F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

[Finningley Boy]

MSOCS,

You seem to be the man in the know, what is the likelihood that the balance of 90 F-35s following from the first 48 we're committed to, will be F-35As?

Best Regards,

FB:)

[MSOCS]

FB, very feasible but the likelihood would be a guess at this stage. Believe a senior officer has made a statement on this recently though. At Fairford.

[Finningley Boy]

MSOCS

Indeed, Th comments from Sir Stephen recently suggest that the additional purchase of 90 F-35s is quite likely, it would in the long run perhaps make sense to order 90 F-35As for the RAF and eventually hand all 48 Bs to the RN.

FB:)

[MSOCS]

MSOCS

Indeed, Th comments from Sir Stephen recently suggest that the additional purchase of 90 F-35s is quite likely, it would in the long run perhaps make sense to order 90 F-35As for the RAF and eventually hand all 48 Bs to the RN.

FB:)

Well, I can't see additional Typhoon being bought in future, only upgrades for most of the fleet. Allied to a commitment to 138 F-35s I can absolutely see a buy of a different variant. Why not? It fulfils the RAF FCAS requirement while still retaining the right number of F-35B to complement our two carriers.

I don't see a hand over of all F-35Bs though. A key tenet is the shore-based expeditionary capability the B brings. I therefore see the B continuing to be jointly operated by RN and RAF.

[PhilipG]

MSOCS:-
PhilipG, software stability has been sorted for some time now. It was an issue, but no more. As to F-35 needing its hand holding in missions you've got me; I've no idea what you're on about.

MSOCS this document on Aviation Week was the basis of my comments.

http://aviationweek.com/site-files/aviationweek.com/files/uploads/2016/01/DOT%26E%202015%20F-35%20Annual%20Report.pdf
I extract the more pertinent part that I based my comments on: -
The program terminated Block 2B developmental flight testing in May 2015, delivering Block 2B capability with deficiencies and limited combat capability. The Marine Corps declared IOC at the end of July 2015. However, if used in combat, the Block 2B F-35 will need support from command and control elements to avoid threats, assist in target acquisition, and control weapons employment for the limited weapons carriage available (i.e., two bombs, two air-to-air missiles). Block 2B deficiencies in fusion, electronic warfare, and weapons employment result in ambiguous threat displays, limited ability to respond to threats, and a requirement for off-board sources to provide accurate coordinates for precision attack. Since Block 2B F-35 aircraft are limited to two air-to-air missiles, they will require other support if operations are contested by enemy fighter aircraft. The program deferred deficiencies and weapons delivery accuracy (WDA) test events from Block 2B to Block 3i and Block 3F, a necessary move in order to transition the testing enterprise to support Block 3i flight testing and Block 3F development, both of which began later than planned in the program’s Integrated Master Schedule (IMS).

Philip

It would seem that the Pentagon has at least two voices...

[MSOCS]

Philip. 2B or not 2B. In this case, I'm referring to the stability improvements (and others) at 3i. USAF is declaring IOC for their fleet with 3i as a baseline.

Lt Gen 'Dog' Davis has already alluded to the 2B fusion issues and workarounds from 2015 but the jets are now operating 3i which is better all round and doesn't exhibit the instabilities reported in 2B.

If the USAF are declaring IOC this week (likely, but not guaranteed) then I trust their due diligence in testing every aspect of the operational benchmark they set themselves.

Worth bearing in mind that most of these major 'deficiencies' are software based and that there is more than one drop of 3i software.

[glad rag]

A key tenet is the shore-based expeditionary capability the B brings


Yes. Of course. It does. Just like. Any other. Aircraft. But where. Does the. On shore. Support come. From? Off the. Boat?

[MSOCS]

Do try to keep up JATK.

[Tourist]

I don't see a hand over of all F-35Bs though. A key tenet is the shore-based expeditionary capability the B brings. I therefore see the B continuing to be jointly operated by RN and RAF.

The problem with that, of course, is that if all are B model, then there are enough that the Carriers can have sufficient aircraft to at least provide a modicum of capability and the RAF can do expeditionary shore based with the rest.

If only 48 are B, then you are trying to fill carriers and go ashore with 48?

Methinks the RN will cry foul, and for good reason.

[PhilipG]

Call me confused etc, I understood that the difference between an aircraft running 2B and 3I was basically that those running 3I had gone through a technical refresh, no added capability, just a different platform, like running Office 95 on Windows XP.
At one point this summer I read that 2B was much more stable than 3I, as is said, there must have been some upgrades. As a matter of interest what software version were the USAF aircraft that came over the pond? I personally thought it was brave to try a long flight with a 3I aircraft, when it had been published that they needed to reboot every X hours, it would not have been too helpful if one had ditched whilst rebooting west of Ireland, no let's not change to MRA4 discussions.
As I said a bit of clarity would be helpful, even if it is as basic as the software instabilities in 3Ix have been sorted out in 3Ix2, as proven by Y.....

[MSOCS]

Tourist, there isn't a go embarked AND go ashore when you haven't got that many. It's one or the other. For one operation you may need to be embarked, for another ashore etc. You may go from ship to shore or shore to ship in the period of an operation if that's best.

If the analysis shows we need to do both then we'd buy more F-35B, clearly.

There's no "foul" to cry in this case.

[Finningley Boy]

The problem with that, of course, is that if all are B model, then there are enough that the Carriers can have sufficient aircraft to at least provide a modicum of capability and the RAF can do expeditionary shore based with the rest.

If only 48 are B, then you are trying to fill carriers and go ashore with 48?

Methinks the RN will cry foul, and for good reason.

Ok I'll say it then, is it not the case that the F-35A has a superior performance, range and payload etc. Just that it needs to take a good run down the runway to get aloft and a reasonable length of runway to land again. But at least the Navy will have sufficient airframes to make a single carrier deployment a full one.

Best Regards,

FB:)

[glad rag]

If the analysis shows we need to do both then we'd buy more F-35, clearly.



Oh no we won't be, anytime.

UK conventional procurement being hollowed out to pay for Successor SSBNs | IHS Jane's 360 (http://www.janes.com/article/62430/uk-conventional-procurement-being-hollowed-out-to-pay-for-successor-ssbns?utm_campaign=%5bPMP%5d_PC5308_Jane%27s%20360%2027.07.2 016%20_KV_Deployment&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Eloqua)

[MSOCS]

JATK, there's a commitment to 138. I'm not suggesting more but yes, there could be less than 138 when all is said and done.

The question was what proportion would be Bs and As. That's a great one and will be answered at SDSR20. So, just wait out.

[Heathrow Harry]

No way we'll ever buy 138 - the cash just isn't there - the latest MoD forecast (see other thread) is that we'll be restricted to £ 525 mm a year for new airframes of all types by the early 2020's.... and that was before BREXIT

[Frostchamber]

Ah yes, in the same way that there was no way we would buy any P8s because there was no money.

Don't forget that the commitment to 138 is over the life of the programme, and that's a very long time. I understand current plans are for an eventual 4 front line sqns.

Seems to me that a plausible scenario (before the idea of a split buy was raised) was therefore a maximum holding of 90 or so airframes at any given time, with a much later buy of 48 or so late model Bs to replace the initial 48 and cover the second half of the carriers' lives.

Would a force comprising 2 sqns of B and 2 of A work?

[SpazSinbad]

On previous page 'PhilipG' enquired: [software? - guess 3i - clues: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/f-35-locked-and-loaded-with-improved-block-3i-softwa-425098/ ]
"...As a matter of interest what software version were the USAF aircraft that came over the pond? I personally thought it was brave to try a long flight with a 3I aircraft, when it had been published that they needed to reboot every X hours, it would not have been too helpful if one had ditched whilst rebooting west of Ireland, no let's not change to MRA4 discussions.
As I said a bit of clarity would be helpful, even if it is as basic as the software instabilities in 3Ix have been sorted out in 3Ix2, as proven by Y....."
First F-35A Overseas Deployment 05 Jul 2016 John A. Tirpak
"...[Maj. William Andreotta] reported no inflight problems and no software instability of the three F-35As, and he also said there were no problems with the passing of fuel, which had been an issue as recently as last fall. At that time, software was slowing the passage of fuel near max fill, to avoid overpressuring the system—causing excessive time on boom—and program director Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan reported that a software fix was in the works.

MSgt. Ed Deleon, chief maintainer for the RIAT mission, reported that the F-35’s Autonomic Logistics Information System, or ALIS, has worked perfectly during the deployment, but was being accessed through secure internet, and not through the ALIS “deployment” package...."
http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pages/2016/July%202016/July%2005%202016/First-F-35A-Overseas-Deployment.aspx

[Turbine D]

MSOCS,
unlike the F-35 which will return more to the Exchequer than we put in, when all is totted up
Please provide an explanation why you think what you think Turbine D. If you're saying it because the Program won't make the 2300 jets touted, then sure, that diminishes the return; by exactly how much will be determined by the final production run numbers. You clearly seem to know these so do share.
1. Assume for a moment the US DOD will purchase the full allotment of F-35s, all models. Here are the current prices being planned on and proposed to Congress:

Budget Costs for F-35B $152.8M for FY 2016 aircraft to $140.1M for FY 2017 aircraft ($143.8M average cost each for 311 aircraft)

First real US Navy buys for F35C start in FY 2018 estimated at $234.8M each (4 aircraft)($144.6M average cost each for 369 aircraft)

F-15A gross/weapon system cost FY2016 $120.8M, FY2017 $113.07M($121.1M average cost each for 1763 aircraft)

Keep in mind the average costs include aircraft that have been built and are being flight tested of which many or all will require retrofitting and upgrades once true production is achieved. These figures come from financial data from the US DOD.

2. So with this in mind I am looking at a bigger picture than perhaps you are as it may apply to UK procurement and your questions. First and foremost, unless the Bank of England purchased US dollars prior to Brexit and set those dollars aside for F-35B purchases and perhaps F-35As, you can plan to pay 15% or more than thought before Brexit. This is due to the value of the Pound's fall in value verses the US Dollar. This disparity will not be self correcting anytime soon.

3. IMO, You will not receive any rebates from L-M. Currently, in fact, there are deadlocked talks going on between L-M & the US DOD as to what future F-35 cost and prices are going to be. Up until now pricing for the most part has been based on cost plus contracts, a sweetheart deal for L-M. The plan as put forth by the DOD procurement chief has been to "gradually" move to fixed pricing. However, he and the DOD are under great pressure to make this move sooner, not later, ASAP. L-M has threatened the US DOD with the need to increase prices as they will have to borrow money to pay suppliers if the pricing issues aren't resolved very soon. L-M announced very recently their quarterly profits were near their highest levels ever, mainly due to the F-35 program, which is like throwing gasoline on the fire. This profit windfall will end with fixed pricing, but the financial gurus on Wall Street will want more, not less as well as the L-M stockholders, for every fiscal quarter going forward. L-M will have to deliver one way or the other, price increases for aircraft and/or price increases for spare parts, same goes for P&W engines and spare prices, productivity and/or material cost reductions reach a point of no return.

4. You should know just as the UK has defense budget restraints, so does the US. The US Navy isn't going to roll over and play dead on affordability of the F35B and F-35Cs. There are other crucial items that have to be addressed and a major one is this:

10 U.S. Code § 5062 - United States Navy: composition; functions
(a)The Navy, within the Department of the Navy, includes, in general, naval combat and service forces and such aviation as may be organic therein. The Navy shall be organized, trained, and equipped primarily for prompt and sustained combat incident to operations at sea. It is responsible for the preparation of naval forces necessary for the effective prosecution of war except as otherwise assigned and, in accordance with integrated joint mobilization plans, for the expansion of the peacetime components of the Navy to meet the needs of war.
(b)The naval combat forces of the Navy shall include not less than 11 operational aircraft carriers. For purposes of this subsection, an operational aircraft carrier includes an aircraft carrier that is temporarily unavailable for worldwide deployment due to routine or scheduled maintenance or repair.
(c)All naval aviation shall be integrated with the naval service as part thereof within the Department of the Navy. Naval aviation consists of combat and service and training forces, and includes land-based naval aviation, air transport essential for naval operations, all air weapons and air techniques involved in the operations and activities of the Navy, and the entire remainder of the aeronautical organization of the Navy, together with the personnel necessary therefor.
(d)The Navy shall develop aircraft, weapons, tactics, technique, organization, and equipment of naval combat and service elements. Matters of joint concern as to these functions shall be coordinated between the Army, the Air Force, and the Navy.

Sean J. Stackley, assistant Navy secretary for research, development, and acquisition and the three admirals who joined him in testifying before Congress said there was little hope in the Navy getting back up to 11 carriers before 2021, when the USS Gerald R. Ford is finally scheduled to come on line after lengthy construction delays and cost overruns.
"There's no doubt that being at 10 carriers ... is exacerbated by the fact that the Ford won't be now deployable until '21," said Rear Admiral Thomas Moore, program executive officer for aircraft carriers. "The law says, you have to be 11 carriers, but it's only measured by when we commission Ford ... We’ll be in a period of 10 carriers here until about 2021."

When all is said and done, the Ford carrier will cost nearly $18B and before it is deployed, another one will have to be started so the oldest of the existing of the 10 can be retired. To make matters worse, the 10 carriers are deployed for longer periods of time and when they come in, the repairs are more costly and lengthy to the point where only 5 carriers may be at sea at a given time as recently evidenced.

5.There are far greater needs than the singular most expensive program, the F-35 across all the Services and there will be no favoritism given to the F-35 Program. So you can see the play going on here. Besides, there is the spares and maintenance cost issues, yet to be determined as time goes on. So you tell me, how many can the UK afford to buy?

Also, tell me why the F-35 or any aircraft for that matter returns money to the Exchequer (Bank of England these days), I don't believe any have or do, nor does that happen here in the US, e.g., money returned to the US Treasury. We have acres of old planes parked out in Arizona, baking in the sun. The aircraft that are operational are an asset, but don't generate cash, nor do the ones in Arizona.

[RAFEngO74to09]

Nice 4-ship formation flying.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZmIeYtrUSs

[MSOCS]

From a UK Govt perspective, we are buying X many aircraft at "various" prices as we slide on down the production cost curve over time. 500 British companies manufacture components for every F-35 built (or to be built), most of which are agnostic of variant. So, over the life of the Program, those 500 British companies earn revenue from Y (total Program build) aircraft and pay tax to the Exchequer on those earnings. Y is much greater than X and the concomitant tax on Y is around 2-3 times the predicted cost for X.

That's Level 1 partnership right there,in a nutshell. Now, I already intimated that reality and paper promises rarely match. So, we'll see right? None of the above is in MY midnight wet dreams though, I can heartily assure you:

http://aviationweek.com/shownews/uk-earn-billions-f-35-work

[glad rag]

From a UK Govt perspective, we are buying X many aircraft at "various" prices as we slide on down the production cost curve over time. 500 British companies manufacture components for every F-35 built (or to be built), most of which are agnostic of variant. So, over the life of the Program, those 500 British companies earn revenue from Y (total Program build) aircraft and pay tax to the Exchequer on those earnings. Y is much greater than X and the concomitant tax on Y is around 2-3 times the predicted cost for X.

That's Level 1 partnership right there,in a nutshell. Now, I already intimated that reality and paper promises rarely match. So, we'll see right? None of the above is in MY midnight wet dreams though, I can heartily assure you:

U.K. To Earn Billions On F-35 Work | ShowNews content from Aviation Week (http://aviationweek.com/shownews/uk-earn-billions-f-35-work)
Yes, the song remains the same but it is 30 years on, now, you know...

