operational Test & Evaluation, OT&E.

Here are a few bullet points. (mostly my bold)

F-35 doesn’t meet the Operational Requirements Document (ORD) requirement to have a vulnerability posture better than analogous legacy aircraft. This refers to the removal of “fueldraulic fuses, the PAO shutoff valve, and the dry bay fire suppression” as part of a weight-reduction program.

For the F-35A, changing performance specs to reduce “turn performance from 5.3 to 4.6 sustained Gs and extending the time for acceleration from 0.8 Mach to 1.2 Mach by 8 seconds.”

For the F-35B, changing performance specs to reduce “turn performance from 5.0 to 4.5 sustained Gs and extending the time for acceleration from 0.8 Mach to 1.2 Mach by 8 seconds.”

For the F-35C, changing performance specs to reduce “turn performance from 5.1 to 5.0 sustained Gs and extending the time for acceleration from 0.8 Mach to 1.2 Mach by at least 43 seconds.”

For both A & B, “delamination and scorching of the [horizontal tail] surface coatings and structure.” because of unexpected high temperatures in sustained high-speed, high-altitude flight.

In the F-35C, “transonic buffet becomes severe in different portions of the flight envelope and is more severe in the F-35C than the other variants.”

In the F-35B, the program halted testing in December 2012 after multiple cracks were found in a bulkhead flangeon the underside of the fuselage during the 7,000-hour inspection. Root cause analysis, correlation to previous model predictions, and corrective action planning were ongoing at the time of this report
Other cracks were previously discovered in the B-model test article; one on the right side of the fuselage support frame in February and one at a wing pylon station in August, both of which were predicted by modeling. Another crack in the shear web tab that attaches to the support frame was discovered in March.
Also, excessive wear was found on the nose landing gear retractor actuator lugs and weapons bay door hinges. All of these discoveries will require mitigation plans and may include redesigning parts and additional weight.

In a live ballistic fire test, a ruptured line containing flammable PAO avionics coolant caused a sustained fire with a leak rate of 2.2 gallons per minute (gpm). The program assessed that a similar event in flight would likely cause an immediate incapacitation and loss of the pilot and aircraft.


The defense-aerospace report, which contains a link to the original 43-page OT&E document. is at
OT&E Reports New F-35 Problems (http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?prod=141640&shop=dae&modele=release)

Scary stuff, even though we have heard of some of these things before. This appears to put an official seal on them.

airsound

[ORAC]

More of the same, but more software details and a timeline.....

Ares: Lagging JSF Software Development Worries Pentagon DOT&E (http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_01_14_2013_p0-536481.xml)

The latest report on the F-35 program by Michael Gilmore, the Pentagon’s director of operational test and evaluation (DOT&E), spotlights growing problems with late software deliveries for the stealthy fighter.

Software releases in 2012, the report says, ran late as compared to the schedule adopted after the 2010 technical baseline review, which was carried out in part to correct optimistic projections made before that date. (The program’s leaders had underestimated the amount of regression testing — tests to make sure that changes had not induced problems in previously tested functions — and overestimated test rates and productivity.)

Block 1 software is not complete. Lot 2 and Lot 3 aircraft have been delivered “with major variances against the expected capabilities,” the report says.

Block 2A, the initial training software, was four months late and less than half of it was available at the point where the report was written. Block 2B, intended to be the first combat-capable software, is late. Block 3i (interim), a bridge between 2B and the service-standard Block 3F, “has lagged in integration and laboratory testing.”

Software problems are part but not all of the reason for slow progress with weapons integration, along with optimistic and inaccurate assumptions about the need for margins and the availability of instrumentation and range support. “The impact of these delays will potentially require an additional 18 months added to the schedule for weapons integration events,” the report warns.

The report adds to the uncertainty surrounding the F-35’s initial operational capability (IOC) dates. Last summer, Congress added language to the 2013 budget that called on the U.S. Air Force and Navy to name IOC dates for all three versions by year’s end — then changed the deadline to June 1 at the last minute. The most recent Selected Acquisition Report disclosed that Block 3F initial operational test and evaluation, a necessary event for IOC, would not be finished until 2019 — and that does not include any additional weapons integration time.............

[Squirrel 41]

ORAC / Airsound - thanks for this. Interesting times ahead.

