F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

[GlobalNav]

"LW50 - The theory at the time was that it gave the g-suit more to work with."

There times when its preferable to have more to "work with".;)

[LowObservable]

At this point I have to warn everyone to not post any head-on views of the Airlander-10.

[david parry]

F35 C lands on CVN 69...F-35C Lightning Boards Ike for Developmental Testing (http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=91357)

[sandiego89]

F35 C lands on CVN 69...F-35C Lightning Boards Ike for Developmental Testing (http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=91357)

Nice to see the C on the boat. I can asssure you that seas and conditions offshore are pretty snotty- so they are defintitely getting some real world weather out there.

[Lonewolf_50]

@sandiego: Heh, the old VaCapes op area. Well I recall the varying weather there.

[david parry]

Yes Weather not so good...https://www.dvidshub.net/video/426456/f-35c-lightning-ii-arrival-aboard-uss-dwight-d-eisenhower-cvn-69-october-2-2015#.VhNaCdq9KSP

[glad rag]

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR7BO_sMCS9uLWusakLUfaph0WVWBkNMhFo8TMJk8X X3gf1mBA



Here's hoping the IOC isn't another rubber stamp job.

[a1bill]

USN rubber stamp is block 3F around 2018. You have a while to wait and see.

[glad rag]

You have a while to wait and see.

Really? So you agree that the USMC IOC was a rubber stamp job driven by politics against [what] operational capability [to say the least]...

[a1bill]

Why would I agree to that? The Marines IOC'd them at their nominated block, as has been pointed out to you. Different horses for courses.


on another note, Norway has confirmed their 52
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/strike/2015/10/05/norways-defence-review-underscores-f-35-commitment/73410856/

"The F-35 provides a number of unique capabilities that no other platform can offer".
"We remain dependent on the timely introduction of new capabilities into our armed forces, such as the F-35. Only by completing the acquisition of 52 combat aircraft with the Joint Strike Missile, will we be able to provide the full spectrum capabilities that we need to address our future security challenges," Bruun-Hanssen said.

[LowObservable]

Different horses for courses.

Indeed.

http://data.whicdn.com/images/47757384/large.jpg

And the Norwegian "commitment" to 52 aircraft is contingent on a substantial budget increase, which (given oil prices and Norwegian politics) may call to mind a vulgar observation regarding my auntie, and under what hypothetical circumstances she might be my uncle.

[a1bill]

Going with the internet chatter, I would have posted this.
Bh7bYNAHXxw


BUT THEN

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/lockheed-considering-laser-weapon-concepts-for-f-35-417416/
“Absolutely, we’re looking at concepts for the integration of a laser weapon onto the F-35,” the Lockheed senior fellow for laser and sensor systems said at a media briefing 5 October.

Nh5Lh-tTSZQ#t=48

[glad rag]

Yeah, yeah, yeah this weeks offering from the dream team :sad:

[Turbine D]

a1bill,
“Absolutely, we’re looking at concepts for the integration of a l@ser weapon onto the F-35,” the Lockheed senior fellow for l@ser and sensor systems said at a media briefing 5 October.

Lasers Could Be Coming To The F-35 - Defense One (http://link.washingtonpost.com/click/5287947.490902/aHR0cDovL3d3dy5kZWZlbnNlb25lLmNvbS90ZWNobm9sb2d5LzIwMTUvMTAv bGFzZXJzLWNvdWxkLWJlLWNvbWluZy1mLTM1LzEyMjU4MS8_d3BtbT0xJndw aXNyYz1ubF9kYWlseTIwMg/5483c4223b35d016748bc2c3Bea937cbc)

Hopefully, they are thinking of mounting it pointed aft. That way it might help to prevent air to airs from going up the tailpipe when fleeing the combat zone, out of defensive ammo and at less than ideal speed. Should be an inexpensive option, one imagines.:E

[sandiego89]

I seem to recall some musings about the shaft for the fan on the B prodcusing something like 18,000 HP which could spin a pretty good size generator....And I though the clutch on my old VW van had it rough....

[Bastardeux]

“Absolutely, we’re looking at concepts for the integration of a l@ser weapon onto the F-35,”

Oh give me a f**king break. It hasn't even fired a sidewinder yet.

[Lonewolf_50]

“Absolutely, we’re looking at concepts for the integration of a l@ser weapon onto the F-35,”

Oh give me a f**king break. It hasn't even fired a sidewinder yet.
Man, sidewinders are soooo third generation. :E :} This is Fifth Gen ... we can turn it up to 11!

[LowObservable]

The problem is that the "next" l@ser - >150 kW and <3,500 lbs - won't fit, and by the time we get to the l@ser-after-next (fractional-megawatt and <2,000 lbs) the nature of air combat will have changed dramatically.

[Courtney Mil]

Power may be an issue too, especially during a phase of flight when the Captain is diverting all available power to the forward shields. Looking forward to lasers getting smaller, but you'll still need to find all those kilowatts.

[a1bill]

As sandiego89 said, there is 18,000 shaft hp to generate some Kw on the F-35b.
Those that know, seem to focus on the generation unit heat being the problem.

LO, you keep telling me how heavy the f-35b fan and engine system is, what is the weight of just the fan system?
Other than on the 6th gen gripen that a laser weapon would make it 10th gen. Can you also tell me more about the future. When lasers on fighters are in question because "the nature of air combat will have changed dramatically" I would love to know what will be the weapon systems then.

on another topic.
http://aviationweek.com/site-files/aviationweek.com/files/uploads/2015/10/F35TEST_BSki_LockheedMartin.jpg

[Lonewolf_50]

on another topic.
Hmm, he's missing his skis as he goes off the jump. :}

On a technical note, could you please resize that image? It somewhat explodes in the browser ... it's overly big, albeit beautiful.

[glad rag]

Power may be an issue too, especially during a phase of flight when the Captain is diverting all available power to the forward shields. Looking forward to lasers getting smaller, but you'll still need to find all those kilowatts.

I thought the shields overlapped to give redundancy anyway :confused:

[malcrf]

I would love to know what will be the weapon systems then.


catapault and stone?

[teeteringhead]

catapault and stone?

Stone maybe - we're not doing cats (or traps) - boom boom! :ok:

[a1bill]

@Lonewolf_50 I think skis come in block 5 :ok:
I don't know how to change the picture, it's a link from AW.
http://aviationweek.com/site-files/aviationweek.com/files/uploads/2015/10/F35TEST_BSki_LockheedMartin.jpg

@malcrf, it was just that I think LO excelled himself. We can always rely on LO in his use of sublimation with anything associated with the F-35. To say "The problem is that the "next" l@ser - >150 kW and <3,500 lbs - won't fit, and by the time we get to the l@ser-after-next (fractional-megawatt and <2,000 lbs) the nature of air combat will have changed dramatically." has to be one of the classics and deserved a special mention.

[LowObservable]

Sublimation?

Are you talking about "the process of transforming libido into socially useful achievements, including artistic, cultural and intellectual pursuits"?

Or possibly "the transition of a substance directly from the solid to the gas phase without passing through the intermediate liquid phase"?

Or are you just using long words (defined in your case as anything with more than three letters) without having the slightest idea of what they mean?

[glad rag]

->->->->Touché<-<-<-<-

[a1bill]

The displacement of your hate that is fixated on the F-35, the discounting of anything associated with it acted out. I think your post of the futility of developing a Laser to be fitted, because the nature of air combat will have changed dramatically. I think that is bordering on being an outer fringe dweller.

Would you like to talk about how you try to rationalise now? (sour grapes)

[Courtney Mil]

Not sure how the word 'displacement' works there either. I'd stop if I were you, A1; you seem to be stepping over the outer limits if your vocab.

[LowObservable]

You mean "cat", "dog" and "airplane", CM?

And for clarification of the original point: A l@ser does not require dynamic tracking of the target, has 100 per cent of its range and lethality independent of the target's orientation with respect to my airplane's datum, and may have complete spherical coverage,

Once I have the range and rate-of-fire to defeat any conceivable kinetic threat (that is, the largest salvo that my adversary can throw against my platform or formation), what does my ideal weapon platform look like?

[Biggus]

Coming to a warship near you, soon, allegedly...

Royal Navy to build laser cannon by end of the decade - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/11867145/Royal-Navy-to-build-laser-cannon-by-end-of-the-decade.html)

[Tourist]

Already on operational warships.....

US navy demonstrates ship-based laser weapon ? video | US news | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2014/dec/10/us-navy-laser-weapon-video)


though some are less impressed..

Navy's new laser weapon: Hype or reality? | Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (http://thebulletin.org/navys-new-laser-weapon-hype-or-reality8326)

[a1bill]

Australia has done some testing in the usa with their lasers and one was optioned for possible use on aircraft. I think LO will be ok with lasers on ships, or even planes. Just not the F-35.

[Courtney Mil]

A1b,

I know you're a real F-35 enthusiast, but I do think you have LO's position completely wrong. He is not 'anti' everything to do with F-35, he simply questions the wild claims made about it, some of the appalling politics behind it and the cost vs what we're going to get. He also corrects those that come here shouting its praises with no regard for the consequences of how it will perform out there in the big, bad, nasty world.

Sorry, LO, if I assume too much.

Technically, airborne lasers are a possibility, but the space, weight, power, heat, pointing issues are very different to those on a ship. Both platforms will always suffer from atmospheric influences, which severely degrade range and effect - there are counters to distortion, but again that's more space, weight and power.

Of course, all that depends on whether you wish to target the hardware, the soft target inside it or the EO sensors. The last point there raises vulnerability issues for the DAS. As ever, these swords have two edges.

[glad rag]

[QUOTE=a1bill;9142309]Australia has done some testing in the usa with their lasers and one was optioned for possible use on aircraft. I thi

Interesting. Reference please.

[peter we]

what does my ideal weapon platform look like?

A semi stealth aircraft, with a hole through it for spherical coverage, and 18000hp of available power?

It was John Farley who suggested the suitability of replacing the fan with a laser quite some time ago.

The F-35 is not the only option for the laser, the AC-130 and F-15 will come first

Lockheed Launches Laser Production Line; Bets On Fiber Tech « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary (http://breakingdefense.com/2015/10/lockheed-launches-laser-production-line-bets-on-fiber-tech/)

[Courtney Mil]

That is an interesting concept, Peter.

So, as I understand: take out the fan, so you don't need (or probably want) the moving rear nozzle or the roll posts or their ducts. In UK terms that makes it land based? Install a massive generator powered by the fan take-off shaft. Install the big laser and ancilliary equipment in the hole. Re-write the FCS software. Add the aiming system. Add a dome top and bottom for coverage, presumably at risk to the stealth properties. Probably a hundred other things if I think about it. Or are you talking about using the same space forward of the engine in the other models?

Is it now a special mission platform or the new CTOL D(L) Model?

I'd like to hear more about the F-15 version version too. I can see the big ac as a likely platform first.

[a1bill]

GR, the yanks have a high tech laser testing range, we don't. This is from 10 years ago for a joint us/aus for the f-35.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/australia-shows-dircm-for-jsf-204809/
An advanced tactical demonstrator version is currently undergoing optics integration ahead of testing as part of the joint Australian-US Project Arrangement 10 EWSP cooperation programme.

[Courtney Mil]

Ah, I see a misunderstanding here. Are you talking DIRCM here, A1b? Not a directed energy weapon? Big difference.

[a1bill]

It was 10 years ago, scaleable and the tech they were looking to develop. but at that stage it wasn't the rip the f-35b fan out and put a megawatt laser in it's place. we just had some 'stuff' the yanks liked. we also did some laser imaging and aircraft fitted laser depth sounding.

[FlyPony]

So, as I understand: take out the fan, so you don't need (or probably want) the moving rear nozzle or the roll posts or their ducts. In UK terms that makes it land based? Install a massive generator powered by the fan take-off shaft. Install the big l@ser and ancilliary equipment in the hole. I doubt you'd need to go to all that trouble. At 40% efficiency, a 100kw laser would need a 250kw power source. Those are already available on the 787. The accessory gear box on either the F-35 or F-15 engine would need to be modified to handle the torque loads and the engine installation would need to be modified to fit the bigger generator, but that would seem to be much more doable than modifying an F-35B's lift fan system. By comparison, 18,000 SHP equates to about 13.4mw which at 40% efficiency means about a 5.4mw laser. I don't think Lockheed is anywhere near to scaling their technology up to that kind of power level. They're still working to develop 60kw, about 2 orders of magnitude less power.

[Finningley Boy]

Having been shown to struggle as a dog fighter against the F-16, evidently, the F-35 has not quite proved its metal against the A-10 at shooting enemy soldiers on the ground? Yes I've got this from a glossy magazine, but.......thought it would be interesting to add to the debate:}

FB:)

[Courtney Mil]

A1b, DIRCM is not scalable into a directed energy weapon of the megawatt class. That's like saying I can take this floating tea light candle and scale it up to a nuclear powered aircraft carrier.

It is totally different technology; the only similarity being they both use light.

[a1bill]

CM there is some stuff on the net about the aussie tech.

[Courtney Mil]

I'm sorry, A1b, you have completely changed your argument and confused two technologies. You started with ridiculing LO:

it was just that I think LO excelled himself. We can always rely on LO in his use of sublimation with anything associated with the F-35. To say "The problem is that the "next" l@ser - >150 kW and <3,500 lbs - won't fit, and by the time we get to the l@ser-after-next (fractional-megawatt and <2,000 lbs) the nature of air combat will have changed dramatically." has to be one of the classics and deserved a special mention.

You have conveniently moved from megawatt class lasers to DIRCM and some other Aussie laser technology that is "on the net", offering a link to https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/australia-shows-dircm-for-jsf-204809/ , which is now in-use laser IR self-protection. Nemesis.

I'm done on this one, on the grounds that you are spouting rubbish and you do not understand the subject matter.

[glad rag]

Top cocking.

https://vimeo.com/93790719


...what????:confused:

[Courtney Mil]

Now, that was awesome, Glad Rag. Best fighter I ever flew. Great video and thank you for the distraction from lasers. I was getting dangerously close to explaining Nd YAG or tuneable laser technology - flashbacks to QWI Course industry visits. I feel better now.

In fact, I might have to go and watch it again. :ok:

[a1bill]

CM they are two different topics, one is LO making claims of laser weapons not fitting into the future battle space, the other was me saying "Australia has done some testing in the usa with their lasers and one was optioned for possible use on aircraft." and gave the link to the OZDIRCM. I understand it was the use of fiber optics instead of mirrors and I think the generation of the laser beam too. The tech is scaleable and the yanks/aus wanted to develop it further.

[Mach Two]

a1bill

As you should expect, you have been writing bolleaux and it is as clear as daylight to everyone. And you have been called out. When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

[LowObservable]

LO making claims of l@ser weapons not fitting into the future battle space,

Reading isn't your long suit either, is it?

By the way, there's a really good reason why the F-35B-based l@ser platform isn't a particularly good idea: onboard energy is not the limiting factor. It's energy storage, conversion, space, weight and cooling that matter.

You don't need 20MW to run a l@ser that will remotely fit in the aircraft. If you had wall-plug efficiency of 25 per cent you could (in theory) continuously run a 5MW l@ser (that's >4x the size of the one in the YAL-1). You might fit that on a large ship.

A perfectly standard turbine-engine generator will feed the energy-storage system of a few-hundred-KW pulsed l@ser quite adequately. GenAtom is working on a 150 kW unit that can be energized by a generator on a PW545.

[a1bill]

M2, they say the OZDIRCM uses different tech to the current DIRCM.

[a1bill]

LO, perhaps you should read my post, I have already said it's not the power generation, they say the issue is heat.
can you tell when there is a laser weapon that can fit into a fighter, how "the nature of air combat will have changed dramatically."

[LowObservable]

Read the previous page. If you can. Mods, is it not time to remove this idiot?

[a1bill]

as I said, the yanks were interested in the tech and there is a joint, DSTO/Tenix(BAE australia) and the US, (Australian-US Project Arrangement 10 EWSP cooperation programme). The use of long wavelength fiber is where it was headed.
ADM: OZDIRCM emerges (http://www.australiandefence.com.au/D062A1C0-F806-11DD-8DFE0050568C22C9)
The micro-structured fluoride glass optical fibre was developed collaboratively by DSTO with Sydney University and is a world first, allowing the transmission of longer IR wavelengths of light.


In between attacking me, is there any chance you can you tell when there is a l@ser weapon that can fit into a fighter, how "the nature of air combat will have changed dramatically."

[Just This Once...]

Again Bill, just what has a miniature laser IR countermeasure got to do with a directed energy weapon?

:confused:

[a1bill]

AFAIK the current DIRCM use mirrors.
Where as the OZDIRCM and the directed energy weapon both use the Diode-pumped solid-state lasers and fiber optics.

Now where that tech has gone in the last 10 years, I don't know, but the micro-structured fluoride glass optical fibre was developed collaboratively by DSTO with Sydney University and was a world first, allowing the transmission of longer IR wavelengths of light.


now it may be a miniature, but it may be good for starting fires from a great height
http://i57.tinypic.com/ibc84m.jpg

[Heathrow Harry]

not sure what this has to do with the F-35...............

new thread maybe Bill???

[a1bill]

Me neither, it started as an aside of "Australia has done some testing in the usa with their l@sers and one was optioned for possible use on aircraft." and then it was jumped on aggressively.

[Just This Once...]

Which you posted Bill....

[glad rag]

pilot tells why she likes the thrust :=

9re9tJckTlk

Never trust someone when you can't see their eyes.

[Mach Two]

Jeez, easy to see how she made Lt Col. She's memorised the official answer book by heart.

Never trust anyone that starts answering the question so quickly with a prepared answer.

[LowObservable]

Note the PA Minder stationed at left of screen. It's also interesting to check her answers against this:

http://cdn.warisboring.com/images/F-35-Public-Affairs-Guidance.pdf

[glad rag]

Well tooled up SP's as well. Maybe someone was going to steal it?

[LowObservable]

The SPs are there to fend off Internet trolls. Drool causes corrosion.

[a1bill]

It could be worse, they could be whining on a forum with a big batch of butthurt

[glad rag]

"Bye"

<wavies>

[Courtney Mil]

It could be worse, they could be whining on a forum with a big batch of butthurt

Please, fella. You've been thrashing this issue for long enough now. Your post about Aus laser stuff was not jumped on aggressively, your stance and your argumentative, incorrect statements were. You have been whining about it for days now.

We are all very happy to read your repetitive posts about the great work you guys have done on a miniaturised DIRCM. Ten years ago. But don't keep whining about it.

Please don't now start accusing others here of whining.

[BEagle]

Well tooled up SPs as well.

Several years ago, we took our Vickers FunBus to Griffiss AFB for a static display. Later in the day, there was a short flying display which included quite an impressive B-52, followed by the brand new B-1B....

...which came roaring in at the speed of heat with all afterburners blazing, then pulled up sharply before levelling off from a wingover, followed by a landing. Rather sporting, we thought, for something that big. It then parked behind us and was promptly roped off with some humourless gun-toting SPs keeping onlookers at a safe distance....:rolleyes:

The aircraft commander, some chisel-featured young Major wearing dark RayBans, climbed down from the jet and promptly drove off after a few words with a grey-haired Crew Chief of the old school. A little later we went over to ask if we could look around the jet; whereupon the Crew Chief muttered "Sure, no problem - that dumbassed kid jus' overstressed ma' bird an' we're gonna be stuck here for f**k*n days now!"...

Even the SPs managed a smile.

[Rhino power]

Link to a well presented article from AeroResource...

F-35 - Joint Strike Fighter (Part 2) ? AeroResource.co.uk ? Aviation Articles, Reports and Reviews (http://www.aeroresource.co.uk/articles/2015/joint-strike-fighter-part-2/)

-RP

[david parry]

F-35B Tests Aim To Cut Fighter Jet's Rolling Landing Risk | Defense content from Aviation Week (http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35b-tests-aim-cut-fighter-jets-rolling-landing-risk)

[sandiego89]

david parry F-35B Tests Aim To Cut Fighter Jet's Rolling Landing Risk | Defense content from Aviation Week (http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35b-tests-aim-cut-fighter-jets-rolling-landing-risk)

Thanks for posting. I have seen B's at Pax river do rolling landings.

So from the article reagarding the rolling landings: "The simulations suggest we’ll be OK as long as we limit our speed, so we will have a maximum overtake speed. We don’t know what that will be yet but it is on the order of 40 kt.”

So my read is if they have 25 knots over the deck, and 40 knots overtake speed, true airspeed would be around 65 knots. Seems reasonable to get some lift. Looks like the QE2 will have a good amount of run out space.

“The aircraft does well at slow speed because of the amount of lift you get off the wing. You are getting 1,000s of pounds of lift at speeds you would drive your car at.”

[Lonewolf_50]

Laser weapons on a ship are doable, albeit they are a work very much in progress.

The same sort of weapon on a fighter won't be a BVR type requirement, but a "dogfighting" requirement that yields a gun with a much faster bullet hitting ... what? ... on the target. If and only if the power/heat/weight problem is resolved.

F-35 has a host of far more pressing issues to address before advancing into the Starfighter II role. The original Starfighter was the F-104. :}

Slight topic drift about lasers as airborne weapons.
I had heard about this program's demise, but thanks to that link I can put it in my timeline. (Scientist's rant on military laser funding ... axe to grind is funding ... but his points on the challenges are well made). But by 2009, the Air Force finally faced facts (http://bos.sagepub.com/content/59/3/18.full), realizing that its Airborne Laser still wouldn’t fit into a Boeing 747. Nor could it produce anywhere near the required power to destroy ballistic missiles.

BFI has been dead longer than I had supposed. You have no idea how many Ballistic Missile Defense meetings and conferences I attended where we got worn out by USAF enthusiasm for the North Korean ballistic missiles being knocked out by a 747 carrying a laser in the boost phase. :ugh::ugh::ugh:

Thankful that is over. The JSF is now the high tech money sink.

[a1bill]

Lonewolf_50, They recently made public that they are using the C130 and B1 as platform test beds. They are due to be now testings at White sands, a mid power 150kw laser.

High Energy Liquid Laser Area Defense System (HELLADS) (http://www.darpa.mil/program/high-energy-liquid-laser-area-defense-system)

[glad rag]

About as much credence as a LM press release or "aircrew" briefing...:}

[Bevo]

First off how did this thread become a laser thread? Second, since this is a DARPA program we are talking about it is “bleeding edge” technology that is a ways off from an operational system. And the testing is a “Ground-based test that was expected to begin in summer 2015 which AFAIK hasn’t started yet.

Finally, consider the many issues of installing a laser capable of being used as a weapon on ANY fighter and you run into a lot of integration issues. On signature driven platform the issues increase. For example what type of aperture would be used to replace the rotating turret used to date on airborne platforms?

As has been suggested by several folks, let’s please get back to reality on this thread.

[Courtney Mil]

Oh, a1bill, you do love to go on about it.

Just to keep you happy, here's the latest miniature Australian death-Ray laser ready to slot into the F-35. Tiny, isn't it?

http://shoebat.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/img1.jpg

[glad rag]

One hell of a Celestron SCT mount a1...

[emitex]

Genuine question; is there a reason you're all using 'l@ser' instead of 'laser'??:confused:

[FODPlod]

Genuine question; is there a reason you're all using 'l@ser' instead of 'laser'??:confused:My thoughts too. Everyone knows it should be "#laser".

[Courtney Mil]

Same reason as you are, emitex.

The site changes it to avoid googles leading laser enthusiasts finding there way here. Clearly didn't work, eh?

[emitex]

Same reason as you are, emitex.

The site changes it to avoid googles leading laser enthusiasts finding there way here. Clearly didn't work, eh?

Least not when it's in inverted commas..

Right, I'll be back in my box.

[a1bill]

Which one is that CM?
This is the 10 year old ozdricm pod that was tested on a lear jet.

http://i59.tinypic.com/6dqy5j.jpg
http://i58.tinypic.com/2eyucrk.png

7 videos from the 2015 directed energy summit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqAZXPZkoig&list=PL108jqIzJkKhtRIcrZFQaB7dG5EioPObV

there is also a PDFs on it in this thread
http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=54&t=27171

[Mach Two]

New thread title required. Death Ray Cancelled, then what? :ugh:

[LowObservable]

Why is this thread still being cluttered by attempts to conflate HEL and DIRCM?

DIRCM l@sers are about the size of a hardback book, because they have to fit along with a tracking camera into the small turrets you see attached to a C-17.

http://media.defenceindustrydaily.com/images/ELEC_LAIRCM-MD_on_C-17_lg.jpg

They have a power output at best in the low tens of watts.

HEL starts at 10 kW, which I think everyone understands is three orders of magnitude difference. Some claim that you can knock down a plastic mini-drone at a few kilometers with that much power. So far, airborne systems designed for counter-surface or counter-missile roles are considered generally viable at 100-150 kW and upward, or 10000 TIMES the output of a DIRCM.

Babbling about demonstrator DIRCMs is pure timewasting.

[Biggus]

LO,

But surely this entire thread, all 7,800 odd comments, could be considered "pure timewasting". :ok:

[Lonewolf_50]

Lonewolf_50, They recently made public that they are using the C130 and B1 as platform test beds. They are due to be now testings at White sands, a mid power 150kw laser.

High Energy Liquid Laser Area Defense System (HELLADS) (http://www.darpa.mil/program/high-energy-liquid-laser-area-defense-system)I'll believe Boost Phase Intercept is real when they can actually make it work. A few more breakthroughs needed, and no, not quite small enough to fit onto an F-35 Lightning II. I concur with Mach Two and suggest that you move this discussion into a new thread called "Death Ray Cancelled, then what" so that our usual bun fight over the F-35 returns to its correct envelope of combined piss taking and program review.

[Courtney Mil]

Wolf, :D:D:D:D:D

[CoffmanStarter]

Don't worry Chaps ... By the time the F-35 becomes fully operational Photon-Torpedoes will be de rigueur :E

I'll get my coat ...

[a1bill]

Lonewolf_50, They are saying that some of the missile defense will be on a UAV and they have a gen 3 laser that will be a UAV. (2015 summit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqAZXPZkoig&list=PL108jqIzJkKhtRIcrZFQaB7dG5EioPObV )
General Atomics: Third-Gen Electric Laser Weapon Now Ready | Technology content from Aviation Week (http://aviationweek.com/technology/general-atomics-third-gen-electric-laser-weapon-now-ready)


http://i58.tinypic.com/sovkfk.jpg

http://aviationweek.com/defense/usaf-tactical-lasers-ready-2020
USAF: Tactical Lasers Ready By 2020



LO:Why is this thread still being cluttered by attempts to conflate HEL and DIRCM.

although they are saying that the 2 will be combined and only have one system, It's just the tech used in both HEL and OZDIRCM are next gen optical fiber that I was initially answering to glad rag. They are far different to the "book' sized mirror DRICM you seem to be referring to.

[Lonewolf_50]

Lonewolf_50, They are saying that some of the missile defense will be on a UAV and they have a gen 3 laser that will be a UAV. a1bill, the article cites a test on the Paul F Foster to be done in 2018: I once landed my helicopter on the Paul F Foster. It once fired Tomahawks into Iraq, during Desert Storm, but I wasn't on it then. The system for that test is a shipboard system. The UAV based system is still proposed, which doesn't address the non-trivial systems integration problem for F-35: can they make the bugger small enough to fit it into the correct niche of the Lightning II?

F-35 has plenty of other weapons systems, and associated software, to properly integrate and get working before Buck F:mad:ing Rogers puts on that lovely helmet and flies about with a laser weapon.

Once the test on the Paul F Foster, in three years, is completed we can revisit this topic in this thread. Until then, can we please get back to the Phunky Phiphth Gen Phighter we've been talking about in this thread?

[GlobalNav]

And besides the apparent integration issues of the death ray system, the F-35 will be focused on maintaining air superiority. :=

[FlyPony]

And besides the apparent integration issues of the death ray system, the F-35 will be focused on maintaining air superiority. :=

Not in the US at least. In USAF, USN, and USMC the F-35 is primarily an attack aircraft and not an air superiority aircraft.

[FlyPony]

F-35's Heavier Helmet Complicates Ejection Risks

WASHINGTON — In the latest hurdle for the Pentagon's F-35 joint strike fighter, testers this summer discovered an increased risk of neck damage when a lightweight pilot is ejecting from the plane. The Joint Program Office blamed the phenomenon on the jet's ejection seat, Martin-Baker's US16E. But interviews conducted by Defense News in recent weeks indicate the added weight and bulk of the new F-35 helmet complicates the problem. It is still unclear whether the blame rests squarely with the helmet, or the seat, or somewhere in between.

F-35's Heavier Helmet Complicates Ejection Risks (http://www.defensenews.com/story/breaking-news/2015/10/14/f-35s-heavier-helmet-complicates-ejection-risks/73922710/)

[Biggus]

FlyPony,

Two comments - first of all what are you doing dragging the subject off topic - don't you know this is a thread about airborne laser systems? :=



Secondly, in the case of the USAF, with only 180 odd F-22s available globally, then surely the F-35 will have to undertake a considerable amount of air superiority tasking, no matter what it was primarily designed for?

[Just This Once...]

The whole escape system has been of concern to me for years. Management of pitch vs seat c of g, insufficient testing and seat clearances for higher yaw rates on F-35B, clearance from canopy debris, the over-reliance on correct posture on ejection, off-axis lumpy helmet vs airflow etc etc....

I'm surprised they even release the stills from the sled-shots and the depressingly large bits of canopy shown in close proximity to the test dummy.

The JPO spin makes me wince - 'we are in the SDD phase...' yet ask them a different question and they champion the IOC declared by the USMC. The spin monkeys needs to sit down and decide if this is an operational platform or not.

[a1bill]

I read the natops FA-18ef manual has a 136lb weight limit too. Anyone know what the euro planes minimum weights are?

or if one read past the clickbait headline of the article posted
DellaVedova stressed that helmet weight was not a factor in the Aug. 27 decision to ground lightweight pilots.

"That was an ejection seat issue discovered during the parachute opening phase and was not related to the differences between the Gen II and Gen III helmets," DellaVedova said. "For lightweight pilots in a low speed ejection condition, there is a possibility the pilot could rotate to a position in the ejection sequence where the parachute opening shock could cause the head to rotate backward."
(but are still lightening the helmet)
In addition to designing a lighter helmet, the JPO is looking into two other fixes to reduce the potential for an increased risk of neck injury, DellaVedova said. First, the team is working on installing a switch on the seat for lightweight pilots that will delay deployment of the main parachute. Also, the program will mount a "head support panel," which is a fabric panel sewn between the parachute risers that will protect the pilot's head from moving backwards during the parachute opening. These two fixes will be introduced when the next upgrade of the ejection seat comes online near the end of 2016.

All three fixes will be fully implemented by summer 2017, DellaVedova noted.

[LowObservable]

JTO - It's been a complex issue. I had the VSI folks complaining that at one point they'd run a test and blown a hole in the helmet. Everyone wanted to blame them, but it turned out that LM had upgunned the MDF to make sure that the canopy fractured.

The canopy issue is that it has to be one-piece because fat kid needs magic cloak. The front bit has to be bird-proof so the top can be only so thin, and because of commonality it had to hinge at the front (because the rear canopy line is different on the B) so it can't be jettisoned. So how do you adequately fracture the canopy without fracturing the pilot?

And they've been trying different things to keep the pilot's head straight for six or seven years, with interventions from UTC Aerospace (formerly Goodrich) who have their own ideas.

I see what you mean about the photo. That's not a big hole to go through, and those look like new and bigger canopy-breakers on top of the seat.

http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/561fc6ec9dd7cc24008c207a-875-638/screen%20shot%202015-10-15%20at%2011.30.49%20am.png

a1b - Why don't you read the abundant public record about the "expanded pilot population" decisions of the early 1990s? I know it's easier to copy and paste from the program's PR guy, but it might put you in a position where you make sense.

[LowObservable]

Meanwhile....

F-35 Customers Funding U.S.-Based Software Update Labs | Defense content from Aviation Week (http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-customers-funding-us-based-software-update-labs)

[sandiego89]

Just This Once:....... clearance from canopy debris............
I'm surprised they even release the stills from the sled-shots and the depressingly large bits of canopy shown in close proximity to the test dummy........


But I guess it is OK for other airframes?????

Seats have been going through the canopy, or assisted with minature det cord for decades, and many airframes have tight clearances.....

http://www.martin-baker.com/_images/content/products/ejection-seats/mk10/mk10-3.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/11/30/article-2241077-16486420000005DC-401_634x467.jpg

[a1bill]

LO-L, what a lot of tripe that funny old bill sweetman writes. One minute it's a stink about not having code access, Then there is a stink when he finds out that the threat library codes are user programmed, as they wanted.

The UK, aus and canada (when they decide) are going to jointly fund and develop theirs and there are other partners and buyers that are also joining into joint threat libraries .

also he should check if this misleading sentence "but in most cases allowed local users to manage their own “threat libraries,”" Infact the US locks the threat library normally, Aust had problems with accessing the f-111, the Fa-18 and I assume the FA-18f and Growler. The F-111 codes were held at the US embassy in australia. We tried to hack into the hornet codes so we could target US supplied planes in our neighborhood. which is well publicised.

also he seems to be confusing threat library and mission data files, isn't he?

[LowObservable]

SD89 - If you look at your photos, the entire canopy has been removed. Not the case with the F-35.

But wait, there's more...

http://www.rollcall.com/news/exclusive_f_35_ejection_seats_could_endanger_many_pilots-244224-1.html?pg=2&dczone=policy

[sandiego89]

LowObservable SD89 - If you look at your photos, the entire canopy has been removed. Not the case with the F-35

Hmmm....Looks like the frame is still on the Gripen, and perhaps the K8. I was refering to the clear canopy shards as a poster expressed concerns about shards. Those appear to be canopy shards aroud the Gippen dummy and behind our fortunate Venezuelan K8 crew...

Some more shards:

http://www.jetartaviation.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/harrier-GR9-ejection7.jpg

[FODPlod]

Unless I am mistaken, this image shows the location of the mini-detcord fitted around the inside of the frame of the F-35's cockpit canopy. Unlike aircraft with which I am more familiar, it does not appear to wiggle longitudinally over the pilot's head: http://i.imgur.com/i8roFRa.jpg

[Engines]

Guys,

Perhaps I can help here. I was on the F-35 programme when a number of design decisions were being finalised and also worked closely with the cockpit and escape system teams.

I have to gently disagree with some posts here. Happy to discuss, I'm just trying to present the facts as best I know them.

First, the F-35 was planned from the outset to use LO as an integral part of the overall design - LO wasn't added to compensate for any performance characteristics. A one piece canopy certainly helped with the LO signature, as it got rid of a straight line joint - but it also reduced weight. LM/GD had many years of one piece canopy experience with F-16 as well as F-22, and didn't see it as a big deal.

The front of the canopy isn't 'bird proof', but is much more bird strike resistant than legacy US canopies, mainly as a result of more stringent UK requirements. The front part initially had an additional internal shell bonded to the outer shell, this may have subsequently changed. The rest of the canopy's thickness was driven by normal design constraints including external and internal loads.

The front hinge design was driven by a number of factors. Commonality certainly played a part, as identified by LO. There was also a desire to get the best opening for entry, and the forward hinge provided better clearance around the seat. It also gave better access to the avionics items located behind the seat, and it also made seat removed much easier. The F-35B's lift fan also made an aft hinge design problematic. As ever, any design choice is driven by many factors, not just one.

It's also quite true that the F-35B's flight envelope ruled out jettison of an aft hinged canopy as an escape option, the same logic that drove the initial development of MDC canopy shattering for the Harrier. Commonality meant that the escape system had to go across all three variants. LO meant that the legacy MDC patterns (wavy lines) had to be replaced by a single central line (as per the Gripen). (I hope that answers Fod's observation). No-one said it was going to be easy....

Getting the big canopy shards away from the seat was a challenge, especially at the lower speeds of F-35B transition, as well as at F-35C carrier ops speeds. The seat is required to handle an exceptionally wide range of weights, and also achieve a very low installed weight. (That weight was further trimmed after the weight problems of 2004 - it's now a very light seat indeed). Oh, and they were required to meet some very tough requirements for seat maintenance. MB's efforts were well regarded by all the programme partners as well as the customers. Sometimes, aircraft design is just plain hard.

The helmet has been an ongoing saga for some years, with VSI struggling to achieve weight targets that were probably over optimistic at the outset. The decision a couple of years ago to look at the BAES helmet as an option certainly spurred VSI to some rapid improvements, but the aircraft was always going to have a US sourced helmet, driven by Congressional politics.

It's a 'big hat', driven by an explicit customer requirement for an HMD. That's presented challenges since day one, and I recall that it was being handled as a significant programme risk. Things weren't helped by high level decisions to reduce the number of track ejection tests. These had to be reinstated at a later date. As I've often posted, people can make decisions that later don't work. It doesn't mean that they are bad or stupid people.

To be clear, I'm not trying to 'defend the programme'. But I do try to present the complexity of a real programme, and reassure some readers that the F-35 team has lots of clever and dedicated engineers doing their damnedest to deliver a world beating aircraft to the front line. I think they'll succeed. Others don't. That's fine - free forum and all that.

Best regards as ever to all those working hard to get the aircrew into the aircraft and back out in one piece.

Engines

.

[LowObservable]

One of the most questionable roots of this whole thing is the original "95th percentile" decision. Whether or not it was wholly political (can we remember who was in the White House then, and seems to be in the news every day now?), it was taken on the basis of very limited knowledge of what would be required.

And it's not exactly easy:

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/naAUupubhY0/0.jpg

We've since found stability issues we didn't know were there, as well as adding bigger helmets to the equation.

[Just This Once...]

But I guess it is OK for other airframes?????

Seats have been going through the canopy, or assisted with minature det cord for decades, and many airframes have tight clearances.....

No kidding, I may have flown a few. It's also worth of note that not all are cleared for immersion suits when the canopy disintegration process is suboptimal. But the trick with the F-35B is that its ejection envelope has to cope with far more than a regular aircraft.

Engine's post eloquently outlined the history where more and more project 'risk' was introduced into the escape system due to various reasons; usually to offset other issues. There was much resistance to this from a number of well-educated corners of the room, but the matter was to be finally settled during testing.

What happened next is not covered in Engine's post - the test program was then curtailed considerably. Of course, it did not help that the USAF were not particularly interested in the 'weird and wacky' ejection envelop required for the B or the expensive testing required.

Project 'risk' has turned into actual risk for the pink bodies. The first high yaw rate combined with nose-down pitch ejection will happen with a real fleshy thing strapped to the seat with SMEs clutching their models that suggest that the outcome is not assured.

We have become rather adept at ignoring some very capable engineers when projects start to slide.

[LowObservable]

Why would lower speeds be more dangerous?

[FlyPony]

Secondly, in the case of the USAF, with only 180 odd F-22s available globally, then surely the F-35 will have to undertake a considerable amount of air superiority tasking, no matter what it was primarily designed for?

Two comments back atcha:

1. The F-22 is not the only air superiority fighter in the US or NATO inventory. It is the only stealth air superiority fighter, but there are several hundreds of non-stealth air superiority fighters (F-15s, Typhoons, Rafales, etc) in the various inventories.

2. I believe there is a significant difference between "focused on maintaining air superiority" and "undertake a considerable amount of air superiority tasking."

[Biggus]

FlyPony,

First of all I'm only here to debate, not argue. I'm also more than willing to be informed or educated, hopefully politely. While you don't know my background (or I yours), I'm an ex military aviator, albeit not a fighter pilot, and fully aware of the existence of F-15, Typhoon, etc, thank you.

I was only discussing the USAF use of F-35, but, if you're going to mention other NATO countries, I should point out that for many/most NATO countries planning to buy the F-35, such as Norway and the Netherlands, it will be their only fast jet, and therefore their only option for air superiority missions.

Open sources report that the USAF intends to keep 178 F-15C/Ds, the ones with the AESA upgrade, to supplement the low numbers of F-22s (187 F-22s delivered vs USAF planned requirements for 750, then 648, then 339, then 277...), but that even these numbers face reductions as a result of sequestration, or the need to generate savings to fund, yes, you guessed it, the F-35. F-15C/D production ended in 1985, making the youngest of them already 30 years old, with the prospect of what, 20+ more years in service?

With the USAF planning to buy 1,700 odd F-35s (no doubt that number has changed), as compared to 360 dedicated air superiority aircraft (180 F-22s and 180 ageing F-15C/Ds) I find it difficult to believe that the F-35 won't be required to carry out a considerable portion of air superiority tasking throughout the duration of any conflict.




I also said months (years?) ago that software, especially software testing, would be a major issue with the F-35.

But hey, what would I know?





I apologise to more learned and knowledgeable F-35 commentators for taking up some of your bandwidth!!

[FlyPony]

FlyPony, First of all I'm only here to debate, not argue.My intention was neither to debate nor argue. I do not know your background and I was merely pointing out a few facts that may have escaped you. Sorry if you thought I was arguing. That was not my intent.

And for whatever its worth, the F-15E (and its many derivatives) retains all the air superiority capabilities of the F-15C/D. USAF has 224 F-15Es in service which they'll keep flying at least as long the upgraded C/Ds and likely longer. And FWIW, there will be many hundreds of block 40 and later F-16s remaining in service with USAF and many other nations for many more years to come. They are reasonably capable air superiority fighters. My conclusion is that IF a laser weapon is ever be made to fit into an F-35 or F-15 (a rather huge if, LM spokespeople notwithstanding), there will likely be enough F-35s and/or F-15s available to modify to perform that mission. And FWIW, I have no idea what mission a laser equipped F-35 would be tasked to perform. I don't even know if it would be air-to-air, air-to-ground, or something else entirely. It would literally be a new paradigm that I cannot fathom at present.

[ORAC]

And for whatever its worth, the F-15E (and its many derivatives) I am agog, pray tell....

[FlyPony]

I'm not sure if I understood the question correctly, but F-15E derivatives include the F-15I, F-15S, F-15K, F-15SG, F-15KSE and a few other variants that escape me just now. Was that the question?

[Turbine D]

FlyPony,
And for whatever its worth, the F-15E (and its many derivatives) retains all the air superiority capabilities of the F-15C/D. USAF has 224 F-15Es in service which they'll keep flying at least as long the upgraded C/Ds and likely longer.
Unless I am badly mistaken, I thought the F-35 was designed to replace F-15s and F-16s, no matter the updates and virtually all other aging USAF aircraft including the A-10s according to Lockheed Martin and the US DoD. All of this, at a cost yet to be determined, but fully expected to exceed $1 trillion when all is said and done. Now, due to technical difficulties, it seems the F-35s requires previously unforeseen protection support, most likely when leaving the air combat scene when "stealth" doesn't matter as much as when entering. So with less than 200 F-22s available, do you really think the F-15s and F-16 will be around still in 2045, e.g., 30 years from now to escort the F-35 safely home? After all, the USAF desires and will probably get over 1,400 F-35s. IMHO, the F-35s are supposed to be around far longer than any of the aircraft you mentioned, but one never knows for sure, the way the F-35 program continues to unfold.
TD

[ORAC]

FP,

The USAF have a limited number of F-15Es ground attack aircraft being flown into the ground. They have a life of 9000 hours and the vast majority are over 21 years old and past 6000 hours life.

F-15 SLEP funding is being put into the F-15C force to keep it going until the F-X enters service. Offensive funding is looking at the swivel to the Pacific and the LRSB. The F-15E is supposed to be replaced by......the F-35.

I am just interested to understand where you see the funding coming from to keep the F-15E flying, to assume the air superiority role, as a small legacy fleet with all the support costs involved, as an affordable option to giving the role to the F-35 itself?

(Or designing the F-X to do it from the start of course)

[LowObservable]

With its planned 1763 F-35s, 187 F-22s and a notional 1900-aircraft force, the idea is that the F-35 does replace the F-15C and F-15E.

However, even at 80 jets per year, planned production continues until 2040 (2038 buy year). Since any major upgrade of the F-16 has been :mad:canned for the foreseeable future, the F-15C/D/E will soldier on until then.

ORAC - This will require some extraordinary life extension, and I suspect Boeing plans to supplement that with new airplanes.

[Bevo]

Proposed:
NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. — In an effort to extend its F-15 business, Boeing unveiled a new upgrade package for the F-15C design — one specifically targeting an air superiority gap left from the decision to cut production on the F-22.

The new design, part of an effort dubbed "F-15 C2040" by the company, would double the number of air-to-air weapons carried by the F-15C from eight to 16 while adding conformal fuel tanks for enhanced distance.

It would also feature updated electronics, including a long-range Infra-Red Search and Track (IRST) sensor and the already planned Eagle Passive/Active Warning Survivability System (EPAWSS). It would also feature an updated AESA radar.
LINK (http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/boeings-touts-new-16-air-to-air-missile-carrying-f-15-e-1730258333)

Funded: re-baseline because of congressional continuing resolution issues for new programs.
The Boeing Talon Hate pod, which is designed to provide that connectivity, was requested by Pacific Air Forces as a quick-reaction project needed to link the stealthy F-22 with legacy fighters.LINK (http://aviationweek.com/defense/5th-4th-fighter-comms-pod-schedule-questioned)

[glad rag]

Quite scandalous that for a decade or so the USAF hierarchy quietly [no pun intended] sat on the radio and data isolation of over a two thirds of their offensive aircraft fleet.....

But, as with F-35 and F-22 programs before, perhaps we shouldn't be that surprised...

[ORAC]

ORAC - This will require some extraordinary life extension

Boeing Positions F-15 as F-22 Supplement (http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/show-daily/afa/2015/09/15/boeing-positions-f-15-as-f-22-supplement/72316414/)

NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. — In an effort to extend its F-15 business, Boeing unveiled a new upgrade package for the F-15C design — one specifically targeting an air superiority gap left from the decision to cut production on the F-22. The new design, part of an effort dubbed "F-15 C2040" by the company, would double the number of air-to-air weapons carried by the F-15C from eight to 16 while adding conformal fuel tanks for enhanced distance.........

Speaking to reporters later in the day, Gen. Hawk Carlisle, the head of Air Combat Command, acknowledged that a capability upgrade would be nice, but that a service life extension program, or SLEP, is more important. "When we look at the stress tests we've done on the F15C and were doing on the F15 and F16 there are issues were gonna have to do for service life extension with respect to the structural integrity of the airplane, so were working on those and what were gonna have to do in the future. If I could find a way with resources, I would do everything I could when we put those airplanes in to do a service life extension program and fix the structural issues........."

[Heathrow Harry]

look at how long they've kept the B-52 in service..............

and does anyone think that the US will buy 1700+ F-35's??

[Biggus]

HH,

Given their relative flight profiles, and employment, how much of it's fatigue life does a B-52 use up in a year compared to an F-15?

Also, given that aircraft tended to be "over engineered" in the 50s and 60s, and that weight saving was presumably less of an issue for the B-52 than the F-15, perhaps fatigue in general is less of an issue for the B-52?


Just a couple of thoughts - no doubt someone more informed will be along shortly!

[Courtney Mil]

while adding conformal fuel tanks for enhanced distance.........

CFTs? Goodness, I must have been dreaming when I was flying them all those years ago.

[LowObservable]

Interesting, CM - F-15Cs can carry CFTs, and there are photos around of USAF F-15Cs with CFTs, but none seem very recent and a lot of them are IS-coded. I don't know what the story is.

[Turbine D]

HH & Biggus,

Info on the B-52 fatigue life:

The life-limiting structural component is the warplanes’ upper wing skins, currently rated for around 36,000 flight hours. “As of 1999 the average airframe had 14,700 flight hours,” Globalsecurity.org reported in 2011. “Boeing believes with high confidence that the average number of flight hours left is 17,800, at a minimum. The ‘oldest’ B-52H is at about 21,000 hours and only experiences about 380 flight hours per year.”

So the B-52H is actually just mid-way through its fatigue life. And in many ways, a B-52H is “younger” in 2015 than it was just a few years ago. The Air Force is spending more than a billion dollars to give all 76 of the bombers new communications systems and to make them compatible with a wider array of modern weaponry.

One B-52H was badly damaged a couple of years ago so another was brought out of the Arizona graveyard and refurbished to replace it.

I do think the USAF will get 1700 F-35s in the end. The Washington, DC Congressional folks will assure that happening. It is a political airplane where work and jobs were created in nearly every Congressional district. Any Congressman/woman that doesn't support it risks the tag of a job destroyer and probably will not get reelected, reelection happens to be their main focus year after year, everything else is secondary.

[glad rag]

HH & Biggus,

Info on the B-52 fatigue life:



One B-52H was badly damaged a couple of years ago so another was brought out of the Arizona graveyard and refurbished to replace it.

I do think the USAF will get 1700 F-35s in the end. The Washington, DC Congressional folks will assure that happening. It is a political airplane where work and jobs were created in nearly every Congressional district. Any Congressman/woman that doesn't support it risks the tag of a job destroyer and probably will not get reelected, reelection happens to be their main focus year after year, everything else is secondary.

Ain't that the truth TD, ain't that the truth.....the military/industrial complex have [sic] done a good job with this one..

[LowObservable]

Things to remember:

Even if all goes to plan, about 700 of the USAF's planned F-35s will be ordered in 2030 or later.

The Congresscritters who will vote on those buys are still serving time on school boards, on city councils, or fetching coffee on the Hill.

2030 is 15 years away. What did you think 2015 would look like in 2000, before the Cole bombing?

[Turbine D]

LO,
The Congresscritters who will vote on those buys are still serving time on school boards, on city councils, or fetching coffee on the Hill.
Or, will be political neophytes with no experience whatsoever. Very quickly the newcomers to Washington, DC are taught the ropes of power and survival by those that are there and existing agenda moves forward with little change. K Street lobbyist and now unlimited corporate $$s to political PACs assure that.

2030 is 15 years away. What did you think 2015 would look like in 2000, before the Cole bombing?
If you are asking about Middle-East landscape change, pre-2000 to current, it was predictable prior to the October 2000 Cole attack that significant change was occurring. In fact, there was a similar, but not well publicized attack in January 2000 on the USS The Sullivans also in Aden. The attack failed because the explosives in the boat were too heavy, the boat sank and the attack aborted.
The US policy and strategy in the Middle-East was fixed in concrete for 40 years leading to the Cole, but nothing geopolitical ever stays the same. Al-Qaeda came into existence prior to the Cole and was responsible for the 1998 US Embassy bombings prior to the Cole. The US had no strategy to deal with the Al-Qaeda organization until after 9/11 just as today there is no strategy in dealing with ISIS. I have always been an admirer of Sun Tzu, author of The Art of War. It isn't so much battlefield tactics that win wars, but strategies. Here is one of Sun Tzu's comments:
"Thus those skilled in war subdue the enemy's army without battle .... They conquer by strategy."

[sandiego89]

Does anyone have any information on this camoflaged F-35 dumped on the north side of Fort Worth? I imagine it is a mockup or RCS article, but have not seen this paint job before, much more interesting than the boring gray. I don't think she is the roof mounted antenna bird, as that is still on the factory roof. Thank you.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Fort+Worth,+TX/@32.7865213,-97.4472159,20z/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x864e6e122dc807ad:0xa4af8bf8dd69acb d

[ORAC]

So, the Liberals have won the Canadian general election.....

Goodbye F-35s, hello marijuana: What the Liberals are likely to do first (http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/goodbye-f-35s-hello-marijuana-what-the-liberals-are-likely-to-do-first)

5. Fighter jets

The Liberals have promised to cancel the Conservative purchase of F-35 jets, which is expected to cost $44 billion over the jets’ four-decade life cycle. “We will immediately launch an open and transparent competition to replace the CF-18 fighter aircraft,” the platform says, specifying that the F-35’s “stealth first-strike capability” is not needed to defend Canada.

[LowObservable]

I guess Team F-35 can stop carrying those 65 orders on their books.

This will be a nice tasty competition for all concerned, and an interesting dilemma for the JSF crew. Do they punish Canadian industry for its apostasy, thereby disrupting their supply chain and scuppering any chance of a Round Two win, or set a precedent for other ditherers?

[glad rag]

I doubt sanity is about to prevail though....

[Flap62]

F35 never really worked for Canada. What it needs is a twin engined fighter to secure it's vast borders. A bit of swing capability wouldn't go amiss. That'll be Typhoon then!

[ORAC]

Much more likely to be Rafale, mais non?

Or even more likely, F/A-18E/F/G.

[Lonewolf_50]

So, the Liberals have won the Canadian general election.....

Goodbye F-35s, hello marijuana: What the Liberals are likely to do first (http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/goodbye-f-35s-hello-marijuana-what-the-liberals-are-likely-to-do-first)

5. Fighter jets

The Liberals have promised to cancel the Conservative purchase of F-35 jets, which is expected to cost $44 billion over the jets’ four-decade life cycle. “We will immediately launch an open and transparent competition to replace the CF-18 fighter aircraft,” the platform says, specifying that the F-35’s “stealth first-strike capability” is not needed to defend Canada. NATO force offerings for strike missions in the near term no problem, in the long term ... who knows?

I've seen the argument for the Super Hornets (or it's like) twin engine for Canada and a lot of them make sense to me.

[sandiego89]

I agree that Super Hornet E/F/G makes perfect sence for Canadian CF-18 replacement capability wise....but like most other places politics and perfect sence do not go hand in hand. I am sure the Canadian contractors involved as a level 3 F-35 partner may be worried. Worst case is studying it to death and putting band aids on existing gear, while crews fly around in 40+ year old aircraft... Just get on with it and purchace off the shelf quickly....

[Wokkafans]

Interesting views considering the range of the F-35

Retreat from Range: The Rise and Fall of Carrier Aviation

OCTOBER 19, 2015 Jerry Hendrix

Defense Strategies and Assessments Program Director Dr. Jerry Hendrix argues that aircraft carriers, at a cost over $13 billion a piece, risk becoming obsolete without a major shift in strategy. In particular, he argues carriers must switch to a mixed manned/unmanned airwing or risk becoming too vulnerable to counter attacks to put into battle.

http://www.cnas.org/sites/default/files/publications-pdf/CNASReport-CarrierAirWing-151016.pdf

According to Hendrix, the prime time of aircraft carriers may be coming to an end as strategic mistakes committed by the US over the past 20 years has limited these vessel's capabilities while leaving them open to strikes from new emerging threats. Writing in the Center for a New American Security, he makes the case that aircraft carriers have steadily lost their utility over the past two decades.

At fault for this are twin mistakes of the US Navy: a steady introduction of aircraft with decreasing flight ranges in addition to a failure to foresee rising military capabilities from countries like China that could target carriers.

"American power and permissive environments were assumed following the end of the Cold War, but the rise of new powers, including China and its pursuit of anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) strategies and capabilities to include the carrier-killing 1,000 nautical mile (nm) range Dong Feng-21 anti-ship ballistic missile, now threatens to push the Navy back beyond the range of its carrier air wings," Hendrix notes.

Essentially, any carrier that operates within 1,000 nautical miles of Chinese military placements could be open to a strike from an antiship ballistic missile. This would not be a problem, except that the average unrefueled combat range of US carrier air wings operates at half that distance.

And even that average combat range is a decrease from the height of the Cold War.

In 1956, for example, air wings had an average range of 1,210 nautical miles on internal fuel alone. This range was achieved even though the US Navy was using an older class of aircraft carriers that could support less aircraft than today's modern carriers.

The move to shrink the flight range of carrier air wings occurred following the fall of the Soviet Union and the Navy's decision to shift the strategic purpose of carriers away from long-range missions toward acting as platforms for faster and shorter-range sortie missions.

"[P]lanner elected to invest in lower-end conflict scenarios that foresaw carriers operating in the littoral waters nearer their targets," Hendrix wrote. "Emphasis was placed on reliability and sortie generation capabilities. In the language of strategic planners, long range was an area where the Navy and the Department of Defense decided to 'accept risk.'"

These decisions meant that the average unrefueled range of carrier air wings since 1996, at 496 nautical miles, are at their lowest point since the 1930s. In 1930, for instance, the average range was 258 nautical miles. By 1943, this range was extended to 758 nautical miles unrefueled.

And according to Hendrix, the Navy's current procurement strategy does nothing to alleviate the issue.

The decision to follow through with the F-35 only serves as "completing the retreat from range," according to Hendrix. The F-35 was meant to replace long-range legacy aircraft such as the F-14 and the A-6 — which are no longer in service — but the F-35's initial specs of having a combat range of 730 nautical miles was a 75% decrease in capability from those aircraft.

But in actuality, the F-35C's combat range is expected to be 550 nautical miles, only 50 nautical miles longer than the Navy's current complement of F/A-18E and F Super Hornets.

This lack of range, unless the Navy changes course, will continue to mean that the Navy will have little choice but to continue to operate in waters off potential enemy coasts.

And this means that carriers, for all their cost and high-tech capabilities, would either hypothetically fall within range of Chinese antiship ballistic missiles or would be forced to operate beyond the unrefueled range of their air wings.

"Today’s Navy looks remarkably like it has for the past 70 years, just smaller and more expensive," Hendrix noted in an article for the National Review. "It is an evolutionary force, not a revolutionary force, and it's an easy target for rising powers that seek to overtake it."

http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/NKS.NV7uHwn1soGJnnI3Sg--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3NfbGVnbztxPTg1/http://globalfinance.zenfs.com/en_us/Finance/US_AFTP_SILICONALLEY_H_LIVE/Retired_US_Navy_captain_The-684554400f7ce1599e55a4ac2d873ae9

http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/.Jhcisb0tfL7HI9nV4zd.A--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3NfbGVnbztxPTg1/http://globalfinance.zenfs.com/en_us/Finance/US_AFTP_SILICONALLEY_H_LIVE/Retired_US_Navy_captain_The-453392194452efca5f935e9635731124

[StickMonkey3]

My Liberal Canadian MP, who has just been re-elected, stated to me that the Liberals had a sub-committee advising them, including some ex-RCAF fighter pilots, and they were recommending Super Hornet. They had discussed other options including Rafale and Typhoon. That was three months ago.

[Lonewolf_50]

Interesting article, however the way you extend range is with organic AAR ... wait a sec, we pissed that away decades ago. :mad:

[Rhino power]

The F-35 was meant to replace long-range legacy aircraft such as the F-14 and the A-16...

What's an A-16? I assume this is just a simple typo, and A-6 is what was really meant?

-RP

[Lonewolf_50]

What's an A-16? I assume this is just a simple typo, and A-6 is what was really meant?

-RP Oh no, has someone compromised yet another "black" program? :eek:

[sandiego89]

What's an A-16? I assume this is just a simple typo, and A-6 is what was really meant?

Yes, it was a typo- the linked article mentioned A-6 Intruder replacement.

The charts and article are interesting and do a good job at demonstrating the retreat from long range carrier aviation. The 1956 airwing chart (Skyraider, Banshee, Fury, Skywarrior) is likely a little weighted with the Skywarrior upping the average quite a bit. It did bring a lot of range/payload, but only a handfull were aboard at any one time. It should be noted (and the artilce does) that a major focus of the Postwar/Supercarrier was longer range nuclear strike- so the airwing reflected that with designs such as the Savage, A-3, Vigilante, A-4, A-6. This range advantage later payed off well for conventional strike.

I do agree that the abandonment of long range strike with no A-6 replacement (A-12 cancelled), and dedicated tankers, has undermined the value of the supercarrier. An A-6 replacement with long range would have been better suited for Iraq and Afghanistan.

I would like to see the KS-3 Viking brought out of the boneyard and upgraded as has been mulled.

[Courtney Mil]

Bringing back some tankers would be a lovely idea, but I fear this is a bit of a rerun (only slightly bigger) of Typhoon eating up so much of the defence budget that other programmes got hurt and there was certainly no room to resurrect old ones or start new ones.

[WhiteOvies]

With V-22 being discussed (selected?) for the COD role, even for CVN, it isn't a surprise to see an organic AAR capability (single hose) being developed as a roll-on fit.

If we asked nicely maybe the QE could embark a USMC Squadron of V-22 in this role when required?

[Just This Once...]

I thought the proposed MV-22 tanker carried less fuel than the F-35 and couldn't carry it particularly far either?

[Mach Two]

Probably a Hawk T1's worth of fuel. That may not go that far.

[a1bill]

It addresses the ejection seat, BFM and no minimum speed. As well as other stuff

hBhyxIgauWM#t=624

[ORAC]

McCain: 'Have To' Reduce F-35 Total Buy (http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/strike/2015/10/21/mccain-f35-reduce-total-buy/74350928/)

WASHINGTON — The powerful chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, John McCain, R-Ariz., said Tuesday the US will have to cut the numbers of F-35 fighter jets it will purchase.

In a brief comment to reporters, McCain seemed to signal that the total projected buy for the Pentagon's most costly and ambitious program — 2,443 in total, spread across three models for the Air Force, Marines and Navy — is out of whack with budget realities. He said that cost growth in the program will mean fewer jets overall. "We're going to have to reduce the buy," he said. "The number they are now quoting — there's just not going to be that many."

McCain, a longtime critic of the F-35, is known for hitting the program for a series of cost overruns and delays. But calling for a formal reduction in the Pentagon's buy of the jets has been a touchy subject in the Defense Department.

For years, the Pentagon and backers in Congress have fiercely guarded the 2,443 figure for the F-35, quickly shooting down talk that the number could be reduced. That seemed to change earlier this year, when Gen. Joseph Dunford, now the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote in testimony that the Pentagon is "presently taking the newest strategic foundation and analyzing whether 2,443 aircraft is the correct number." That was followed by similar written comments from Adm. John Richardson, who, during his hearing to be named Chief Naval Officer, wrote that he would work to "re-validate the appropriate number of aircraft the Navy requires."

The Pentagon has since denied that there is a major review of the F-35 buy underway – but acknowledged that, with budget uncertainty, all programs may be up for review. Combined, the comments seem to have opened the door for a discussion – one that McCain, a critic of the F-35 program, appears eager to open wider.

It's bad timing for the program, which, after a relatively quiet year of success, has hit speed bumps in the last month. In September, Defense News revealed that concerns over ejection safety have forced the Pentagon to ground any F-35 pilots under 138 pounds from flying the jet.

[Lonewolf_50]

In September, Defense News revealed that concerns over ejection safety have forced the Pentagon to ground any F-35 pilots under 138 pounds from flying the jet. So what? Back when I was a young aviator, some of my compadres were disqualified on jets, at all, due to anthropomorphic restrictions: some too tall, ejection risk too high, and some were too short on effective reach (all of them being short persons).

Having an anthro limitation doesn't matter. Over 50% of Navy pilots, for example, are helicopter pilots. Not all Air Force pilots are going to be Lightning II pilots. There's a lot of drama going on here ... for what looks to me to be no good reason.

As to the larger issue, cutting the buy just bumps the price per unit up again. Lovely. The Hi Low Mix fails yet again.

[sandiego89]

re the testimony at US House of Representatives:

http://docs.house.gov/meetings/AS/AS25/20151021/104087/HHRG-114-AS25-Wstate-BogdonUSAFC-20151021.pdf

3 potential fixes to ejection seat: Low weight (of pilot) switch slightly delaying chute opening, lighter helmet, head support sewn onto the risers.

Lots of stuff in there, I noted B-61 integration coming, long time to integrate other weapons, acknowledgement of not being a dog-fighter and reduced rearward visibility, gun accuracy "favaorable to most legacy aircraft" (hmm interesting wording- I thought it was supposed to be hyper accurate), the ALIS system being much more consuming than thought, partner progress with Italian and Japanese lines, among other things.

[rotornut]

Canada?s pullout from F-35 program will boost costs for other nations by as much as $1M per jet | National Post (http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadas-pullout-from-f-35-program-will-boost-costs-for-other-nations-by-as-much-as-1m-per-jet)

[Miles Magister]

Is this going to be the helicopter scenario all over again?

[orca]

It all depends on whether you consider a 0.7 percent increase to be anything other than yet another inconvenience on the way to owning 5th gen.

[MPN11]

Being vaguely contentious, does one need 5th Gen to drop LGBs on Toyota pickups?

Where is the intermediate capability coming from in the future? As the entire Defence Budget gets sucked into F-35 and 2 x CVAs, what is left to do the simpler stuff? Ageing Tornados and [some] Typhoons that can be spared from UK Air Defence?


Probably wrong thread ... please excuse me :(

[Not_a_boffin]

Being equally contentious one might argue that the total cost of Typhoon exceeds that of CVF and the likely F35 buy.

You don't need Typhoon to do "the simple stuff" either, but I rarely hear calls to bin the Typhoon fleet and replace with MQ1 for Hilux plinking and/or Scorpion for QRA......

[LowObservable]

Where did this "Scorpion for QRA" stuff start?

It's a great jet for QRA against Dornier Do217s, even an He177 in a pinch. Any Tu-16 could outrun it.

[Rhino power]

...or Scorpion for QRA......

That's a pretty poor analogy, the Scorpion would be useless for QRA duties, 450 kts max speed? It couldn't catch a cold!

-RP

[Rhino power]

Ah, LO beat me to it!

-RP

[Courtney Mil]

Ah, Scorpion. Lovely concept that I can see working for those roles for which it was conceived. Light, simple, quite inexpensive to buy and operate (£3.000 per hour?).

Now, QRA(I). Where is the speed, the AAR capability, the AI Radar (I-Master is a neat little box, but not for A-A), the datalink, the long range nav kit?

Naaa. Apart from all that does anyone think that any government buying F-35 is about to buy another platform to the things that "they don't need F-35 for"? Politics.

Now, find me another aircraft in the inventory (current or projected) that will do AD.

[LowObservable]

Good question as to whether the Typhoon cost exceeds CVF+F-35Bs.

But how many F-35Bs? And does that include LCC?

[ORAC]

Does anyone have any idea of what the final bill for CVF + F-35 will be? :confused::confused:

[orca]

There are inevitably a couple of facts and a couple of shades of grey.

You don't need Lightning II or Typhoon. You might want both or either..but you don't need them.

However, you do need a Lightning II if you want to keep pace, for a little while, with threat SAM systems. You need Lightning II because the only alternative is F-22 or not going. You have never needed Typhoon. Typhoon has been desirable but in no way essential. There were and are plenty of COTS aircraft that could do the QRA role and everything Typhoon has achieved overseas.

So, it's just a case of where you set the bar really.

Freedom of Action at a high tariff? Gen 5.

CAS and strike unopposed...anything you like from Buccaneer onwards.

CAS and strike with a medium air threat...same again, just take some HARM/ ALARM shooters with you and a Growler or two.

Guard the UK against Russian snoopers and rogue air liners? F-3 or equivalent.

The cure for all ills up to the 95th percentile? F-15E or F-18E.

Want to keep shovelling money down a black hole trying to get an AD platform to work as well as an F-15E or F-18E in the air-to-mud world but failing. Typhoon's your answer.

Whilst we wait for the ferociously expensive Lightning II we are actually not doing ourselves any favours on the messaging front by continually turning a blind eye to the costs of Typhoon upgrade, costs of Typhoon support, the aircraft's short comings both air-to-air and (stifles laugh) air-to-mud...and the fact that we didn't actually need it in the first place. But then again we do (genuinely) need chaps with top buttons undone...so maybe it's money well spent.

As for the boat? Naval aviation is very simple: Do it well or not at all. At the moment it doesn't to me look like we're doing it well. Maybe the next generation can pull the rabbit out of the hat...although I suspect we've armed them with a hat full of dog mess to do it from.

[msbbarratt]

Does anyone have any idea of what the final bill for CVF + F-35 will be? :confused::confused:The Liberals have promised to cancel the Conservative purchase of F-35 jets, which is expected to cost $44 billion over the jets’ four-decade life cycle. “We will immediately launch an open and transparent competition to replace the CF-18 fighter aircraft,” the platform says, specifying that the F-35’s “stealth first-strike capability” is not needed to defend Canada. Who knows. That's why there's accountants involved, so as to make it hard to pin that number down...

Big Business and Tax

It's interesting to compare the costs against companies like Apple and Google.

Apple have hundreds of billions of profit stashed away, apparently in Irish bank accounts. If Apple were to repatriate that money to the USA they'd have to pay 40% (I think that's right) tax on it, and Uncle Sam could expect to get at least high tens of $billions out of that. That's going to be a fairly large proportion of the F35 costs right there.

With Apple not repatriating that money and by not paying that tax, the country goes without, and the American tax payer has to stump up the cash instead.

One wonders just how socially useful a company like Apple is to the USA. They pay their shareholder premiums by borrowing money, a debt that they can then use to offset whatever their remaining tax liability is.

[Just for the record, we can't blame these companies for maximising shareholder value whilst remaining within the law. They're practically obliged to do so by company law! If they're not socially useful to the USA, that's at least partly the USA's own fault.]

Underfunding

Personally I think that Western military procurement has been showing the signs of underfunding for many decades. Buying multirole this, that and the next thing is what happens when the bean counters insist on a project delivering more "value for money". There's been all sorts of projects (radars, ships, aircraft obviously) that have been way too expensive simply because of the drive for something multirole.

Ship radars in particular annoy me; a bigger ship is very cheap to buy and would have plenty of room for all the single role radars in the world. Yet there's a burning passion for smaller ships with multurole radars that are exceedingly expensive to develop and build! You can see the difference in philosophy between the West and Russia - they have big ships festooned with antennae of all sorts.

The real problem is that the bean counters don't want the certainty of future retired veterans pension liabilities on their books. Buying a single role aircraft is a whole lot cheaper than most people think, but the perception is that it takes as much manpower to run it as a multi role aircraft. What the bean counters really want is less manpower, which inevitably translates into fewer aircraft which then have to be multi-role to get the jobs done.

Real Politic

I've yet to meet a bean counter who thinks about program costs in relation to the costs of engaging in or, worse still, losing a war. As we here in Britain know, WWII was cripplingly expensive. There's no firm conclusion to be drawn from debating whether WWII might never have happened had Britain been more seriously tooled up in the 1930s. Given a much higher level of pre-war tooling up it could have been a lot shorter with a lot less loss of life. Something along the lines of spending a penny, saving a pound/dollar. However even with that lurking in our shared histories no accountant ever seems to acknowledge that a major war is still possible today and would be devastatingly expensive, and it's not really in our control as to whether it happens or not. Cutting back on defence is always a long term gamble for a short term gain.

F117

I like the example of the F117; single role, surprisingly cheap to develop considering it's radical design and era (1970s), middling unit cost, never a very large fleet so relatively OK manpower-wise. It made a very significant military contribution at one of those rare moments in history where that really mattered. Yet it would never have been built at all had anyone been insisting that it were also capable of air intercept.

[glad rag]

And if the F-35 had delivered in line with the ORIGINAL specifications ON TIME and ON BUDGET then neither would we be having this "conversation" OR a b@stardised lash up of both carrier, aircraft AND now, AEW "system"......

...the lack of oversight by decades of politicians, VSO's and civil servants is a legacy that we will all rue one day.

[LowObservable]

ORAC

[:mad:!!! I meant Orca.]

Can't say that I have much insight into Typhoon upgrade costs. My impression is that it has not so much failed in A2G as been subject to rather limited and disorganized efforts until recently.

There are actually two other ways to go into denied airspace: cruise missiles and a Neuron-type UCAV. Both complementary to a classic fighter aircraft.

As for the operational costs: Swiss assessed Typhoon and Rafale as 2x Gripen. Norway's predicted LCC for 52 F-35A is 3x Sweden's estimate for 60 Gripen, both for 30 years. And F-35B will be >F-35A. So I find the idea that F-35B will cost less to operate than Typhoon unconvincing on its face.

[ORAC]

LO, your dyslexia is showing, I think you need to talk to orca, not me.....

orca

http://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/pr/images/cetaceans/orca_spyhopping-noaa.jpg

ORAC

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--BFbHaF1j--/18lvv23l080dwjpg.jpg

[Courtney Mil]

Orca, would it surprise you know that pretty much all those arguments regarding Typhoon were made, examined, studied etc, to death. Not once at the start of the whole thing, but repeatedly over the years, especially as things started to slip and certain partner nations started to have problems with rather important bits of the programme. Even your idea of buying off the shelf (F-15 for example) was revisited. One of the issues was that a lot of those things did not meet the requirements ("which ones?" You may ask).

Trying to get four nations to agree on anything was almost impossible. One did actually try to pull out altogether, but politics and "work share" won the day. "UK plc" was quoted more than once, of course.

Fortunately, the end result (whenever we get to measure that) worked out pretty well - possibly against all the odds. We'd better hope the same can be said of JSF one day.

[Tourist]

Fortunately, the end result (whenever we get to measure that) worked out pretty well - possibly against all the odds. We'd better hope the same can be said of JSF one day.

Courtney

Do you honestly think that is true?

This is not a dig at the basic airframe of the Typhoon, but the simple fact is that the toys have not really performed (yet).

The Tornado is still required to do the jobs that the Typhoon should be capable of doing by now.

Ironic that the Tornado which is a truly awful basic airframe has good toys, and the Typhoon really doesn't.

[Bastardeux]

Courtney

Do you honestly think that is true?

This is not a dig at the basic airframe of the Typhoon, but the simple fact is that the toys have not really performed (yet).

The Tornado is still required to do the jobs that the Typhoon should be capable of doing by now.

Ironic that the Tornado which is a truly awful basic airframe has good toys, and the Typhoon really doesn't.

As I understand it, there are an awful lot of things ready to go on Typhoon; we're just counting down to the expirey date of a certain development sharing contract. I think there's a strong desire to keep the good stuff for ourselves/why should we let the others free-ride off us.

[a1bill]

They will then pay 100% of update costs on the Typhoon, as opposed to about 5% of f-35 update costs. I'm wondering what sort of budget they will put aside for the Typhoon.

[Just This Once...]

Oh yeah, ask any F-35 partner nation how cheap and easy it is to add anything to the aircraft or vary things. He who flinches first gets a massive bill.

Just ask the Canadians how much a probe was going to cost?

Guess why we are where we are with external tanks?

Bottom line, if you want something that the US are prepared to wait for or have another platform to cover the gap then expect to pay. A lot. Of course, even if you want it Uncle Sam can just say no.

[Not_a_boffin]

That's a pretty poor analogy, the Scorpion would be useless for QRA duties, 450 kts max speed? It couldn't catch a cold!

-RP

Fair one - it was a poor choice of bird. However, the analogy, primarily aimed at demonstrating that we didn't need to spend north of £16BN to essentially service QRA, when we could have had something much simpler. F5, Flagon, etc remains valid.

In actual fact I wasn't trying to knock Typhoon either. It appears to be an excellent frame and will eventually end up with most or all of the capabilities required. As hopefully will QEC and F35. It's just that one has cost much more than the other, somehow without attracting the same opprobrium...

[LowObservable]

Mr Boffin - It's true that the UK's investment in F-35/CVF has so far been much smaller than that in Typhoon, according to NAO. But so far that's only one squadron of aircraft - I have not seen numbers for the full 48 and how that compares (on a unit cost basis) with a similar number of Typhoons.

And to amplify JTO's comments, there are more bills to come, some of them rather large, and LCC will (as usual) come up to a multiple of acquisition alone.

While Typhoon may not have drawn the same opprobrium as F-35, it certainly suffered from lack of enthusiasm, and has never enjoyed the same stability of funding. The features that aren't there are mostly missing because nobody paid for them, and now there's a bigger fleet to retrofit, and you have to add capabilities and fix obsolescence at the same time. Fun!

[orca]

I would dearly love to hear that Typhoon was and had continually been a great success. Sadly that will only ever be true on the front pages on RAF news or similar.

As an Air Defender you only need a couple of things. For the longer range fight a combination of great sensor, link and weapon - the Typhoon has a very average radar, good IRST, average link and weapon. It may one day have AESA and Meteor - but this is not that day. Eurofighter 2000 may one day deliver - but not this side of 2020.

In the short range arena you need performance, HOBS capable helmet and HOBS weapon with decent Rmin. Typhoon has performance.

So on balance you'd have been at least as well off buying off the shelf.

Stacks of blood, sweat and tears from the boys and girls on the frontline, but a woeful equipment solution for a team who deserved better.

As for air to mud - remind me which stand off weapon it uses in 2015...a mere 9'years after AOC 1 Gp announced it would be in Afghanistan by the middle of 2007. What's the ARM?

Unless you're packing JDAM, HARM, JSOW, Harpoon etc you're not even at the F-18 entry bar...but feel free to pat yourself on the back about KFF and Paveway 4!

[downsizer]

Dude, you forgot 27mm strafe....:}

[orca]

Courtney old chap - I know that the arguments were held and revisited repeatedly. But that only saddens me. How can we possibly claim that what we have paid, for what we ended up with is in anyway VfM?

Speaking as the unelected representative of the generation who bought the glossy magazines with EAP in as school kids, who got briefed to death at Valley about the thing, who did whole front line tours without it pitching up, who got to desk jobs before it took Q, who listened to 2 stars saying it was going to theatre...when it didn't....and who are now hanging up their flying boots after whole careers in the air watching nothing more impressive than a fighter with a mech scan radar armed with the air to mud store we Harrier types took into battle in 2008....deplorable.

[Courtney Mil]

Orca, I do understand that you are not a great fan of the Typhoon. I, on the other hand, am not a great fan of the way the programme was run - and that was my view from my very early days of my involvement in it. It is that which has held back the development of its capabilities. I agree it's a deplorable state of affairs.

Some of your claims about its capabilities are slightly outdated now, but I would never suggest other than too many of them were (and are) too long coming.

Just one other thing. The "off the shelf" myth is exactly that; a myth. Everything has to be developed, built and supported by someone. It's only "off the shelf" because someone else has done the first bits already or is doing them.

I wonder what platform you would have chosen, instead of Typhoon, to meet the need in the days when the Typhoon decision was taken.

[Tourist]

I would choose Typhoon again.

I would also, despite my disparagement of it, choose Tornado again.


I can do that because of hindsight.

We never needed a decent war winning aircraft in all the years we had Tornado, and up till now we have not needed one whilst we have had Typhoon.

What buying expensive home made toys has done is keep our home defence industries in the game. Some day we might need them.

If we actually had a war to go to. A proper real war, the answer now is the same as when the Tornado was purchased.

F15

Lots of.

[LowObservable]

One tech point. Back in 2002 the Eurofighter people had a coherent explanation for why they didn't go AESA right off the bat, which has been confirmed by all the difficulties with early fighter AESAs.

Tourist: when Tornado was bought the F-15 was not an option for the mission, because "not a pound for air-to-ground" still ruled. Macs brought the Strike Eagle demo to Farnborough in 1980 but it was too late by then.

Would the RAF been well equipped with F-15s? Probably so. But today there would be no UK combat aircraft industry and if UK wanted to stay aligned with the USAF there would be one choice: F-35. The other choice might be a Franco-German Rafale.

[Tourist]

Exactly my point, hence my support for the buy.

If we had actually had a war, we might have lost it without F15s though.....

[a1bill]

When here, the RAF said they went with the radar because it outmatched the red air and so fitted the requirement.

This far away, it looked like the end of USSR, euro partner squabbling and later resistance to properly fund the eurofighter/typhoon.

[glad rag]

Just keep on buying the super bug it's far superior for your needs.

[ORAC]

Some of the concerns are expressed below. Another is that the MDF packages are regionalised. Who decides who has access to which packages? No OOA deployments without US approval? Will the UK have access to the South America package for Falkland deployments, for example?

AW&ST: U.S. Will Keep Locks On JSF Software Updates (http://aviationweek.com/defense/us-will-keep-locks-jsf-software-updates)

Foreign air forces using the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter are being compelled to fund $150 million software laboratories, based in the U.S. and almost 50% staffed by U.S. personnel, that generate data crucial to the fighter’s ability to identify new radio-frequency threats. This regime is more stringent and far-reaching than earlier U.S. fighter export deals. Those usually withheld the software’s source code from the customer, but in most cases allowed local users to manage their own “threat libraries,” data that allowed the electronic warfare (EW) system to identify radio-frequency threats, with in-country, locally staffed facilities.

For the U.K. in particular, the reliance on U.S.-located laboratories looks like a pullback from its earlier position. In 2006, concern over access to JSF technology reached the national leadership level, and prompted a declaration, by U.S. President George W. Bush and U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair, that “both governments agree that the U.K. will have the ability to successfully operate, upgrade, employ and maintain the JSF such that the U.K. retains operational sovereignty over the aircraft.” That promise seemingly contrasts with the severe limits now being imposed on non-U.S. access to the system.

Concerns about the lack of sovereignty and access to the core system are being voiced, since customer laboratory personnel will not be co-located with operating units. A retired senior Royal Air Force officer comments that “the non-U.S. operators are going to have to take a very great deal on trust. Further, ‘rubbish in, rubbish out’ is still going to hold sway, and I doubt that the non-U.S. customers will be able to check what is going in.” Security arrangements “seem to go a lot further and deeper” than on earlier platforms, he says.

Another source close to the U.K. user community notes that Lockheed Martin has advertised the capability of the “fusion engine”—the software that combines inputs from different sensors and data links—to identify targets and implement rules of engagement automatically. But if the logic of the fusion engine itself is not understood at the U.K.’s operational level, he says, “you can imagine that this slaughters our legal stance on a clear, unambiguous and sovereign kill chain.”.........

It is not clear who, ultimately, would control the use of the foreign-funded laboratories, which will depend on host U.S. bases for power, communications and access. Lockheed Martin referred all questions on this topic to the JSF program office (JSFPO), which did not respond to repeated requests for comment.......

The mission data files (MDF) generated in the U.S. labs are sensitive because they are essential to the aircraft’s stealth characteristics. They include information that allows onboard software to build a so-called “blue line” flightpath that avoids exposing its less-stealthy viewing angles to hostile radar.....The MDFs are twice as large as the equivalent data load in the F-22, the Air Force has said. There are 12 packages covering different regions.......

The JSF program is establishing two centers to produce and update MDFs, at Eglin AFB, Florida, and NAS Point Mugu, California. The western center will host a lab to support Japanese and Israeli F-35s. An Australia/U.K. facility and a laboratory to support Norway and Italy will be established at Eglin. Lockheed Martin was awarded a contract to build the Australia/U.K. facility in April. According to an Australian government document, the lab will have a staff of about 110 people, of whom 50 will be U.S. nationals, and the international partners will cover all its operating costs. .....

[a1bill]

Other than Sweetman having his usual doom and gloom, clueless how it is going to work. Are any of the partners saying they aren't getting what they want? Israel is even getting a plug and play EW.

Australia , UK and probably canada are sharing the development of threat library and all 3 are in different regions. The threats can be updated between missions and even shared in real time.

[glad rag]

All for free??

[LowObservable]

Australia , UK and probably canada are sharing the development of threat library

Canada? Can you define "clueless" for us ignorami?

ORAC

One interesting factor is that nobody ever thinks that the US might want to prevent them from taking unilateral or non-US-led action, because it's been the US leading the charge for the last 20 years or so. But there's still a substantial group in one major party that would like Bernie as C-in-C, and a lot of people would have had the US do nothing in the Falklands. Not to mention you could get some folks in the Pentagon saying "Sorry, but what you're doing isn't worth the risk of compromise to our crown jewels."

[a1bill]

GR, ???? they even have to pay for the planes they want. Shocking, isn't it.

LO, you are so abusive it's getting tiresome. Canada still have guys in the ACURL. yes they are playing for free, for now. Let me know when they change the name to AURL or Canada withdraws from the F-35 programme.

[MSOCS]

LO,

I wouldn't have called you clueless. You're just missing large pieces of the whole picture but that's not your fault for being a civvie and not having access.

In my opinion you're a very thorough and well-read Journo who asks pertinent questions. However all these years of hatred toward the F35 Programme have resulted in bitter and aloof responses to those you consider below your acumen; i.e. everyone.

Other than that I read your work when I can.

Keep it up!

[LowObservable]

MSOCS -

You're falling into the Lory trap again.

Without getting into classified stuff, which other fighter aircraft are exported on condition that the buyers can only edit their threat libraries in facilities based in the vendor's sovereign territory and controlled (inside and out) by the vendor's armed forces?

[a1bill]

LO, I'm only going by open source, but from 'what I have read/heard' you are so wrong believing the Sweetman article. The partners and even FMS customers can add to the Cyber/EM spectrum of their EW suite. I think it is a layered approach that has a preprogrammed suite that is added to from the battlespace. In real time or between missions.

[LowObservable]

I'm only going by open source, but from 'what I have read/heard'

= I pulled it all out of my earhole.

[Snafu351]

a1bill, how exactly do you think your opinions and sniping add to this thread?
You are patently not, nor have ever been, a military professional and clearly have no access or information of an interesting nature yet you persist in posting your opinion as if it in some way contributes.
Are you solely here for some sort of self gratification?

[ORAC]

And the USN orders yet more F-18Gs (http://snafu-solomon.********.co.uk/2015/10/15-more-ea-18gs-for-us-navy.html)........

The Boeing Co., St. Louis, Missouri, is being awarded an $897,530,175 modification to a previously awarded fixed-price-incentive-firm contract (N00019-14-C-0032) for the procurement of 15 Lot 38 full-rate production EA-18G aircraft and associated airborne electronic attack kits.

Work will be performed in El Segundo, California (40.3 percent); St. Louis, Missouri (24.1 percent); Bethpage, New York (18.5 percent); Cleveland, Ohio (1.7 percent); Bloomington, Minnesota (1.5 percent); Mesa, Arizona (1.3 percent); Torrance, California (1.3 percent); Vandalia, Ohio (1.1 percent); Ajax, California (1.1 percent); Irvine, California (0.8 percent); Santa Clarita, California (0.6 percent); South Korea (0.6 percent); and various other locations in the continental U.S. (7.1 percent).

Work is expected to be completed in January 2018. Fiscal 2015 aircraft procurement (Navy) funds in the amount of $897,530,175 are being obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year.

The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity.

[Courtney Mil]

a1bill, how exactly do you think your opinions and sniping add to this thread?
You are patently not, nor have ever been, a military professional and clearly have no access or information of an interesting nature yet you persist in posting your opinion as if it in some way contributes.
Are you solely here for some sort of self gratification?

Agreed. It's been going on like this for too long and, frankly, rather puts me off even visiting this thread most of the time. As for accusing LO of being abusive, he needs to get his own attitude in order first.

[Rhino power]

I think, a1bill is actually JSFfan reborn, and I claim my £5!

-RP

[glad rag]

And the USN orders yet more F-18Gs (http://snafu-solomon.********.co.uk/2015/10/15-more-ea-18gs-for-us-navy.html)........

The Boeing Co., St. Louis, Missouri, is being awarded an $897,530,175 modification to a previously awarded fixed-price-incentive-firm contract (N00019-14-C-0032) for the procurement of 15 Lot 38 full-rate production EA-18G aircraft and associated airborne electronic attack kits.

Work will be performed in El Segundo, California (40.3 percent); St. Louis, Missouri (24.1 percent); Bethpage, New York (18.5 percent); Cleveland, Ohio (1.7 percent); Bloomington, Minnesota (1.5 percent); Mesa, Arizona (1.3 percent); Torrance, California (1.3 percent); Vandalia, Ohio (1.1 percent); Ajax, California (1.1 percent); Irvine, California (0.8 percent); Santa Clarita, California (0.6 percent); South Korea (0.6 percent); and various other locations in the continental U.S. (7.1 percent).

Work is expected to be completed in January 2018. Fiscal 2015 aircraft procurement (Navy) funds in the amount of $897,530,175 are being obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year.

The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity.

Are these airframes and their system "mature"?? IE ready for operations, unlike the thread subject.

[a1bill]

LO: = I pulled it all out of my earhole.

Sort of, I guess. this is part of it, if you pick this podcast up at about an hour, to hear how the f-35 will update the threat library between missions
https://goo.gl/oNSoTD

[a1bill]

Rhino, I saw Ken being bullied, abused and provoked. I chose to say that being called an idiot by LO is abusive and I chose not to respond in kind or let it get under my skin.

[a1bill]

GR:Are these airframes and their system "mature"?? IE ready for operations, unlike the thread subject.

I think 12 of those lot 38 G's are for Australia, the Growlers are in theater now.

[LowObservable]

I chose to say that being called an idiot by LO is abusive

I object strongly. I am still at "sarcasm" level, and have to exhaust dramatic irony, metaphor, bathos, puns, parody, litotes and satire, before turning it a couple more stops to "abusive", at which point you will surely know about it.

Also, I'm still waiting for MSOCS/The Lory* to come up with some specifics rather than just "you can't know about this because it's all secret".

* Indeed, she had quite a long argument with the Lory, who at last turned sulky, and would only say, `I am older than you, and must know better'; and this Alice would not allow without knowing how old it was, and, as the Lory positively refused to tell its age, there was no more to be said.

[a1bill]

Did you listen to the podcast from about the one hour mark? I think that should put your mind at rest, about the claim that the UK can only update their threat libraries in the AUCRL.

[ORAC]

a1bill,

Listened to the broadcast and it's a good description of how they operate the Growler. However, from 1 hour on the comments about the F-35 are hopes. e.g. Reference updating the F18 mission tapes between sorties he adds that, "we hope to be able to do that with the F-35 as well".

I am not sure how you reach from that comment to, "The partners and even FMS customers can add to the Cyber/EM spectrum of their EW suite. I think it is a layered approach that has a preprogrammed suite that is added to from the battlespace. In real time or between missions."

In fact, the Sweetman article would seem to dash those hopes.

[WhiteOvies]

LO, ORAC,

I really don't expect any of the UK team working in the EW/Mission Systems part of the F-35 programme to come on here and spill the beans on exactly what they are doing and how they are doing it.

The issue of Op Sov has always been a concern, hence the completely appropriate spotlight on it, but there are benefits to being a Level 1 partner. The UK has had key, experienced personnel working in the US and UK on both the technical and legal issues around this subject for several years and our joint efforts with the US on other platforms has also been useful.

You may want specifics to satisfy your interests/agendas but I would truly be saddened to see them broadcast on a public forum. Some elements of this aircraft are classified for good reasons, especially following previous lapses which are evident from Chinese aircraft developments.

[Lonewolf_50]

AW&ST: U.S. Will Keep Locks On JSF Software Updates (http://aviationweek.com/defense/us-will-keep-locks-jsf-software-updates)

Foreign air forces using the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter are being compelled to fund $150 million software laboratories, based in the U.S. and almost 50% staffed by U.S. personnel, that generate data crucial to the fighter’s ability to identify new radio-frequency threats. We did something similar with the threat libraries for the ESM gear on the Seahawk that got sold to the Aussies, back in 80'/90's. As I am about 20 years out of season on that platform, no idea what progress/upgrade our friends in Oz and the folks in DC have since worked out.

I object strongly. I am still at "sarcasm" level, and have to exhaust dramatic
irony, metaphor, bathos, puns, parody, litotes and satire, before turning it a couple more stops to "abusive", at which point you will surely know about it. It seems best to play the ball, not the man, as I have been advised a few times myself.

[LowObservable]

I really don't expect any of the UK team working in the EW/Mission Systems part of the F-35 programme to come on here and spill the beans on exactly what they are doing and how they are doing it.

Neither do I.

But if the location and function of the F-35 Reprogramming Labs are on the public record, surely the same would be true of parallel facilities in other programs. So the question I asked MSOCS - "which other fighter aircraft are exported on condition that the buyers can only edit their threat libraries in facilities based in the vendor's sovereign territory and controlled (inside and out) by the vendor's armed forces?" - should have an unclassified answer.

[a1bill]

I think Lonewolf_50 post above yours LO, answers part of the question for you.

[MSOCS]

Hello again LO,

Sorry to have kept you waiting but I clearly don't frequent these halls of amusement as much as you do.

That said, to answer your question in an unclassified way:

"which other fighter aircraft are exported on condition that the buyers can only edit their threat libraries in facilities based in the vendor's sovereign territory and controlled (inside and out) by the vendor's armed forces?"

It isn't/wasn't a "condition" as far as I am aware. Perhaps not everything is as sinister as you might like to postulate. Perhaps there are other reasons that cannot be disclosed eh?

Thank you for the Alice comparison; it says more about you than me and I can guarantee I'm much, much younger Mr S!

[LowObservable]

MSOCS - Thanks. I'm really trying to smoke this story out.

You state: "It [locating the labs stateside, I presume] isn't/wasn't a "condition" as far as I am aware."

The full story reads:

But even the current security regime is the result of a compromise by the U.S. In September 2014, JSFPO director Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan indicated that the foreign-owned laboratories would allow the operators more access to the system than they would otherwise have enjoyed.

That suggests that if building a U.S. lab was not a condition for buying the airplane, it was still the only way to have sovereign access to threat libraries. The Bogdan reference was from here...

Foreign F-35 Partners Allowed More Freedom to Customize Fighter Software - USNI News (http://news.usni.org/2014/11/04/foreign-f-35-partners-allowed-freedom-customize-fighter-software)

... and if the JSFPO thought that USNI had it wrong they had lots of time to say so, and they didn't.

[MSOCS]

LO,

This statement is quite a good one to center on:

“So we have a throughput problem,” Bogdan said.

Perhaps that was a driver when decisions were made. Perhaps it was cost of countries building their own on "sovereign" territory. Data sharing. Yep. Always a contentious subject.

I think that saying the building of a Lab in the USA was a condition when buying a US-owned jet is incorrect. Was it a logical decision for Partner nations? Perhaps.

Maybe I need to find someone older to tell me how it is.

[LowObservable]

If it was all about money, the JSFPO has had lots of opportunities to say so.

[ORAC]

A long way back, when the US was trying to sell the F16 around the ME and other areas, they originally insisted that all EW kit had to be integrated by GD back in the USA - purchasing nations having to provide EW pods and threat libraries.

Strangely enough the interested parties, many of whom had UK/FR/other pods had issues with this themselves - and with the manufacturers who had no interest in giving examples for the US to reverse engineer. Let alone the suspicion that a certain other nation, other than the US, might have back doors so they could operate without interference (in many senses of the word).

Labs in the US ensures that no US sensitive data escapes the USA, it also (being cynical) ensures the USA enjoys total access to all purchaser red and blue libraries and the synergies between them - whilst also enjoying the opportunity to - ahem - manipulate the resultant product, in the interests of national security.

I note the Israelis are being allowed to integrate their own EW equipment and datalink equipment. I note with interest the lack of mention of an Israel US laboratory.......

Panetta?s Visit Sealed F-35 Jet Sale to Israel - Inside Israel - News - Arutz Sheva (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/158594#.UTPFZzCG0j4)


p.s. The US policy was relaxed when sales faltered. Perhaps it will do so again......

[Willard Whyte]

With 'ATB' given a green light, '35 is so last week.

[MSOCS]

"Get hype!"

[Mach Two]

The UK/US EW sharing issues, you may all be pleased to hear, are as good as ever. Where the "labs" are based are of no concequence to the F-35 programme. The U.K. Is not disadvantaged by location, locacation, location.

EDIT to add. A1Bill, you are being a bit of a petulant child here, as has been mentioned. My advice is to tone it down a bit. Just advice, nothing else.

[glad rag]

GR:Are these airframes and their system "mature"?? IE ready for operations, unlike the thread subject.

I think 12 of those lot 38 G's are for Australia, the Growlers are in theater now.

Apologies, further research shows the aircraft in service date to be 2009, so hopefully it's sorted by now...