" 500 British companies manufacture components for every F-35 built" OR . "those 500 British companies earn revenue from"

Name them, and list their results from Companies House, who, luckily, will have just updated their 6 monthlies.

At least Td detailed his precis, your is nothing but Toby Jug on crystal meh...:)

Go on then....

[glad rag]

Nice 4-ship formation flying.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZmIeYtrUSs

Yeah flying, nice. Lo viz black ideal for daytime CAS yeah baby...

[Turbine D]

MSOCS,
From a UK Govt perspective, we are buying X many aircraft at "various" prices as we slide on down the production cost curve over time. 500 British companies manufacture components for every F-35 built (or to be built), most of which are agnostic of variant. So, over the life of the Program, those 500 British companies earn revenue from Y (total Program build) aircraft and pay tax to the Exchequer on those earnings. Y is much greater than X and the concomitant tax on Y is around 2-3 times the predicted cost for X.
We are now back to my original quote to you, you can't assure nothing... I asked you two specific questions and received back fog rolling in from the bay...

[Lonewolf_50]

Haters are gonna hate, and JATKers are gonna JATKoff.

For all of the great press recently, let's not forget: that thing's overpriced. You are all kindly invited to thank the Goldwater-Nichols Act for this particular "advancement" in combat aviation.

[MSOCS]

Turbine, I asked you to explain your point and I appreciate that you took the time to compile more than a sound bite of denial this time. That said, you can't predict the future any more than I can.

I pointed out the particular business model to you. That's the model that's been enacted since 2001 and will continue to be enacted. Whether you choose to believe and/or accept that is something I couldn't care less about, frankly, but you can't assure me that there won't be a net gain to the Treasury on all things F-35.

15% of EVERY F-35 that has been (and will be) built, will be done by UK companies. The tax on profits WILL go to the Treasury. That's a fact.

British Manufacturers Recognised for Vital Role in F-35's Global Production (http://www.aerospace.co.uk/news/130924-f-35-programme)

[Lyneham Lad]

F-35A takes down target drone (https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/f-35a-takes-down-target-drone-428085/) (Flight Global 2nd Aug)
With an initial operational capability declaration imminent, the Lockheed Martin F-35A marked its first air-to-air kill during a flight test after launching infrared- and radar-guided missiles at subscale target drones, the US Air Force announced 1 August.

[glad rag]

F-35A takes down target drone (https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/f-35a-takes-down-target-drone-428085/) (Flight Global 2nd Aug)
The aircraft also carried an internal Raytheon AIM-120C AMRAAM missile, which the pilot employed on a separate target drone before launching the AIM-9X. The drone was beyond visual range and the AIM-120C was directed as planned to self-destruct before impact.

Was the bvr drone mother earth by any chance?

[Vzlet]

Was the bvr drone mother earth by any chance?
Not sure the F-35 has the range for that!

[MSOCS]

Yup, still some ways to go but USAF went IOC today:

Air Force Declares F-35A Ready For Combat (http://www.defensenews.com/story/breaking-news/2016/08/02/f35-ioc-air-force-operational-acc-combat/87948142/)

Cue outrage from the usual lurkers........ :E

[glad rag]

Outrage no, amusement yes.

[ORAC]

That wasn't as amusing as this was hysterical. I mean, PR is PR, but claims have to be more realistic.

If their SAW is that bad, maybe they could buy some latest anti-stealth systems from the Russians or Chinese?

http://www.defensenews.com/story/military/2016/07/31/f-35-so-stealthy-produced-training-challenges-pilot-says/87760454/

[ORAC]

1. Assume for a moment the US DOD will purchase the full allotment of F-35s, all models

Air Force Declares F-35A IOC; Major Milestone For Biggest US Program « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary (http://breakingdefense.com/2016/08/air-force-declares-f-35a-ioc-major-milestone-for-biggest-us-program/)

".....Will the Air Force buy its full complement? Harrison was skeptical.

“I don’t think it’s plausible that we’ll actually buy that full amount in the long run, but they don’t need to change their plans right now, they don’t need to scare the foreign partners by signaling that right now, it wouldn’t make sense to do it now,” he says. “You don’t have to make that decision on the total quantity, you don’t even have to make the decision on the full-rate production, until four or five years from now. So you can wait four or five years, more of the foreign partners will get deeply invested in the program, and then they can scare them.”.........

[Tourist]

".....Will the Air Force buy its full complement? Harrison was skeptical.

“I don’t think it’s plausible that we’ll actually buy that full amount in the long run, but they don’t need to change their plans right now, they don’t need to scare the foreign partners by signaling that right now, it wouldn’t make sense to do it now,” he says.

He knows no better than anybody else how many will be bought. It is perfectly possible that 5 times the number get bought. Equally, there is a worldwide economic crash and hardly any get bought.

Who knows if there is another big conflict that requires a lot of aircraft?
Who knows what Russia might do?
China?

Silly silly guessing game.

[Heathrow Harry]

"those 500 British companies earn revenue from Y (total Program build) aircraft and pay tax to the Exchequer on those earnings."

More likely "those british companies do their damndest to pay zero tax to the Exchequer" - tho I suppose we might get some back through VAT on Bentley's, Directors yachts and other fripperies.......................

[Heathrow Harry]

"It is perfectly possible that 5 times the number get bought."

possible Toursit but shall we say about a 0.0001% chance? I don't think ANY postwar program has led to a 5 times original planned purchase.................................

[Tourist]

I don't think ANY postwar program has led to a 5 times original planned purchase.................................

I think that is kind of the point....

The relevant word in your post is "postwar"

Militaries are for war.

Yes, we have been living through one of the most peaceful times in history. History suggests that it won't last.

Do you see anything in the world today that leads you to believe that there won't be a proper war in the next 20yrs?

I suspect that some of the Vietnam purchases got a lot bigger than expected.....

[ORAC]

Restating for the umpteenth time the statement from both Houses of the Senate defence committees, no extra money for aircraft purchases, whatever number the agreed budget buys, that's all they pay for; so as the price goes up, the numbers come down, and the dreaded spiral emerges. And the price at present is far in excess of that used to produce the budget.

So, indeed, unless there is a major war, the number will be well below that originally envisaged, as with the F-22 and B-1/B-2.

[Tourist]

So the money stays the same, regardless of the purchase number.

So the UK companies take home the same amount of money either way?


I have no skin in the game, but people like the chap in ORACs quote making future predictions about events that have so many variables are just foolish.


p.s. Statements from all politicians are always up for modification.

[TBM-Legend]

The Nimrod was a great program that spent big and delivered nothing...

[Maus92]

The USAF pronounces IOC for F-35A Block 3I, and Gen. "Hawk" Carlisle says that he would deploy the jet to Europe or the WP tomorrow if necessary. Unfortunately, the F-35A 3I is functionally identical to the F-35B Block 2B, meaning that it only supports the carriage of two AIM-120s and either two 2,000lb JDAMs or two 500lbs. LGBs, all internally. So basically it is an upgraded F-117A - not a fighter aircraft (at this point in its development.) Note that the AIM-9X target kill is irrelevant until 3F aircraft can be fielded in a few years. There is a reason why people are talking about using this aircraft as an "armed scout" / ISR asset - it cannot perform current mission sets without the support of current tactical jets for wvr air combat and as magazines/bomb trucks for ground attack and bvr engagements.

[Turbine D]

Tourist,
Statements from all politicians are always up for modification.
As I explained in a previous #9523, available money will be the deciding factor as to how many will be produced. Just sit back and watch how the US DOD deals with the bind they put themselves in, the politicians already left their imprint by spreading out the supplier base on a complex, pie in the sky program out over most of the US and some of the rest of the world, resulting in at least a 5 year delay. Delay = +cost $$$s and less produced product.

[Turbine D]

Do you see anything in the world today that leads you to believe that there won't be a proper war in the next 20yrs?
There hasn't been a "proper" war since WWII, but, lots of skirmishes, just saying....

[KenV]

The U.S. Air Force on Aug. 2 officially declared the F-35 ready for war, a huge milestone that signals the tide may finally be turning for the fifth-generation fighter jet.


The decision to declare the Air Force’s F-35A operational right around the target date of Aug. 1 is a triumph for a program with a long history of cost overruns, technological challenges, and schedule delays. But now that the chief of Air Combat Command (ACC) has finally given the green light, the Air Force will waste no time in deploying the Joint Strike Fighter to Europe, the Pacific and even the Middle East.

“I would like to deploy it to both the European and the Pacific theater in the not-toodistant future, so I would say within 18 months I think I’ll try to get to both those theaters,” said ACC commander Gen. Herbert Carlisle, adding that if U.S. Central Command asks for the F-35 in the Middle East, he would send it in a heartbeat.

The plan to send the F-35 to combat zones in the next few years stands in sharp contrast to the Air Force’s delay in deploying its other stealth fighter jet, the F-22. Though the Raptor entered service in 2005, the jet did not see combat until the U.S.-led intervention in Syria in 2014. The F-22’s time spent fighting Islamic State terrorists and its deployment to Europe as part of the U.S. response to Russian resurgence did wonders for its public image, even sparking a movement in Congress to potentially restart the production line.

In rolling out the F-35, the Air Force may be taking lessons learned from the Raptor to heart. U.S. partners and allies really want to see the jet in action, Carlisle said. “I think when the F-35 deploys to places like in the European theater as well as in the Pacific theater, it will give our allies and partners confidence in the airframe,” Carlisle said. “It will also give them a chance to see it in operation and see it in interoperability working with their fourth-generation airplanes.” Deploying the F-35 to these regions also serves as an effective deterrent to potential adversaries, Carlisle said—in other words, Russia.

The Air Force decided not to deploy the F-22 to combat zones immediately because some believed sending the world’s only fifthgeneration stealth fighter to the Middle East would be viewed as a provocative move, Carlisle explained. However, at this point he does not believe operating the F-35 over the skies of Iraq and Syria is a bad move. “From my perspective, I think it sends a good signal,” Carlisle said. “I think it reassures friends and allies and it is a deterrent to potential adversaries, so I don’t think it’s provocative at all.”

[ORAC]

C'est magnifique, mais ce n’est pas la guerre: c'est de la folie

General Pierre Bosquet

[Tourist]

There hasn't been a "proper" war since WWII, but, lots of skirmishes, just saying....

Again, that's kind of my point. A student of history might say we are due one....

[ORAC]

There are lots of wars going on, just no "war to end wars", and with nukes there probably won't be. With the wars we have, there is no need for the politicians to pay for high end tech stuff, and with the production lead time, if one flared up you couldn't build them, you'd fight with what you had.

[ORAC]

Hmmm, this week's AW&ST has an article about the A-10 replacement. They want to do it with 2 types, first off a light weight low end attack aircraft (OA-X) such as the AT-6, to supplement the presence types, then a longer term A-10 replacement (A-X2) for medium threat theatres, such as the M-346 (the high threat theatres being the realm of the F-35, natch).

But where does the money come from for two new programmes?

"......since the F-35A was initially meant to replace the A-10, the Joint Strike Fighter buy may now be a bill payer for the OA-X and/or AX2....... The Air Force has backed away from statements that the F-35A is a one-for-one replacement for the Warthog, but the two aircraft will still directly compete for funding over the next few years...."

And the A-10/CAS has an awful lot of support on the Hill.

Still so confident on programme numbers?

[Turbine D]

ORAC,
With the wars we have, there is no need for the politicians to pay for high end tech stuff, and with the production lead time, if one flared up you couldn't build them, you'd fight with what you had.
Wow! That is exactly a point I was going to make, you beat me to it. Even with no war and how many years in, these planes are coming out in dribbles and drabs. Why? There isn't the money...

[Heathrow Harry]

"he does not believe operating the F-35 over the skies of Iraq and Syria is a bad move."

How much will the Russians and the Chinese for the first one to be shot down?????

[Lonewolf_50]

If you meant "how much will the Russians and Chinese pay for the first one shot down"...a bit more than for an F-117, I suppose.

[Tourist]

By the look of some of their recent toys, they don't need a broken one...

[sandiego89]

I don't think ANY postwar program has led to a 5 times original planned purchase.................................


Not sure about 5x, but I'll play, I imagine these programs exceeded original planned purchase:


AK-47 rifle
UH-1 Huey
CH-47 Chinook
F-4 Phantom
F-16
MRAP
Tomahawk Missile
AIM-9 Sidewinder
DDG Arliegh Burke Class
C-130 Hercules
Global Hawk
Reaper
HUMVEE
MiG-21
....

[Lyneham Lad]

The F-35 is so stealthy, it produced training challenges, pilot says (http://www.defensenews.com/story/military/2016/07/31/f-35-so-stealthy-produced-training-challenges-pilot-says/87760454/)

The F-35 Lightning II is so stealthy, pilots are facing an unusual challenge. They're having difficulty participating in some types of training exercises, a squadron commander told reporters Wednesday.

During a recent exercise at Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho, F-35 squadrons wanted to practice evading surface-to-air threats. There was just one problem: No one on the ground could track the plane.

“If they never saw us, they couldn’t target us,” said Lt. Col. George Watkins, the commander of the 34th Fighter Squadron at Hill Air Force Base, Utah.

The F-35s resorted to flipping on their transponders, used for FAA identification, so that simulated anti-air weapons could track the planes, Watkins said.

“We basically told them where we were at and said, ‘Hey, try to shoot at us,’ ” he said, adding that without the transponders on, “most likely we would not have suffered a single loss from any SAM threats while we were training at Mountain Home.”

Well, that's OK then. All is well in the F35 world...

[PhilipG]

Slightly different story from the one about difficulties in getting F35s airborne as there were so many software problems and the report that an F35 needed so much support, with 2B and 3i software...

[tdracer]

Interesting take on the F-35...

WTF-35: How the Joint Strike Fighter Got to Be Such a Mess (http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a21957/wtf-35/?mag=pop&list=nl_pnl_news&src=nl&date=080416)

[Turbine D]

tdracer,
Interesting take on the F-35...
Thanks for posting this article, it represents what I have been attempting to say all along. The one thing about history is, we learn we don't learn and that will be the history of the F-35 for the next generation of aircraft developers to see and not repeat. It isn't that I am anti-F-35, it is that I am anti-stupid people that do stupid things that history has demonstrated can't be done. I mean really, why did the F-4 Phantom, the F-15, the F-16 and the F-18 come into being? Because of a stupid decision railroaded through by McNamara simply on the basis of poor data to save money that resulted in a boondoggle that hardly worked for anything. Only time will tell what damage will result from the stupid idea that one airplane can excellently perform missions for three different military services and save money doing it.

[Tourist]

tdracer,

I mean really, why did the F-4 Phantom, the F-15, the F-16 and the F-18 come into being? Because of a stupid decision railroaded through by McNamara simply on the basis of poor data to save money that resulted in a boondoggle that hardly worked for anything.

I'm confused.

Are you saying that the F15, F16 and F18 are bad?

It is difficult to workout what you are saying.

[Heathrow Harry]

Tuc

I think he's raving about the F-111 - and trying to make the point that the others were built BECAUSE of the problems with F-111 procurement, design & cost ie specialised roles instead of all -singing, all-dancing........

[ORAC]

I think he is saying that they (and certainly the F-16/18 as light weight fighters (thanks you Boyd)) came about as a consequence of the fingers burnt with the F-111A/B single design for USAF/USN debacle.