(Alternatively, you could pre-emptively go and stand on the naughty step ahead of JSFfan's arrival to tell you all how wrong this all is. :ugh:)

S41

[ORAC]

Ares: CPFH: The Next Big F-35 Debate? (http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a80abadb2-80c4-4a50-b4f1-79df6aff101a)

Last year, one of the big JSF debates was over the “true” cost of sustaining the single-engine, stealthy F-35. Navy officials arrived at a $1 trillion figure to operate the aircraft for 50 years. To say it caused sticker shock in the Pentagon would be a massive understatement, and officials in militaries abroad eyeing F-35 purchases have spent countless hours since trying to get a better grip on the cost to operate this jet. Though there has been no definitive figure released to that point, the debate about F-35 sustainment has taken a new turn.

It seems now that the focus is all about the cost per flying hour (CPFH) of the aircraft. This is how the U.S. services account for the cost of operating their aircraft. Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh said last week that he has been briefed – not surprisingly – on two CPFH figures. One, from prime contractor Lockheed Martin, was lower that that provided by the Air Force, he said. Welsh says he directed the procurement corps to “put these numbers side by side and figure out exactly what the differences were between the number we had and the number [Lockheed Martin] had [and] to try and get at that problem.” These numbers have not been released...............

[kbrockman]

Cost are basically what it all comes down to.
The ludicrous estimates of both LM, the Dutch and canadian government are all directly contradicted long time ago by the Norwegian accounting office who did a rough calculation as to how much the total 30 years costs would be for 52 F35A's which lead norway's RAdm Arne Røksund to say that they where looking at 40 billion$ for 52 planes , or 800 million per copy.

The Dutch publically used the LM numbers ,claiming that they could therefor afford 86 copies, it was revealed as early as 2010 by a reputable news program , KRO reporter, that the government was deceiving the parliament and already knew back in 2009 ,and probably even much earlier , that the whole JSF project was going to be a lot more expensive , so much so that they where talking about reducing to 50+ copies and later on even as low as 38.
Uitzending gemist | KRO Reporter, JSF op Nederland 3 (http://www.uitzendinggemist.net/aflevering/57979/Kro_Reporter.html)

Even the USAF already said publically that the numbers used by LM and Canada are far from realistic.

Anybody who cannot come to terms with these realities should reflect on their abilities to distinct between fiction and reality.

[peter we]

Military aircraft are expensive, don't know how we are going to avoid that. War has bankrupted many a nation.

What was the cost of the Harrier, Tornado and Eurofighter using the UK's methods (everything included) presented to Parliament? £43k, £48K and £72K per hour wasn't it?

[kbrockman]

With attitudes like that we might as well give up and have no reasonable expectations at all, why not just give a supplier a blank sheet where they can fill in the price, delivery date and specifications and be done with it.

I don't know why people need to be reminded that this whole JSF adventure started out as a follow up for our legacy fighters which was not going to be more expensive (overall) to operate than the fighters it was supposed to replace, was going to be easy to maintain, was going to have a good survivability rate ,certainly those that where supposed to replace the Harriers and A10's, and would have a performance level at least as good as the F16/F18 while providing top of the line stealth characteristics.

It under performs massively on most of these promises while being ludicrously expensive and ridiculously over time.

The idea that this is just how things are in the defense industry is a non-answer, it is only so because too many people involved want it to be like that (re. the industry) or are just to inept to make reasonable decisions when it comes to projects like these (politicians, and even some in the DoD).

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

:D:D:D

Emperor's New Clothes...

[Blue Bottle]

Emperors new Helmet more like

Inside the F-35, the futuristic fighter jet - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9780450/Inside-the-F-35-the-futuristic-fighter-jet.html)

[glojo]

One quote from that article:

early tailhooks failed to catch the wire when planes landed on the deck of the aircraft carrier USS Wasp Might I suggest the Wasp has been modified to carry out tests of the F-35b. The ship is what I call an amphibious assault ship and to the best of my knowledge does not have arrester gear, nor steam catapults but perhaps the author knows differently?

[Navaleye]

That quote is complete crud. No ship based landings of an F35c have yet taken place, its all been land based testing. As is rightly pointed out, the (successful) test on Wasp were with the F35B

[Lonewolf_50]

If USS Wasp (LHD-1) has arresting gear, it's news to me. :ooh:

[LowObservable]

What's interesting about that story is the degree to which the PR boat is pushed out for a former Grauniad architecture and design correspondent who knows as much about airplanes as most of us here know about post-modern decommissioned cathouses in Brussels ...

(srsly folks - Constructive criticism: the week in architecture | Art and design | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2012/jan/27/constructive-criticism-week-architecture-postmodernism))

...although I did like this line:

It’s what we call a South West policy,’ says Steve O’Bryan, Lockheed Martin’s fast-talking vice-president for F-35 business development, referring to America’s most popular budget airline, the inspiration behind EasyJet and Ryanair.

It made me think immediately of this (language gets NSFW about half way in):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAg0lUYHHFc

":mad:ity :mad:ity :mad: :mad: a**e" is probably a fair summary of what JSF customers will be saying by mid-year.

[Courtney Mil]

Loving the video, LO :ok: A good bit of cheer when things are looking VERY gloomy for the new wonder jet. To answer the OP's question again, Super Bug. Start finding a way to put the gear on the carrier. It'll still be cheaper in the long run.

[ColdCollation]

Super Bug's arguably the more future-proof option anyway, if one considers to advent of UAVs/UCAVs.

It's ironic that even a puff piece such as the Telegraph's mentions that the F-35 is already on the way to being an anachronism.

[JSFfan]

Those that suggest 4.5 gen as a f-35 replacement really are in a world of their own.

(Alternatively, you could pre-emptively go and stand on the naughty step ahead of JSFfan's arrival to tell you all how wrong this all is. :ugh:)
nothing's changed, most of this has already been disclosed. The f-35 isn't as fast as a 'clean' f-16 in transonic. I guess they will have to settle with faster trans accel with weapons and fuel. For those that think speed is everything, M1.20 to M1.25 supercruise with weapons and large fuel load isn't too bad either, Is it?

What was the cost of the Harrier, Tornado and Eurofighter using the UK's methods (everything included) presented to Parliament? £43k, £48K and £72K per hour wasn't it?
Peter, thats a tad bit too much reality for here, what ever fast jet you fly is going to be dear.
Australia has costed the f-35a as about the same as a super hornet and cheaper than our hornet/F111 fleet was to run.

[Willard Whyte]

Surely you have some Lockheed Martin press releases to back up those claims?

[JSFfan]

which one?
the only new point I made is that no one with any idea thinks a 4.5 gen is a 5th gen replacement.

Transonic speed, Jan 2012
F-35 May Miss Acceleration Goal | Defense News | defensenews.com (http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120118/DEFREG02/301180013/F-35-May-Miss-Acceleration-Goal)

M1.2 dry Nov 2012
http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Documents/2012/November%202012/1112fighter.pdf

aussie cost.
Janes and ADF reports to gov

[glojo]

The way I understand things is that if the F-35B for one reason or another fails to become operational it would mean the end of fixed wing flying for the Fleet Air Arm? (question, not statement)

No doubt this was considered by this government and the previous one as I would ask what is the alternative? Is the flag nailed to the mast and are our eggs all in this one basket? (future of fixed wing flying and the carrier programme) it has to work, the more bad publicity we read the more nervous our politicians will become.

It has to succeed or have I got this wrong?

:{:{Unless we buy some low mileage, refurbished Harriers :sad::=:D:ugh:

Soory folks I jst could not resist it.

[Just This Once...]

Please don't take the fantasist seriously. The 'not technically super-cruising' bit of the article refers to LM spin that having accelerated to high mach (using lots and lots of burner with all the negatives that comes with it), flying a set profile and without opening a weapons door the ac can take up to 150 track miles to decelerate to sub-sonic (averaged over the track miles covered) once max dry is selected.

This fact has been explained to fantasist a number of times but he lives in la-la land.

[JSFfan]

Now that is going to take a link, even Sweetman and Co hasn't made that one.

The F-22 has a M1.5+ 100 mile dash and the f-35 has a M1.2+ 150 mile dash. I assume the dash distance is based on a given combat mission radius

[Just This Once...]

I cannot believe you are suggesting that the JSF has superior performance to the F22.

Then again, I cannot believe any of us (including me) are trading posts with you.

Go on, just how many types have you flown supersonic?

[JSFfan]

Far better to attack me than read the interview, keep dancing:cool:
http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Documents/2012/November%202012/1112fighter.pdf

It is well reported that the f-22 has a 100mile 1.5 dry dash, now it's reported that the f-35 has a 150mile 1.2 dry dash.
Do you think that make the f-35 better? I didn't make that point.

[Just This Once...]

Far better to read real performance results and fly real aircraft than indulge in selective reading of a glossy magazine article and debate it with you.:E

[JSFfan]

and who was quoted in that, as you say, glossy magazine article ?
It seems that you are the one claiming stuff that wasn't said, not me

[ORAC]

Errrr, a Lockheed Martin VP in charge of F-35 PR?

One who, what's more, had the check to say that, quote:

"Lockheed Martin Vice President Stephen O’Bryan, the company’s point man for F-35 affairs, declared that the fighter meets requirements."

Which, with the revelation concerning the transonic acceleration really tells you all you need to know..........

[JSFfan]

Well I guess that's an acknowledgement that it was official and not some hack journalist glossy magazine claim.

The info is there to read on the trans acell and whether it's considered operationally significant and the action that will be taken if it was decided that it is.

I'm unaware of the context of "declared that the fighter meets requirements"
It is exceeeding a lot 2001 expections and not meeting some initial ones.
They have decreased the 4:1 LER, it is now 6:1 on 4 blue vs 8 red and better than 6:1 when both red and blue are on piloted sims, as per the reports to aussie gov.

[kbrockman]

Some more info on the state of the software from someone that knows but is not directly tied to LM.
DoD Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, J. Michael Gilmore,
F-35 Software: DoD's Chief Tester Not Impressed - IEEE Spectrum (http://spectrum.ieee.org/riskfactor/aerospace/military/f35-software-dod-operation-test-evaluation-director-not-impressed?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+IeeeSpectrum+%28IEEE+Spectrum%29)
In his report, Gilmore states that in regards to operational suitability, the F-35 currently “demonstrates [a] lack of maturity… as a system in developmental testing and as a fielded system at the training center.” While Gilmore’s report details a host of other engineering-related issues as well, software remains a major area of concern.
...
“The program made virtually no progress," Gilmore’s report says, "in the development, integration, and laboratory testing of any software beyond 2B.” In other words, forget about having a fully combat capable F-35 any time soon.
Gilmore points out that because of the concurrence of F-35 production and its testing, a practice that the DoD acquisition leadership admits was “acquisition malpractice,” the tide is not likely to turn in the software battle anytime soon. “Simultaneous development of new capabilities, associated with the next blocks of software, competes with the flight test resources needed to deliver the scheduled capability for the next lot of production aircraft,” Gilmore writes.

The problems extend beyond the plane itself. Gilmore also notes that software issues with its helmet continue. “Boresight alignment between the helmet and the aircraft is not consistent between aircraft and requires calibration for each pilot,” as do issues with the aircraft's Autonomic Logistics and Information System (ALIS), which the report states “Is immature and behind schedule.” Bogdan has said that without a functional ALIS, “the “airplane doesn’t work.”

Of course, the F-35’s program management knows of all the problems that Gilmore’s report highlights (and probably many more). It's only the Congress, the U.S. taxpayer, and the taxpayers of nine other countries who are helping underwrite the program who may not. Perhaps that's why the DoD felt free to buy two more lots of F-35s at a cost of $3.8 billion and $4.9 billion respectively last month. After all, these are seen as being just “normal teething problems" for an aircraft that has so much impressive combat capability, at least in the simulator.

[JSFfan]

The ones in the 9 nations that need to know, do know. Most in the gov aren't cleared to know anything above the basics and even less for us others, this is why there is so much misinformation being propagated.

Really the report has said there is nothing new in 2012 of any significance and the known problems are being worked on. This won't stop the naysayers acting as if they have proof of the Second Coming though.

I think a 50% increase in capability from 4:1 to 6:1 is very significant

[Bastardeux]

I think a 50% increase in capability from 4:1 to 6:1 is very significant

You mean a hypothetical increase in capability, based on it working completely as advertised, which it has been established is not the case.

Just to illustrate the point that so many people are trying to make to you, but you seem to be missing; the F3 had a top speed of mach 2.2 as a high level interceptor. However, what we got was something that was quite asthmatic at high level and I NEVER got it close to M2.2.

[JSFfan]

no, it's a 50% increase working with the current knowns, it is exceeding expectations. The 'hypothetical' was 4:1, the facts are giving 6:1 and more than 6:1 when the blue and red sims are piloted.

Now I know you guys love the doom and gloom of SDD helmet jitter etc, but those in the know, going by what is being said are concerned with when not if.

"Every issue that we have in view today is very much in the category of normal development for a fighter tactical aircraft," Venlet said in testimony. "Good old-fashioned engineering is going to take care of every one of those." - VADM David Venlet

[ColdCollation]

Please make it stop...

[kbrockman]

JSF and all those other Fan's

We could go endlessly debating the merits or failures of the F35 program
but maybe it would be better to explain why so many are so sceptical about this whole F35 program.
They pretty much have done every trick in the book to let this thing go ahead and keep it alive, starting from over-promising and underpricing the whole project, while basing too many of its systems and technologies on underdeveloped or even non-existing technology, setting future goals that cannot be met (wait until something like an MLU needs to be done) and promising a 1 fighter for all tasks from the get-go, a failed policy on almost all defense programs in the past and present.

A good read is this 2008 piece on why the weapons acquisition seems to be no longer working as it should.
Extrapolating for the F35, it is sinning on most, if not all of the issues explained and that is why I think that the F35 is just not a good idea for most of our military.

What's Wrong with Weapons Acquisitions? - IEEE Spectrum (http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/military/whats-wrong-with-weapons-acquisitions/0)


Another thing you might want to consider is the fact that so many high placed military men and people deeply involved in the program have been openly critical about the whole JSF debacle.
If you have any experience operating in a military environment you would know that it takes a lot of wrongdoing before people speak out openly and critically about projects like these.
Loyalty towards the military and everything related to it is usually much higher than in the normal civil world, it takes a lot for so many people to be so openly critical about the F35.

[JSFfan]

We just had the usual stuff with our Wedgetails and Vigilair, late, over budget etc. The same was with our old hornet and F111 fleet. It's the way US procurement works [or doesn't work, depending on your view]
I have no doubt the f-35 will continue in that tradition and it may even slip more.

Worse case is our old hornets won't last, Aussie's have to buy more supers and finish up with a hi-lo fleet. With 48 there is no chance we will scrap them to the US in the mid to late 2020's

If you don't like it, you do what some of the smaller forces do and buy existing off the shelf and don't push for bleeding edge new tech

It doesn't diminish the fact that the f-35 even exceeds the f-22 in 'the system' and it's doubtful it will ever catch up.

It also doesn't change the facts about euro procurement and development problems, as the eurocanards and our helo fleet shows

also your reference to a f-35 MLU only shows you haven't a clue about the f-35

[Lonewolf_50]

IOC for the F-35C is when?
IOC for the F-35B is when?
IOC for the F-35A is when?

When the first F-35 two ship formation takes off on an alert and does what the Hornets, Vipers and Strike Eagles are doing now, I'll begin to believe it has arrived.

[NITRO104]

"The F-22 has a M1.5+ 100 mile dash and the f-35 has a M1.2+ 150 mile dash."

JSFFan, dash is dash and cruise is cruise.
Those two aren't the same and marathon runners would have cruised through the 42km race at 100m dash speed, if they could, but they can't, can they?

[Bastardeux]

no, it's a 50% increase working with the current knowns, it is exceeding expectations. The 'hypothetical' was 4:1, the facts are giving 6:1 and more than 6:1 when the blue and red sims are piloted.

And the current knowns that produced this outcome are? It certainly isn't the reduced specifications that have already been discussed. From the admittedly limited knowledge I have of the whole programme, at least 90% of the most elementary mission software is yet to be integrated, so these simulations remain hypothetical...based on capabilities Lockheed have said, and not yet proven to be possible, no?

[Courtney Mil]

no, it's a 50% increase working with the current knowns, it is exceeding expectations. The 'hypothetical' was 4:1, the facts are giving 6:1 and more than 6:1 when the blue and red sims are piloted.

No, it's a 50% increase in kill ratio ACCORDING TO THE PARAMETERS USED IN THE SIMULATION SOFTWARE. I have done combat simulation and can tell you that manufacturers use the parameters that they WANT their aircraft/weapon/system to have, NOT what the current really have.

I can tell you from bitter experience, your arguments are deeply flawed, JSFFan. The results of this simulation only have meaning if you know exactly what assumptions the experiments were based upon.

[JSFfan]

and you know that the sims are using the 2001 data? try again, the redesign was 2005 and I'm sure they ran the numbers and entered the right data, as was said its the 9 top air forces in the world that are running the sims, it's not LM locked in a cupboard making up numbers
but think what you want, you may even think how fast, high it goes the better with a WW1 plane vs plane dogfight mentality
The sims are conservative which is why you get better numbers when it is piloted

[Just This Once...]

Guess the weapons bay doors open at representative AIM-120 shooting speeds in the sim.

'Open the bay doors HAL.'

'I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that.'

[Courtney Mil]

Out of interest, JSFfan, what is your military flying experience?

[JSFfan]

I personally know as much as anyone that isn't in the loop, bugger all, but I can read.

[Bastardeux]

the redesign was 2005 and I'm sure they ran the numbers and entered the right data, as was said its the 9 top air forces in the world that are running the sims, it's not LM locked in a cupboard making up numbers

Once again, you're missing the argument entirely. The point that is being made is that these figures are still representative of a specification that is yet to be achieved, irrespective of whether they were from 2001 or 2005; the argument remains that these are simulated exercises based on capabilities that still have to be integrated into the aircraft, and given its test history and the comments coming from people in the know, that integration is going to be challenging to say the least. The day a lonesome F35 goes head to head with 6 baddies and kills them all, I will happily eat my words. But right now, I'm pretty confident I won't be doing that.

[Just This Once...]

...but I can read.

Yet not understand.

[JSFfan]

once again you are only showing what you don't know, there isn't a simed result released and I doubt even ran with a single f-35 vs 6 bad guys.
the released simed result was based on 4 f-35 vs 8 red

[Just This Once...]

You are arguing with people who have/had access to the JSF program. You are arguing with people who have flown teen-series fighters as well as UK FJ aircraft.

Why?

[JSFfan]

well if they had access, they wouldn't be making silly mistakes about the f-35, as far as I've seen there are only a couple of guys that know what they are talking about, engines and another guy who escapes me at the moment

[ORAC]

Just This Once,

Never argue with an idiot. He drags you down to his level and beats you with experience....

[Just This Once...]

Fair point ORAC, fair point indeed.

[Bastardeux]

Once again, and I'll repeat for the final time, you're missing the point of the argument; you could have said they'd come out with a kill ratio of 1,000,000 to 1 and it wouldn't have mattered. It's a fictional scenario based on specifications that are currently theoretical and nothing more...it may well be the case that all of those capabilities are realised, equally it may be the case that none are realised, it'll probably be somewhere in the middle, but at the moment, past experience suggests there are very big hurdles ahead.

The reason people are so pessimistic about it, is that we have seen much less complicated aircraft run into significant and costly problems, which in some cases have not and never will be resolved. People are rightly questioning the value for money, particularly as we're sacrificing so much for such a small number of aircraft that will be no-where near the end of their test programme by the time we have them in service...

[LowObservable]

Back when the 400 per cent claim jumped to 600 per cent (I think it was 2008), someone cited this as proof that the F-35 could indeed be upgraded and improved through software alone.

The software in this case being PowerPoint.

Of course, in 2008 we were still being assured that the USAF would be declaring IOC right around now, with Block 3 IOT&E just starting.

By the way, the Ignore List function is very useful. It's in the User CP menu on the left of the topmost yellow bar.

[JSFfan]

yes, a sim is somewhat speculative until it's shown in real world, but as per the example of the 4:1 being increased to 6:1, it becomes more accurate as the program moves foreword. If you knew about the f-35, we wouldn't be wasting our time talking about how fast it goes

Going by what I have read, I don't see most of the posters here having a grasp of 5th gen and are thinking in 3rd and 4th gen. As the hornet pilot said in effect when he transfered to the f-22, it's a different ball game.

Our hornet pilots knew bugger all about the true capabilities of the f-111 and visa versa. I won't accept "I'm a pilot of x, so I know"