PDA

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


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

Kitbag
28th Dec 2015, 13:35
Sandiego, thanks, nice & clear.

LowObservable
28th Dec 2015, 13:50
The "Harrier carrier" force on an LHA/LHD is imbalanced because the ship's primary/design mission, which is to carry an air+amphibious mobile force, is massively compromised by the offloading of helicopters. It's even worse on the new America and Tripoli, which (in a display of incredible stupidity) don't have well decks.

In the case of those ships, the well deck has been removed, and the innards arranged with more hangar space, and the ballast tanks associated with the well decks have been replaced with more aviation fuel - all because the V-22 and F-35B are larger than the aircraft they replace. But that leaves inadequate ship-to-shore capacity and later LHAs get the well deck back.

Increasingly, it appears that Marine doctrine is being driven by the need to justify the cost of the weapons, rather than the other way around.

sandiego89
28th Dec 2015, 15:56
LowObservable The "Harrier carrier" force on an LHA/LHD is imbalanced because the ship's primary/design mission, which is to carry an air+amphibious mobile force, is massively compromised by the offloading of helicopters. It's even worse on the new America and Tripoli, which (in a display of incredible stupidity) don't have well decks.

In the case of those ships, the well deck has been removed, and the innards arranged with more hangar space, and the ballast tanks associated with the well decks have been replaced with more aviation fuel - all because the V-22 and F-35B are larger than the aircraft they replace. But that leaves inadequate ship-to-shore capacity and later LHAs get the well deck back.

Increasingly, it appears that Marine doctrine is being driven by the need to justify the cost of the weapons, rather than the other way around.

It now looks like the America without the well deck will only be a 2 ship class. The second, the Tripoli, will have a smaller island improving flight operations. Looks like they will go back to having a (smaller than the WASP) well deck with the following ships.

It seems they realized the mistake, but I can see how they got there- with the emphasis on longer range maneuver doctrine the focus became more air heavy with the MV-22 and the F-35 being the main focus. Having a ship that could support more aircraft, and operate further away from contested waters made sense at the time to some- especially when there were "only" 10 CVN's in the mix. There have been fewer cases on needing to storm the beach in prior decades, and I think the manuever doctrine folks drank a bit too much kool-aid, and a more balanced approach has returned.

For a dedicated air heavy scenario she might have some utility, but she does seem to be a niche ship that will not be repeated.

The weapons driving the doctrine, or the other way around, is an interesting debate. The Marines have long championed manuever doctrine, and being able to go around or avoid a contested beach or LZ is still very much part of the mix. This helped drive the MV-22, the F-35 and the ultimately cancelled high speed amphibious personell carrrier.

Tourist
29th Dec 2015, 00:59
Tourist, did you actually read the article? The only bit of drama seems to be coming from you. It is quite clear the issue under threat is the logistics system, not the software that controls the ac (although that threat level may rise in future).


Quite clear?

" Should an enemy hack the ALIS system successfully, they could disable F-35 systems in combat, cause disastrous crashes,"

Yes, I did read the article.
The above quote is pretty clear I thought, and not just over dramatic but b@llocks.

MSOCS
29th Dec 2015, 07:45
Tourist. Agreed.

Radix
29th Dec 2015, 09:19
.............

t43562
29th Dec 2015, 09:32
I have no expertise here except in computing but it does strike me that the aspect which would be interesting is how software updates are managed and uploaded. e.g. I have read that the Typhoon uses FPGAs as part of flight control. I can see how it would be tempting to treat software like any other component and manage it from a logistics system, so this means that an attack might e.g. compromise the program for an FPGA associated with the flight control system.

It would be a silly way to attack since it would be discovered after a crash or two and then the usefulness would be at an end. It would obviously be better to introduce more subtle and random problems or even to simply get information about location and availability and not do anything at all.

How feasible? It's almost impossible to defend anything that is widely accessible - not 'forever' and not against 'everyone'. I saw a great lecture the other day about how passwords and cryptography are rarely attacked because there are so many ways around them that are easier. It's a bit like having a very fancy door and the thief enters by taking a couple of tiles off the roof or bribing the cleaner. To a certain extent it's a matter of how persistent and determined the thief is and whether you are the easiest target.

The degree of accessibility (how much of the system is directly or indirectly connected to one person) is the degree to which you have to assume things can go wrong. If they aren't testing it against attack as part of the development process then I assume it is full of holes because my general experience is that whatever isn't tested is definitely broken.

I'm not a security expert, but I am utterly cynical about software security because it's so complicated and difficult that I have never been in a software company that really truly took it seriously (apart from a lot of bull****ting) because if you got super-ultra serious you'd be using an abacus in a locked room underneath a mountain or something like that.

MSOCS
29th Dec 2015, 09:37
Radix, I suspect very few people on this forum have a true understanding of ALIS and how it integrates with F-35 at the component/network level.

I agree with the premise that any network is vulnerable to attack but getting into the software that is critical to flight safety and airworthiness is wholly far-fetched.

People forget that even though there is an A in ALIS (and it's Autonomic not Automatic), the thing will be operated and monitored by highly trained professionals who will almost certainly back the online stuff up with separate logistics tracking methods in the early days. Building confidence in the system is still ongoing as we're not at Milestone C and FRP yet. Regardless of the spin on both sides, there are genuinely a lot of dedicated people learning as I type this. I think sometimes that point is lost amongst the top trumps discussions and countless tenuous Dilbert contributions from posters/alter-egos.

glad rag
29th Dec 2015, 10:45
Building confidence in the system is still ongoing as we're not at Milestone C and FRP yet.

Nice Edit.

So was the cyber testing cancelled or not?

ORAC
29th Dec 2015, 11:08
the thing will be operated and monitored by highly trained professionals........... I think sometimes that point is lost amongst the top trumps discussions and countless tenuous Dilbert contributions from posters/alter-egos. Every failed project was built by highly trained professionals....

XggxeuFDaDU

faB5bIdksi8

F-22 Squadron Shot Down by the International Date Line (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/f22-squadron-shot-down-by-the-international-date-line-03087/)

Software glitches leave Navy Smart Ship dead in the water (https://gcn.com/Articles/1998/07/13/Software-glitches-leave-Navy-Smart-Ship-dead-in-the-water.aspx)

Contractor takes blame for math goof that crashed Mars probe (http://www.cse.lehigh.edu/~gtan/bug/localCopies/marsOrbiter)

http://www.community-credit.com/images/GuidanceSoftware.jpg

Oh, and after I left the RAF I worked for 15 years for one of the 3 main US "primes" on projects building military C4I software systems.

MSOCS
29th Dec 2015, 11:34
I'm sorry gr, I don't follow the "nice edit" banter. I also don't know anything about the cancelled (or otherwise) Cyber Testing you refer to.

PhilipG
29th Dec 2015, 11:48
As I understood it the GAO thought that the software was one of the major risks in the F35 project, it being the most software integrated plane that there has ever been built with sensor fusion throughout.
What this means to me is that there will be software from a number of different companies interacting with each other. Each of these different sensors / systems will have a requirement for software updates on a regular basis, what is to say that in one of these updates there will not be a Trojan Horse, thinking of the recently in the news Volkswagen software problems.
Obviously one hopes that the F35 is a success, there are many risks on the road to full warfighting capacity at release 3F.
If all the F35s in the world are to be connected through the ALICE system to a central server at LM so that usage data can be collected, what process is there to ensure the security of all the terminals, sometimes at austere bases?
There must be a reasonable risk of the fleet being hacked I would have thought.

ORAC
29th Dec 2015, 12:00
I also don't know anything about the cancelled (or otherwise) Cyber Testing you refer to Panic in the Pentagon: Can't Pass Weapons Testing? Army Chief Says to Get Rid of It (http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/4927-panic-in-the-pentagon-cant-pass-weapons-testing-army-chief-says-to-get-rid-of-it)

........Tom Christie, one of the best directors of DOT&E, served as the director from 2001 to early 2005. As required by law, he produce 32 operational weapons test reports from his office that were sent to the secretary of defense and the Congress. Half of the reports showed enough severe failures to warrant a stop in proceeding to full production of the weapon, but not one of these flawed weapons were stopped and were actually approved for full production. The flaws found in these weapons will show up later in the acquisition cycle or even in the battlefield where there will be very costly modifications or much higher maintenance costs, let alone subjecting our troops to weapons that don't work. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta could save large sums of money if he would be willing to seriously look at the reports of failures coming out of DOT&E and fix problems before just rubber stamping flawed weapons for full production. If he won't do it, the Congress also gets these reports and should hold up the money for full production of the weapons until the flaws found in the report are fixed. General Odierno spent many years overseeing the war in Iraq, so he should be much more sensitive and appreciative of operational testing that can prevent a bad weapon being sent to his troops...........

sandiego89
29th Dec 2015, 14:03
ORACQuote:
I also don't know anything about the cancelled (or otherwise) Cyber Testing you refer to
Panic in the Pentagon: Can't Pass Weapons Testing? Army Chief Says to Get Rid of It (http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/4927-panic-in-the-pentagon-cant-pass-weapons-testing-army-chief-says-to-get-rid-of-it)

........Tom Christie, one of the best directors of DOT&E, served as the director from 2001 to early 2005. As required by law, he produce 32 operational weapons test reports from his office that were sent to the secretary of defense and the Congress. Half of the reports showed enough severe failures to warrant a stop in proceeding to full production of the weapon, but not one of these flawed weapons were stopped and were actually approved for full production. The flaws found in these weapons will show up later in the acquisition cycle or even in the battlefield where there will be very costly modifications or much higher maintenance costs, let alone subjecting our troops to weapons that don't work. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta could save large sums of money if he would be willing to seriously look at the reports of failures coming out of DOT&E and fix problems before just rubber stamping flawed weapons for full production. If he won't do it, the Congress also gets these reports and should hold up the money for full production of the weapons until the flaws found in the report are fixed. General Odierno spent many years overseeing the war in Iraq, so he should be much more sensitive and appreciative of operational testing that can prevent a bad weapon being sent to his troops........... 29th Dec 2015 10:48

ORAC, I am not sure referencing a 4 year old article from a progressive website is the best source for discussing operational weapons testing.

I do agree that operational testing needs to be conducted, and preferrably before orders are placed. It does seem we are forever in the "testing" phase with some programs- likely a product of gold plated requirements, under-bidding, over-selling and under-appreciated risk...

Some programs should have been cancelled, but where do we draw the line if something underperforms during testing? We can cancel the entire program (rare), go back for modifications (costly), dumb down the requirements and declare the requirements are now met, quietly ignore the failure and live with it and perhaps fix a later date.

Personally I would like to see a few more cancellations and really holding manufactures to task a bit more.

Rhino power
12th Jan 2016, 22:01
F-35 Ejection Seat Fix Delayed to 2018; Pilot Restrictions Continue (http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2016/01/08/f-35-ejection-seat-fix-delayed-2018-pilot-restrictions-continue/78519892/)

-RP

Lyneham Lad
14th Jan 2016, 10:55
Flight Global - Fleet-wide F-35 fix targets fuel tank over-pressurisation (https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/fleet-wide-f-35-fix-targets-fuel-tank-over-pressuris-420812/)

The concurrency curse has struck the Lockheed Martin F-35 again, this time during lightning protection qualification, when it was discovered the jet’s fuel tanks could over-pressurise “beyond design limits” in certain flight profiles.

On the other hand, Flight also have rather more positive news as well.
F-35 training at Luke AFB gathers pace with 34 jets (https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/f-35-training-at-luke-afb-gathers-pace-with-34-jets-420797/)

Baron 58P
18th Jan 2016, 08:21
Found this on Duffel Blog this morning. Very funny..
[url]http://www.duffelblog.com/2016/01/f-35-gains-25-billion/

On_The_Top_Bunk
19th Jan 2016, 10:10
Another article showing the benefits of purchasing this wondrous new toy...

2015: Another Terrible Year for the F-35 (http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/feature/5/170291/2015-was-another-%3Ci%3Eannus-horribilis%3C%C2%A7i%3E-for-the-f_35.html)

ORAC
22nd Jan 2016, 10:40
Ho Hum..... 2015......2016..... plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose....

Testing Chief Warns Of JSF Software Delays (http://aviationweek.com/defense/testing-chief-warns-jsf-software-delays)

Development of the Block 3F version of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) cannot be completed on the current schedule—by July 31, 2017—without shortcuts that risk failure in the initial operational test and evaluation (IOT&E) program, according to Michael Gilmore, the Pentagon’s director of OT&E (DOT&E). Block 3F is the culmination of the system development and demonstration (SDD) phase and conforms to the requirements set at the start of the program.

A Dec. 11 memorandum (http://aviationweek.com/site-files/aviationweek.com/files/uploads/2016/01/12-11-15%20Concerns%20with%20the%20Plans%20for%20F-35%20System%20%20Development%20and%20Follow-On%20Development%20%2810201%29.pdf) from Gilmore to Frank Kendall, undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, and Gen. Paul Selva, vice chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also warns that the program is risking trouble by attempting to define Block 4, the first post-service-entry upgrade, early this year, when Block 3F and its predecessor, Block 3i, are still “problematic” and performing poorly in testing. Also, the program office has yet to order essential equipment for specialized software laboratories that are needed to support operational testing and initial operational capability (IOC), with the result that there will not be enough capacity when it is required.

The JSF Program Office (JPO) acknowledges it has pulled tests out of the program and that each of the software blocks—including Block 3F-—will enter service with deficiencies. In the case of Block 3F, these will have to be remedied as part of Block 4, JPO says, and it will be up to customers to decide whether all the deficiencies need to be fixed and when. DOT&E GILMORE’S VERDICT ON F-35 SOFTWARE DEMONSTRATIONS Block 2F for Marine Corps F-35B IOC in 2015 delivered with “hundreds of deficiencies”

Block 3i for Air Force F-35A IOC in 2016 “problematic” and performing poorly in development testing

Block 3F to complete F-35 system development in 2017 “demonstrating poor performance”

Block 4, first post-service-entry upgrade, too aggressive and under-resourced
Gilmore’s memo, a copy of which was obtained by Aviation Week, lists multiple problems that threaten the program’s ability to deliver a reliable and mature product on schedule. Gilmore traces many of the issues to “schedule-driven decisions” made during the 2010-12 rebaselining of the program, under the leadership of current program director Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan and his predecessor, Rear Adm. David Venlet. Brought in after the previous program director, Marine Maj. Gen. David Heinz, had been fired, Venlet, Bogdan and a renewed leadership team defined a phased program to permit a limited, early IOC for the U.S. Marine Corps and Air Force, while meeting the program’s full requirements later. This involved two interim IOC standards: Block 2B for the Marines and the Air Force’s Block 3i.

Gilmore has warned of delays in this process since 2013, because 2B and 3i have consumed time and resources to the detriment of 3F. To stay on schedule, the program allowed 2B to be delivered with “hundreds” of deficiencies, and eliminated tests, including an operational utility evaluation that was to have preceded Marine sea trials last May and—in a recent action—two-thirds of the weapon release events that were planned to support Block 3F. The current Block 3F schedule is not realistic, Gilmore argues. “It could be achieved only by eliminating a significant number of currently planned test points, tripling the rate at which weapons delivery events have historically been conducted, and deferring resolution of significant operational deficiencies to Block 4.” He notes that the latest decision to cut weapon release trials—considered to be the “graduation exercise” in a fighter program—“constitutes a very high risk of failing IOT&E.”

The JPO says that it “recognizes about four months of potential risk” in the Block 3F schedule, that the “removal of test points occurs only after a thorough and disciplined review of what is required to deliver the promised capabilities,” and that “the objective is to deliver full Block 3F capabilities” at the end of SDD. Also, “critical must-fix deficiencies” were remedied before Block 2B was delivered, the JPO says, and “the final determination whether to fix deficiencies immediately, fix them in later increments, or not fix them at all, rests with the warfighters.” (Blocks 2B and 3i are due to be retired after 3F is available.)

But Block 3F is buggy and expected to get worse, Gilmore says, and the schedule does not take account of this. Development of this critical software—which marks the end of the system development and demonstration program and delivery of the capabilities contracted for in 2001—“ends far too early,” with the planned release of Block 3FR8 in mid-2016. “Additional Block 3F releases will clearly be needed to address critical deferred deficiencies and the new discoveries which will inevitably occur between 2016 and the end of developmental testing, as well as the discoveries occurring during operational testing,” Gilmore writes.

The JPO disagrees on the need for more 3F releases, and says that it will be up to the customers to decide which“critical deficiencies” that might emerge during testing must be fixed, most likely in Block 4. “There is ample opportunity to correct deficiencies from Block 3F IOT&E in the early stages of Block 4,” says the JPO, adding that “safety-critical deficiencies will take priority.”

At the root of the problem, Gilmore says, is an incremental software development process. First, Block 2B—used exclusively on a single squadron of Marine Corps F-35Bs—was fielded with “hundreds” of operational deficiencies. Block 3i was then created by rehosting 2B capabilities on new processes, leading to “avionics instabilities and other new problems [and] poor performance during developmental testing.” The JPO acknowledges deficiencies in 3i but says the latest version is being tested with “improved results” and that “future must-fix deficiencies” will be dealt with by porting changes back from 3F. Finally, the JPO chose to develop 3F by adding capabilities incrementally to the deficient 3i software. Block 3F is already “demonstrating poor performance,” Gilmore says, bolstering his prediction that more changes and revisions will be needed.

Another overarching problem concerns the mission data reprogramming laboratory which produces mission data file (MDF) software that allows the F-35’s sensors and processors to identify and display threats and targets. “The lab does not and will not have the required equipment to adequately develop and test the mission data loads” to support the Air Force’s IOC configuration (Block 3i) and IOT&E of Block 3F. This, Gilmore says, is because the JPO has not completed the work needed to order, build and install the specialized equipment that the labs need, “a process that will take at least two years after the equipment is ordered.” Gilmore has been highlighting the slow progress with the labs in reports since 2014: The delays can be traced to holdups in development, which meant that key software and hardware was three years late in being transferred from Lockheed Martin to the government.

The JPO responds by saying that one Block 3i MDF package will be delivered in time for the Air Force IOC objective date (August 2016) and that it has accelerated the development of MDF packages for Block 3F.

Planning for Block 4, the start of the intended rolling upgrade program, also comes in for criticism. For example, there is a four-year gap between the fielding of Block 3FR8 (intended to be the final Block 3 release) and the service entry of Block 4.1. Incremental Block 3 releases will be needed to smooth the transition, Gilmore suggests. The Block 4 plan is at once too aggressive and underresourced, Gilmore writes. The content of 4.1 and 4.2 is due to be finalized in the first half of this year, with development contracts being issued in 2018 while IOT&E of Block 3F is still underway. This, Gilmore says, means that the first Block 4 packages will not fully reflect lessons learned from 3F development. At the same time, however, the Block 4 plan does not “accurately depict the schedule and resources for operational testing.”

Gilmore’s annual report on Pentagon development programs is due within weeks and is likely to include elements of this criticism, as well as recapitulating the DOT&E’s commentary during the year. In July, for example, Gilmore issued a scathing memo on the Marines’ at-sea Operational Test 1 that took place in May.

“The event was not an operational test in either a formal or an informal sense of the term,” Gilmore wrote. “It did not and could not demonstrate that the F-35B is operationally effective or suitable for use in any type of limited combat operation.” OT-1, according to Gilmore, relied on extensive contractor support, did not test weapons or many sensors, and did not use standard support equipment, and public Marine statements included unusual terminology in which, for example, one flight event, from engine start to shutdown, would have been counted as six sorties.

Blocks by the Numbers

Under the revised JSF schedule announced in 2013, there are three operational software blocks leading to the end of the system development and demonstration program.

Block 2B will be used exclusively on a single squadron of Marine Corps F-35Bs. It is hosted on an early processor configuration (Technology Refresh 1, or TR-1). It does not support external weapons or a gun, and includes three internal weapons: the AIM-120C air-to-air missile, the GBU-32 Joint Direct Attack Munition and the GBU-12 Paveway. IOC was declared in July 2015.

Block 3i has the same functions and weapons as 2B (apart from supporting the 2,000-lb. GBU-31), but is hosted on the current standard TR-2 processor. It is due to reach IOC with the Air Force between August 2016 (the objective date) and December 2016 (the threshold date).