Edited - what he said.....

[Tourist]

Ah, ok, I get it.

You have never written Flight Manuals for Airbus have you Turbine D?

[sandiego89]

....It isn't that I am anti-F-35, it is that I am anti-stupid people that do stupid things that history has demonstrated can't be done. I mean really, why did the F-4 Phantom, the F-15, the F-16 and the F-18 come into being? Because of a stupid decision railroaded through by McNamara simply on the basis of poor data to save money that resulted in a boondoggle that hardly worked for anything.....


Huhhh? If this is an anti-F-111 rant, and anti jack of all trades rant, I get that, but I really have to question the mentioning of the F-4, F-15, F-16 and F-18 coming about because of the problems of the F-111 program. The F-14 is the only aircraft I would directly cite as coming into being due to the F-111 failures- namely the failure of the F-111B to meet US Navy program requirements and never being put into production. There I do get that the requirements of a USAF penetrator and a USN fleet defense fighter should never have been kludged into one airframe- it was doomed to failure, so I do agree there. I also agree that doing this for the F-35 was a bridge too far.


The F-4 was developed as a Fleet Defense fighter for the US Navy long before the TFX/F-111 program. It was later adopted by the USAF and a host of other nations as a multi-role fighter, and is arguably the best example of a multi mission "fighter". It did many things well (I did not say it was the "best" at anything).


The F-15 was an air superiority fighter. Period. Not related to the F-111 problems or mission at all. Designed to achieve air superiority and replace other airframes such as the F-4 and others.


The F-16 was a light day fighter of the Boyd era. No relation to the F-111 problems. Part of the ho-low mix with the F-15.


The F-18 was designed as a carrier capable aircraft to replace the A-4 and A-7 in the light attack role, with the benefit of being a fighter as well.


The F-14 was a direct result of the failure of the F-111B to enter US Navy service, but you did not list the Tomcat. The engines, radar and Phoenix missiles were recycled from the F-111B for the F-14.

[Turbine D]

I think he is saying that they (and certainly the F-16/18 as light weight fighters (thanks you Boyd)) came about as a consequence of the fingers burnt with the F-111A/B single design for USAF/USN debacle.
Thanks ORAC, that is exactly what I was attempting to say.

Tourist,
You have never written Flight Manuals for Airbus have you Turbine D?
You're having trouble with meaning of French translated into English words, are you?

sandiego89,
You provided definition to the point the best military jets are designed for specific missions, unlike that which has taken place on the F-35 program.

[SpazSinbad]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4auM08D-S_E

[Lonewolf_50]

Doesn't sound much like Fighter Jock talk, with all of that ISR and computer jargon, but it sounds like previous points on (forty of fifty pages ago) "fifth gen is a different game" seems to be the core take away point.


Also, consider the intended audience for that presentation.

[tdracer]

You have never written Flight Manuals for Airbus have you Turbine D?


Damn, now I have adult beverage all over my keyboard :E

[FODPlod]

Damn, now I have adult beverage all over my keyboard :E
"adult beverage?"

I recently took charge of my four-year-old grandson and took him to a shipwreck museum before enjoying lunch at a pub with an outdoor play area. The following day, my daughter told me how she had heard all about our visit to a "cafe" where I drank "Grandad Juice". :O

Here's a nice new article about the F-35 to put us back on track:New Report Details What 31 US Air Force Pilots Who Flew the F-35 Really Think (http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/new-report-details-what-31-us-air-force-pilots-who-flew-the-17266)
Air Force Gen. Herbert “Hawk” Carlisle, commander of Air Combat Command, this week declared the F-35A fighter jet ready for combat. While many pundits and politicians have questioned the worth of this jet, the only people who know the ground truth are the pilots themselves.

A total of 174 U.S. pilots currently have been trained to fly Lockheed Martin’s F-35A Lightning II. The Heritage Foundation recently interviewed 31 of these former F-15C, F-15E, F-16C, and A-10 pilots. Each expressed a high degree of confidence in the F-35A, their new fifth-generation platform.

Here are nine insights gleaned from those conversations:

1. Even with developmental restrictions that limit the F-35A’s responsiveness and ability to maneuver, every U.S. fighter pilot interviewed would pick the F-35A over his former jet in a majority of air-to-air (dogfight) engagement scenarios they could face...

http://www.heritage.org/~/media/infographics/2016/08/bg3140/bg-f35a-overview-chart-2.ashx?h=1020&w=400

[Heathrow Harry]

Plod

handing a bright new shiny jet to a bunch of pilots and asking them for their opinion is one of the oldest tricks in the book. British, French, Russian and above all US aeronautical history since 1945 is full of cases like this

And a few years later the problems appear and planes & pilots are lost and costs soar.......

[FODPlod]

Plod

handing a bright new shiny jet to a bunch of pilots and asking them for their opinion is one of the oldest tricks in the book. British, French, Russian and above all US aeronautical history since 1945 is full of cases like this

And a few years later the problems appear and planes & pilots are lost and costs soar.......
"bright new shiny jet"? The F-35 has clocked up well over 50,000 flying hours since it first flew almost ten years ago. Unless you know otherwise, it has yet to suffer any significant aerial incident causing loss of life during its trials and testing. What other FJ can claim that safety record during its development?

You certainly nailed your colours to the mast early enough, though. This is from Feb 2011:

I'm with Xerox on the fact that we'll never get an F-35 - its a boondoggle that will eventually be killed by the Yanks

We should maybe be looking at the Gripen and the F-18

"fact", eh?

http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafcms/mediafiles/E78E2037_5056_A318_A89209E9AB776DA0.jpg


Are you seriously suggesting that we should weigh your opinion of the F-35 over that of the pilots who are flying it? ;)

[Tourist]

handing a bright new shiny jet to a bunch of pilots and asking them for their opinion is one of the oldest tricks in the book. British, French, Russian and above all US aeronautical history since 1945 is full of cases like this


Erm, that only works if the new jet seems better than the old one.

If they get out of an F15 and into an F35 and the performance seems poor, they will notice the contrast immediately.

From what some of here have suggested, surely you would have expected quotes like

"doesn't turn like my old jet"
"visibility is rubbish compared"
"flys like a dog"

etc etc.

Trying to suggest that this is anything other than welcome positive news is just showing your bias.

There are huge numbers of these flying now with pilots from many countries and I have yet to hear a single voice from those who have flown it suggesting that it is anything other than great.

Yes it has been a procurement disaster, and it may well be poor value for money, but tying to suggest it is also a rubbish aircraft is starting to sound closed minded.

[glad rag]

"bright new shiny jet"? The F-35 has clocked up well over 50,000 flying hours since it first flew almost ten years ago. Unless you know otherwise, it has yet to suffer any significant aerial incident causing loss of life during its trials and testing. What other FJ can claim that safety record during its development?

You certainly nailed your colours to the mast early enough, though. This is from Feb 2011:



http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafcms/mediafiles/E78E2037_5056_A318_A89209E9AB776DA0.jpg


"fact", eh?

Are you seriously suggesting that we should weigh your opinion of the F-35 over that of the pilots who are flying it? ;)
Depends on a number of things, knowing fighter jocks, yeah fast anything and a future to align with.

And why not indeed.

[chopper2004]

Hi guys,

I have to admit, am very impressed what I saw at RIAT, very impressed. So here are my photos starting off with the simulated refel between Cherry Point's finest,

cheers



http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/longranger133/IMG_9795_zpsjtv1s3dz.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/longranger133/IMG_9800_zpszds2yccd.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/longranger134/IMG_9827_zpsgayv1gip.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/longranger134/IMG_9832_zps2v15bgxq.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/longranger134/IMG_9834_zps42rgmxfi.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/longranger134/IMG_9837_zpsevzjrsec.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/longranger134/IMG_9890_zpswyrv9828.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/longranger134/IMG_9897_zpsboimrp1n.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/longranger134/IMG_9899_zpsngxbhurr.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/longranger134/IMG_9902_zpsjandt08h.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/longranger134/IMG_9903_zpswjhb6ohv.jpg

cheers

[chopper2004]

Next installment are my photos of the Luke's finest albeit with Langley's finest,

cheers

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/longranger131/IMG_0723_zpsmxor3lvq.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/longranger131/IMG_0725_zpsduzb0olh.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/longranger131/IMG_0727_zpstpsmy9fi.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/longranger131/IMG_0729_zpsu5jvxxvk.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/longranger131/IMG_0730_zps7vtftusq.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/longranger132/IMG_1061_zps7jfssql9.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/longranger132/IMG_1104_zpsckefvfkf.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/longranger132/IMG_1081_zpspl5a6fu5.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/longranger132/IMG_1082_zpszjuhule9.jpg

cheers

[melmothtw]

My RIAT photos Sim AAR with KC-130J-30

At the risk of being a monumental pedant, the USMC operates KC-130Js rather than KC-130J-30s. Nice pics though...

[chopper2004]

Finally the piece de la resistance - my photos of Dambusters finest performing at Fairford in form with the Reds finally a nice landing:p

cheers



http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/longranger129/IMG_1871_zpslpkhtlch.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/longranger129/IMG_1872_zpspjmqjj6v.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/longranger129/IMG_1874_zpsovzjgw6r.jpg


http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/longranger129/IMG_2196_zpsrodkdrru.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/longranger129/IMG_2201_zpsndw7qqtt.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/longranger130/IMG_2326_zpsntci82zj.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/longranger130/IMG_2343_zpser6dyevj.jpg


http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/longranger130/IMG_2379_zpsw4mnrl2b.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/longranger130/IMG_2383_zps4tkivavj.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/longranger130/IMG_2385_zpsskuhshkb.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/longranger130/IMG_2391_zpsrkddm4po.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/longranger130/IMG_2395_zpsxq1zjpim.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/longranger130/IMG_2509_zpsei0gyn40.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/longranger130/IMG_2513_zpskb7n4xpg.jpg

[SpazSinbad]

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

[KenV]

F-35 Marks New Era For Stealth
Aviation Week.com 08/05/2016
Author: Lara Seligman


It took the Air Force almost a decade to send the F-22 Raptor to a combat zone after declaring the stealth fighter ready for war. But after giving the green light to the first operational F-35A squadron in late July, the Air Force is signaling the fledgling fleet will deploy to fight Islamic State group terrorists in the very near future.The Air Force’s eagerness to send its shiny new fighter into battle is a marked shift from years past, when deploying the radar-avoiding F-22 to the Middle East was viewed as provocative. But as the U.S. and its allies face a resurgent Russia and the proliferation of advanced weapons that can easily track and shoot down many legacy fighters, the service seems to be casting aside the Pentagon’s historically more cautious use of stealth aircraft.

Despite the Air Force's confidence, the F-35 will not reach full warfighting capability until 2018, at earliest

Gen. Herbert “Hawk” Carlisle, the chief of Air Combat Command, says he hopes in the next 18 months to send the Joint Strike Fighter to Europe and the Pacific, suggesting that such a move would send a message in response to increasing Russian and Chinese military activity. And if U.S. Central Command asks for the F-35 in the Middle East, Carlisle says he would comply in a heartbeat.

“From my perspective, it sends a good signal,” Carlisle says. “I think it reassures friends and allies and is a deterrent to potential adversaries, so I don’t think it’s a provocative move at all.”

In rolling out the F-35, the Air Force may be taking lessons learned from the Raptor to heart. Although the F-22 entered service in 2005, the jet did not see its first combat deployment until the U.S.-led intervention in Syria in 2014. The F-22’s deployments to the Middle East to fight Islamic State insurgents and to Europe to counter Russian aggression did wonders for its public image. The Raptor is now so popular, Congress has inquired about what it would take to resurrect the production line.

Now as the F-35 comes online, our partners and allies are eager to see the jet in action, Carlisle says.

When F-35s deploy to the European and Pacific theater, this will give our allies and partners confidence in the airframe, Carlisle says. “It will also give them a chance to see it in operation and in interoperability, working with their fourth-generation airplanes,” he adds.

Even though Carlisle lauded the F-35’s performance, the stealthy fighter jet is still immature and has limited capability to actually fight on today’s battlefield. Two U.S. F-35 variants—the Marine Corps’ F-35B and now the Air Force’s F-35A—have been declared ready for combat, but the jet will not be fully operational until it has completed a vigorous testing period that will not begin until August 2018, at the earliest. The initial aircraft will not have its full suite of electronic warfare, data fusion, automated maintenance capability or weapons capacity until the final warfighting software, Block 3F, is fielded in 2018.

For now, the F-35A in its 3i configuration can carry the AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile, GPS-guided Joint Direct Attack Munition and laser-guided Paveway missile. Block 3F will add the short-range AIM-9X Sidewinder missile, Small-Diameter Bomb and main gun system—the 25-mm, four-barrel GAU-22/A.

The gun is key to one of the F-35’s primary missions: protecting soldiers on the ground, also called close-air support. Though a 2,000-lb. bomb is effective in destroying a target, a huge blast is not ideal when enemy and friendly ground forces are engaged in close combat.

Meanwhile, the Pentagon’s top weapons tester cautions that while it is the Air Force’s decision when to declare the F-35 ready for war, the Block 3i software is limited, and its deficiencies will impact mission effectiveness.

“While the USAF has determined that the F-35A with Block 3i mission systems software provides ‘basic’ capabilities for IOC [initial operating capability], the limitations and deficiencies in performance for the F-35A with Block 3i discussed in the 2015 DOT&E [Director, Operational Test and Evaluation] Annual Report largely remain and will affect mission effectiveness and suitability in combat,” says Pentagon spokesman Maj. Roger Cabiness.
Still, Carlisle says, the F-35 is equipped to carry out many missions U.S. forces are flying today in the Middle East, including pre-planned airstrikes, interdiction, and defensive and offensive counter air. Even without its full potential, the Air Force would have no qualms about sending it into battle.
Marine Fighter Attack Sqdn. (VMFA) 121, the “Green Knights” based out of MCAS Yuma, Arizona, will be the first to deploy overseas; in January the squadron flies to MCAS Iwakuni, Japan. Meanwhile, RAF Lakenheath in the U.K. is set to receive its first of 24 jets in 2021.

“The F-35A brings an unprecedented combination of lethality, survivability and adaptability to joint and combined operations and is ready to deploy and strike well-defended targets anywhere on Earth,” says newly minted Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein.

[KenV]

It seems to me that the take away for Gen Goldfein's address at Red Flag was that the greatest strength of the F-35 is its connectivity and the onboard fusion/display capabilities of the aircraft which provide its pilots with unprecedented situational awareness and control. Now the million dollar question: how much does stealth add to that equation? If you can get 90% of the F-35's capabilities without stealth, would it make sense to put the F-35's avionics into a non stealth airframe? So probably not a 5th generation fighter but maybe 4.8?

[Lonewolf_50]

Yeah, if all other capabilities can be back-fitted ... why not do so? It will be a long while before the whole fleet is procured. Of course, that whole connectedness and battlefield SA was a prime feature of the Army's Comanche and Force XXI ... and we see how that ended.
F-35 Marks New Era For Stealth
Aviation Week.com 08/05/2016
Author: Lara Seligman
The Air Force’s eagerness to send its shiny new fighter into battle is a marked shift from years past, when deploying the radar-avoiding F-22 to the Middle East was viewed as provocative. With all due regard to Ms Seligman's efforts at reporting, "shiny" isn't what the F-35 is all about ... quite the opposite if one reads the sales brochures.