[a1bill]

no, you were right, our first one has just come off the lot 38 line.
"The reductions will be mitigated through projected savings negotiated on the Lot 38 airframe procurement, the AEA
kit procurement, and other various GFE contracts within the budget. Synergies with procurement of the Royal
Australian Air Force EA-18G and the FY 2013 eleven F/A-18E congressionally-added aircraft increased
procurement quantities, which result in reduced unit costs for all procurements."
http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/Reading_Room/Selected_Acquisition_Reports/14-F-0402_DOC_23_EA-18GDecember2013SAR.PDF

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/australia39s-first-ea-18g-enters-production-400660/

[LowObservable]

M2 - I see your point about location. This is the age of the Intertubez after all.

On the other hand, it is consequential that the labs depend on the U.S. military for power, communications and access and are 50 percent U.S.-staffed.

Thought experiment: what if the U.K. had been flying U.S. aircraft under such terms in 1982, and Jimmy Carter had been re-elected in 1980? Would the information access issue have been of no consequence then?

[ORAC]

zOXtWxhlsUg

[Rhino power]

To be (operational), or not be (operational)...

"The 61st FS is up, running and fully operational," said Lt. Col. David Lercher, 56th Fighter Wing F-35 division chief. "In order to be considered fully operational the squadron must have 24 primarily assigned aircraft."

And then one paragraph later...

The 62nd FS is on track to have eight F-35s by the end of 2015 and be fully operational by the end of 2017

:confused:

Full article- https://www.f35.com/news/detail/f-35-mission-continues-to-evolve

-RP

[Courtney Mil]

Fully initially operational, maybe?

[glad rag]

Ideal for "show of force"....:E

[sandiego89]

buuuuurrrrrrrpppppppp..............

Gun has been fired in the air. A few bursts from AF-2

F-35A completes first successful aerial gun test - IHS Jane's 360 (http://www.janes.com/article/55712/f-35a-completes-first-successful-aerial-gun-test)

Looks like a a straight and level run.

[Biggus]

Rhino Power,

Maybe I'm being dumb (it wouldn't be the first time), but I don't see the problem.

One quote refers to the 61st FS being operational, implying it has 24 jets.

The next quote, with regard to only currently having 8 jets, refers to the 62nd FS.

Two different squadrons, at different stages of development, with different aircraft numbers at this time - so where is the issue?

[Mach Two]

On the other hand, it is consequential that the labs depend on the U.S. military for power, communications and access and are 50 percent U.S.-staffed.


All I can say is don't underestimate the way things have been for a long time. As for 1982, the same answer.

[MSOCS]

Biggus,

I believe it is a tongue-in-cheek comment because the USAF doesn't intend to declare any sort of "operational" capability until next August, when they should hopefully declare IOC. Therefore any implication that a sqn is operational, by virtue of having 24 PAA, sort of misses the point of what "operational" means.

[Rhino power]

Well spotted, Biggus! :O But... I'm gonna go with, MSOCS version of events! :\

-RP

[Hempy]

This Helmet thing still has me a bit mystified. Just read and article that quotes $400,000 US a unit. Each is custom fitted to the individual pilots head for comfort and calibration.

The Helmet comes with the price of the aircraft. Well, the first one does. So there's 4000 Helmets. If you leave 2000 aircraft on the ground, and give 2000 pilots a spare, at least that save an aircraft being potentially grounded thanks to a Helmet malfunction at least.

And then there's training replacement pilots, so a course of 10 studes costs $4M straight up. You wouldn't want to flunk the course on your first week!!

It just seems to me like the weakest link, especially without an external HUD. Break a part of the aircraft and you hopefully have spares on site.

[GlobalNav]

A pricey bit of personal kit - yes. Compared to the price of the airplane? Peanuts.

I wonder about things like mass and volume in a cockpit where keeping one's head on a swivel is important. And I wonder about how the displayed information holds up under the dynamics of moving target, moving airplane, moving head and all that. Also, as primary display, it happens to be monochromatic - so distinguishing all the kinds of information - in a hurry seems like a challenging prospect. God bless our awesome skilled pilots.

The helmet is the "primary display" and I wonder what's left when the unthinkable - display failure - occurs. A $400,000 helmet can't really fail, though, can it? What was I thinking?

[Radix]

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

[a1bill]

It is my understanding that there is a moulded insert for the helmet to be fitted. I don't know if the actual helmet size varies. There may be a small, medium and large as a guess.

[sandiego89]

I don't know if the actual helmet size varies. There may be a small, medium and large as a guess

Likley need extra large for the ex-Harrier guys however :E

Plus a large watch holder......

[M609]

First RNoAF pilot Morten "Dolby" Hanche had his first training flight yesterday

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5632/22931240625_c416fce5de_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/AWmAVF)151110-F-BI157-161 (https://flic.kr/p/AWmAVF) by 56th Fighter Wing Public Affairs (https://www.flickr.com/photos/56fwpa/), on Flickr

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5640/22310070103_a7d86cac4d_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/zZsWz6)151110-F-BI157-219 (https://flic.kr/p/zZsWz6) by 56th Fighter Wing Public Affairs (https://www.flickr.com/photos/56fwpa/), on Flickr

[glad rag]

Two things:-

One. Nice to see the adaptive paint in operation.

Two. Not so nicely FOD'ded puntero on the steps in that second picture, how much do these cabs come in at again?

Nice to see they are re-inventing the wheel : How many Harriers survived a FOD'ded engine compared to, say, a type with a second unFOD'ed engine?

For those who should know better....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_object_damage

Best wished to those who pick up the pieces...

[John Farley]

glad rag

Check your PMs

[jindabyne]

To answer the OP question, after all this time, the axe won't!

[ORAC]

http://l3.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/6FrJsgdspL5zMqd.79Ofww--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3NfbGVnbztmaT1maWxsO2g9MTg3O3B5b2ZmPTA7cT03NTt3 PTYwMA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ucomics.com/dt151111.gif

[ORAC]

Nothing major, and only half a pound, but every time the weight goes up.

Heard a story, not sure if it's true, that the Tornado F3s long series of FI extension programmes terminated when the test airframe "spontaneously disassembled" in the rig. Which kinda set a fixed limit on the service life.

Crack Discovered on F-35C Test Plane Wing Spar (http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/strike/2015/11/16/crack-discovered-f-35c-wing-spar-test-plane/75893376/)

WASHINGTON — Inspectors found a small crack in one of the wing spars of an F-35C carrier variant test plane, according to the Joint Program Office. The discovery does not impact current F-35 flying operations, and will not affect the Navy’s ability to meet its planned initial operating capability date in August 2018, JPO spokesman Joe DellaVedova told Defense News Monday.

The test plane is being used in what’s called “durability ground testing,” a normal test program in which testers apply cyclic loads to the airframe to simulate operational flying and identify any potential problems. Such discoveries are expected during a developmental test program, DellaVedova stressed. “The purpose of durability testing is to intentionally stress the aircraft to its structural limits so we can identify any issues and corrective actions needed to fix them,” he said.

This type of testing will ensure the F-35’s requirement for 8,000 flight hours, DellaVedova noted. During durability tests, the plane is tested to two lifetimes, or 16,000 flight hours, he explained. The test plane with the crack had more than 13,700 test hours, which equates to 6,850 flight hours — or more than 20 years of operational flying, DellaVedova emphasized.

The government and industry teams are working to find an engineering solution, he noted. One potential fix includes a modification of approximately a half pound to the aircraft. The fix will be incorporated to the rest of the fleet.

The plane has 13 wing “spars,” which are the main structural members of the wing.

[PhilipG]

I recall that a number of cracks have in the past been found on F35B bulkheads. These cracks appeared in ground-based testing at beyond the first 8,000 hours of use.

It was stated that all F35Bs would have to be strengthened and an improved design for bulkhead 496 would have to be developed.

Does anyone know if these/this new bulkhead(s) have been engineered and how much did this add to the weight?

[Thrust Augmentation]

Does anyone know if these/this new bulkhead(s) have been engineered and how much did this add to the weight?


Haven't seen anything regards it, F-35 programme mouth suggested a redesigned bulkhead for testing in March 14, but can't see anything since then.

[Maus92]

Uh, oh - USAF exploring new F-15 / F-16 / F/A-18(!) buy:

"LONDON — The U.S. Air Force may solicit bids for 72 new Boeing F-15s, Lockheed Martin F-16s or even Boeing F/A-18E/Fs as budget issues put planned production rates for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter out of reach, according to senior service and industry officials at the Defense IQ International Fighter Conference here."

US Air Force Considers New Boeing F-15s or Lockheed Martin F-16s | Defense content from Aviation Week (http://aviationweek.com/defense/us-considers-72-new-f-15s-or-f-16s#comment-214171)

[glad rag]

What was the last navy aircraft the USAF successfully campaigned again :confused:

https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3293/3305440387_47bc307292_m.jpg

one that works, time and time again.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

The F-35B, The Naval Services, and Modern American Seapower (http://www.informationdissemination.net/2015/11/the-f-35b-naval-services-and-modern.html)

The F-35 program has been justifiably maligned, in the press, on Capitol Hill, and in the think-tank community. It has taken forever to field, it is expensive, and it has had its technical challenges. Its Air Force variant—the F-35A, has been criticized as not being up to the job currently carried out by the A-10, and its Navy version—the F-35C—has been criticized for not adequately addressing the most pressing issue of Navy power projection, the reduction in striking range of the carrier air wing. Yet hidden among these programs is the F-35B, the VSTOL variant built for the Marine Corps, which will deploy from U.S. Navy amphibious assault ships of the LHD and LHA classes. It replaces the AV-8B Harrier, and even the harshest critics of the F-35 program have a hard time not acknowledging the significant performance upgrades it brings to the Marine Air Wing, as it brings both considerably more range and ordnance carrying capacity. Yet if these performance increases were all the F-35B fielded, there would be little to support the argument for increased integration. What drives it, and what offers the truly revolutionary opportunity for closer integration, is its radar and electronic warfare system, the APG-81 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar system. This radar is capable of air-to air operations, air to surface operations, and a wide range of mostly classified electronic warfare and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance missions. Simply put, if this airplane is—as was the case for the AV-8B’s—primarily reserved for the support of Marines ashore—it will be represent a colossal lost opportunity to dramatically increase the reach and effectiveness of modern American Seapower.

From the decks of eleven Navy amphibious assault ships, the Marine Corps will operate fifth generation fighters nearly as capable as those that will operate from (eventually) eleven Navy aircraft carriers (range is the main deficit, as the VSTOL F-35B must “bring its runway with it”). And while some suggest that this fact means the distinctions between amphibious assault ships and aircraft carriers is blurring, the fact that the amphibious assault ships cannot accommodate a long duration airborne early warning capability and are dramatically less capable of independent operations (fuel and ordnance storage being the primary culprits) limits the utility of this view. Rather than focusing on the “how can the LHD replace the CVN” question, planners should be considering how to more closely integrate the operations of these platforms so that the highly capable aircraft on the amphibious assault ships are used as weapons in the broader maritime fight, rather than simply as expensive close air support. And here—as Hamlet would say—is the rub.

[glad rag]

Bla, bla, bla.

How many AMRAAM's can the F35B carry and retain that so expensive stealth capability to enable fleet defence outside, say, a surface huggers launch window AND have fuel to return?

[LowObservable]

Wouldn't it be simpler to put another six longer-range CV jets on the carrier?

[Rhino power]

Spotted this on another forum, a Norwegian pilot's impression of flying the F-35. Written in Norwegian with the English translation further down the page.
I found his very specific comment about being a paid shill of LM or sticking to the 'official story', because of his positive comments about engine power, rather curious?
Another interesting comment is about a continuous 'weak high-frequency tremor' during flight which steadily increases as he begins 'maneuvering the aircraft more aggressively'...

Å fly F-35 ? erfaringer fra den første uka (Flying the F-35 ? English translation below) | (http://blogg.regjeringen.no/kampfly/2015/11/20/a-fly-f-35-erfaringer-fra-den-forste-uka/)

-RP

[a1bill]

I think he was just quantifying that the internet bloggers are wrong. The people who fly it says it has very good subsonic acceleration. It is ~= to the f-22 subsonic.

The tremor/buffet is a problem AISI. It may take some hours off the frame life, that the ground testing may not show. Are they working on fixing it?

[LowObservable]

Aside from portraying the buffeting as a positive (I can't say I've ever heard anyone else talk like that about any airplane) the piece performs a nifty switcheroo between the actual issue - that, contrary to gigabytes of advertising out of LockMart and its useful idiots, the F-35 is inferior to almost anything in BFM - and talking about acceleration in level flight at low speeds, in one case with far less than full internal fuel ("with more fuel on board than the F-16 can carry").

Obviously, whoever was interviewing the pilot or editing the piece assumed correctly that said switcheroo would be trumpeted by halfwits as the final answer to the BFM story.

[a1bill]

Wouldn't most people wait until they finish the flight control software. Listen to what the pilots are saying, before making a claim about the BFM. Or they could be called halfwits.

"Overall, flying the F-35 reminds me a bit of flying the F/A-18 Hornet, but with an important difference: It has been fitted with a turbo."

[Rhino power]

Regarding the 'tremor/buffet' issue, since he flew the A, is the problem (likely to be) the same for the B and C as well? Is the fix, assuming one is is being worked on, likely to be FCS related or an aerodynamic 'bodge', has anything else been mentioned about this?

-RP

[a1bill]

The C is said to have the worst buffet. I would guess it's a hardware issue with the tremor/buffet. I hope it's not in the too long/dear basket to fix.

[glad rag]

Wouldn't most people wait until they finish the flight control software. Listen to what the pilots are saying, before making a claim about the BFM. Or they could be called halfwits.



Ad hominem.

[glad rag]

Turbo's are fitted to production vehicles today to squeeze the maximum performance from small emission limited engines.
This can lead to lifeing issues, but as these usually occur out of warranty it's good business for the manufacturers.
[sometimes they use even smaller engines both turbo and supercharged-they don't any more as they failed within warranty and were soon dropped]

Anyway, the turbo analogy; perhaps not the best for those of us who can think.