Block 3F includes external weapons and the gun (for all three versions). It is the IOC standard for the U.S. Navy and export customers and is due to be operational between August 2018 (objective) and February 2019 (threshold).

Block 4 is the first of a continuing series of upgrades. Early in 2015, it was announced that Block 4 would be divided into four segments, 4.1 through 4.4. Block 4.1, mostly software, arrives in late 2019, and will include fixes from Block 3F. Block 4.4 is due for IOC in mid-2025. The contents of the first two segments, 4.1 and 4.2, are to be defined by mid-2016.

Courtney Mil
22nd Jan 2016, 10:58
Don't worry, A1Bill will be along in a minute to tell us it's all fantastic and that the people quoted in the article don't know what they're talking about. Then everything will be alright.

LowObservable
22nd Jan 2016, 12:25
Note that the full memo is linked in the story. It contains at least one OMG IMHO (as they say on the 'tubez).

Note too (before someone reminds us that Gilmore predicted a slip to Marine IOC, that didn't happen) that the program has stayed on schedule by cutting tests...

JSF Program Ditches Tests To Protect Schedule | Defense content from Aviation Week (http://aviationweek.com/defense/jsf-program-ditches-tests-protect-schedule)

... but don't worry, they are doing it responsibly and in cooperation with stakeholders.

It also looks increasingly as if most of Block 4.1 will be fixes to 3F, with no new capabilities until 4.2 in 2021.

Radix
22nd Jan 2016, 20:27
.............

Royalistflyer
22nd Jan 2016, 20:55
Ahhhh when life was simpler: The British Purchasing Commission stipulated to North American an armament of four .303 in machine guns, the Allison V-1710 liquid-cooled engine, a unit cost of no more than $40,000, and delivery of the first production aircraft by January 1941 The prototype NA-73X was rolled out in September 1940, just 102 days after the order had been placed; it first flew on 26 October 1940, 149 days into the contract. The first Mustang Mk Is entered RAF service in January 1942, the first unit being 26 squadron. Yes it needed to be re-engined – but it was operational.
And that included all the wind tunnel testing of two possible aerofoils resulting in the new laminar-flow wings. It was a mathematically designed aircraft and the wing foil that was to be classified as a "semi-empirical venture" by the British was cleared for adoption on the new design.. So for its day it was high-tech.

BEagle
22nd Jan 2016, 21:54
Rhino power wrote: Apologies if this has already been covered but, what software block are UK F-35B's likely to have initially, that is, the ones apparently "on schedule" to enter service in 2018?

Well, don't quote me, but I hear on the grapevine that it's something formerly known as Windows 8......:eek:

glad rag
22nd Jan 2016, 22:31
Hmm. I seem to remember being subjected to a virulent campain [yes it's spelt like that for a reason] when I previously highlighted the issues with the all encompassing engineering software.

Well blow me MSOCS, if it ain't happened again!!

glad rag
22nd Jan 2016, 22:36
Flight Global - Fleet-wide F-35 fix targets fuel tank over-pressurisation (https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/fleet-wide-f-35-fix-targets-fuel-tank-over-pressuris-420812/)



On the other hand, Flight also have rather more positive news as well.
F-35 training at Luke AFB gathers pace with 34 jets (https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/f-35-training-at-luke-afb-gathers-pace-with-34-jets-420797/)

Yes, but if the operational software is totally unrepresentative why ******* bother...oh yes you gotta spend it or lose it!

ORAC
23rd Jan 2016, 09:13
Well I suppose that's one way to try and win a fight.

I am intrigued by the, "enabling close-in platform self-defence and penetration into contested anti-access/area denial environments with little to no impact to payload capacity".

Taking into account that penetration will assume no external pylons/munitions for stealth maintenance, and the small size and capacity of the internal bay (especially on the B), just how small would the MSDM have to be to allow a decent number to be carried - and have no impact on payload? :rolleyes::rolleyes::hmm::hmm:

F-35 fires AIM-9X as Raytheon snags next-gen weapons contract (https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/f-35-fires-aim-9x-as-raytheon-snags-next-gen-weapons-421133/)

The US Air Force has for the first time successfully test fired a Raytheon AIM-9X passive infrared missile from a Lockheed Martin F-35A over the Pacific Sea Test Range.According to a statement from Edwards AFB, the 461st Flight Test Squadron’s AF-1 flight sciences aircraft fired the short-range weapon on 12 January at an altitude of 6,000ft.

https://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getasset.aspx?itemid=65541

The test firing moves integration of the AIM-9X forward, with introduction across the F-35 fleet expected in Block 3F in 2017. Block 2B and 3i aircraft carry only the basic complement of GPS- and laser-guided bombs and Raytheon's medium-range AIM-120C. Approval has also been granted by the US Navy for full-rate production of the latest AIM-9X Block II version, adding a new electronics package and datalink for lock-on-after-release engagements.

Meant for close-in kills at high off-boresight angles, the AIM-9X is a heat-seeking alternative to the radar-guided Raytheon AIM-120 AMRAAM, which is susceptible to advanced electronic countermeasures, such as digital radio frequency memory jammers. The F-35 is designed to carry two AIM-9X missiles on its wings and four AIM-120s internally.

The navy wanted to extend the range of the AIM-9X by 60% under a Block III programme for beyond-visual-range engagements, but the project was cancelled in the fiscal year 2016 budget, with only an “insensitive munitions warhead” side project carried forward.

https://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getasset.aspx?itemid=65544

Separately, under a $14 million contract awarded on 20 January, Raytheon will begin exploring new missiles under a research and development programme called Small Advanced Capability Missile (SACM).

A second project, called Miniature Self-Defense Munition (MSDM), is perhaps more game-changing – giving fighter aircraft the ability to target incoming missiles, like a ballistic missile defence system. The air force has said that these small self-protection munitions could be a bridging capability as it develops 360° laser shields for future fighters and bombers, targeted for rollout in the late 2020s.

“SACM will support affordable, highly lethal, small size and weight ordnance with advanced air frame design and synergistic control capabilities for air dominance, enabling high air-to-air load-out,” the contract notice says. “The MSDM will support miniaturised weapon capabilities for air superiority by enabling close-in platform self-defence and penetration into contested anti-access/area denial environments with little to no impact to payload capacity.”

LowObservable
23rd Jan 2016, 09:23
$14 million is two PowerPoints, coffee and donuts.

But I'm intrigued by the MSDM. I guess it's supposed to defeat all the AAMs that can't home on the F-35, which were launched by the adversary fighters that it shot down BVR before they knew it was there.

Wander00
23rd Jan 2016, 09:31
I am no expert but doesn't hanging all this stuff on the outside rather degrade the "stealth" aspect of the F-35 concept. Ok, I only asked......aagh.....

Courtney Mil
23rd Jan 2016, 09:37
Completely wrecks it, Wander. Hence the desire to cram everything inside. External stores are for when the F-35s have killed everything else in the air and all the SAMs on day one (as they call it).

Royalistflyer
24th Jan 2016, 18:30
with the Sukhoi PAK FA apparently now due for full production in 2017 and intended service fairly soon thereafter, what do we now see as the advantages (if any) of F35?

While there is little likelihood of our coming into conflict with Russia, there is no guarantee as to whom they will sell it to. Iran?

If we found ourselves opposed to such a force, could we field the F35 with any confidence?

glad rag
24th Jan 2016, 22:45
$14 million is two PowerPoints, coffee and donuts.

But I'm intrigued by the MSDM. I guess it's supposed to defeat all the AAMs that can't home on the F-35, which were launched by the adversary fighters that it shot down BVR before they knew it was there.

I think they are letting us down gently-you know...

glad rag
24th Jan 2016, 22:47
Completely wrecks it, Wander. Hence the desire to cram everything inside. External stores are for when the F-35s have killed everything else in the air and all the SAMs on day one (as they call it).

....yeah but what if.....:mad:

MSOCS
25th Jan 2016, 08:28
External stores are for when the F-35s have killed everything else in the air and all the SAMs on day one (as they call it).

Raises an interesting point CM and illustrates nicely that F-35 isn't just being procured for a "Day 1" scenario. Sure, it needs to enter theatre - from the Carrier if required - with an unprecedented level of relative immunity beyond aircraft we've procured in the past. However, it must also be the Day XX platform that conducts CAS or AI or Control of the Air where required. With external stores, call it a bomb truck or a missile truck; maybe it's tasked to conduct ISR. This is an important point that is often overlooked by folk who think F-35 is a silver bullet for the first stages of a campaign in contested airspace. It isn't. It will be the next generation work horse for the various air forces around the world.

Hey gr. If it doesn't work on the first day then, well, ..... b*gger! A pretty hard and expensive lesson to learn. Let's just hope the experts have gotten it right.

Radix
25th Jan 2016, 11:02
.............

LowObservable
25th Jan 2016, 11:59
Awesome, MSOCS.

Given the USMC's IOC declaration last year, it's almost a shame that there's no current military operation where the jet's fused sensors and Z-axis networked capability would be valuable, and there's a latest-generation SAM threat in theater to make the JSF's stealth particularly valuable.

Wait, what?

Tourist
25th Jan 2016, 13:24
Awesome, MSOCS.

Given the USMC's IOC declaration last year, it's almost a shame that there's no current military operation where the jet's fused sensors and Z-axis networked capability would be valuable, and there's a latest-generation SAM threat in theater to make the JSF's stealth particularly valuable.

Wait, what?

As you are well aware, IOC does not mean front line, and more importantly, the Russians very very very much do not want to mess with the US in Syria. They are well aware how much of a mistake that would be.

There is no serious threat to old school US aircraft from the Russians

glad rag
25th Jan 2016, 13:33
" IOC does not mean front line,"

Well that's something to be thankful for after the shambolic USMC IOC!!

Mach Two
25th Jan 2016, 14:50
IOC does not mean front line

Even Wikipedia can do better than that.

Initial operating capability or Initial operational capability (IOC) is the state achieved when a capability is available in its minimum usefully deployable form. The term is often used in government or military procurement.

The United States Department of Defense chooses to use the term Initial Operational Capability (versus initial "operating" capability) when referring to IOC. For a U.S. Department of Defense military acquisition, IOC includes operating the training and maintaining parts of the overall system per DOTMLPF, and is defined[3] as 'In general, attained when some units and/or organizations in the force structure scheduled to receive a system have received it and have the ability to employ and maintain it.

Not front line? Or if you prefer it from the hourse's mouth, Gen Joe Dunford stated,

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

Still not front line?

Tourist
25th Jan 2016, 14:56
Mess around with words all you like, we all know what IOC means, and pretending that IOC means "immediately send it to the hot spots instead of the mature platforms" just shows desperation.

There is plenty wrong with the F35 program, but pretending that the fact that it is not over Syria now means it is somehow rubbish is moronic.

Courtney Mil
25th Jan 2016, 15:01
You can hardly say that MT giving the real meaning of IOC is "messing around with words".

we all know what IOC means

Clearly you did not.

Tourist
25th Jan 2016, 15:05
You can hardly say that MT giving the real meaning of IOC is "messing around with words".



Clearly you did not.

Well aware what it means, and well aware that it is a political thing rather than an actual capability.

This is nothing new and it certainly doesn't mean its war ready.

Heathrow Harry
25th Jan 2016, 15:38
can we run a sweepstake as to when we think it WILL be "war ready"??

It's been so long a-building that significiant parts of it must qualify for the museum..................

LowObservable
25th Jan 2016, 15:53
Well aware what it means, and well aware that it is a political thing rather than an actual capability.

So Dunford was telling porkies, then?

And if this harmless little toy is "no serious threat to old school aircraft", why are we spending $400bn on the new-school ones?

http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/9A85/production/_86975593_missile2.jpg

And, yes, I am sure that the Russians don't want to pickle one off at anything with stars and bars on it, but the silly :mad:s probably didn't want to shoot down MH17 either, did they?

PhilipG
25th Jan 2016, 16:15
Possibly the Marines are going to put the 10 Block 2B IOCd F35s that they have on the USS Wasp and take them over to the Med and then fly them off to the new austere strip that the US has just lengthened, that was the subject of a thread: -
From BBC news 35 minutes ago

[URL="http://Syria conflict: 'US expanding air strip' in Kurdish north - BBC News"/URL]
What kind of use would a 1300 metre runway be put to use for beside Hercules muniton deliveries as mentioned and does this mean some form of escalation by the US? For deploying Marine F35Bs to make a point to members of PRUNE and the US Congress?:rolleyes:

LowObservable
25th Jan 2016, 16:26
That would be interesting, but something about hoofbeats, horses and zebras...

Nige321
25th Jan 2016, 18:06
2x F35s heading for the UK airshows this summer...:ok:

If they don't break... (http://www.reuters.com/article/lockheed-fighter-idUSL2N15918K)

LowObservable
25th Jan 2016, 18:53
By hook or by crook...

http://www.segcargo.com.br/images/Blog/avioes/11segcargo.jpg

Turbine D
25th Jan 2016, 20:12
Original Post by MSOCS: It will be the next generation work horse for the various air forces around the world.

Oooh, shudder at the thought... The USAF Chief of Air Combat Command's Advanced Air Dominance was to have said that he wakes up in a cold sweat at night at the thought of an F-35 going in (to combat) with only two air-dominance weapons.:(

Original Post by Heathrow Harry can we run a sweepstake as to when we think it WILL be "war ready"??
It's been so long a-building that significiant parts of it must qualify for the museum..................
I am betting on the year 2022 with no margin for continued program slippage. With the year 2022, to put things in perspective from a time point of view in the USA: If you were born in the year the JAST program started, today you would have graduated from medical school and be in your internship program. If you were born in the year the JSF program started, you would be in medical school. If you were born in the year the F-35 program started, you would be in your third year of university studies. So, if you go from JAST, you can soon apply for an antique/historic license plate.:ok:

Les Aspin was Secretary of Defense at the time and forced the design into a single airframe for three service. General M. McPeak complained bitterly that both costs and program difficulties would skyrocket upward. Subsequently, Aspin resigned as Secretary resulting from the American deaths which occurred in Somalia during the disastrous raid there. Between then and now, nobody had the guts to change the three service program single airframe mandate, so we are getting :mad:

DARK MATTER
26th Jan 2016, 09:31
My apologies if this has already been covered..it seems quite a recent report.


Operational Testers Flag F-35 Software Issues « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary (http://breakingdefense.com/2016/01/operational-testers-flag-f-35-software-issues/)

glad rag
26th Jan 2016, 11:45
My apologies if this has already been covered..it seems quite a recent report.


Operational Testers Flag F-35 Software Issues « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary (http://breakingdefense.com/2016/01/operational-testers-flag-f-35-software-issues/)

It's all in the small print..

"Removal of test points by the combined JPO, industry and warfighting team occurs only after a thorough and disciplined review of what is required to deliver the promised capabilities.”

Obviously they missed out the on time and within budget bit along with the really important ensure step payments remain on track dit. :E

LowObservable
26th Jan 2016, 12:40
Jane's and BD are playing catch-up to AW&ST. Here's the original memo, by the way:

http://aviationweek.com/site-files/aviationweek.com/files/uploads/2016/01/12-11-15%20Concerns%20with%20the%20Plans%20for%20F-35%20System%20%20Development%20and%20Follow-On%20Development%20%2810201%29.pdf

The story over the past few years has gone like this:

1 - Gilmore predicts delays. 2 - JSFPO and LockMart proudly announce they're on schedule. 3 - Gilmore demonstrates how tests were cut and simplified, and defects accepted, to avoid delay.

Today, at best, it looks like Block 4.1 (IOC 2019) will mostly be a less buggy version of 3F.

Maus92
26th Jan 2016, 14:59
If the F-35Bs advanced systems and capabilities are not needed in Syria, then why did the USAF insist that the F-22A was necessary to defeat Syrian air defenses during the initial airstrikes in that campaign? Either the advanced capabilities were not needed and the F-22A debut was a PR exercise, or the USMC cannot currently support their F-35Bs in a real world scenario.

LowObservable
26th Jan 2016, 15:12
But there was that big sea trial back in May that conclusively showed... Oh, wait...

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

KenV
26th Jan 2016, 18:32
If the F-35Bs advanced systems and capabilities are not needed in Syria, then why did the USAF insist that the F-22A was necessary to defeat Syrian air defenses during the initial airstrikes in that campaign? The thinking was that if air power was used against Syrian forces in direct support of rebel forces, that the Syrians would use their air defenses against such aircraft. That never happened. Instead, air power has been used to target ISIL/ISIS forces, which effectively supports Syrian forces rather than opposes them. So the Syrians have not used their air defenses against those aircraft. If things changed and US and/or NATO forces were to directly target Syrian forces in direct support of rebel forces, that would likely require F-22/F-35.

LowObservable
26th Jan 2016, 19:14
So why are they using the F-22, then?

KenV
26th Jan 2016, 19:21
So why are they using the F-22, then?

1. Show of force/intimidation
2. Electronic vacuum cleaner.

Kitbag
26th Jan 2016, 21:10
But there was that big sea trial back in May that conclusively showed... Oh, wait...

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


Interesting read, not unexpected to have problems. Hope the UK authorities have read this, some gotcha's that could be eliminated now before the QE & PoW are fitted out.
You have to wonder how much space will be taken up by spare engine power modules.

chevvron
27th Jan 2016, 11:39
Rumoured on spotters websites to be 5 scheduled to appear at this years Farnborough Airshow:
2 x USAF; 2 x USMC; 1 x RAF.
www.farnborough.proboards.com/board/141/airshow-news

airsound
27th Jan 2016, 11:52
Not just spotters, chevvron - here's a press release from FarnboroughFARNBOROUGH INTERNATIONAL AIRSHOW COULD WELCOME UP TO FIVE F-35s AT SUMMER SHOWCASE

UK MoD, US Marine Corps and US Air Force aircraft plan to participate in flying display at international trade show case and public weekend
Up to five F-35 joint strike fighter aircraft are planned to participate in the flying display at the Farnborough International Airshow this summer. Continuing a long tradition of aviation firsts for the event, this will be the first opportunity for many of the organisations involved in the development of the aircraft to showcase their achievements in the making of the aircraft to a major international trade audience.

Speaking about the announcement, FIL Commercial Director, Amanda Stainer, said, "The fact that the UK MoD, US Marine Corps and US Air Force have chosen the Farnborough International Airshow to demonstrate the aircraft is testament to the show’s standing as a major international aerospace event. The F-35 joint strike fighter programme is very significant for many companies that participate in the show and they will be very excited at the opportunity to demonstrate their participation in the programme."

In the last few days both the US Marine Corps and US Air Force have announced that they plan to bring both the F-35A and F-35B aircraft to demonstrate at the show, Furthermore, at least one British jet is expected to participate. Defence Secretary Michael Fallon said. "The F-35s are the most advanced fast jets in the world. Whether operating from land or from one of our two new aircraft carriers - the UK’s largest ever - they will ensure we have a cutting edge and formidable fighting force."

"The plan for F-35 aircraft to take part in air shows here in the UK this summer is a significant milestone – for our RAF and Royal Navy personnel training hard to fly the F-35; for British industry who are contributing an impressive 15 per cent of every aircraft; and for the British public who will have their first opportunity to see this remarkable aircraft in action."

As well as during the trade show, the F-35 will also participate in the flying display at the public weekend allowing the general public to enjoy the spectacle of this major new aircraft. Responding to the news, Shaun Ormrod, Chief Executive for Farnborough International Ltd said, "Its great news that we can welcome the F-35 to the show, visitors at the public weekend will be amongst the first to see this aircraft outside the US. "However, RIAT and FIA may be pipped in the 'international début' stakes by the Netherlands. Aerospace Daily says the RNlAF show at Leeuwarden is hoping to have an F-35 flying at the show the month before.

airsound

FODPlod
27th Jan 2016, 13:09
...You have to wonder how much space will be taken up by spare engine power modules

The QECs have nine decks of store rooms with hangar volumes of 29,000 cubic metres so there shouldn't be any problem stowing the odd spare.