(Still not sure if one should lease it rather than buy it ... "if it floats, flies, or f***'s, lease it don't buy it!" :} )

[Lyneham Lad]

PICTURES: First flight for Israel's F-35A Adir (https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/pictures-first-flight-for-israels-f-35a-adir-427954/?cmpid=NLC%7CFGFG%7CFGFDN-2016-0810-GLOBnews&sfid=70120000000taAm)

From Flight Global Lockheed Martin completed the first flight of an F-35A Adir for the Israeli air force on 25 July, just one month after rolling the aircraft out at its Fort Worth site in Texas on 22 June. The first of the service’s 33 conventional take-off and landing F-35As on order, aircraft AS-1 underwent a successful check flight, Lockheed says. Israel’s first two F-35As – AS-1 and AS-2 – are scheduled to arrive at Nevatim airbase on 12 December, where they will be used to support initial pilot training activities.

[chopper2004]

Enough Air Power? Singapore Drops the F-35 Stealth Fighter | The Diplomat (http://thediplomat.com/2016/08/enough-air-power-singapore-drops-the-f-35-stealth-fighter/)

Singapore is putting on hold plans to procure up to 12 Lockheed-Martin supersonic fifth-generation F-35B stealth multirole fighter jets for the Republic of Singapore Air Force (RSAF), according to the Pentagon’s F-35 program office, Bloomberg News reports (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-08/singapore-puts-off-decision-on-whether-to-buy-lockheed-s-f-35).
Singapore’s Permanent Secretary for Defense Development, Ng Chee Kern, purportedly already informed the U.S. Department of Defense in the middle of June about the city state’s decision to postpone the acquisition of four F-35B fighter jets by 2022. (A tentative agreement included an option to buy an additional eight aircraft.)
However, U.S. President Barack Obama was apparently unaware of the mid-June decision taken by the city state. “We welcome Singapore’s interest in purchasing the F-35 aircraft,” he said last week at a White House press conference with Singapore’s Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.

[sandiego89]

PICTURES: First flight for Israel's F-35A Adir (https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/pictures-first-flight-for-israels-f-35a-adir-427954/?cmpid=NLC%7CFGFG%7CFGFDN-2016-0810-GLOBnews&sfid=70120000000taAm)

From Flight Global


Shucks, I was hoping that the Israeli ones had the best chance to have an interesting color scheme applied....


I wonder how much Israeli specific equipment/code they have leaving Fort Worth, or perhaps they will they need a pretty extensive swap out once arriving- likely a bit more involved than installing a new version of Adobe on my home machine....;).

[Heathrow Harry]

As I read it it won't be fully functional until 2020 at the earliest

[Engines]

I don't often comment on pieces from journalists, but I have to make an exception in this case.

Sorry, but this piece from Mr Eric Tegler is, by some distance, one of the worst informed, inaccurate and plain wrong bits of comment on the F-35 programme I've ever seen. Please note, I'm not denying that the program has had problems. Big problems. But this piece of work gets almost every fact wrong, draws the wrong conclusions, and well, just gets it all wrong.

There's a decent bit of work to be done to produce an objective, fact based piece of analysis on the F-35 programme. It could look at how unrealistic schedules got built and accepted (not a problem peculiar to the USA), how important effective requirements development is to any programme (it wasn't done well on F-35), and how LM lost control of the weight of the aircraft. That's not a complete list, but it would be an interesting read, and a useful piece of work for future programmes.

This ain't any of that. But thanks anyway to TDRacer for posting the link.

Best regards as ever to those who want to know the truth,

Engines

[PhilipG]

From KenV,

"It seems to me that the take away for Gen Goldfein's address at Red Flag was that the greatest strength of the F-35 is its connectivity and the onboard fusion/display capabilities of the aircraft which provide its pilots with unprecedented situational awareness and control. Now the million dollar question: how much does stealth add to that equation? If you can get 90% of the F-35's capabilities without stealth, would it make sense to put the F-35's avionics into a non stealth airframe? So probably not a 5th generation fighter but maybe 4.8?"

You could it seems to me kill a number of birds with one stone for the USAF here, put all the sensors into a larger airframe, larger crew, more range, say gulfstream size and you have a Situationally Aware Connected plane with the carrying capacity of the required arsenal planes. Philip

[KenV]

You could it seems to me kill a number of birds with one stone for the USAF here, put all the sensors into a larger airframe, larger crew, more range, say gulfstream size and you have a Situationally Aware Connected plane with the carrying capacity of the required arsenal planes. That might work for a pure missileer. But not so much for a multi-role tactical jet. And certainly not for an aircraft that must operate from a carrier.

[tdracer]

Engines
No, I didn't do anything to my post, and at least when I look it's still there so I don't believe is was moderated out (post #9560 :eek:).
Much (most?) of what I know about the F-35 program is from following this thread so I'm not in a position to judge the accuracy of the linked article - I simply found it interesting.

For me, the most telling part of the F-35 is that I know several co-workers who were involved in the Boeing JSF entry. In 2001, they predicted most of the problems the F-35 program has encountered.

[Engines]

tdracer,

Thanks for coming back - I must be slipping....old age....

The comparison between the Boeing and LM JSF entries was interesting and instructive. Boeing's main problem was that they had selected a STOVL solution (using hot exhausts for hover power) that was always going to give problems. Not only was it less thermodynamically efficient than the LM solution, but it also generated risks of Hot Gas Ingestion, which materialised during flight test. The bottom line was that their STOVL aircraft just didn't work.

The concept also meant that the engine had to nearer the front of the aircraft than the back - never an optimum layout for a supersonic combat jet. Boeing also badly underestimated the problems with getting a pure delta on to the deck and catch a wire - the late addition of the tailplane dealt a huge blow to their proposal's credibility.

However, Boeing had some VERY good aspects to their bid. In particular, their approach to mission systems integration was exceptionally good, and I heard a number of US DoD senior people offer the opinion that what they really wanted was for LM to build the airframe and Boeing to do the mission systems. Boeing's programme management was also miles better than LM's.

In the event, the LM F-35's first really bad problem was excessive weight. This was really unforgivable, as LM had been warned about this, and (in my view) simply failed to put the required importance on keeping weight down. Perhaps the success of their lift system gave them a false sense of security, I really can't say. Putting that right cost the programme at least a year, probably two. The airframe had to be basically redesigned in detail.

The next big problem LM hit was failure to get the mission system software integration to an acceptable level of maturity early enough. Having got behind the drag curve, they have stayed there for some while.

Like so many other military aircraft programmes, the JSF suffered from excessive optimism over schedules - the original IOC dates were really science fiction. A bit like Typhoon's. And F-22's. And so on....it's a common failing across programmes.

Hope this little snapshot helps - but please watch the normal warning - these are really my opinions, and shouldn't be treated as gospel.

Best regards as ever to those who really do know what they are talking about,

Engines

[ORAC]

Interesting, the ground is definitely shifting under the F-35. Interested in this fantastic sharing of data, that will be by non-stealthy L-16 I take it? Or the yet unfunded new non-stealthy network gateway platform?

Stop comparing the F-35 with any other stealth fifth generation fighter - Business Insider (http://uk.businessinsider.com/comparing-f35-china-j20-2016-8?r=US&IR=T)

"........On the heels of the Air Force's decision to declare its F-35 variant ready for combat, the head of the sister-service branch was asked to compare America's newest fighter jet to China's J-20 on Wednesday.

"When I hear about an F-35 versus J-20, it's almost an irrelevant comparison,"Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein said during a Pentagon briefing........

"Fifth generation technology, it's no longer about a platform, it's about a family of systems and it's about a network and that's what gives us an asymmetric advantage," Gen. Goldfein said. "I think you'll see us focusing far more on the family of systems and how we connect them together and far less on individual platforms."

[SARF]

When it comes to corporate speak., the f 35 is a world beater

[Lyneham Lad]

12 Aug article on Defense News:-
Pentagon Grants Lockheed About $1B To Stem F-35 Lot 9 Production Costs (http://www.defensenews.com/story/breaking-news/2016/08/12/f-35-jpo-lockheed-martin-undefinitized-contract-action/88600730/)

[FODPlod]

12 Aug article on Defense News:-
Pentagon Grants Lockheed About $1B To Stem F-35 Lot 9 Production Costs (http://www.defensenews.com/story/breaking-news/2016/08/12/f-35-jpo-lockheed-martin-undefinitized-contract-action/88600730/)
Virtually what happened when the UK Government deferred completion of the new carriers by a year to 'save money'. It ended up costing at least an extra £billion as the workforce still had to be paid as well as the suppliers.

[SpazSinbad]

PHOTO: http://www.combataircraft.net/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2016/08/14053750_10154394705227398_46555444849006484_o.jpg


“A series of photos posted by the US Navy this afternoon have depicted that the DT-III period of sea trials for the F-35C Lightning II are under way. Jets from VX-23 ‘Salty Dogs’ and VFA-101 ‘Grim Reapers’ have embarked the USS George Washington in the Atlantic for the third period of sea trials for the carrier variant (CV) of the F-35. They are thought to have embarked on Sunday August 14. Photos by US Navy/MCS2C Kris R. Lindstrom”


Back to the boat ? DT-III starts for F-35C | Combat Aircraft (http://www.combataircraft.net/2016/08/15/back-to-the-boat-dt-iii-starts-for-f-35c/)


http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewNewAllBum/F-35CdtIIIikeAug2016trapForum.jpg~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewNewAllBum/F-35CdtIIIikeAug2016trapForum.jpg.html)

[TBM-Legend]

Now for some B's for the RAN...

[Davef68]

t Boeing also badly underestimated the problems with getting a pure delta on to the deck and catch a wire - the late addition of the tailplane dealt a huge blow to their proposal's credibility.


Interesting that the lack of a tailplane is sometines cited as one reason the MDD/BAe proposal was rejected by the USAF. BAe friends say it was really the NIH syndrome.

[sandiego89]

PHOTO: http://www.combataircraft.net/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2016/08/14053750_10154394705227398_46555444849006484_o.jpg


“A series of photos posted by the US Navy this afternoon have depicted that the DT-III period of sea trials for the F-35C Lightning II are under way. Jets from VX-23 ‘Salty Dogs’ and VFA-101 ‘Grim Reapers’ have embarked the USS George Washington in the Atlantic for the third period of sea trials for the carrier variant (CV) of the F-35. They are thought to have embarked on Sunday August 14. Photos by US Navy/MCS2C Kris R. Lindstrom”


Back to the boat ? DT-III starts for F-35C | Combat Aircraft (http://www.combataircraft.net/2016/08/15/back-to-the-boat-dt-iii-starts-for-f-35c/)





Thanks for posting. I note that 2 of the 3 aircraft shown in the images have the weapons pylons mounted. #73 from VX-23 is shown with 3 stores pylons on each wing, while #123 from the Grim Reapers is in clean configuration. Would be interesting to see if this det includes some operations with wing stores.

[SpazSinbad]

Thanks for posting. I note that 2 of the 3 aircraft shown in the images have the weapons pylons mounted. #73 from VX-23 is shown with 3 stores pylons on each wing, while #123 from the Grim Reapers is in clean configuration. Would be interesting to see if this det includes some operations with wing stores.
VX-23 do testing whilst the Grim REAPER Instructors are CarQualled Day only - soon they go back for night quals. Day Only was noted in a previous report about one month ago however this latest one says they will be night qualled? Perhaps this is for the test pilots of VX-23 then the Reapers go back later?

Navy Schedules F-35C for Third Set of Carrier Trials 02 Aug 2016
SEAPOWER Magazine Online (http://www.seapowermagazine.org/stories/20160802-f35c.html)
__________________________________________

Carrier Quals, CODs & Clippers June 2016 Rick Burgess; Air International

"The US Navy’s F-35C Lightning II fleet replacement squadron (FRS) is scheduled for its first carrier qualifications in the new jet this June.

Strike Fighter Squadron 101 (VFA-101) ‘Grim Reapers’ based at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, is planning to send a carrier qualification (CQ) detachment to an aircraft carrier to conduct the first day qualifications for its instructor pilots. The squadron’s commanding officer, Captain James Christie, will be making his first F-35C carrier landings and catapult launches. Christie said the detachment is likely to include four F-35Cs, ten pilots and some maintenance personnel. He expects to send out another CQ detachment in November for both day and night carrier qualifications...."

Air International Magazine June 2016 http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=23058 (PDF 220Kb)

[Lyneham Lad]

In post #9597 the aircraft pictured is painted 'Grim Reapers' & 'VF-101' yet has 'Marines' painted on the aft fuselage. As far as I can see, the other 'Grim Reaper' aircraft in the linked article have 'Navy' painted there (For example see image #1 in the article).

[Maus92]

@SanDiego

One of the stated purposes of DT-III is to test asymmetric load outs on recovery, unusual approaches, and other non-standardness... So I thinking we'll see whatever weps that are cleared to be on the aircraft tested in various configs.

The Marines have taken delivery of at least one F-35C, but then again during development the jets and pilots have been switching off to accommodate mx and other scheduling pressures. I think VF-101 is the designated training squadron for the variant, and not service specific.

It will be interesting to get *real* (rather than shill) reports of availabilities, how many jets are *up* at one time, etc. The Charlies have been the more reliable version in the past, so hopefully that continues.

[KenV]

Interesting that the lack of a tailplane is sometines cited as one reason the MDD/BAe proposal was rejected by the USAF. BAe friends say it was really the NIH syndrome. The MDC JSF proposals had no vertical fin for yaw control, but definitely had a tailplane for pitch control.
http://www.pprune.org/ HRcVITEhJSkrLi4uFx8zODMtNygtLisBCgoKDg0OGhAQGy0lHyUtLS0tLS0y LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLf/AABEIAL0BCgMBIgACEQEDEQH/xAAbAAACAwEBAQAAAAAAAAAAAAADBAECBQYAB//EAD0QAAEDAgMFBQYFAgYDAQAAAAEAAhEDIQQSMUFRYXGBBRORobEGIjLB0fA UQlJi4aLxByNTcoKSFTNEQ//EABgBAQEBAQEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAECAAME/8QAIhEAAgICAwEBAQEBAQAAAAAAAAECERIhAzFBUWEiE3EE/9oADAMBAAIRAxEAPwDty4Ib3oDqqC6ruXXE55oYcUN0IJJ4yqOc7cVqDIYL1 QlKkncVbId3mtQZX4MF6pnQSHfZVAxx2LUbJ/BnMrNegCieCuykd6NCr+Bi5QHqAxR3aLQ0yxeFYPCH3auKfJbRtli8L3fKho 8VAoTtToHkFD5Ul6ltILxphFoqmV7xWa8L2QKQ0LCky0blEqxcFXMEC0UlQX lFgJf8Q3NlPuu2A2n/AGnQ9FRNBO84K7DKpVcGgl1gBJJsABtM6KMPiGuGZhDhvaZ9ECgpCq480LE4 1lP43NbOgJueQ1PRGpkOAN77xB6g3CxqKyVLXlSV5IUWFRWNQKjWE8EYUzwR aNTYPveKt3yI3D8UUUBw8FsohhIXdTnaqGkG7USpSi8FVL81o8VNnWkDq1Gp ckFXdhSTeAEKpho0IPklUS8vhDgArL1JkblVzL7uqxicgXmsVJ4r1N54rBaL 5wNVGcFS6iTuWD2tVrYU5rVaTjq4ZSyT8JLREbiRw5qoG2tm9ZS0rnaXtTQH xB4O4NzeBBXqPtdRfVDHMcxpsHvIEH9wn3RxlD0ZSTOlAVwFhn2iwzf/ANDExOV0HkQLprDY59Qyym5rP1VPdJH7WfF/2y8itTHJGmTCrnUhs8FGUDisithGMlWFkGnV4ozXFZ6FNMl/Jea1WdzQnucBoOalbF6CMaNgQq9EkHKQDsMSB0m6htZw1Z1lV72dnmlJg2mj KqNxjTZ1GoOLSwnlBgJDH4/FFuV+GaW8Gl/X3HEhdJTdwRmsJ4Km6ISvo+Qds1fdNMuIk+8LiROaHDdMWO4I3ZXatMkU84z aAgxfdK1/8Suy6xcHUaDqveDI4sBLmOFmuIANiLTsy63XEeyfZTqhdMNy+7BHvBzSDPAi FVnNxo+gdn4sUXFwoh9Qn4iTmPAWMLcp9t1SLYRxP7nFo8SxU9jjVJq1HUzT ZOVubWplJ98DY3cds8L9I52+FEpHSMXVmbhalV930cltj83kB5ppmHceHVMO dA1Us0RkysF6Kw/SD5JtzYG3mFAdshDq1ABr5rW2akiWZtjvJGDHfq8krh8ROkpj8SVnZlVCbsd JU/ieaz3u3CN9iChvxBbqIH3vXTD4c/8ARrscfjhKHUxm2Uo9+bZ5gqj8zRo3wulQQPkY0cRIlBbiCTZCp1DtDR0Mq1 XlPh9E4pMnJtWNEEgxaRqIJHESFymL7GxtNxfSxL6nBzyxw6fA7+lbzKztp6 IhrA7yjHZrTRxL/aLH0zkqOe0/uYwTyOUh3SUrX9pMRUBYa5IIIM5AIOo91o9VX2v7bfWd+HpnIwEl8j3iGm5d uH7fHcsLsPBOc7PlIYLDcfqpC39NilQdTgmOG5ExL2PvIB+7SodiwIpRmzQA 0XJJ0AC67sT2dpU6Y71jHvmTIDg3c1s7t+0zwW7BR2cv2Tin0nAs7txGmYF5 HFsEQumoe0GLP/ylx3w5g/r+q6Ck1oENAbwAgeAQHOM3MD73KqTK2vRKlju0HEf5NFrdoc4z/S4+i3M/NJDEAWzDz+qN3gcCJNwbg36IxotSL94OKt3o0Oh37VlVuynD3mVJ4Elp8W2P gkalWq0nO57d0wRzzQfVKVg20bNZ9SndhLmbjct5bT4pWt7RBrC94IYNoM24 CL8kh3xie8f/ANj8li13Cq4MHwg9LLYo2TOvwXarqgzEENOg/NGyePBeqdsBrS7IbbDG+NkpbACGwpqbYTSJyYfC4uvWvDaTNhs6p0BsOoW1h 64aIzHrclcyKjx+Zp5t+hV6ePq7GsN+JB++aHBMqM2jpDiRK5mt7Ms/FnE0nhrak99TI/NHxs4k6g7yeCeoV6pMuDfDL8ynK5m8jpeUKNFOdoepuaIAERpyCuXjosdtaN qIyqDqfOEPjMuUcqZOPmhuyjQundNkBztyqajth9VSiS5B2uBEyQfEckNonU xz/upYCRqeoRGtGsrdBVh6dLcR5ouU7/L+Umxw4z4q+c/qPgpplWjP74N0B8vkgveTcB3miHQxKTq96PeIEcXZfmuqJaHKfu7DKXxTxMS B0VKNcu/TxgzG7UL1SiTrrsP8oWnszVrRFIjUX9OimsM0e75H5oT2vG0c5PzKk5wLuby 1Pkq/Sa8LtbA3KKtUMaXPcGhoJJ4ASdiswFwI1np6pfG9nZqb2TGZpETAuIhFmSZx 2Jw5qPfiXtHv6zaGgQAeQGvBGweGfi2ZBLKNxnAu/wD27xxXQN7Ha8htd0gaUmiKfDMdX+Q4LUc0NEN6DZ0jRSlsyi2rZhezvsrQw j+8BdUqbC4gBus5QBYmdf5XUNrAiClqT+auI2A+KzSKVlnEizRKo6kTw6oFR lTWWgfuKpTxMa5ek/MKqfga9GKgaIkX8ZVqRadWA8RZL9412p5alSWO2EeY+aQrehmqJ0Dgh5N4VG 0qmpd0gn+yIym7j4EI6GrMntygMksADidRujhrsXznEdt1KdR1OkdDlzRmM6 GJ4r6f2v2c91J3cuyVRBaSJbI1a62hEjhqvl3ZXYVepiXtOVrqdT35Ns2aTB bKmV+Ckdp/h/2zVruq0qsOLACHAQdSCDFtg811ooSSOvFc72d2TUwNKs+kzvsQ90hokCC73R NvdAJJmL9F03stRxApd5igwVXatb8LG7G6mTtN+GxF0aMcmUOG4q1OjMyY5D 6LXe3eAlqzsoMtb/2+SpSsXx0Lsw8WEnqimifswUShWaROkcVdzp0KG2ZRVCDmnWFPePOh9EfuCd 6juOfom0GDFXA7TPqiNaANJ5/JG7tCqSdnitlYYURm3NHoiiq77KCQSLW6hUAg/F5fNY3QXMSdnVHDDx/6hCox93Ro4rNmUTPrnMIix8f4SFWmRscQNtkd+OAkXI4oP44utHgVSTQycWV biLQWjrf5K/ek6a/eyJQc522HAmfIIwxIEQSeH9ws0Cf6UcHbb9E1QotPAnfafBCGKPLjPyRXGQD JMcNFtjoHVBmMzesIlEu26cAQgvxQ/SOs/VVbio3CdwsnF0SpKw+TkmmsbYEjNxt9UlXxFN7cpYRxCw6DX0AYzPM7bgDfD jclS0yskjp3OymJ9FD2ki2hsZWfQxtpc1s7QDp8vJQO0mmYDhyj6o0OQV2EI 09QrZTsHlKR/HySGyY5ATula2GLXUxUe4t/VmIsZiN3rKW6CKvoG9jzrpuFvRVbXy/y2fNMOxlECzweuxYOL9o6NN1nEnYAJnnMWWVM0tHU4S94HhB80yHHgOa57sL tfE15IwwbRB+NzoL9+Vu7jpzW5Tcx3u/Ad2hHLYubR3i9BiHHQjzC42hgXM7SrMMf5sVWkaRAa8cwW/1Deuprdnk/nJ5mPRLjsUZg6bgEAxsdGYa7YEqlX0iak9US3FNzk6jQE7OXDinDiWzE+qA3 sve7w/lXfgIADXaJbiyYxnFdBTRzCZVBhhG0Lzappj3s3yRaZe68AjZldBU7RemKvw 8X16wvUqgIIJI4fYQ8Ti3NJFjwIBI8FSjj41Yw9F0xbRyySY2aUNmXAbw7MP CyoXUv9Vw5AhexGMaRZkO52WY660Y32aUkujVp4xv+4b4g/wA+SahjhIP16rn3NI1siYdsn4gOJKHxrsY8r6aNtzRtj0S2IbGmvKUWi7KDc OA2z6IWJqMdBBI5a+qhLZcui+He6BNMniAnszd8eKy6eJcDAef+UD1JTg7Qf vZ4rSizRmjArM5npJVaUR8V9xi3JRNQD428ok+iWFE6gMcd3vNPyXU5f8GnY tu6eUfVCqVgdiXrNj8hbzdI81Vki5jlP0SooHNjNMDUnLwMX80CvXDblwA5w rZ55c1l4sVKcl3v0zqRqOYWbaJ7G8L2hRqfDUb43PIEI54CR97liHs2i8ZgB fdb0RsPgnN0qvjcbxyWXIGJs4eo0fEzN1iPqrVmg30vbgsk4c7ajz1H0Qn4V oOa87yZjkNFLmil1QTF4oTlY20mdxcNRO5KsxTqr8jLNHxHef0g+p/lJ4iqXf5dM8zuC3eyMGGNAAUCNYegGhKdo18oAJMSSBszRc84Wg9wSWIZN7a zdYBXFU3OYGs1f6fcK2B7GYz3qgzu2bh5XV6uIqAywiNoO1Q3tN356Z5t0+f qrjXoM28HVi4LgdoAJEbzBCO0sJnK8ztAzDnf5ys7Ae0OHZoXydRlk+VvNEq +2NNtm0K7ugaPGUSlvR1hVbZssxTgcvd22Xa1x6TCkY1xP/rd12+S5bDduUqhOfDvp3sQ8PJ/3WsOUlaIxLmaVCep+aVBPoz5a9Ogw+NH5g5nMW8Rom3NBH0XKfjXnV7jwk/Io+H7RczTqDoh8L8GP/oXo9iHPbo4t6gD1QD2jU0zeQUOxhfq0TzVaWHkxqdzT81aSS2Q22/5YJ75ub9VAeUWpTi0EcSiU8GXCQJPBVkkRi2wBdKrZNPwpbqDO6F52CNoIHA z9EZIcJAYtPqqtE6CeWvkjfhXDUAjy8lD8PGv35oyRsWEktHw+MehurCqN4H CQhsot2AE8TKuymNob4D7ChstJnm1G702MfT3eQWfUyDn+0z6hVz8E42GTie MBozOt+0SEIubFvQLOqvDYFJxAP6gyTuiBfqgd29xkOvuFiI4CyygLn+GlHT miSwxIn73xKx+8cLSRvufmm6HaT27Q4bZaAPJU4MlTXpuUKG1obpsA87INZj M2vvTB0jdussqpjnONzabC8DldQK3E9LKVxsp8i8RXtXsxjTnoEtdtYfhPLc fLks/DYwOOUgtePym3hvWsaxIywNd0lAxGAbVjMRm2Ha373J/z0S3bAudCyMfii45W6oePx0Hu2nMRbNvjai4DCnWL7yuZhjszBQOO2RMrepi AlMLTI2H1TpFljA6iTqXTjG5tEnWbUkhrOpNvK6yAHlVXuDRcolPAud8dWOD BHSTdXp4Sm03kfuIzHzKtRYMzqzw+wa48paPG0qtHAuG5s/8jpFtAPBbRo05tVtt9w/f91aoxke64kc49VaiidmZTwLRqS48T8gnWuO7yV4bMEub0zfNEDKU/wDsMf7blWqRNWRm2AHnf5LwJ3ymqVOiSPfdHIn0Cl1CmTDao/5Ai/VGSLwYaliqrvdgag6ZdN8Jmlma7NUAvxjkkHPyGA4cxcdbI5xlVwmJGkxPPV Q18OkX9DVKgBktvB1v4TZUp4txd8cDw9bL2ApB5MyOW3pCA8MzQ4lvSfLVFL obfYy7GmZkyNtjP8ckZvaTQBIG4m2zhaVnVsM4DMCHN3j5zoqUMM5/wiwtO6dOOpQ4xaMpSTNSq9pGfvGgHT+wkpJ2KbOs8QInheEhUdB5Sqd7P39y qUKJfJZof+QDdAeUo9PtH988I+iQzMA3niD6JjD4YuGdhEi5BlpHIqWkMZSK 16+YzkjofmrB/wBx/K9Vr1G6vvxg26ogrv4+LUpg1bM2tj2sJDGg2+Mthw3hphZpxOpBde9zt6DVe 7Szh8uImLRYxxiL80o6qTrfqukYoiUm2HfVLrnz1sobKthqYJu0gcwBzMp6p hwGyA4jWblvUgQltIFFvZNCsMkd3JGb3iYAnS/C9p2omFIAzFueN9m+evIBApV2/mkxoBceB2K1bFZojTdAAHID6qaLvVj1B5qakwNGsFuUBI9uYsUqZphha5wuS QSG8thKPh8XGgnhs+q532uxYpsdUcZe4wBvP0EeS5z0Unr9MFmPpU3zUNhsF ySum7B9osNVc2mAWuOgcInlFp4L51g8O6oZPVaPZlIOxFFjNe8Z5OBJ6AE9F ysWj6+MKG6aHRVq0gRC1cHQzU723cln4qmROkKjkZooOE5bnmNOqu01jqJjf A0UvoDQ1IO0HSeiNRc9glgaRtj6ldFpF1ss1tRwuGW1t8wUGphi7YPH7K817 qhgNbO/Q+SljHQffBjW9+m1baK0yKOBP6Qf+ceoQq+GDSS6m8DgQR6IlTGEaEcp+qdw eLNQETB3T6WuluS2GMXoyKdNrjZwj9xLfPRNikGXNIEfqnOPoFrd0wCXNbxM D6LKq4pkxSYBO36BKk5A4KIyalGBlIad+UT4BeHaI0cARvHDQ5SfKQh4Xsyb uKLiOytC2FP89Ff3V0Urhjm5rcmyB5iAowfaDhDLRxt5hUOHqDQu6En5pd9R 2hPlB+qqk1QW07N04twEhjSOBhZ+N7SL7BoA4gOPmFntE71DkLjSGXI2M4Zz RtInaLEdBryKsaBF9dzmTI5iPKxStJhdprzVn1HDV/SSUtbJT0VdQMnagvpkatMcvuE3gIM/FOgDS0f9pGnFWxVGofipuA4O2ctCnLdBjaszwSOHHUq/e6e8SZ13eqpiMMQdDG/X00VqGFebhocAbiR4ETIToin0dHga0iS7Ps0A/urGpT/0f6f4WZg8a0OykGmNgJEegKcOKb/qDxH0XBx2ehT0cxSYwwGUS473mOsAphvZAtmIibiYHlJUMwWYfmA4n1n6Ig7 OAj3yIuGzfpAXVy/Tmo/hXu6RMFrnRoM1unvFexjmtAaxhadoMnkXbCdbJc45jbMBnaYv4lEZjnEbG23 gnndamFoTZULdniEcVQR8AB3iVd9N5GbNmO8u0vxS73um5JKtbJehmjbRcL7 Y1H1cWKWxsACf1Xk9IK7CpXDWlxMBoJPAASVw/YROIxZqO/M6eUmw6Cy48xfGP4zAjDUNuZwnlP8AZbP+GPs+5zjiXixsydoPxO66DrvCe7 T7EOMxZYRFCmQHHTMQB7g+Z+q62tWbQpAU/inKwCwkCJ5AfJcooZPwt252xQwwOeqxk6y65tFm66bgsXAds08T7zS7u5jMR AcRsG1Y1XsKiahe+lndN85kSbuMTBk3uCt9uGdkAZkygfDkDQOAy/wuyg12SqGnFjLgNLeZnneZQTiaJ/JB4CDO/cUuxlj7kciUvlAI15xoqURcqNLC5GunP4iEzVotf+YGNxHySWVuoeBG/b4oDaTnE5gTxZljysivbG/KGq/Z+W4I5FGomo0WA8EnTw5vt3W1HVRUqlpDfeZxLiR4Jqwui2KoVTqSeqUDSJn ZyT34h8gOcHA6RBHyVfwupAaeFwVSddkyjfRajRdlzCRyn5K7sY4ENDnA7c0 R5/NAw2YOAMgcLOHl6pzE4SoBM5hue0GOModXsY3WjzsdUEAkCdDAMjmLK9ZjXX c4uOydEB7JFwzgRY9ISpBbtJnchL4Vb9IqWPBVMb1DeU+srxouF8pA3wrIo8 SOKjIDoT4X9VWOaYoOZuaTxJn6KWzJBMNSbIc2oQQdoi+7imKkzAcZ3F0TyW fiK0at/jekhWIu0kHgjGxyrRtHF5YDmEm97k+IuUtWc1zp7tzXbwT01U4PHnLcZjNyd I+SYfiBoWxPNT0V2uwOGxLhIcHP2+8ASN4umhjqW71QXZBMOHW0eFlXvn/rZ/QtVhbRiPD5zOeY53PSUB9aM0SJt8UnrvTgBmYnzQcWOAHqutHNiF0akYP0Tm FwAIv5hCr0MtvC3otkGJZlc6AAc7nz0VtsE+CAyk7cR6Kr5BusIr27D2toNJ zVXAGLRTbd59B1K6b2d9nKLXg90wm18t7byud7BZ3tepU3HI3k34v6s3gF9O 7EwuVuYrhN2xboHVpNY47APAb1yeJ7QDnF2UhoGWnaAG7+bjfwWl7T4y/dNI2F8mBGrW9dTw5rl6tYuMq+OF7BOh2tiXEQXSEah2k9ogOJG43WY15Vw6/vLtijZM2qOJDyQRd2tvovYikyIzZTuMkfwst9fYNnCCr06oPxa750UYlZX2P 4B9MEtc4Qd4n5fRMVcJSBBa5t7WcBHFYVQQdZ++CqEuPtmU0tUbVSswEgucY 4z4XUCR+YweB/ssm6YwuIItIHMfRbE2QXE4iRvO9Lte7ZK9Xqlxuq5rRKUqJbsuarjeT4phna lUWznrf1ShA4qpjYtSZk2h444ujOSQNIgfJHI/S8ddfJZfFXp1gLFoPHQoobbGhXLTaOe1VOLfpmPihktMRI5qtanBg+oWYoI6 uSIK9UqzsQWtvCbLKcfF4KTCmtvX+FV1B1zFgj0zTmz7bZt4LQbVbFojeIWb NSMVlUjQp/D9okCCMwPHToq4rAgguaZO6B6ylBhnj8p8FrTJ2ujdFKidtyJ4eSuMJS4LKw 2ILYkeXrOq0RjKW1onqoaZ0yRgPxBveBwVGG8+ZstXD4QAX9ZS1fC7r7l0yI oC2sd6G+s7f9UaiyPij5qXgHSPTxlYwuMS8bZ5qhJeRPipIiSQpzNAknoFSB j3+HnZ+cE7MzyeriV1vtH223DsDGQah0G79zuCxOxcYMDgKQia1RgcG7biQX bgubxL3PcXvdLjck7/ouEYZOzegqtUuJLiSSZJJ1J1K8wfcq4pti2u2SPJCavQgYRrdyYpUi7Q+KpQ qgbfFEqQfhhJJU81LQqBhCLSZpcA9UFFxScLxHT6qDTKcdgnQDmnr53Qn0Xt 2HnFlNjQu0IrGtImTI2LzA0/E4g8pBRA1o95pKbNQMUSb6BClHrYkHYl83ALWZDFGpIgATv2qTRjXUzxQ8+4 BUfWJ19FgoieC81hOgVSSdqIxxFoE/e5FlIq7dom8CxpmRJHGEr3h3AqWVDM6HgENlUaGNoyJ2hZgA2mFpsmoLEA7Z n6K9GjNiy4UuQpGQGb1cV8tgPvqtatgC7RA/8M4oyQOL8FqeKG2mDyV21Z+Bjxyd6LTodikau+Sfp4ZrApc0UoMwHV3R72aO LQvd47h4BbzqYdbUbbKn4NnHw/hGZnBmGKnHxVmVTNySPJGGGgTPklqrIMLqQHotIdIGu/Zz4K2IqH8zGcwD8kClVI0VnYkgwRIKKGwdUCeHKfRZ2KpXNoC1HPyifXgl8N WzuiBBniqTJFa5fVcXvN/QAQAOAFoSrhBWyMGDtI++Ko7s9jdZd1hbJGxZlNCuw7I1+9ui9iqYabb0PvQ dWid4t471SIbC7SI2q0xcLw0FhqR5BaOGwjDePNZsy2ZpcSiZDqU7XoAaAfF Gn1StersRYlWQTrCYaI0cPH6pGUeiPVYLGmFujjbfE+KYHZxN2uaRzSTwBFk zgyQZEDpqhlItU7OI48gi4Sg2L7b3TFHFZjBAV2gWtpx6qW2UqFMV2aSQWRG 28R4qrOyjHxid1/otuPQ+UIdZgdYhRmzpgjn8RgnM48UuuhOBbG3x0We7BiDwO5UpBjRmwj4fCl x2Dmjupg6ABEwrvVDMaeGwkNsZKOKW+EDD1I2Jgv2ri2zskgrKYhNNAA2IFG rbRTm4KNl0g+YFXDROgQmCyu5yDDTKY3I3djclWvKYFRSUf//Z
http://www.jsf.mil/images/gallery/cddr/mda_ngc_bae/cddr_mda-ngc-bae_006.jpg
The MDC proposal was rejected because the STOVL version was not single engine. It required a separate lift engine because MDC/BAE was unable to make the gas coupled lift fan system work. Lockheed used a mechanically coupled lift fan and was able to make it work.

[SpazSinbad]

Final flight tests underway for F-35C, the Navy's newest combat aircraft


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGc4Npg1oy0

[SpazSinbad]

How green is my glow - does my helmet look green in this?

...“So we’re going to go out on a really dark night and we’re going to do our final evaluation on the green glow,” he said. “And we think that that problem is solved.”...

Pilots To Test Fix For F-35 Helmet ?Green Glow? Problem | (http://www.defensetech.org/2016/08/16/pilots-to-test-fix-for-f-35-helmet-green-glow-problem/)

[SpazSinbad]

There is a lot of 'in the hangar of CVN testing' this time around so I guess the FlyPro was completed ASAP.
F-35C at Sea for U.S. Navy Development Test III USS George Washington (CVN 73) // August 16, 2016
"...Pilots and maintainers from VFA-101, also known as the Grim Reapers, based at Eglin AFB, Florida, and from the NAS Patuxent River Integrated Test Force team, are exceeding expectations during the test. Pilot carrier qualifications for VFA-101 were completed in two days, and the Pax River ITF has completed 125 test points and eliminated 101 test point requirements due to exceptional performance." https://www.f35.com/news/detail/f-35c-at-sea-for-u.s.-navy-development-test-iii

[West Coast]

Lyneham

It was common (at least when I was active duty) for Fleet replacement squadrons to have Marine on one side and Navy in the other as the squadron trained both.

[Maus92]

The "green glow" was reportedly fixed a while ago, but it turns out they're still working on / evaluating the "fix" - which actually seems to be a workaround contrast adjustment / mode. This is why it pays to be a little skeptical of emanations from the JPO, LM, and parroted by their useful idiots.

[SpazSinbad]

Long faces all round 'Maus92' - here is 'one of the tests' spruiked by an 'idiot':
"...During the George Washington‘s cruise, Navy Capt. James Christie told me the 70 maintainers aboard will work with Pratt and Whitney to do a complete engine swap of the enormous F135 engine. They’ll take it out and replace it. There’s been no reason, Christie told me, to do the engine replacement for the last 10 months because the “engines are very reliable.”..."
F-35Cs Undergo Helmet, EW Tests Plus Aboard USS George Washington « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary (http://breakingdefense.com/2016/08/f-35cs-undergo-helmet-ew-tests-plus-aboard-uss-george-washington/)

[KenV]

This is why it pays to be a little skeptical of emanations from the JPO, LM, and parroted by their useful idiots.Aaaaah! So now the test folks are just "useful idiots" and not "bought and paid for shills".
So in the area of promoting insulting slurs, we do seem to be making progress.

[Maus92]

@KenV

"Parroting" by "useful idiots" was obviously not in reference to test personnel.

[TEEEJ]

The first Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) for Japan was photographed at the Fort Worth production facility in mid-August.

The images, released by the Japan Air Self-Defence Force (JASDF) on 14 August, show aircraft 69-8701 (also designated AX-1) in its completed state ahead of flight tests and delivery to the international training fleet at Luke Air Force Base (AFB), Arizona, in the coming weeks. Four aircraft for the JASDF are currently being built at Fort Worth.

Image at following link.

JASDF releases images of first F-35 | IHS Jane's 360 (http://www.janes.com/article/62957/jasdf-releases-images-of-first-f-35)

[SpazSinbad]

F-35C Back at Sea for 3rd Round of Carrier Tests Chris Cavas, August 17, 2016
"...And this was only Day Two of nearly three weeks of expected flight operations aboard the George Washington....


...DT III will refine maximum power launches from all four of the carrier’s catapults and work to establish operating parameters with external and asymmetric weapons loading on the aircraft’s wings, along with certifying various systems for landing qualifications and interoperability. Logistics is also a feature of DT III, where an aircraft from VFA-101 will undergo an engine switchout.


VFA-101, with five aircraft, was on board to qualify 12 pilots in deck landings, said squadron commander Capt. James Christie. All the pilots will in turn become instructors, as VFA-101’s mission is to become the training squadron for other F-35C squadrons.


“We’re developing a syllabus,” Christie said, that will be used by pilots as they transition both from training aircraft and older F/A-18s into the 35C....


...As on all carriers, pilots perform the duties of landing signal officer (LSO), watching and grading every landing. One of VFA-101’s LSOs is Lt. Graham Cleveland, who is a veteran of all three F-35C at sea tests.


Both VX-23 and VFA-101 pilots were handling LSO duties aboard the George Washington. “It takes a village,” he said, as the test and evaluation and operational squadron LSOs mingled and shared opinions and expertise.


Like many of the pilots, Cleveland said the F-35C is a bit easier to fly than the F/A-18s – with a caveat. “The 35 is a lot more easier to fly and a lot more difficult to operate,” he said. “Basic flying is easy but mission systems are more complex.”...


...VX-23’s task is detailed and rigorous – even at times tedious – as the squadron’s pilots conduct as many as 500 launch and recovery cycles to establish a wide range of operating parameters. The aircraft’s performance with a variety of weights and loads needs to be established, including how it handles when external weapons are loaded and carried in an uneven fashion....


...test pilots need to check how the plane handles in many configurations, including heavy weapons on one side but not the other, and different types of weapons loaded on each station.


One issue that rose during the aircraft’s development seems to have been solved. There no longer seem to be any significant problems with the tail hook, which in 2012 was revealed to have a number of reliability issues in catching the arresting wire. A redesign of the hook and its installation appears to have been successful. [no kidding]


Maj. Eric Northam of VX-23, the first Marine to fly the F-35C off a carrier, declared there were no problems with the hook. “We’ve had a very successful boarding rate,” he said. “One hundred percent so far.”

The carrier did not need special modifications to operate the F-35C, said commanding officer Capt. Timothy Kuehhas, although there were some software upgrades to some operating systems. About 100 crew members, he said, received handling and launch procedure training in the aircraft at the Navy’s carrier flight systems test site in Lakehurst, New Jersey...."
F-35C Back at Sea for 3rd Round of Carrier Tests | DefenseNews (http://www.defensenews.com/articles/f-35c-back-at-sea-for-3rd-round-of-carrier-tests)

[Rhino power]

From the Janes' link posted by, TEEEJ-
...to replace its ageing Mitsubishi-McDonnell Douglas F-4J Kai (Phantom II) aircraftCome on now, Jane's, you can do better than this... :=

-RP

[SpazSinbad]

heheh - my favourite quote at moment: First Amphibious Ship Built for F-35 to Conduct Tests with Jet 12 Jul 2016 Hope Hodge Seck
"...In March, the America wrapped up a ten-month period of maintenance that included deck-strengthening measures needed to accommodate regular F-35 take-offs, which can scorch and melt a conventional hangar deck over time...."
First Amphibious Ship Built for F-35 to Conduct Tests with Jet | DoD Buzz (http://www.dodbuzz.com/2016/07/12/first-amphibious-ship-built-for-f-35-to-conduct-tests-with-jet/)

[SpazSinbad]

'Maus92' said: "...It will be interesting to get *real* (rather than shill) reports of availabilities, how many jets are *up* at one time, etc. The Charlies have been the more reliable version in the past, so hopefully that continues."


Not sure who is SHILL or CHILL but anyways here goes for the B Babies:
"Despite software glitches the first-ever Joint Strike Fighter operational squadron had a 98 percent sortie completion rate during a recent Red Flag joint integration exercise, according to a Marine Corps official. Maj. Michael O'Brien, Marine Fighter Attack Squadron-121 operations officer, told Inside the Navy during an Aug. 8 interview the squadron only had one sortie where it was unable to provide aircraft during Red Flag16-3. Red Flag is an exercise hosted by the Air Force several times a year..."
https://insidedefense.com/daily-news/despite-software-glitches-f-35-op-squadron-had-98-percent-sortie-completion

[ORAC]

Taken with the link in post 9593 (http://www.pprune.org/9472247-post9593.html), the USN is walking away, if not running, from the F-35.

If they are buying more F-18s, they are buying less F-35s (and undoubtedly getting more for their money), plus the costs for modernising their current F-18s will come from the same pot.

In calling the modernised F-18s "gen 4.5" they are also admitting that the modernised F-18 will have everything (and perhaps more) the F-35 has except for stealth, and as stated in post 9593, the no longer see stealth as the dominant factor for the future.

The cost spiral is now inevitable. The only question being how many F-35Cs they will get for their money.

Navy To Modernize Boeing Super Hornets To Fly With Lockheed F-35 (The Navy plans to "continue to modernize" Boeing's (BA) F/A-18 Super Hornets, said Vice Adm. Mike Shoemaker, the commander of Naval Air Forces, calling newer versions "4.5-generation" fighters.)

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The Navy plans to "continue to modernize" Boeing's (BA) F/A-18 Super Hornets, said Vice Adm. Mike Shoemaker, the commander of Naval Air Forces, calling newer versions "4.5-generation" fighters.

During a talk Thursday at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Shoemaker said he isn't minimizing the need for Lockheed Martin's (LMT) F-35, a fifth-generation fighter. Instead, he sees a role for both of them. "We absolutely need the F-35 as soon as we can get it," he said. " We want to pair those two up together." Shoemaker said the two jets could be flown in tandem to take advantage of the planes' "very good complement of high-low mix."

It's unclear how many more Super Hornets the Pentagon will buy. Without additional orders, Boeing faces the end of its production run. Currently, the Navy has money in its budget for two Super Hornets in 2017 and 14 in 2018. But the service could purchase even more Super Hornets as part of its unfunded spending request, and Congress seems keen to keep the production line open. Boeing has said it needs 24 orders per year to keep the production line alive past 2020......

Meanwhile, Shoemaker said that, despite some setbacks with the F-35's development, the Navy has plans to declare the new fighter ready for combat in late 2018. The Navy still needs the new 3F software update on the plane, however. The Air Force declared initial operational capability for its version of the F-35 earlier this month, and the Marine Corps declared its version combat-ready last year.

[SpazSinbad]

'ORAC' link above does not work for me but anyway here is another view:

New U.S. Naval Aircraft Integrating for Longer Range Operations 19 Aug 2016 Megan Eckstein
"...As for F-35C integration, Shoemaker said the planes have come to Fallon a few times for testing.

“That’s been a very unique opportunity to start that fourth and fifth (generation) integration and understand what that really brings from a capability perspective,” he said.

“Flying with Rhino (Super Hornet) and Growler, we understand the low-observable penetration capability of F-35, but when we look at the ability to fuse data, put it all together, both active and passive sensors, and share that with the other platforms in the air wing and joint force, give us long-range combat ID – that’s where I think the true value you’ll see in F-35.”

In Naval aviation will rely on the JSF and Super Hornet into the 2030s, and Shoemaker said the future looks bright with these two platforms.

“When you pair those two up together I think they bring a very good complement in terms of, if you call it a high-low mix and the low part of that mix is Super Hornet, we’re in a good spot,” he said.

The Air Boss noted the long-range ID aspect of F-35 but said the service is building sensors and weapons to bring this extended reach to other planes too.

“The key is the long-range ID, being able to ID at range in both a surface and air context – and that’s where the sensors and our integration of both manned and unmanned, joint, space, all domains, and really the networks that will bring all that information together and share it” will be important for future operations and extending the reach of the air wing well beyond what previous generations could have done...."
https://news.usni.org/2016/08/19/new-u-s-naval-aircraft-integrating-longer-range-operations

[ORAC]

High + Low = Marginally affordable + Affordable.

I can see the USN ending up buying F-35C in F-22 type numbers. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor) The USAF originally planned to buy 750, they got 187. The programmes start to look eerily similar.

[Heathrow Harry]

or the B-2

175 planned, then 75 then 20+1 delivered....................

[MSOCS]

Or, as the DoD learned at the very end of the F-22 production timeline, don't stop making jets when their cost hits the nadir. F-35 cost per airframe is already down to where the last batch of F-22s were before the line was terminated, and will drop further. The brutal truth is that the US will go "all in" on F-35 because the real value is getting cost per flying hour, through-life, down to something reasonable - and you can only do that when supporting high mass, to make savings in bulk production of parts etc.

FWIW I don't believe the USN has even the slightest vector (running, walking or crawling, for that matter) away from F-35C. The interoperability with 4th Gen platforms is to ensure the new jets don't make the old ones - jets with many usable hours left on them - obsolete. Ensuring F-35 can "talk" to existing 4th Gen fighters (and others) enhances their capabilities, makes perfect sense and acknowledges/mitigates the delay in bringing desired numbers of F-35 to the fleet. "Delay" includes unplanned (i.e. Program delivery delays due to concurrency) and planned ("we simply don't have the cash now but need to fill the fighter gap).

Interoperability across 4th and 5th Gen is/was an inevitability and isn't limited to the USN either and, to suggest that it's being done to make up for a lack for F-35 capability, is disingenuous and (frankly) wrong.

[SpazSinbad]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2EC_0IAGkU

[Engines]

Guys,

I know that I am probably repeating myself, but....

Watching the F-35C doing that series of events in the video shows that they team at Fort Worth, and also at Lakehurst and Pax River, have managed a truly impressive technical feat.

They've got a substantial low observable aircraft to a point where it can safely and reliably do that really difficult thing called cat and trap operations. To do that they've had to solve many problems along the way, including getting approach speed down without using standard high lift devices (LO won't let you do that), developing a stealth arresting hook installation (not at all straightforward), achieving reliable launch characteristics (tough), good bolter behaviour (really hard), and the ability to safely wave off (never a given).

Oh, and along the way, developing a true leap forward in a new control system philosophy for carrier landings - just watch this again and look at how EVERY control surface is working away to give the pilots the easiest possible landings....which is the best possible outcome.

This aircraft will now give the US a massive 'one two punch', with F-35s able to deliver true 'first day of the war' punch from both CVNs and LHDs. QEC ops to come in a couple of years.

And yes, I've said it before, but.....much of this was down to a massive contribution from a talented UK team over there, working in almost all areas of the programme, but especially flight controls, flight trials, mission systems and propulsion systems.

Great to see.

All the best to all those who've worked so hard to achieve this,

Engines

[Heathrow Harry]

But Engines - the COST ... the COST ......

and we'll not mention it's 10 years late

[Tourist]

What war was it late for?

Surely its a win that we have them late? This way they will be new later?:ok:

[MPN11]

Oh, and along the way, developing a true leap forward in a new control system philosophy for carrier landings - just watch this again and look at how EVERY control surface is working away to give the pilots the easiest possible landings....which is the best possible outcome.
Yes, that video of the approach at 00:40 was really eye-catching!

[Engines]

HH,

I'd gently point out that we're not mentioning it's 10 years late, because it's not 10 years late.

I joined the programme in 2002, when we had an IOC for the F-35C that was 'around 2015', according to my own records of the programme briefs. The original batting order for the variants was A, B and then C. The B moved to the front of the queue in 2004 when the programme was rejigged to cope with the very severe weight problem facing all 3 variants. As the B had the biggest problem, it was nominated as the 'lead variant', so that the solutions could be fed into the A and C. From that point on, the batting order was B,A then C. As the programme has gone forwards, the gap between B,A and C IOC dates has closed.

The USN has always maintained that they would transition from F/A-18E/F to F-35C 'when the F-35C was ready', and have kept their timing options open. In my view (and thats all it is) that was a smart move.

Nearly all military aircraft programmes in the West have been late and well over cost. Reasons? Many. For my money, there's a well documented tendency for programmes to start with unduly optimistic estimates for cost and schedule. Typhoon was around 8 years late to original planed IOC. Tornado was around 5 years late. F-22 was around 6 years late. C-17 was late. And so on and so forth.

F-35C had a well publicised issue with the arresting gear, which they solved. They have also managed to get the approach speed down to an acceptable value that the arresting gear can cope with. They've also taken the art and science of carrier landing control technology a giant leap forwards. That will save lives and improve combat effectiveness. What I was trying to do, as an ex-member of the F-35 team, was to gently point out that they have achieved a great deal that many observers once said was impossible. Perhaps it might be nice once in a while to offer a gentle 'well done people'.

Or not.

Best Regards (from me) as ever to all those actually doing it for real now,

Engines

[MPN11]

Is it not a Defence truism that everything takes twice as long and costs twice as much?

Sadly that experience never permeates down to the optimistic initial estimates ;)

[t43562]

F-35C had a well publicised issue with the arresting gear, which they solved. They have also managed to get the approach speed down to an acceptable value that the arresting gear can cope with. They've also taken the art and science of carrier landing control technology a giant leap forwards. That will save lives and improve combat effectiveness. What I was trying to do, as an ex-member of the F-35 team, was to gently point out that they have achieved a great deal that many observers once said was impossible. Perhaps it might be nice once in a while to offer a gentle 'well done people'.

Or not.

I am afraid that the thankyou is in the pay check, which seems to be quite hefty.

[Heathrow Harry]

"I joined the programme in 2002, when we had an IOC for the F-35C that was 'around 2015'"

Pity they never told the rest of us..............

Saying "it always happens" seems a pretty poor excuse to the poor tax-payer

[ORAC]

around 2015?

http://i619.photobucket.com/albums/tt271/SpudmanWP/1bde3584.jpg

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/slzzpfuakagvftnnlune.jpg

[Engines]

T43562,

Thanks for coming back. I understand where you are coming from, but what I was trying to do (and clearly failing, for which my apologies) was to express some sense of appreciation for the achievements of the engineers involved, not the companies.

They are real people, like you and me. They work damn hard with little recognition. I can most definitely assure you that they do their work for a fraction of the money other professions get. They assume very large responsibility, are always being pressed for time, and constantly being asked to do stuff that no-one else in the world has ever done.

They have to put up with legions of managers, accountants and senior execs, all of whom have little or no idea of how damn hard the engineers' jobs are. Their main aim often appears to make the job even harder. But that is life on a large engineering project, and these people put up with it. And the F-35 is just about the biggest engineering programme in the world. It's Formula 1 level engineering on a mass scale, with the added problem that the vehicle falls out of the sky if it doesn't work properly.

And here's the thing. I went to 'work' over there fresh out of the UK services, with really no idea how hard the job was going to be. I must have been a constant hindrance, but I was met and treated with unfailing courtesy, forbearance, friendship and professional respect. The engineers didn't have time to backstab, gossip or plot - they just rolled up our sleeves and worked as a team to achieve the aim. It was a great place to be, and I'm proud of what the team has done.

Did things go wrong? Yes. Were mistakes made? Of course - we're humans beings. Did it take longer than the high priced execs said it would? Oh yes. And cost more? Yes.

But, I gently suggest, none of that stops us (if we are minded) to recognise and salute one hell of a technical achievment thats being delivered in front of us right now. With lots of British engineers fully involved. That's worth a small well done, isn't it?

Come on - you know you can do it.

Best regards as ever to all those who put up with me on the programme,

Engines

[Lyneham Lad]

The video show an impressive amount of control-waggling (to use the technical term) on the approach to the deck. Humour me, for I am no pilot - but is the pilot monitoring the approach, letting the computer(s) do their thing until touchdown? How much stick-input is involved? If the normal approach phase is largely automated, presumably the aircrew practice manually-controlled approaches to cater for possible control-degradation scenarios?

[SpazSinbad]

Yes, that video of the approach at 00:40 was really eye-catching!
Video has Tom Morgenfeld ex-USN ex-LM test pilot explaining briefly the origins of 'AutoMAGIC' (his term) via the X-35C doing FCLP which he claims the FnA 18 team stole to then name as 'MAGIC CARPET'. Anyway the F-35s use IDLC Integrated Direct Lift Control to HEAVE the aircraft up and down to maintain glideslope almost instantaneously (pilot reports); with the combination of ailerons and half flaps moving (to full) as required to achieve, via computer flight controls and auto throttle to maintain Opt AoA Optimum Angle of Attack, whilst at maximum carrier landing weight, the 145 KIAS, which is below the ship gear breaking point.


Anyway there are plenty of video briefs given by USN test pilots about this from recent TAILHOOK conventions. Just say the word and I'll post 'em. This one is for the oldies who might know Tom.... :}


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEC7jnR-qxM

[Engines]

ORAC,

I owe you a reply on your post. First, you got me. Age and infirmity will do that. Yes, the schedules you posted are the first approved SDD schedules. IOCs were originally 2010 for B, 2011 for A and 2012 for C, with first flights in order A, B and C.

So what went wrong? Plenty is the straight and honest answer, which you deserve. But I stick by my opinion (and that all it is, remember - we can all have those) that these original schedules were hopelessly optimistic, even if we hadn't hit any problems. Why? Above my pay grade, all I can offer is a generalisation that any big programmes have to offer what the politicos want to hear to get the funds - at the time, the big buzzword was, as I remember (probably badly), 'transformational'. The JSF programme was going to deploy all sorts of 'transformational' techniques to cut down the time to IOC. Some of them worked, but to be honest, quite a few didn't.

My take (informed by working with some very experienced and talented engineers) was that the 'real' USMC IOC was always 2012 at the earliest. The weight problems that emerged in 2004 added at least 2 years to the programme (again my view), with further delays mainly due to a combination of slower than expected mission system software development and much more flight testing than was originally planned.

In the event, the programme has got to USAF IOC in 15 years instead of the planned 10. And yes, i know many will point out that it's a limited capability that's been declared. They're right. But 'limited' or 'political' IOCs aren't exactly a US speciality.

Once again, and then I'll shut up. I'm just trying (and failing) to point out that the F-35 team have achieved a hell of a lot as quickly as anyone else could have, deploying some serious talent, determination and sheer intellectual horsepower along the way. Some of this team are Brits, who deserve some recognition. I hope they get it, but it will probably won't be here. That's fine, too - it's a free forum.

Less from me now,

Best Regards as ever to the engineers struggling to meet insane schedules,

Engines

[Onceapilot]

Engines, Thank you for your insight on the UK input to the F35. It is good to hear that UK / US cooperation has worked well and I, for one, wish all the best to those who have worked hard towards our future!:ok:

OAP

[MSOCS]

The F-35 is around 6-8 years late, depending on who's IOC you are referring to - I recall USMC moved from 2008 to 2010, to 2012, and finally to 2015.

The cost is, alas, high in almost ALL early aircraft development stages but, for F-35, they are already tapering towards the approx. $80-90M per aircraft (F-35A) forecast for Full Rate Production from 2019+. Sustainment costs are key though.

Have costs been allowed to spiral beyond reasonable limits in the not-too-distant past? Yessir! There's a scar of Nunn-McCurdy that will never fade, buuuut, the Program is way beyond any fallacious cutting off of noses to spite faces.

[ORAC]

The cost is, alas, high in almost ALL early aircraft development stages but, for F-35, they are already tapering towards the approx. $80-90M per aircraft (F-35A) forecast for Full Rate Production from 2019+. The reason LM has been bunged a $1B is bcause they can't agree a cost with the DoD for the next 2 tranches - a year late. So to start quoting airframe prices, without add-ons, is what might be called flirting with the actualite.......

[Just This Once...]

In my time in the program(me) the UK IOC was 2012 and back then there was confidence that the USMC would achieve IOC well ahead of that date, so our date was driven by the UK funding profile. When the weight issues hit I was in one of the departments trying to keep-up and explain the almost daily slicing-off of core capabilities at IOC. Back then 2012 would have seen us with almost all the US weapons plus the UK requirement. It will take many years before we will see the capability originally envisaged for IOC.

It's funny that the F-35C articles have brought this topic up again as, from my perspective, the US Navy were by far the most intelligent, practical and pragmatic customers. They really have achieved the near-impossible from what was a compromised design starting point.

Oh and they managed to keep on friendly terms with LM too. Admittedly they did benefit from being the only customer of the F-35C, but they still achieved miracles given the hospital pass at the start of the program(me). Indeed, the overall F-35 program contains perhaps the worst defence design and procurement program and arguably one of the best too.

[Turbine D]

MSOCS,
The cost is, alas, high in almost ALL early aircraft development stages but, for F-35, they are already tapering towards the approx. $80-90M per aircraft (F-35A) forecast for Full Rate Production from 2019+. Sustainment costs are key though.
Do you really believe $80-90M by 2019? What you are currently seeing from the JPO is creative accounting at work to say what a good job they have done in ratcheting the cost down. Don't look at what they advertise, look at what they are asking for in funding from Congress and the number of aircraft it covers. It isn't $80-90M per aircraft, think higher prices... And as time goes on, the goal number will drift upward, not downward, no one will remember.

As I said before, hope the UK has pre-paid for theirs in prior year Pounds while identifying every aspect that is to work properly upon purchase (warrantees are important these days). Maintenance costs remain a huge unknown, but I can tell you a Mercedes Benz (F-35s) costs far more to maintain than a Honda Civic (F-16s) based on personal experience. A lot of the difference has to do with the electronics, sensors, etc.

[Maus92]

The current estimate is $90M for the F-35A at FRP in FY2019. That's up from the $80M estimate a year ago (and JPO titillating us with a possible ~$75M including engine speculation.) The Bravos and the Charlies are roughly $20-25M more, or $110-115 at FRP, but to achieve that means a substantial decrease in cost over the next few years. So same old *optimistic* cost estimates that gradually creep back up to more realistic levels.

About Delta Flight Path: The pilot basically switches modes and "points" the jet to where he wants it to go. The FCS then maintains the glide path with *supposedly* small but rapid corrections using the control surfaces and the FADEC, adjusting for winds and even the burble. Interestingly, the (majority of) the Super Hornet / Growler fleet will be updated (with the H-14 software load) that contains the technology years (~2018/19) before any F-35 squadron gets on the boat.

Magic Carpet control laws were initially developed by the USN's Office of Naval Research, then further developed by NAWC, Aircraft Division at Pax. Not sure why SLD thinks LM is responsible for the technology.

[ORAC]

Well this is bound to speed things up..... And a humorous interlude.

F-35 Follow-On Plan Takes Shape And U.S. Navy Tests Carrier Variant | Defense content from Aviation Week (http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-follow-plan-takes-shape#comment-437951)

".......The stakeholders earlier this year settled on a wish list of capabilities to be included in the first two increments of Block 4, planned for 2020 and 2022. That list is moving through the formal requirements process, with approval by the Pentagon’s Joint Requirements Oversight Council expected this fall, says Wathen......

A crucial change coming in Block 4 will be the JPO’s effort to wrest control of the program from contractor Lockheed Martin. The government needs to own the technical baseline for the program, explains Wathen, adding that the office is looking at “the appropriate places to ensure we obtain government-purposed rights.” The Pentagon also wants to take the reins for the test program: Right now, Lockheed has greater responsibility for the System Development and Demonstration (SDD) effort.

That undertaking presents a stark contrast to the original 2001 development contract, which was formed as a “total system performance responsibility” (TSPR) arrangement; this allowed the contractor to oversee many administrative functions that would otherwise be managed by the Defense Department, creating more risk for the government. Since then, Pentagon officials have universally declared TSPR a failure when applied to development programs like F-35, pointing to the contract structure as the root of the program’s initial cost and schedule issues.

In light of the cost overruns that initially plagued JSF, a prominent government watchdog has called on the Pentagon to establish the Block 4 upgrade program as its own separate acquisition program, as a way to increase oversight and transparency. The Government Accountability Office argues that this approach would allow Congress to more easily distinguish between the costs associated with the modernization effort and cost growth in the existing baseline. But Wathen maintains establishing a separate program is not necessary, as funding for Block 4 and SDD already are reported separately, and would add expense and red tape to a process that is transparent.

The JPO plans to release a request for proposals for the Block 4 developmental and integration effort in the next year or so, with a contract award expected in 2018. Lockheed will be the prime contractor..........."

the VFA-101 “Grim Reapers” squadrons are in awe of what the jet can do today. Says Lt. Graham Cleveland of VFA-101: “I can take off, type in an altitude, type in a heading and just let the jet go out and fly.” :hmm::hmm:

[Hempy]

the VFA-101 “Grim Reapers” squadrons are in awe of what the jet can do today. Says Lt. Graham Cleveland of VFA-101: “I can take off, type in an altitude, type in a heading and just let the jet go out and fly.”

Made me chuckle, cheers :ok:

[MSOCS]

Turbine, I believe that airframe cost (as has always been quoted, i.e. Not inc engine), will be $80-90M in 2019. I also don't agree with your cynical, baseless claim of JPO "creative accounting."

ORAC, couldn't agree with you more about TSPR. We were arguing the same in 2007 as Services within the JPO.

[Lonewolf_50]

Since then, Pentagon officials have universally declared TSPR a failure when applied to development programs like F-35, pointing to the contract structure as the root of the program’s initial cost and schedule issues. IIRC, TSPR was a child of the infamous "acquisition reform" which was a child of VP Al Gore's "re-inventing government." No surprise it laid an egg. The F-35 programs difficulties as a program (aircraft aside) were blazingly obvious to a lot of people over a decade ago. When hope becomes a risk mitigation method ...:mad:


Glad to hear the pilots like the machine.

[tdracer]

Is it not a Defence truism that everything takes twice as long and costs twice as much?

Sadly that experience never permeates down to the optimistic initial estimates ;)
It's not just defense contracts - it permeates the industry. When we did our propulsion work statements for the 747-8, we found out later than someone higher up decided they were too high and unilaterally cut 30% (guess what, we busted the budget - by a bit more than the 30% they cut). :ugh:
The KC-46 was even worse - when we were asked for work statements, we were told to 'assume success - give us a best case estimate' so we did (what could go wrong :rolleyes:). They came back to me and questioned my work statement. Discussion went something like this:
Prog: Why do you need so many hours for this?
Me: Because you chose to use a new xyz data base - we need to redefine everything.
P: But it's a simple task!
Me: Not according to the people who've used xyz.
P: They're wrong, we've made the tool better!
Me: Not according to the people who use it.

I'd put in 1000 hours to do xyz - they unilaterally cut it to 500. It took 2000 :ugh:

[Turbine D]

MSOCS,
(as has always been quoted, i.e. Not inc engine)
You rather quickly discovered one of my cynical, baseless claims of JPO "creative accounting" practices. I know you aren't interested in the bigger picture, but you should be as it will determine how many will actually be bought, by whom and when:

The unit cost of the F-35A is $109.88 million (recurring cost) in FY 2016. The airframe costs $64.47 million, the F135-PW-100 engine costs $13.06 million, the avionics cost $16.74 million, while other costs make up the remaining $15.61 million.

The unit cost of the F-35B is $121.33 million (recurring cost) in FY 2016. The airframe costs $71.81 million, the F135-PW-600 engine (coupled to the Rolls-Royce LiftSystem) costs $30.82 million, the avionics cost $16.33 million, while other costs make up the remaining $2.37 million.

The unit cost of the F-35C is $117.83 million (recurring cost) in FY 2016. The airframe costs $86.09 million, the F135-PW-400 engine costs $13.06 million, the avionics cost $16.36 million, while other costs make up the remaining $2.32 million.

The total procurement cost of the F-35 program (incl. engines) is estimated at $319.12 billion + $55.13 billion in research and development (RDT&E) funds + military construction (MILCON) costs in support of the program in the amount of $4.79 billion. This adds up to a total estimated program cost of $379.04 billion (numbers are aggregated annual funds spent over the life of the program without price/inflation adjustments).The F-35 airframe will cost $318.39 billion ($270.43 billion procurement + $43.17 billion RDT&E + $4.79 billion MILCON), while the F135 engine will cost another $60.65 billion ($48.69 billion procurement + $11.96 billion RDT&E).

Now if Lockheed Martin can drag another 15,000 hours of labor out of each airframe constructed, the costs could drop to the figures you quote by 2020 which, BTW, includes the cost reduced P&W engine.

To give you a comparison to fixate upon:

In FY 2016, the unit cost of an F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is $67.2 million (flyaway cost) or $70.0 million incl. non-recurring and support costs. The cost of the airframe is $46.21 million, the two F414-GE-400 engines cost $10.72 million ($5.36 million each), and the avionics costs $8.71 million.

The F-22 is no longer in production. In 2007, the unit cost of the F-22A was $136.2 million ($148.7 million flyaway cost or $179.7 million incl. support costs). The airframe's cost was $87.74 million, the F119-PW-100 engine cost $10.03 million each, and the avionics cost $28.36 million.

Personally, I am glad the pilots seem to like the F-35. They damn well better and the F-35s had better do everything promised by the JPO and Lockheed Martin without the creation of a bottomless $$$ pit.

[SpazSinbad]

F-35C Development Test III 16 Aug ‎2016 LM Flickr
“Four F-35Cs from VFA-101 depart USS George Washington (CVN-73). Lockheed Martin photo by Todd R. McQueen.” https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8353/28470455733_e460367bb8_o_d.jpg (3.3Mb)


http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewNewAllBum/4%20F-35Cs%20CVN%20test%20Form%20Aug%202016%20forum.jpg~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewNewAllBum/4%20F-35Cs%20CVN%20test%20Form%20Aug%202016%20forum.jpg.html)

[MSOCS]

Great picture SpazSinbad, thanks for the post.

Turbine, I'm glad you're glad (genuinely). A tit for tat debate on cost is futile. Many costs are already sunk and much is yet to be confirmed. Nobody has really debated the relative support cost for maintaining LO after delivery, and the relative savings. Here's a clue: it's a great deal more for F-22. Sustaining that LO level is what will potentially set F-35 apart from all other so-called LO platforms (T-50; J-20).

[sandiego89]

MSOCS,

...........

The unit cost of the F-35A is $109.88 million (recurring cost) in FY 2016. The airframe costs $64.47 million, the F135-PW-100 engine costs $13.06 million, the avionics cost $16.74 million, while other costs make up the remaining $15.61 million.

The unit cost of the F-35B is $121.33 million (recurring cost) in FY 2016. The airframe costs $71.81 million, the F135-PW-600 engine (coupled to the Rolls-Royce LiftSystem) costs $30.82 million, the avionics cost $16.33 million, while other costs make up the remaining $2.37 million.

The unit cost of the F-35C is $117.83 million (recurring cost) in FY 2016. The airframe costs $86.09 million, the F135-PW-400 engine costs $13.06 million, the avionics cost $16.36 million, while other costs make up the remaining $2.32 million........




Turbine, any idea on the significant differences between airframe and "other" costs between the A, B, C? I can't fathom that the C airframe costs $22M more than the A. Yes I know different wing and tail hook, etc, but that seems like a lot. And why is the "other" cost for the A so much higher? A shell game? Govt' furnished equipment differences?


Spaz- yes, thank for posting that photo. I had the pleasure of seeing 4 F-35C's depart Oceana NAS around noon on Saturday and scream out over my sons soccer game- likely headed out to the WASHINGTON. They departed in about 10 second intervals. First time I had seen a C in person, neat. Sound was similar to the Super Hornets that we see all the time. The wing is noticeably larger that the B's I have seen.

[Turbine D]

sandiego,

For the A, the "other" costs include mainly support items necessary for various base locations, crew training etc., "must haves". The cost goes up in 2017 and then fluctuates in out years based on aircraft quantity produced for the USAF. Most of the F-35s built so far are A models, over 120 of which 20 are dedicated for tests. Few C models have been built and LM isn't that far down the learning curve at this point. I suspect the C airframe cost will decrease (It should) given build experience and quantity.

[SpazSinbad]

F-35C Carrier Variant Joint Strike Fighter Flight-Deck Operations 15 minutes DT-III


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBP1wU6lHE4

[Maus92]

Another DOT&E report out: JPO on it.

Some additional problem areas have been identified. Gun pod door disrupts airflow on F-35A, introducing aiming errors, gun pods on B & C behind in testing;

AIM-9X pylons on the Charlie are creating unanticipated stress on wing structure, may have to redesign;

3F software shuts down only after 9 hours (an improvement, but not acceptable;

3F jets boot up process always requires a reset or power cycle;

More from AvWeek:

"[DOT&E spokesman Maj.] Cabiness detailed a long list of the limitations of aircraft flying in the 3i configuration. The jets can carry only two bombs and two missiles, and currently have no gun capability or standoff weapons as the 25mm cannon and external weapons won’t be introduced until 3F. Further, the F-35As have no target marking capability for close-air support and other missions, require voice communications to verify certain messages, and have poor geolocation capability, relying on off-board sources to locate threats and acquire targets.

Finally, the 3i jets have limited night vision capability, as the $400,000 Generation III helmet is still experiencing issues with light leakage and “green glow” that obscures pilots’ vision during very dark night flights.

DOT&E also pointed to deficiencies in 3i’s sensor fusion, electronic warfare, datalinks and pilot vehicle interfaces “that will impact mission effectiveness and suitability in combat.”"

"Given all the challenges the JPO has left to surmount, funding for the F-35 development effort will likely run out before the end of the program, Cabiness says.

“In light of the remaining challenges [and] the demonstrated rate of progress to date, DOT&E assesses that the program will likely need additional funding to complete SDD,” Cabiness says."

Weapons Tester Cites Further F-35 Challenges | Defense content from Aviation Week (http://aviationweek.com/defense/weapons-tester-cites-further-f-35-challenges#comment-440751)

[glad rag]

More Facts Less Fiction... a refreshing change..

[Maus92]

Yup, less spam more oversight.

[Maus92]

More coverage on the latest DoT&E report / memo:

"A week after the Air Force declared its version of Lockheed Martin Corp.’s F-35 jet ready for limited combat operations, the Pentagon’s top tester warned that the U.S. military’s costliest weapons program is still riddled with deficiencies.

“In fact the program is actually not on a path toward success but instead on a path toward failing to deliver” the aircraft’s full capabilities, “for which the Department is paying almost $400 billion by the scheduled end” of its development in 2018, Michael Gilmore, the Defense Department’s director of operational testing, said in an Aug. 9 memo obtained by Bloomberg News.

“Achieving full combat capability with the Joint Strike Fighter is at substantial risk” of not occurring before development is supposed to end and realistic combat testing begins, he said of the F-35...."

"The program “is running out of time and money to complete the planned flight testing and implement the required fixes and modifications” needed to finish the phase successfully, he said. “Flight testing is making progress but has fallen far behind the planned rate.”

The most complex software capabilities “are just being added” and new problems requiring fixes and verification testing “continue to be discovered at a substantial rate,” Gilmore wrote..."

Lockheed?s F-35 Still Falls Short, Pentagon?s Chief Tester Says - Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-24/lockheed-s-f-35-still-falls-short-pentagon-s-chief-tester-says)

[Rhino power]

Maus92, can you provide a link to the DOT&E report which you quote from, please? I can't find it on their website.

-RP

[Maus92]

There isn't one (a link to the memo.) From the reporting, it appears that a memo was written by the director of DOT&E to the services, but has not been made public. The AvWeek story quotes information provided in part by a DOT&E spokesperson; the Bloomberg report implies that they have seen the memo. It probably just a matter of time before the actual document is leaked (that's how it's gone down in the past.)

[Rhino power]

OK, thanks. Looks like it will make for uncomfortable reading for LM and the JPO, then again, they should be used to uncomfortable reading by now...

-RP

[SpazSinbad]

Meanwhile Bogdan says nothing new and the JPO works on deficiencies whilst asymmetrical loads are tested in DT-III.
"...“There were absolutely no surprises in the recent memo from the OSD Director of Operational Test and Evaluation,” Bogdan says. “Specific to the memo, the JPO has been and is currently acting on all the recommendations.”..."


https://scontent-mxp1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/t31.0-8/14053679_10154418851862398_5512993881618209607_o.jpg


http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewNewAllBum/F-35CasymmetricLoadTampGdt-IIIaug2016forum.jpg~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewNewAllBum/F-35CasymmetricLoadTampGdt-IIIaug2016forum.jpg.html)

[Lyneham Lad]

Stray thoughts ref the video in #9651:-

The pilot's head/neck take quite a vertical and axial jolt as take-off is initiated. Future spinal/nerve problems?
I wonder how the stealth surface-finishes and coatings cope with the marine environment? Facility to repair on-site during long deployments?
Do they use dry-power on take-off? No visible reheat unlike (for example) the glory days of the F4K.


I know, I know - I am showing my ignorance but what the heck, if you don't ask...

[Lonewolf_50]

“Achieving full combat capability with the Joint Strike Fighter is at substantial risk” of not occurring before development is supposed to end and realistic combat testing begins, he said of the F-35...."
Lockheed?s F-35 Still Falls Short, Pentagon?s Chief Tester Says - Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-24/lockheed-s-f-35-still-falls-short-pentagon-s-chief-tester-says)
Maus92, you want to talk about F-14 engines and development continuing well into that program having gone IOC? See also AWG-9 software versions A, B, C .... Every program has these problems. With the F-35, it galls me because everything about the darned thing is so expensive, and there is so much in that software domain, but program-wise there is nothing new under the sun.


@Lyneham Lad: your bullet point 2. