F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

[LowObservable]

Apparently (as noted above) the USN thinks it is real enough.

[KenV]

Yeah, you've claimed that a couple of times now. Care to provide the source?

[Courtney Mil]

Ken, going back a few posts. I agree with all your points bar one.

Satellite tracking: Yes, satellites can track a carrier. But carriers are mobile and satellites have only relatively small windows of opportunity to track any specific area. These windows are predictable and are spaced relatively widely apart. It would take a truly massive constellation of satellites to generate data sufficiently precise, accurate, and timely enough for weapon targeting of a mobile target like a carrier.

Absolutely not true. Twenty years ago that would have been correct, although even then satellites could be reassigned and their orbits altered to add coverage to an area of interest.

Now, with huge extra numbers of surveillance satellites coverage is close to continuous and minor reassignment can create local coverage with small gaps in the order of minutes. That may be an issue for tracking a terror group in an urban area, it is not a problem for tracking a task group in open water.

Additionally, and perhaps more crucially, the large military satellites have now been supplemented by hundreds of small, civilian, low resolution polar orbit units who's data is relatively easy to access. The places to hide are rapidly running out.

[LowObservable]

China is fielding a growing number of conventionally armed MRBMs, including the CSS-5 Mod 5 (DF-21D) anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM). The CSS-5 Mod 5, with a range of 1,500 km and maneuverable warhead, gives the PLA the capability to attack ships in the western Pacific Ocean.

http://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/2015_China_Military_Power_Report.pdf

And please can the defensive tone. There's no reason for it at all. You've been called on dubious information, which is quite right.

[a1bill]

The island reclamation and weaponising isn't making the pacific any safer either. It might be a bit soon for doom and gloom though. Although I have started taking chinese language lessons, as the US pivot to asia turned out to be a quick look and back home.

Talking about what weapons and true effects that are out there can be hard. Even little old australia has black stuff and I'm sure china would be the same.

LO, as I said at the time about all the canada doom and gloom. 'let me know when they write the letter withdrawing'
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canada-to-stay-in-program-of-f-35-jet-buyers-despite-pledge-to-withdraw/article28897002/
The Canadian government intends to make a payment this spring to remain part of the consortium of F-35 Lightning fighter-jet buyers, despite a Liberal election promise to exclude the aircraft when selecting this country’s next warplane.

[glad rag]

No surprises there A1 no surprise at all.


Justin Trudeau vows to scrap F-35 fighter jet program - Politics - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/politics/canada-election-2015-trudeau-scrap-f35-halifax-1.3235791)

[ORAC]

Times change glad rag......

Canada to stay in program of F-35 jet buyers despite pledge to withdraw (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canada-to-stay-in-program-of-f-35-jet-buyers-despite-pledge-to-withdraw/article28897002/)

[LowObservable]

Being fairly close to the Canada situation...

The political intention is clearly to not buy the F-35. However, since the pre-election rush, the view has prevailed that to exclude the F-35 from the contest is no more rational than the Conservatives' attempt to exclude everything else.

Also, the decision to pay the dues protects what manufacturing work has been awarded to Canada - with the F-35 program frantic to close partner/FMS contracts, which are already lagging 2014 projections, that work could otherwise be given away.

And there's no need to bar the door to the F-35 - just include some sensible, logical and universally applicable language in the RFP (as opposed to the bogus F-35-only clauses in the fake SOR), calling for firm fixed-price contracts and guarantees on CPFH. Since we're talking air defense they could throw 4 x Meteors in there as well.

And let's not forget that the almost-real F-35 (not the superplane of pre-2010 propaganda) is 0:1 in open, rules-based competitions.

I like Rafale's chances in Canada. Two engines, lots of range and Dassault is a big partner to Canadian industry. And Bombardier could run the FACO.

[sandiego89]

I do find it interesting to note that with all this talk about the vulnerability and by some the obsolecense of the modern carrier, a historical review really shows that the last time there was a real peer-to-peer shooting war with a US carrier was perhaps 1945 off Okinawa. Yes I fully understand there were other threats and actual attacks, but not a real a real death match attack from missiles, aircraft, submarines, or other ships from a peer threat. The Falklands for a few months in 1982 was another venue where carriers were actually targetted in a shooting war.

So while the modern carrier (or battle group) has been equipped to fight and defend itself in a major peer threat environement- this thankfully has never been tested. The overwhelming use of the carrier has been to provide power projection in peacetime and limited wars. I do understand that the math might change in a major conflict, but history has shown how they have been used and they seem to be quite useful for the few nations that can make the investment. I would not write off the carrier yet.

[KenV]

Additionally, and perhaps more crucially, the large military satellites have now been supplemented by hundreds of small, civilian, low resolution polar orbit units who's data is relatively easy to access. The places to hide are rapidly running out.Excellent point! On the other hand......

Please consider the following: What military planner in a kill chain is going to rely on uncertain data from an uncertain random civilian source with uncertain propagation delay, to launch a ballistic missile at a moving target in a sea filled with lots of other moving targets? And knowing that their action will be an act of war against a nation with the certain ability to cause devastating harm to their nation. And knowing that the S. China Sea is the most densely navigated bit of water on the planet, with many of those "targets" being their own. I believe these are all considerations that need to be included in the overall equation.

I may be wrong, but I believe there's a big difference between generally keeping tabs on a battle group, and generating actionable targeting coordinates in real time of a mobile target amidst many other mobile targets, even ignoring night and uncooperative weather. These are international waters with countless other nations operating in them, mostly commercial, but more than a few military. It's a very complex problem. I welcome corrections to this view.

[Snafu351]

The thought does go through my mind that perhaps there is a danger of expecting the opposition to do as we would do?
Are the Chinese going to be terribly bothered if there is a degree of friendly collateral damage when they take out a US carrier?

[LowObservable]

Ken's right that commercial or wide-area satellites aren't the complete answer, but in conjunction with the Automatic Identification System they are a big contributor to a common operational picture.

By the way, there's been serious discussion of a geostationary imaging satellite with up to 10 m resolution:

http://www.congrexprojects.com/custom/icso/Presentations%20Done/Session%209b/04_ICSO2010_GeoOculus.pdf

Not so long ago - even in the 1990s - the oceans were a big black hole with a few moving spotlights of airborne radar and the occasional swath of a radar sat (of which there were very few). No longer.

[KenV]

The thought does go through my mind that perhaps there is a danger of expecting the opposition to do as we would do?
Are the Chinese going to be terribly bothered if there is a degree of friendly collateral damage when they take out a US carrier? That depends on a lot of factors, including what is meant by "friendly." For example, what if the ship sunk instead of the American carrier is Russian? Or British? Or Japanese? or Australian? or S. Korean? Are they considered friendly and will they be "terribly bothered"? It seems to me that this is a complicated problem involving more than just the USA and China. But I could be wrong and welcome other viewpoints.

Another consideration is the reaction of American forces in the region if the carrier dodges the missile, but the missile sinks a ship friendly to America, like Britain, Japan, Taiwan, Australia, S Korea, etc etc. Will the Americans be "terribly bothered" and its forces react in some hostile manner? Will America's allies in the region, like Japan, S. Korea, Taiwan, etc join America in a forceful military response to China's provocative action? I believe these considerations should be included in the equation. But again I could be wrong and welcome other viewpoints.

To my mind, this is a very high risk operation with very VERY high stakes. Even assuming China used ASBMs to successfully sink all of the American carriers, America retains the ability to visit a lot of hurt on China using several other non-nuclear weapon systems not dependent on carriers. And that does not include America's allies in the region. So to my mind this is about a lot more than the ability to sink CVNs using ASBMs. But I could be wrong and I'm open to have my mind changed.

[Snafu351]

Forgive me but I do note a degree of hubris in your post(s).

[KenV]

Forgive me but I do note a degree of hubris in your post(s).If so, that is not my intent. In any event I will endeavor to soften the tone of my posts. Thanks for the heads up.

[KenV]

...commercial or wide-area satellites aren't the complete answer, but in conjunction with the Automatic Identification System they are a big contributor to a common operational picture. I agree completely. And I'd like to add a bit to the above. Right now anyone can go on the internet and track essentially every flight on the planet, military and commercial, in near real time. However, I'd like to gently point out that such data is far far removed from being able to target any of those flights. And even with such data plus a highly sophisticated air defense radar system able to precisely track and target aircraft, someone in Eastern Ukraine shot down the wrong airplane. The shipping traffic in the S. China Sea is even more dense than the air traffic over eastern Ukraine. So even with AIS and satellites, the targeting problem is very complex.

I believe the consequences of targeting a CVN with a ballistic missile and getting it wrong will carry far heavier consequences than the MH17 event. And the consequences of getting it right and damaging or sinking the CVN would be devastating. So even assuming the ability to sink a carrier with a ballistic missile exists, what is the real utility of that ability if the consequences of using it are devastating? I welcome disagreeing viewpoints.

[Just This Once...]

The point is that any threat has to be respected and (hopefully) countered. Until recently ship drivers did not have to consider such a threat - now they do. Being able to 'worry' a USN carrier from a strategic distance is quite an achievement.

Countering such a threat may involve developing aircraft that have a greater range; so we loop back to the F-35 discussion….

[KenV]

The point is that any threat has to be respected and (hopefully) countered. Until recently ship drivers did not have to consider such a threat - now they do. Being able to 'worry' a USN carrier from a strategic distance is quite an achievement.Excellent point and one I agree with.

[ORAC]

Oh dear, oh dear.......

Submission to the Australian Defence Committee JSF inquiry.

http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=6bea818e-e2a7-4ad3-9c0e-109348f93be9&subId=409097

Dear Chairman and Committee Members,

AUSTRALIA’S TEST AND EVALUATION STRATEGY FOR THE F-35 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER

I'm a retired Lieutenant Colonel from the Royal Danish Air force. I have flown the F-16 for 16 years. Been Squadron Commander, Base Commander Operations, Base Commander and Inspector General Flight Safety Armed Forces Denmark.

In my career I also worked at Air Force Tactical Command and was responsible for the operational requirements for new fighter aircraft.

In this connection I repeatedly took part in simulated flights with Joint Strike Fighter at Wright Patterson AFB in the United States and also in England.

To make the simulations as realistic a as possible, we participated with operational pilots.

On one of these simulations, I had a Danish test pilot with me. In addition, there were participants from a number of other countries.

We also simulated Joint Strike Fighter against Russian fighter aircraft where we flew two against two.

In the forenoon I and the Danish test pilot was flying Joint Strike Fighters against two Russian fighters. In the afternoon we swapped, so we flew Russian fighter aircraft against the Joint Strike Fighter.

In the afternoon the first thing the test pilot and I noticed was that the Russian fighters was not loaded with the best air-to-air missiles as the Russians have in real life. We therefore asked about getting some better. It was denied us. We two pilots complained but it was not changed.

My test pilot and I decided in our simulated Russian combat aircraft to fly “line abreast”, but with 25 nautical miles distance. Then at least one of us could with radar look into the side of the Joint Strike Fighter and thus view it at long distance. The one who “saw” the Joint Strike Fighter could then link the radar image to the other. Then missiles could be fired at long distance at the Joint Strike Fighter.

It was also denied us, although we protested this incomprehensible disposition.

It was now quite clear to us that with the directives and emotional limitations simulations would in no way give a true and fair view of anything. On the other hand, it would show that the Joint Strike Fighter was a good air defense fighter, which in no way can be inferred from the simulations. We spoke loudly and clearly that this way was manipulating with the Joint Strike Fighter air defence capability.

Because of these circumstances, I would not let the Danish Air Force be included as part of the totally misleading/non-transparent results, which alone would show Joint Strike Fighters superiority in the air defence role, which it would not have been against an opponent with missiles with a far better performance than those who we were given permission to. Also there was given major obstacles in the way flying tactically against the Joint Strike Fighter.

We therefore left simulations, returned to Denmark and complained to the Chief of Staff Tactical Air Command and technical manager Air Material Command.

Due to these conditions and having insight into what else was going on, attempts were made from the Danish side to get an operational pilot to the Joint Program Office but due to some special circumstances it at that time failed.

With my speech, I would like to draw attention to the fact that at least some of the air to air simulations that have been carried out, in no way give a true and fair view of the Joint Strike Fighter in the air defence role.

I consider it to be a disaster if simulations as mentioned above are accepted and thus forms part of a possible decision to choose the Joint Strike Fighter.

Yours Sincerely,

Anker Steen Sørensen

Denmark

[a1bill]

re : Sørensen..hat tip to hornetfinn on f-16
Australian lawmakers confident in F-35's future - Program and politics (http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=58&t=23043&start=255)
Some other interesting finds about this Anker Steen Sørensen:

?F-35 er det eneste logiske valg? « (http://nytkampfly.dk/archives/6442/comment-page-1)

Anker Steen Sørensen siger:
25. november 2014 kl. 17:03

Jeg er Service provider for Eurofighter – bare så I ved det. Jeg deltog også i konferencen.

Translation:
I'm Service provider for the Eurofighter - just so you know. I also participated in the conference.

So I dug further:
Eksperter: Simulator er ikke som en testflyvning | Nyheder | DR (http://www.dr.dk/nyheder/indland/eksperter-simulator-er-ikke-som-en-testflyvning)

Google-Translations:
But it is a problem that the Danish pilots have not tested the Joint Strike Fighter, in fact, believe Anker Sørensen, a former squadron leader and head of the operations department for Skrydstrup. He has flown F-16 for 16 years, and now works as a consultant for the competitor to JSF, Eurofighter.

Anker Sørensen after his 40 years in the Army now a consultant for the Eurofighter.

So, now we know what his motivation for the writing really is... Maybe somebody should make this info known to Australians...

[ORAC]

Jeez, these submissions need trawling through in detail.

Submissions ? Parliament of Australia (http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Foreign_Affairs_Defence_and_Trade/Joint_fighter/Submissions)

For example......

http://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=89e4c1b3-777c-4489-8dc9-2bd4d12725c1&subId=407329

"........However, most important pronouncement was the December 2014 report on VSIM by the Director of O T&E. ―It confirmed that in 2014 a review of VSIM eventually led to cancellation of the contract verification portion of Block 2B VSim planned usage. About one-third of the validation evidence for Block 2B VSim was reviewed by the developmental and operational test stakeholders before the contractual use of VSim for Block 2B was cancelled.

This review confirmed that additional time was needed before VSim V&V could potentially meet expectations. Collaborative replanning of Block 2B activities is not complete, but V&V reviews to support operational testing needs are now planned for early 2015, with accreditation of VSim for tactics development and other uses expected in October 2015.

The contractor has increased resources on VSim V&V teams, and the quality of the V&V products is increasing. However, the rate of completing validation points (a comparison of VSim model performance to aircraft hardware performance under similar test conditions using data from flight test, avionics test bed, or labs), has been much slower than planned. This makes completing the validation reports, which analyze the points with respect to intended use, at risk to support even the reduced accreditation requirements for Block 2B. Additional resources may be required to complete the significant task of validating the complex federation of models in VSim in time for Block 3F IOT&E.‖

In summary, all the JSF project simulation results gathered over the last 10 years or so have no validity at all. They only represent parts of a virtual F-35 in a virtual world (Lockheed Martin land) where the laws of physics, advanced threats and systems are ignored and the virtual F-35 has capabilities that do not exist outside of the simulation.

Right now it is not only incomplete in terms of contemporary and future threats as well as models for the combat scenarios but also inaccurate for the JSF performance itself resulting in an application that is useless for its intended purpose......."

[ORAC]

White Paper commits to urgent $30b spend over ten years (http://www.australiandefence.com.au/news/white-paper-commits-to-urgent-30b-spend-over-ten-years)

"........Some of the announcements include $30 billion being spent over the next ten years with the percentage of GDP expenditure on Defence to increase to 2 per cent by 2020-21. The government has committed to a continuous rolling acquisition program for 12 submarines and new previously unforeseen acquisitions and plans such as a review process to replace the last 25 F-35s planned for acquisition with a sixth generation fighter that will be an option in the late 2020s."......

[a1bill]

price and mills are the repsim boys that had their company delisted. a part of the apa clown club.

yep we are getting 70 odd f-35 and looking at the other 25 of the 100 late 2020. a 6th gen to replace the shornets late 2020 would also be on the cards

when are you putting up bacon's submission? That's a hoot

[ORAC]

A constant stream of ad hominem attacks does not constitute a rebuttal, in fact it emphasises the strength of their attacks and the weakness of the defence.

[a1bill]

there is nothing to attack, clueless guys pi**ing into the wind, none have even a basic clearance to the current f-35.
just backgrounding who's who, TBH I think it refelects more on the person posting them, as some sort of 2nd coming.

[glad rag]

What they want to do is put a production F35 up against say a legacy F15 and let us see what it can really do...there must be some F15A's in storage someplace..pity there out of F4 drones

[Snafu351]

a1bill again demonstrates the major issue with the F35 program.

[Rhino power]

...pity there out of F4 drones

They're not, there's still about 20 left at Holloman AFB, being used until the end of this year, maybe longer if the QF-16's still aren't up to speed...

-RP

[glad rag]

Rhino that's interesting news I thought they had all been "used up"...

In case you misinterpreted my posting style I was "hamming things up"

Sorry for any confusion I may have caused.

gr

:}

[Rhino power]

No confusion, gr, I got the gist of your post! ;) I just wanted to clarify that the QF-4's are still soldiering on, for a short while longer at least anyway...

-RP

[PhilipG]

So next week we will see F35 trounced in combat maneuvers by unmanned F4 Phantom drone?

[glad rag]

Be a close run thing methinks....



http://www.tonyrogers.com/news/images/0104viper5.jpg

[LowObservable]

price and mills are the repsim boys that had their company delisted. a part of the apa clown club.


Your obsessional, subliterate sliming of anyone who disagrees with you is revolting, Mr JackJack, JSFfan, Jack412 and "Jack Warner". Particularly since you have never once brought any unique or positive insight to bear.

[Courtney Mil]

So, now we know what his motivation for the writing really is... Maybe somebody should make this info known to Australians

No, now we know who he is. You don't seem so picky about what people say when they have links to LM.

As for the simulations he's discussing, I can confirm that the limitations he is describing were extant during those trials. There were reasons for doing it that way, but what he is saying basically true.

Now, a few days ago, I asked you a question that you have chosen not to answer twice. Because you singled me out among other former F-15 pilots as having a different view about the F-35, I ask you again,

And what do you assume my opinion of the platform to be?

[Turbine D]

I am wondering what the real state of the P&W F-135 engine is these days? While the relevancy of simulations are debated, some of the relevance depends on what the engine is really capable of delivering. What makes me wonder is this information from the commercial engine business side as stated to Aviation Week by the new President of P&W regarding their new GTF engine for the A-321neo:
Rotor bow, or thermal bowing, is normally due to asymmetrical cooling after shut-down on the previous flight. Differences in temperature across the shaft section supporting the rotor lead to different thermal deformation of the shaft material, causing the rotor axis to bend. This results in an offset between the center of gravity of the bowed rotor and the bearing axis, causing a slight imbalance and potentially reducing the tight clearance between the rotor blade tips and the compressor wall. Maintaining this clearance as closely as possible is critical to engine efficiency. Slower starting allows more even heating, eliminating differential thermal deformation.

“On an A320 it takes about 150 to 160 seconds to start both engines, and those are (IAE) V2500 kind of numbers,” says Leduc. “The initial PW1100G engines we put into service on Lufthansa take about 350 seconds. All engines have a bit of rotor bow. The V2500 had it, the PW2000, PW4000 and the CFM(56) had it, there’s not an engine built that doesn’t have a certain amount of rotor bow. We have taken an incredibly conservative approach here. We basically have dictated start times to ensure ourselves we will never rub a rotor out,” says Leduc.

Pratt is adopting a two-pronged attack on the issue. All production standard engines now feature a damper on the third and fourth shaft bearings to help stiffen the shaft. “The engines we are building in the factory today are to this bill of material and the first 20 engines we built were not. With these 20 we have a plan with the customers to go back and modify them as needed,” says Leduc.

The second prong is to collect data from engines in service and under accelerated testing, and to gradually reduce the start time based on real experience. “We are basically going to be able to match rotor clearance, engine by engine. And we are going to do it with an algorithm that will have greater and greater fidelity over time. By the time we get to June, it will be down to 200 seconds for start time and by the time we get to December we will be down to 150 seconds for start time. It’s all about how much data we accumulate and the level of fidelity in the algorithm,” he adds.
I might add, the rotor shaft bending can also be due to the weight of components attached to either end, the dumbbell effect. Regardless of where the rubbing takes place, be it blade tips or internal seals, it isn't an easy problem to deal with. It results from miscalculation of structural support design. It is true all engines do have some rotor bow, but the ones that have the least have good structural support throughout the length of the engine. Opened clearances to solve the rubbing problem reduces engine efficiency, and that effects performance items such as range of operation and true developed engine thrust, items that remain to be confirmed on the F-35. BTW, the CFM56 LEAP engine starts in 50 seconds per engine.

[a1bill]

CM, it was a copy paste from f16, as I said "re : Sørensen..hat tip to hornetfinn on f-16" and I gave the link.


re : "CM, you are ex f-15 and was involved in some of the typhoon stuff. you are the only one's attitude I don't understand here, when compared to what other f-15 and typhoon pilots say"

This is the search string I used, "f-15" "F-35" pilot interview "f-15"
first one I found..here is an x F15 guy, he has a different attitude to you, that was the point I was making.
Shaping the F-35 Combat System Enterprise | SLDInfo (http://www.sldinfo.com/shaping-the-f-35-combat-system-enterprise/)
In this interview, Pete “Toes” Bartos of Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems, a former F-15/F-18 pilot and Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) requirements officer at the Air Combat Command, explains the nature of the F-35 combat systems and how they work together.

no doubt you have read the typhoon pilots now flying the f-35?

[Radix]

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

[MSOCS]

Radix,

Without an internal A/G payload, it's 4 internal Mx. Rumours abound of that going up.

Perfect for a rumour site.

So a1B isn't wrong per se.

[glad rag]

But how can they issue weapon clearances when the testing paradigm were not met due to weapon system inadequences.

You can keep on throwing those little internet snippetts in but the FACT is the aircraft did not complete it's full sanctioned clearances.

Now shall we discuss F35B [the bastard offspring?] AtG internal weapon capacities viz the other variants??

[glad rag]

CM, it was a copy paste from f16, as I said "re : Sørensen..hat tip to hornetfinn on f-16" and I gave the link.


re : "CM, you are ex f-15 and was involved in some of the typhoon stuff. you are the only one's attitude I don't understand here, when compared to what other f-15 and typhoon pilots say"

This is the search string I used, "f-15" "F-35" pilot interview "f-15"
first one I found..here is an x F15 guy, he has a different attitude to you, that was the point I was making.
Shaping the F-35 Combat System Enterprise | SLDInfo (http://www.sldinfo.com/shaping-the-f-35-combat-system-enterprise/)
In this interview, Pete “Toes” Bartos of Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems, a former F-15/F-18 pilot and Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) requirements officer at the Air Combat Command, explains the nature of the F-35 combat systems and how they work together.

no doubt you have read the typhoon pilots now flying the f-35?



In fact ditch the care-o-meter buddy and read and internally digest this..


http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/568163-whistle-blower.html

[LowObservable]

MSOCS - Long ago (2007-08) there was marketing puff about 6 internal AMRAAM. The fact that it's gone away suggests that it was found to be impractical.

[MSOCS]

Oh that's such a shame LO. It would have been a great capability.

I guess LM told the customers that it was possible but needed money; having none, I guess those customers said 'no thanks' and walked away from a great capability.

The power of suggestion eh?!

[LowObservable]

There's no record of customers being formally offered that capability so it is far more likely that it was found impractical. If I had to guess I would surmise that if you stacked and staggered two weapons in the outer bays, a failure of one to launch would have fouled the second.

As for the EO-DAS issue, this has been asked and answered many times in this thread. But the disgusting troll's MO is to keep repeating the same points, rather like a whiny two-year-old answering everything with "Whyyyy?" until he is spanked and sent to bed.

[ORAC]

Continuing fallout from the last report.....

The F-35 is still horribly broken (http://theweek.com/articles/605165/f35-still-horribly-broken)

[glad rag]

How is the weight situation these days, esp for the "B" variant??

[Maus92]

@LO ....Long ago (2007-08) there was marketing puff about 6 internal AMRAAM. The fact that it's gone away suggests that it was found to be impractical.

I suppose this is why LM wants/needs to develop the Cuda missile, although one of its own test pilots is calling for a longer range AIM-120 / AARAM class missile for the F-35. Hard to imagine a smaller missile having the range necessary for the JSF - JPO "first to see / first to kill" meme. Likewise, it's unlikely that you could cram more than four longer ranged missile into the internal bays - maybe only two? I think the mock ups of the Meteor load out only shows one per bay, but four are planned.

[Maus92]

@ glad rag "How is the weight situation these days, esp for the "B" variant??"

Still underweight by 132lbs or so as of May 2015, measured on a Lot 7 aircraft. Whether this will still be the case when the additional structural mods are designed and installed is the undisclosed question, and there are two more years of SDD. But I'm positive that if the weight must grow beyond currently stated goals, it will be accepted, and operational parameters will be adjusted until a more powerful / efficient F135 variant (or replacement) is developed sometime way, way into the future (like after Block 4.3/5.)

F-35A is under by 372lbs.
F-35C is (projected) to be 286lbs under for a Lot 8 aircraft.

[glad rag]

Thanks Maus.

:ok:

[MSOCS]

Thanks for the link ORAC, however I stopped reading as soon as I saw Sprey as a contributor. The man is locked in the 70s and 80s when it comes to what makes a jet good and bad and, whereas I agree with him and enthusiastically applaud his design philosophy for the F-16, he is (and it is purely my opinion) way behind the doctrine and rudiments of modern combat in much the same way as Alexander Graham Bell wouldn't "get" the smart phone.

[Radix]

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

[MSOCS]

What's all this obsession about being close-in for a kill shot? I'd wanna kill someone as far away as I could, frankly. Probably why the Brits will be using METEOR over AMRAAM.

[Turbine D]

Originally posted by MSOCS:
he is (and it is purely my opinion) way behind the doctrine and rudiments of modern combat in much the same way as Alexander Graham Bell wouldn't "get" the smart phone. I think you are wrong (and it is purely my opinion) simply because you don't really know what the the F-35 "modern combat" capability is or will be, neither does L-M, the US DoD or the JPO. All they know is what they hope and wish it will be. Don't rush to judgement, stay tuned for the next 4 years or so for actual capabilities, then you will "get" it...

[LowObservable]

As you say, MSOCS, it's your opinion. Unsupported by any test results or data.

[MSOCS]

Perhaps you're right. Perhaps not. There's plenty of data already. Plenty. It's just not in the public domain. And won't be. Ever.

Going back to my point, Sprey uses his love of Apples to say that an Orange doesn't do what an Apple does. This is the rudiment of his argument every time he's wheeled out as a talking head and it's the concept and doctrinal part I'm referring to, not the reality (or otherwise) of what F-35 can do today, or may do in future. Like having your grandpa tell you that you still need horses on the modern battlefield.

[jwcook]

MSOCS > "Sprey uses his love of Apples to say that an Orange doesn't do what an Apple does."


Apparently asserting that a Banana will do what Apples and Oranges do much better than either one is acceptable as long as its a 5th gen Banana with secret abilities..:uhoh:

Seems like a weak place to start any assertion.

[glad rag]

MSOCS > "Sprey uses his love of Apples to say that an Orange doesn't do what an Apple does."


Apparently asserting that a Banana will do what Apples and Oranges do much better than either one is acceptable as long as its a 5th gen Banana with secret abilities..:uhoh:

Seems like a weak place to start any assertion.

It's just like Project Fear !!

[LowObservable]

But your grandpa helped lead a movement that reversed the push towards ever bigger and more powerful airplanes with Mach 2+ capability that they never used, resulting in products that went from two pairs of prototypes to 5000+ Vipers and Hornets, and that were in service and fighting wars in less time than it took to fly a production-standard JSF.

[Turbine D]

MSOCS,

Original postings by MSOCS: "Sprey uses his love of Apples to say that an Orange doesn't do what an Apple does. "There's plenty of data already. Plenty. It's just not in the public domain. And won't be. Ever.
All that data you mention (plenty of it) is the short comings of the F-35s (plural). What is in the public domain and will be for a long time is the positive spin in the form of joint advertising by L-M & US DoD... Sprey is correct. The blended combination of a lemon, lime and pineapple (F-35s) will never be as good a singularly designed fruit, the apple (F-16). That's why God designed separate fruit in the first place! :)

[Mach Two]

Even given the current capability briefs concerning F-35, the idea that a retreating aircraft can target a trailing threat, let alone out-range a straight stern shot is ridiculous. F-35 and all its wonders does not change missile kinematics.

Sorry I didn't take the time to see who was claiming that, but it might be reasonable to expect an explanation about how that might work.

[Rhino power]

Like the F-22, the F-35 can maneuver right in there and attack with a close-in kill shot without playing chicken. If the F-35 gets in a bad situation, the pilot can extract himself a heck of a lot easier than in an F-15. The F-35 can turn away and still attack because it has eyes in the back of its head coupled with high off boresight missiles.

M2, the above quote is from, 'Pete “Toes” Bartos of Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems, a former F-15/F-18 pilot and Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) requirements officer at the Air Combat Command' and is taken from fully paid up members of the F-35 fan club, sldinfo.com, link here (originally posted by a1bill)- Shaping the F-35 Combat System Enterprise | SLDInfo (http://www.sldinfo.com/shaping-the-f-35-combat-system-enterprise/)

-RP

[LowObservable]

And the weakness in the argument is that unless it is in non-stealth mode the F-35 does not have HOBS missiles. AMRAAM is ill suited to that role due to seeker field of regard limits, and lack of either vectored thrust or powerful aero effectors.

[MSOCS]

...and that makes Toes wrong? Just because the quote's in sld?

There are plenty of journos and talking heads paid to do the opposite when it comes to F-35 PR, so it works both ways fella! It's alleged that some such journos and talking heads frequent this forum.

Care to prove categorically that the capability Toes speaks of doesn't exist? I've known him quite a few years and he isn't a liar.

[LowObservable]

The capabilities that Bartos speaks of May exist IF there are HOBS missiles on board, but as far as anyone knows these are only carried externally, and I have never heard anyone claim otherwise.

On the other hand...

"There are plenty of journos ...paid to do the opposite"

If this means, "paid to denigrate the F-35", I would suggest that you should provide some evidence of this statement, which you cannot, because it is a big fat lie.

[a1bill]

ahh, the old paper bag cash for comment..or perhaps a advisory payment or whatever they are calling it these days?
when was the last time sweetman bagged Boeing and Saab? the shornet was a pig one day and a super star the next. the stuff that went on with the refueler was unreported.

perhaps I can chime in here, RAAF is on record of saying they want new missiles for the f-35, the aim-120d may not be the standard missile. As to whether it is 6 or 12/htk internal missiles, only time will tell. But it will be a 360 deg kill zone. as the aim-120d is.

[t43562]

ahh, the old paper bag cash for comment..or perhaps a advisory payment or whatever they are calling it these days?
when was the last time sweetman bagged Boeing and Saab? the shornet was a pig one day and a super star the next. the stuff that went on with the refueler was unreported.

How can anyone have a discussion when it reaches conspiracy theory?

[a1bill]

you're right, there is no such thing as cash for comment, the very thing sweetman accuses another journo and web sites with. LMFAO
https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=%22cash+for+comment%22

[ORAC]

Israel reconsidering 2008 purchase of U.S. jets (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/208651#.VtPMOpwrL4Y)

A welcome decision made back in 2008 to purchase U.S.-made Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) jets no longer appears very attractive in 2016 – and Israel is considering backtracking on it.

So say Israeli government sources quoted by Middle East Newsline (MENL) (http://www.menewsline.com/article-36445-Israel-Quietly-Debates-JSF.aspx).

For one thing, the much-touted JSF has some inherent flaws, such as inadequate range, weapons payload and stealth capability. In addition, the Americans refuse to share the JSF source code with Israel. Israel would not be able to modify the platform to fit its needs, and would have to send damaged engines to Turkey or the U.S. for repairs.

According to the sources, some Israeli Cabinet members say the state-of-the-art version of the F-35 jet is outright "flawed." Israel could find itself "increasingly dependent" on a fighter-jet that has been rejected by most NATO air forces, the sources say.

Until the JSF reaches its full potential, a highly-placed source said, "we will have dozens of very expensive aircraft with limited capabilities."

Back in September 2008, the U.S. Defense Department approved the sale of 25 F-35 stealth-enabled Joint Strike Fighters to Israel's air force. The $15.2 billion deal included an option to buy 50 additional bombers in ensuing years.

Israel was particularly interested in the plane because of its short takeoff and vertical landing capabilities. It was assumed that in war-time, Israeli bases and runways were liable to be heavily targeted by enemy missiles, rendering them all but unusable. The F-35B, with its ability to hover, land vertically, and take off vertically with a light load, would be invaluable under such circumstances. In addition, it needs only a few hundred feet of runway to take off when fully-loaded.

Even back then, however, manufacturer Lockheed-Martin faced claims that the jet performed poorly in tests and combat simulations. The company insisted that the JSF was the most advanced fighter of its class available.

Israel is currently expecting 33 F-35A jets, to arrive in two batches. The first aircraft are expected to arrive by 2017. Over 20 of them were supposed to have arrived last year, but the order was reduced to 14 by a government panel headed by Energy Minister Yuval Shteinitz. Seventeen F-35's are still on order for 2017, and the Israel Air Force continues to push for even more to arrive by 2020.

The Netanyahu government has urged Washington to sell Israel the advanced F-15 fighter-jet that has been approved for Saudi Arabia. But the Obama Administration has refused, presenting the JSF as the only platform available for Israeli purchase with the more than $3 billion a year it receives in American aid.

A second source quoted by MENL says the "overall feeling [among Cabinet members] is that Israel can't continue on this path and needs proven combat platforms." The sources added that Israel would end paying a "strategic price" for "procuring, operating, and training for 50 inadequate aircraft."

[Just This Once...]

Israel has been banging on about range and payload since the inception of the program. Its desire for an advanced version of the F-15 also predates the Saudi purchase (NB the F-16I). The release of the advanced configuration of the F-15 to Saudi just rubbed salt into their wounds. in their eyes they have a demonstrable need to fly large distances, with a large payload, in a self-escorting fighter.

Of course when the Israelis talk about buying stuff they tend to gloss over where the money comes from.

[MSOCS]

ORAC,

on a fighter-jet that has been rejected by most NATO air forces

Most NATO countries didn't buy the F-16 either so that must also be a complete and utter failure by the same argument? How odd!

$3Bn a year in aid....perhaps they enjoy biting the hand that feeds them.

[Radix]

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

[Just This Once...]

Maybe they see NATO rejection as a good thing - after all they are after a fighter 'rejected' by every NATO air forces apart from the country of origin.

The IAF are a great bunch, but they also have a unique or even odd view on things.

[MSOCS]

Indeed JTO, their fighting spirit and will is quite something! Interesting that most of the higher GDP NATO countries are actually buying the F-35.

[LowObservable]

There's a strong faction within Israel that has argued in favor of advanced F-15/16 with standoff weapons and strong ISR support. There are also those who have posited the idea of F-35B as a dispersed missile-resistant force, but I don't know how serious that's ever been.

[glad rag]

you're right, there is no such thing as cash for comment, the very thing sweetman accuses another journo and web sites with. LMFAO
https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=%22cash+for+comment%22

One thing that is a certainty is you will never have to put your life on the line in a F35 A1b...

[MSOCS]

One thing that is a certainty is you will never have to put your life on the line in a F35 A1b...

Which, to be fair, probably applies to 99.9999999% of the people on this forum; the population of those countries buying them, and the internet!

It is, after all, one thing to buy them but a completely different thing to do so and then deploy and use it in anger - how long was F-22 in service before it went on ops?

Ah, sorry 'gr', you were trying to be horrible to A1b. That wasn't too obvious in your post.

[KenV]

I think a person who makes allegations about f-35 critics being bribed (with nothing to back it up).....How is that any different than the countless accusations that F-35 supporters are bought and paid for stooges in the pocket of LM? If that justified personal attacks, then personal attacks on a whole lot of folks on this forum would be fully justified. Is this hypocrisy or inconsistency?

[KenV]

Your obsessional, subliterate sliming of anyone who disagrees with you is revolting..........
Why does that description sound familiar?

O yeah........

[LowObservable]

KenV, MSOCS - If you have any evidence to show that F-35 supporters have been accused of accepting improper or illegal payments or inducements in these pages, it is time to produce it.

It's hardly defamation, for example, to observe that the SLDInfo site has listed Lockheed Martin as a "gold sponsor"; or to point out that the USAF has written policy directing that its airmen and officers present a positive account of the F-35 to the media and public; or indeed, to observe that some pilots do indeed work for LockMart. These are matters of fact.

Equally, the babblings of a1bill would not be defamation if he could produce factual evidence supporting them - but he will not and cannot do so. So I'd be wary of being his white knight if I were you.

[MSOCS]

KenV,

Some of our more prolific contributors, being journalists, I find quite literate.

Oh, on cue.....as ever.

[a1bill]

LO, I gave a link to cash for comment. a quick search of your posts would show you saying things about jurno and web sites insinuating all sorts of shenanigans.

I don't know why you are arcing up because I wonder why sweetman thought the shornet was a pig one day and a superstar the next, why he didn't report on the boeing tanker fiasco. why SAAB gripen is going to be a trainer for the US and next a wonder weapon of 6th gen. I wouldn't know any financial arrangements he may have. do companies pay/induce people for being their mouthpiece, would the aero industry be any different?

[LowObservable]

I wouldn't know any financial arrangements he may have.

Of course you don't. Which, by the way, further confirms that your comments are defamatory.

[a1bill]

yet you feel fine slagging jurno's and websites insinuating all sorts of things, being a bit hypocritical aren't you? I would hate to count how many times you accused someone of being a paid shill

[LowObservable]

As I pointed out to your friends MSOCS and KenV, I'm rather careful not to accuse anyone of being a paid spokesman unless that is what they are (which I hasten to point out is entirely legal and normal). So count away, and don't forget to take your shoes and socks off if you get past 10.

[a1bill]

me thinks you protest too much. sweetman is more than welcome to front me if he has an issue with what I have said. until then this is finished.

[MSOCS]

Oh I was careful not to accuse anyone also LO. It doesn't bother me one bit whether people take cash to write that X is a heap, or X is a hot rod. Just because there is no evidence against a named individual who could then claim defamation or libel, even if guilty, it doesn't mean that it doesn't still go on. I merely wished to say that Ying has a Yang when it comes to such things. In all probability.

This is a rumour network after all.

[a1bill]

well the rumor I heard was that sweetman is on the payroll of boeing and saab. doing fluff pieces and slagging off other makers. let us hope it is wrong. though it does make me wonder.

[Turbine D]

MSOCS,
Original posting by MSOCS: Most NATO countries didn't buy the F-16 either so that must also be a complete and utter failure by the same argument? How odd!
I think you need to define what "most NATO countries" are, today there are 28. If you return to the era the F-16s were offered through FMS contracts, NATO was much smaller then. Those countries that became EPGs were Belgium, Denmark, Netherland and Norway. Collectively, they bought 505 F-16s. But, if you want to move on to newer members, Greece, Italy, Poland, Portugal and Turkey all bought F-16s (Italy's 34 were leased and eventually returned). Collectively, they bought 485 F-16s of various models. So, at least 990 F-16s were purchased by NATO member countries. There are three countries that didn't purchase F-16s, France, Germany and the UK. But I suspect their own aircraft industries had something to do with that, don't you think? Do you think upward of 1,000 F-35s will be purchased by NATO countries?
$3Bn a year in aid....perhaps they enjoy biting the hand that feeds them.
There is nothing new here, gone on for years. Israel really wanted F-15s which have long range capabilities (longer range than F-35s) among other things, but Obama wouldn't sell them, only F-35s. So although you may see some reluctance within the Israeli military (IAF) and in some Israeli political circles, Israel will buy F-35s. 800+ sets of F-35 wings sold to L-M by IAI will assure that along with accompanying US military assistance funding to Israel...

[MSOCS]

I think it's more a question of who the US will sell F-35 to, because it isn't just anyone! 1000 European F-35s? Maybe....maybe not. It's the US services that will predominantly ensure the longevity of the F-35; not so much the FMS customers in my mind. I couldn't call it TurbineD - let's see how wet other nations get in a few years, once the wrinkles are ironed out of the jet, the cost curve has stabilised to something more palatable (for them), and they've had a chance to work with it on training exercises and ops. Maybe they'll all agree with the 'no, hell no!' camp and look elsewhere. Maybe they'll see it as the game to be in and there'll be lots of orders. Hey, I've even known some countries buy something just because a well-regarded different country has bought the same thing. Too many variables at this stage for me to guess.

The F-15E is a beast of a machine with astounding range. It isn't mentioned anywhere in the JSF ORD......so, Israel have backed their horse knowing they couldn't get what they wanted off Obama. That's cute.

[LowObservable]

This is a good time to sign off from this board for a while. Until someone among the Mods does some research into defamation (and I'm not talking about defaming journalists, either).

[FODPlod]

This is a good time to sign off from this board for a while...

And curtail your eagerness to trash the F-35 and insult anyone who posts the least good word about it?

Seriously? :)

[Turbine D]

Original post by a1bill: well the rumor I heard was that sweetman is on the payroll of boeing and saab. doing fluff pieces and slagging off other makers. let us hope it is wrong. though it does make me wonder.

I would rather highly doubt that. Aviation Week is a respected aviation publication that would not want their reputation harmed by one guy in their organization. In fact if you recall, they took Bill Sweetman off the JSF program for a period of time for a Facebook comment he made prior to a visit to L-M in Fort Worth. Besides the "negative F-35" journalists, there are some "for the F-35" players in the journalistic F-35 game that are highly suspect. One is Loren Thompson, COO off the Lexington Institute, a non-profit think tank. Loren comes alive in his support of the F-35 program when the reported news is bad. Both Lockheed and Boeing contribute to the Institute. The institute was founded by a former Congressman who is now a L-M lobbyist. But, Loren is concurrently CEO of Source Associates defense consulting firm, a for profit business. He has praised L-M to no end, even suggesting that L-M deserved more credit for the demise of Bin-Laden than the Navy Seal team that actually took out Bin-Laden.

[a1bill]

If sweetman reported negative stuff when it happens with boeing and saab, it would be more believable that he wasn't on their payroll. when there are just a series of fluff pieces, it makes me wonder. My mother doesn't even speak that nicely about me.

[KenV]

As I pointed out to your friends MSOCS and KenV, I'm rather careful not to accuse anyone....... The righteous indignation of those yelling "defamation" rings mighty hollow. The same folks now righteously indignant about one defamation previously had no problem accusing certain individuals on this forum of far FAR worse than merely "being a paid spokesman" for LM. So if one is going to accuse another of "defamation", may I suggest one take a hard look in the mirror first?

[t43562]

The righteous indignation of those yelling "defamation" rings mighty hollow. The same folks now righteously indignant about one defamation previously had no problem accusing certain individuals on this forum of far FAR worse than merely "being a paid spokesman" for LM. So if one is going to accuse another of "defamation", may I suggest one take a hard look in the mirror first? I think you might be getting confused between who is saying what or perhaps confusing that issue on purpose.

Some of us haven't accused anyone of being paid spokesmen but we still think it is fairly useless to make totally unsubstantiated claims of bribery and it doesn't really matter "who hit who first" - the result is just noise.

[a1bill]

I remember the accusations and defamation against you Ken. It was horrendous from several on here, including LO. I don't know why sweetman deserves better treatment than you did, but he seems to be the golden child to some here.

[a1bill]

F-35 i nærkamp ? hva har jeg lært så langt? (The F-35 in a dogfight ? what have I learned so far?) | (http://nettsteder.regjeringen.no/kampfly/2016/03/01/f-35-i-naerkamp-hva-har-jeg-laert-sa-langt-the-f-35-in-a-dogfight-what-have-i-learned-so-far/)

The F-35 in a dogfight – what have I learned so far?

Major Hanche

I now have several sorties behind me in the F-35 where the mission has been to train within visual range combat one-on-one, or «Basic Fighter Maneuvers» (BFM). In a previous post I wrote about aerial combat in general (English version available), and about the likelihood that the F-35 would ever end up in such a situation. In this post, however, I write more specifically about my experiences with the F-35 when it does end up in a dogfight. Again, I use the F-16 as my reference. As an F-35-user I still have a lot to learn, but I am left with several impressions. For now my conclusion is that this is an airplane that allows me to be more forward and aggressive than I could ever be in an F-16.

I’ll start by talking a little about how we train BFM. This particular situation – a dogfight one-on-one between two airplanes – may be more or less likely to occur, as I have described in a previous blog post (Norwegian only). Nonetheless, this kind of training is always important, because it builds fundamental pilot skills. In this kind of training we usually start out from defined parameters, with clearly offensive, defensive or neutral roles. This kind of disciplined approach to the basic parameters is important, because it makes it easier to extract learning in retrospect – a methodical approach to train for air combat.

So how does the the F-35 behave in a dogfight? The offensive role feels somewhat different from what I am used to with the F-16. In the F-16, I had to be more patient than in the F-35, before pointing my nose at my opponent to employ weapons; pointing my nose and employing, before being safely established in the control position, would often lead to a role reversal, where the offensive became the defensive part.

The F-35 provides me as a pilot greater authority to point the nose of the airplane where I desire. (The F-35 is capable of significantly higher Angle of Attack (AOA) than the F-16. Angle of Attack describes the angle between the longitudinal axis of the plane – where nose is pointing – and where the aircraft is actually heading – the vector). This improved ability to point at my opponent enables me to deliver weapons earlier than I am used to with the F-16, it forces my opponent to react even more defensively, and it gives me the ability to reduce the airspeed quicker than in the F-16.

Update: Since I first wrote this post, I have flown additional sorties where I tried an even more aggressive approach to the control position – more aggressive than I thought possible. It worked just fine. The F-35 sticks on like glue, and it is very difficult for the defender to escape.

To sum it up, my experience so far is that the F-35 makes it easier for me to maintain the offensive role, and it provides me more opportunities to effectively employ weapons at my opponent.

In the defensive role the same characteristics are valuable. I can «whip» the airplane around in a reactive maneuver while slowing down. The F-35 can actually slow down quicker than you´d be able to emergency brake your car. This is important because my opponent has to react to me «stopping, or risk ending up in a role-reversal where he flies past me. (Same principle as many would have seen in Top Gun; «hit the brakes, and he’ll fly right by.» But me quoting Top Gun does not make the movie a documentary)

Defensive situations often result in high AOA and low airspeeds. At high AOA the F-16 reacts slowly when I move the stick sideways to roll the airplane. The best comparison I can think of is being at the helm of ship (without me really knowing what I am talking about – I’m not a sailor). Yet another quality of the F-35 becomes evident in this flight regime; using the rudder pedals I can command the nose of the airplane from side to side. The F-35 reacts quicker to my pedal inputs than the F-16 would at its maximum AOA (the F-16 would actually be out of control at this AOA). This gives me an alternate way of pointing the airplane where I need it to, in order to threaten an opponent. This «pedal turn» yields an impressive turn rate, even at low airspeeds. In a defensive situation, the «pedal turn» provides me the ability to rapidly neutralize a situation, or perhaps even reverse the roles entirely.

The overall experience of flying the F-35 in aerial combat is different from what I’m used to with the F-16. One obvious difference is that the F-35 shakes quite a bit at high g-loadings and at high angles of attack, while the F-16 hardly shakes at all. The professional terminology is «buffeting», which I also described in an earlier blog post (English version available). This buffeting serves as useful feedback, but it can also be a disadvantage. Because the buffeting only begins at moderate angles of attack, it provides me an intuitive feel for how much I am demanding from the aircraft; what is happening to my overall energy state? On the other hand, several pilots have had trouble reading the information which is displayed on the helmet visor, due to the buffeting. Most of the pilots here at Luke fly with the second-generation helmet. I fly with the third-generation helmet, and I have not found this to be a real issue.

What I initially found to a bit negative in visual combat was the cockpit view, which wasn´t as good as in the F-16. The cockpit view from the F-16 was good – better than in any other fighter I have flown. I could turn around and look at the opposite wingtip; turn to the right, look over the «back» of the airplane and see the left wingtip. That´s not quite possible in the F-35, because the headrest blocks some of the view. Therefore, I was a bit frustrated during my first few BFM-sorties. However, It turned out that practice was all it took to improve the situation. Now I compensate by moving forward in the seat and leaning slightly sideways, before turning my head and looking backwards. In this way I can look around the sides of the seat. I also use my hands to brace against the cockpit glass and the canopy frame. With regards to cockpit view alone, I had an advantage in the F-16, but I am still able to maintain visual contact with my opponent during aggressive maneuvering in the F-35. The cockpit view is not a limitation with regards to being effective in visual combat, and it would be a misunderstanding to present this as a genuine problem with the F-35.

On the positive side I would like to highlight how the F-35 feels in the air. I am impressed with the stability and predictability of the airplane. Particularly at high AOA and low airspeeds. It is a peculiar feeling to be flying the F-35 at high AOA. I can pull the nose up to where my feet «sit» on the horizon and still maintain level altitude. I’m also impressed by how quickly the F-35 accelerates when I reduce the AOA. High AOA produces lots of lift, but also tremendous induced drag. When I «break» the AOA, it is evident that the F-35 has a powerful engine. The F-35 also makes a particular sound at this point. When I quickly reduce the AOA – stick full forward – I can hear clearly, even inside the «cockpit» how the F-35 howls! It seems like the «howling» is a mix of airflow over the wings and a different kind of noise from the engine. Maybe this isn’t all that relevant, but I still think it´s a funny observation. Another aspect is the kind of reaction I get when I push the stick forward; the F-35 reacts immediately, and not delayed like the F-16. Looking at another F-35 doing such maneuvers is an impressive sight. The various control surfaces on the airplane are large, and they move very quickly. I can monitor these movements on the screens in my cockpit, and I´m fascinated by how the control surfaces move when I manipulate the stick and pedals. Especially at high AOA, it is not always intuitive what control surfaces move, and by how much.

The final «textbook» for how to best employ the F-35 in visual combat – BFM – is not written. It is literally being written by my neighbor, down here in Arizona! We have had many good discussions on this topic over the last few weeks, and it feels very rewarding to be part the development. I would emphasize the term “multirole” after experiencing this jet in many roles, and now also in a dogfight. The F-35 has a real bite! Those in doubt will be surprised when they finally meet this «bomber”.
...........................
@t43562 I think that's a personal attack, I hope you don't mind if I don't respond.

[sandiego89]

Interesting read from the Norwegian pilot, especially about the high AOA handling and and nose pointing.

[melmothtw]

Original post by a1bill: well the rumor I heard was that sweetman is on the payroll of boeing and saab. doing fluff pieces and slagging off other makers. let us hope it is wrong. though it does make me wonder.


That's defamatory a1bill, and repeating someone else's libel or slander is no defence in court. And in case you're wondering, your PPRuNe moniker doesn't offer you the anonymity you might think it does.


I remember the accusations and defamation against you Ken. It was horrendous from several on here, including LO. I don't know why sweetman deserves better treatment than you did, but he seems to be the golden child to some here.




An internet moniker (Ken V, or whoever) has no reputation to protect and so cannot be defamed. A professional, long standing, and much respected aerospace journalist however does have a reputation and can be defamed.

[a1bill]

sandiego89 : "Interesting read from the Norwegian pilot, especially about the high AOA handling and and nose pointing."

yes it is, it sounds as if they have been tweaking the flight control laws.



@melmothtw, perhaps that's where we differ, I don't see swetman as a "professional, long standing, and much respected aerospace journalist" I think the guy has turned into a gosip pusher of FUD, fear uncertainty and doubt, who for some reason constantly slags LM while giving boeing and saab a free ride and sings questionable praise about them

[melmothtw]

It really doesn't matter whether we differ or not a1bill, I'm just relating the law to you.

[Tourist]

It really doesn't matter whether we differ or not a1bill, I'm just relating the law to you.

Without taking any sides here, there is an obvious caveat to that....

[melmothtw]

If the caveat is that a1bill is in Australia, it really doesn't matter - 'An individual can normally sue in the country where the defamatory statement was read or viewed, if there is sufficient circulation, or viewers'.



or perhaps there's another caveat?

[Tourist]

If the caveat is that a1bill is in Australia, it really doesn't matter - 'An individual can normally sue in the country where the defamatory statement was read or viewed, if there is sufficient circulation, or viewers'.



or perhaps there's another caveat?


No, the more obvious caveat that applies to all libel, slander and defamation....

I would like to point out that I am merely being pedantic rather than having any knowledge or opinion about the subject.

[melmothtw]

That it's libellous, slanderous, or defamatory? Well, that wouldn't be for me to judge Tourist, but I would suggest that such comments about a military aviation journalist posted on a military aviation website might be judged to be harmful to his professional reputation.


Of course, all of this is a1bill's concern rather than mine....

[a1bill]

again you seem to think he still has a professional reputation, I think he lost that when avweek stood him down for bad mouthing LM
I think the guy is a hack now, this letter to SLD was enough to confirm that for me
SLD Forum (http://www.sldforum.com/2011/09/message-to-the-readers-of-the-forum-from-the-editor/)

ps,
'An individual can normally sue in the country where the defamatory statement was read or viewed, if there is sufficient circulation, or viewers'.

I would love a trip to the US, I'll start packing.

[melmothtw]

Again though a1bill, "I think" isn't really the issue. I've offered you advice on defamation, and it's your business if you choose to ignore it.

[PhilipG]

Any chance that this thread could get back on thread soon?

All the to and fro about dogfighting seems a little premature to me, I thought that the idea of 5th Generation was that they were part of an integrated battlespace management solution, or something like that, so they can if deemed necessary take out an enemy without necessarily revealing their position using sensors on other F35s, Linked aircraft, or land and sea based resources, so dog fighting was not what the aircraft was designed for.

Taking dog fighting a bit further, as I understand it no non development F35 is cleared to go to the design maximum G yet and will not be for a time, nor is the external carriage of weapons available on line aircraft yet, nor is the use of the integrated or indeed podded gun. I do wonder what the point of trial dog fighting in an aircraft that will in the future be able to turn sharper etc, when the only weapons that you have are AMRAAMs and possibly 2,000lb bombs, neither a particularly dogfight optimised weapon system.

It would be good to hear on the progress to final sign off of the as initially promised 3F software, how the multi ship communications problems are being resolved and how progress was being made on the design of spars that did not crack under load.

[a1bill]

I don't think we will hear about what goes on BVR, air shows and a bit of BFM exercises is all we can hope for.
But perhaps he was in one of the test planes, he is a U.S. Navy Test Pilot School graduate and the norgs are part of the testing.

[melmothtw]

ps,
'An individual can normally sue in the country where the defamatory statement was read or viewed, if there is sufficient circulation, or viewers'.

I would love a trip to the US, I'll start packing.

Why the US? The fact that Sweetman is in the US is irrelevant to defamation law - me and many others are reading your comments in the UK, and English Law is a real doozy when it comes to defamation. If you're going to be all 'Billy big balls' about it, I'd suggest that you read up on English defamation law first.

[Engines]

PhilipG, Guys,

Perhaps I can help here.

The F-35 was certainly not designed as an 'out an out' dog fighting aircraft. I've certainly never claimed that, nor has the programme as far as I know. However, it was required to have a good level of manoeuvrability so as to be able to defend itself, and the post earlier today from A1bill with Maj Hanche's comments seems to show that it might have achieved some of that. I'm sure other contributors may have a different view.

The F-35 is a strike aircraft that's intended to be a balanced design, using reduced signature, advanced active and passive sensors, very good datalinks and good weapons. Time will tell if LM have succeeded. I'm certainly not privy to any of the detailed (and almost certainly highly classified) combat assessments, so I can only offer my knowledge of what the programme was aiming to do.

External carriage of weapons has certainly been tested, I've not yet seen any weapon drops from the stations, so that may not yet be cleared. The gun has certainly been tested on the A, the pod has been ground tested, and carried in flight, so I'd expect the gun to come along in due course.

The recent OT&E report gave a lot of detail on progress towards 3F software, multi ship communications (I presume you mean MADL) is certainly being worked, and the spars didn't exactly 'crack under load', they cracked under fatigue cycle loads, and are being redesigned. Not a great result, but not at all unknown - Tornado suffered some fairly massive fatigue issues (in service) with its wing structure. Please note that I'm not having a 'pop' at the Tornado, just using it as an example of how damn hard designing combat aircraft airframes is. BAe fixed the Tornado, LM will fix the F-35.

I'm not, repeat not, claiming all is rosy on F-35. Software development progress has been a problem for some years now, as I've said in other posts. But, and I do think that it bears repeating, the F-35 programme has aimed very, very high, and is breaking new ground in areas such as integrated avionics, MADL, sensor integration and signature management.

I'd also gently point out that this thread only survives because so much information about the programme is being made publicly available. Some UK aircraft programmes that consumed large amounts of our small defence budget (e.g. Typhoon) had some fairly horrible problems that took a long time to be solved at great cost, but these were kept out of public gaze for no other reason than to avoid embarrassment.

Finally, may I make a gentle suggestion that accusations about libel, slander, defamation and the legal aspects would be better done via PM? There's a real danger that if the tone of this forum carries on down this track, it could degenerate into a board with three or four people shouting bad stuff at each other. Just my thoughts, it's a free forum at the end of the day.

Best Regards as ever to all those trying to do the right thing at the right time for the people at the front line,

Engines

[Maus92]

From the comments section in the SLD forum linked a few posts above:

"Aussie Digger wrote:
September 20, 2011 at 1:08 pm
Probably should have asked Bill if he’s ever received payments, any other sort of gratuity, a free lunch or “press pack” from Boeing, SAAB or the Eurofighter Consortium…

PS. Good work btw. Keep it up!"

Sounds eerily familiar.

[Just This Once...]

Engines,

I don't doubt that the F-35 is no longer destined to be an 'out and out' dog fighter in any configuration, but back in the day that was the objective, particularly for the biggest customer (USAF).

The ORD called for the specific performance requirements required of such high-agility fighter aircraft and to remove all doubt the requirements made repeated references to both the F/A-18C and F-16C for the KPP threshold/objectives. Indeed, I cannot recall a single parameter in the requirements set that allowed for an F-35A performance envelope that was less than currently achieved by the F-16 & F/A-18, with the exception of supersonic-dash speed.

When the ORD (JORD) for the USAF called for a +9/-3G aircraft when configured for A/A at 60% fuel, with a minimum threshold corner-speed of an F-16C, an objective corner-speed of an F/A-18C and excess mil power to sustain a 45 AOB turn above 30,000 ft or 2,500 fpm+ climb in this altitude block it was pretty clear to everyone in the program that this was not to be just a self-escorting strike fighter.

Again, I don't doubt that the end result is considerably less and that the self-escorting strike fighter description is now a good one, but this was not the objective and the new mantra regarding air-to-air capability was only adopted once the actual performance numbers fell short of the agreed threshold and objective requirements.

I'll get off my horse now, but revisionist history pulls on my chain.

[a1bill]

my opinion and I'll leave you to google and confirm..If you don't like revisionist history, I'd look at the early SAR's that said all the non KPP of the ORD (JORD) will not be met. the plane that flew in 2006 was far different that the one envisaged in the early ORD (JORD) it was well know then that all the specs were not going to be met.

the + and - points..in fact the preceding platform design sim'd numbers specs were released years ago showing this very early in the piece. That and in the student report where the 60% for the A came from...was what the cries of 'it's a pig' came from.

I'd look at the early SAR's that said all the non KPP of the ORD (JORD) will not be met. the plane that flew in 2006 was far different that the one envisaged in the early ORD (JORD) it was well know then what the specs were going to be. they threw specs away to get range and navy want of ~18,000lb stores

They do know what they are doing most of the time. they released it publicly when all 3 models were flown to confirm what was already known and publicly then stated. this is with the end of life degraded specs by the way.

[Engines]

JTO,

Thanks for coming back.

I sincerely apologise if I've 'pulled your chain' - that certainly wasn't my intention. However, i do have to gently maintain my understanding of the programme as I saw it back around 2002 to 2006. I certainly wasn't trying to be 'revisionist'. Sorry again if I appeared to be doing that - it pulls my chain too.

The F-35 was not ever designed as a 'dogfighter', and certainly not 'out and out'. i don't know what KPPs you are referring to, but the KPPs that I was very familiar with didn't include specific agility performance requirements. The JORD certainly included requirements such as max 'g', but these were all available for trading off during development - only the KPPs were fixed. I can certainly tell you that a number of agility 'corner points' (e.g. max AOA) were traded off during the weight reduction programme in 2004.

I'll stress that I'm not a pilot, just a slightly experienced and interested retired aircraft engineer. It's my view (and that's all it is) that modern fighters (or 'strike fighters') need to strike a balance between agility, signature, sensors and weapons. A really good weapon/sensor suite plus good data links can, have and will enable aircraft that aren't 'out and out dogfighters' to be very effective. F-35 has struck a balance, time will tell whether they got it right.

Again, sorry if this sounds revisionist - it's certainly not my style to try to rewrite history. If my recollection doesn't square with yours, sorry again.

Best regards to all those posting here

Engines

[KenV]

Whatever treatment you think you got, you lose my sympathy (not that it matters) because you have no scruples of your own.If this is not defamation far worse than casting doubt on the financial independence of an individual's opinion, I don't know what is. I rest my case and will leave it at that.

[KenV]

(http://nettsteder.regjeringen.no/kampfly/2016/03/01/f-35-i-naerkamp-hva-har-jeg-laert-sa-langt-the-f-35-in-a-dogfight-what-have-i-learned-so-far/)F-35 i nærkamp ? hva har jeg lært så langt? (The F-35 in a dogfight ? what have I learned so far?) | (http://nettsteder.regjeringen.no/kampfly/2016/03/01/f-35-i-naerkamp-hva-har-jeg-laert-sa-langt-the-f-35-in-a-dogfight-what-have-i-learned-so-far/)

The F-35 in a dogfight – what have I learned so far?

Major Hanche Pffffft. Clearly another bought and paid for LM stooge.



And for those who missed it yet again, yes, that was sarcasm.

[glad rag]

In your own words Ken what is your opinion of the F35 programme?

[Lonewolf_50]

In your own words Ken what is your opinion of the F35 programme?
Given how many of his posts you have read on this very mega thread, I doubt the sincerity of your intent in posing this question.

Can we please stop this never-ending baiting ... please? It's noise, and not the glorious noise of jet exhaust.

@Engines: Thanks for your look from inside the program. That design goals are subject to trade off is -- wait for it -- One Of The Facts of Aircraft Design from about the time Orville and Wilbur tried to make that bugger fly in 1903. Who'd have thought that such uncomfortable constraints sustain into the 21st century? Well, anyone familiar with the process. (Like yourself).

The F-35, my perspective: "Let's see just how much stuff we can try to jam into that ten pound bag."
(Stuff = features in case anyone missed the point)

[Courtney Mil]

Just stop the bickering, please. This thread is becoming a joke and even the decent posts are now being totally devalued by the rubbish going on around them. I'll be back when there's something worth reading.

P.S. Well said, LoneWolf.

[a1bill]

@Engines, just to clarify, in no way did I mean to infer your post was revisionist, I was actually reply to JTO, as I saw his post about revision was in itself revisionist from what I understood the facts to be.

@CM, there was a pilot's statement on the last page. that may be of value.

[KenV]

In your own words Ken what is your opinion of the F35 programme?
I don't think its just one program and any attempt to characterize it as a single program is short sighted. So I'll try by answering your question as follows:
1. A very ambitious development program with ambitions never before contemplated, never mind attempted.
2. A moderately badly managed program. In my opinion the bad management lies primarily at the feet of the government who never allowed the requirements to fully stabilize.
3. A pretty well executed engineering program with an exceptionally steep learning curve
4. A well planned and executed test program that is precisely defining the real performance of the aircraft and its systems, expanding the envelope of the aircraft and its systems, and enabling significant improvements in both hardware and software.
5. A struggling production program saddled with unrealistic government requirements for concurrent engineering, test, and production.

Overall, the above has resulted in an expensive aircraft delivered much later than anticipated with impressive capabilities in multiple areas that is literally redefining modern air combat, with those redefinitions still a work in progress. I'm reasonably confident the price will drop as the industry climbs up the learning curve and the build numbers climb. I'm also reasonably confident that as the pilots and other operators get more experience with all its capabilities, that tactics will be developed that will take full advantage of those capabilities and make the F-35 a very effective strike aircraft, and yet damned tough to beat in an air-to-air environment.

Did that satisfy your query?

[Turbine D]

KenV,

That was a nice summary of the F-35 program and the question you were asked. The only thing I would add is requested/demanded changes by the customer as the program progresses. Often, changes lead to problems because of the dislocation, disruptions that result. Changes also add significantly to costs. The US DoD is famous for demanded changes after the fact and it isn't limited to aircraft programs either.

[Stitchbitch]

TD, see KenV point 2? Goalpost changing isn't new but is very expensive.

[ORAC]

Lawmakers: Give US Navy More F/A-18s (http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2016/03/01/lawmakers-give-navy-more-f-18s/81161908/)

WASHINGTON —The US Navy is planning to request 12 more F/A-18 Super Hornets than the two it was allocated in the president’s 2017 defense budget, according to a House lawmaker.......

There are only two F-18s in the president's fiscal 2017 request, both funded in through the Overseas Contingency Operations account, with plans to buy 14 of the aircraft in 2018, reversing a decision to end US procurement of the Boeing-built aircraft. Wagner called for Congress to add 12 aircraft to the Navy future-years defense program, an increase from 16 to 28..........

[a1bill]

As the article points to, the shornet/hornets are getting a flogging, they need gap fillers.
I also read where the growlers aren't getting the frame life they wanted too

I saw this on the same site
Interview: Gen. Frank Gorenc, Commander, US Air Forces in Europe and Africa (http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/policy-budget/leaders/interviews/2016/03/01/interview-air-force-general-frank-gorenc/81119524/)
...When are you going to get the first squadrons of F-35s in Europe? What unique capabilities will the F-35 bring?

It looks like we will get our first F-35 squadron in 2021. It is going to bring the ability to strike. It is going to be able to deliver air superiority. The beauty of the F-35 is for the first time ever we have an airplane that literally can do four out of five core competencies. It can do air and space superiority, it can do strike, it can do intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) and it can do command and control. I personally can’t wait. I wish it was higher in the priority to come here, but I am accepting of that. It is soon that we begin the process of laying down the infrastructure needed to work that airplane. I think we are in good shape.

[Heathrow Harry]

"for the first time ever we have an airplane that literally can do four out of five core competencies"

Well it can't can it - it's totally unproven and has been in development trouble for years

[Just This Once...]

The ISR capability is pretty much zero as aside from the ability to record what the pilot has selected on the head down there is zero ability to download and exploit anything.

:\

[Radix]

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

[glad rag]

I don't think its just one program and any attempt to characterize it as a single program is short sighted. So I'll try by answering your question as follows:
1. A very ambitious development program with ambitions never before contemplated, never mind attempted.
2. A moderately badly managed program. In my opinion the bad management lies primarily at the feet of the government who never allowed the requirements to fully stabilize.
3. A pretty well executed engineering program with an exceptionally steep learning curve
4. A well planned and executed test program that is precisely defining the real performance of the aircraft and its systems, expanding the envelope of the aircraft and its systems, and enabling significant improvements in both hardware and software.
5. A struggling production program saddled with unrealistic government requirements for concurrent engineering, test, and production.

Overall, the above has resulted in an expensive aircraft delivered much later than anticipated with impressive capabilities in multiple areas that is literally redefining modern air combat, with those redefinitions still a work in progress. I'm reasonably confident the price will drop as the industry climbs up the learning curve and the build numbers climb. I'm also reasonably confident that as the pilots and other operators get more experience with all its capabilities, that tactics will be developed that will take full advantage of those capabilities and make the F-35 a very effective strike aircraft, and yet damned tough to beat in an air-to-air environment.

Did that satisfy your query?

Thanks for that ken, quite pleasant to have someone's thoughts as opposed to reams of c and p.

[KenV]

Uh oh, so now we don't need the F-22 anymore. That argument seems to go around in circles. Lots of that kind these days. A-10?We need to be careful not to jump to conclusions. The F-22 is out of production. That's a fact that is not going to change. The number of F-22s produced may not be (probably won't be?) sufficient for the future threat (Gen 4.5 and up adversary aircraft.) Something needs to fill the gap and it cannot be more F-22s. ONE possible answer is to press the F-35 into the air superiority role even though it was not primarily designed for that role. That does not mean "we don't need the F-22 anymore." It means we don't have enough F-22s and the F-35 MAY be the best available substitute to fill the gap created by a lack of F-22s. The bottom line is that filling a perceived F-22 gap is very different than replacing the F-22. And using the F-35 to fill the F-22 gap may be the best solution only for now. Who knows, maybe after the T-X comes on line they can build an air superiority version of the T-X to fill the F-22 gap. Nothing is static.

[KenV]

"Well it can't can it - it's totally unproven and has been in development trouble for years

"totally unproven"? By what definition? No, it has little to no in-service experience. But testing has proven that the airplane has very impressive capabilities. Yes it still needs more testing. Yes, the software is still in a fairly early stage of development. But what is new or different there? It took decades to fully develop the Tornado and its systems. And the Typhoon, although a "mature" aircraft, still needs years of testing and software/hardware updates to give it a credible air-to-ground capability. It's getting there, but that capability is most certainly not yet "proven".

[onedesign]

Engines, JTO,
The aeroplane was designed to be a medium level bomber with some capability in other areas. Why would it need to dogfight with 10 AMRAAMs, a really spammed up datalink & a huge radar?

[Engines]

Onedesign,

I hope I can help, but I have to start by looking at your premise. The F-35 wasn't really designed as a 'medium level bomber with some capabilities in other areas'. It was designed against a set of requirements that were framed to allow it to replace a large number of legacy platforms, including what some call 'attack' aircraft, 'fighters' and possibly 'bombers'. To try to answer your points:

The 10 AMRAAM fit is, in my own view, very unlikely ever to be used, but is a standard USN requirement that was applied to Hornet for defending the fleet against massed air attacks. Knowing the aircraft, it would be very capable in this role, especially given its very capable radar and weapons system. But I still think its' very unlikely to be used in anger.

The radar isn't 'huge' - but it is very capable. It's an AESA design with some fairly powerful processing power on tap.

Data links are used for all sorts of reasons, including carrying out attacks on surface targets. They're not just for fighters. The MADL datalink is a very capable system, but the requirement was for F-35s to communicate with each other, as the F-35 is the first platform with this link. It's probable that MADL might find its way on to other platforms.

Hope this helps, please PM me if there's anything else I might be able to help you with.

Best Regards as ever,

Engines

[Just This Once...]

The radar is very compact and operates in a small volume that precludes the use of a mechanical 'repositioner'. This does reduce the field of regard and requires the use of the bulkhead orientation/design and standby position for signature management, but the installation itself is a work of art.

Engines, I appreciate your earlier comments - you are a gentleman.

:ok:

[ORAC]

The F-35 just isn't designed as a fleet defence fighter, which is why the USN is designing the F/A-XX (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F/A-XX_Program). I will quote SNAFU here, who sums it up well (can't link as he has a bl*gspot URL). This isn't a knock at the F-35, any more than I'd knock the A-10 for not being a fleet defence fighter.....

When the F-14 was designed the US Navy was EXTREMELY serious about the blue water fight. The assumption was that the USAF would be fully engaged doing its thing to support the Army and the naval services would be hookin' and jabbin' with enemy forces alone. With Marine Air only giving a few squadrons to the carrier requirement, it was up to the Navy to field the high end of the air defense force. Out of this was born the F-14.

The fear was that massed missile attacks on our capital ships would overwhelm our defenses and they would be sunk. It was also theorized that the Russians would seek to launch these missiles from distance via TU-95 in conjunction with either subs or surface ships and the problem is obvious.

The S-3 was the pinch hitter in the battle being responsible for long range maritime patrol with the additional task of anti-sub duty (again at distance) along with picking up anti-ship duties with the A-6, A-7 and soon to be introduced F-18.

But back to the Bear bombers loaded with heavyweight, long range, anti-ship missiles. That was the responsibility of the F-14 and its AIM-54 (Phoenix) missiles. Way back then they realized the need to "shoot the archer" before he could launch his arrows.

Which brings me full circle to what the F-14 was, wasn't and how the Navy flexed it into other roles. At the height of the Cold War the F-14 was focused on fleet defense, with the air superiority mission (as defined by the USAF) being a distant second. In case of war the job was to protect the fleet. The threat was bombers carrying missiles and the plane was optimized to do that job. It was a big, twin engined beast with great range, a two man crew, huge radar, massive missile load, fast and it flew high.

The F-35, Super Hornet, and Hornet just don't compare. That doesn't make them bad planes (well, not exactly, the F-35 sucks donkey dick) it just means that if the Navy and Pentagon are really serious about gearing up for a battle against a near peer threat then it needs to rethink its drink when it comes to the planes its putting on its deck.

The emphasis on land attack has destroyed Navy Aviation and taken its eyes off the prize. In actuality it needs a replacement F-14. It needs a big, long ranged fleet defense fighter that can meet the J-20 or any other airplane carrying anti-ship missiles at distance and shoot them down before they get within launch distance. At this time I personally estimate that to be at least 500 miles from the carrier (this is to allow for advances in anti-ship missile range) and a decent loiter time before it has to return. We're talking about a big airplane...probably as big as the A-5. As things stand now, the Navy will lose ships in the next sea battle. Its just not built like it was in the old days to deal with threats that have RE-emerged.

[t43562]

a1bill, I hope you will accept my apology for my recent comment. For one thing it was not written well and became harsher than I meant it to be and for another thing although I behave badly in the heat of the moment, I do not overall wish any harm to be done and would regret it if there was.

[a1bill]

a1bill, I hope you will accept my apology for my recent comment. For one thing it was not written well and became harsher than I meant it to be and for another thing although I behave badly in the heat of the moment, I do not overall wish any harm to be done and would regret it if there was.

Relax, It really isn't necessary and in fact I would have to go back to read what was said. This is the internet, a safe place to get out frustration from your day to day life. The cat isn't kicked across the room and the kids yelled at....everyone's ok ;)

If I couldn't go too far sometimes, I would cancel my ISP as a waste of money :ok:

why don't you go back and delete the posts and I'll delete any replys..including this one...it never happened

[Royalistflyer]

"The emphasis on land attack has destroyed Navy Aviation and taken its eyes off the prize. In actuality it needs a replacement F-14. It needs a big, long ranged fleet defense fighter that can meet the J-20 or any other airplane carrying anti-ship missiles at distance and shoot them down before they get within launch distance. At this time I personally estimate that to be at least 500 miles from the carrier (this is to allow for advances in anti-ship missile range) and a decent loiter time before it has to return. We're talking about a big airplane...probably as big as the A-5. As things stand now, the Navy will lose ships in the next sea battle. Its just not built like it was in the old days to deal with threats that have RE-emerged."


If this is true of USN carriers, perhaps someone would explain to me (since I am non-RN) why it isn't true of RN carriers. If it is true of RN carriers, then it seems they have no defence against such attack scenarios. While we probably won't be head to head with Russia or China, apart from submarine attack, what other attack scenarios can we envisage that require a fleet defence fighter. Are we relying entirely upon anti-aircraft support ships to defend our carriers and is that a good idea for our navy? Can we envisage within the life span of our carriers someone like Iran or Turkey developing an airborne attack aircraft with missiles which might pose a threat within our area of interest?

[Lonewolf_50]

If this is true of USN carriers, perhaps someone would explain to me (since I am non-RN) why it isn't true of RN carriers. If it is true of RN carriers, then it seems they have no defence against such attack scenarios. While we probably won't be head to head with Russia or China, apart from submarine attack, what other attack scenarios can we envisage that require a fleet defence fighter. Are we relying entirely upon anti-aircraft support ships to defend our carriers and is that a good idea for our navy? Can we envisage within the life span of our carriers someone like Iran or Turkey developing an airborne attack aircraft with missiles which might pose a threat within our area of interest? In a fight of that scale, you won't be fighting alone. That political reality may inform some of the decisions on what to buy, and what not to buy, as budgets get tighter.

[KenV]

But back to the Bear bombers loaded with heavyweight, long range, anti-ship missiles. That was the responsibility of the F-14 and its AIM-54 (Phoenix) missiles. Way back then they realized the need to "shoot the archer" before he could launch his arrows.Several pages back on this very thread someone mentioned the lack of a fleet defense capability with the demise of the Phoenix. If I recall correctly, the author was slammed for it. Interesting that fleet defense has come up again.

That being said, I tend to agree with Lonewolf. The powers that be (whoever they may be) have decided that the probability of a confrontation with an adversary with long range anti-ship missiles is low enough that we no longer need airborne fleet defense. And/or the advent of Aegis and cooperative engagement has provided a more cost effective way to provide fleet defense, so Phoenix and a long range platform to carry it and its sensors is no longer needed. I'm personally uncomfortable with that decision, but I'm pretty old school and was raised thinking that a fleet defense missile and a fighter to carry it were essential to the carrier battle group. That thinking has clearly changed.

[Frostchamber]

However hostile one is to F35 (and clearly many on here are fairly hostile) I don't think it is true of fair to suggest that the aircraft will be entirely useless in the fleet air defence role that the RN will in part require of it. Engines has suggested above (if I have understood him correctly, and my apologies to him if I haven't) how its blend of capabilities should enable it to acquit that role capably and it would form part of layered defence.

Of course, taking on a tier 1 opponent single-handedly by means of a CVF parked off their coast may not be the best idea, but I don't think that's what we have in mind. Different considerations may apply to the US in that regard.

[Lonewolf_50]

Of course, taking on a tier 1 opponent single-handedly by means of a CVF parked off their coast may not be the best idea, but I don't think that's what we have in mind. Different considerations may apply to the US in that regard. Based on my training and education under the JPME system in the US, carriers do not deploy in a vacuum. They are part of a Joint Task force or a Joint Force of some sort in a serious operation, particularly on the scale you mention. A good theater commander will shape the battlefield using a variety of assets. (The other thing we got taught is that in nearly every case, we should expect to be part of a coalition. Not sure how much that has changed, but it seems to be the most common approach).

[ORAC]

I think the scenario generating the sucking of thumbs is the China Seas and problems around Japan, Korea, the Phillipines etc - and the growing Chinese naval and air presence. What allies do you expect and what air superiority, ignoring the entire idea of air supremacy.

[Lonewolf_50]

It was interesting to read this soft sell rebuttal of the axe grinding report published on warisboring (https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/update-norwegian-pilot-counters-leaked-f-35-dogfi-422552/). (Axe and ax grinding go well together, see V-22 for a number of years ...). This Norwegian Viper pilot has some disagreements with the pilot who made all of that splash with his criticism. While he agreed with the visibility concerns, he apparently tried to find a solution and did. Hmm, I wonder if being a grad of USNTPS might be a good thing. :ok:

It was interesting to see his comments about how the USAF is developing its "how to fight the F-35" process.

“The final ‘textbook’ for how to best employ the F-35 in visual combat – basic fighter maneouvres – has not been written yet,” Hanche says. “It is literally being written by my neighbour down here in Arizona!"

This does not surprise me. Dogfighting in the Phantom, as an art, developed over the years. Why would that not be true for the F-35?

[PhilipG]

It was interesting to see his comments about how the USAF is developing its "how to fight the F-35" process.



This does not surprise me. Dogfighting in the Phantom, as an art, developed over the years. Why would that not be true for the F-35?

Lonewolf what made me question some of what this Norwegian pilot said was uncertainty as to what sort of F35 he was flying, one with software release 2B or 3I I would suggest as to my knowledge and belief there are no development aircraft in Arizona, they are all I think at Edwards and Pax River.

Obviously the message from this Norwegian pilot is far more positive than the previous message, strangely the previous message was not rebutted by LM or the DoD, nor of course was it stated what type of helmet was being worn.

So we have a first story that a development aircraft, with I would have thought, no artificially low G limits applied by software, flying like a brick and a G limited aircraft outmaneuvering an F16.

Obviously the second story is much more hopeful, it just does not feel right that an experienced test pilot in an unrestricted plane was "outflown" by an F16 whilst a restricted line plane is far better than an F16. I am of course prepared to be proven wrong.

[Turbine D]

ORAC,
I think the scenario generating the sucking of thumbs is the China Seas and problems around Japan, Korea, the Phillipines etc - and the growing Chinese naval and air presence.

I would suspect of the three carrier task force threats, Air, Surface and Sub-surface, the emphasis may be shifting towards Sub-surface as being of the greatest concern. The defensive trend may be to employ more killer subs in carrier task forces to ward off missile carrying subs and slightly less emphasis on airborne defense.

Just some thoughts...

China Submarine Capabilities | NTI (http://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/china-submarine-capabilities/)

[Maus92]

I posted this over on another forum, with the usual ad hominem replies that you should expect over there:

An article in the Australian press about the F-35 contains a tidbit that supports the infamous LM test pilot F-16D v. F-35A eval, and disabuses the recent Norwegian pirep:

"[Former RAAF Wing Commander Chris] Mills says the JSF has a nickname among the top guns of the US Air Force: 'the little turd'."

Australia needs to 'show spine' over Joint Strike Fighter says expert - Background Briefing - ABC Radio National (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/backgroundbriefing/australia-needs-to-show-spine-over-joint-strike-fighter-expert/7218478)

The F-35 is not an air superiority type. It is an attack aircraft that should have a F/A designation. The Navy needs to wake up and get serious about the NGAD / F/A-XX replacement for the Super Hornet, this time optimized for fleet air defense - similar to the F-14D that had reliable / uprated engines and a decent secondary attack capability.

[ORAC]

Turbine, there are those who would differ.......

China will overtake US Air Force by 2030 (http://www.businessinsider.com/china-will-overtake-us-air-force-by-2030-2016-3?IR=T)

[MSOCS]

Oh God! Chris Mills....yawn.

Isn't he a contributor/member of the APA Kopp, Goon & Clown brigade? Famed for their sexed-up Pacific vision doom-mongering?

Maus, come on dude. You can find more credible debate out there than the usual protagonists, surely?!

[a1bill]

Lonewolf what made me question some of what this Norwegian pilot said was uncertainty as to what sort of F35 he was flying, one with software release 2B or 3I I would suggest as to my knowledge and belief there are no development aircraft in Arizona, they are all I think at Edwards and Pax River.

Obviously the message from this Norwegian pilot is far more positive than the previous message, strangely the previous message was not rebutted by LM or the DoD, nor of course was it stated what type of helmet was being worn.

So we have a first story that a development aircraft, with I would have thought, no artificially low G limits applied by software, flying like a brick and a G limited aircraft outmaneuvering an F16.

Obviously the second story is much more hopeful, it just does not feel right that an experienced test pilot in an unrestricted plane was "outflown" by an F16 whilst a restricted line plane is far better than an F16. I am of course prepared to be proven wrong.

It is now 12 months later than the first test pilot. the flight was about 1914- jan 15 when it was first reported.

did they take on board that the flight control laws needed tuning. what changed have they made to the flight control laws in the last 12 months?

the norg has the gen 3 helmet and we don't know what he was flying, as a test pilot, it may well have been the full envelope test planes if they are writing the book.

[a1bill]

Oh God! Chris Mills....yawn.

Isn't he a contributor/member of the APA Kopp, Goon & Clown brigade? Famed for their sexed-up Pacific vision doom-mongering?

Maus, come on dude. You can find more credible debate out there than the usual protagonists, surely?!

AFAIG, him and mills with a fellow simer stillion (who worked for RAND and the sim was unapproved) along with APA, were the guys who did the sim that had nothing to do with RAND pacific vision, but they tagged onto it and used the RAND logo, (stillion got sacked and told clown club to never contact him again) I'd have to look up what their power point was called.. RAND put out a statement saying it was rubbish and they didn't do it.

[Rhino power]

Whilst the primary focus of this article is about, Sen. McCain tearing Gen. Welsh a new a$$hole over the USAF's perpetual attempts to bin the A-10, there is a few interesting comments relating to the F-35. I hadn't really noticed up until I read this article but, under current schedules, the last F-35 is expected to be delivered in 2040!:eek:

McCain slams USAF chief Welsh on A-10 effectiveness (http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/2016/03/03/mccain-slams-usaf-chief-welsh--10-effectiveness/81267406/)

-RP

[a1bill]

Rhino, it is going to be the backbone of strike fighter aviation fro the western world. though I think the F-35 block 73g might be a bit different to the block 3F

[MSOCS]

Rhino,

This is why F-35 is getting such a hard time in the press, beyond what it deserves. Yes they screwed up the cost estimates, totally blew the schedule, and have had to renege slightly on promised performance metrics in certain corners. That is something nobody will argue against. However, it's gone over the top with such articles because......

This platform could very well push Boeing out of the tactical fighter market for good. If that was the case, and I liked Boeing products, I'd be shouting about how much of 'a little turd' it was, using emotive language, coming on forums and linking negative articles from authors with a track record of biased writing.

Dolby's article is legit, and so is he. He is well respected and with 2000+ hrs in the seat he knows his craft. One hopes that people now realise that not everything reported in the press about the negative aspects of the aircraft is true or in the right context. Like someone said a while back on this forum...sometimes pilots are frustrated with how slowly flight or control law clearances are coming through, so they shout about it and that leaks out in the wrong context, which the hate camp love!

[glad rag]

and have had to renege slightly on promised performance metrics in certain corners.

List them one by one and we will debate just what "renege" entails.

Then again the list would probably screw the pprune server....

Here's one for you to start with..

Why did LM promise a specific side LO performance only to screw that up then they eventually added the weapon bays, it's not like they sort of forget about them, was it??

[MSOCS]

glad rag, that last paragraph tells me you have no idea what you're on about.

Sorry mate.

[Maus92]

MSCOS says: "Oh God! Chris Mills....yawn.

Isn't he a contributor/member of the APA Kopp, Goon & Clown brigade? Famed for their sexed-up Pacific vision doom-mongering?

Maus, come on dude. You can find more credible debate out there than the usual protagonists, surely?!"

The question is do some USAF "Top Guns" actually call the aircraft "The little turd?" Can you refute that? If it is not factual, I'd like to know.

[Tourist]

glad rag, that last paragraph tells me you have no idea what you're on about.

Sorry mate.

That's not exactly helpful as a contribution to the discussion, is it?

Why not explain why he is wrong and back it up with references?

[Maus92]

One of the interesting things that the Navy did this week was to place 14 additional Super Hornets on its unfunded priorities list, along with two F-35Cs. The F-35C is supposed to replace legacy Hornets (they are wearing out faster than anticipated causing a Strike Fighter shortage,) yet the Navy is choosing to purchase Super Hornets over F-35C. It seems like the perfect justification to order additional F-35s when the DoD/OSD is desperate to pump up the F-35 order book. Certainly the Navy (and others) are concerned about losing industrial base, but the department is on record claiming that this does not drive its acquisition strategy. Perhaps it is the cost differential between the F-35C and the Super Hornet: ~135M (+ concurrency costs) vs. ~85M. Or maybe the F-35C just isn't ready for service - it will not be able to employ the breadth of weaponry that the Super Hornet can until later blocks due in the 2020s - which is my personal opinion, and supported by statements by from naval aviation leadership. How many forward sensor nodes do you need?

[MSOCS]

Tourist.

How about glad rag actually explains his paragraph. I'd consider myself reasonably perceptive. That last paragraph of his doesn't actually make any sense. Something about a side LO profile being affected by weapon bays? WTF?!

If the claim had any scientific background behind it, or if the claim has been raised by a credible body, then fine. Link it and let's debate it.

As far as I'm concerned gr has made it up.

Prove me wrong. Please.

[Engines]

MSOCS, Glad,

Perhaps I can help here - perhaps not....

The JSF/F-35 design had weapons bays right from the start. (So did the Boeing design). There was a clear requirement for internal carriage of specified weapons in the JORD. To the best of my knowledge, they weren't 'eventually' added.

LM certainly had (and have) very good working knowledge of LO estimates - given that they would have factored in the effect of the weapons bays from day one, I'd consider it unlikely that these were the reasons for any failures to achieve signature targets.

However, I must add that all aspects of LO signature performance and some aspects of LO design were very much 'US Only' and I can only provide informed judgement here, not detailed knowledge of numbers.

Then again, I'd very very surprised if anyone posting here has a really detailed handle on what F-35 signature performance is against any requirements. Hope this helps a bit, though.

Best regards as ever to those making that LO stuff work in service,

Engines

[glad rag]

Actually my premise came from discussion in this very thread, Engines is partially correct in his statement apart from the fact the original bays were designed around a bag of sugar...
M-whatever- you'll have to look back quite a bit.

Oh my moniker came from an incident when serving on the RAF's finest fighter Squadron when a engineering numpty ie SEgO decided to prove a point on a det only to find my glad rag was actually stitched via the hip slit pocket to my denims...

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

Original post by a1bill: well the rumor I heard was that sweetman is on the payroll of boeing and saab. doing fluff pieces and slagging off other makers. let us hope it is wrong. though it does make me wonder.

That's defamatory a1bill, and repeating someone else's libel or slander is no defence in court. And in case you're wondering, your PPRuNe moniker doesn't offer you the anonymity you might think it does.

I remember the accusations and defamation against you Ken. It was horrendous from several on here, including LO. I don't know why sweetman deserves better treatment than you did, but he seems to be the golden child to some here.

An internet moniker (Ken V, or whoever) has no reputation to protect and so cannot be defamed. A professional, long standing, and much respected aerospace journalist however does have a reputation and can be defamed.


This is just laughable melmoth. Swee...err...LO...err whatever he goes by has never been one to shy away from calling people a "Shill" for LM, JPO or whomever else he disagreed with that day. If he wants to chuck it around, he needs to be adult enough to take it!


Interestingly, I note he hasn't been around lately...I wonder if the rumours are true!?

[a1bill]

You mean like this one. The one he railed against for years?
"So now he is perhaps a lying, test-pilot-bribing, self-interested shill of the evil, anti-European, 'Merican military industrial complex. A company man that can't be trusted with anything he says..? "

he said he finishes up with AW on the 18th of this month, is that 2 weeks notice?
The trouble with the basement dwellers - General F-35 Forum (http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=25623&start=1935)

[t43562]

This is just laughable melmoth. Swee...err...LO...err whatever he goes by has never been one to shy away from calling people a "Shill" for LM, JPO or whomever else he disagreed with that day. If he wants to chuck it around, he needs to be adult enough to take it!


Interestingly, I note he hasn't been around lately...I wonder if the rumours are true!?

It doesn't matter to him what we say here - it's just that it doesn't make a good argument. If people on this forum throw around that accusation then it could also be thrown back at them "if they are adult enough" and then where do we end up? No further forward, I think.

[MSOCS]

Glad Rag. I'll make it easy for you to understand. The LO requirements were set at the beginning, along with a requirement for internal weapon bays. The size of those weapon bays are limited by design; more so in the B due to Lift Fan dimensions and the poor management of weight growth in around 2005 when the STOVL Weight Attack Team were formed to un-fudge the situation.

My point is this: the side LO trade you speak of is a nonsense and a totally irrelevant/weak claim against the F-35's design. Start with the premise that you have to have internal bays to keep the overall signature down, and read up on the physics of stealth. Then re-evaluate your paragraph.

Engines isn't partially right. He's completely right IMHO

[Engines]

MOSOCS, Glad,

Again, just trying to help - here's some detail on the weapons bay development.

The JORD requirement for weapons bays had a very significant impact on the JSF designs. In any high speed combat aircraft, internal volume is at a premium, and having to include the volume of two bays really drives the design in many ways.

When the modelling was being done by the DoD JSF Team to support JORD development, it became clear that the STOVL variant would face even greater pressure on internal volume, due to the need for the lift fan and other lift system components. As a result, the JORD's internal carriage requirement for the STOVL was set at two 1000 pound JDAMS and two AIM-120. (Not quite a bag of sugar). The A and C retained the 'two by 2000 pounders and two AIM-120' requirement.

Early in the design process, LM's weight and volume estimation tools were very poorly suited to the F-35 (they were derived from experience on F-16, where all stores are carried externally). Reliance on these led to overoptimistic weight forecasts and in turn led LM to (foolishly in my view) adopt what they called the 'common weapons bay', which would allow the F-35B to take a 2000 pound weapon with a change of doors, as well as reducing the differences between the B and the other two variants.'Commonality' of production was a big driver at that stage (around 2001/2). Notably, the JORD was not changed.

Unfortunately, the F-35 with the common weapons bays was an unachievable design. LM could not get the centre/aft fuselage internal layout to work, and badly designed load paths generated even more weight. It may interest some people reading this to note that while the STOVL variant suffered first, weight problems were very nearly as bad for the A and the C. Despite repeated warnings (mainly from the USN's highly experienced weight estimation team within Navair) LM kept going with the design until late 2003/early 2004 when the US Government effectively pulled the plug on them and directed them to redesign the aircraft to get weight back to a sensible level.

The F-35B bays were redesigned to what was called the 'spec compliant' configuration, built around the (still extant) JORD requirement, and the whole centre/aft fuselage was 'restacked' to get items in the right place at the right weight.

Hope all this stuff is of some interest - as ever, happy to respond to PMs if that would help.

Best regards as ever to all those trying to get all the bits in and working

Engines

[artee]

For a bit of light relief - from The Guardian Australia:

What are these so-called minor technical issues with this extremely cool looking F-35 jet? | First Dog on the Moon | Opinion | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2016/mar/07/what-are-these-so-called-minor-technical-issues-with-this-extremely-cool-looking-jet)

:E

[Lonewolf_50]

For more amusement, go back and read the first five pages of this thread and see posts like this one. (http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/424953-f-35-cancelled-then-what-4.html#post6010926)


As noted on another thread: For the time being the UK plan has to say F-35B, because the official US plan is that there will be no other CV jet in production after 2015, and the Super Hornet starts to retire in 2030. Super Hornet is alive and well, and remains in production. The 2030 retire date is probably good, though, at least in USN Air Order of Battle.

Or you get foolish statements like this.
Now, it is becoming legitimate and almost respectable to start asking that old dodgy question - "Why does the Navy's army need its own air force?" - and if the answer is "it's a nice idea but it adds only xx per cent to the capability of a joint force" then Marine TacAir goes, and if that happens the Navy will scrap the C in a picosecond. Wrong all the way around, still, five and a half years later.

[Radix]

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

[sandiego89]

One of the interesting things that the Navy did this week was to place 14 additional Super Hornets on its unfunded priorities list, along with two F-35Cs. The F-35C is supposed to replace legacy Hornets (they are wearing out faster than anticipated causing a Strike Fighter shortage,) yet the Navy is choosing to purchase Super Hornets over F-35C. It seems like the perfect justification to order additional F-35s when the DoD/OSD is desperate to pump up the F-35 order book. Certainly the Navy (and others) are concerned about losing industrial base, but the department is on record claiming that this does not drive its acquisition strategy. Perhaps it is the cost differential between the F-35C and the Super Hornet: ~135M (+ concurrency costs) vs. ~85M. Or maybe the F-35C just isn't ready for service - it will not be able to employ the breadth of weaponry that the Super Hornet can until later blocks due in the 2020s - which is my personal opinion, and supported by statements by from naval aviation leadership. How many forward sensor nodes do you need?

Well did the "Navy" really ask for more Super Hornets- or did congress? The unfunded priorites list likely involves lots of politics, and sure it might be the services list, but congressional staffer likely wrote it up. I wonder who could be involved? (sarcasm on)...wait for it.... ahh here it is.... the district that represents St. Louis- they just so happen to build Super Hornets there....and wait for it.....a congressman from Illinois. Now what company might have a big footprint in Chicago??? From here:

Lawmakers: Give US Navy More F/A-18s (http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2016/03/01/lawmakers-give-navy-more-f-18s/81161908/)

"...Citing overtaxed naval aviation assets, Rep. Ann Wagner, R-Mo., and Rep. Mike Bost, R-Ill., asked the House Armed Services Committee to consider adding the aircraft through the 2017 defense policy bill expected to be drafted over the coming weeks. The chief of naval operations, Wagner said, will place the 12 aircraft on the service's unfunded requirement list.
“There is still a potential gap this year,” said Wagner, whose district is near where Boeing assembles the aircraft in St. Louis.
“Given the critical capability that the Super Hornet provides for ongoing wartime operations, any shortfall is dangerous to the Navy’s ability to project force throughout the world,” Wagner said. “This unfunded requirement request helps mitigate that shortfall, anticipating the Navy will follow through on its promise to add aircraft in the next year’s budget deliberations.”
Bost, whose district borders St. Louis, called the procurement of added Super Hornets, “critical to meeting the anticipated needs of the United States Navy and to keeping the production lines open as the United States prepares anticipated aircraft sales to allied nations.”

So perhaps this is not really about the F-35- it is about the pork going to congressional districts- and this is part of why the US has a huge spending problem. The "Navy" is being told what they want and get. :yuk:

[Maus92]

@sandiego:

The unfunded priorities list is formulated by the services. The representatives in this case are urging that the request be considered in the upcoming budget process. There is a lot of "crosstalk" between the services and Congress about what goes on the list, and whether or not it is likely to be supported by lawmakers. So it's natural that the representatives from Illinois (Boeing HQ) and Missouri (F/A-18 plant) would be all about the request, aimed at their constituencies back home. There is also pressure from OSD about what should and should not be on the list (and whether it should exist at all,) but the purpose of the exercise is to bypass DoD/OSD politics and speak directly to Congress.

What not should be lost in attempting to discredit the request is that it is the Navy's number one item - the highest priority - on the list.

[sandiego89]

Yes Maus I understand it. The services all have wish lists, my pessimistic side thinks the "crosstalk" is much more involved and uglier than we would like to think. The service is put in a pickle- they don't want to say no to powerfull congressional input, especially when they know there is huge congressional support for something.

The real bad deal is when congress funds stuff to keep production going of something the service does not really want or fund the manufacturing but not fund the billets, fuel, spares and mission equipment to keep the items going.

[sandiego89]

Sorry if old news (last month) but a few of the releases from the official JSF source show the hours really building fast:

http://www.jsf.mil/news/docs/20160210_Hours.pdf

A few things stuck out:
155 jets delivered.
12 flying locations.
Lt. Col. Hayden the first to get 500 hours on type.
F-35 fleet passed 50,000 hours in February. It took 6+ years to pass 25,000 hours, but only 14 months to get the second 25,000 hours.

Yes I understand the cost and problems, the inertia just stood out to me.

[ORAC]

And not one of them Operational, testing years from completion, and every single one of them requiring extensive modification to reach a still undefined and uncosted final configuration.

Way to go........

[Eclectic]

Russians have a huge dig: Is This Thing On? Pentagon?s Trillion Dollar Warplane?s Radar Doesn?t Work (http://sputniknews.com/us/20160308/1035977156/fighter-jet-radar-problems.html?utm_content=bufferbeeb2m_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer)

Which makes me think that the F35 must be better than the pessimists say.

[MSOCS]

Or.... the reality is that the money will keep flowing to make it work and more and more jets will keep rolling off the line. Every jet that does roll off the line makes the F-35 Program stronger and harder to cancel (which answers the thread postulation btw!). Modification is more extensive on earlier frames because there's more to do. Cut-ins for such Mods are already baked into future LRIPs. The Mod program is therefore actually improving with time, not getting worse.

Testing will never be complete due to the extensive upgrade Program through-life.

I'd let the Services define their Operational criteria and assess it. Armchair enthusiasts need not be worried.

[Courtney Mil]

MSOCS,

I agree with pretty much everything you just wrote. Good logic.

However,

Testing will never be complete due to the extensive upgrade Program through-life.


is not a great argument about the current state of op test and evaluation because it can (and should) be said about about any modern programme. The point for F-35 is simply that we can't do any op testing because we don't have the software yet. There is no shame in that, but it will continue to be the major factor in determining true op capability. We have no measures whatsoever of what that might be - simulation included.

Claims on both sides of the argument are worthless until we reach the appropriate phase in the programme, although we can make some educated guesses about some of the strengths.

[Channel 2]

Russians have a huge dig: Is This Thing On? Pentagon?s Trillion Dollar Warplane?s Radar Doesn?t Work (http://sputniknews.com/us/20160308/1035977156/fighter-jet-radar-problems.html?utm_content=bufferbeeb2m_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer)

Which makes me think that the F35 must be better than the pessimists say.
Unfortunately, “the Russians” merely picked up this article from Jane’s 360.

F-35 mission software stability poses greatest risk to USAF IOC F-35 mission software stability poses greatest risk to USAF IOC | IHS Jane's 360 (http://www.janes.com/article/58561/f-35-mission-software-stability-poses-greatest-risk-to-usaf-ioc)

[Channel 2]

I’m still trying to comprehend the issues contained in this 447-page thread. I'm looking for some clarity. Without resorting to the ad hominem and other logical fallacies, (e.g., red herring, non-sequitur, bandwagoning, either-or, card-stacking, and false equivalence) that certain F-35 fanboy lists are famous for, is a single word of the report (below) not factual?

The F-35: Still Failing to Impress (http://www.pogo.org/straus/issues/weapons/2016/the-f-35-still-failing-to-impress.html)

How about this easier to read article?

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Is Still a Huge Mess | War Is Boring (http://warisboring.com/articles/the-f-35-joint-strike-fighter-is-still-a-huge-mess/)

If either of these items are not factual, without using the above said logical fallacies, how are they not factual?

In reality, haven’t I proposed an impossible task? After all, the F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) has already confessed that, “the DOT&E report is factually accurate.”

Just trying to find some bedrock to begin understanding this issue.

[Maus92]

"Tests of the F-35’s ability to fire and drop the majority of its planned weapons in a combat-realistic operating environment won’t actually begin until the Block 3F configuration in 2021. Accomplishing those will require a total of 50 test events."

This short passage (and the accompanying chart in the article) is why the USN wants more Super Hornets now. The F-35 is limited to what it can bring to the party in the next 6-7 years in terms of weapons - particularly AGM/ASuW missiles - which explains why the Navy talks about the F-35C acting as an armed scout / forward sensor node. That and the fact you can almost buy two Super hornets for the cost of one F-35C.

[melmothtw]

That and the fact you can almost buy two Super hornets for the cost of one F-35C.

Not sure that's correct, now that the multi-year buys for the Super Hornet have ended. The latest request for the additional platforms gives them a unit cost of close to $100 million, which is in the same ballpark as the F-35 currently is.

The F-35 cost will come down significantly once multi-year buys for that platform begin.

[ORAC]

For those of you who hold no truck with Sweetman - read no further......

Opinion: Timeless Insight Into Why Military Programs Go Wrong (http://aviationweek.com/defense/opinion-timeless-insight-why-military-programs-go-wrong)

The history of defense program failures was foretold in 1953
Mar 11, 2016 - Bill Sweetman

The best 4,000 words you’ll ever read about 21st-century defense procurement were written more than 60 years ago by a former Royal Air Force radar boffin, Arthur C. Clarke, who would go on to become a lauded science-fiction luminary.

“Superiority” (http://www.mayofamily.com/RLM/txt_Clarke_Superiority.html) was published in Clarke’s 1953 story collection, Expedition to Earth. The setting is familiar, because it’s the backdrop for the Star Trek and Star Wars franchises: civilizations that have developed interstellar travel but fight like battleship navies at close range. The real war is between the military commanders (including the narrator) and a young and inventive scientist who likes to create superweapons.

In previous superweapon fiction, the weapons worked. The office clerks manning H.G. Wells’s “land ironclads” take out their battle-hardened infantry opponents one by one, with guns that closely resemble the remote-controlled weapon systems on modern armored vehicles.

In Clarke’s universe, it all goes horribly wrong, in ways that match historical experience with spooky exactitude. “A revolution in warfare may soon be upon us,” the scientist tells the general staff at his first meeting. The adversary has matched today’s technology; the research and development organization has not invested in radical new weapons. “It is fortunate for us that our opponents have been no wiser,” the scientist warns. “We cannot assume that this will always be so.”

I suspect that everyone in the defense industry today has heard similar words, whether about the “revolution in military affairs,” “transformation” or even “Third Offset.” Note, too, how the scientist uses the fact that the enemy is sticking with existing technology to support his case.

The first new weapon, the Sphere of Annihilation, “produced complete disintegration of matter over a radius of several hundred meters.” Its main drawback: It required a bigger torpedo that could only be carried on larger ships. The production of existing torpedoes had to stop, but this was worthwhile: “It seemed to us that all our existing weapons had become obsolete overnight,” the narrator says.

But by the time the new weapon is ready, the enemy (having not read the scientist’s memo) has been churning out old-technology (fourth-generation?) ships, has launched offensives while the defender’s ships are low on torpedoes and has an advantage in numbers that blunts the superweapon’s impact.

This is a good time to recall that the Pentagon’s effort to replace thousands of fighters, bombers, cruise missiles and helicopters with stealthy vehicles went into high gear 30 years ago and that the average age of the U.S. fighter force has never been greater.

Next, the scientist offers the disappointed commanders what today’s salesmen would call a force multiplier. “What did it matter, he said, if the enemy had twice as many ships as we—if the efficiency of ours could be doubled or even trebled?” The key was a powerful computer, the Battle Analyzer, which turns out to be decisive—at least in modeling and simulation. “After we had run through several very complex dummy battles, we were convinced.”

The problem is the human factor. It proves impossible to train enough technicians to maintain the complex machine, with almost a million vacuum tubes. The Analyzer becomes a classic low-density, high-demand asset and a single point of failure, and the enemy responds by targeting it.

What is the primary target set for the Chengdu J-20 fighter, aside from small fleets of RC-135 Rivet Joint and E-3 Sentry surveillance aircraft?

The enemy has been continuing to out-produce the narrator’s side and is winning on all fronts. But “we could not now turn back—the search for an irresistible weapon must go on.” The final new weapon is a form of stealth, a space-distorting “exponential field” that allows a ship to approach the enemy unseen and appear in their midst on demand. In the rush to deploy it, snags in operational testing—“a whole flock of minor technical troubles in various pieces of equipment, notably the communications circuits”—are dismissed as trivial.

Apparently, Clarke’s future world has taken the advice of its industry-paid consultants and dispensed with an independent director of test and evaluation.

By the time it is found that the field leaves minute, permanent distortions throughout the ship that become worse every time it is used, to the point where not even the nuts and bolts are interchangeable, it’s too late. Defeat “by the inferior science of our enemies” is inevitable.

Is “Superiority” a parable? Clarke would have known very well how the U.S. 8th Air Force had arrived in Britain in 1942 and how its leaders planned to win the war with precision bombing, thanks to a specific, highly secret weapon-aiming system. It might be a coincidence that Clarke’s arrogant scientist is named Professor-General Norden, but I doubt it.

[Lonewolf_50]

Channel: looks to me like you're trolling.
The title of this thread is "F-35 cancelled, then what."
It's about five and a half years since its inception, and the F-35 isn't cancelled. (For better and for worse).

The program's core problem is rooted in how the DoD has tried to apply the 1986 Goldwaters Nichols act and an imperative to do things more jointly (with the belief that this will save money -- in some cases, it does).
As you can see, trying to create a high performance aircraft that can do every thing isn't saving much money. Nor is it necessarily giving the three services what they need in a timely fashion. But because a lot of other options have long since been foreclosed, it's the girl the services will bring to a lot of future dances. Sadly, she is not the homecoming queen.

I have a suggestion. Start a new thread. Call it "F-35 not cancelled: now what?"

This thread is, as you note, 447 pages long. Oddly enough, AF 447 is one of the first topics on PPRuNe that really got my interest, and it was about a disaster, a horrific wreck.

Maybe this thread needs to end at 447, because as a thread it's become a train wreck.

By the way, some of you may remember an aircraft called the Hornet. When it came out, to replace the Phantom and the A-7, the Effin A Teen got substantial criticism and had some problems. The Pentagon Paradox was written as the usual blistering critique on the program (which had its share of FUBAR ). Here we are, 30+ years later, and people love the Hornet. Oh, wait, when the E/F was being bandied about, the "it's not really an F-18, this is a scam" arguments flew about. I remember them well. Here we are 20 years later, and people love the Super Hornet.

We've Seen This Movie Before!

[Courtney Mil]

Good answer, LoneWolf.

[Turbine D]

LoneWolf,

I second CM's response! :ok:
Relative to a new thread title: "F-35 not cancelled: now what?"
The answer is we are just going to keep rolling along, it's too late to go any other way and we will somehow live with whatever it turns out to be. Now we do need a replacement for the F-22 and certainly more of them than the limited edition F-22s we have.

I too became highly interested in AF447 and joined PPRuNe because of it.

[ORAC]

It should be pointed out that the Super Hornet - a substantially different aircraft - was developed at great expense because, despite all the warnings, the Hornet was FUBAR in terms of the required range/payload.

Which has an ominous ring to it.......

Super Lightning anyone??????

[Maus92]

Not sure that's correct, now that the multi-year buys for the Super Hornet have ended. The latest request for the additional platforms gives them a unit cost of close to $100 million, which is in the same ballpark as the F-35 currently is.

The F-35 cost will come down significantly once multi-year buys for that platform begin.

From the Navy FY17PB (based on buying 2 -18E/F and 4 -35C):

Flyaway Unit Cost FY17

-18E/F: 77,791,000
-35C: 166,829,500

2.1x more expensive than Super Hornet

Gross Procurement Unit Cost FY17

-18E/F 92,456,000
-35C: 234,820,000

2.5x more expensive than Super Hornet.

The gross numbers in the unfunded priorities lists are just that: things are included and left out, and are rationalized later. The Super Hornet numbers from the FY17PB are skewed higher by having no advance procurement "discounts" or MYP in place. They are also higher than in past years due to adjustments wrt Growler airframes. But I would expect about 10% less mainly because that bring the amounts in line with costs in FY16 when only five E/Fs were authorized.

But the important point is the -35C will cost significantly more for a less capable aircraft in terms of weapons carriage than the Super Hornet (and legacy Hornets) for years to come.

[melmothtw]

The Super Hornet numbers from the FY17PB are skewed higher by having no advance procurement "discounts" or MYP in place.

Yes, that's what I said.

But the important point is the -35C will be less capable in terms of weapons carriage than the Super Hornet for years to come.

Which is presumably why the Super Hornet will remain in fleet service for years to come.

[ORAC]

F35C is not a Super Hornet replacement - that will be the F/A -XXX. The F35C is only replacing the F-18A/B Classic.

The additional Super Hornets are being bought to replace F-18A/Bs which are wearing out as the F-35C slips into the distance. The new Super Hornets will remain in service for many years, every Sqn which transitions to the F-18E/F/G is one that will not transition to the F-35C which will be bought in lower numbers to fit within the remaining cash pile.

As the Sec Def fo Defense stated, there will be no additional funding.

[ORAC]

Makes you wonder what's going on in the black program world......

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-wants-on-time-f-x-not-more-f-22s-422950/

".........The service’s deputy chief of staff for strategic plans and requirements said as much during a congressional hearing on 8 March, suggesting that fighter jet manufacturers like Boeing, Northrop Grumman or Lockheed Martin may decide to offer modifications to existing technologies and platforms in the next F-X competition.

“Because we want to do it faster and don’t want to do another 20-year development programme for a whole host of reasons, we’ll try and go with technology that are at a high readiness level now with manufacturing capabilities that are at a high readiness level now,” Lt Gen James Holmes tells a Senate Armed Services subcommittee panel in response to questions about restarting F-22 production. “I think it’s completely possible as we get the requirements that there may be competitors that bid on modification of an existing technology or platform like the F-22 and the F-35.”............

Holmes says pressing forward with the air force’s Next-Generation Air Dominance programme is the better way to make up for lower-than-planned fifth-generation fighter capacity, but cannot be a technologically exotic fighter jet that takes two or three decades to develop.

“They cost too much, they take too long, they make you drive for technology that’s so far into the future that it’s really hard to achieve and by the time you spend 30 years achieving it, it may not be exactly what you want,” he explains after the hearing. “We’re trying to move to a world where we go forward with new airplanes that take advantage of technology that’s ready to manufacture and we have the manufacturing skills to do it, and what could we produce in five years or 10 years instead of 30 years?

"It’s purely speculation on my part, but if I was going to ask a company to bid on what they could build for me in five years or 10 years, I’d expect that some of them would take advantage of work they’ve already done and base it on something they already have.”.......

[ORAC]

SNAFU, confirmation that slippages are adhering to normal schedule. ALIS and 3i - the fight to be last....

F-35 Logistics System May Not Be Ready for Air Force IOC Target (http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/2016/03/10/f-35-logistics-system-may-not-ready-air-force-ioc-target/81605826/)

WASHINGTON – The latest version of the F-35's logistics system may not be ready by the time the Air Force wants to declare its jets combat-ready this summer, according to the program manager.

The Air Force has a window between Aug. 1 and Dec. 31 to declare initial operational capability for its F-35As. Aug. 1 is the target date for Air Force IOC, and the joint program office has promised to meet that goal. But the JPO may be about 45 to 60 days behind schedule due to problems with the aircraft’s Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS), designed as a kind of internal diagnostic system that tracks the health of each part of each plane worldwide, according to JPO chief Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan.

“We’re going as fast as we can, industry is going as fast as they can, but we’re not 100 percent sure we can make up that time,” Bogdan said March 10 at the Credit Suisse/McAleese FY2017 Defense Programs Conference. “We will know as we get closer, this spring and this summer.”

Although the program office may not have the latest version of ALIS ready by Aug. 1, Bogdan does not see any risk to making the the Dec. 31 threshold date for IOC. Behind ALIS, the biggest risk to Air Force IOC is software development, Bogdan has said. The JPO is racing to finish the next increment of software, Block 3i, which the Air Force needs for IOC, as well as the final software block required for full war-fighting capability, Block 3f. The JPO is still seeing some problems with software “stability,” a measure of how well the sensors work, but has identified the root cause of the problem, he said. In essence, a timing misalignment of the software of the plane’s sensors and the software of its main computers are causing a “choking” effect, where the jet’s systems shut down and have to be rebooted.

The JPO and industry team will fly an improved software load for Block 3i, which they hope will fix the problem, on flight test planes in late March or early April, Bogdan said. This does not leave much margin in the schedule, as Bogdan has said the JPO has until May to fix or at least mitigate the stability problems before the Aug. 1 IOC date could be affected.

However, Bogdan expressed confidence that the JPO and manufacturer Lockheed Martin can get the software fixed in time. The hurdle to meeting the Aug. 1 IOC date is ALIS, not software, Bogdan stressed. “The long pole in the tent is not software, it’s ALIS, so they are both vying for who is going to be later,” Bogan said.

8knq1RLWEgo

[MSOCS]

So the USAF want to go IOC on 1 Aug, but it may end up being 1 Sep or 1 Oct?

Big news item!!

[ORAC]

F-35 Chief: Think Very, Very Hard Before Making Another Joint Fighter (http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2016/03/f-35-chief-think-very-very-hard-making-another-joint-fighter/126587/)

Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan has a bit of advice for Air Force and Navy leaders envisioning their next tactical aircraft.

Perhaps the only thing U.S. military leaders know about their next fighter jet is this: they want the program to go better than the F-35’s did.

The sixth-generation fighter effort is still in its infancy; the aircraft it produces may not fly for decades. The Pentagon hasn’t even decided whether to build separate planes for the Navy and Air Force. But the services’ leaders are already cooperating to figure out how the futuristic fighter will fit into the battlefield of the future — and how they can avoid another tactical aircraft program that winds up so late, over budget, and short of its goals.

Ask the F-35 program’s current director for advice, and you’ll get this gentle warning: joint programs are hard. “I’m not saying they’re bad. I’m not saying they’re good. I’m just saying they’re hard,” Air Force Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan said Thursday. “You ought to think really hard about what you really need out of the sixth-generation fighter and how much overlap is there between what the Navy and the Air Force really need.”

When the F-35 was conceived in the 1990s, the goal was to buy a common plane for the Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, and even America’s allies. The Air Force version would fly from traditional runways, the Navy version would operate from aircraft carriers, and the Marine version would be built to take off from short runways and land vertically. The goal was to have all three have 70 percent of their parts in common, which was meant to save billions of dollars in development and logistics costs. But engineering changes have produced three variants that have only 20 percent of their parts in common,

Bogdan said at a conference sponsored by McAleese and Associates and Credit Suisse. If Pentagon leaders do choose to build a multi-variant plane to serve multiple sets of requirements, he said, the services will have to embrace compromise to a greater degree than happened in the $400 billion F-35 program. “Man, is [compromise] a hard thing to do when you’re spending billions of dollars,” he said. “You want what you want, [but] hopefully get what you need.”...........

[MSOCS]

ORAC. We can only hope that the experiences of the F-35 Program are used to evolve the US acquisition system for future programs.

[glad rag]

We shall see once/if blondie gets into the oval office.....

[MSOCS]

Big wheel keeps on turning....

[ORAC]

ORAC. We can only hope that the experiences of the F-35 Program are used to evolve the US acquisition system for future programs. As I have said, and linked, previously - that's what they said after the F-111 program......

[SpazSinbad]

F-35B & F-35C NAS Patuxent River ITF 2015 Year in Review


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43KPkW3pTpA

[Lyneham Lad]

Okay - so that's that then. All is well in the F35 world and this thread can finally be closed...

[Courtney Mil]

Could have done with some balance in that video rather than just the bits that went well in 2015. What about telling us about the other bits that didn't go so well, the test points that have been removed from the programme and the good stuff they're going to be doing to make good all of that? Otherwise it's just another glossy brochure and what does that prove?

Ff8Eg-cjBLI

[Heathrow Harry]

Nothing - but that's what happens when the contractor captures the people who are tasked to make it work........ not much future for someone who reports it's a crock.......

[Tourist]

That's a pretty insulting insinuation...... Harry:=

[KenV]

Could have done with some balance in that video rather than just the bits that went well in 2015.Agreed. On the other hand this was a PR video about the Pax River test team, not the airplane. They were rightly thumping their chests and saying "See what we did?"

What about telling us about the other bits that didn't go so well, the test points that have been removed from the programme and the good stuff they're going to be doing to make good all of that?Good question. Maybe the answer is that the point of this video was not to report on the status of the airplane, but to do a little cheerleading for the test team testing the airplane. And given that the slightest negative reporting gets twisted into certain doom and gloom for the airplane, for its operators, and for the nation buying it, I can understand a certain amount of reluctance. (witness the post immediately following this one, which makes the claim that these Pax River test folks are......surprise, surprise........bought and paid for stooges of LM.) Nevertheless, the program has been remarkably open in publicly reporting negatives, in my opinion for more open than any other developmental program.

[KenV]

Nothing - but that's what happens when the contractor captures the people who are tasked to make it work........ not much future for someone who reports it's a crock....... Once again, the test folks are bought and paid for stooges of LM. Don't you guys ever get tired of trotting that out?

[sandiego89]

I agree that one can tout the good work of a certain team, like the Pax River test team in the linked puff piece, without covering the whole ups and downs of the program.


I certainly salute the smart and brave folks who do things first on a new platform, like dropping new ordinance, cats and traps, expanding the envelope, working on new maintenance procedures, flying very precise test parameters, night flights, landing on a ship, etc. etc. They don't write (or change) the specs, they don't design it or make it- they test stuff and do a great job- and they have not dropped one yet.....It's OK for them to roll out a video. Jeeez.

[Maus92]

One Australian think tank is floating the idea of reducing their F-35A acquisition, buying an equal number of Super Hornets, and waiting for the next (F-X, F/A-XX?) tactical aircraft generation:

F-35: keep calm but have a plan
15 Mar 2016|Andrew Davies and James Mugg\ ASPI The Strategist

"....For a couple of reasons, we decided not to enter the debate about the merits of the F-35 as a platform in our submission. First, and in common with the most vociferous critics of the aircraft, we don’t have the data required to do so. Second, and more important, there aren’t a lot of options in any case. It’s either the F-35, or something from an earlier generation of combat aircraft design—an unappealing option for an air force looking to recapitalise an ageing fleet of 1980s built Hornets....

....Having limited choices isn’t great, but it’s a direct consequence of Australia’s precipitous decision to go all-in for the F-35 back in 2002, shutting down a study into future air combat options that was in progress at the time. If it hadn’t been for then Defence Minister Brendan Nelson’s 2007 intervention—despite advice to the contrary from the RAAF (PDF, see p.71)—to buy an ‘interim air combat capability’ in the form of 24 F/A-18F Super Hornets, today’s RAAF’s air combat force would be much less capable, given that the F-111 was retired six years ago....

....So instead of an all-in approach on the F-35 (that ship sailed when the Super Hornets were ordered anyway), we wonder if there’s another answer that’s more ‘future proof’. A mix of 50 Super Hornets and 50 F-35s, with the Super Hornets to be replaced around 2030 by 50 of ‘whatever comes next’, might be worth contemplating. In any case, some contingency planning is in order."


F-35: keep calm but have a plan (http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/f-35-keep-calm-but-have-a-plan/)

[Lonewolf_50]

....So instead of an all-in approach on the F-35 (that ship sailed when the Super Hornets were ordered anyway), we wonder if there’s another answer that’s more ‘future proof’. A mix of 50 Super Hornets and 50 F-35s, with the Super Hornets to be replaced around 2030 by 50 of ‘whatever comes next’, might be worth contemplating. In any case, some contingency planning is in order."
F-35: keep calm but have a plan (http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/f-35-keep-calm-but-have-a-plan/)
This is one of the few concrete answers to the question asked in the title of this thread. The folks in Oz have an answer that looks to fit their situation.

[Heathrow Harry]

"Once again, the test folks are bought and paid for stooges of LM. Don't you guys ever get tired of trotting that out?"

Bill Gunston remarked more than once on the tendency of both Russian & US industry to put new aircraft that weren't fully developed or bug-free into the hands of the military and then use the "Wow this is an AWESOME aircraft" feedback to bulldoze ahead.................

[KenV]

Bill Gunston remarked more than once on the tendency of both Russian & US industry to put new aircraft that weren't fully developed or bug-free into the hands of the military and then use the "Wow this is an AWESOME aircraft" feedback to bulldoze ahead................. It seems to me that "into the hands of the military" and "into the hands of a combined test force" with very clearly and precisely defined test parameters are two very difference things.

And it seems to me that operational military pilots saying "Wow this is an AWESOME aircraft" and "the test folks are bought and paid for stooges of LM" are two very different things. And if there is no difference, then all the folks on this forum singing the praises of the Lightning, Phantom, Tornado, Typhoon, Harrier, etc etc are all bought and paid for stooges of their respective manufacturers. Surely not?!

You are welcome to disagree on all points.

[Bevo]

Well H. Harry there are different types of testing with different missions.

DoD employs three formal types of T&E (directed by statute) in the acquisition of systems administered by OSD: Developmental Test & Evaluation (DT&E), Operational Test & Evaluation (OT&E) and Live Fire Test and Evaluation (LFT&E). DT&E verifies that the system’s design is satisfactory and that all technical specifications and contract requirements have been met. Sometimes called Technical Testing, DT&E is sponsored by the program office and can be conducted by the government, by the contractor, or may be a mix of both. Most early DT&E in a program will likely be done at the contractor’s facilities under controlled, laboratory conditions. Later in the program DT&E is often conducted at government test facilities by government or combined government and contractor test teams. OT&E follows DT&E and validates that the system under test can effectively execute its mission in a realistic operational environment when operated by typical operators against representative threats. The difference between DT&E and OT&E is that DT&E verifies that the system is built correctly in accordance with the specification and contract, and OT&E validates that the system can successfully accomplish its mission is a realistic operational environment. LFT&E combines with both DT&E and OT&E to assess the vulnerability and/or lethality of a system before it is approved for full-rate production.

Hence the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) report contained a lot of not so flattering things to say about the F-35. I sure don't see much "bought and paid for" in that test report.

[KenV]

Hence the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) report contained a lot of not so flattering things to say about the F-35. And when that happens it is not because the DT&E folks are bought off stooges of the manufacturer. It happens because the contract requirements that the manufacturer designed and built the aircraft to were flawed and did not meet real world operational needs. If that is true of the F-35 (a big IF at this point), there's a lot of nations to blame for providing flawed requirements.

[Rhino power]

It happens because the contract requirements that the manufacturer designed and built the aircraft to were flawed and did not meet real world operational needs. If that is true of the F-35 (a big IF at this point), there's a lot of nations to blame for providing flawed requirements.

Ken, pardon my ignorance if I have misunderstood your quote but, are you actually saying that the reason the F-35 is so flawed, is actually down to the customer/'s who issued the contract and specs, rather than LM for failing to meet them, or saying they couldn't actually be met?

-RP

[ORAC]

DT&E+ Oat&E = Verification & Validation, the classic testing V.

Verification : Did we build what we contracted to build.

Validation: Did we build the right thing.......

[KenV]

Ken, pardon my ignorance if I have misunderstood your quote but, are you actually saying that the reason the F-35 is so flawed, is actually down to the customer/'s who issued the contract and specs, rather than LM for failing to meet them, or saying they couldn't actually be met?Is LM failing to meet the requirements? With very few exceptions, no. Have the requirements shifted nearly constantly? Yes. LM cannot change the requirements. The governments running the program can. And have.

And finally "so flawed?". What makes you believe it is "so flawed?"

[KenV]

T&E+ Oat&E = Verification & Validation, the classic testing V.
Verification : Did we build what we contracted to build.
Validation: Did we build the right thing....... You get absolutely no argument from me. However, allow me to add a bit.

Verification : Did we build what we contracted to build. ("we" is the contractor. In other words did the CONTRACTOR meet the stated requirements?)

Validation: Did we build the right thing....... ("we" is the government. In other words, did the GOVERNMENT (or in the case of the JSF, several GOVERNMENTS) set the right requirements?)

I believe LM is doing a very creditable job with the former.
According to post #8959 the governments did a lousy job with the latter. I'm not convinced that's really true.

[Rhino power]

Have the requirements shifted nearly constantly? Yes. LM cannot change the requirements. The governments running the program can. And have.

To the best of my (admittedly limited) knowledge, the F-35's final design and specs were laid down in the early 00's, what 'requirements' have 'The governments running the program' constantly changed? If anything, it seems some (performance) specs and capabilities have been revised downwards because it currently can't (possibly never?) meet them. And as to your question to why I think it's flawed, there are enough reports, media stories, official and otherwise to wrap that one up (DOT&E 2015 exec summary being just one), but let me turn the question around if you'll permit me. What aspects of the customer/'s contract/specs are flawed? And if they are flawed, why didn't or hasn't LM said so, either at the time they were set down and requested, or since?

-RP

[KenV]

And as to your question to why I think it's flawed, there are enough reports, media stories, official and otherwise to wrap that one up (DOT&E 2015 exec summary being just one)May I politely suggest that the above is self contradictory? The DOT&E report does not slam LM's failure to meet the requirements, it slams the governments' failure to make their requirements meet real world operational needs. Can you provide flight test data showing LM is failing to meet the customers' requirements?

What aspects of the customer/'s contract/specs are flawed? You'll have to ask the DOT&E director about that. He's making the claim, not me. And as I already said twice, I have my doubts about that.

And if they are flawed, why didn't or hasn't LM said so, either at the time they were set down and requested, or since?May I politely point out that the above statement is indicative of ignorance and/or naivete. A contractor's job is NOT to question a customer's requirements, but to design and build a product that meets those requirements.

Please allow me to provide several examples. When the customer wanted a mach 3 bomber, the contractor provided one. It was called the B-70. Other than the prototypes, none were built because the requirements were flawed, even though the airplane itself was brilliant. When the customer wanted a mach 3 interceptor, the contractor provided one. It was called the F-12. Again, other than the prototypes, none were built because the requirements were flawed, even though the airplane itself was brilliant. When the customer wanted a small, simple high speed interceptor, the contractor provided one. It was called the F-104. USAF bought only a few because, surprise, the requirements were flawed. The F-105 also brilliantly met its requirements, but as it turned out, the requirements were very flawed for the air war in Vietnam. The Lightning also brilliantly met its requirements for a high speed, high altitude, high climb rate interceptor. I'll let the reader decide if the requirements it was designed to in 1950 were flawed during the 60s and 70s. And this does not just apply to military aircraft. When the customers wanted a supersonic airliner the contractor produced one. The resulting aircraft was brilliant, but the requirement was flawed and so only very few were built. And so it goes.

[Rhino power]

Can you provide flight test data showing LM is failing to meet the customers' requirements?

You know very well I can't, neither can you or anybody else outside of the program, I made it quite clear my (admittedly limited) knowledge was based purely on open source information and assorted media reports.

A contractor's job is NOT to question a customer's requirements, but to design and build a product that meets those requirements.

Really? Under no circumstances should a contractor question a customer's requirements, even if some or even large parts of it, look to be unachievable?

The Lightning also brilliantly met its requirements for a high speed, high altitude, high climb rate interceptor. I'll let the reader decide if the requirements it was designed to in 1950 were flawed during the 60s and 70s

It met or surpassed the requirements it was required to in the 1950's, end of story, whether or not 20 years later the same requirements could at that time be considered flawed is irrelevant.

And again, I ask, what 'requirements' have 'The governments running the program' constantly changed?

-RP

[PhilipG]

KenV makes the point that certain older projects were curtailed/abandoned at prototype phase, for good reasons at the time.

The trouble with the F35 as I see it in this area is that as it is so complex that to be frank a fully functioning initial capability aircraft has yet to be built and or tested thus making an informed decision on the performance of the aircraft as specified not yet possible.

As yet, to my knowledge, no non test aircraft has flown with external stores, the software is not fully functional, i.e 3F is still in testing, the logistics / support system ALIS does not work as it should, making taking a view on maintenance costs difficult and there is also a requirement to respecify the alloys to be used in some structural components at least on the B.

Back in the day, when the broke UK could afford to develop 3 V bombers etc, the time from commissioning to prototype flight was so much shorter than it is today. Aircraft selection decisions are now far more complex and with far greater ramifications than in earlier times.

Let us hope that the F35 can be made to deliver on the promises that the some $50 billion development part of the project has / will deliver.

[Lonewolf_50]

Let us hope that the F35 can be made to deliver on the promises that the some $50 billion development part of the project has / will deliver. I'd like to make a point about the LO requirement. A variety of risk is taken on jointly by the contractor and the government when a new thing is being put together. In the case of the A-12, it ended in tears. There isn't an A-12. In the case of the F-35, there's a flyable aircraft but the question becomes "is it what the forces need?" Since it has to cover a number of mission areas, the answer is probably a mixed bag.


That last bit, "is it what the forces need?" has been a bugger for requirements writing against the forecasting ability balanced with risk and cost. Regardless of what the forces want or need, and here I only speak for the US forces, Congress typically redefines the requirement around a whole host of constraints. The one size fits all constraint is one such.


When you go back to the A/B/C issue, I remain unimpressed: the A isn't Joint. It can't land on a carrier. The program has had this problem for around 20 years, I'll leave the "do we really need a Harrier follow on" to some other thread. (My position has been for some time that we don't, but I realize some of my USMC friends would whack me for that opinion).


Ken's point on "ya get what ya ask for" is mostly true, with the caveat that during the development of a new system, some of the risks and design (we can get there!) predictions come true in forms different from expected.
The one that most surprised me was how long it took the tail hook issue to surface and then get resolved. It got resolved, but I doubt they expected it to be such a bugger initially.

[KenV]

You know very well I can't, neither can you or anybody else outside of the programI'm not talking about classified test data. I'm talking about open source test data that justifies your conclusion that the F-35 is "so flawed." The tail hook debacle was one. LM solved that. The engine turbine problem was another. P&W solved that. The helmet was another. VSI solved that. These are all reasons why a test program exists. What other tests has LM failed that make the airplane "so flawed."

Really? Under no circumstances should a contractor question a customer's requirements, even if some or even large parts of it, look to be unachievable?Almost none. At least none I can think of. And certainly "unachievable" is a miserable yard stick. Was a moon ship achievable in 1960 when JFK committed the US to building one? Was an 8 engine jet bomber achievable when USAF committed to building the B-52? Was a mach 3 bomber achievable when USAF committed to building the XB-70? Was a mach 3 ISR aircraft achievable when the CIA committed to the Oxcart project? Was a reusable space plane achievable when NASA committed to building the Shuttle? Was a single stage to orbit rocket achievable when NASA committed to building the Venture Star? Was a carrier based stealth attack aircraft achievable when USN committed to building the A-12? In the case of the 1st five they were all accomplished, but the B-70 was never put in production. In the case of the last two, neither were accomplished. The name of the game in aerospace is pushing the envelope and pushing the technology. Often it works. Sometimes it doesn't. Was it Boeing's, McDonnell Douglas's, Lockheed's job to question the wisdom of once again trying to make a one-size-fits all tactical aircraft after the numerous previous disasters trying to accomplish that? No. Their job was to do their best to accomplish what the customers (both US and non-US) insisted they needed. Now that it's built, is it the contractors' fault that the requirements (allegedly) don't meet the need? Nope.

It (the Lightning) met or surpassed the requirements it was required to in the 1950's, end of story.End of story? You wish!! And you just confirmed my point. Military aircraft fly for decades. If the requirements are very narrow and ambitious, brilliant designs like the Lightning and Starfighter are almost inevitable. But the requirements were flawed because the aircraft that resulted were point designs that could not evolve effectively with the threat. Is the contractor responsible for that? Nope. IF as you and others claim the F-35 is operationally defective, that's not the contractor's fault. It is the fault of the various governments that set those requirements. And in no way was it LM's job to question those requirements.

[glad rag]

Ken, could you provide a source for your engine and helmet "solutions" preferably from something related to planet earth....

[KenV]

When you go back to the A/B/C issue, I remain unimpressed: the A isn't Joint. It can't land on a carrier. True enough. But on the other hand no other aircraft, even aircraft that started out as USN aircraft like the A-1, F-4, and A-7 were "joint" by this definition. The USAF version of those USN aircraft could not land on a carrier either. Although technically, the B would be joint by this definition as it can land on a carrier. So while I agree with your point, I'm having trouble seeing its utility. Help me out here shipmate.

[KenV]

Ken, could you provide a source for your engine and helmet "solutions" preferably from something related to planet earth....

I'm VERY confident that the following links are Earth based.

F-35 Test Jets to Undergo ?Burn In? for F135 Engine Fix | Defense content from Aviation Week (http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-test-jets-undergo-burn-f135-engine-fix)

Lockheed Is Finally Getting The F-35's Amazing New Helmet | The Daily Caller (http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/25/lockheed-is-finally-getting-the-f-35s-amazing-new-helmet/)

[SpazSinbad]

A Future Little F/CMDR Air on CVF being interviewed as Exchange Hornet Pilot USN CVN:
RN LCDR Phillips Hornet Pilot Interview Mar 2016 USN Xchng
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7wDjfSqhVI

[glad rag]

Laughable.

Was directed at KenV's input but hey Spaz [nice to see you back btw, you'll get on just fine withA1_ Bill] since you jumped in there it would be churlish not to share.........

[APG63]

An interview with one of many exchange pilots. Not sure how relevant it is to the F-35 thread. RN and RAF pilots flying Harrier and the guys currently on F-35 would bring back equally useful craniums.

Have things got tough over in your preferred haunt, Spaz? I didn't think you liked us over here very much, judging by some of your posts.

[Mach Two]

Ah, the standard exchange party lines being trotted out. He'll be buying a few rounds at the Exchange Officers' Conference this year for that load of old tosh.

Very humorous.

Do we have to look forward to more daily doses of web clippings again?

[West Coast]

What do you expect him to say?

It may have been boilerplate, but he came across as genuine for the viewer which is the goal.

[Courtney Mil]

I thought he did OK too, but I didn't get the relevance either. I only watched it because I thought there might be something coming about F-35B on the new carriers.

During my time on exchange at Tyndall the local channel wanted to do something similar. Strangely, every foreign pilot on the base had sub envy disappeared. One was caught and did his (very similar) piece in front of the cameras, but was later saved by one of the Japanese student instructors managing to knock over a 900 foot TV antenna, so it never aired.

Interestingly, the exchange pilot with the Navy on F-14s then was and RAF QFI. Turns out the RAF can do deck landings too.

[Lonewolf_50]

True enough. But on the other hand no other aircraft, even aircraft that started out as USN aircraft like the A-1, F-4, and A-7 were "joint" by this definition. The USAF version of those USN aircraft could not land on a carrier either. Although technically, the B would be joint by this definition as it can land on a carrier. So while I agree with your point, I'm having trouble seeing its utility. Help me out here shipmate.
If it's going to actually be Joint, then it has to be able to land on a cv and an airfield. Hence: don't build the A. (And for air superiority, build more F-22's FFS).

[Courtney Mil]

And for air superiority, build more F-22's FFS

Hear, hear!

[KenV]

If it's going to actually be Joint, then it has to be able to land on a cv and an airfield. Hence: don't build the A. (And for air superiority, build more F-22's FFS). OK. So really only the B is Joint since it is the only one that can land on a CV, an LHA, a long runway, and a very short/no runway. And I totally agree with the F-22 point, but it would seem that ship has sailed and is not turning back. And no F-22s are Joint.

[Courtney Mil]

And no F-22s are JointI would hope not. Air Superiority is best left to the professionals. :E :cool:

[glad rag]

Wot Bodie and Doyle?

<gets coat>

[Lonewolf_50]

OK. So really only the B is JointNope. The B isn't even needed.

[Courtney Mil]

If the B hadn't existed, the U.K. would be installing catapults right about now.

[MACH2NUMBER]

KenV
As to your comments on the old Lightning, try telling the NATO nations who flew against it at low level in the late 60s and early 70s that it was badly designed for the job.
Just a humble thought from an ex Lightning, F15, F4 and F3 operator.

[peter we]

If the B hadn't existed, the U.K. would be installing catapults right about now

Nope, we would be discussing the prospect of operating Harriers from a Navantia designed ship for another 50 years.

[KenV]

As to your comments on the old Lightning, try telling the NATO nations who flew against it at low level in the late 60s and early 70s that it was badly designed for the job.I've clearly touched a nerve. That's good because maybe it will help to get people to think thinks through regarding the strident anti-F-35 orthodoxy.

You have misunderstood. I said the Lightning was a brilliant design. A brilliant point design, but brilliant nevertheless. IF it later failed to meet real world operational needs, that was not the fault of the designers and builders, but of the government folks who set down the requirements. The same is true of F-35. IF it fails to meet real world operational needs, that's not the fault of the designers and builders. It is the fault of the several governments who set down the requirements.

Look at the T-X program. Several contractors had existing off the shelf trainers available that would just need to have their systems tweaked to do the job. But USAF added a sustained G turn requirement that could not be met by those trainers. Is the requirement realistic? Is it necessary? Is it achievable? Who knows? But the bottom line is that it is a government imposed requirement and now the contractors have to start over with clean sheet designs. Is that smart? Is it cost effective? Who knows, but the bottom line is that if a contractor wants to be a player in this competition, they MUST comply.

[KenV]

Nope. The B isn't even needed. Good luck convincing our USMC brethren about that. They are the primary reason the B exists at all.

And BTW, if it turns out the Marines were wrong and a STOVL isn't needed after all, that's not LM's fault. The government required LM (and Boeing, and McDonnell Douglas) to design and build a STOVL version. And if it turns out that having both an A and C version is a bad idea (as has been suggested), that's also not LM's fault. The government required LM (and Boeing, and McDonnell Douglas) to design and build different USAF and USN versions.

By the same token, if it turns out that a carrier capable attack jet with a single very large engine is a bad idea, that's not the designer's fault either. The government required LM (and Boeing, and McDonnell Douglas) to design and build a single engine jet. Indeed, that's primarily why McDonnell Douglas's JSF proposal failed. MDC's USAF and USN versions were single engine but their Marine version had a second lift engine. All of MDC's versions were in many ways better than LM's (LM specifically called their design "conservative" in order to "reduce risk"), but because MDC's Marine version had that second engine, they were eliminated early on. So for those who insist a contractor should question a government requirement, think again. The contractor will be slapped down by the government at great expense to the contractor.

[Courtney Mil]

Good luck convincing our USMC brethren about that. They are the primary reason the B exists at all.

Probably the only reason. If they hadn't demanded it, it wouldn't have been conceived and no one else would have asked for it.

[t43562]

You have misunderstood. I said the Lightning was a brilliant design. A brilliant point design, but brilliant nevertheless. IF it later failed to meet real world operational needs, that was not the fault of the designers and builders, but of the government folks who set down the requirements. The same is true of F-35. IF it fails to meet real world operational needs, that's not the fault of the designers and builders. It is the fault of the several governments who set down the requirements. This sort of thing happens every day in the world outside aeroplanes - there's a sort of negative spiral between customers of a service and suppliers of it where the customers accept only the most optimistic of quotations based on the wishlist of today and there is no career future for anyone in a supplier who might want to point out the inadvisability of any part of the deal.

The customers are really to blame - they determine who gets the money and their greed prevents them from being sensible. On the other hand I never liked the people I've had to deal with in previous companies whose job it is to provoke that greed.

[sandiego89]

KenV.... IF it later failed to meet real world operational needs, that was not the fault of the designers and builders, but of the government folks who set down the requirements.....


I think the EE Lightning met the original requirements just fine, it just got surpassed by the passage of time, lack of upgrades and some inherit limitations. You can not blame the government folks who set down the original requirements if the aircraft is no longer first tier decades later.


Yes we can blame the requirements folks for a lot of things, especially if it leads to an unachievable or severely compromised design (and the F-35 may fit that) but operational needs do change over time.


And even a hint of criticizing the EE lightning on a forum with many UK folks is treading into dangerous waters :E I do see it is as the iconic RAF cold war jet with blistering power/speed, but with some significant con's as well.

[KenV]

I think the EE Lightning met the original requirements just fine...I'm much more optimistic. In my opinion the EE Lightning brilliantly met the "original requirements." It was, without doubt, a brilliant design. The requirements? Not so much. I'm also more optimistic about the F-35. I think it's meeting its requirements "just fine," and in many ways brilliantly. IF it turns out the F-35 does not meet real world operational requirements as many have suggested, that's the fault of the several governments who set down the requirements, and not LM

And even a hint of criticizing the EE lightning on a forum with many UK folks is treading into dangerous waters :E I do see it is as the iconic RAF cold war jet with blistering power/speed, but with some significant con's as well. Understood. That's why I listed one UK jet amongst a whole bunch of US jets that were "brilliant" yet in some ways "flawed". It was to get people to think without giving the impression that I was picking on the British. And predictably, not a single person batted an eye when all those US jets were described as brilliant yet flawed.

And about those "inherit limitations" and "con's" you mentioned? Were they the fault of the designer or of the requirements folks? I think it was the latter. Point designs are often brilliant. But they remain point designs that necessarily pay the bills by compromising in areas outside the narrow confines of the point requirements (like fuel load? engine access? no underwing pylons?). If the requirements are a little wrong (as they were for the F-12, B-70, F-104, F-105, F-111B) the result is a brilliant design with no future. If the requirements were a lot wrong (as they were for the F2Y Sea Dart, F-85 Goblin, FV-1 Pogo, Me-163 Komet and many more) the result is often a brilliant disaster. Of course there are also total disasters (like the Percival P.74?)

[Tourist]

Ken

I think it is a stretch to say of F35 "it is meeting it's requirements"

It may end up just great, but various of the requirements were a timescale, cost and capability. These have all been "massaged", and not in a positive direction..

[KenV]

It may end up just great, but various of the requirements were a timescale, cost and capability. These have all been "massaged", and not in a positive direction.. Indeed. But I believe a lot of the cost and schedule slippages were due to shifting government requirements. The government requirements were not stable for a long time.

[KenV]

Probably the only reason. If they hadn't demanded it, it wouldn't have been conceived and no one else would have asked for it. Agreed. And in the beginning the JSF was led by a Marine general with the Marine requirements the priority. It was supposed to be lightweight, simple, and low cost. All that changed when USAF took over the project. They had a very different vision of the aircraft than USMC. Eventually the Marines were able to reassert themselves and that's why the B later got priority development. But the shifting requirements and priorities took their toll on the schedule and on cost.

[PhilipG]

Ken,

In my view comparing aircraft from different generations is like comparing cars from different generations, some such as the Ford Edsel and the Austin Allegro were meant to be fantastic profit earners for the company etc but singularly failed. Whilst comparing market leaders from different eras such as a 1960s Austin Mini with a 2016 BMW Mini, is rather like comparing chalk and cheese, technology marches on.

I am not aware of all the contractual details between LM and the DoD however as I understand it the contract is not cost plus, LM are taking some of the risk.

I thus think that your statement that it is all the government's fault if the F35, or indeed whatever government project, turns out to be a lemon is a little wide of the mark.

A large proportion of LM's future profit stream, that will be propping up their share price and paying executive bonus etc is related to the profitability of the F35 production line, a major driver of which is the number of aircraft ordered.

My point is thus that LM's executives and Board are major stakeholders in the F35, they want the F35 to be commercially successful, unlike some of the projects that only made it to prototype stage that you mentioned.

I am sure historically that LM's profit position was not helped by the reduction in the number of F22s for the sole customer the USAF being reduced from c750 to the final 187.