F-35 Cancelled, then what ? [Archive] - Page 31

KenV

1st Sep 2015, 16:23

KenV - so exactly how do you know the RCS numbers for all those aircraft?
The Russians have advertized the RCS of the T-50 as .1-1 meter2.
Boeing has advertized the forward RCS of the Super Hornet as "significantly under 1 meter2" and stated that the Silent Eagle has similar forward RCS to Super Hornet.

LM states F-22 RCS is the size of a "steel marble" (.0001-.0002 meter2), and F-35 the size of a "metal golf ball" (.0015m2). Thus both these stealth aircraft have RCS much smaller than any of the above.

Quick answer, obviously, is that you don't, but just like to make :mad: up to disrupt arguments that from your viewpoint are going the wrong way. I have no idea what you are on about here. RCS data is available in the public domain. Whether you choose to trust the public figures is an entirely different matter, but the data is there.

And what is this business of "make stuff up to disrupt arguments"? I see no "argument" that I have "disrupted". Further, I see no place where my arguments "are going the wrong way". You appear to be reading into my statements things that simply do not exist.

And finally, you appear to be maneuvering into position for yet another juvenile tit-for-tat personal battle. I will not be baited to engage.

NITRO104

1st Sep 2015, 18:27

RCS data is available in the public domain.
I'm simply amazed. :D

PhilipG

1st Sep 2015, 18:42

Ken,

Could you kindly share a link to the public domain data about RCS?

Thanks in advance....

KenV

1st Sep 2015, 20:15

Google is your friend. Google "Frontal RCS XXX" (where "XXX" is the designation, such as F-22, of the aircraft of interest) and you will get many hits.

For the Google impaired, here are two links:

According to November 2005 reports, the US Air Force states that the F-22 has the lowest RCS of any manned aircraft in the USAF inventory, with a frontal RCS of 0.0001~0.0002 m2, marble sized in frontal aspect. According to these reports, the F-35 is said to have an RCS equal to a metal golf ball, about 0.0015m2, which is about 5 to 10 times greater than the minimal frontal RCS of F/A-22. The F-35 has a lower RCS than the F-117 and is comparable to the B-2, which was half that of the older F-117. Other reports claim that the F-35 is said to have an smaller RCS headon than the F-22, but from all other angles the F-35 RCS is greater. By comparison, the RCS of the Mig-29 is about 5m2.

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Lightning II (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-35-design.htm)

It is claimed that the Super Hornet employs the most extensive radar cross section reduction measures of any contemporary fighter, other than the F-22 and F-35. While the F/A-18E/F is not a stealth fighter like the F-22, it will have a frontal radar cross-section an order of magnitude smaller than prior generation fighters. Additional changes for reducing RCS can be installed on an as-needed basis.

(one order magnitude less than 5m2 is .5m2, about the same as T-50)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_F/A-18E/F_Super_Hornet#Radar_signature_reduction_measures

Once again, you can trust the public sources of this data, or not. But the data most certainly is available and I did not "make it up" as was claimed.

ORAC

1st Sep 2015, 20:38

Don't see the Russian claims about their RCS there, or the figures for the F18 after the "as required" add-ons, presumably intake RAM etc.

Seems an unsubstantiated claim and a weasely attempt to slide out from under.

NITRO104

1st Sep 2015, 20:40

It is claimed that...
Claimed what?
Are RCS' you're quoting best or average values?

KenV

1st Sep 2015, 20:42

Don't see the Russian claims about their RCS there, or the figures for the F18 after the "as required" add-ons, presumably intake RAM etc. Once again, Google is your friend. Google "Frontal RCS XXX" (where "XXX" is the designation, such as F-22, of the aircraft of interest) and you will get many hits.

Seems an unsubstantiated claim and a weasely attempt to slide out from under. It's sad that some people are Google impaired. Sadder still is that those so impaired resort to name calling to publicly display their impairment.

For the Google impaired, another link (this one specific to the T-50):
Sukhoi's patent of the T-50's stealth features cites an average RCS of the aircraft of approximately 0.1-1 square meters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_PAK_FA#Stealth

Turbine D

1st Sep 2015, 20:44

Google is your friend.
To make it a little simpler, here is a site the gives RCS comparisons, e.g., the marble vs the golf ball, metallic or not.
Radar Cross Section (RCS) (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/stealth-aircraft-rcs.htm)
Amazingly, after all this time, the F-35 isn't better than a B-2 bomber or the F-22 in general terms of stealthiness. I suppose all of this is rather subjective matter dependent on various technical factors.
For those who may think the adversaries aren't working the stealth detection problem, they are. Here is a Chinese article where the authors were probably partly educated in the USA, one way or the other.
http://www.jatm.com.br/ojs/index.php/jatm/article/download/470/424
I wonder if a new rule of engagement for the F-35 can be arranged where adversarial detection is limited to head on detection only where it excels in stealthiness.:ok:

KenV

1st Sep 2015, 21:18

Amazingly, after all this time, the F-35 isn't better than a B-2 bomber or the F-22 in general terms of stealthiness. I suppose all of this is rather subjective matter dependent on various technical factors.The laws of physics constrain what is possible in terms of RCS reduction. The stealth technical/engineering improvements are in the "mechanics" of RCS reduction. For example, the F-117 required extremely maintenance intensive "RCS Putty" to seal the various panel seams. And applying the putty properly was as much an art as a science. It was a very maintenance intensive aircraft. The B-2 requires air conditioned hangars to maintain its RCS properties and there has been public discussion of RCS degradation after flying through rain. F-22 has its share of maintenance quirks to achieve full RCS reduction. The F-35 is (allegedly) the first stealth platform whose RCS features are not maintenance intensive and whose characteristics are compatible with a typical carrier environment.

a1bill

1st Sep 2015, 21:22

TD, you would need to supplement that list with statements that have been made. Both the F-22 and F-35 are said to be smaller in RCS than the B2 and F-117.

LowObservable

1st Sep 2015, 21:43

Said by whom? I don't think anyone associated with B-2 would take second place to anybody - and what about VHF?

The problem is that you can find all kinds of stealth comparisons. The F-22 vs F-35 comparison cited by our learned friend KenV was directly contradicted by ACC's commander last year, not that any sensible person believes him.

I'm absolutely certain that the Russians would put an accurate RCS in a patent document and that it would not be the slightest bit naive or ill-informed to believe that they would. And I am Julius :mad:ing Caesar.

And I retract any accusations of anyone making stuff up, since Wikipedia is a valuable source of classified military information.

By the way, statements like "the laws of physics constrain what is possible in terms of RCS reduction" have the double benefit of being true and mostly meaningless. The laws of physics constrain things, because otherwise (drum roll) they would not be the laws of bleeding physics, would they?

The question is what those limits are and whether we have actually reached a "Maxwell don't allow" point with the current generation of fighter-type aircraft or with tailless "mantas".

a1bill

1st Sep 2015, 21:50

I'd have to do the same as you and google up the story, to quote the source. I think it was the AF mag article that said about the F-35 dry thrust at Mach 1.2. No doubt you wouldn't accept it.

Turbine D

1st Sep 2015, 22:00

a1bill,

From the wording of the article:
The F-35 stealthiness is a bit better than the B-2 bomber, which, in turn, was twice as good as that on the even older F-117. B-2 stealth bomber has a very small cross section. The RCS of a B-26 bomber exceeds 35 dBm2 (3100m2 ) from certain angles. In contrast, the RCS of the B-2 stealth bomber is widely reported to be about -40dBm2 .
That is the same as the F-22 where the F-35 is reported to have a -30dBm2, the same as an insect, don't know which insect. That is why I stated the reported RCS is rather subjective in nature, e.g., you can believe what you want or not.

KenV,
The F-35 is (allegedly) the first stealth platform whose RCS features are not maintenance intensive and whose characteristics are compatible with a typical carrier environment.
Only time in service will give the true answer and that hasn't happened yet.

a1bill

1st Sep 2015, 22:07

TD, That's very true. As they are classified, no one who knows is going to give a number anyway. You just get the comparisons and it doesn't help when the bands aren't given.

O-P

1st Sep 2015, 22:43

Ken,

I have no idea what the F-18 E/Fs RCS actually is. However, I'll bet it was measured clean. If we strap on a pylon or two, tanks, AIM 120's, the odd 9x, pods various and a few bombs and I'll bet we are back into the 'barn door' arena.

Just saying. Oh, not trying to bicker or pick a fight.

melmothtw

2nd Sep 2015, 07:15

Quote:
The F-35 is (allegedly) the first stealth platform whose RCS features are not maintenance intensive and whose characteristics are compatible with a typical carrier environment.

Only time in service will give the true answer and that hasn't happened yet.

True, time will tell, but having seen marine maintenance personnel walking all over the back of an F-35 at Eglin in the same way they would any current aircraft (normal attire, including boots) I have to agree with Ken on this one.

Bastardeux

2nd Sep 2015, 11:13

Hold on, Ken, I stated a while ago that the T50 wasn't a truly stealthy aircraft, based on observation of the airframe (conventional canopy, conventional slats, etc.); yet now you're putting forward an argument that the F18 is stealthier?

You ridiculed that, and my postulation that development of the detection of stealth aircraft was inevitable, yet it seems both of my arguments are turning out to be true...

LowObservable

2nd Sep 2015, 11:14

Ye're sincere faith is touchin', young Melmoth.

Here's a paper on the F-22's affordable stealth:

http://www.f22fighter.com/AffordableStealth.pdf

And here's the in-service reality:

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

Bonus: Photo of AF maintainer removing RAM with a hammer and chisel:

http://www.tyndall.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/2013/08/130701-F-DY859-004.JPG

a1bill

2nd Sep 2015, 13:44

LO, re the F-22 maintenance, I read it's being reskinned in the proposed updates. They are also currently using F-35 tech in the sealants.

The F-35 fibre matt/composite has been well tested over the years and they are happy with it.

LowObservable

2nd Sep 2015, 14:20

LO, re the F-22 maintenance, I read it's being reskinned in the proposed updates.

Reference?

KenV - Your basic error is to assume (remember how we spell that word?) that features like blockers-versus-serpentine-ducts are indicative of RCS reduction across the entire design.

The Super H has a blocker because the Hornet configuration was never designed for LOS blockage and to change it in the Super was impracticable.

The T-50 has a blocker because the designers calculated that any aero losses would be less significant than the extra length and volume required for full LOS blockage in a serpentine duct alone. (It is, IMHO, a far more elegant configuration than the F-22.)

KenV

2nd Sep 2015, 14:59

We'll see how that works out once it gets deployed a lot. Anyone who was a maintenance officer knows how things go as the planes get a lot of hours on them ... hopefully, the allegation/estimate is correct. However, I don't think I'll take that bet to Vegas. Agreed.

This article contains SOME of the maintenance processes for maintaining an F-22:
Feature - LO: how the F-22 gets its stealth (http://www.tyndall.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123359148)

Just a few excerpts from the article:
"The 325th Maintenance Squadron's Low Observable team and their contractor counterparts, Defense Support Systems, work to make sure the F-22s at Tyndall maintain their stealth capabilities by restoring and maintaining the low observable coatings on the jets. "
USAF dedicates an entire squadron just to maintain the stealth coating on their F-22s. That would be very problematic on a carrier.

"No one touches the aircraft and gets into the systems without LO having a part in that job," Senior Master Sgt. Angela Stovall, 325th MXS Fabrication flight chief, said.
A very problematic procedural limitation on a carrier. On a carrier, people are often used to push aircraft around on the flight deck, on the elevators, and on the hangar deck. That would be VERY hard to do without touching the aircraft.

"It can be very stressful at times, but when I'm out on the jet, I go into my zone. It is very meditative,"
I challenge anyone to find a "meditative" environment on a flight deck or hangar deck.

"Each week, LO does outer mold line inspections. This involves checking each jet's signature, which is makes an aircraft appear on detection devices. A very high signature equals a very low stealth capability leaving the jet exposed to radar. It is extremely essential..."
A weekly inspection of this sort would be highly problematic in a carrier environment.

Safety is a high priority during the entire process. The maintainer's personal protective equipment is designed to repel the harmful chemicals and debris that they might be exposed to while working with the coatings. Their PPE includes: a Tyvek protective over suit, a pair of gloves and a respirator.
Such toxins released during routine maintenance would be exceptionally problematic in a carrier environment. USN is VERY sensitive about the stuff that comes aboard their carriers. It took an extra two or three years for AMRAAM to get aboard USN's carriers because of USNs concerns with the AMRAAM's rocket motors. Back when USAF used JP-4, one of the first things that happened when a Navy jet flew on board after being refueled with JP-4 (either at a base or from a tanker) was to defuel the airplane. They did not allow JP-4 below the flight deck and would not allow JP-4 into the carrier's fuel storage tanks.

"LO has two climate controlled bays that are the ideal location for restorations, but due to constant need of LO restoration, these bays are never empty."
The requirement to have "climate controlled" maintenance bays would likely be a show stopper on a carrier. I can't even imagine how it would be done on the amphibs that USMC operate from. And I imagine it would at least be just as problematic on the UK's QE carriers.

I don't know if they've actually solved these maintenance issues on the F-35, but the F-35 is (allegedly) "carrier friendly." We'll have to wait and see if this is true or not and just what that means. But these issues further illustrate why USN will have more Super Hornets than F-35s for decades to come, and why it took so long for USN to get a stealthy fighter. So far, stealth technology has just not been compatible with a carrier environment. We'll have to wait and see if the tech has advanced enough to make stealth truly carrier friendly.

KenV

2nd Sep 2015, 15:21

The Super H has a blocker because the Hornet configuration was never designed for LOS blockage and to change it in the Super was impracticable. Generally agree.

The T-50 has a blocker because the designers calculated that any aero losses would be less significant than the extra length and volume required for full LOS blockage in a serpentine duct alone. (It is, IMHO, a far more elegant configuration than the F-22.) Hmmmm. You're clearly claiming you know the Russians' design criteria, design trades, and design calculations. Good on you, but no, I would not call such a claim "humble". And for the record, I never remotely made any such claims. I only made TWO claims:

1. The blockers on the T-50 and the blockers on the Super Hornet resulted in aircraft with about the same RCS.

2. Russia's and Boeing's "far more elegant configuration" resulted in an RCS reduction orders of magnitude worse than the "less elegant" solution in the F-22 and F-35.

Anything beyond those two points is something I never said and would instead be something you "made up".

glad rag

2nd Sep 2015, 15:25

So far, stealth technology has just not been compatible with a carrier environment. We'll have to wait and see if the tech has advanced enough to make stealth truly carrier friendly.

Indeed. I was castigated, quite a while back, for having the effrontery to ask how the stealth coatings would stand up to carrier/deployed service, only to be told that I was a silly boy and that F-35 didn't have stealth coatings.......

:ouch:

a1bill

2nd Sep 2015, 16:11

LO
f-35 tech
DailyTech - F-35 Stealth Coatings Applied to F-22 (http://www.dailytech.com/F35+Stealth+Coatings+Applied+to+F22/article21321.htm)

Boeing composite for upgrades
read on f-22 thread at f-16net. It stuck because at the time, I thought it would have been LM that would have done the composite.

LowObservable

2nd Sep 2015, 17:32

You're clearly claiming you know the Russians' design criteria, design trades, and design calculations.

Errrm, not exactly. But I did read the :mad:ing patent, where it said that a flaw of the F-22 design was that the LOS-blocking ducts took up too much room.

And to repeat my point - your cardinal error appears to be to assume that the T-50 has a much higher RCS than the F-22/35 based on the use of a blocker. To quote:

Those differences in RCS reduction methods result in multiple orders of magnitude differences in RCS.

There is no data at all to support this sweeping (note emphasis) claim. Fully LOS-blocked, curved-plus-blocker and even gridded inlets will all reduce RCS very nicely. It's all a question of how many bounces you get between the energy going in, hitting the compressor and bouncing out again.

Lonewolf_50

2nd Sep 2015, 19:42

Returning to topic, it appears that the F-35 still isn't cancelled.

In other news (http://snltranscripts.jt.org/75/75gupdate.phtml), Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=butZyxI-PRs).

KenV

2nd Sep 2015, 19:59

Those differences in RCS reduction methods result in multiple orders of magnitude differences in RCS.

There is no data at all to support this sweeping (note emphasis) claim.

"No data at all?"

Data point#1: F-22/F-35 RCS are multiple orders of magnitude less than T-50:
The RCS of T-50 is .1 to 1 m2
The RCS of F-22 is .0001-.0002 m2
The RCS of F-35 is .0015 m2

Data point #2: T-50 uses different methods than F-22/F-35 to achieve its RCS. Among those differences are duct blockers vs serpentine ducts. There are other differences. That being said, the engine inlets are one of the top drivers of RCS.

LowObservable

2nd Sep 2015, 21:09

Let's be quite clear.

Anyone who says "Aircraft X has an RCS of Y square meters" is by definition full of :mad: because (1) RCS is dependent on wavelength and aspect and (2) if you know what the right numbers are, you know that you should not cite them.

Such quasi-random numbers may be indicative, but that's all. And I'm sure that a number cited by a reporter for an Indian business news site, quoting an unidentified government official, is utterly reliable, or at least good enough for a fan trying to prove a point.

And Ken, you seem to be arguing in circles. You're trying to bolster one dodgy assertion (that inlet design tells you conclusively how stealthy an airplane is) with another (that RCS numbers culled from different corners of the intertubes are reliable).

http://t1.livememe.com/z4vwbt_4.jpg

ORAC

3rd Sep 2015, 05:48

Looks like LM is on a roll. Doesn't auger well for the F35 programme - or in LM getting a slice of the LRS-B. Between them and Boeing wither the KC-46, it makes NG more and more of a shoo-in.......

Lawmakers Offer A Way Out of US Navy Minehunting Mess (http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2015/09/02/navy-mine-minehunting-countermeasures-lockheed-martin-reed-mccain-senate-armed-services-committee-littoral-combat-ship-lcs/71610438/)

http://www.defensenews.com/story/breaking-news/2015/09/02/new-air-force-bomber-testing-stealth-wind-test/71572050/

Lonewolf_50

3rd Sep 2015, 14:11

LO finally did it, and now I see that more comments are following up ... something I deleted twice in the last two days rather than posting: the matter of aspect in stealth/LO assessments and figures of merit.

This may come as a surprise to the fast jet brethren and fighter jocks, but some of the original "stealth" technology put into actual military service decades before it arrived on an aircraft was on submarines. Aspect matters in that field as well when working out the ease or difficulty of a detection.

Most of that will probably be available for people in program in the technical data, and would (one hopes) not be available in a public source. What this means is that any comparisons in a public discussion are constrained by such information (I won't call it data) as is available to the public.

Points of comparison are rough, at best. Suggest we leave it at that. The "how manly is my RCS" topic looks to have been pounded into glue.

If anyone has public information on how many times a modern, and a earlier generation, radar has acquired a T-50 ... that would be of interest in a thread about the T-50. We'll only know how a T-50 and a F-35 compare when they ever meet for real. I am not sure I want that to happen any time soon, because of what that means in the larger sense. :eek:

@glad rag: a request to knock off the personal jabs if that's all you have to offer the discussion.

a1bill

3rd Sep 2015, 14:22

I think subs have moved on to background imaging. Surprisingly to some, the French are well in there.

KenV

3rd Sep 2015, 14:29

This may come as a surprise to the fast jet brethren and fighter jocks, but some of the original "stealth" technology put into actual military service decades before it arrived on an aircraft was on submarines. Aspect matters in that field as well when working out the ease or difficulty of a detection. The vast majority of the sub hunting I did in my P-3 days used passive detection methods. I only used an active buoy once. Surface ships use active sonar far more.

KenV

3rd Sep 2015, 19:38

The Long Range Strike Bomber (LRSB) proposals are reportedly more mature than the F-35 proposals were. Perhaps the Rapid Capabilities Office (PRO) which is managing the LRSB has learned a few lessons from the F-35's sad history.

USAF Next-Gen Long-Range Bomber Prototypes 'Mature' But Haven?t Flown Yet (http://sputniknews.com/us/20150902/1026511595.html)

airsound

3rd Sep 2015, 19:54

Amidst all the rather sad mutual sh*t-bagging that seems to infest much of this thread these days, did no one notice that two so-called 'operational' F-35As have been delivered to the USAF at Hill AFB?

First operational F-35As arrive at Hill AFB > U.S. Air Force > Article Display (http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/616055/first-operational-f-35as-arrive-at-hill-afb.aspx)

That word 'operational is a bit puzzling, since IOC is still years away. But I suppose it's a step forward.

Isn't it?

airsound

ORAC

3rd Sep 2015, 20:02

The Long Range Strike Bomber (LRSB) proposals are reportedly more mature than the F-35 proposals were. Perhaps the Rapid Capabilities Office (PRO) which is managing the LRSB has learned a few lessons from the F-35's sad history. Perhaps to award the contract to NG to allow LM and Boeing to concentrate their talent on their current wayward and tardy programs?? :hmm::hmm::hmm:

Lonewolf_50

3rd Sep 2015, 20:02

That word 'operational is a bit puzzling, since IOC is still years away. But I suppose it's a step forward.
Yes, a step forward, but what "operational" means is probably "feed a nice military sounding word to he press" and satiate the slavering maw for another day.

On the plus side, deliver to Hill means that they passed their acceptance test flights, and are thus in the most basic sense operational. They fly and met whatever spec was needed to get the DD-250 signed. :ok:

Interesting:
The wings will receive one to two F-35s per month until 72 aircraft have been
delivered. One reserve wing and one active wing.

KenV

3rd Sep 2015, 20:04

That word 'operational is a bit puzzling, since IOC is still years away. But I suppose it's a step forward. Isn't it?Initial operating capability or Initial operational capability (IOC) is the state achieved when a capability (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability_Management) is available in its minimum usefully deployable form. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_operating_capability )

The term as used here probably means the airplane was delivered in a configuration that makes it (minimally) operational. IOC is achieved when (for example) an entire squadron of such aircraft are delivered, along with the support equipment, spares, tools, test equipment, and enough operators, maintainers, etc are trained for that squadron to deploy. At least that's what happened when USMC declared IOC. USAF operates differently so the details of their definition is probably different.

airsound

3rd Sep 2015, 20:34

Actually I exaggerated a bit with that 'years away'. IOC for the A seems likely in 2016, between August and September. And here's the definition.
Air Force F-35A initial operational capability (IOC) shall be declared when the first operational squadron is equipped with 12-24 aircraft, and Airmen are trained, manned, and equipped to conduct basic Close Air Support (CAS), Interdiction, and limited Suppression and Destruction of Enemy Air Defense (SEAD/DEAD) operations in a contested environment. Based on the current F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) schedule, the F-35A will reach the IOC milestone between August 2016 (Objective) and December 2016 (Threshold). Should capability delivery experience changes or delays, this estimate will be revised appropriately.
https://www.f35.com/news/detail/department-of-defense-announces-f-35-ioc-dates-for-all-services/

That was in 2013 - but they seem to be sticking with it.

airsound

GlobalNav

3rd Sep 2015, 21:31

As others have said - late 2016, but "on time"

I think recent stories say the configuration must include block 3F and the 3rd gen helmet.

LowObservable

3rd Sep 2015, 23:09

The USAF IOC standard is Block 3i, which is the Marines' 2B on newer processors. Like the Marines, they plan to do CAS with two LGBs, no gun, no HDTV and no Rover. GLWT.

On the bright side their flight envelope limits are less onerous, although A2A against a Su-35 will still look like Roseann Barr playing Serena Williams.

FODPlod

3rd Sep 2015, 23:34

Why would Serena Williams want to play tennis in a blindfold?

glad rag

4th Sep 2015, 08:48

We shall see Mr Fod, we shall see.

a1bill

4th Sep 2015, 13:27

LO, you are assuming they are going to put the f-35 with 3I IOC in CAS. Although the F-35 has been tested in CAS. I doubt they would use the limited number they would have on CAS. I'm sure they can think of ways it can be better deployed. Leave CAS to the UCAV and 4th gen.

lho79rXJAtg

airsound

4th Sep 2015, 13:37

a1bill, you suggestLeave CAS to the UCAV and 4th gen.
If that's the plan, why put CAS first in the air force definition of F-35A IOC? That will be declared, they say,when the first operational squadron is equipped with 12-24 aircraft, and Airmen are trained, manned, and equipped to conduct basic Close Air Support,.... (airsound

a1bill

4th Sep 2015, 13:55

I'm not saying it can't, but why would you bother? Initially the 3I F-35 will be in very limited numbers. I really can't see it being sent off to Iraq, bombing goat farmers.

Lonewolf_50

4th Sep 2015, 14:17

I'm not saying it can't, but why would you bother? Initially the 3I F-35 will be in very limited numbers. I really can't see it being sent off to Iraq, bombing goat farmers. LGB's are actually pretty good for that. I think there is video of a GBU-12 somewhere on the net taking out a nice sized herd of goats ... :E

for airsound:
To answer the question on why deploy F-35 with limited CAS capability? Because it's what is there, and the same reason we had B-1's flying CAS over Afghanistan. The troops on the ground would have preferred A-10's in most cases, but they got what was available.

CAS that isn't "perfect" is better than NO CAS. Ask any of the infantrymen you know.

To amplify the other point, for the next few years there will be a hell of a lot more Vipers and Mudhens available to fly CAS than F-35's, thanks to what's in the inventory, and what squadrons are deployable.

sandiego89

4th Sep 2015, 15:23

KenV
Quote:
The vast majority of the sub hunting I did in my P-3 days used passive detection methods. I only used an active buoy once. Surface ships use active sonar far more.

Ken, I think the discussion was about radar cross section, and it was a good point to remember that submarines were indeed some of the first radar cross section reduction, aka stealth, applications. The U-480 first tested Alberich rubber tiles @1940- long before the P-3. A good many submarines were lost in WWII as they were detected by radar on ships and aircraft and even blimps, and reducing RCS on the conning tower (sail) masts, snorkels etc. was deemed important.

Acoustic detection by active and passive bouys (or ships) is an entirely differrent discussion.

LowObservable

4th Sep 2015, 17:17

Lonewolf_50

4th Sep 2015, 17:20

If it can't do CAS, don't say that it can. Not that complex.

Of course, the USAF has to say it can do CAS or they're undermining the Marines' claim that they can do any mission, in combat, right away.
LO, if you can show up and deliver a bomb when the ground commander asks for it, you can do CAS. End of. What I want to understand from you is how you interpret the state of play as "can't do CAS." (Please note, I am not a partisan for the USAF, I tend to be more of a Navy / Marine sort in my biases and preferences. The above, however, isn't colored by the inter-service pissing matches we are so good at over here ...)

Tourist

4th Sep 2015, 17:20

sandiego

The Alberich rubber tiles are for acoustic stealth, not RCS.

GlobalNav

4th Sep 2015, 18:41

"Of course, the USAF has to say it can do CAS or they're undermining the Marines' claim that they can do any mission, in combat, right away."

I think that in service what may matter is the willingness of commanders to actually use the F-35 for CAS. Besides the fact that an A-10 was well designed for the task, the fact that it was not much favored for any OTHER task probably made it more available for CAS and more likely to be devoted to that. F-16's, F15Es, even "strategic" bombers can do CAS and sometimes are, but they are not routinely used that way. In a conflict where there are many tasks to do - CA, SEAD, interdiction, EW etc., where will the "multi-role" aircraft be used? CAS, perhaps. Where will the A-10 be used - CAS most assuredly - to the delight of ground troops and their commanders.

I would also posit that the survivability of a few high-cost assets could also affect an air commander's willingness to assign them to CAS.

Lonewolf_50

4th Sep 2015, 20:06

F-16's, F15Es, even "strategic" bombers can do CAS and sometimes are, but they are not routinely used that way. In a conflict where there are many tasks to do - CA, SEAD, interdiction, EW etc., where will the "multi-role" aircraft be used? CAS, perhaps. Where will the A-10 be used - CAS most assuredly - to the delight of ground troops and their commanders.

It appears that in a few years, the USAF will have let the A-10 go. (Wait, haven't we seen this movie before? :} )

Your point on "what does one do with scarce assets?" is spot on.

a1bill

4th Sep 2015, 21:37

Other than on goat farmers, I think the days of an A-10 doing a gun run in a modern conflict is over. There will be too many manpads etc. to take it out of the sky. I think it really is time the old girl was put down.

sandiego89

5th Sep 2015, 02:18

Ah thanks tourist, I confused the two, I was thinking of the RAM the U-boats used on periscopes and snorkels late in the war.

Rhino power

7th Sep 2015, 22:28

First internationally assembled F-35 flies...

http://theaviationist.com/2015/09/07/first-international-f-35-makes-first-flight/

-RP

glad rag

8th Sep 2015, 02:02

Lonewolf_50

8th Sep 2015, 13:38

And the F-35 will fare better? REALLY??? Can someone explain to the FJ focused people that the A-10 and the F-35 are not the only two choices for delivering airborne fires in support of ground troops? This false dichotomy continuing on for page after page is a bit disturbing when people from at least two nations who know and practice combined arms warfare are discussing the modern battlefield.

Thanks in advance, folks, for not getting tunnel vision.

sandiego89

8th Sep 2015, 18:06

Rhino power First internationally assembled F-35 flies...

http://theaviationist.com/2015/09/07...-first-flight/ (http://theaviationist.com/2015/09/07/first-international-f-35-makes-first-flight/)

-RP

I'd say a pretty big devlopment with the second line churning out flying aircraft.....now if we can just get at least one user to try a more interesting paint scheme.....:hmm:

a1bill

8th Sep 2015, 19:27

GR, I don't think the F-35 will do A-10 style gun runs. It doesn't have 1,200 rounds for a start. The other reason is that it may employ other weapon systems, at other altitude and ranges. When you take low level gun runs from an A-10, there is no unique capability. CAS is a mission, not a platform or weapon system.

LowObservable

8th Sep 2015, 21:31

LW50 - Correct. And for many AFs, their FJ forces are what they have to do anything in support of troops in contact.

In fact there's a whole spectrum of things that you can use. UAVs, light-attack types with laser-guided rockets, small helos, big helos, gunships (including C-27s and CN-235s these days) and fighters.

They differ mainly in survivability (depends in part on whether the bad guys have MANPADS) and persistence.

Two requirements: first is the right weapons - where you want precision, short-time-of-flight and (unless TOF is very short) the ability to get the weapon off the target if the situation changes.

The second is the right sensors and comms, which is where the F-35, for the time being, falls very short.

a1bill

9th Sep 2015, 03:01

LO, block 2b is limited, but there is a plan

the das with eots zoom looks kool
w0btzIvlScI

the das detecting weapon fire
fHZO0T5mDYU

LowObservable

9th Sep 2015, 09:36

The lack of Rover, midwave-IR-only targeting and the absence of a Brimstone-type short-TOF weapon persist into 3F.

a1bill

9th Sep 2015, 10:28

Will it ever transmit streaming video with ROVER tech? Won't it be a bit, here I am, kill me?

glad rag

9th Sep 2015, 11:45

a1, you obviously recognise the cogent reason for the development and deployment of ROVER?

It would be unfortunate that in the rush to "prove" the aircraft a vital & life saving piece of mission equipment would be omitted from the CAS role.

As for the "here I am, kill me" here's one for you- What if specific defences no longer look out but inwards, as has been previously allured to on this very thread. Think of the RF4's in vietnam using photo flash to illuminate but actually allowing missile and gun laying on their runs, instead of photo flash you have that nice big hot nlo back end that doesn't [relatively] move particularly well??? Achilles heel indeed.

And and finally to weapons. Instead of one trip you have to carry out multiple runs just to clear your target set for the night? :sad:

As it stands the best use for F-35 would be to use it's assets in a reconnaissance role ahead of any conventional package. However radius of action begins to come into play here....

a1bill

9th Sep 2015, 12:08

GR, Would legacy aircraft have a seat at the table? The battle space where a rover streaming video transmission is death, sounds hard core.

glad rag

9th Sep 2015, 12:34

GR, Would legacy aircraft have a seat at the table? The battle space where a rover streaming video transmission is death, sounds hard core.

Are they suffering " death, sounds hard core." at the present "battlespace" No.

I'm glad you picked me up on that point however.

:ok:

t43562

11th Sep 2015, 09:56

I thought this might be interesting for those who don't know like me:

Photo Gallery: Stealth Technology: How Not To Be Seen | Aviation Week (http://aviationweek.com/stealth-and-counterstealth/stealth-technology-how-not-be-seen#slide-0-field_images-1351991)

SpazSinbad

12th Sep 2015, 09:31

The other day this Video Brief about F-35C testing at Pax River was given:

Lockheed Martin Update

Lockheed Martin Update on Livestream (http://livestream.com/wab/tailhook2015/videos/98909598)

LOTS of good info about shore based F-35C testing and of course the CVN test last year in this video - 23 Minutes. Next CVN test in October.
_____________

VX-23 Magic Carpet — Carrier Landing Brief (40 Mins) One day they'll make better slides.... (for Super Hornet only but similar to IDLC/Delta Flight Path F-35C)

http://livestream.com/wab/tailhook2015/videos & http://livestream.com/wab/tailhook2015/videos/98951655

SpazSinbad

14th Sep 2015, 18:12

Edited 'MAGIC CARPET' Brief TAILhook 2015 (first few minutes explaining old tech carrier landings cut).

Super Hornet Magic Carpet 2015 Tailhook LSO 'Magic Legs' Brief 19 mins 45 seconds

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_Mp8uUZeCY

glad rag

14th Sep 2015, 19:32

The Bare Faced Cheek of Lockheed Martin - Think Defence (http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2015/09/the-bare-faced-cheek-of-lockheed-martin/)

"Where the bare faced cheek comes in is Lockheed Martin seem to be saying it would be an upgrade option if the partner nations and customers want to stump up the cash to do so. We have this shiny new thing, but forget the years of delays and billions of dollars, you will have to dig deep if you want the same video resolution as being used in similar systems five years old."

Discuss..

Turbine D

14th Sep 2015, 20:31

Discuss..

As L-M has plunged deeply into the Madison Avenue advertising business for their newest F-35 aircraft offering, any of the three models you would like to buy. L-M has taken significant notice of the Madison Avenue auto industry marketing and sales strategies and have incorporated the same. That is to say, you can purchase the Workingman's model for $80M (basement bargain sales price subject to change) but have developed many enhancement packages for that model to fulfill your basic needs. Based on those needs, the price is $130M (subject to change), which does not including the warranty or maintenance packages. Additionally L-M has the Executive and Premier models which include many additional features and add on packages, absolutely sure to fit all your needs. Check with your local L-M dealer for pricing :): :rolleyes:

Well, you did say "Discuss: :D

TD

glad rag

14th Sep 2015, 20:37

As L-M has plunged deeply into the Madison Avenue advertising business for their newest F-35 aircraft offering, any of the three models you would like to buy. L-M has taken significant notice of the Madison Avenue auto industry marketing and sales strategies and have incorporated the same. That is to say, you can purchase the Workingman's model for $80M (basement bargain sales price subject to change) but have developed many enhancement packages for that model to fulfill your basic needs. Based on those needs, the price is $130M (subject to change), which does not including the warranty or maintenance packages. Additionally L-M has the Executive and Premier models which include many additional features and add on packages, absolutely sure to fit all your needs. Check with your local L-M dealer for pricing :): :rolleyes:

Well, you did say "Discuss: :D

TD

:ok: you gotta have a laugh TD, after all this is just the beginning..... just imagine what they are going to charge for full ldb carriage option... :hmm:

SpazSinbad

15th Sep 2015, 03:39

LM Test Pilot Elliott Clements Brief about F-35C Shake Rattle & Roll and DT-1 at TAILHOOK 2015. I missed the last few sentences at the end where he says they did something like 300 approaches resulting in touch and goes and arrests when the hook was down 124. Many touch and goes done for test purposes when simulating how a nugget/sprog flies early on.

Note the comment at the beginning 20K lbs fuel approx. with a Super Hornet fuel burn.

F-35C LM Test Pilot Shake Rattle Roll DT-1 TailHOOK 2015 Brief

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psHLxerf7t8

LowObservable

15th Sep 2015, 06:28

And here comes more amusement:

http://www.pogoarchives.org/straus/2015-9-1-DoD-FOIA-ocr.pdf

Maybe Wasp should be renamed Potemkin...

Courtney Mil

15th Sep 2015, 08:46

LO. Now that's a bit disappointing and rather flies in the face of all the good news videos and press releases we were bombarded with at the time. Not a happy picture despite the immaturity of the programme.

WhiteOvies

15th Sep 2015, 09:12

I have to admit I am somewhat surprised to see that report broadcast on the internet. It makes the work of the foreign intelligence services a damned sight easier :ugh:I don't see the Russians or Chinese distributing the test reports on their newest aircraft.

Gilmore has consistently used his reports to apply pressure to the JPO and in turn LM to achieve the targets set, as is his job. I am sure that OT-2 is more akin to the direction he has suggested with the full ACE on board.

Development test and Operational test are done for a reason. From a UK perspective the aircraft and the lessons learned by the USMC can all be carefully looked at prior to Queen Elizabeth flight trials in 2018.

Mach Two

15th Sep 2015, 09:49

I agree, WO. I am surprised by the 'openness' of the DOD. But I wouldnt worry about it too much; someone will be along shortly with a lovely video clip to show how wonderful everything really is, maybe a short statement discrediting the source. Ooh, look! The videos are already here.

I sincerely hope the reliability numbers look better before QE trials.

Lonewolf_50

15th Sep 2015, 12:54

LowObservable

15th Sep 2015, 13:37

Lonewolf_50

15th Sep 2015, 15:42

What makes the Russian and Chinese task much easier is not so much the FOIAing of a test report, as the Marines' defense of a program that sucks tens of billions out of other more badly needed capabilities while delivering little strategic value.
Are you talking about Osprey, or the F-35B? The F-35 is a Joint Program. All three services are in it up to their necks. The Army are lucky to sit this one out and giggle in the corner.

Turbine D

15th Sep 2015, 17:01

LO,
Thanks for the DoD report, sounds like the F-35 is good to go into IOC with the Marines as planned by them.

Now one has to admit the DoD published report is the beginning of a new phase in program/project reality and perhaps management. Up until this point everything published and advertised by L-M and DoD regarding the F-35 has been generally Okey-Dokey or Hunkey-Dory which ever applied best to the deficient item of discussion. Most deficient items have been swept under the carpet headings of "things are improving, "Things have gotten better" or "That really isn't important in modern day air warfare. However, IMHO, the DoD's love affair with L-M may be ending and rightly so. Their track record for timely delivery promises, cost performance and product performance has been abysmal on newer military aircraft programs, on a naval ship program (USS Freedom LCS1) and a rocket program that was cancelled. Programs they inherited through acquisition of then existing companies still run generally well.

The DoD procurement office seems to be in shambles these day with no abatement of the river of cash flowing through the front doors of the Pentagon from the US taxpayers to cover cost overruns and fix it programs and then they cry wolf for more. One voice that has rang out regarding the F-35 Program has been that of USAF General Bogdan. Two years ago, he felt the way the program was set up with L-M by the DoD Procurement folks made no sense. In fact we have seen demonstrated proof of that as time goes on.
On Total System Performance Bogdan said, “We gave Lockheed very broad things that said the airplane has to be maintainable, the airplane has to be able to operate from airfields, the airplane has to be stealthy, the airplane has to drop weapons—without the level of detail that was necessary. We have found over the 12 years of the program that the contractor has a very different vision of how he interprets the contractual document. We go, ‘Oh no, it needs to do X, Y, and Z, not just Z.’ And they go, ‘Well, you didn’t tell me that. You just told me in general it needed to do something like Z.'
On Payment Structure Bogdan said, “Most of the risk on this program when we signed this contract in early 2001 was on the government squarely. Cost risk. Technical risk. Perfect example: in the development program, we pay Lockheed Martin whatever it costs them to do a particular task. And if they fail at that task, then we pay them to fix it. And they don’t lose anything.” Bogdan explained that, since taking office, he has made burden-shifting a priority. Beginning with more recent batches of F-35s, Lockheed Martin will cover increasingly larger shares of cost overruns as well as a percentage of “known aircraft retrofit requirements”—that is, the cost to fix flaws discovered on planes that have already come off the assembly line.
On Tired of Business as Usual Bogdan said, “Sometimes industry is not accustomed to what I call straight talk. It can get cozy sometimes. I’ve seen it happen. I’ve been there,” he said. “I’ve seen senior leaders on both sides of the fence. And I can tell you that when you take over a program that has had problems like this, being cozy is not an advantage.” He continued, “We awarded the original contract in 2001. We’ve been at this for 12-plus years, and we should be a lot further on in the program and in our relationship than where we are in 12 years.”
So, now we are 14 years along and key dates continue to be pushed out. The political process that keeps the F-35 airborne has never stalled. The program was designed to spread money so far and so wide—at last count, among some 1,400 separate subcontractors, strategically dispersed among key congressional districts—that no matter how many cost overruns, blown deadlines, or serious design flaws, it would be immune to termination. It was, as bureaucrats say, “politically engineered.” And then there is the L-M spin advertising game and lobbyist campaigns.

Perhaps some of Bogdan's observations and resolve has begun to sink into the upstairs deadheads in the Hunkey-Dory floor of the Pentagon, all is not well and realists have known that for sometime.
BTW, don't compare Lockheed of old (Kelly's Skunk Works) to today's Lockheed Martin, they are by far two different entities.

http://i1166.photobucket.com/albums/q609/DaveK72/945405_10151741552995941_233172313_n_zpsw5vt8tzf.jpg (http://s1166.photobucket.com/user/DaveK72/media/945405_10151741552995941_233172313_n_zpsw5vt8tzf.jpg.html)

LowObservable

15th Sep 2015, 17:19

LW50 - Specifically, the F-35B.

Lonewolf_50

15th Sep 2015, 17:40

LW50 - Specifically, the F-35B.
Sorry if you don't like the Marine's dogged determination to retain a Harrier follow on in the mix. (My personal opinions on Harrier and jets in that family are decidedly mixed).
Without that focus, the B probably wouldn't exist, which leaves the various allies, like the Italians who also fly such jets off of amphibs ... doing what?
I've no idea.
This thing has necked down to the "only game in town" for a variety of reasons, to include the problem of maintaining the defense industrial base. That is a contributor to what Turbine D mentioned here.
So, now we are 14 years along and key dates continue to be pushed out. The political process that keeps the F-35 airborne has never stalled. The program was designed to spread money so far and so wide—at last count, among some 1,400 separate subcontractors, strategically dispersed among key congressional districts—that no matter how many cost overruns, blown deadlines, or serious design flaws, it would be immune to termination. It was, as bureaucrats say, “politically engineered.” And then there is the L-M spin advertising game and lobbyist campaigns.
Perhaps not the core contributor, but a factor nonetheless.

Frostchamber

15th Sep 2015, 17:50

I'm no apologist for the programme but some of what's listed in the report doesn't strike me as particularly surprising for things encountered in early shipboard trials. The issue seems to be trying to force a declaration of IOC with what's currently to hand.

Anyway, as luck would have it we've got three to four years for USMC to iron out a lot of this stuff before UK shipboard trials get under way. Quite propitious really :)

Bastardeux

15th Sep 2015, 18:00

I read today that the US are getting, at most, 60% serviceability rates, and rarely do they reach that figure. :eek:

Real value for money.

Lonewolf_50

15th Sep 2015, 19:29

I read today that the US are getting, at most, 60% serviceability rates, and rarely do they reach that figure. :eek:

Real value for money.Source? :confused::confused:

a1bill

15th Sep 2015, 19:32

Frost, it's just local sport here, to see who can slag it the most. :ok:

How the plane is responsible for the US procurement maze is a strange thing. The USMC wanted to go early with IOC. It is what it is, till it's finished and in 3F and passes OT&E come 2017-8?

glad rag

15th Sep 2015, 19:43

Frost, it's just local sport here, to see who can slag it the most.

:hmm: Realism vs

"Mickey tries to keep a precious bottle safe after everything around him threatens to break it."

nCOMWXLLjLg

Bastardeux

15th Sep 2015, 20:43

I couldn't find the other article that I first read it, but here is another link, same quotes from the same officer though...

http://news.investors.com/business/091415-770902-f35-dismal-readiness-rates-air-force-wants-speed.htm

a1bill

16th Sep 2015, 01:44

The Marines seem happy enough with May, OT-1

F-35 tests fell short, Pentagon report says - CNNPolitics.com (http://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/15/politics/f-35-report-question-readiness/index.html)

The Marine Corps said it does not agree with all of the conclusions and opinions outlined by the D-OT&E in the POGO report, due to what it called a lack of context and qualifying information, according to a statement provided to CNN.

"During OT-1, we wanted to prove that non-test F-35B aircraft could be operated and sustained aboard an L-class ship. We successfully did that. The two weeks of operational testing assessed the aircraft's integration with the U.S. Navy ship and crew, operating a wide array of flight and deck operations."

The Marine Cops also said that the extensive testing done verified expected F-35B capabilities: successful missile shots; successful steel-on-steel, air-to-ground deliveries; and three successful sea-trials.

"At IOC, the F-35B targeted in real time, talked to forward air controllers over the radio and data-link, and put weapons on target. The F-35B can provide close air support in threat environments where our current platforms would not survive, and the synthetic aperture radar gives us a through-the-weather targeting capability where the majority of our legacy targeting systems are simply ineffective.

Data collected and lessons learned during OT-1 will lay the groundwork for F-35B deployments aboard U.S. Navy amphibious carriers now that the U.S. Marine Corps' F-35B Lightning II aircraft reached initial operational capability (IOC) on July 31, 2015,"

LowObservable

16th Sep 2015, 04:36

Hogwash.

It was called an Operational Test. After its "successful" conclusion, the aircraft was declared operational.

The Marines also were careful not to say that the engine and fan R&I "demonstrations" didn't actually involve removing so much as single bolt from the airplane. They also publicly claimed every T/O and landing as a sortie, even when the jets simply circled the carrier and did touch-downs and take-offs. The real sortie rates were so low as to be completely unrepresentative of any kind of military operation.

Until the Super Guppy arrived, the USN set a world standard for qualifying combat aircraft through the Opeval - an extended trial, with set pass/fail criteria, conducted by a squadron of operational pilots who were expected to find faults and demand corrective actions that would be a condition for a pass. That's now been thrown out of the window.

Courtney Mil

16th Sep 2015, 09:35

LO, I was about to mention that OT1 (the non-operational Operational Test :sad:) and the weeks Gen Dunford spent assessing for IOC declaration were two separate events, but the wording in the IOC declaration and that of the DOD report are clearly at odds.

"I am pleased to announce that VMFA-121 has achieved initial operational capability in the F-35B, as defined by requirements outlined in the June 2014 Joint Report to Congressional Defense Committees. VMFA-121 has ten aircraft in the Block 2B configuration with the requisite performance envelope and weapons clearances, to include the training, sustainment capabilities, and infrastructure to deploy to an austere site or a ship. It is capable of conducting close air support, offensive and defensive counter air, air interdiction, assault support escort and armed reconnaissance as part of a Marine Air Ground Task Force, or in support of the Joint Force."

Re-reading the two reports brought memories of the F2's introduction to service flooding back (and I'm not just talking about the famous "radar" fiasco) in the sense that decisions were taken to press ahead with delivery despite the obvious shortfalls. As I said before the F-35 IOC declaration, it would have taken a very brave man to refuse the declaration under a lot of political pressure.

Maybe it's some sort of pseudo-IOC, only to be used if there is nothing sustainable around to do the job? I wonder when the first deployment will come? I understand that Gilmore would like to keep the pressure on the JPO and LM by releasing his report, but it doesn't change the sortie (sorry, flight) accounts recorded.

I was starting to imagine a glimmer of light in the tunnel...

a1bill

16th Sep 2015, 09:59

LO seems to have a thing for anything Marine?
As the Marine statement said, it's a start not a finish
"Data collected and lessons learned during OT-1 will lay the groundwork for F-35B deployments aboard U.S. Navy amphibious carriers now that the U.S. Marine Corps' F-35B Lightning II aircraft reached initial operational capability (IOC) on July 31, 2015,"

Turbine D

16th Sep 2015, 14:44

a1bill,
Frost, it's just local sport here, to see who can slag it the most.

How the plane is responsible for the US procurement maze is a strange thing.
It is not a local sport, it is the beginning of a $1Trillion experiment or more as time goes on. The plane isn't responsible for the US DoD procurement maze, the US DoD along with L-M are responsible for the plane.
I suspect you were not around when Robert McNamara's "Folly" evolved much along the same path the F-35 is following. I was. But, there are differences between the two. First McNamara's F-111 involved only two services, the USN and the USAF. The F-35 in involves three services with distinctive differences in mission requirements. The F-111 aircraft that was put into service by the USAF was at best a compromise as only 100 or so were built before the program was terminated. The USN version never got far before it was terminated for various shortcomings. The F-35 is unstoppable because of US political involvement and overreach. The USAF took a long time to figure out how exactly to use the F-111 compared to its originally advertised capability. For awhile it didn't do much except suck in quite a few geese on the lakes in Maine during low level penetration trials. Plans to move on developed starting with the F-14, then the F-15 and F-16 programs, all "long runway" successful in their own right.

So if one in the Pentagon were to study the McNamara "Folly" saga, a mitigation plan would develop to avoid a repeat of a past mistake. IMHO, this didn't happen on the JSF soon to become the F-35. In fact what happened was a "I wish" and "Sure we can" joint development plans between the customer and selected aircraft manufacturer including the engine manufacturer. For starters:
1. How many fast jet STOL/VTOL planes had L-M produced?
2. How many carrier based fast Jets had L-M produced?
3. How many stealth aircraft had L-M produced?

Yet, L-M was awarded a very vague and open-ended contract for 3 models of an aircraft with pie in the sky promises to three users that can never be met as each share in the deficiencies of one to the other. Mitigation plan? Well, lets add in a concurrent engineering requirement and build all the models at the same time, eliminating the development and proof of concept steps, production from the get-go. So now we have 100+ F-35 scattered about doing development and proof of concept steps that should have been done in the beginning, all on the basis of saving time and money, yeh, right! So where are we 14 years later? Where we should have been years ago with a mitigation plan in place to avoid the F-111 pitfalls.
LO seems to have a thing for anything Marine?
As the Marine statement said, it's a start not a finish
I don't think the characterization here is correct. The USMC may very well be a start but the finish line is somewhere ahead in the fog. And it isn't just a Marine thing, it is a CYA situation aptly demonstrated by nearly everyone responsible for the well being of the most important and costly aviation program in US history. If you and others are happy with the track record, performance and probabilities this will turnout differently than the previous 'Folly", so be it. History says it will not.

Courtney Mil

16th Sep 2015, 16:07

A very compelling post, Turbine. Hard to fault your logic, although I'm sure someone will try.

As for "Frost", this isn't F-16.net where everyone has to agree and post things loving the F-35, a1bill. We are allowed to question the programme, methods, technology and politics here. That does not make us detractors (generally anyway). The military mind is supposed to be inquiring and those of us that have lived through (and with) the shambles of other Jets' introductions are likely to be suspicious and curious about this one.

Tourist

16th Sep 2015, 16:23

Just as an aside, it is interesting to describe the F-111 as a "folly".

I have no personal knowledge of the type, but currently fly with an ex F-111 WSO.

He describes a very impressive beast.

In many metrics it is still spectacular.

I point this out because though it's gestation may have been painful, it was quite a toy once it got there.

Lonewolf_50

16th Sep 2015, 17:22

Just as an aside, it is interesting to describe the F-111 as a "folly". The folly has to do with McNamara trying to force a "one size fits all" into being, which he did, and then the USAF putting their heads together and figuring out what to do with this beast .... which they did, good on 'em! Navy, upon whom this beast was being force fed, was able to push back because it didn't meet mission requirements. F-14 later did.

@ Turbine D: you post makes a lot of sense, in terms of the imbedded program problems.

pr00ne

16th Sep 2015, 17:24

CM/Turbine D,

Some one certainly will!

Not only will I fault his logic, but his facts and recall too.

We'll start here...

"only 100 or so were built before the program was terminated."

You may have been around when McNamara's folly evolved, but you obviously didn't stay long. 653 were built, and they served until 2010.
F-111A, F-111D, F-111E, F-111F, F-111C, FB-111A, all superb low level all weather strike attack aircraft that were virtually unmatched globally in terms of reach and payload. Only Tornado came close.

P1154 has more synergy with the F-35 than the F-111, and that ran out of luck purely because they could not, and still have not, manage to get Plenum Chamber reheat in engine nozzles to actually work.

RAF and RAAF were also pretty intimately involved with the F-111 in it's evolution and development.

Compare any complex military aircraft development programme with F-35 and you will find an awful lot of similarities.

If you have to call any element of the F-111 programme a folly, then I suggest that the shipboard F-111B, and the fact that it had an F in it's nomenclature at all,are a better place to start.

Courtney Mil

16th Sep 2015, 17:32

The numbers, I know, are off. It's the description of the process I recognise.

LowObservable

16th Sep 2015, 20:14

While Turbine D's numbers may be a little off they are better than some people's.

The endgame of the F-111 story was that 563 aircraft were built of which about 300 (FB-111, E, F and C) were any use.

Turbine D

17th Sep 2015, 00:08

pr00ne,
Some one certainly will!

Not only will I fault his logic, but his facts and recall too.

We'll start here...

"only 100 or so were built before the program was terminated."
Sorry for the wrong number being posted, my bad. I was referring to the F-111A of which 158 were built including 17 preproduction aircraft that were later productionized. All were retired by 1982. The F111B was never built, too heavy and not to the USN's requirements.
The F111C was the export version built for Australia, 24 were purchased and in 1982, then the last 4 surviving USAF A models were bought by Australia and converted to the C version at a later date.
96 D versions were bought by the USAF which were upgraded from the earlier A version. There was air intake problems, but moving the intake and using a more powerful TF-30 engine solved the engine stall problem.
Then there was the E version that was built when the D version was delayed. It used the new air intake but the less powerful TF-30 engine. 94 were built, some located in England, all were retired by 1995.
50 K version F-111s were ordered by the UK, but the order was cancelled when the price went up.
653 were built, and they served until 2010.

Will you be sorry your recall is bad as well?

Oddly, one of the first F-111A model crashed when the swing wing structure failed leading to schedule delays while corrections were made. At least the F-35 never got off the runway in Florida when it failed.
The first 6 production F-111As were delivered to a Tactical Fighter Squadron for training and gaining IOC. Then they were shipped to Vietnam to see how they worked in actual combat. Only 3 came back. The lost 3 were due to aircraft malfunctions. It then took 3 years to achieve full operational capability as there was an outrage in the US at the time over the unwarranted early deployment to Vietnam.
Everyone hopes the USMC has made a better IOC decision for the F-35, only time will tell.

The reason the F-111 was known as McNamara's Folly was the fact the two selected finalist were General Dynamics and Boeing. A design review board selected the Boeing version as being the best except for the engine, The USAF review board also selected Boeing as being the best to fit their needs. However, Robert McNamara ignored both and select the General Dynamics version because it had more common parts between the A and B versions, of course the B USN version was never built. It must have been McNamara's Ford CEO experience that influenced his thinking…

Hope this clears up logic and facts for the F-111…

LowObservable

17th Sep 2015, 04:23

FlyPony,

The F-111A was never based overseas or used in combat after Vietnam. The F-111D's MkII avionics never worked worth ducky dung and the operational wing was dispatched to Cannon AFB, like the crazy aunt locked in the attic. It was the F-111Es and Fs (MkIIB) that were forward-deployed and used in Libya and Desert Storm.

pr00ne

17th Sep 2015, 07:12

Turbine D,

Nowt wrong with my recall, however the same cannot be said for my keyboard skills, a typo, 563 rather than 653...

Point taken about you referring to the F-111A.

Radix

17th Sep 2015, 12:58

............

Courtney Mil

17th Sep 2015, 13:43

What, you mean the recorder works? ;)

The hand off of a single emitting target between systems is one thing, the true test will be handing off the one you want to target between systems when there are many. But it does show that the systems (sorry, sub-systems) are working. Good. :ok:

AtomKraft

17th Sep 2015, 13:44

Don't forget the EF-111As, which were rebuilt A-models.
Served with distinction during recent adventures in the sandpit...

sandy11

17th Sep 2015, 13:51

F-111 talk, brings back very fond memories of the 'mad aunt in the attic' on regular deployments to Boscombe Down.

a1bill

17th Sep 2015, 18:01

Turbine, I didn't see LO's "hogwash" contributing too much to the OT-1 discussion.

Courtney Mil

17th Sep 2015, 18:41

I think that's just called a retort. It was the bit after that was his point. The point under discussion.

a1bill

17th Sep 2015, 18:52

Objecting to the way they count, If there was an incident on any of the landings/touch and go, wouldn't they want a reference point? I think that may fall into the criticise anything list.

Turbine D

18th Sep 2015, 00:54

a1bill's original posting:,
The Marines seem happy enough with May, OT-1

The Marine Corps said it does not agree with all of the conclusions and opinions outlined by the D-OT&E in the POGO report, due to what it called a lack of context and qualifying information, according to a statement provided to CNN.

vs
LO's original posting:
Hogwash.

It was called an Operational Test. After its "successful" conclusion, the aircraft was declared operational.

a1 bill,
I am a no BS kind of guy, what I post here is based on experiences and knowledge. I deal in the world of reality. And I like and admire the USMC, two of my nephews were Marines.
You can use whatever acronyms you want to to describe the test on the ocean, but it was an orchestration to confirm the USMC version of the F-35 was good to go in terms of IOC as demanded coming from the USMC top level. You need to understand the inter-workings of the Pentagon, starting at the top, to understand a point.
There is a daily inter-service war that goes on in the Pentagon at the top, especially when program funding is either short of supply or unequally dispersed. Do you think for one moment the top levels USAF or the USN are pleased with the way the USMC has sopped up money made available to the F-35 program for the most complicated and costly of the three F-35 versions to meet its unrealistic IOC date, never caving? After all, the Marines don't normally use "Fast Jets" to go downtown but generally operate somewhere in the hinterlands as a close in support function to land base forces. The downtown is a USN or USAF job. The top echelon of the USMC response to ongoing internal Pentagon stealth backbiting was to prove they were on target all the way.

If the Wasp happened to sink or the F-35s failed to land, takeoff, or crashed trying, then it would have been a problem. None of that happened, just a couple of hands full of glitches that need lots of work. So on that basis, the big USMC brass, after a brief conference, proudly announced and flew the blimp stating "Mission Accomplished". (somewhere I heard that before). Noo, it was never suspect that word of what took place on the Wasp would ever make it beyond the top deck of the Pentagon. So the disagreement with the publicized DoD report as the USMC reported to CNN is simply a face saving maneuver that occurs in many places, e.g., "we really didn't mean that, we meant this", (I have heard that before recently - L-M.)

So, I would say there are some USN and USAF brass laughing up their sleeves over the good showing on the Wasp and the preparedness of the USMC to declare, "We are IOC ready". Sometimes, being the leader of the pack isn't good. Often the "Coming in Last" award is presented when the dust has cleared and egos are soothed given time over a few cocktails.

TD

a1bill

18th Sep 2015, 03:02

They set the requirement 12mths ago and have said for years, they are going early IOC with 2B. I really don't know what there is to say. No one is saying they are telling fibs.

"I am pleased to announce that VMFA-121 has achieved initial operational capability in the F-35B, as defined by requirements outlined in the June 2014 Joint Report to Congressional Defense Committees. VMFA-121 has ten aircraft in the Block 2B configuration with the requisite performance envelope and weapons clearances, to include the training, sustainment capabilities, and infrastructure to deploy to an austere site or a ship. It is capable of conducting close air support, offensive and defensive counter air, air interdiction, assault support escort and armed reconnaissance as part of a Marine Air Ground Task Force, or in support of the Joint Force."

LowObservable

18th Sep 2015, 05:46

a1 - Given many earlier factual posts about the capabilities or lack thereof of the Block 2B configuration, combined with what we now know about the most important test that underpinned the statement you quoted, I think it's not too hard to make a judgment as to that statement's veracity.

Courtney Mil

18th Sep 2015, 08:37

A1bill, it doesn't matter how many times Dunford's announcement gets quoted, it doesn't change the fact that the political pressure from the USMC was such that his decision was unlikely to be other than "approved". I think Turbine just explained that very well and the statistics and flight summaries in Gilmore's memorandum show the declaration for what it is - a political necessity and an evaluation against a low benchmark. In other words, an "early" IOC.

Unless the definition has changed, IOC is supposed to declare a system and its operators (in the broadest sense of the term) is ready to conduct operations at its current level of capability (2B as it stands now). In this case that includes operations from the deck not simply being able to talk to a controller, land and take off from the deck, etc. If the engineering and sustainment requirements requirements have been met then the required sortie rate for operations set in July 2014 but have been very liberal.

Let's see how soon it gets deployed on its first operations (as in (IOC). If, as you imply, we're waiting for 3F before it can really go, it's not much of an IOC.

WhiteOvies

18th Sep 2015, 10:00

IOC, what with it being Initial, can be whatever you require it to be. The Marines had in mind what they wanted and achieved it, all be it clearly short of what Gilmore had in mind. Presumably the USMC F-35 OT team were working to HQ USMC requirements, not DoD OT&E requirements. Pentagon politics being what they are I am not in the slightest bit surprised by this.

Deployment on Ops early on is not necessarily a good way of doing things (F-111 example in Vietnam is a good example). Typhoon IOC was a long way short of what Typhoon was initially touted to be (Jag replacement etc) but it acheived a measure of operational success in Libya in 2011. F-22 was IOC long before it deployed on Ops in Syria (as far as I know), but then the nature of warfare recently has not called for high end A-A assets engaging in BVR missile shots and ACM.

The UK has taken the step of splitting IOC into 2, IOC from land bases is slated about a year before IOC from the Carriers for a very good reason. Walk, crawl, run etc. for the RN and RAF after the 'holiday' of Carrier Strike, and the need to work up a brand new ship as well as brand new aircraft. The USMC used a different approach, with well understood ship procedures (despite a majority of ship's company being changed between DT-1, DT-2 and OT-1) and just the challenges of integrating a single new aircraft type. These challenges should not be underestimated but you don't need a full ACE on board to test whether 6 F-35s are more of a burden than 6 AV-8Bs.

PhilipG

18th Sep 2015, 10:25

What did surprise me about the USMC's declaration of IOC was the time it took for it to be declared, after great fanfares were made that the recommendation had gone up the chain of command, only for the IOC to be declared at just about the last possible moment, if the timetable was to be kept to.

Possibly there was some discussion, that the USMC eventually won...

Courtney Mil

18th Sep 2015, 11:43

White Ovies,

Citing what was wrong with the Typhoon IOC1 declaration - also politically motivated and operationally meaningless - doesn't make this one any better. The one good thing about it, though, is that is highlights what needs to be done to achieve a real operational capability (albeit initial) for the UK squadrons when it's time.

WhiteOvies

18th Sep 2015, 12:22

Courtney, that wasn't my intention. The main thrust was to point out that this isn't a new thing unique to F-35. I'm not saying it's ok.

I'm not sure if, off the top of my head, I could name a recent FJ programme that actually came in with a high level of capability, on time, on budget, in any country? This probably says a lot about the state of defence procurement globally to be honest!

I agree though that it will help the UK significantly, as we learn lessons from working next to the USMC at Edwards, Beaufort and Pax River.

Turbine D

18th Sep 2015, 12:37

CM,
You are exactly right in your analysis of the F-35B being an "early IOC".

PhillipG,

I am sure the USMC had made an early decision to go IOC in support of their promise to do so, but I doubt the IOC discussion remained contained to only the USMC high level Pentagon contingent. There are much broader implications and there were probably indecisions as to how to move forward among the three participating services.

Keep in mind this is the most expensive defense program currently going in the US and it doesn't have very stellar PR among officials outside the Pentagon in the know that carry weight. Much has been given up or postponed by other services because of bulging costs to keep the F-35 rolling forward. It was probably a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" discussion. However, the new General appointed Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff isn't an Army, USN or USAF General. I am not surprised how it worked out in the end. Just my thoughts on this, no clear evidence, yet…

TD

glad rag

18th Sep 2015, 16:44

Guys, if it's correct that the USMC wrote their own script, then who is responsible for deck handling safety?

You know, the running engine bit??

Turbine D

18th Sep 2015, 20:48

a1bill

18th Sep 2015, 21:09

CM said "Let's see how soon it gets deployed on its first operations (as in (IOC). If, as you imply, we're waiting for 3F before it can really go, it's not much of an IOC."
It's being sent to Japan, but I don't know what the plan is from there. It's the block the marines always said they were going to have, nothing has changed, I really don't know what the hoopla is about.

For australia, I'm waiting for the maritime block 4 before it can really go for us and I would suggest for the Marines too.

Courtney Mil

18th Sep 2015, 21:41

What? A1bill, I'm afraid I don't quite follow you. VMFA 121 (declared operational at IOC) will be moving to Japan in 2017 or thereabouts, not now. That's where they're supposed to be based. That's hardly a measure of operational readiness.

I see no "hoopla". I am questioning the readiness of the F-35B to be declared at IOC for all the reasons already discussed. Do you think questioning processes is "hoopla"?

I have a feeling you and I have had similar conversations some time ago.

KenV

18th Sep 2015, 21:46

Question: If a USMC squadron gets based in Japan where they then operate for some months, would that not be a deployment and at least some measure of an operational capability? Or am I missing something here?

a1bill

18th Sep 2015, 22:03

cm, you said "Let's see how soon it gets deployed on its first operations"

I answered it, telling you it's going to Japan as a first deployment, (edit added rest of sentence). but I don't know what the plan is from there

Marines always said they were going IOC at 2B, It's hoopla to suggest it wasn't what was planned and what they required. It's the start, not the finish.

Courtney Mil

18th Sep 2015, 22:04

...on operations, a1bill. It's not a question of what the USMC require, it's a question of capability against political expediency.

Courtney Mil

18th Sep 2015, 22:12

Ken, sorry I missed your post there. Yes, I see the point you're making and yes it will technically be deployed. My point is that deploying a F-35 squadron to its main operating base is no more a measure of its combat readiness than was having Tornado F-2 based at Coningsby or the first Typhoons for that matter. I don't think deployment to your new home base is a measure of combat readiness in this modern age.

I do think a true degree of capability is a requirement before describing any degree of "operational capability". The use of the term for political ends is disingenuous and designed to keep politicians and the public placated. It has little meaning when it comes to using the system (whatever it may be ) in an environment where it may be in harm's way.

Or maybe I should not confuse the use of the term IOC with combat readiness.

a1bill

18th Sep 2015, 22:30

CM, " it's a question of capability against political expediency."

I think you would need to measure the Harrier against the block 2b to see if it adds to the overall capability. They are talking about combined ops. I think even at 2B, the f-35b will have some sensor advantages to add.

What the politics of it has been, is the same for as long as I can remember.

cm "Or maybe I should not confuse the use of the term IOC with combat readiness."

as I said, I think Block 4 is when it can do what I would want. it's not really cooked til block 5, as I see it.

Courtney Mil

18th Sep 2015, 22:52

A1bill, I'm afraid I haven't seen any comparison of F-35B at 2B against Harrier. The declaration of F-35B IOC does not state that it's OK to go as long as it's doing combined ops with a Harrier.

If you're saying that later configurations of F-35 are going to have meaningful combat capabilities, then I think (and hope) you're right. But IOC has been declared at 2B and it looks very much like that was too early. It also looks like it's too early for the system to be properly supported to sustain rate of effort.

I think your insistence to refer to future configurations' capabilities rather adds weight to the "folly" of early IOC.

Now I know you and I have had similar discussions before. Do try to keep the fanaticism down to a dull roar this time.

Mach Two

18th Sep 2015, 23:25

I think Block 4 is when it can do what I would want

What would you want?

What does 2B not do that you want it to do?

Does it do enough to be declared operational as it is or does it fall short of want you want?

In what capacity do you want these things?

I cannot (or rather will not presume to) speak for the RAF in any official capacity, but I can tell you that we are sitting here hoping that our first squadron won't be declared at this, effectively, development level. But then, we have time.

a1bill

18th Sep 2015, 23:57

CN, from the IOC quote at the top of the page., I thought escort and reconnaissance would assist the Harrier.

MACH, Like USN, Australia is looking at 3F to go IOC, but we will accept 3i if it is delayed. Block 4 adds the maritime antiship mission set, ISAR, missiles and would be the capability I would say gives us real capability.

http://i619.photobucket.com/albums/tt271/SpudmanWP/F-35BlockUpgrades.jpg

ORAC

19th Sep 2015, 06:12

but we will accept 3i if it is delayed. Looking at the timeline on the chart you posted above, I have to ask, what would be your definition of "delayed".......

orca

19th Sep 2015, 06:30

I'm sure we've all considered this, but is there a chance that Dr Gilmore's memo is a stout defence (or defense) of his own empire.

The JSF program isn't world renowned for speed and economy; the time between first aircraft flight, delivery of jets and actually using them in war time seems long; multiple millions of dollars worth of hardware and personnel are gathered at locations to conduct OT&E which, by the memo's own admission has been 're-planned' (which appears to be the root cause of USMC expediency).

And amongst all this a bunch of motivated professionals went to a ship with a machine they're obviously content with and declared IOC.

I see this memo as a notch and chaff manoeuvre from the man over seeing what some might be challenging as significant profligacy. The bit he considers irreplaceable and the bit the USMC have just replaced.

'So tell me Gilmore, why are all those assets taking all this time to achieve whatever it is needs doing, if whatever it is needs doing has changed, whereas other dates don't seem to? Do we really need your vast empire and long timelines or could we possibly cut a gilt edged, diamond encrusted, corner here?'

'Well, Mr speaker (insert US term here), I consider my part of this pantomime to be very important and let me tell you a thing or two about the USMC and their time on the boat. Is it alright if you keep paying me?'

LowObservable

19th Sep 2015, 06:49

a1bill - Don't insult the capacity of this forum by posting an eight-year-old marketing chart.

Orca - Gilmore does not have an empire, his title being a bit of a misnomer. He does not command operational test units or organizations; he reports to Congress and they are unlikely to get rid of him just because someone develops a streamlined test procedure.

It's worth noting that Gilmore strongly criticized a reduction in flight test sorties and hours that the JSF program planned in 2006-07, sorties which were restored by the program's post-2010 leadership.

And I fail to see how the Wasp trial has proven anything, given the huge divergence between the test and any conceivable combat operation in terms of sortie generation rates, space available, contractor support and the availability of large in-range land bases.

glad rag

19th Sep 2015, 09:20

glad rag,

A place to start would be here:
http://www.public.navy.mil/surflant/lhd1/Pages/Departments.aspx
Prior to the very first F-35B flight tests aboard the Wasp, training was accomplished ashore to familiarize the appropriate Wasp's crew members with the F-35B aircraft as I recall.

If the crew changed composition between the then and the May IOC, I would assume the Navy had most of the responsibility to train any newcomers, but I am really guessing.

TD

TD thanks for that link.

IMO the deployment [Wasp] report firmly points towards a poorly conceived and planned exercise/deployment where the term "ad hoc" was the primary motivator......:hmm:

PS one thing of note from Wasp report was that main electrical power cannot be applied to the aircraft [in it's current form, no pun intended] when on the flight deck as it needs a "cooling cart" to do so.
I wonder if this is due to the inability to carry out an avionics isolation procedure as there is no electrical isolation equipment fitted [removed due to weight cuts] OR it's truly a :mad: design?????

Do our new UK carriers have the ability to provide this cooling facility built in? And if not WHY NOT??

I will assume that these deficiencies will be addressed on future build standards, no doubt with further detrimental effect to the F-35b's waistline...

:ouch:

a1bill

19th Sep 2015, 10:41

ORAC, the RAAF plans on a 2020 IOC. They are looking for block 3F.

LO, the old chart served the purpose of what the different blocks were looking at in capability.

Turbine D

19th Sep 2015, 12:04

orca,
I'm sure we've all considered this, but is there a chance that Dr Gilmore's memo is a stout defence (or defense) of his own empire.
To clarify some things for you on your points regarding Dr. Gilmore, his organization isn't that big, he sits in an "empire", but doesn't have an "empire" per-se. He and his organization are the check and balance guys that observe what the armed services are doing on testing and evaluations on all military programs and that includes the F-35 Program. The job sometimes includes separation of the wheat from the chaff or in plain American English, "Everything is Okey-Dokey" from "Everything isn't Okey-Dokey" and points in between. That is what he did on the F-35B May USS Wasp test, much to the chagrin of the USMC upper level brass. From the Department of Defense own published organization structure:

“There is a Director of Operational Test and Evaluation in the Department of Defense, appointed from civilian life by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.”
“Operational test and evaluation means --
the field test, under realistic combat conditions, of any item of (or key component of) weapons, equipment, or munitions for use in combat by typical military users; and the evaluation of the results of such test
“The Director shall --
prescribe, by authority of the Secretary of Defense, policies and procedures for the conduct of operational test and evaluation in the Department of Defense;
provide guidance to and consult with the Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology and the Secretaries of the military departments in general and with respect to specific operational test and evaluation...;
coordinate operational testing conducted jointly by more than one military department or defense agency;
monitor and review all operational test and evaluation in the Department of Defense;
review and make recommendations to the Secretary of Defense on all budgetary and financial matters...;
monitor and review the live fire testing activities of the Department….
So, as glad rag aptly pointed out:
IMO the deployment [Wasp] report firmly points towards a poorly conceived and planned exercise/deployment where the term "ad hoc" was the primary motivator......
There would not have been such a furor, had the USMC top brass not linked this ocean demo to the previously established, hewn in stone, IOC date claiming it was IOC. Then when the facts emerged, claimed it wasn't ICO at all. IMHO, the whole IOC connotation was a "Rush to Judgement" and did not meet the requirements of IOC defined in agreement with the US Congress.

BTW, the word "deployment" is interesting, depending on the connotation attached. Deployment can be bad (deployed to the Arizona graveyard), good (deployed to the front line of hostilities, fully operational), or meaningless (neither good or bad), not defined as to the reasons for deployment. In the case of the F-35B, deployment to Japan will to take place in 2017 (land-based only) and 2018 (ship board deployment). There is time to figure out what needs to be accomplished between now and then, e.g., more operational test and evaluations…

TD

Mach Two

20th Sep 2015, 00:27

A1bill, I'm amazed a fanboy would post a graphic that shows us here in 2015 at the end of OT&E for block 4 and with block 6 well into development. By your measure, the RAAF should be fully up and running by now. What happened?

EDIT: Sorry, ORAC, just saw that you spotted the same thing.

ORAC

20th Sep 2015, 13:58

National Post: Michael Byers: The F-35 is now unaffordable thanks to the low Canadian dollar (http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/michael-byers-the-f-35-is-now-unaffordable-thanks-to-the-low-canadian-dollar)

The Royal Canadian Air Force’s (RCAF) hoped-for-purchase of F-35 fighter jets has hit another obstacle, in the form of a Canadian dollar that has dropped 25 per cent against its U.S. counterpart since 2013. Another, less expensive, non-developmental plane will now need to be chosen to replace the three decade-old CF-18s.

The cost of the F-35 first became an issue in 2010 when the Harper government announced it would acquire 65 of the planes for $9 billion, with a total project cost of $16 billion. The Canadian dollar was then at US$0.96. The Harper government also commissioned KPMG to clarify the cost of 65 F-35s. In November 2012, the accounting firm came up with a total project cost of $45.8 billion. The Canadian dollar was then at US$1.01......

By happenstance, the Canadian dollar has been hovering around US$0.755 for the last few weeks. This means that 65 F-35s would now cost $10.7 billion — well above the $9 billion acquisition cost limit set by the Harper government — and that the sustainment cost would now be $16.86 billion, up from $14.26 billion........

Here’s the bottom line: the total cost of the F-35 program is now $49 billion — an increase of $3.2 billion from the projections provided by KPMG in 2012 and DND in 2014. This includes all acquisition, sustainment and operating costs and assumes that development, disposal and attrition costs have not changed. Is it any wonder that Conservative Leader Stephen Harper has avoided mentioning the need for new fighter jets recently? For this $3.2 billion in additional costs will require a tough decision by any prime minister committed to balanced budgets.

One option is to purchase only 54 F-35s, which is all that $9 billion can now buy. The problem is, the RCAF has stated that it requires a minimum of 65 fighter jets. Another option is to divert the $3.2 billion from other military projects. But the Harper government has already cut defence spending to one per cent of GDP, the lowest level in half a century.

A third option is to purchase a less expensive plane. For instance, a fleet of Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornets would cost about $6.5 billion at the current exchange rate, and would be significantly cheaper to operate and sustain than a fleet of F-35s.

Unlike Harper, who has not revealed his current plan, both opposition leaders are committed to a full competition for new aircraft to replace the CF-18s. Yet any such competition would be constrained by a budgetary ceiling and a baseline number of planes, which — given current circumstances — would preclude the F-35 from the outset. It is certainly possible to envisage a competition involving one or more European-made fighter jets, but their already-high costs have also risen — due to a sharp decline in the value of the Canadian dollar against the Euro.

Although untendered procurements are far from optimal, a sole-source purchase of Super Hornets now seems likely. It might, in the end, deliver the very planes that Canada should have bought in a more organized and logical manner.

The fact is, Harper took a reckless approach to replacing the CF-18s. He could have held a fair competition at the outset, and bought a proven model of fighter jet on-time and on-budget. Instead, he reached for the latest and most expensive technology, took on a significant cost risk, and got burned.

Heathrow Harry

20th Sep 2015, 16:03

interesting article in the Economist a week agao about how the Candadian Armed Forces spend a lot less than most of their allies - I think the term "freeloading" occured in places................

BEagle

20th Sep 2015, 18:37

I'd guess that the RCAF will decide against the L-M black hole of defence expenditure and will decide either on the Rafale or the SuperBug....

Either of which will meet their needs MUCH less expensively than would the ridiculous F-35A.....:rolleyes:

Royalistflyer

20th Sep 2015, 20:00

Pity our carriers won't let us do likewise

LowObservable

20th Sep 2015, 23:10

With a virtually-new Gripen in the works and solid mod programs under way for Rafale and Typhoon, it's a good time to be the customer.

evansb

21st Sep 2015, 04:44

Trudeau says he would scrap F-35 plan, use money for navy | The Chronicle Herald (http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1312313-trudeau-says-he-would-scrap-f-35-plan-use-money-for-navy)

a1bill

22nd Sep 2015, 00:16

now that normal pilots are being trained, we are getting home movies

nX92k87ft7Y

Rhino power

22nd Sep 2015, 14:55

now that normal pilots are being trained, we are getting home movies

Have all previously trained pilots been 'abnormal' then? What makes him a 'normal' pilot?

-RP

Lonewolf_50

22nd Sep 2015, 16:48

USAF and home movies
I've got a word I was once taught: FOUO. Another one: OPSEC.

Further comments censored, beyond the USAF being lost in their quest to be more corporate. Where our folks have gotten to with this whole open kimono deal is really upsetting me.

MSOCS

22nd Sep 2015, 17:21

Ah, bless...

M609

22nd Sep 2015, 19:14

First RNoAF F-35A unveiled in big media do today.

http://g.api.no/obscura/API/dynamic/r1/ece5/tr_980_653_l_f/0000/oppl/2015/9/22/20/ta983e96.jpg?chk=474C8E

LowObservable

22nd Sep 2015, 21:38

Not much OPSEC risk from someone who confuses a camera with a projector.

Courtney Mil

22nd Sep 2015, 22:01

M609, if you could find a picture that's just a tad bigger we won't be able to read the rest of the page at all.

EDIT: thanks. Much better.

a1bill

23rd Sep 2015, 06:48

go easy on the f-35 guy, He forgot he had his FJ wristwatch on and did a snappy salute. He then spent a month in hospital and still gets things confused.

ORAC

23rd Sep 2015, 08:39

That's what happens when you forget to put your $400K helmet on first......

airsound

23rd Sep 2015, 17:20

The 'War Is Boring' blog has publicly released a USAF document classified 'Not For Public Release'.

It's called 'Public Affairs Guidance - F35A'
http://cdn.warisboring.com/images/F-35-Public-Affairs-Guidance.pdf

This interesting document requires that US airmen extol the F-35’s questionable capabilities. It's apparently intended to publicise the aircraft’s capabilities in the face of mounting criticism, both internal and external.

Interestingly, it also reveals a new technical problem that had slipped through unnoticed: On 27 August 2015, the U.S. Services restricted F-35 pilots weighing less than 136 pounds from operating the aircraft due to an increased risk of injury that could occur in a low speed ejection.I should think this thing'll give Pruners enough material to get their teeth into for several pages.

airsound

glad rag

23rd Sep 2015, 17:30

Spread the word hallelujah indeed!

https://www.f35.com/support

chopper2004

23rd Sep 2015, 18:01

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

cheers

Lonewolf_50

23rd Sep 2015, 18:29

ejection seat You will also find, if you do some research, that there were some issues with the anthropomorphic envelope for the T-45 Goshawk's ejection seat. This kind of limitation is not unique to the F-35.

LowObservable

23rd Sep 2015, 18:49

The seat needs enough oomph to get the heaviest pilot in the 95th percentile range out of the airplane in the worst-case scenario (which I believe is that in which the lift fan takes a poo and the jet starts falling out of the sky while flipping ass-over-teakettle).

This means a lot of acceleration for the lightest pilot, which in combination with a heavy helmet creates an unsafe condition, as was reported six years ago...

https://ericpalmer.wordpress.com/2009/09/10/raaf-give-me-your-heavy-women/

Problem does not appear to have been fixed.

LowObservable

23rd Sep 2015, 18:52

Courtney Mil

23rd Sep 2015, 19:03

The seat limit is 9 stone 10 lbs or 61 kg? Really? That's a small pilot (especially for USAF gym users. Have I misunderstood something here?

downsizer

23rd Sep 2015, 19:04

The seat limit is 9 stone 10 lbs or 61 kg? Really? That's a small pilot (especially for USAF gym users. Have I misunderstood something here?

Doesn't it mean that's the smallest a pilot can be? Therefore anyone larger is ok. Or have I misunderstood it?

Courtney Mil

23rd Sep 2015, 19:08

You're right, downsized. Thanks, just re-read it with that in mind.

airsound

23rd Sep 2015, 19:09

Do pay attention, double oh seven

msbbarratt

23rd Sep 2015, 19:25

Airsound - That's a very useful document, because it effectively shuts up the people who believe that anyone in a uniform is invariably telling the complete, unexpurgated and unvarnished truth. We now know that they are under orders to say nothing that a LockMart salesman wouldn't say. Must be tremendous for building confidence in the armed forces, ordering them to say that their kit's fantastic... :rolleyes:

I dare say there's a whole lot more to the F35's performance than I'm aware of. But the very fact that there is such an instruction says that there's something wrong somewhere in the procurement system.

Whether or not the F35 is the right or wrong aircraft doesn't really matter; the instruction suggests that at least some parts of the procurement system (and I include politicians as part of that system) don't know what the right aircraft is for any particular role. In the long run that's more problematic than the performance or otherwise of a single aircraft.

Stitchbitch

23rd Sep 2015, 19:29

The seat lower limit is pretty light. Add the helmet, power cords, flight jacket, speed jeans and even the lightest western pilots should meet the boarding weight..:E

Lonewolf_50

23rd Sep 2015, 20:48

Problem does not appear to have been fixed. LO, I am a bit surprised at your take on this.

Seat limitations are not a new phenomenon.

It's not a problem to be fixed, it is a constraint / envelope / limitation imposed by the physics you describe regarding the effect on the human body of that rocket motor going off to separate the pilot from the aircraft ... with margin of safety (x) added in by the anthro gurus to arrive at a final "we can live with this" result.

Before I retired from the Navy, you could go to the manual and clearly see in writing the upper and lower limits of body shape and mass that allowed a student pilot to be permitted to fly in the Jet training pipeline in the T-45. Some were too big, a few too small, and the Navy had to get compelling support from the NAMI/NOMI flight surgeons and physiologists to allow a waiver. I had to do the staff work on that on more than one occasion.

If the long pole in the tent is the helmet (which looks to be a beast to me) then I can live with a few feathermerchants not qualifying for F-35.

134 pounds isn't a very big person ... someone that small may also run into effective reach problems when the anthro measurements are taken.

@msbbarrat: did you fly much in ejection sea aircraft?

kbrockman

23rd Sep 2015, 21:05

The seat lower limit is pretty light. Add the helmet, power cords, flight jacket, speed jeans and even the lightest western pilots should meet the boarding weight..

Some of the smaller female pilots might struggle.
There is always this as a last resort medicine ;
https://metrouk2.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/mcdonalds-breakfast-gif.gif

Courtney Mil

23rd Sep 2015, 21:12

You are right, Wolf, about seat boarding weight - not the same as body weight. Interestingly, when I was flying the Phantom I was about that weight (in fact pretty much the same during my Hawk, F-15 and Tornado days too). I didn't have a problem with reach in any of those aircraft, but then the RAF didn't even start doing anthropometrics until after I finished flying the F-4. Fortunately, I don't recall anyone checking my medical records for my body weight whenever I changed types.

LowObservable

23rd Sep 2015, 21:31

LW50 - it's only a "problem" because it doesn't meet the requirement, which is to accommodate 95 per cent of the US pilot candidate population, with nude body weights between 103 lbs and 245 lbs.* No other fighter was designed to this, and I think the only ejection-seat-equipped aircraft that does is the T-6A.

The 95 percentile spec is pretty tough, and may be excessive. It starts to encompass a wide range of limb-to-torso ratios or, as someone from St Louis once put it, "some rather strange-looking individuals".

* If anyone needs brain bleach after thinking about a nude 245 lb fighter pilot, sorry, but I didn't write the spec.

FODPlod

23rd Sep 2015, 23:34

The 'War Is Boring' blog has publicly released a USAF document classified 'Not For Public Release'.

It's called 'Public Affairs Guidance - F35A'
http://cdn.warisboring.com/images/F-...s-Guidance.pdf (http://cdn.warisboring.com/images/F-35-Public-Affairs-Guidance.pdf)

Informative document that provides useful answers to much of the unjustified criticism. I'm guessing the naysayers aren't going to like that and, unable to counter its assertions rationally, will do their best to smear it through innuendo. :)

PersonFromPorlock

23rd Sep 2015, 23:38

On 27 August 2015, the U.S. Services restricted F-35 pilots weighing less than 136 pounds from operating the aircraft due to an increased risk of injury that could occur in a low speed ejection.

Why not just add weights to the seat to bring the total mass up to the minimum? Works a treat in horse racing.

Turbine D

24th Sep 2015, 01:52

airsound,
This interesting document requires that US airmen extol the F-35’s questionable capabilities. It's apparently intended to publicise the aircraft’s capabilities in the face of mounting criticism, both internal and external.

Apparently, Kendall, the head weapons buyer and F-35 Program Chief, General Bogdan got the word as well…

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-officials-f-35-will-outmatch-any-aircraft-in-dev-417067/

TD

ORAC

24th Sep 2015, 06:21

I can remember when, after a Harrier crash in which the chute carried a female cadet into the fireball, a minimum weight limit was put on seat requirements. Cue much moaning by girlfriends and pilots. We nicknamed it the Revenge of the Fat WRAFs.

Thereafter whenever they had to turn up in growbag to be weighed there would be a shortage of spanners in toolboxes and large lumps in pockets - leg as well as chest - which the medics ignored..........

Memories apart, increasing the 95% to cover female as well as male led to many legacy cockpits as well as seats being unsuitable for all aircrew, but there is no excuse for a modern type not to meet the design requirement. As stated by others, add it to the list.....

a1bill

24th Sep 2015, 06:39

TD, it's not only them, it's also a dozen other air forces and governments. It's a goddamn conspiracy.

I think it's done through hypnosis, these people only have to see the plane to stand and applaud at the end

pUF37lY7mg4

malcrf

24th Sep 2015, 07:17

Given the title of this thread I can't help having the instant response of 120 Gripens please.................

LowObservable

24th Sep 2015, 11:58

Fodplod -

Here you go:

Ten Things You Should Know About the Air Force?s F-35 Propaganda Effort (http://www.pogo.org/our-work/straus-military-reform-project/weapons/2015/ten-things-you-should-know-about-f-35.html)

It says more about the reasons why this extraordinary call to arms was issued at all, and how it makes the AF look, than about the arguments themselves. However, I don't see much in those arguments that hasn't been beaten to death here and in other forums. There are a few of what Huck Finn called "stretchers" in there:

Data collected by sensors on the F-35 will immediately be shared with commanders at sea, in the air or on the ground, providing an instantaneous view of multi-mission operations.

The “fusion” gives pilots the ability to see everyone and everything before an adversary knows we’re there.

It is too soon to draw any final conclusions on the maneuverability of the aircraft. (It's been flying for nearly nine years, remember.)

There's also a persistent tendency to compare the F-35 with "fourth-generation" fighters, where they should accurately say "US in-service fighters" which are 1980s variants of 1970s designs that have not been upgraded.

As the POGO piece says, the document reeks of desperation. The USAF is about to get lots of F-35s that won't be operational until 2019; yes, they'll get IOC with a few 3i-standard aircraft next year, but they have to focus on 3F in order to meet schedule. But the aircraft have to be operated, even if they're not operational, and this will hit readiness of the in-service fighters.

Lonewolf_50

24th Sep 2015, 17:07

No other fighter was designed to this, and I think the only ejection-seat-equipped aircraft that does is the T-6A. The fact that the T-6a has an ejection seat is another bit of absurdity that we won't derail into ... and I am somewhat familiar with some of the fun that primary trainer brought with it. Since it feeds all other flying pipelines in USAF and USN, one can argue that the requirement was valid for that aircraft.
The 95 percentile spec is pretty tough, and may be excessive. Yep.
If anyone needs brain bleach after thinking about a nude 245 lb fighter pilot, sorry, but I didn't write the spec. Uh, yeah, that's just wrong. :eek:

Royalistflyer

24th Sep 2015, 22:37

To get back a little to performance ..... I don't recall anyone on this thread (correct me if I'm wrong) mentioning combat radius as a distinct problem with the F35. If we aren't using it for air superiority, but primarily as ground attack isn't its combat radius a real problem?

Courtney Mil

25th Sep 2015, 00:00

...several times over the last five years. I think the B model combat radius is barely sufficient for strike and for fleet defence.

glad rag

25th Sep 2015, 08:55

Indeed, however the real kicker is how do they operate on "the first day " without the carrier group having to close into range of shore defences?

LowObservable

25th Sep 2015, 13:49

Given that the shore defenses may include ASCMs scooting around on trucks or railcars, cued by UAVs, the answer is "with some difficulty".

a1bill

25th Sep 2015, 14:31

I haven't read about the UK and Marines saying they didn't get the range they wanted. One would think the UK would have stayed with the C version if it really was an issue.

Heathrow Harry

25th Sep 2015, 14:36

ho ho ho

they looked at the cost of changing the carriers to thru-deck and panicked...........

sandiego89

25th Sep 2015, 14:38

Royalistflyer To get back a little to performance ..... I don't recall anyone on this thread (correct me if I'm wrong) mentioning combat radius as a distinct problem with the F35. If we aren't using it for air superiority, but primarily as ground attack isn't its combat radius a real problem?

Courtney Mil ...several times over the last five years. I think the B model combat radius is barely sufficient for strike and for fleet defence

glad rag Indeed, however the real kicker is how do they operate on "the first day " without the carrier group having to close into range of shore defences?

I recognize sources differ, and that combat radius differs greatly with load and profile flown, and that F-35 combat radius has been dumbed down from original goals, but it appears the F-35 will have a combat radius greater than the F-16 (the aircraft it will replace in the largest numbers) greater than the Sea Harrier and Harrier, and similar to the F-18 series. Yes I get there are other aircraft with more impressive combat radius with better long range strike or long endurance CAP figures.

"Ground attack" depnds on how you define it. If you mean longer range pentration strike like the F-111 or Tornado specialized in, then yes the F-35 will come up short in your comparisome. If you mean ground attack combat radius like the F-18, F-16, Harrier then the F-35 compares adequately. F-35 will never compare to long endurance CAP like a F-22 or Su-27, as it was never designed to do so.

It seems F-35 combat radius is adequate for most the customers- and on internal fuel. All versions will be able to carry external tanks (with reduced stealth). Surely a 450 mile radius is adequate for most US Marine Corps close air support profiles, and gives enough room for the UK carriers to park sufficiently offshore.

While more range/endurance is always nice, the F-35 seems to meet the range requirements of the many customers that have signed up, and few of those have large airborne refueling fleets. Seems Isreal and Australia have expressed interest in more range.

If you are flying the super long (for tactical aviation) sorties from carriers and land bases in profiles supporting ground troops in Afghanistan and Pakistan, then yes range is more of an issue. Most scenarios for carrier aviation, and tactical jets in general, are at shorter ranges.

Not sure what sources to believe, but it appears the B will have the shortest legs with a radius of @450 miles, with the A and C perhaps closer to 600 miles.

glad rag

25th Sep 2015, 16:30

ho ho ho

they looked at the cost of changing the carriers to thru-deck and panicked...........

I don't think panic was quite the right description............:hmm:

LowObservable

25th Sep 2015, 16:52

It appears the F-35 will have a combat radius greater than the F-16 (the aircraft it will replace in the largest numbers) greater than the Sea Harrier and Harrier, and similar to the F-18 series.

Not the F-35B, which has a similar fuel fraction to most current supersonic fighters but can't, at present, carry external fuel. It has a claimed 450 nm high-medium-medium-high radius of action with about 3000 lb of weapons; the AV-8B (says the manual) can manage 460 nm on a high-lo-high with 6 x Mk82s and two 300 gal tanks.

3694 AV-8B Harrier II Standard Aircraft Characteristics - October 1986 (http://www.avialogs.com/en/aircraft/usa/mcdonnelldouglas/av-8harrier/3694av-8bharrieriistandardaircraftcharacteristics-october1986.html)

FODPlod

25th Sep 2015, 17:29

MSOCS

25th Sep 2015, 17:31

the AV-8B (says the manual) can manage 460 nm on a high-lo-high with 6 x Mk82s and two 300 gal tanks.

I imagine the computer model theoretically says it goes that far ...

But, my experience of flying AV-8B says otherwise. And therein lies the problem of measuring with a micrometer but only having an axe to cut with.

We'll just have to see how far it does go. It won't be that far off either way and I'd err on the lower side.

Best regards,

MSOCS

glad rag

25th Sep 2015, 17:53

LO - The Mk 82 (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_82_bomb) is a 500 lb bomb. Mission profile aside, does this mean that an AV-8B needs an extra 600 gallons of fuel in external tanks to carry the same weight (3,000 lbs) of weapons 10 nm further away than an F-35B?

Aren't stealthy conformal tanks planned for the F-35B?

Considering how far removed the "stealthy" weapon bay additions are from the original F-35 "stealthy" fuselage configuration I guess a set of "stealthy" conformal fuel/weapons pods would be right on the mark for this "stealthy" project..:}

Oh, has anyone had heard any engine news lately?:}:}

LowObservable

25th Sep 2015, 18:14

No CFTs planned (I'm not sure where they'd go, without reducing MMO to 0.72 or so).

FodPlod - Yes, it does need external tanks, but for the time being it's the max achievable range for both. And let's not forget that the Harrier is less than half the size (OEW) of the F-35B.

FODPlod

25th Sep 2015, 18:27

Fodplod -

Here you go:

Ten Things You Should Know About the Air Force?s F-35 Propaganda Effort (http://www.pogo.org/our-work/straus-military-reform-project/weapons/2015/ten-things-you-should-know-about-f-35.html)

Had a look. The content doesn't seem to add much beyond the headings:

1. It Reeks of Desperation.
2. It’s a Cure for Insomnia.
3. It Doesn’t Include the Word “Congress.”
4. It’s Based on a $1.4T Assumption.
6. It Makes No Mention of the Actual F-35 Program.
7. It is Antithetical to Critical Thinking.
8. It Injures the Air Force Public Affairs Community.
9. It Will Make Things Worse.
10. You Weren’t Supposed to See It.Not so much a rebuttal of any of the official document's rectifying statements as 'smear by innuendo'. While criticising the use of buzzwords, it employs the word 'propaganda' eight times and even introduces the word 'propagandize'. ;)

LowObservable

25th Sep 2015, 19:11

To call Pogo's comment "innuendo" is to stretch the meaning of the word. I don't think there's much to read between the lines; it's the fact that the AF has instantly damaged the credibility or news value of anything anyone in blue has to say about the subject. Why bother to ask the AF for comment when the script is already in front of you?

As for the use of "propaganda" - it's not really a buzzword, is it? It says what it means and means what it says, as it did when the Vatican first used it. "Adaptive", "emerging" and "contested", not so much.

As I said, I don't think this piece meant to go after the various arguments, but there are a lot of strawmen in there, and not much we haven't heard and debated before. A lot of statements to which the response is "but that's not the point" or "Oh really, says who?" or "Compared to what?"

SpazSinbad

27th Sep 2015, 16:43

Salty Dogs & Funky Jets October 2015 Mark Ayton
"...Ski Jump Trials
Her Majesty’s Ship Queen Elizabeth (R 08) is fitted with a ski jump like no other: a new design tailored to be used by very expensive new aircraft. Launching a 60,000lb F-35B off a ski jump requires some serious maths, engineering and testing.

The F-35B ski jump test campaign should have started in March of this year, but was delayed due to brutal sub-zero temperatures and snow that blighted Patuxent River at the time. Aircraft BF-01 was originally assigned to conduct the ski jump events but was unable to remain at Pax while the weather improved. It was already scheduled to deploy to Edwards Air Force Base, California to conduct wet runway and crosswind testing.

The test programme comprises two phases, the first of which eventually began on June 19 when BAE Systems test pilot Peter Wilson conducted the first take-off using the ski jump at Pax with F-35B BF-04. Sqn Ldr Edgell told AIR International: "Phase 1 is a risk-reduction phase designed to highlight any significant hardware or software updates that may be required prior to commencing the bulk of testing. It comprises 29 ski-jump launches.

"Phase 1 will ensure our models and predictions are correct. If anything needs addressing we can do so in a timely fashion and then go into the 140-sortie Phase 2."

The ski jump used on HMS Queen Elizabeth has a curved leading edge designed to simultaneously launch an F-35B upward and forward with a greater take-off weight and less end-speed than required for an unassisted horizontal launch aboard an LHD-class amphibious assault ship, such as USS Wasp (LHD 1).

The reader may be surprised to learn that the ski ramp built at Pax River is based on the type used on the Invincible-class aircraft carriers which is a little bit shorter (50ft) and slightly shallower (0.5º) than the ramp on Queen Elizabeth-class carriers. Sqn Ldr Edgell explained: "The Pax River ramp design process dates back to 2005 but, at the time, the Queen Elizabeth ramp profile was not known. Analysis conducted in 2005 showed we simply needed to use a ramp with a profile that allows us to stay just under the predicted F-35B ultimate loads and the Invincible-class ramp achieved this."

Pax River’s ramp allows the test team to make adjustments for different profiles and encompass everything below the ultimate loads of the aircraft. "Though the verification of our models during phases 1 and 2 we can tweak the control laws to work off other types of ramp, none of which are the same," said Sqn Ldr Edgell. When the aircraft comes off the end it is ballistic and accelerates to the fly away air speed, typically 10-20kts higher than launch speed, and therefore reduces ground roll.

"There’s a fine line between ensuring we have suitable gear loads and fly away speed," explained Sqn Ldr Edgell.

"We want lots of margin on both of those. To achieve margin for gear loads we need to be slow, i.e. start right at the bottom of the ramp. To achieve margin on minimum fly away speed we need to start towards the back of the run-up. We blend the two aspects together and meet in the middle to gain the safest launch spot. For the very first sortie, our spotting distance will be conservative and will launch the jet off the end of the ramp straight into a previously flown flight condition."

Such regimes have been flown several times during short take-offs at the field and STOVL departures.

Sqn Ldr Edgell explained an interesting fact about the take-off : "You can be lined up three, four, five hundred feet back from the start of the ramp and as you slam the throttle forwards, the jet doesn’t know it’s about to go up the ski jump. It waits for certain triggers to alert it to the fact it’s going off the ski jump, at which point its flight control system moves the horizontal tails and the nozzles into the optimum position. It needs to hit 45 knots going up the ramp.

"The throttle needs to be above 65% ETR, with 6 degrees of attitude and a pitch rate of 6 degrees per second. At that point it moves all of the effectors into the right place. Bear in mind the ski jump at Pax is only 150 feet long, so the aircraft hits all of those parameters with less than 100 feet remaining. By the time it goes off the edge of the ramp all the surfaces and the nozzles are at the optimum position, the aircraft rotates up to the optimum pitch attitude to fly away. It’s pretty clever stuff."

Sqn Ldr Edgell described the launch process: "You slam the throttle and guard the stick. There is no input on the stick required. As the aircraft moves down the tramline of the deck you track the centre line with your feet, just like any other carrier deck take-off, but there’s no pitch input required. The jet flies away. It’s effortless." In the event of any kind of malfunction, the pilot takes control and manually flies off the edge of the ramp, which is why he must guard the stick during the roll.

There is no significant part for the pilot to play in the take-off – the result of a design philosophy to minimise the pilot’s workload. A good example is tracking the centreline on a rolling pitching deck at night. That’s a challenge in a Harrier but in the F-35B it’s his only task so he should do a much better job. The administrative burden on the pilot has been significantly reduced: in this situation to an effortless level.

Phase 2 will introduce crosswinds, external stores, asymmetry, minimum performance (minimum deck) launches from the bottom of the ramp, and simulated performance degradation all to increase the aircraft’s flight envelope in Block 3F configuration. That’s imperative work for the UK which will undertake first-in-class flight trials on HMS Queen Elizabeth in the final quarter of 2018...."

Air International OCTOBER 2015 Vol.89 No.4

Turbine D

28th Sep 2015, 00:13

Spaz,
F-35B Ski Jump Trials NAS Patuxent River 2015
More Lockheed-Martin/DoD propaganda.
Maybe they should have moved the exercise to Jacksonville, Florida where the weather would have been not so brutal and slightly warmer.
FYI,
The March weather at Patuxent River, Geez!

Weather History for Patuxent River, MD | Weather Underground (http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KNHK/2015/3/1/MonthlyHistory.html?&reqdb.zip=&reqdb.magic=&reqdb.wmo=)

a1bill

28th Sep 2015, 03:26

The truth is coming out, Group Captain Ian Townsend opens up and said "The F-35 is not a multi-role fighter."

To try and get it ready for 2018, they have to do "developmental test flying, operational test flying and frontline flying all at the same time"

When in the simulator, Townsend felt flooded by the stuff "In fact, I asked for the simulator to be stopped because I was taken aback by the information being displayed to me"

Shaping a New Combat Capability for 21st Century Operations: The Coming of the F-35B to the New British Carrier | SLDInfo (http://www.sldinfo.com/shaping-a-new-combat-capability-for-21st-century-operations-the-coming-of-the-f-35b-to-the-new-british-carrier/)

SpazSinbad

28th Sep 2015, 03:41

Salty Dogs & Funky Jets Oct 2015 Mark Ayton
"...Wet Runway Testing
It’s strange that wet runway testing must be conducted at Edwards Air Force Base in the Mojave Desert. Annual rainfall on America’s east coast requires runways to drain away quickly and does not provide sufficient time to conduct wet runway tests.

The main Edwards runway is ideal for wet runway tests. It has a flat section that allows a sheet of water an eighth of an inch thick and a layer of AFFF (aqueous film forming foam, which is used for fire fighting) to be laid down. This gives a window of about five minutes when the runway is wet enough to meet the runway condition rating (RCR) criteria.

The pilot runs the aircraft up to the wet section at which point he applies moderate braking. Cdr Ted Dyckman explained: “That represents 60% peddle deflections while tracking down the runway to see how it stops to determine anti-skid performance. We have directional control points that indicate where the pilot enters the wet section and corrects back to centre line from an off set of 20 feet.

“We conduct two verification flying points. First we fly and land in the wet section to make sure there are no directional control issues. The F-35A and the F-35C each use similar types of main tyres but the F-35C’s double nosewheel configuration gives slightly better tracking performance than its single-wheel stablemates. The team conducted wet runway tests with normal field service tyres and carrier surface tyres. The latter simulates catapult launches and arrested landings back on the ship.

To prevent carrier surface tyres from rolling on the deck because of the side forces applied they are inflated to a higher pressure which makes them track well but hydroplane. They also take further to stop because the tyre’s surface area in contact with the deck is reduced by the higher pressure. The field service tyres also tracked well and stopped in the same distance.

Test points were conducted at 60, 90, 110 and 130 knots using wet sections measuring 2,500, 3,000, 4,000 and about 6,000 feet respectively. As soon as the RCR meets the test point (measured by an instrumented truck tracking down the side of the section to avoid the painted centre line which would give a very inaccurate value) criteria, the pilot runs down the wet section replicating a landing run, conducts the braking test and clears the area. The truck remeasures the RCR value and records the time between the two for an average figure. During the directional test, when the main tyres run over the centre line, the aircraft skids slightly because of the effect of reduced friction on the paint. The test team completed the trials in mid-April."

Air International OCTOBER 2015 Vol.89 No.4

2805662

28th Sep 2015, 06:48

a1bill - your selective quoting does yourself & the good Group Captain a disservice.

"Multi-role, in current thinking, would be a sequential series of tasks.

The F-35 is doing a number of missions simultaneously.

The concept of mission simultaneity is really important.

The airplane has the ability to do things without the pilot asking it to do it.

Automatically conducting, particularly, ISR whilst it’s conducting an OCA mission or an attack mission in a very different way than platforms have done business in the past.

That the F-35 operator won’t be going through sequential thought process.

He will be thinking about the battle space in a broader sense, a much different way than a Typhoon operator would be thinking about the battle space."

Glaaar

28th Sep 2015, 09:42

A pilot in the 115-125lb range which is quite easy for some of our shorter women would have a very hard time doing the high strength, high reps, cardio training necessary for the M1 and other G-runt maneuvers designed to clench neck, trunk and thigh muscles to keep blood in the upper torso.

Since the seat slams you hard enough, even without the woolie cushion that most pilots use, to make 3 ejections (for a 160lb, weight trained, male) a fighter flight qualification ender, the weight of flight gear means likely nothing because body mass is an indication of muscle and bone density to which kit adds nothing but more topical bruising to if you ever have to leave the jet in a hurry.

Bluntly, a small woman could come out of this crippled or with chronic health issues and nobody will do anything about it because...diversity is more important than economic or capability driven metrics.

One does wonder how they managed to reach this astonishing bit of obviousness, given that instrumented dummies have likely been riding the rails since the mid-90s (the Mk.16 is also on the Eurofighter and Rafale for instance).

What is more ominous is that the F-35B, like the Yak-38, has an automatic mode to clear the pilot without any chance to 'assume the position' because if the SDLF goes pair shaped there will not be time to save the biologic stick shaker, if dependent upon 'quick as a cat' fighter pilot reflexes.

Since this is precisely the point where you can expect to find a lot of ejections, you have essentially doubled the injury risk from that alone, even in much higher weight range male pilots.

FODPlod

28th Sep 2015, 09:46

Shaping a New Combat Capability for 21st Century Operations: The Coming of the F-35B to the New British Carrier | SLDInfo

Group Captain Townsend: As an airman, I like anything that enhances my ability to deliver air power, and the ship certainly does that. The ship has been tailor-made from first principles to deliver F-35 operational output.
The ship is part of the F35 air system. I think this is the key change to where we were in Joint Force Harrier where the ship was really just a delivery vehicle. The ship was just a runway.
The Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers are much more than that.To my mind, nothing illustrates the dichotomy between RN and RAF doctrine better than these statements. The RN has always viewed embarked RW and FW aircraft as integrated components of a warship's weapons system like its guns, missiles (including land-attack), torpedoes, CIS, EW, on board and off board sensors, etc. F-35s may well be interchangeable with/complementary to a QE class carrier's embarked SH, AH, UAVs, etc., depending on the role and mission of the ship and usually within a Task Group bringing many more capabilities to the party.

LowObservable

28th Sep 2015, 11:18

Everyone who talks to SLDInfo sounds the same. I swear that those guys could interview Kate Upton and she'd end up talking about renorming operations in the Z-axis battlespace.

glad rag

28th Sep 2015, 12:12

He will be thinking about the battle space in a broader sense, a much different way than a Typhoon operator would be thinking about the battle space."

I would imagine you are bang on there. :}

a1bill

28th Sep 2015, 12:56

2805662, I see you are new here. Like Axe, Sweetman and co. Some posters here like to twist the quotes and facts, to try and paint the F-35 is a dark light. I was getting into the spirit of the thread. It will become obvious who the players are ^ :E

I hope you found the link worthwhile. I saw value in in it, to post it.

FODPlod

28th Sep 2015, 12:58

"...He will be thinking about the battle space in a broader sense, a much different way than a Typhoon operator would be thinking about the battle space." Might even have fought a warship/coordinated a TG's AAW/ASW/ASuW from a floating Ops Rm or be the future CO of a carrier?

LowObservable

28th Sep 2015, 13:23

He certainly has to worry more about the battlespace behind his 9-3 line...

a1bill

28th Sep 2015, 13:26

further to your point FODplod
Group Captain Townsend: I think this plays very much into the concpet that ‘Aegis is my wingman’.

I think from a U.K. perspective, Type 45 is my wingman.

The importance there is that the F-35 pilot for the U.K. or for any of F-35 operator, the information he has available to him allows him to make decisions for other operators in the battle space. And that is not simply other operators meaning other airplanes; that is, other operators being air, land, or maritime platforms.

The ability for the F-35 pilot to control the battle space in its entirety means that people operating in the surface fleet, for example, need to understand what the F-35 can achieve.

Because if they don’t, they don’t know what the F-35 pilot is going to ask them to do when they ask them to do it.

So they have to instinctively understand the capability of the airplane, because every, every platform involved in the battle space now is part of what the F-35 air system can deliver in terms of operational effect.

sandiego89

28th Sep 2015, 13:49

Glaar: What is more ominous is that the F-35B, like the Yak-38, has an automatic mode to clear the pilot without any chance to 'assume the position' because if the SDLF goes pair shaped there will not be time to save the biologic stick shaker, if dependent upon 'quick as a cat' fighter pilot reflexes.

A "surprise" automatic ejection is better than the alternative of riding it in, or waiting too long to pull the handle. I recall the automatic seat in the Yak-38 saved more than one life. The loss of a lift jet or a 60 degree roll in V/STOL mode indicates things have gone south real quick and miliseconds matter. I would imagine a lift fan loss for F-35B in V/STOL mode it would be equally imperative to get out.

This site indicates 18 automatic out of 31 ejections for the Yak.

Civilian test pilot (http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/Aircraft_by_Type/Yak-38/yak.htm)

ORAC

28th Sep 2015, 13:55

The ship is part of the F35 air system. I think this is the key change to where we were in Joint Force Harrier where the ship was really just a delivery vehicle. The ship was just a runway.

The Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers are much more than that.

To my mind, nothing illustrates the dichotomy between RN and RAF doctrine better than these statements. The RN has always viewed embarked RW and FW aircraft as integrated components of a warship's weapons system, like its guns, missiles (including land-attack), torpedoes, CIS, EW, on board and off board sensors, etc.

Source: Defence Select Committee, Session 1999-00, Tenth Report
Date: 6 July 2000

Witnesses: Sir Robert Walmesley (CDP) and Vice Admiral Sir Jeremy Blackham (first Deputy Chief of Defence Staff (Equipment Capability).

The Future Carrier and the Future Carrier Borne Aircraft (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmdfence/528/52807.htm)

.......A carrier is not a complicated ship, it is basically a big box with a big hangar inside it and a flat deck and a sufficient degree of command and control arrangements to enable the ship to communicate, as it has to. It is not going to have lots of other weapons. It is not full of systems like a destroyer that is stuffed full of the most complicated electronics, etc.. When you go on board a carrier it is basically empty, it is just a box. What is complicated is the aeroplane. I do not want to allow us to create an impression in your minds that the construction of the ship is an immense technological achievement.....

ORAC

28th Sep 2015, 13:59

WhiteOvies

28th Sep 2015, 15:08

First Female F-35 test Pilot: First female F-35 pilot completes initial flight (http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/2015/05/06/first-air-force-female-f35-pilot/70894940/)

Having lost a friend and colleague in an ejection, the difference between survival and not can be fractions of a second and frankly the auto eject is a good feature which will save lives. Discussion surrounding better to be dead than disabled can take place elsewhere...

Turbine D - Let people read the article and they'll find that your 'quotes' give a very misleading impression of what Grp Capt Townsend was saying. Also as Jackonsville doesn't have a ramp there is little value in testing the jet there. Weather in Pax in March can be lovely, just not this year.

That said, I disagree with some of the Grp Capts comments about the relevance of the ship to the aircraft, in a similar vein to FODPlod. The point about the mission to Afghan in 2005 misses the role of the CVS and it's fighter controllers in Air Defence, but then that gap was still filled with Sea Harrier, AMRAAM and Blue Vixen in 2005 so he didn't need to worry about it!

As for the comments regarding what an aircraft carrier is, made in Parliament quoted by ORAC, I would suggest that that is the language used when trying to convince politicians that building brand new carriers is easy. The truth is somewhat different as we have discovered in the past 15 years!

Spaz - F-35B wet runway testing was done a couple of years ago, at Edwards, to a very tight spec that could only be done on the special runway section as discussed in the article. There's photos and articles out there on the internet, if they're not already on a page here somewhere.

FODPlod

28th Sep 2015, 15:32

@ORAC:
...A carrier is not a complicated ship, it is basically a big box... Yep, but only when trying to convince members of the influential Defence Committee in 2000 that the two QE Class carriers were simply floating boxes made with steel plate bought from Corus at £65 million plus a few extra quid (ultimately £6 billion (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28153569)) for some metal origami. It was also necessary to correct any mistaken belief that a linear correlation existed between their necessarily large size and any significant extra cost.

P.S. Did you know the three CVS were simply through-deck cruisers carrying some ASW helos?

andyy

28th Sep 2015, 15:34

ORAC re your #7714, context is everything and in 2000 the RN were desperately trying to convince the Treasury that the Carriers were "just" boxes and that steel and air was cheap.

The concept at that time was that the Carriers were just floating runways and that the combat power was in the aircraft and in the Type 45 which would supply the C2.

However, the concept reverted to "normal" when the carriers were ordered ie the C2 was to be invested in the carriers themselves (one of the reasons why the project became so expensive), and partly because we ordered so few Type 45s that we could not guarantee that one would always be with the Carrier.

"Normal" in the context of RN aviation ops is, as observed by others, that the air group and the platform is, together, an integrated weapons system.

John Farley

28th Sep 2015, 16:09

Some time ago on this long running thread, when there was much concern expressed by some about the STOVL flight control system in the B model, I explained why I felt they should not worry on that particular account.

Now I would like to attempt the same thing re the ejection seat:

The seat fitted to all versions of the F35 is the Mk16E which is quite different from the earlier 16A to 16D models.

Its spec required it to be tested with a nude pilot weight range from 103lb to 245lb.

It is fitted with a comfort cushion which shows how far things have moved on in dealing with the initial loads on the pilot by tailoring the gun and rocket combination.

A Yak test pilot friend of mine who used the seat fitted to the 38 and the 141 said they had never had a failure of the auto eject system although there had been cases of auto ejection being triggered because the pilot exceeded pitch attitude limits when in the hover.

Because of this when I was on the Red team before the first flight of the X35 I was delighted to be told that L-M had gone to Yak for details of their system rather than re-invent the wheel.

Friends of mine who have used the latest ant-g systems (full torso jacket plus pressure breathing etc) tell me they work best if you relax into them rather than do the old grunting straining stuff. If true that could really help the old fatigue issues of my day.

ORAC

28th Sep 2015, 17:26

FPDplod/andyy,

My post was made as a response to the criticism of the Gp Capt for saying that, "The ship is part of the F35 air system."

As you will note from the comments made from the RN procurement team, that was the promise/brief they gave the government at the time - regardless of their nefarious intentions (God forbid that they should lie!!).

I am equal sure that many of the subsequent, and even more to be discovered, shortcomings in the design will be traceable back to decisions made based on that premise, which subsequent changes way well have mitigated, but not alleviated.*

One wonders if the subsequent cost of the proposed fitting of a catapult system would have been so high if, as you say, the F-35 had been considered just another interchangeable weapons asset.

Hoisting and petards come to mind.........

*And undoubtedly blamed on underhand Machiavellian machinations and counter-briefings against the RN by the RAF within the MOD.

Engines

28th Sep 2015, 18:03

Folks,

Perhaps I can contribute here on the ship/aircraft integration issues that have been raised.

On balance, I viewed the comments made by the Group Captain positively. From his 'air power' standpoint, yes, the ship is 'part of the F35 air system'. From the task group commander's point of view, the F35 is 'part of the task force'. I'd suggest that both of these statements can be seen as OK. I was certainly encouraged by the comments about the utility and potential of putting T45 and F35 capabilities together, which shows that the RAF part of the F35 team are approaching the future with a more open mindset. That's all good, I'm generally encouraged.

In my view (and that's all it is) the real test will come when the F35 air group are required to work up with the ship to be able to generate the flexible, reactive and usable 'maritime air power' that the country wants. That will mean building (very probably in deliberate steps) the ability to carry out bad weather day and night ops at high tempo with multiple aircraft, without shore based diversions being available. I'd stress again that this won't be available straight away, but there will need to be a detailed plan to get there. Again, just my view.

On the Walmesley/Blackham evidence to the Select Committee in 2000, I would offer the thought that it may not have been quite as Machiavellian as some would (understandably) think.

The UK went into the CVF project with a quite terrifying lack of knowledge about the details of building very large aircraft carriers. In the early days, a phrase often heard about CVF around the corridors was 'air is free and steel is cheap' - I was told that senior officers had convinced themselves that aircraft carriers were 'basically a big box'. The phrase was used here.This was, I believe, a genuinely held opinion. It was pants.

Aircraft carriers are, by some margin, one of the most complex and difficult weapon systems to design, build and bring into service. There's a reason that only a few countries have ever been able to pull it off effectively, and it's not money. You need a highly professional, experienced and well organised team of ship and aircraft engineers. Sadly, by 2000, the MoD was completing the final demolition of the last vestiges of what used to be called the Air Department (Navy) - AD(N). The science areas that used to support AD(N) had gone many years before that. Here's thought - the last time the MoD tried to build a carrier of this size was the mid 1960s. A 40 year gap will hurt, and it did.

The CVF team were left with almost no direct experience of what was 'right' or 'wrong', which gave the competing teams huge latitude to sell their concepts. That's not a criticism - the people I knew in the team were working damned hard and extremely well to plug the gaps and keep the programme on track. In the event, I think the MoD have done well to get the two ships to where they are today - the biggest delays and cost overruns were caused by overt political interference. The originally quoted price was a political 'fix', and like so many other defence programmes, wholly unrealistic.

Hope these musings help,

Best Regards as ever to all those putting the bits together

Engines

ORAC

28th Sep 2015, 20:59

The UK went into the CVF project with a quite terrifying lack of knowledge about the details of building very large aircraft carriers. In the early days, a phrase often heard about CVF around the corridors was 'air is free and steel is cheap' - I was told that senior officers had convinced themselves that aircraft carriers were 'basically a big box'. The phrase was used here.This was, I believe, a genuinely held opinion. It was pants.

Ahhh bless, diddums.......

Petit-Lion

29th Sep 2015, 01:34

Being myself a lightweight (civil) pilot, I wonder what would be wrong in simply ballasting the ejection seat...
(genuine question)

Not_a_boffin

29th Sep 2015, 10:24

A bit more context on the Select Ctte evidence session might be useful here.

At that stage, the costings for the programme were almost entirely based on the original concept designs for the ships - the famed 40000 tonners - done in 1997. Those concept designs were just that - concepts to assist in sizing the budget for the programme, they did not represent definitive designs and if memory serves, the original programme cost back then was £2.8Bn. There were some assumptions in there - including absence of a 1 or 2* command facility (or indeed AAWC function) which were assumed to be covered by an accompanying T45 or similar. Nor was there to be any significant self-defence capability - some had suggested fitting PAAMS which goes against all lessons learned with US and UK carriers over the years. So, for some VSO the idea that the ship was just a big box with aircraft in it was what stuck. When you think about designing and installing combat systems, those VSO were thinking steel is cheap and air is free compared to electronics - and by and large, that is correct.

Round about the same time, the two competing Prime teams were beginning to design the real ships, based on proposed flypros with real consideration of sortie numbers, package sizes and deck management. These included STOVL and CTOL (and even STOBAR) variants, at which point it started to become clear that the concept 40000 tonners would not meet the requirement and would have to get bigger - even the STOVL ships - to the point that the difference between STOVL and CTOL in size, long seen as a big discriminator, actually became much less important. Which ultimately led to the "adaptable" carrier concept as a hedge against the failure of the STOVL F35 variant. The unfortunate part during this element was that the programme cost was never revised up to reflect the bigger ships, which led to an unfortunate impasse in 2001/2002 when the Primes presented their initial prices, which exceeded the budget by around £600M - for the programme - if memory serves. Thus began an extended series of prevarications where MoD tried to get the cost designed down, while not paying the primes to keep their teams together, all against the backdrop of various brown jobs loudly asking why the ships couldn't just be CVS repeats, because obviously they were much bigger than CVS. At which point the political deferrals and the real cost growth began.

In one sense carriers are less complex than destroyers and frigates, in that if you've designed your flight and hangar deck correctly, you are generally not constrained in fitting all the other elements required into the ship. Surface combatants tend to have much greater competition and conflict between systems and features and much smaller margins and envelopes in which to work. On a carrier, vertical routes for munitions are a particular pain, EMI topsides can cause issues and trying to deconflict accommodation from flight and hangar deck working space noise can be tricky, but in general you have enough room to fit them in. It's just a long list of things to remember, which as Engines alludes to, we hadn't done in decades. The teams (and MoD) did get plenty of help from NAVSEA and NAVAIR and plenty of ship visits to US ships (and CdG), but it's one thing seeing an arrangement, quite another understanding how and why it works. The aviation arrangements on the ships will eventually turn out to be a real eye-opener for both UK (and possibly USN) aircrew and engineers, compared to what they've been used to. Much of that will be the result of designing around a large multi-type TAG from the start.

LowObservable

29th Sep 2015, 12:22

I had a briefing on the UK program in 2002, by which time the ships had grown to their current size and features like automated weapon-handling had been adopted. This was just before a decision was taken to stay with STOVL - at the time, LM and BAES/RR were all a bit worried that if the UK went CATOBAR, the USN would cut the Marine STOVL buy to pure Harrier-replacement, which would make it economically vulnerable.

I made the point at the time that the CV version's range might be desirable. But nobody was thinking EMALS at the time, in the UK, so you needed a separate JP-powered teakettle.

No sooner had UKG decided to stick with STOVL than the JSF weight crisis hit, of course...

Per Mr Boffin's point about carrier experience... By that time, it was 30 years since Newport News and the Navy had designed and built Nimitz, which in turn was a significantly evolved Forrestal. And say what you like about UK industry, but they seem to have done much better on the QEs than the US has done on Ford.

Not_a_boffin

29th Sep 2015, 12:49

Per Mr Boffin's point about carrier experience... By that time, it was 30 years since Newport News and the Navy had designed and built Nimitz, which in turn was a significantly evolved Forrestal. And say what you like about UK industry, but they seem to have done much better on the QEs than the US has done on Ford.

The rather significant difference being that NAVSEA/NAVAIR maintained a number of offices (including some very interesting ones inside the old airship hangars at what was Navy Lakehurst) staffed by people whose sole purpose was to study carrier deck ops and launch/recovery systems, literally write the book on them and dream up improvements to ships, systems and practices. Not something that remained in the UK unfortunately, as Engines has outlined. The Carter-era CVV exercises would also still have some veterans lurking around as well as all the supporting work. In the UK, we had the remains of the CVA01 archive in the NMM, the CVS work from the early 70s (which of course was really a helicopter carrier) and errrr, that's it.

Lots of those US ideas were harvested by the various UK design teams who went to see them and adopted for QE. Many more still will find their way into Ford and I would imagine that time will show their value.

I doubt that Ford and JFK will be the disasters some are keen to portray, just as QNLZ/PoW will prove to be very successful ships for the RN. Once the hype disperses and they're in service, their value will become apparent.

LowObservable

29th Sep 2015, 15:32

Disasters? I suppose the overruns and delays are average by Pentagon standards. But I'm still not holding my breath waiting for the promised operating cost reductions.

Not_a_boffin

29th Sep 2015, 16:43

But I'm still not holding my breath waiting for the promised operating cost reductions.

It will undoubtedly take time to work out the best way of doing it, but taking 25% of the manpower off the ships and providing systems designed to modern (ie supportable) engineering standards and practices is not going to hurt.

sandiego89

29th Sep 2015, 17:08

LowObservableAnd say what you like about UK industry, but they seem to have done much better on the QEs than the US has done on Ford.

Why so much better LO? It seems both projects are late and overbudget. I would offer that the Ford is pushing the envelope quite a bit more than the QE's, with a totally new electrical handling system, extensively updated reactor plants, EMAL catapults, new arresting sytem, state of the art C4I systems that will be fully linked to the air and battle group, reduced manning systems, etc etc. None of this is easy, and none of it cheap. Both teams have major challenges- the experince challenge with the QE's that Engines pointed out so well and Newport News and team with desinging and integrating so many new things for the first time. She really is an entirely new class- and certainly much more than a "big box with a hanger"....

A brand new 100,000 ton CATOBAR nuclear powered, steam driven, carrier class with state of the art/cutting edge systems has some real challenges and risks. The QE has challenges as well, but is a less complicated ship, with proven main prime movers, a proven C4I system and no cats/traps. So did the QE team really do "much better"?