Rumoured on spotters websites to be 5 scheduled to appear at this years Farnborough Airshow:
2 x USAF; 2 x USMC; 1 x RAF.
http://www.farnborough.proboards.com...1/airshow-news (http://www.farnborough.proboards.com/board/141/airshow-news)

How annoying for the F-35 doom mongers if this transpires. Anyone reading this forum would expect Lightning IIs to be falling out of the skies like flies despite achieving circa 60,000 flying hours (open to correction) to date without any significant aerial mishap. ;)

PhilipG
27th Jan 2016, 13:32
Whilst it is good to see that F35s will be flying to the UK this year, I do wonder what sort of display they will be allowed to undertake, considering that only the USMC planes have achieved IOC, that is assuming that the two planes coming over are from that squadron.

The "displays" that have been conducted in the US so far have been quite pedestrian as I understand it, basically just flying in and out of the destination.

Displaying with a "test load" software might bring up some interesting liability questions.

FODPlod
27th Jan 2016, 13:40
Might the USMC aircraft be F-35Bs? Incidentally, what's wrong with calling the F-35B Sea Lightning (http://images.clipartpanda.com/fishing-hook-and-line-clipart-13161017971575791316fish-hook.jpg) anyway?

Maus92
27th Jan 2016, 14:59
@PhillipG: There is not an approved demo flight routine for US F-35s. That is the case for now, as it was two years ago prior to the F-35A flailing itself to death on the runway at Eglin. Last year at Oshkosh, the F-35As flew an arrivals routine, and an extended taxiing routine to the parking stand (that was unintentional: the pilot got lost - so much for sensor fusion.)

Whether or not the UK F-35 will have limits, IDK for sure, but I think the follow whatever the JPO decides/allows.

PhilipG
27th Jan 2016, 16:21
@Maus92: I think that we are thinking the same, it is unlikely that anything more than arrival and departure flights as at Osckosh, with better situational awareness one hopes, will be on the cards.

Reducing expectations a long way well before the event...

Vzlet
27th Jan 2016, 16:42
Two years ago at MCAS Cherry Point, the demos included short takeoffs and landings, hovering, high and low speed passes, and mixed-type formations. They certainly weren't as aggressive and dynamic as say, a Belgian F-16 routine, but weren't basic vanilla, either.
https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5563/14267870204_51223d7e66_z.jpg

More pictures here (https://www.flickr.com/photos/vzlet/albums/72157644844687514).

ORAC
27th Jan 2016, 16:43
what's wrong with calling the F-35B Sea Lightning anyway? because it's not it's name?

Official: Lightning II (ignore fact Americans have no regard for EE Lightning)

Unofficial: Dave.......

FODPlod
27th Jan 2016, 17:10
One. Did you click on the "Sea Lightning" link?

airsound
27th Jan 2016, 17:21
because it's not it's name?You are, of course, right, ORAC. But there's more to it, isn't there?
There is presumably no difference between the F35B flown by a fishhead and one flown by a crab. Indeed, they'll all be flying them together, whether from a landlocked runway or a floating one. So a "Sea" Lightning is exactly the same as any other kind....

As far as Dave is concerned - I've forgotten how that came about. Anyone remember? (It is rather good though)

airsound

Lonewolf_50
27th Jan 2016, 17:22
because it's not it's name?

Official: Lightning II (ignore fact Americans have no regard for EE Lightning)

Unofficial: Dave.......
The original American Lightning was the P-38 (http://www.richard-seaman.com/Wallpaper/Aircraft/Fighters/AmericanProps/P38sChino2010Wide.jpg).
You are welcome. :cool:

Willard Whyte
27th Jan 2016, 18:30
Might the USMC aircraft be F-35Bs? Incidentally, what's wrong with calling the F-35B Sea Lightning anyway?

If there were a 'Sea' Lightning it would, in any case, be the F-35C.

Which is rather appropriate!

ORAC
27th Jan 2016, 18:39
The name being bestowed by the British, Lonewolf. Which, being followed by the EE Lightning, should mean it being called the Lightning III, if courtesy prevailed.....

Lockheed P-38 Lightning - Heavy Fighter / Fighter-Bomber - History, Specs and Pictures - Military Aircraft (http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=74)

Lonewolf_50
27th Jan 2016, 20:56
The name being bestowed by the British, Lonewolf. Which, being followed by the EE Lightning, should mean it being called the Lightning III, if courtesy prevailed.....

Lockheed P-38 Lightning - Heavy Fighter / Fighter-Bomber - History, Specs and Pictures - Military Aircraft (http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=74)As it was made in America, I suggest to you that, like the Thunderbolt II (aka the A-10) since Thunderbolt was the P-47 .... naming the F-35 the Lightning II makes perfect sense.

The Lightning you refer to, the jet, was named the Lightning.
By your just now argued naming convention, it ought to have been named the Lightning II.
But it wasn't.

Go wave your finger at someone else.

msbbarratt
27th Jan 2016, 21:34
If F35 turns out to rubbish, we could always take a look at the Japanese F3:

Japan Ready For Next Fighter Engine Core | F-3 | TRDI | IHI Corp. | Defense content from Aviation Week (http://aviationweek.com/defense/japan-ready-next-fighter-engine-core)

http://aviationweek.com/site-files/aviationweek.com/files/uploads/2016/01/DF-F3_TRDI.jpg

If they ever finish it, it might be awesome, ceramic turbine blades, etc.

It would be ironic if F35, which is going to have to last a veeeery long time given how much money is being spent on it, gets immediately obsoleted by a home-grown Japanese design.

And if they're going it alone they'd be beholden to nobody else. An enviable position... They're 'in' the F35 program but apparently are grumbling about unit cost increases. Who isn't? It'd be very easy to argue that the funding would be better spent on a home grown F3 that will produce a lot of dual use (and commercially valuable) technology. Especially as they 'like' grand engineering projects like that.

It will also depend on whether their strategic nerve holds; F35 may be closer to being in service.

ORAC
27th Jan 2016, 21:39
As an aside, why do they Americans name there cars but number their aircraft, and the Brits the opposite?

The Americans have the Corvette, the Stingray etc. But the Brits the DB5, the TR6/7 etc.

but the Americans have the F4, F15/16/18 etc, whilst the Brits have the Tornado, Typhoon, Jaguar etc?

Accepted the American aircraft have name nicknames, but the Brit aircraft only have sobriquets to differentiate upgrades.

ORAC
27th Jan 2016, 21:44
Msb,

I've been waiting for ceramics to break into the industry for a couple of decades as they imply a quantum leap in temperature/performance etc. With the billions being spent by DARPA etc on upgrades I presume major issues are involved.

However, if anyone makes a step change technology/design discovery it could be as great as that between piston and jet aircraft.

But I'm not holding my breath.

GlobalNav
27th Jan 2016, 22:06
"As an aside, why do they Americans name there cars but number their aircraft, and the Brits the opposite?"

Well, the Americans have official names for their aircraft, but they tend to get "renamed". "Fighting Falcon" became "Viper", "Thunderbolt II" became "Hog", "Stratofortress" became "Buff"; "Lancer" became "Bone"; etc.

Turbine D
28th Jan 2016, 00:38
ORAC,
But I'm not holding my breath.
No need to, the future is now...

Ceramic Matrix Composites Allow GE Jet Engines to Fly Longer - GE Reports (http://www.gereports.com/post/110549411475/ceramic-matrix-composites-allow-ge-jet-engines-to/)

25 years ago, the head of Materials Technologies when asked if ceramics could be used in jet engines said, "Ceramics are for urinals". However, as things move along the timeline, just as the earth was discovered to be round, ceramics have moved into jet engines. GE Aviation is building several plants to produce ceramic components including turbine blades shown in the GE report.:ok:

TD

Willard Whyte
28th Jan 2016, 09:12
The Americans have the Corvette, the Stingray etc. But the Brits the DB5, the TR6/7 etc.

We also have the RR Phantom, Ghost, Wraith, the Bentley Continental, Mulsanne, the, well, etc. etc...

American cars pretty much all have a name as you say, save something like the DeLorean DMC-12 for example, but an alphanumeric to describe the model. Names can be more emotive, and thus appealing, don't you find? That probably matters more when it comes to cars which are bought by people! Ze Germans seem to favour alphanumerics, in their usual ruthlessly efficient manner, Porsche - 911 excepted, VW & Opel being notable exceptions.

The problem with our a/c numbering is that it doesn't differentiate between different a/c types, merely types of the same a/c. I remember the confusion caused - to a RAF mil attaché - by applying for dip clearances for the Nimrod R1, Sentinel R1 and Shadow R1. I've always found the American system vastly superior: Attack, Bomber, Cargo etc., followed by a number within each class and finally a letter to designate the version. A simple 3/4/5 digit alphanumeric that's unique.

Geordie_Expat
28th Jan 2016, 10:56
WW,


Except for the F111 and F117, neither of which could by any standards be called fighters.

Tourist
28th Jan 2016, 11:50
.......and the F3 could?!

ORAC
28th Jan 2016, 13:06
And the SR71....

Willard Whyte
28th Jan 2016, 13:23
Except for the F111 and F117, neither of which could by any standards be called fighters

Touché!

Although in fairness the F-111 was intended to become a fleet defence 'fighter' in B spec, and the F-117's nomenclature could be put down to a bit of obfuscation given the secrecy of the project.

One might also add F-105 to the 'doesn't quite fit' list.

SR: Strategic Reconnaissance. Although its predecessor, the A-12, also 'doesn't quite fit'.

ORAC
28th Jan 2016, 14:14
It was the RS-71 to follow the then code. But when the President revealed the program he called it the SR-71 by mistake.

So they renamed the aircraft.......

glad rag
28th Jan 2016, 14:47
.......and the F3 could?!

Nibble, nibble, nibble.

GlobalNav
28th Jan 2016, 15:30
"One might also add F-105 to the 'doesn't quite fit' list."

No argument, but from an ad for a book on F-105 MiG Killers:

"Despite its ‘F-for-fighter' designation, the F-105 was designed and purchased to give the USAF an aircraft capable of the delivery of nuclear weapons at very high speed, long range and below-the-radar altitudes. However, when the Vietnam War began it also emerged as USAF's best available tactical bomber for a ‘limited conventional' war as well. Extensively targeted by MiG-17s and MiG-21s the F-105 pilots developed innovative tactics that allowed them to compete in air-to-air duels with their smaller, more manoeuvrable enemies. Illustrated throughout with extensive photographs detailing weapon loads, internal features and action shots of actual engagements, this volume examines the conduct of the Rolling Thunder strike missions and the tactics used for attack and defence by the attack, escort fighter and radar monitoring elements within strike formations."

Perhaps it can be said that the "F-" designation belongs more with the pilot than the airplane.

KenV
28th Jan 2016, 16:14
If F35 turns out to rubbish, we could always take a look at the Japanese F3.The F3 is seriously flawed and doomed. Doomed I say.

How so? From the AvWeek website:

Airframe developers....have settled on something close to a 2013 configuration for the F-3 that emphasized endurance and weapons load over flight performance.

The F3 is intended to be a long range, high speed missileer designed to shoot long range ramjet missiles from internal weapons bays while in supersonic cruise. It is NOT designed for high energy maneuvering. The folks here have already conclusively proven (ahem) that anything that cannot stay with an F-16 in a close in fight is doomed and total rubbish.

ORAC
28th Jan 2016, 16:42
Hmm, supersonic cruise, long range and endurance.

What aircraft does that not remind me of........

LowObservable
28th Jan 2016, 17:19
Ken,

Really. I hope I've made it clear somewhere in the last 415 pages that, as we say, it depends. If you can indeed decide the fight BVR, or either avoid the merge or blow through it with HOBS weapons, you may not need platform agility.

See here for instance: http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/424953-f-35-cancelled-then-what-321.html#post9031874

But the F-35 cannot be stealthy and carry a HOBS system and its speed is inadequate to provide a decisive advantage over likely adversaries.

KenV
28th Jan 2016, 18:01
Ken, Really. I hope I've made it clear somewhere in the last 415 pages that, as we say, it depends.Fascinating. "It depends" has been my position from the moment I began contributing to this thread. I'll leave it at that.

But the F-35 cannot be stealthy and carry a HOBS system Once again, "it depends". Are AIM-120C5 and C7 HOBS systems?

As for Japan's F3, it will almost certainly be a joint development in much the same way that their F2 was a joint development. But what will it be jointly developed with? The F-35 follow on aircraft? That seems unlikely as according to AvWeek, Japan wants the F3 to enter production when the F2 begins retiring, and the F-35 follow on will almost certainly not meet that timeline. Maybe Japan will join USN's F/A-XX program to replace the Super Hornet? Interestingly, USN thinks that aircraft will be LESS stealthy than F-35. Apparently, USN is much less sold on stealth than USAF.

LowObservable
28th Jan 2016, 18:41
For some unaccountable reason the Navy is a bit wary of concepts and technologies that depend on maintaining smooth surfaces of uniform conductivity.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c0/US_Navy_060330-N-7981E-060_An_F-A-18F_Super_Hornet_assigned_to_the_Fighting_Vigilantes_of_Stri ke_Fighter_Squadron_One_Five_One_(VFA-151)_launches_from_the_flight_deck_of_the_Nimitz-class_aircraft_carrier_USS_Abraham_Lincoln_(CV.jpg/640px-thumbnail.jpg

Willard Whyte
28th Jan 2016, 19:37
It was the RS-71 to follow the then code. But when the President revealed the program he called it the SR-71 by mistake.

So they renamed the aircraft.......

Well, that's one version of events. OK, it was going to be RS at one point in the process. LeMay preferred SR, and to cut a longer story short the documentation was changed to reflect this. The press release still had 'RS' in places leading to the story that Johnson had himself transposed the letters in the speech he gave.

LowObservable
28th Jan 2016, 21:43
Correct. I think (behind the legend) was a bit of a Lockheed campaign to continue building SRs for the strike role. The basic structure (of the SR) has the same chine bays as the YF-12, which had been cleared for weapon launch. Ben Rich wanted to stick SRAMs in there.

So the idea hung around that it should have been reconnaissance-strike (as the AF had tried to rename the B-70 the RS-70) but that the administration (blame McNamara, of course) sabotaged it.

However, the SR never (as far as I know) had the kind of sensor or fire-control system that would be needed to launch weapons.

KenV
29th Jan 2016, 12:51
Well, that's one version of events. OK, it was going to be RS at one point in the process.

I personally have my doubts about the RS legend. If it ever was RS-71 then the "S" would be the basic mission designator and "R" the modifier. "S" has always been (since 1962) the basic mission designator for anti-submarine warfare aircraft, which makes no sense when applied to the Blackbird. "R" has always been the basic mission designator for Reconnaissance. The confusing part is that "S" is the modifier for anti-submarine warfare, which also would not seem to properly apply to SR-71. But to me it makes more sense to have the modifier ("S") deviate from the standard and stand for "Strategic" rather than "anti-Submarine", than to have both the basic mission designator and the modifier deviate from the standard. But who knows for certain? That's what's fun about these legends.

ORAC
29th Jan 2016, 13:45
From Snopes research (http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=48;t=000341;p=0), they seem to go along with it.

........As to why it's called SR-71 and not SR-71, here are some quotes from Lockheed SR-71: The Secret Missions Exposed, courtesy of Mary Shafer on AFU (http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl642459717d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=FHHyIB.9Cv%40spdcc.com) (the material in square brackets are her comments)
quote:
During the initial stages of assembling the YF-12 in late 1960, it became apparent to ADP [Advanced Development Projects, better known as the Skunk Works] engineers that the basic interceptor airframe could be adapted to provide a strike bomber. Russ Daniel approached Kelly [Johnson, head of ADP] with the idea and asked to write a basic feasibility report.

Kelly reviewed Daniel's B-12 proposal with Strategic Air Command's Commander-in-Chief (CINCSAC) General Curtis LeMay, who agreed to fund R & D [Research & Development] studies provided that these projects would not be used to harm support for the XB-70 Valkyrie bomber program [which is stunningly unstealthy, with huge wingtips that deflected downward at right angles, two big verticals also at right angles, non-moving canards at right angles, and a delta wing with only small dihedral].
{ snip }
Sometime in 1966, the B-12 was christened the RS-71 (RS for Reconnaissance-Strike and the number '71' indicating a follow-on from the RS-70 Valkyrie, which was formerly the B-70). The lack of weapons procurement alarmed Lockheed, who produced drawings of a pure reconnaissance variant, designated the R-12.
{ snip }
[More snippage, mostly of discussion of the political situation during the election year and the transcript of the White House press release inwhich the airplane was called the SR-71 and described as providing a long-range advanced strategic reconnaissance (i.e. SR, as it wasn't Johnson misspeaking) plane for military use.]

Although the political wrangling continues, the future of the R-12 was being solved by Goldwater's taunt. Johnson had conveniently (and politically) transposed 'Reconnaissance-Strike' into 'Strategic Reconnaissance'--hence 'SR-71', which was really Lockheed's R-12. Unfortunately, the B-12 was lost to the McNamara era.

So, from this source it looks like the switch from "RS-71" to "SR-71" was deliberate, not an accident at all.

1962 United States Tri-Service aircraft designation system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1962_United_States_Tri-Service_aircraft_designation_system)

Non-systematic or aberrant designations

SR-71

The SR-71 designator is a continuation of the pre-1962 bomber series, which ended with the XB-70 Valkyrie. During the later period of its testing, the B-70 was proposed for the reconnaissance/strike role, with an RS-70 designation. The USAF decided instead to pursue an RS-71 version of the Lockheed A-12. Then-USAF Chief of Staff Curtis LeMay preferred the SR (Strategic Reconnaissance) designation and wanted the reconnaissance aircraft to be named SR-71. Before the Blackbird was to be announced by President Johnson on 29 February 1964, LeMay lobbied to modify Johnson's speech to read SR-71 instead of RS-71. The media transcript given to the press at the time still had the earlier RS-71 designation in places, creating the myth that the president had misread the aircraft's designation.[11] (http://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/nonstandard-mds.html#_MDS_SR71)

airsound
29th Jan 2016, 14:42
Fascinating as that all is, troops, may I drag you back to the rather less exciting F-35?

Bloomberg has a headlineThe U.S. May Build 500 Jets Before Finding Out If the F-35 Works

In the piece, Anthony Capaccio saysTests of how Lockheed Martin Corp.’s F-35 will perform in combat won’t begin until at least August 2018, a year later than planned, and more than 500 of the fighter jets may be built before the assessment is complete, according to the Pentagon’s test office.
..... Michel (sic) Gilmore, the U.S. Defense Department’s top weapons tester, said in his annual report on major programs. “However, these modifications may be unaffordable for the services as they consider the cost of upgrading these early lots of aircraft while the program continues to increase production rates in a fiscally constrained environment.”
The U.S. May Build 500 Jets Before Finding Out If the F-35 Works - Bloomberg Politics (http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-01-29/pentagon-risks-building-500-f-35s-before-completing-combat-tests)

There's much more along those lines, although Capaccio does leaven the criticism with some slightly less bad news towards the end.

airsound

LowObservable
29th Jan 2016, 16:26
Capaccio got the jump on everyone again.

The complexity (and potential for conflict and confusion) is amazing.

Eventually, everything that is on the line right now, and everything that goes on contract before 3F passes DT, is likely to need some kind of mod. But you can't afford to wait until 3F is fully developed to start doing that because (1) the services want to start training and getting squadrons on line and (2) by the time you'd finished the new aircraft will be coming off the line in 4.1 anyway.

So what you have to accept is that many, perhaps most, of the jets that go on contract before 2018 will need more than one mod visit to get to whatever the 3F standard ends up being.

But wait, there's more! Before you even start that process, the USAF wants a number of Block 3i IOC jets (a wing?) that presumably have some kind of priority.

How do the depots handle this (at the same time as they start seeing aircraft cycling through for PDM, and learn to handle this new aircraft)? They don't. You'll need to do a lot of mods in the field with contractor/government teams.

If this all starts to remind you of 1950s horror stories of lines of F-86Ds sitting on ramps waiting for radars and FCS, you're plainly an old f**t and an oldthinker who unbellyfeels 5GenTM.

Turbine D
29th Jan 2016, 17:31
I read an article the other day which said current IRST has the ability to detect the engine exhaust from an F-35 60 miles away. The Su-35 has both IRST and L band radar, the L band perhaps having the capability to see the F-35 100 miles away. That would be before the F-35 can see the Su-35. Are these statements true?

Also, it was stated the F-22 pilots are limited to flying the F-22s to only 10-12 hours per month. It costs $58,000 per flight hour or 42 man-hours of maintenance per flight hour. Half the man-hours are spent repairing the RAM coating. The USAF can't afford more air hours. Would these statements be somewhat accurate?

I wonder what happens when the three services get 500 F-35s to take care of from a cost point of view?

LowObservable
29th Jan 2016, 18:17
All IRSTs are not created equal but they are getting damn good.

Selex Talks Details On IRST Technology | Defense content from Aviation Week (http://aviationweek.com/defense/selex-talks-details-irst-technology)

And if you cycle through the photos at this link (http://www.tyndall.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123359148), you'll find someone removing damaged RAM from an F-22. With a :mad:ing chisel.

Hopefully they didn't have to pay someone $1500 for the chisel, but you never know.

KenV
29th Jan 2016, 20:08
Also, it was stated the F-22 pilots are limited to flying the F-22s to only 10-12 hours per month. It costs $58,000 per flight hour or 42 man-hours of maintenance per flight hour. Half the man-hours are spent repairing the RAM coating. The USAF can't afford more air hours. Would these statements be somewhat accurate?Arguably, the biggest advance in the F-35 is the RAM coatings. One reason USN has not had a stealth aircraft is for that very reason: it can't be maintained in a carrier environment. The F-35s RAM coating technology is reportedly much more robust and much less maintenance intensive, making it the first stealth aircraft that can routinely operate from a carrier. And that technology is reportedly being back fitted to F-22s.

And although cheaper to fly than an F-22, F-35s will nevertheless be expensive to fly. That's why USAF and USN are both looking at offloading some of the F-22/F-35 pilot training hours onto a cheaper aircraft. Indeed that's one of the driving requirements for the T-X, to enable 5th gen pilots to train on it instead of their real ride.

MSOCS
29th Jan 2016, 20:41
KenV,

Before you invite our resident pitch-fork-wielding experts into 6 further pages of ground-swallowing debate, you may wish to heavily caveat exactly what training you think could be offloaded from an F-35/F-22 onto a training aircraft!

For example, general seat-of-the-pants jet flying experience; g tolerance; 3-1 procedures versus other agencies (CAS with JTACs etc); BFM; ACM; other Air/Maritime and Air/Land integration activity.

You won't necessarily be doing many of the mission sets in the same way because of the different platform characteristics so one must be careful not to transpose them.

But yes, the financial principles behind surrogacy are sound.

KenV
29th Jan 2016, 20:45
The Su-35 has both IRST and L band radar, the L band perhaps having the capability to see the F-35 100 miles away. L band radars are quite common, many (most?) Air Traffic Management long-range surveillance radars (like ARSR) operate in the L band. But they have low angular and range resolution so cannot be used for a targetting solution. But they can narrow the search volume and provide cuing to a higher frequency radar which can then saturate that volume with a lot of energy to squeeze out a signal from a stealth aircraft. L band also requires large antennas for any kind of efficiency, so if put on a fighter sized platform (like the Su-35), it will be range liimited. The large apertures required also limits the ability to use active beam forming, especially on smaller platforms.

KenV
29th Jan 2016, 20:52
...you may wish to heavily caveat exactly what training you think could be offloaded from an F-35/F-22 onto a training aircraft!I'll leave that up to USAF and USN to decide. Of course whatever they decide will be decried by the negative nabobs here as foolish, unworkable, short sighted, and various sundry other problems only they can see but USAF and USN can't.

For example, general seat-of-the-pants jet flying experience; g tolerance; 3-1 procedures versus other agencies (CAS with JTACs etc); BFM; ACM; other Air/Maritime and Air/Land integration activity.You may wish to add datalink operations. That's a big deal in modern high connectivity air operations.

MSOCS
29th Jan 2016, 21:03
You may wish to add datalink operations. That's a big deal in modern high connectivity air operations.

Valid for kill!

LowObservable
29th Jan 2016, 21:11
Oh my!

No real arguments about offloading/downloading and LVC. It's where training is going. When you start using datalinks and longer-range weapons, realistic training with real systems working starts to need even more airspace, not to mention security issues, which get very difficult indeed. However, as MSOCS is pointing out, whether you can download enough training from a fighter to a trainer, or offload it to a sim, to compensate for a much higher CPFH is questionable.

Maybe the new RAM techs are carrier-rugged. I hope so. But I spent hours in the 1990s being reassured that the new super RAM on the F-22 was also tough and that the aircraft would require very little special treatment, so permit me to be skeptical.

And I haven't seen or heard a whole lot that's reliable about the F-22 fleet getting a new-generation RAM makeover. Very, very expensive proposition.

BTW I have wielded a pitchfork in my time, but only for moving hay around a loft. But then the farmer's daughter climbed up the ladder and [That's quite enough of that. - Ed.].

glad rag
29th Jan 2016, 21:51
KenV,

Before you invite our resident pitch-fork-wielding experts into 6 further pages of ground-swallowing debate, you may wish to heavily caveat exactly what training you think could be offloaded from an F-35/F-22 onto a training aircraft!

For example, general seat-of-the-pants jet flying experience; g tolerance; 3-1 procedures versus other agencies (CAS with JTACs etc); BFM; ACM; other Air/Maritime and Air/Land integration activity.

You won't necessarily be doing many of the mission sets in the same way because of the different platform characteristics so one must be careful not to transpose them.

But yes, the financial principles behind surrogacy are sound.

so about these fleets within fleets then and the seemingly monumental cost to the taxpayer of modifying the fleet to an operstional standard again ?

:}

Maus92
30th Jan 2016, 14:48
The JPO has posted a public response to DOT&E's annual report on the F-35 - before DOT&E's report has been made available to the general public, which is interesting in its politically expedient release - I guess they are trying to get out front of the issues. You can find it here:

https://www.f35.com/news/detail/2015-dote-report-public-response-statement

Basically, the JPO agrees that DOT&E's report is factually accurate, but of course disagrees with interpretation of the facts, and reminds us the the JSF is still in its developmental phase, while ignoring that we will be buying upwards of 500 "developmental" jets masquerading as operational assets.

ORAC
30th Jan 2016, 16:40
And it's off-loading to the training to simulation etc which causing much of the problem - as pointed out by by Bill Sweetman (the man you love to hate) in AW&ST in their analysis of the report and the JO response....

Opinion: F-35 Software Fixes Likely To Take Time (http://aviationweek.com/defense/opinion-f-35-software-fixes-likely-take-time)

There are two levels of concern about the latest critical memo on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) from the Pentagon’s director of operational test and engineering (DOT&E), Michael Gilmore.

The first is that it is time for the Defense Department to resolve the friction between the F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) and DOT&E, which has now reached the status of public flaming. The second is the question of whether late and defective software is a feature, rather than a bug, of any defense system as complex as the JSF........

Delays should not entirely be blamed on management, because what emerges from a review of Gilmore’s reports is the multidimensional complexity of the JSF software challenge.

Essential JSF software runs on at least four platforms: the airplane; the Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS), which is supposed to manage maintenance and support; reprogramming laboratories, which develop the mission data file (MDF) software that allows fused sensors to identify threats and targets; and simulators used for training and mission rehearsal. All are functionally interlinked: ALIS and training devices need to reflect the configuration of the aircraft hardware and software on the ramp. Simulators and the airplane run on updated MDFs. The latter connection becomes crucial as air forces move toward live, virtual, constructive training, where pilots fly against synthetic threats and targets, because the MDFs determine how those objects are detected and displayed. All have suffered delays, according to Gilmore’s reports.

There is no end-state to development. The goal is to update the software on a two-year cycle, so there will usually be two standards in service at any one time in the U.S., plus customized MDFs for export customers. Much of the software must be validated to a life-or-death level. Aircraft-borne code changes will require some level of regression testing (to ensure they don’t disrupt flight-critical functions). The intelligence that allows the system to distinguish a missile launcher from the village market bus resides in the MDFs. Under this pressure, the temptation is to do exactly what Gilmore says is happening: patch the problems and build each release on top of the next. But as the coders say:

Ninety-nine little bugs in the code,

Take one down, patch it around,

117 little bugs in the code.

Will this situation improve? Possibly. The JPO has been working since 2011 to meet each customer’s demand for three initial operational capability standards—2B for the Marines, 3i for the Air Force and the definitive 3F—that are being developed on overlapping schedules. If that hadn’t been done, the production effort would have had to slow down (nobody wanted to see hundreds of non-operational jets sitting on ramps at the end of 2017), which would have cost a lot of money. The end of the multitracking will be a relief.

Unfortunately, the overarching customer is not done. Shocked by the cost of upgrading highly integrated custom software on the F-22 and other programs, the Pentagon wants to require open systems architecture (OSA) in all new programs and retrofit it to the F-22 and F-35, to bring more competition and commonality into upgrade efforts. “Open mission systems are key to everything we do,” Air Combat Command leader Gen. Herbert Carlisle said late last year. William LaPlante, the Air Force acquisition chief until December 2015, wanted to go to OSA during the F-35’s Block 4 upgrade process—but it has to compete for time and money with badly needed new weapons and fixes left over from Block 3F.

Can the F-22 and F-35 migrate to OSA and reach the sunlit uplands of regular, on-time upgrades on a stable basis? Probably, but it will take more time and money than people think. The lesson is that what we want software to do in our weapons, and when we want it, has to be scrutinized, Red-teamed and matched to assets as rigorously as any other aspect of system requirements.

PhilipG
30th Jan 2016, 16:59
Following on from the discussion about different software releases and implicitly technical refreshes of the IT architecture of the F35.

What versions are being delivered from Fort Worth? I, dangerously, assume that 2B is no longer being manufactured and that all B & Cs are being produced with 3F ready hardware and that USAF As are being built 3I ready, not sure about export As. Can anyone cast any light?

Tourist
30th Jan 2016, 17:26
Bill Sweetman (the man you love to hate) in AW&ST in their analysis of the report and the JO response....


I don't think anybody hates him, but I would prefer he posted here under his own name rather than surreptitiously.

That may sound a bit rich since I operate anonymously myself, and its a fair point, however I am not an aviation talking head who is mentioned on here regularly under my actual name.

LowObservable
30th Jan 2016, 19:57
Maus - It's funny to see the JPO's pre-emptive response while the kiddies on other boards are wailing about Congressional leaks.

The full report is a monster, BTW. It's even bigger than last year's 34-page opus. Most programs get two- or three-page reports.

The big problem with the DOT&E documents is that they are huge and densely packed with technical details that most media and political types don't understand (they don't fit into 140-character tweets).

And Gilmore himself is scrupulously non-political, and doesn't have a single communicator on his staff, while Bogdan is consummately so and has a few full-time PR folks, backed up by a cast of thousands on the contractor side.

PG - All aircraft being built now have the TR-2 processor hardware that runs 3i/3F. That's been the delivery standard for a couple of years.

glad rag
30th Jan 2016, 22:35
I don't think anybody hates him, but I would prefer he posted here under his own name rather than surreptitiously.

That may sound a bit rich since I operate anonymously myself, and its a fair point, however I am not an aviation talking head who is mentioned on here regularly under my actual name.

"aviation talking head" - 2 out of 3 ain't that bad tourist...

Turbine D
31st Jan 2016, 00:23
https://www.f35.com/news/detail/2015-dote-report-public-response-statement

Forget the words contained in this response. Look at the commercialism.

Five star General and two term US President, Dwight D. Eisenhower rolled over in his grave as the public statement by Lt. General Chris Bogan surrounded by Lockheed-Martin advertising represents the epitome of the Military-Industrial Complex that is apparently acceptable by the DoD in the US today. The Lockheed-Martin uniform Bogdan is wearing looks eerily similar to that of the USAF for which we support with our tax dollars. Is Bogdan working for L-M already?

Lockheed-Martin announced early this week they are selling their IT business to "concentrate" more on their military business. Too bad they didn't do this before participating in the JSF program, maybe the resulting F-35A, B & C would have come far closer to meeting overall expectations including program costs which American tax payers provide funding for.

TD

Mach Two
31st Jan 2016, 00:26
I wonder why so many of the ex-serving members here still feel the need for anonymity. Something to hide or something to hide behind?

Tourist
31st Jan 2016, 02:56
I wonder why so many of the ex-serving members here still feel the need for anonymity. Something to hide or something to hide behind?

Yes, I have my identity to hide, since in the real world I would have to be more circumspect about my opinions to not damage my chances of employment. Unfortunately that is the HR driven world we live in. Not towing the party line is considered a bad thing.

LowObservable
31st Jan 2016, 12:31
Here's the tl;dr of the JPO response.

It's old news. Nothing exciting to report.

But look over here! We actually DID GET SOME STUFF done, with a piffling few billion in R&D and production and who knows what in operational costs. Airplanes were built! Maintainers trained!

Oh by the way, the report is accurate. Just don't read the bits about how we prioritized schedules and spec compliance over delivering a product that works, or how 2B/3i can't be deployed in combat without supporting assets (not tankers, either).

We have TOO fixed SOME earlier problems and we're working REALLY REALLY hard on the others.

Please throw us more money as planned.

thxbai

the JPO

LowObservable
31st Jan 2016, 12:36
PS - If the PA staff are reading this... not a good choice of photo. You should have had the PEO tieless and in shirtsleeves, personally delivering pizza to a roomful of perspiring, dedicated, midnight-oil-burning coders.

LowObservable
1st Feb 2016, 09:30
Light reading

http://aviationweek.com/site-files/aviationweek.com/files/uploads/2016/01/DOT%26E%202015%20F-35%20Annual%20Report.pdf

Heathrow Harry
1st Feb 2016, 15:43
This really is a turkey isn't it?

from the Link

Mission Data Load Development and Testing



• The F-35 relies on mission data loads—which are a compilation of the mission data files needed for operation of the sensors and other mission systems—to work in
conjunction with the system software data load to drive sensor search parameters and to identify and correlate sensor detections, such as threat and friendly radar signals. The U.S. Reprogramming Lab (USRL), a U.S. government lab, produces these loads for U.S. operational and training aircraft. Mission data optimization testing, which includes
both lab-testing and flight-testing, is conducted by an AirForce operational test unit augmented by Navy personnel.The unit provides the test plans to the DOT&E for approvaland independent oversight.

• Significant deficiencies exist in the USRL that preclude efficient development and adequate testing of effective mission data loads for Block 3F. Despite being provided a $45 Million budget in FY13, the program has still not designed, contracted for, and ordered the required equipment—a process that will take at least two years, not counting installation and check-out. In addition, despite theconclusions of a study by the Program Office indicating that substantial upgrades are needed to the laboratory’s hardware, the program is currently only pursuing a significantly lesser upgrade due to budgetary constraints

Bevo
1st Feb 2016, 15:45
Thanks LO. Interesting reading.

It also points out the problems that can arise with heavily “integrated systems”. They can work fine and provide excellent results, however, If the is no federated backup you may have a system that can’t function when some piece is not on line. For example on an aircraft where you have to bring up the full mission computer just to talk on the UHF radio to tow the aircraft.

PhilipG
1st Feb 2016, 16:39
Interesting comments on the Marine Corps decision to declare IOC.

Just This Once...
1st Feb 2016, 17:07
Even though we could all read between the lines of the claimed USMC IOC the tone used in the official report is verging towards the damming end of the 'interesting' scale. The report could not even bring itself to call it an operational test, just a mere 'demonstration'.

I like the bit where if you think about using a bomber then take a real bomber with you to sort out the target coordinates and if you think about using it as a fighter then take some real fighter support with you to deal with the enemy fighters. Oh and if you think of doing this outside of USA then take most of LM with you. Although we would still have no idea if the mission data is valid, but we will warn you of that just so you know.

If you eject whilst out-of-control we have no idea what will happen, but we do know that in stabilised flight a typical 74 kg man will have 25% chance of death and 100% chance of a serious, perhaps life changing, neck injury; if you don't drown of course. Don't worry though as the JPO and your service has taken the 'risk', but not all stakeholders know how they have managed to do this….

Courtney Mil
1st Feb 2016, 19:55
Actually, the whole report is a bit of a horror story. I think we were all aware of most, if not all, of those issues, but seeing them all listed together and the analysis of the risks of each is, frankly, shocking.

What I haven't quite got my head around yet is the reality of the future timeline. The effect of current problems and change of effort on probable dates for various milestones is well described, but the complexity of the way so many threads interact makes it hard to see exactly where the risks in one thread affect the others, which affect others, etc.

It feels like a house of cards that already has major flaws in the lower layers.

Radix
1st Feb 2016, 20:11
.............

GlobalNav
1st Feb 2016, 20:12
Strangely, while not disputing the substance of the DOT&E report, the JPO implies that it is not the whole story, as if some other information would make it all seem acceptable. Whether all the knots will ever get untied, I don't know, but it will take much longer and cost much than many are willing to admit.

As a customer, I would be careful not commit to premature decommissioning of air assets that the JSF is supposed to replace. As a taxpayer, I wish we hadn't shut down the F-22 assembly line. The marginal cost of the F-22 will prove to be less than F-35, I'm afraid.

Courtney Mil
1st Feb 2016, 20:28
As a customer, I would also be highly suspicious of the block buy proposal. A great way to be stuck with a lot of useless airframes that require a lot of modification before they can be used operationally. Who would want to do that?

Turbine D
1st Feb 2016, 20:30
GN,
I really agree with you, especially the F-22 restart, even knowing the initial cost to do so will be high. More F-22s are needed to cover the F-35s fleeing from the air to ground attacks in the battlefield where air superiority isn't secured.

ORAC
2nd Feb 2016, 09:22
........


For the F-35A, the airspeed at which the weapons bay doors can be open in flight (550 knots or 1.2 Mach) is less than the maximum aircraft speed allowable (700 knots or 1.6 Mach). Such a restriction will limit tactics to employment of weapons at lower speeds and may create advantages for threat aircraft being pursued by the F-35A.

For the F-35A, the airspeed at which countermeasures can be used is also less than the maximum speed allowable, again restricting tactical options in scenarios where F-35A pilots are conducting defensive manoeuvres.............


In addition to the mission systems deficiencies cited above, the Block 2B fleet aircraft are restricted by fuel system deficiencies:


All variants of the fleet Block 2B aircraft are restricted from exceeding 3 gs in symmetric maneuvers when fully fueled in order to avoid exceeding the allowable pressure in the siphon fuel tanks. The allowable g increases as fuel is consumed. The program has developed and tested a hardware correction to the problem for the F-35B; corrections for the F-35A and F-35C are still in work.
.............

I have concerns about weight, when combining the following.

.....The program completed the final weight assessment of the F-35B air vehicle for contract specification compliance in May 2015 with the weighing of BF-44, a Lot 7 production aircraft. Actual empty aircraft weight was 32,442 pounds, only 135 pounds below the planned not-to-exceed weight of 32,577 pounds and 307 pounds (less than 1 percent) below the objective vertical lift bring-back not-to-exceed weight of 32,749 pounds.

- The program will need to continue disciplined management of weight growth for the F-35B, especially in light of the small weight margin available and the likelihood of continued discovery through the remaining two years of development in SDD......................

• F-35B durability test article (BH-1) completed 11,915 EFH by August 13, 2015, which is 3,915 hours (48.9 percent) into the second lifetime. The program completed the 11,000 hour data review on August 5, 2015.

- Two main wing carry-through bulkheads, FS496 and FS472, are no longer considered production-representative due to the extensive existing repairs. The program plans to continue durability testing, repairing the bulkheads as necessary, through the second lifetime (i.e., 8,001 through 16,000 EFH) which is projected to be complete in mid-2016.

- Prior to CY15, testing was halted on September 29, 2013, at 9,056 EFH, when the FS496 bulkhead severed, transferred loads to, and caused cracking in the adjacent three bulkheads (FS518, FS472, and FS450). The repairs and an adequacy review were completed on December 17, 2014, when the program determined that the test article could continue testing. Testing restarted on January 19, 2015, after a 16-month delay.

- The program determined that several of the cracks discovered from the September 2013 pause at 9,056 EFH were initiated at etch pits. These etch pits are created by the etching process required prior to anodizing the surface of the structural components; anodizing is required for corrosion protection. Since the cracks were not expected, the program determined that the etch pits were more detrimental to fatigue life than the original material design suggested. The program is currently developing an analysis path forward to determine the effect on the overall fatigue life.

- Discoveries requiring a pause in testing during CY15 include: Cracking in the left- and right-hand side aft boom closeout frames, which are critical structural portions at the very aft of the airframe on each side of the engine nozzle, at 9,080 EFH. The cracks were not predicted by modeling and required a three-week pause in testing for repair, which consisted of a doubler (i.e., additional supporting element) as an interim fix to allow testing to continue. Designs for retrofitting and cut-in for production are under development.

Damage to a significant number of Electro-Hydraulic Actuator System (EHAS) fasteners and grommets at 9,333 EFH. The EHAS drives the aircraft control surfaces based on the direction and demand input by the pilot through the control stick.

Inspections in April 2015 revealed that cracks at four previously-identified web fastener holes near the trunnion lug of the FS496 bulkhead, a component integral to the bulkhead that supports the attachment of the main landing gear to the airframe, had grown larger. FS496 was previously identified as a life-limited part and will be modified as part of the life-limited modification plans for production aircraft in Lots 1 through 8, and a new production design cut into Lot 9 and later lot aircraft.

Failure of the left 3-Bearing Swivel Nozzle door unlock in April 2015; requiring replacement prior to restarting testing in May 2015.

Crack indication found at two fastener holes on the left side keel.

Crack reoccurrence at the Station 3 pylon at 10,975 EFH.

Cracks on the transition duct above the vanebox, a component of the lift fan, discovered in August 2015, requiring the jacks that transmit loads to the duct to be disconnected to allow cycling of the rest of the test article to continue.

During the repair activity in September 2015, a crack was discovered in a stiffener on the right-hand side of the mid-fairing longhorn.
Testing has been paused since August 2015 to allow replacement and repair activities; a process estimated to take five months. Testing is planned to restart in January 2016.

Then there is the matter of suitability for sea, do the QE and PoW have suitable lockers.....

.......▪ When the aircraft is wet it is extremely slippery. The F-35 sits higher off the deck than legacy aircraft so falls off of it can cause greater injury, or at sea, can lead to a man-overboard. This is exacerbated by the plastic booties maintainers are supposed to wear when working on the aircraft to protect the LO coatings. The detachment decided, for safety reasons, to allow maintainers to work on the aircraft without wearing these booties. The program should investigate alternate footwear to continue to protect aircraft LO coatings while also ensuring the safety of maintainers........

....The Navy made several modifications to the USS Wasp in order to support F-35B operations. The deployment demonstration provided the following observations on some of these ship modifications:

▪ Naval Sea Systems Command installed a Lithium-Ion battery charging and storage facility. The F-35 relies on 270 Volts-Direct-Current and 28 Volts-Fully-Charged Lithium-Ion batteries, and other assets that will deploy onboard L-class ships are also predicted to make greater use of Lithium-Ion batteries. However, Lithium-Ion batteries can catch fire under certain circumstances, especially during charging and, due to their chemical nature, cannot be extinguished but must burn themselves out. The storage facility consisted of racks of lockers that resembled ovens, each with its own exhaust system that could flue smoke and heat from a battery undergoing “thermal runaway.” Battery charging would occur only in these lockers......

LowObservable
2nd Feb 2016, 10:35
Interesting about the thermal issue. We were told that it had been solved around Lot 3 with a new fuel pump, and when the Luke maintainers painted their fuel trucks white to alleviate JSF overheating, we were told that it wasn't a real problem.

And as for plastic booties? Weren't we just being reminded a few posts up about how rugged and damage-tolerant the new coatings are? And seriously, who the :mad: thinks it's a good idea to stand on any airplane in the rain on a carrier deck with plastic bags on your feet?

Courtney Mil
2nd Feb 2016, 10:38
LO, is it allowed outside in the rain?

PhilipG
2nd Feb 2016, 10:53
Is there any positive news in that report? If there was it was difficult to find.
It can be argued that the later than originally planned arrival of the RN aircraft carriers has at least saved some embarrassing questions from being asked.

ORAC
2nd Feb 2016, 11:15
Look at the bright side. At least when you have to slow down because of the weapon bay temp, you'll be able to open the bay doors and fire off your chaff and flares against the guy chasing you........

WhiteOvies
2nd Feb 2016, 13:54
The Chinese and Russians must love reading these reports :hmm:

In my view what needs to happen is that the JPO and Gilmore need to get in a room and really discuss the way forward privately, rather than this public berating and political point scoring. It's info on the performance of countermeasures etc. that directly affects the safety of the aircrew.

Whilst openness with the taxpayers is all well and good it should not compromise OpSec, which I feel that the OT&E report does.

Snafu351
2nd Feb 2016, 14:57
Or maybe those who don't have skin in the F35 game can see how compromised the aircraft is and wish to protect the ability of (the) nation(s) defence to be somewhat effective.
One would argue that those who stand to gain from the "success" (aka continued production whether or not the product is effective for the purpose of defence) of the F35 program have done a rather good job of almost ensuring that it is not possible to cancel the program thus protecting their investment and subsequent return (from the taxpayer.)


Exposing the inadequacies of this product when so much of the taxpayers funds have been expended on it and more importantly it is clear that even more is required to eventually produce an effective tool may actually be in the best interests of the nation.

KenV
2nd Feb 2016, 15:16
Or maybe those who don't have skin in the F35 game can see how compromised the aircraft is and wish to protect the ability of (the) nation(s) defence to be somewhat effective.I find it interesting that given a choice between F-15, F-18, Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen, Su-35, MiG-29 and this overpriced, highly "compromised" F-35, many are choosing the F-35. I guess the folks that have access to the latest test data and test reports as well as reams of classified data, as well as the reports from their own pilots who've flown the plane, are either grossly naive or bought off by LM.

Turbine D
2nd Feb 2016, 15:33
WO,
In my view what needs to happen is that the JPO and Gilmore need to get in a room and really discuss the way forward privately, rather than this public berating and political point scoring. It's info on the performance of countermeasures etc. that directly affects the safety of the aircrew.

Whilst openness with the taxpayers is all well and good it should not compromise OpSec, which I feel that the OT&E report does.
The United States spends more money on defense than the next twelve nations combined, and that includes China and Russia. So here we have the F-35 program, the most expensive single defense program, ever. Face it, the program is way late reaching the goal line, continuing technical problems remain and even grow with real solutions remaining elusive, e.g., sometime in the future. Yet, no one in US Government that controls the purse strings seem interested or even concerned with what has happened or what is going to happen. In fact:
-- Sneak peek at Defense Secretary Ash Carter's FY2017 budget request: The Pentagon wants to boost spending on advanced weaponry and the U.S. footprint in Europe. Carter will today make a case for why China’s rapid military buildup and Russia’s intervention beyond its borders pose a larger threat to U.S. security, and merit larger investments, than do extremist groups like the Islamic State. Carter wants to broaden the military’s focus to include not just the insurgent conflicts of the post-2001 era but also “higher-end” threats from Russia and China, whose military innovation U.S. officials acknowledge has at times out-paced the United States.
Before the JPO and Gilmore sit down privately, Ash Carter might do well to become involved in the F-35 discussion along with the select few in Congress charged with Defense issues and spending. If anybody reads this, I hope Ash Carter does because he apparently is sheltered from reality...

tdracer
2nd Feb 2016, 16:02
I was watching the movie "Robocop" last weekend (the 1987 version, which I think is a classic). This little quote seems applicable to the F-35 program:

Dick Jones (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001074/?ref_=tt_trv_qu): I had a guaranteed military sale with ED 209 - renovation program, spare parts for twenty-five years... Who cares if it worked or not?

LowObservable
2nd Feb 2016, 16:38
Oh my.

I find it interesting that given a choice between F-15, F-18, Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen, Su-35, MiG-29 and this overpriced, highly "compromised" F-35, many are choosing the F-35. I guess the folks that have access to the latest test data and test reports as well as reams of classified data, as well as the reports from their own pilots who've flown the plane, are either grossly naive or bought off by LM.

All the partner nations chose the F-35 on the basis of empty promises about price and schedule, at a point (14 years ago) when the principal competitors were immature. Except for Denmark and Canada, they have simply failed to carry out any formal re-evaluation of their requirements or possible alternatives, so they mostly have no idea, beyond what they can pick up open source, of what the competitors can do. Italy and the UK are aware of Typhoon's capabilities, of course, but are have painted themselves into a corner by their carrier-aviation planning.

Korea carried out a rules-based evaluation and picked the F-15SE, a decision that was reversed at the political level. Israel doesn't use its own money, and has (AFAIK) some very specific tasks for the F-35. That leaves Japan, which is spending lots of money to do a lot of work in-country and, strangely enough, is also working on its own stealth fighter.

Snafu351
2nd Feb 2016, 16:38
@KenV, but little of your post is actually true is it so...


Edit: Beaten to it by LO and with more detail.

LowObservable
2nd Feb 2016, 16:45
WhiteOvies - I think it's clear from the JPO's response that those discussions have taken place long before the report is published. However, given the number of issues that have gone unaddressed for years, the JPO doesn't seem to have taken action.

And I'm not sure what a hostile intelligence agency would gather from the DOT&E reports. If you believe the F-35 fans and boosters, the DOT&E is full of :mad:, so to the extent to which the Chinese and Russians treat the reports as credible, they will be lulled into a false sense of security. Brilliant strategic deception!

Lyneham Lad
2nd Feb 2016, 17:49
From Flight Global:-
The Israeli Air Force (IAF) has accelerated its preparations for the delivery of the first Lockheed Martin F-35I Adir at the end of the year.

The "Golden Eagle" squadron at the Nevatim airbase is working to be ready for the stealth fighter that in Israel is considered one of the main elements of the edge the IAF wants to have in any future war.

Major Ehud is the F-35 squadron project manager in charge of the preparations. He said the deployment of the F-35 in the IAF is no less than a revolution. "With its capabilities, it redefines the term multi-role aircraft,” Ehud says.

"We know even before the first aircraft lands in this base that it's a force multiplier. Two F-35s will do the work of larger formations, sometimes of different types. Its capabilities to locate targets and perform the best attack under different conditions are no less than an operational revolution.”

Click for the full article. (https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/analysis-f-35-revolutionises-multi-role-operations-421158/?cmpid=NLC%7CFGFG%7CFGFIN-2016-0202-GLOB&sfid=70120000000taAh)

KenV
2nd Feb 2016, 18:02
Except for Denmark and Canada, they have simply failed to carry out any formal re-evaluation of their requirements or possible alternatives.... I see. They are so naive about the F-35's countless and very public failings and so entrenched in their decision to "stay the course" that they're not even bothering to look at the numerous lower cost and proven alternatives. Including alternatives that they themselves produce. An interesting claim.

....so they mostly have no idea, beyond what they can pick up open source, of what the competitors can do.I see. You know for a fact that none of the nations have even looked at alternatives and consequently know little about them, including the nations that produce some of those alternatives. But the folks here do know "what the competitors can do" and that includes kicking the F-35's butt. An interesting position.

KenV
2nd Feb 2016, 18:07
From Flight Global:-Quote:

The Israeli Air Force (IAF) has accelerated its preparations for the delivery of the first Lockheed Martin F-35I Adir at the end of the year.

The "Golden Eagle" squadron at the Nevatim airbase is working to be ready for the stealth fighter that in Israel is considered one of the main elements of the edge the IAF wants to have in any future war.

Major Ehud is the F-35 squadron project manager in charge of the preparations. He said the deployment of the F-35 in the IAF is no less than a revolution. "With its capabilities, it redefines the term multi-role aircraft,” Ehud says.

"We know even before the first aircraft lands in this base that it's a force multiplier. Two F-35s will do the work of larger formations, sometimes of different types. Its capabilities to locate targets and perform the best attack under different conditions are no less than an operational revolution.”Pffffff. What do the folks in a teeny tiny nation like Israel know about fighters and modern air warfare? Certainly not as much as the nabobs in this thread.

ORAC
2nd Feb 2016, 19:00
Hmmm, about a squadron's worth of aircraft, paid for by the American taxpayer. Nice to see the Sqn Ops officer being enthusiastic about it.

In the meantime, what is the Knesset spending it's Sheckels on....

Israel to upgrade F-15I Ra'am fleet (http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2016/01/21/Israel-to-upgrade-F-15I-Raam-fleet/7881453406721/)

Israel Announces F-16 Variant Upgrades (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/israel-kicks-off-program-to-improve-its-f16s-and-f15s-01796/)

A dearth of Israeli funded F-35s.........

Turbine D
2nd Feb 2016, 19:19
Ken,
Pffffff. What do the folks in a teeny tiny nation like Israel know about fighters and modern air warfare? Certainly not as much as the nabobs in this thread.
Have you ever personally dealt with the Israelis industry in the aviation world? If you have, you wouldn't write stuff like your above quote. The Israelis fully understand what they will be taking delivery of, including all the shortcomings. They will quickly assess and apply whatever is required to make the aircraft perform as near as possible to what the original sales pitch from L-M was. You think for an instant they will honor the minor piece of paper that says you can't look at or touch or modify certain things in the F-35? Think again. They will have what they want and need in the F-35 up and flying while L-M and the US DoD/JPO are busy rearranging schedules, writing wordy defense of program papers and babying the built aircraft which will take years to totally fix. When you point your finger and call people "nabobs", your thumb is point at you.

LowObservable
2nd Feb 2016, 20:33
They are so naive about the F-35's countless and very public failings and so entrenched in their decision to "stay the course" that they're not even bothering to look at the numerous lower cost and proven alternatives.

I will stick to the facts and leave you to figure out motives.

Speedywheels
2nd Feb 2016, 20:37
When you point your finger and call people "nabobs", your thumb is point at you.

I think you mean three fingers - Solid Rock, Dire Straits

ORAC
2nd Feb 2016, 21:22
How to get around the lack of range? Add the entire cost of this program onto that of the F-35 - though they will try and claim s separate and an 'enhancement"......

Good-Bye, UCLASS; Hello, Unmanned Tanker, More F-35Cs In 2017 Budget (http://breakingdefense.com/2016/02/good-bye-uclass-hello-unmanned-tanker-more-f-35cs-in-2017-budget/)

Turbine D
2nd Feb 2016, 21:45
Speedywheels,

You are correct, I got that wrong.:(

Heathrow Harry
3rd Feb 2016, 10:50
"The Chinese and Russians must love reading these reports :hmm:"


I doubt it - they're probably screaming " we've spent ZILLIONS on counter measures against this b***** turkey over the last 15 years and now they're saying it STILL isn't ready....................."

ORAC
3rd Feb 2016, 11:46
HTT SNAFU!: Australian F-35's will be Sukhoi bait in the Pacific & other bad news for the program. (http://snafu-solomon.********.co.uk/2016/02/australian-f-35s-will-be-sukhoi-bait-in.html)


Gizmodo Australia... (http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2016/02/australia-should-buy-f-22s-not-f-35s-says-retired-raaf-wing-commander/)

In the submission (http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=cb696c8f-26b1-494c-ab8e-0555ef0fd7b4&subId=407251) to the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade’s Joint Strike Fighter inquiry (http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Foreign_Affairs_Defence_and_Trade/Joint_fighter/Submissions), Royal Australian Air Force Wing Commander Chris Mills AM, MSc, BSc (Retd) says that lessons from history and statistical modelling suggest that the F-35 is a poor choice for the future of warfare in the region, which centres around air superiority versus countries like Indonesia and China.

A simulation showing six F-35s versus six Sukhoi SU-35S, Indonesia’s intended future air superiority fighter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-35#Operational_history) choice for its air force, suggests that 2.36 Joint Strike Fighters would be lost for every SU-35S downed. The simulation was run on H3MilSim software (http://www.h3milsim.net/) developed by Mills’ RepSim, a company he and a colleague set up after retiring from the RAAF.

A simulation of the aerially superior F-22 Raptor, though, results in an almost precisely opposite outcome — with 2.14 Sukhoi jets destroyed per F-22 loss. While the F-35 is a newer jet, it is a multirole fighter capable of ground attack and reconnaissance, while the F-22 has the sole role of air superiority and supremacy in enemy airspace..........

With future fifth-generation aircraft like the Sukhoi PAK FA / T-50, China’s own Chengdu J-20 and Shenyang J-31 on the horizon from Australia’s regional competitors, Mills suggests that production of the F-22 be restarted and the fighter itself exported for Australia’s use in local air superiority roles. Production of the F-22 by Lockheed Martin, its partners and the USAF was discontinued in 2011, but Mills says the tooling to produce several hundred new jets still exists and could be put to work on the very same production line as creates the Joint Strike Fighter in Dallas, Texas.

This is a thought exercise, obviously — the United States has never sold the F-22A to any other country on Earth, and the export itself is currently banned on national security grounds. But the shortcomings of the F-35 — without any next-generation “beyond visual range” over-the-horizon air-to-air missiles like the Meteor BVRAAM planned for Australia, although that missile is being developed for F-35 compatibility by the UK RAF and Ministry of Defence — are made clear by Mills’ submission.

Another submission (http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=5e567e7f-d1e8-429a-ba3d-c2fa67cec6bb&subId=407676) from retired Wing Commander Anthony Wilkinson says that in its capacity as a multirole aircraft, the F-35’s bomb load is too small and its range is too short to be effective in the South Asia region. Other submissions, like that from Jai Galliott, suggest the Air Force and government should look into drones and pilotless versions of the F-35, which are not currently planned for development.

Heathrow Harry
3rd Feb 2016, 14:43
I guess it depends on who you think you are going to fight

Indonesia? Unlikely - you haven't fought them in the last 70 years so why now?

China - improbable - there would go all your trade but maybe as part of a coalition with the US

various unknown ISIS type groups a longgg way from Oz - very likely but they won't have SU-35's

MSOCS
3rd Feb 2016, 15:22
HH, you make a good point but Aus must, first and foremost, look after its domestic interests in the region and only then look to what other influence its Armed Forces may bring on the world stage. Therefore the Indo-Pacific theatre is probably the most dangerous but not the most likely.

Courtney Mil
3rd Feb 2016, 16:51
It looks good, but the simulation software used there is more of a game for enthusiasts than it is a serious tactical analysis tool. It certainly does not use high fidelity missile or radar modelling and it does not contain the (highly classified) RCS data that a lot of the shots in the videos would need in order to model the flyout accurately.

I wouldn't put too much faith in the kill ratios claimed there. Unless, of course we really can swap billions of dollars worth of scientific wizardry for a £50 game.

KenV
3rd Feb 2016, 17:11
Have you ever personally dealt with the Israelis industry in the aviation world? If you have, you wouldn't write stuff like your above quote.Oh my. You actually missed the sarcasm in my post?

For the record, contrary to the opinions of the nabobs, Israel fully understands what they are getting with F-35 (both good and bad) AND what the various alternatives have to offer. And no, it is NOT just because the US has paid for their F-35s. Those military aid funds could just as easily have procured new (and more) F-15s and F-16s if that is what Israel wanted. But they've made clear they want F-35s, and want them as soon as they can possibly get them, and they have negotiated changes to the F-35 that no other nation has been able to get that enable the incorporation/integration of indigenous Israeli systems.

PhilipG
3rd Feb 2016, 18:24
Ken, I am slightly at a loss as to how the F35 program is going to work with Isreal having its own systems incorporated, how does this fit with the ALIS system or when it is working will there be an ALIS I Isreal specific, at cost, maintenance system, or will the systems developed in Israel be available to all?

AtomKraft
3rd Feb 2016, 18:25
Hey Ken.
Why won't the US pay for ours?

Turbine D
3rd Feb 2016, 18:55
Ken,
Oh my. You actually missed the sarcasm in my post?

For the record, contrary to the opinions of the nabobs,
I didn't miss anything. There is an old saying "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time." The classical use of the word nabob has nothing to do with the way you use it here. It has everything to do with the American metaphoric use of the word. The first instance of usage was by an American country comedian, Minnie Pearl in her comedy role on The Grand Ole Opry. She had a character by the name of Uncle Nabob. But more importantly, the word was used by Spiro Agnew, VPOTUS, Richard Nixon's attack dog. Agnew used "nabob" to debase the press and people that disagreed with the Nixon handling of the Vietnam War. It meant, stupid, clueless, air brained, etc., So I don't think your advertised suggestive, kinder approach in countering people that disagree with you on this forum is accurate. Nabob is just stealth word, the attack upon those who disagree with you continues...

The Israelis want the F-35 for the latest technologies contained inside it for which they will thoroughly investigate, improve and use as they see fit.

LowObservable
3rd Feb 2016, 19:26
Israel will use the F-35 as a stealthy light bomber and (I suspect) predominantly against fixed targets. These are things that the F-35 can do (and damn well should for the money.) I'm sure Israel also has robust plans to use other assets to deal with any counterstealth systems that its adversaries may acquire.

And Ken, as for your sarcasm...

I guess the folks that have access to the latest test data and test reports as well as reams of classified data, as well as the reports from their own pilots who've flown the plane, are either grossly naive or bought off by LM.

...it's so obvious, not to mention lame and unimaginative, that it's not worth commenting on. But since you want to bring it up...

Turbine D
3rd Feb 2016, 22:24
Step #1 for the F-35 Adir (Awesome) in Israel:
According to "Defense News," Israel has received an exemption from the protocol requirements of the F-35 program requiring foreign air forces to do most of the maintenance work on the planes in Lockheed Martin's logistics centers. The Israel air force will be able to do most of the maintenance work in Israel, except for heavy maintenance, due to concern that a war could break out exactly when some the planes are outside Israel. A logistics center for maintenance of the Adir planes is now being built at the Nevatim base for this purpose. This center will have direct access to Lockheed Martin's information system.

Step #2 Double the current F-35 range
IDF and Israeli defense industry sources told "Defense News" that eventually, they hope to develop external tools with Stealth capabilities. They noted that these efforts were justified, because the external fuel tanks would make the range of the Adir twice as long, or even more, with little risk of the airplane being detected by enemy radar. “It’s short-sighted to expect that all the smart people working here on conformal fuel tanks will not manage to make them stealthy," an IAF officer said.

Step #3 Install Israel designed weaponry
Lockheed Martin was now working with Israeli company Rafael Advanced Defense Systems Ltd. to adapt Israeli-made air-to-ground weaponry to the plane.

Step #4 No need to know...

ORAC
4th Feb 2016, 06:40
And in the meantime you have the USAF "Incredible Shrinking Fighter Force". For all the denials, the cuts are coming, and the spiral becoming recognisable - again.....

US Air Force Cuts Five F-35 Fighter Jets From Budget Request (http://www.defensenews.com/story/breaking-news/2016/02/03/us-air-force-cuts-five-f-35-fighter-jets-budget-request/79769342/)

"WASHINGTON – The US Air Force cut five F-35As from its fiscal year 2017 budget request while fully funding the Long Range Strike Bomber and KC-46 tanker, individuals with knowledge of the budget told Defense News. The Air Force reduced the F-35A buy in FY-17 from a planned 48 aircraft to just 43, according to one source. It is not clear if the Air Force will reduce the overall planned buy of 1,763 aircraft.........

The F-35A cut is not a surprise. Analysts and top government officials have hinted for months that changes could be ahead for the JSF as part of the Pentagon’s effort to balance its books. Frank Kendall, undersecretary for acquisition, technology and logistics, said in December that the Defense Department expects to make “disproportionate” cuts to modernization in FY17 – and he indicated a slowdown in F-35 production was likely.........

Cutting F-35As in FY17 will likely yield millions in savings over the next several years. The Air Force had planned to buy 44 F-35As in FY16 and 48 in FY17, before ramping up to 60 a year starting in FY18. But reducing that to 48 a year would free up approximately $1 billion per year for other priorities, the Congressional Research Service’s Jeremiah Gertler wrote in a December report.

“It’s the overwhelming elephant in the Air Force’s procurement budget,” Mackenzie Eaglen of the American Enterprise Institute told Defense News earlier this week. “They are not going to want to eat Bomber lunch at the expense of the JSF.”

The Air Force’s FY17 budget request also includes commitement to moving forward with the Joint Surveillance and Target Attack Radar System recapitalization effort, the Combat Rescue Helicopter, and restocking munitions expended in the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, according to the source

Rhino power
4th Feb 2016, 08:08
According to the following blog post (you'll need to copy and paste and add an 'l' to 'bogspot' for the link to work) http://cannontwo.bogspot.pt/2016/02/f-35-lightning-ii-aterrou-nas-lajes.html, an Italian AF F-35A (M.M.7332) landed at Lajes yesterday (3rd) with 2X Typhoons, 2X KC-767 and 2X C-130J, anyone got any idea what this was all about?

-RP

Vzlet
4th Feb 2016, 08:45
It's on its way to Pax river:
"The F-35 will then remain there for six weeks for tests, before finally moving on to Luke Air Force Base. Here, the aircraft wil be used to train Italian pilots (http://airheadsfly.com/2016/01/27/f-35-to-start-first-atlantic-crossing-on-2-february/)."

Rhino power
4th Feb 2016, 09:19
Thanks for the info, Vzlet, I did search but nothing came up, must've used the wrong search terms... :ooh:

-RP

sandiego89
4th Feb 2016, 12:53
From the above link: "An Italian Air Force pilot from the test squadron at Pratica di Mare will fly the F-35 on its flight over Atlantic, the very first of this kind for the new generation stealth aircraft. In the backseat of the Typhoon will be another Italian F-35 pilot. The flight to Lajes is expected to take 4.5 hours. Air-to-air refueling with the KC-767 was validated last year in the US (http://airheadsfly.com/2015/08/06/first-non-us-tanker-refuels-f-35/).After the stop over in Lajes, another 6.5 hour flight takes the F-35 and two accompanying aircraft to Naval Air Station Patuxent River in the US."

So, a F-35 being dragged accross the ocean by a KC-767....what thread do I post negative comments in????......:E

KenV
4th Feb 2016, 15:41
Turbine, my use of the term nabob in this thread is short for my previous term: nattering nabobs of negativism. This term was invented by William Safire and first publicly used by Spiro Agnew. I thought the term fit well to describe the many on this thread who have made a hobby (and apparently some a profession) of pronouncing doom of the F-35. I also liked Spiro's "4H Club: Hopeless, hysterical, hypochondriacs of history." I chose to use the nattering nabobs of negativism term in reply to the charge of me being an "F-35 fanboy." If nabob is considered offensive, maybe I should switch to "F-35 4H Club".

KenV
4th Feb 2016, 16:01
Ken, I am slightly at a loss as to how the F35 program is going to work with Isreal having its own systems incorporated, how does this fit with the ALIS system or when it is working will there be an ALIS I Isreal specific, at cost, maintenance system, or will the systems developed in Israel be available to all? I have no idea HOW it's going to be done, but the changes are extensive enough that the Israeli version will have its own designation, F-35I. Among the numerous differences are a different wing manufactured in Israel that includes different embedded sensor apertures. The Israelis reportedly also have a desire to develop their own two-seat version. Like USN, Israel likes two crew members to manage highly complex integrated combat systems. And the systems the Israelis intend to include in their F-35, especially the EW suite, really do require a second crew member.

KenV
4th Feb 2016, 16:07
Hey Ken.
Why won't the US pay for ours? Don't know. This is pure conjecture, but maybe it has to do with technology sharing. The Isreali's will be putting in some very sophisticated technology in the F-35Is that are not in the F-35A thru C. Indeed, the F-35I wing is built in Israel and includes embedded sensor apertures not included in any other F-35. Maybe if you guys developed some cool new tech to put in the F-35 and promise to share it with the US, they'll pay for yours. But who knows?

LowObservable
4th Feb 2016, 18:14
Indeed, the F-35I wing is built in Israel and includes embedded sensor apertures not included in any other F-35.

Really? Where did that get published? (IAI, by the way, is building lots more F-35 wings than just the Israel order, and didn't have to compete for them.)

LowObservable
4th Feb 2016, 18:15
Turbine, my use of the term nabob in this thread is short for my previous term: nattering nabobs of negativism. This term was invented by William Safire and first publicly used by Spiro Agnew. I thought the term fit well to describe the many on this thread who have made a hobby (and apparently some a profession) of pronouncing doom of the F-35. I also liked Spiro's "4H Club: Hopeless, hysterical, hypochondriacs of history." I chose to use the nattering nabobs of negativism term in reply to the charge of me being an "F-35 fanboy." If nabob is considered offensive, maybe I should switch to "F-35 4H Club".

I hate to break it to you, but if you're thinking of a career as a satirist. don't quit your day job. (Also, Spiro was a crook. Probably not a good role model for you.)

http://www.private-eye.co.uk/pictures/covers/full/181_big.jpg

Turbine D
4th Feb 2016, 18:43
Ken,
I thought the term fit well to describe the many on this thread who have made a hobby (and apparently some a profession) of pronouncing doom of the F-35. I also liked Spiro's "4H Club: Hopeless, hysterical, hypochondriacs of history." I chose to use the nattering nabobs of negativism term in reply to the charge of me being an "F-35 fanboy." If nabob is considered offensive, maybe I should switch to "F-35 4H Club".
Spiro Agnew was an :mad:. He resigned as VPOTUS in disgrace and then was charged with extortion, tax fraud, bribery and conspiracy. He served time in jail, was disbarred as a lawyer and is considered by many to be the worst VPOTUS in American history.

I don't believe anyone on this thread or other threads are a least bit impressed with your sick need to research, develop and attach derogatory names to those that disagree with your statements and positions. So why don't you just give it up and stop the name calling - period?

In case you haven't figured it out yet, the F-35 Program is a disaster, it's late, it's not technically close to what was promised (including the engine), it's a poorly managed program and it's way, way, WAY over budget. IMHO, continuing on the track that it is on will weaken the US armed forces who will sacrifice sounder future programs and equipment while paying in years to come for this turkey, called the F-35. I don't think I can be much clearer in what I think of it.

Turbine D
4th Feb 2016, 18:58
And in the meantime you have the USAF "Incredible Shrinking Fighter Force". For all the denials, the cuts are coming, and the spiral becoming recognisable - again.....

US Air Force Cuts Five F-35 Fighter Jets From Budget Request
GOOD! Keep in mind, it isn't a fighter, just an attack aircraft, it was never intended to be a fighter. They should cut 25 and fix what they already have on hand rather than assembling more sub-par aircraft, all of which will require multiple modifications. I am sure the JPO will rephrase "required modifications" to "highly improved enhancements".:sad:

Lonewolf_50
4th Feb 2016, 19:35
Turbine D, I'd like you to stop sugar coating it and tell us how you really feel. :}

As to "progress" in the F-35, I recall a term from my acquisition days that "progress payments" is a term of art that means checks get approved to the supplier/contractor for work that meets program goals or contract requirements.

So here's my question: is the F-35 program making progress, or only making progress payments? :p

Courtney Mil
4th Feb 2016, 20:29
Lonewolf,

We had the same issue when I was involved in what was then called Eurofighter. Milestones met were supposed to equate to payments. Unfortunately, when milestones were not achieved the pressure was to make the payments anyway because the country couldn't afford to risk putting the companies out of business. I guess they became "lack of progress payments".

Turbine D
4th Feb 2016, 22:20
Lonewolf,

I would think the F-35 contract with L-M would be a progress payment type of contract. Certainly, the T&Cs would further define specific requirements. There is always a tug-a-war going on as you know, fiscal year money to be spent in the fiscal year and the question can it be spent or will it be lost if it isn't spent. So the push is on to spend the money while it is available and that is what I think you see going on, "Of course we are making progress". A classic progress payment plan example as defined in FAR regulations makes it more imperative get on with it to get the money spent (all within Federal laws):

Section I:
Contract price
$2,850,000
Change orders and unpriced orders
(to extent funds have been obligated)
$150,000
Revised contract price
$3,000,000
Section II:
Total costs incurred to date
$2,700,000
Estimated additional costs to complete
$900,000
Total costs to complete
$3,600,000
Loss ratio factor
$3,000,000/$3,600,000 = 83.3%

Total costs eligible for progress payments
$2,700,000
Loss ratio factor
× 83.3%
Recognized costs for progress payments
$2,249,100
Progress payment rate
× 80.0%
Alternate amount to be used
$1,799,280
Section III:
Factored costs of items delivered*
$750,000
Recognized costs applicable to undelivered items ($2,249,100–$750,000)
$1,499,100
*This amount must be the same as the contract price of the items delivered.

KenV
5th Feb 2016, 14:40
Spiro Agnew was an :mad:. He resigned as VPOTUS in disgrace and then was charged with extortion, tax fraud, bribery and conspiracy. He served time in jail, was disbarred as a lawyer and is considered by many to be the worst VPOTUS in American history.All true. But Safire's nabobs term was VERY successful at turning around the popular wave of negativism of the time. I thought I'd try it here. Sorry if that offends you.

I don't believe anyone on this thread or other threads are a least bit impressed with your sick need to research develop and attach derogatory names to those that disagree with your statements and positions. So why don't you just give it up and stop the name calling - period?I see. The phrase "sick need to research and develop and attach derogatory names" is not itself derogatory. Got it. "F-35 fanboy", "troll", "liar", "phony", "poser", "wannabe", etc (all names attached to me) are not at examples of derogatory name calling. Got it. Hypocrisy is noble and not at all dishonorable. Got it.

And since you missed my very transparent sarcasm last time and then denied it was sarcasm when I pointed it out, the last three items were sarcasm.

In case you haven't figured it out yet, the F-35 Program is a disaster, it's late, it's not technically close to what was promised (including the engine), it's a poorly managed program and it's way, way, WAY over budget. IMHO, continuing on the track that it is on will weaken the US armed forces who will sacrifice sounder future programs and equipment while paying in years to come for this turkey, called the F-35. I don't think I can be much clearer in what I think of it. Thanks for your (not so humble) opinion. Your position is quite clear and has been for some time. I have never doubted nor questioned the clarity of your opinion.

Now, excuse me if I repeat myself. Despite your deeply held and clearly stated opinion, several nations who understand the capabilities, the shortcomings, the problems, and the price of the F-35 much more deeply and extensively than you and every other person on this thread, and who understand the capabilities, lower prices, and availability of several alternatives to the F-35 have nevertheless chosen to buy the F-35. And are clearly doing so rather enthusiastically. That is a fact. Sorry if such facts offend you.

LowObservable
5th Feb 2016, 15:00
Well, Ken, you might be less open to being called a liar if you didn't make :mad: up, like the alleged 4gen helmet, or post questionable stuff like the extra apertures in the F-35I wing (which I haven't heard of anywhere and that you didn't back up).

Nor would you be called a "poser" if you didn't attempt to double down on your misinformation by bragging about your super secret brief with VSI.

And if you didn't keep repeating the thoroughly aired and very questionable argumentum ad verecundiam about the partner nations, which we've heard over and over again from the tedious kiddies who infest other forums, nobody would call you a fanboy.

GlobalNav
5th Feb 2016, 15:17
Half of the current page of this thread, and I suppose a pretty healthy fraction of the entire thread is devoted to name-calling and cat-fighting. Why?

For those who prefer to express negative comments about one another rather than talk about the intended topic of this thread, why not do it somewhere else? If you need to, do it by private message. Failing that, start a new thread about how awful and stupid "experts" other than yourself are.

There's plenty to discuss about the pro's and con's of airplanes, programs and such, and some of the rest of us are actually interested in military aviation.

Turbine D
5th Feb 2016, 15:46
LO,
See your PM's

LowObservable
5th Feb 2016, 16:05
GN - It's messy, I know. But if you pass through the history of this thread, you'll find people whose entire MO is to disrupt the discussion by making the same tired arguments over and over again.

Turbine D
5th Feb 2016, 16:06
several nations who understand the capabilities, the shortcomings, the problems, and the price of the F-35 much more deeply and extensively than you and every other person on this thread, and who understand the capabilities, lower prices, and availability of several alternatives to the F-35 have nevertheless chosen to buy the F-35. And are clearly doing so rather enthusiastically. That is a fact. Sorry if such facts offend you.
I am not offended by this at all. Several nations are locked in after the very enthusiastic presentations they received early on by the US DoD and L-M. They are locked in because as part of the sweetened sales package, they signed up for, they were given F-35 related work for their homeland companies they would not have received otherwise. Here is some enthusiasm from Israel:
Defense News quoted an official in the IDF General Staff as saying that:

“It’s unbelievable, first it was $40 million to $50 million, and then they [the IAF] told us $70 million to $80 million. Now, we’re looking at nearly three times that amount, and who’s to say it won’t continue to climb?”
The above statement is for their first 75 F-35s. Sounds like they are having the same credibility problem with their air force (IAF) we are having with ours.
Not to worry, though, the American taxpayers will make up the overrun to the Israelis...

Lonewolf_50
5th Feb 2016, 20:12
GN - It's messy, I know. But if you pass through the history of this thread, you'll find people whose entire MO is to disrupt the discussion by making the same tired arguments over and over again. Careful, less thou indict thyself. ;)

This thread does have a certain "hamster wheel" quality to it. I've probably repeated myself or my position more than once over the course of the years it has been open ... but I don't think that has disrupted any discussion (other than inducing a few of our esteemed colleagues to spray on their screens with coffee/bee while exclaiming "has LW lost the plot, again?" in the privacy of their own homes ... )

a1bill
5th Feb 2016, 22:15
Turbine D : The above statement is for their first 75 F-35s. Sounds like they are having the same credibility problem with their air force (IAF) we are having with ours.
Not to worry, though, the American taxpayers will make up the overrun to the Israelis...
It seems more likely the person doesn't know what a yr 2000 and yr 2020 recurring flyaway price is, along with the 3 times for a probable all in life time cost. I'm sure there would be a split up of the F-35I costs if anyone really wanted to know how and what the cost is.

this is the package cost for the FMS so far.
Korea 9/14/2014 40 units $6277.0 All 40 aircraft will be the F-35A aircraft.

Japan 5/23/2014 10 units $2263.4 Japan signed an amendment to add four F-35A's delivered from a Japan F-35 Final Assembly and Checkout facility in 2018. There is an option to purchase 32 additional F-35A aircraft.

Israel 9/30/2010 19 units $2623.3 All 19 aircraft will be the F-35A aircraft.

@TD, aren't you in the back channel planning CONOPS PM's, I was included when the plan to 'deal' with KenV was being hatched. I found it all both enlightening and very amusing

Turbine D
5th Feb 2016, 22:48
a1bill:
@TD, aren't you in the back channel planning CONOPS PM's, I was included when the plan to 'deal' with KenV was being hatched.
I was not, you need to tell me about the details as you apparently were.

The Israelis always know the history (dates) and what costs were supposed to be and now are. Believe me, they would be out of the F-35 program if it were not for the amount of money expended at IAI in support of the F-35 program, the technology that is contained within the F-35s they want to learn more about and if the costs keep going up, they will reconsider what to do, less F-35s and new orders for less expensive aircraft.

Turbine D
5th Feb 2016, 23:05
Lonewolf,
This thread does have a certain "hamster wheel" quality to it. I've probably repeated myself or my position more than once over the course of the years it has been open ...

The hamster wheel potential is kept alive by statements like this in rebuttal to the DOT&E report. The second sentence is but one that keeps it going. I don't think it was the intention to have given JPO either the time or budget they run on. The engine fix is another.
Although the DOT&E report is factually accurate, it does not fully address program efforts to resolve known technical challenges and schedule risks. It is the F-35 Joint Program Office’s responsibility to find developmental issues, resolve them and execute with the time and budget we have been given. Our government and industry team has a proven track record of overcoming technical challenges discovered during developmental and operational testing and fleet operations, and delivering on program commitments. A few recent examples of issues that are resolved include the F-35C tailhook, the F135 engine rub, and F-35B STOVL Auxiliary Air Inlet door. The F-35C has now “caught the wire” more than 200 times at sea, the engine rub fix is incorporated on the production line and delivered engines are being retrofitted, and the F‑35B has performed more than 1,000 vertical landings safely.

a1bill
6th Feb 2016, 00:28
@TD, I think that would be inappropriate. I didn't say to Ken about the contents, so I wouldn't say the details on open forum.

Other than the super hornet, that is very close to the F-35 in price when you add the pods etc. I'm having trouble finding cheaper fighters. Which one/s are you thinking of? That's not even allowing for the superiority of the F-35's capability.

glad rag
6th Feb 2016, 09:06
The breadroll returns...and the wheel spins again...

LowObservable
6th Feb 2016, 13:51
Ha, our sub-pontine Digger surfaces just in time to be proved wrong about future USAF buys...

Exclusive: Pentagon's budget plan funds 404 Lockheed F-35 jets - sources | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-budget-lockheed-fighter-idUSKCN0VF01F)

Doesn't look as if there will be many more than 48 any time in the FYDP. As reported in November.

But never fear. It will get to 80 in the 2020s after the BCA caps expire, the Pentagon wins the lottery and President Cyrus appoints Lena Dunham as SecAF.

Turbine D
6th Feb 2016, 16:49
a1bill,
That's not even allowing for the superiority of the F-35's capability.
Lets look at the superiority of the F-35As, but only the typical USAF version.
First of all, Lockheed-Martin (LM for short), upon winning the JSF award said verbally and in their advertising, their F-35 fighter was going to be the best all around fighter in the world, unmatched by any, anywhere. Then as their boasting slowly melted away over 15 years of continued development, it was announced the F-35 was never planned to be an air to air fighter, it was only planned to be an air to ground attack fighter. So how does the superior F-35 and its capabilities stack up with the free world's comparable aircraft?

A. Surprising the enemy without being surprised Best to worst rating:
1. Rafale, 2. Typhoon, 3. F-22, 4. F-35, 5. Gripen, 6. F-16, 7. F-18, 8. F-15.

B.Outnumbering the enemy in the air
Depends on various factors:
B1. Costs
Unit flyaway costs when adjusted for inflation to FY 2013 USD are 126 million USD for F-15C, 70 million USD for F-16C, 68 million USD for F-18C, 273 million USD for F-22A, 188 million USD for F-35A, 127 million USD for Typhoon, 95 million USD for Rafale C and 44 million USD for Gripen C, all in FY2013 USD. As a result, 10 billion USD gives 79 F-15Cs, 142 F-16Cs, 147 F-18Cs, 36 F-22As, 53 F-35As, 78 Typhoons, 105 Raffles and 227 Gripens.
B2. Downtime for maintenance or resulting sorties per day
Number of sorties per aircraft per day is 1 for F-15, 1,2 for F-16 and F-18, 0,5 for F-22, 0,3 for F-35.
Overall best to worst rating:
1. Gripen, 2. Rafale, 3. F-18, 4. F-16, 5. Typhoon, 6. F-15, 7. F-22, 8. F-35.

C. Outmaneuvering the enemy
Now I know this is contentious as the F-35 isn't an air to air dog fighter, but there comes a time when the two air to air missiles have been expended and there is no supporting coverage from one or more of the 200 or so F-22s. So looking at 5 maneuvering characteristics, Overall best to worst rating:
1. Gripen, 2. Rafale, 3. F-18, 4. F-16, 5. Typhoon, 6. F-15, 7. F-22, 8. F-35.

D. Outlasting the enemy, Fuel Fraction: Best to worst rating
1. Rafale, 2. Typhoon, 3. F-22, 4. F-16C, 5. Gripen C, 6. F-15C, 7. F-35A, 8. F-18C.

E. Achieving reliable kills : Best to worst
Guns: Rafale 5, Gripen/Typhoon 4, F-15/16/18 3, F-35 2, F-22 1.
WVR missiles: Gripen/Typhoon 5, Rafale 4, F-15/16/18 3, F-22/35 2.
BVR missiles: Rafale 5, others 4.
Overall reliable kills rating:
1. Rafale, 2. Gripen, Typhoon, 3. US teen-series fighters, 4. F-35, 5. F-22.

So, looking at everything, although no one fighter is perfect, the best to worse:
1. Rafale, 2. Typhoon, 3. Gripen, 4. F-22, 5. F-16, 6. F-15, F-35, 7. F-18.

However, all of this info is nice to know but will not make an iota of difference as we plod along the path of the superior F-35 saga, mile to go before we sleep, miles to go before we sleep. BTW, JPO leader General Bogdan is having trouble sleeping thinking about how much the maintenance costs are going to be for the F-35...

Just This Once...
6th Feb 2016, 16:59
You have to admire the optimism in that report.

With a bottom line that the US will be buying fewer aircraft than planned, even with the program slippage, they still throw around numbers about that reflect that the international customers will still buy all of theirs…. on time, at the vastly increased price, but with a lower capability than envisaged, at a slower paced capability growth path, with less work for their own industry base and with a-yet-unspecified amount of blank-cheque depot-level recovery work at a date TBD.

There is a chance that their optimism about the deep pockets and blind faith required of these customers may be misplaced.

LowObservable
6th Feb 2016, 17:15
Where is Sydney Silverman when we need him?

Mr. S. Silverman Would it be a fair summary—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—Like the right hon. Gentleman, I am trying to help. Would it be a fair summary of what the right hon. Gentleman has told the House to say that the result of his negotiations in the United States is that what he has really done is to buy a pig in a poke with a blank cheque?

Skybolt Missile (Hansard, 22 June 1960) (http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1960/jun/22/skybolt-missile)

Tourist
6th Feb 2016, 17:33
Turbine D

Sorry if I'm being dull, but your best to worst lists. I don't understand them.

Are you saying that you think Rafale is superior to F22 at surprising the enemy?

sandiego89
6th Feb 2016, 19:49
Turbine D

Sorry if I'm being dull, but your best to worst lists. I don't understand them.

Are you saying that you think Rafale is superior to F22 at surprising the enemy?

I had a few question on the ranking on his "best" list as well.....

Both Rafale and Typhoon better than the F-22 at surprising? :confused:

Do you mean visual (eyeball) only?

Outnumbering? I get you are looking at costs, but that can be irrelevant if you look at how many fighters a force buys and actually fields for an engagement.

Outmaneuvering? Based on what? Knife fight? I think you need to give the F-16 and F-22 some more credit....

Reliable kills? Based on your favorites, or based on proven Air to Air record? I can't recall a kill from many on your list. F-22 last? Really? The F-22 (admittedly no real kills) regularly does very, very well against teen series fighters in exercises, and from what I understand against others on your list as well.

And you also need to factor in the force they fly with. A fighter force with good AWACS, ELINT, tanker and jamming support will have a great advantage.

Leads me to think your list is very Euro-fan centered....

Turbine D
6th Feb 2016, 22:31
sandiego89,

First, I wanted to answer a1bill's comment on not seeing any fighters less expensive than the F-35 possessing similar "Superior" capabilities. Secondly, I wanted to narrow the response to that of an air to air combat role which the USAF does have need for in terms of air superiority. I also wanted to point out that the F-35, although initially stated by both DoD and L-M to be a duel role fighter, it isn't. In the air to air role, it will be poor and its effectiveness in the air to ground role has yet to be fully determined. So, to search for a less expensive air to air fighter aircraft, you have to look outside of the USA as we don't have any being produced these days. Although the F-22 is good, it isn't going back into production soon, or perhaps ever. IMHO, the USAF needs additional good air superiority fighters given the F-35 situation and the few F-22s available. OTOH, Europe does have some good air to air fighters that can hold their own in many ways. The Gripen C from Sweden is the least expensive and very capable in the air, plus it uses an American GE engine. It is simple to operate and maintain, small like the F-16 and highly maneuverable. So yes, it may well be slanted towards Europe, but what does the USA have available other than 200 or so F-22s when the F-16s and F-15s arrive at the bone yard?
Anyhow, here is the source I extracted information from while attempting to keep my posting shortened:

From Defense Issues January 2014.

https://defenseissues.wordpress.com/2014/01/11/comparing-modern-western-fighters/

For those who would like to read this and other interesting articles, you can vote your choice of the best air superiority fighter here:

From Defense Issues January 2016

https://defenseissues.wordpress.com

Hope this answers your questions

a1bill
6th Feb 2016, 23:51
Turbine D : B1. Costs
Unit flyaway costs when adjusted for inflation to FY 2013 USD are 126 million USD for F-15C, 70 million USD for F-16C, 68 million USD for F-18C, 273 million USD for F-22A, 188 million USD for F-35A, 127 million USD for Typhoon, 95 million USD for Rafale C and 44 million USD for Gripen C, all in FY2013 USD.
perhaps you partly misread what I posted and I shouldn't have been as general.
"Other than the super hornet, that is very close to the F-35 in price when you add the pods etc. I'm having trouble finding cheaper fighters. Which one/s are you thinking of? That's not even allowing for the superiority of the F-35's capability."


did your prices include all the pods/sensors needed for multi role, as I suggested was the specs?

they don't make the grippen C, f-16c or F-15c any more and the $year buy would be 2020. wouldn't it? that is when the F-35 is out of LRIP.
If we are looking back in history, the spitfire was a lot cheaper.

although you started with what the superiority of the F-35's capability may or may not be. I will reply to that when we get the market current or near future fighters (grippenE) costs that you think are cheaper than the F-35 with all sensors at under $90m flyaway 2020 price?

Turbine D
7th Feb 2016, 01:02
a1bill,
I will reply to that when we get the market current or near future fighters (grippenE) costs that you think are cheaper than the F-35 with all sensors at under $90m flyaway 2020 price?
From Aviation Week:
The JAS 39E will be able to engage stealth targets with a fused, multispectral sensor suite, according to program officials. It will be able to cruise at Mach 1.25 without using afterburner, and will enter service in 2018 with a full suite of weapons including the MBDA Meteor ramjet-powered air-to-air missile (which enters service next year on the JAS 39C/D). The Swedish air force's fixed-price contract for 60 complete aircraft, converted from JAS 39Cs but with new engine, avionics and primary structure, equates to a flyaway price of $43 million.

The JAS 39E is intended to have a lower acquisition cost than the JAS 39C, despite its greater capability, and to have a lower operating cost than any other fighter. The Swedish air force reports an hourly operating cost of $7,500 for the JAS 39C, including fuel. For development costs (also covered by a fixed-price contract), Saab's goal is to spend only 60% as much as it would have cost using the same tools and processes that were used on the JAS 39C.

The JAS 39E is not a classically stealthy aircraft, but the Swedish Air Force development contract stipulates a significantly lower radar cross-section (RCS) than the JAS 39C. In conjunction with the all-new Saab-developed electronic warfare system, which uses gallium nitride antenna technology and is described as an intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance sensor in its own right, and the new Selex-ES Brite Cloud expendable active decoy, the reduced RCS is expected to allow the fighter to survive against advanced threats, including the Sukhoi T-50 fighter and “double-digit” surface-to-air missiles, while avoiding the cost and risk of an F-35-type stealth configuration.


I can only say that some European folks are much more sensitive to acquisition cost as well as what needs to be done from a manufacturing viewpoint to obtain those costs than the JPO and L-M.
did your prices include all the pods/sensors needed for multi role, as I suggested was the specs?
Question:
Why does the US need a "multi-role" fighter, that you suggest, when the F-35 has the air to ground attack function all wrapped up? Isn't the need a good low cost air to air fighter, a role the F-35A can't fulfill?

a1bill
7th Feb 2016, 02:09
Who would have guessed that was written by bill sweetman. :D Do you have a credible source to the supposed $43m, including all the needed sensors/pods ?
Even SAAB saying it has a cost per hour of 50 cents is more believable.

you see this is where we disagree again, the RAAF say the f-35 is a very good A2A fighter, but we'll do this after the costs are sorted.

Tourist
7th Feb 2016, 06:47
Turbine D

I've read the article that you have used as a reference.

At this point I will state that I'm on the fence about F35, and I think that Rafale is fantastic and we should have bought it for the RN.

I am not a fighter pilot and never have been, so it is entirely possible I am missing something, but I have to say that it is an awful truly egregious piece of junk masquerading as science.


For example.

Under the "surprising the enemy without being surprised" section:-

"largest aircraft are first to be noticed. All aircraft have largest signature when watched from the top or bottom; relative sizes can be seen here:"

The first question is obviously how much difference size actually makes at the closing speeds involved? At night? IMC? Secondly, how likely is the first spot to be from the top or bottom view?

Under the "outlasting the enemy" section:-
"As already noticed, persistence is determined by fuel fraction"

No. Persistence is quite obviously determined by a range of factors, of which fuel fraction is only one.


I could go on with each section, but I must say that if this is the sort of junk you consider authoritative, then your judgement is wanting.

Rhino power
7th Feb 2016, 11:36
A small update on the Italian F-35 trans atlantic crossing...

First Atlantic crossing for F-35 | AIRheadsFLY.com (http://airheadsfly.com/2016/01/27/f-35-to-start-first-atlantic-crossing-on-2-february/)

And a small piece on Dutch F-35's with some interesting comments about ACM and data sharing with other aircraft, and it seems the Dutch want the dragchute on their F-35's as well as the Norwegians...

Dutch Lightning testers: Royal Netherlands Air Force and the F-35 (http://airheadsfly.com/2016/01/26/dutch-lightning-testers/)

-RP

Courtney Mil
7th Feb 2016, 12:14
Thanks for the posts, RP.

a1bill
7th Feb 2016, 14:34
it's seems divided between those that know in the RAAF and a few that aren't in the loop. I haven't seen anyone with clearance to the F-35 bag it. the F-35 is a multi roll strike fighter, but that doesn't mean it can't have air superiority, does it?

LowObservable
7th Feb 2016, 14:41
Maybe we should just stick to facts, such as noting that some people have a pattern of posting that is obsessional, defamatory and mostly inaccurate. Or make a rule that you can't comment on things that you can't spell. Even when they have six-letter, completely phonetic names. And as anyone will tell you, the Rafale is the only true "multi-roll" fighter, bombarding its hapless adversaries with brioches and baguettes.

Tourist
7th Feb 2016, 15:24
LO

As an interested and undecided observer, and whatever the rights and wrongs of the F35, it is quite blatantly the "anti" brigade such as yourself who are the most aggressive and obsessional posters.

KenV, a1bill and the like are abused more than abusers. Not that it really matters, I'm not a big believer in internet "bullying" (you can always turn wifi off!) but it is a bit rich from the bullies to cry foul.


One argument that they keep saying is not invalid and bears constant repeating.

I also have yet to hear from a single operator who doesn't rave about it. Financial/temporal disaster it may well/seems to be, however the users who get to play seem to love it.

LowObservable
7th Feb 2016, 15:41
Awww, I weep salt tears of sympathy.

Not really: if you want to treat the discussion as a vendetta, to wit...

Who would have guessed that was written by bill sweetman. Do you have a credible source to the supposed $43m, including all the needed sensors/pods ?

... you might just check your facts first, because said source is not exactly hard to find.

Saab receives serial production order for Gripen E to Sweden (http://saabgroup.com/Media/news-press/news/2013-12/Saab-receives-serial-production-order-for-Gripen-E-to-Sweden)

As for KenV, I don't think it's abusive to call out fabrication or ask for clarification on questionable statements.

a1bill
7th Feb 2016, 15:43
LO, I can't see the said $43 mil flyaway ..are you sure you gave the right link?

LowObservable
7th Feb 2016, 15:47
Tourist - I also have yet to hear from a single operator who doesn't rave about it. Financial/temporal disaster it may well/seems to be, however the users who get to play seem to love it.

I don't know about that. On the last occasion where I heard lots of operators talking about the aircraft, they were up on its information-based capabilities - not "raving" - but the mood was quite cautious about the process of getting those capabilities on the flight line in good order, which given the DOT&E's latest chainsaw attack is understandable. And the "it's not a super A2A machine" view seemed accepted in surprising places (and it was being energetically advertised as such a while back).

And if we're talking about USAF guys in public, nobody can quite unsay this:

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

LowObservable
7th Feb 2016, 15:48
LO, I can't see the said $43 mil flyaway ..are you sure you gave the right link?

Math, baby, math. Actually it's less now, because of the exchange rate.

Tourist
7th Feb 2016, 15:48
Awww, I weep salt tears of sympathy.



Fair enough, but you can't have it both ways.

Either being aggressive and obsessional is ok by you or not ok, but don't be hypocritical about it....:rolleyes:

Tourist
7th Feb 2016, 15:49
Tourist - I also have yet to hear from a single operator who doesn't rave about it. Financial/temporal disaster it may well/seems to be, however the users who get to play seem to love it.

I don't know about that. On the last occasion where I heard lots of operators talking about the aircraft, they were up on its information-based capabilities - not "raving" - but the mood was quite cautious about the process of getting those capabilities on the flight line in good order, which given the DOT&E's latest chainsaw attack is understandable. And the "it's not a super A2A machine" view seemed accepted in surprising places (and it was being energetically advertised as such a while back).

And if we're talking about USAF guys in public, nobody can quite unsay this:

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

I'm not entering the argument LO, I'm merely an interested bystander calling foul on the crass attempts to make out the fanboys as the bullies.

a1bill
7th Feb 2016, 16:05
LO, I can't see the said $43 mil flyaway ..are you sure you gave the right link?

Math, baby, math. Actually it's less now, because of the exchange rate.

perhaps you'll be so kind as to highlight where the flyaway price is, I can only see some upgrades for 60 units and operations with an amount of money.

Defence and security company Saab has, within the framework of a previously signed agreement with the Swedish Defence Materiel Administration (FMV) for Gripen E, received a serial production order amounting to SEK16, 4 billion for operations during 2013-2026. The order includes modification of 60 Gripen C to Gripen E for Sweden with initial deliveries in 2018.
“The order from FMV is further proof of the Swedish Parliament’s confidence in Gripen, its development potential and defence capacity. Furthermore, it is confirmation that the programme is proceeding according to plan," says Saab’s president and CEO Håkan Buskhe.

FMV has today placed an order for modification of 60 Gripen C to Gripen E with initial deliveries in 2018. This is the third order under the agreement with FMV for Gripen E that was made public on 15 February 2013. Other orders within the agreement are as follows:
Development of Gripen E to Sweden during 2013-2023 – orders received on 15 February and on 22 March 2013.
Mission-specific equipment and support and maintenance for Gripen E to Sweden, and;
Delivery of 22 new Gripen E, and related equipment to Switzerland, if Switzerland decides to acquire Gripen E. During August and September 2013 both chambers of the Swiss Parliament voted yes to the procurement of Gripen E and a referendum on the procurement is expected in 2014.

Orders under the agreement are booked when each order is received and the remaining orders are expected in 2014.

“We continue to build on the success of Gripen. Gripen is unique in its ability to combine high technology and performance with cost efficiency and we note a strong interest for Gripen on the export market,” says Lennart Sindahl, Deputy CEO and head of Saab's business area Aeronautics.
“The major performance improvements we are now performing will establish Gripen E as the fighter aircraft of the future - both for Sweden and for other countries. Our existing customers that operate the Gripen C/D version will also be able to take advantage of some of the development in their future upgrades.”

Gripen E has significant performance improvements compared to previous versions, including a stronger engine, longer range, more weapons, new electronic radar and more advanced avionics. Today, Gripen is the backbone of five nations' air defences: Sweden, South Africa, Czech Republic, Hungary and Thailand. In addition, The Empire Test Pilot School (ETPS) in the UK uses Gripen in its training programme for future test pilots.

a1bill
7th Feb 2016, 16:12
@Tourist, i know you are not looking for my gratitude, But I am impressed that you have stated your opinion.

Courtney Mil
7th Feb 2016, 16:21
I'm really looking forward to there being some technical news about F-35.

Tourist
7th Feb 2016, 16:48
@Tourist, i know you are not looking for my gratitude, But I am impressed that you have stated your opinion.

No snags:ok:

Maus92
7th Feb 2016, 17:11
@CM There is quite a bit of technical news in the 2015 DOT&E report. It's even denser than last year, lots of material to sort through and digest.

LowObservable
7th Feb 2016, 17:16
It's a monster, Maus. Densely engineering-ese, and carefully crafted to avoid words like "rigged" or "fraud", which are quite justified by some of DOT&E's facts.

Turbine D
7th Feb 2016, 17:27
CM,
Latest "Good" technical news (Also appeared in latest L-M advertising blurb)

F-35 Makes First Transatlantic Crossing (http://www.defensenews.com/story/breaking-news/2016/02/05/f-35-makes-first-transatlantic-crossing/79901306/)

Latest "Not so Good" technical news

The U.S. Navy Struggles to Keep Hornets Flying While the F-35 Stalls (http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/news/a18840/us-navy-struggling-to-keep-hornet-fighters-flying/)

Latest "Combo" technical/political news

Donald Trump Wants To Fire The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/donald-trump-wants-to-fire-the-f-35-joint-strike-fighte-1739661015)

Other than this F-35 news, all is quiet and progressing as planned...

Turbine D
7th Feb 2016, 17:41
I'm having trouble finding cheaper fighters. Which one/s are you thinking of? That's not even allowing for the superiority of the F-35's capability.
Geez, it's amazing! One tries to answer a simple question, which leads to more questions and comments, which leads to more questions and comments, time to step off the hamster wheel... One can only say that an aircraft program that has been working for 15 years (more if you count the earlier development work) and is still in a development stage, odds are, it isn't going to turn out to be spectacularly good...

LowObservable
7th Feb 2016, 21:59
Just as well nothing much has changed in the world since they designed the JSF. .

http://www.susanbkason.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Shanghai-1995.jpg

Shanghai 1995...

a1bill
7th Feb 2016, 22:05
perhaps you missed my post LO, I was asking where in your link it referred to a flyaway cost, as you claimed was in this link
Saab receives serial production order for Gripen E to Sweden (http://saabgroup.com/Media/news-press/news/2013-12/Saab-receives-serial-production-order-for-Gripen-E-to-Sweden)

LO, I can't see the said $43 mil flyaway ..are you sure you gave the right link?

Math, baby, math. Actually it's less now, because of the exchange rate.

perhaps you'll be so kind as to highlight where the flyaway price is, I can only see some upgrades for 60 units and operations with an amount of money.

Defence and security company Saab has, within the framework of a previously signed agreement with the Swedish Defence Materiel Administration (FMV) for Gripen E, received a serial production order amounting to SEK16, 4 billion for operations during 2013-2026. The order includes modification of 60 Gripen C to Gripen E for Sweden with initial deliveries in 2018.
“The order from FMV is further proof of the Swedish Parliament’s confidence in Gripen, its development potential and defence capacity. Furthermore, it is confirmation that the programme is proceeding according to plan," says Saab’s president and CEO Håkan Buskhe.

FMV has today placed an order for modification of 60 Gripen C to Gripen E with initial deliveries in 2018. This is the third order under the agreement with FMV for Gripen E that was made public on 15 February 2013. Other orders within the agreement are as follows:
Development of Gripen E to Sweden during 2013-2023 – orders received on 15 February and on 22 March 2013.
Mission-specific equipment and support and maintenance for Gripen E to Sweden, and;
Delivery of 22 new Gripen E, and related equipment to Switzerland, if Switzerland decides to acquire Gripen E. During August and September 2013 both chambers of the Swiss Parliament voted yes to the procurement of Gripen E and a referendum on the procurement is expected in 2014.

Orders under the agreement are booked when each order is received and the remaining orders are expected in 2014.

“We continue to build on the success of Gripen. Gripen is unique in its ability to combine high technology and performance with cost efficiency and we note a strong interest for Gripen on the export market,” says Lennart Sindahl, Deputy CEO and head of Saab's business area Aeronautics.
“The major performance improvements we are now performing will establish Gripen E as the fighter aircraft of the future - both for Sweden and for other countries. Our existing customers that operate the Gripen C/D version will also be able to take advantage of some of the development in their future upgrades.”

Gripen E has significant performance improvements compared to previous versions, including a stronger engine, longer range, more weapons, new electronic radar and more advanced avionics. Today, Gripen is the backbone of five nations' air defences: Sweden, South Africa, Czech Republic, Hungary and Thailand. In addition, The Empire Test Pilot School (ETPS) in the UK uses Gripen in its training programme for future test pilots.

a1bill
7th Feb 2016, 22:09
TD, is it unreasonable to ask for a credible link to a claim? It may be wise not to use that author as a source of reference in future.

a1bill
7th Feb 2016, 22:59
constant demands?..I'm just asking for a source to the supposed $43M flyaway.

I haven't seen anything like that for the gripen E before. I don't follow the eurocanards that closely, but when the cost's were on forums, I seem to think the numbers talked about were dearer than a Shornet, yet it was half the weight and power.

LowObservable
7th Feb 2016, 23:44
CM - this is a familiar MO. Under one of his many identities (the others having been banned) he pretends to fail to understand evidence and sources and whinges on about imaginary technicalities, while shills and weak mods enable him. In this case, SEK16.4 billion is the FFP for converting 60 Cs to Es under a 2013 contract, which is what the original referenced story said. Convert and divide.

Anyone can look at his posts (and JSFan's, the same whinger) and observe his manias, obsessions and the fact that he contributes neither information nor insight.

Turbine D
8th Feb 2016, 00:09
a1bill,
If you were really, really interested in knowing what the fly-away cost is of the Gripen E, just Google it, you will find it in various sites. But I don't think that is your purpose here. $43M is the number, go find it, fetch!

a1bill
8th Feb 2016, 00:48
That $43 Mil seems to be part of an upgrade for 60 C's converted to E's. Your sweetman article had it as flyaway cost. I think he and it is wrong, as LO's link showed when read.

I haven't seen a price given to canada, but these 2 were found on a forum.
Brazil 36 aircraft at $4.5 Billion
Switzerland 22 aircraft at $3.3 Billion or $150m. it doesn't state flyaway.

It doesn't say if it's in year 2012 francs and current xrates is $140m
http://www.reuters.com/article/sweden-defense-idUSL6E8JP1XO20120825
3.1 billion Swiss francs
*added link to validate forum price

Tourist
8th Feb 2016, 03:10
Guys, if you produce a number to make a point, it is hardly unreasonable to request you point to a reference for it.

If you had, this discussion would have been over a page ago.
If you can't, then the number is vapour.

This works both ways of course.

From what I can read on here, a1bill is correct. That figure is an upgrade figure not a flyaway figure. If that is wrong then please provide your reference with working rather than flouncing because you have been caught out massaging figures.

t43562
8th Feb 2016, 06:43
At the very least it is possible to convert Gripens. From the point of view of the purchaser this is just one more option and a completely fair comparison. How smart to have such a strategy that you can upgrade one aircraft into another!

Since it involves new engines it would seem to be a pretty comprehensive upgrade. To me that suggests that new aircraft may not need to be all that much more - but who ever wants to pay even "a bit" more if they don't have to?

Since the numbers involved are not large (60) I think it is impressive that it can be done at a reasonable price - what is the average cost of the first 60 F-35s?

Tourist
8th Feb 2016, 07:17
At the very least it is possible to convert Gripens. From the point of view of the purchaser this is just one more option and a completely fair comparison. How smart to have such a strategy that you can upgrade one aircraft into another!

Since it involves new engines it would seem to be a pretty comprehensive upgrade. To me that suggests that new aircraft may not need to be all that much more - but who ever wants to pay even "a bit" more if they don't have to?

Since the numbers involved are not large (60) I think it is impressive that it can be done at a reasonable price - what is the average cost of the first 60 F-35s?

All aircraft are upgraded over their lifetimes. This is just normal Ops over the lifetime of a design.

I think this is an attempt to gild the Lilly re the "F35 is too expensive" argument..

We know the F35 has completely failed to be the affordable F16 replacement it was supposed to be.
It is not necessary to fake up figures to make it appear even worse than it really is, in fact it just makes your other more contentious arguments seem less reliable.

An upgrade is not a flyaway price. It does seem to by a serious capability increase, but to say it is cheap is a bit disingenuous.

a1bill
8th Feb 2016, 07:39
@Tourist, that is what the yanks seem to do, underbid and over promise. They said the f-22 was going to be cheaper than the F-15 too.

Our F-111 and Hornets blew out in costs. Only the off the shelf Shornet came in on the cost given. Australia actually came pretty close to estimating the f-35 cost at $75M from past experience.

Courtney Mil
8th Feb 2016, 08:49
Australia actually came pretty close to estimating the f-35 cost at $75M from past experience.

Price/Unit Cost:

The unit cost of the F-35A is $112.50 million (recurring cost) or $129.06 million including non-recurring (flyaway cost) in FY 2015. The airframe costs $74.41 million, the F135-PW-100 engine costs $13.75 million, the avionics cost $22.14 million, while non-recurring and other costs make up the remaining $18.76 million.

Not very close to $75M. As for projected costs, they've been getting those wrong for years, so I'll believe those when I see them.

a1bill
8th Feb 2016, 09:14
It was in 2008 when DMO was tasked to estimate the cost. They said they would be surprised if the full rate production flyaway was more than $75m @.92 ER.
If we add inflation to the 2008 number, it seems a very close estimate to me, when the current estimate in ~2020$ is $85m. Far more accurate than the numbers being thrown around at the time.

Rhino power
8th Feb 2016, 10:27
All aircraft are upgraded over their lifetimes. This is just normal Ops over the lifetime of a design.

From Aviation Week:
...converted from JAS 39Cs but with new engine, avionics and primary structure

The JAS-39C to E conversion sounds a little more comprehensive than a simple 'upgrade' though, '(new) primary structure' sounds like quite a significant part of the airframe will be a new design and build...

-RP

Courtney Mil
8th Feb 2016, 10:35
when the current estimate in ~2020$ is $85m.

Ah, their "estimates". Don't I remember them saying:
"The [F-35A] would allow for migration by U.S. forces to an almost all-stealth fighter force by 2025,"

If the Air Force holds to its current plans, it will buy 1763 F-35As. The least complicated of the designs, they will cost more than $30 million each.

during the first hours of a war F-35As would take advantage of their near Mach 2 speed and stealth

The F-35A will begin replacing the Air Force F-16s and A-10s by 2010.

Sustained g 5.3

Your spin doesn't convince me.

Tourist
8th Feb 2016, 11:00
From Aviation Week:


The JAS-39C to E conversion sounds a little more comprehensive than a simple 'upgrade' though, '(new) primary structure' sounds like quite a significant part of the airframe will be a new design and build...

-RP

Well, follow the upgrade cycle of F15 or Tornado or Harrier etc and it seems fairly standard. The cost is as substantial as the upgrade.

Rhino power
8th Feb 2016, 11:02
...they will cost more than $30 million each

At least that part is true! :ooh:

-RP

Rhino power
8th Feb 2016, 11:17
Well, follow the upgrade cycle of F15 or Tornado or Harrier etc and it seems fairly standard. The cost is as substantial as the upgrade.

F-15A/B to C/D was mainly just avionics, F-15E was more comprehensive and as such was not really an upgrade. Tornado GR1 to GR.4 was mainly just avionics (F.3 excepted with it's fuselage stretch), the Harrier GR.1 to GR.3 was mainly avionics and a LRMTS added to the front, the FRS.1 was avionics and a new cockpit section, the FRS.1 to FA.2 was mainly avionics, the Harrier II/GR.5/7/9 was a complete redesign and not an upgrade. So using your quoted examples as what constitutes an upgraded airframe, I still think the JAS-39C to E is a little more significant...

You are of course, perfectly entitled to disagree! :)

-RP

Tourist
8th Feb 2016, 11:42
Well, the semantics of what constitutes an upgrade/redesign aside, I think we are departing from the point.

My point is/was that suggesting that the Gripen was in some way special because it could be upgraded, and that the upgrade price is in some way indicative of the new build flyaway cost as t43562 suggests seems fallacious.

Speedywheels
8th Feb 2016, 12:31
The JAS-39C to E conversion sounds a little more comprehensive than a simple 'upgrade' though, '(new) primary structure' sounds like quite a significant part of the airframe will be a new design and build...

-RP

I think the words are misleading, it isn't a conversion or an upgrade of the existing 39C. They are brand new aeroplanes with new engines, larger airframe (to accommodate the larger engines), AESA radar and other differences.

LowObservable
8th Feb 2016, 12:47
Tourist and the other froufroulating frolickers in F-35 fandom, read the bloody original.

New Gripen Aims For Low Cost, High Capability | AWIN content from Aviation Week (http://aviationweek.com/awin/new-gripen-aims-low-cost-high-capability)

It's entirely clear from any reading of the text that the "flyaway" cost refers directly to the Swedish upgrade contract, which at the time was the only production contract had been signed. It's also clear that the "upgrade", even then, was one notch short of jacking up the serial number and building a new airplane underneath it. The story makes no attempt at the futile task of comparing that price directly with anything else.

Indeed, to compare the JAS 39 C-to-E mods to anything done to a Tornado, F-15 or F-16 bespeaks either missing data or a certain lack of honesty. Think F-102 to F-106. New engine, sensors, landing gear, core avionics and structural mid-section.

And Speedywheels brings up an important point, which is that the Swedish government (weeks after the story was published) announced a decision to build the JAS 39Es as all-new aircraft. I don't think that any effect on the contract has been announced.

Tourist
8th Feb 2016, 14:35
Thank you LO.

Now that you have provided a reference for your statements, I will. Not sure why you didn't just do it earlier? It would have saved a lot of bother!

Turbine D
8th Feb 2016, 14:37
a1bill,

Focusing on the F-35 for a moment, are the "Flyaway Cost" defined the old fashion way as defined in standard US Government requirements, or the new fashion way as defined by the DoD F-35 JPO? There are differences. Matter of fact, in the new way, you can't fly away at all, the engine isn't included because it is a totally separate contract.
I became interested in "What Does The F-35 Really Cost" 3 years ago because of this series that ran in Time magazine. I don't think much has changed. Have a look, especially Part 2, Alphabet Soup:

Part 1: The Era of Good F-35 Feelings

The New Era of Good F-35 Feelings | TIME.com (http://nation.time.com/2013/06/03/the-new-era-of-good-f-35-feelings/)

Part 2: Alphabet Soup: PAUCs, APUCs, URFs, Cost Variances and Other Pricing Dodges

Alphabet Soup: PAUCs, APUCs, URFs, Cost Variances and Other Pricing Dodges | TIME.com (http://nation.time.com/2013/06/04/alphabet-soup-paucs-apucs-urfs-cost-variances-and-other-pricing-dodges/)

Part 3: The Deadly Empirical Data

The Deadly Empirical Data | TIME.com (http://nation.time.com/2013/06/05/the-deadly-empirical-data/)

Part 4: Different planes, common problems

Different Planes, Common Problems | TIME.com (http://nation.time.com/2013/06/06/different-planes-common-problems/)

Part 5: On final approach to fighter fiscal sanity

On Final Approach to Fighter Fiscal Sanity | TIME.com (http://nation.time.com/2013/06/07/on-final-approach-to-fighter-fiscal-sanity/)

Tourist
8th Feb 2016, 14:42
Now that we have seen the benefit of references, have you got a link to the later news that it won't be converted?

There is a reason that all scientific papers have references. It saves a lot of silly time wasting arguments.

p.s. As previously stated, I'm not an F35 fanboy, but neither am I a hater.

Courtney Mil
8th Feb 2016, 15:00
Turbine D,

I have to say that your links there to Time have lifted a shroud of confusion from my eyes. So, thank you. As a squatter in the middle ground (I want it to work, but have serious concerns about some of the technical aspects) of F-35 and it's programme, I tend to glaze over a bit when folks quote hugely different figures for (for example) unit cost. Reading Alphabet Soup now means that I see how they get there and that I was right to be sceptical about the promises (again, for example) of a F-35 for $85 million.

A1Bill,

I withdraw my earlier statement that I'll believe it when I see it. Instead, your spin is cynical and misleading or misguided and worthless.

ORAC
8th Feb 2016, 15:03
As I understand it, 39A/Bs can be remanufactured to C/Ds; and production of C/Ds can be restarted for current operators; but all E/Fs are new build.

Paris Air Show 2015: Saab sees continued future for Gripen C/D combat aircraft (http://www.janes.com/article/52239/paris-air-show-2015-saab-sees-continued-future-for-gripen-c-d-combat-aircraft)

LowObservable
8th Feb 2016, 15:48
Technically, the C/D can be left in the hangar overnight with a stock of replacement parts, the tomtens will get to work and a shiny new E model will be there in the morning.

That was the original Swedish plan - although it was both economically frugal and politically feasible at the time, and it's mostly the Pootster who has changed the latter equation. On the operational side, the RSwAF decided that it did not want to go through a period where a lot of its jets were in the factory being rebuilt.

But in the next few years, with rolling E/F production between Sweden and Brazil, I would expect that there might not even be an economic case for building them by conversion.

Turbine D
8th Feb 2016, 17:00
ORAC & LO,

Perhaps this will (but probably not) answer Tourist's never ending quest for references, e.g., Gripen F/Es updated from C/Ds or brand new airframes. Other than these type of articles, Tourist may need to dial up Saab for answers...

Saab's Gripen Enters a New High-fly Zone (http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/strike/2015/05/03/saabs-gripen-enters-a-new-high-fly-zone/26692269/)

peter we
8th Feb 2016, 17:48
F-35 for $85 million.


More like north of $300m.

Similar to Kuwaits Typhoons ($310m)
Italian MoD Source: Kuwait To Sign Deal for 28 Eurofighters (http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/strike/2016/01/27/italian-mod-source-kuwait-sign-deal-28-eurofighters/79394322/)

Or the $194m the Indians want to pay for the Rafale and the $305m French want to charge
Revealed: $4 bn is holding up the Rafale deal - Rediff.com India News (http://www.rediff.com/news/special/revealed-price-is-holding-up-the-rafale-deal/20160126.htm)

The there is the F-15, probably over $300m now

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/12/29/world/meast/u-s--saudi-fighter-sale/

KenV
8th Feb 2016, 17:49
Well, Ken, you might be less open to being called a liar if you didn't make :mad: up, like the alleged 4gen helmet, or post questionable stuff like the extra apertures in the F-35I wing (which I haven't heard of anywhere and that you didn't back up). Nor would you be called a "poser" if you didn't attempt to double down on your misinformation by bragging about your super secret brief with VSI. Oh my. I mentioned I was a USNA grad and had a classmate and later shipmate who later ran VSI for awhile and was called a liar. I mentioned I was an A-4 driver and suffered some injuries during an ejection that went awry. I was called a liar because my ejection event did not show up on some online list of A-4 mishaps. I pointed out that neither Sen McCain's mishap on the Forrestal, nor my friend's death off San Clemente show up on that list, and there's plenty of corroboration for both events. I was called a poser when I mentioned on a completely different thread that I had P-3 experience. I was called a liar when I stated (after I was directly asked) that I had F/A-18 flight experience. I was called a liar when I said I worked for Boeing on the C-17 and had hands on design, mod, and maintenance engineering experience on UK C-17's. And finally, I was called a liar when I simply stated that I saw and handled a developmental helmet at VSI. I never stated nor remotely suggested it was a classified briefing, never mind "super secret" as you just falsely claimed. All the above, no "brag," just fact. So who's the liar/poser?

Now, if simply making a statement without always providing "back up" makes one a liar, that would make you one helluva one (like your recent claim F-35 has no internal carry HOBS weapon, among many others). But since you asked:
In July 2011, it was reported that the U.S. had agreed to allow Israel to install its own electronic warfare systems and missiles in its F-35s in the future. In 2012 Lockheed was awarded a contract to make changes to the first Israeli F-35s to allow the installation of Israeli electronic warfare equipment produced by Elbit Systems. This equipment will use "specific apertures... in the lower fuselage and leading edge" of the F-35I. Israel also plans to install its own indigenously-produced guided bombs and air-to-air missiles in the F-35's internal weapon bays.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II_Israeli_procurement


Fairly recently you decided to make a personal attack on me when I had not addressed you, and your charges were proven (laughably) wrong. You've now decided to make yet another personal attack when I was not addressing you, and once again your claims are specious. I don't like feeding trolls, so I believe I shall make this my last reply in this exchange.

Tourist
8th Feb 2016, 17:52
Thank you Turbine D.

I'm not sure why anyone would object to my request for references, particularly those of you on the anti side of the argument.


The last few references have strongly supported your case, and successfully pretty much ended a point of contention, whereas the discussions on those same points on here pre references led me at least to favour the pro side of that particular part of the argument.

Thank you.

Turbine D
8th Feb 2016, 18:02
Tourist,
You are welcome.:ok:

a1bill
8th Feb 2016, 18:04
CM, I'm sure DMO will take it on board that you think their 2008 estimate is spin.
no doubt you think the 2012 report from the Australian National Audit Office is also in on the 'fix'
http://www.anao.gov.au/~/media/Files/Audit%20Reports/2012%202013/Audit%20Report%206/201213%20Audit%20Report%20No%206%20OCRed.pdf

TD, it is alphabet soup, but the US costings are the same for every program, not just the F-35. It is very easy to get tangled in it. I find the SAR to be ok, the forces budget papers are a mine field.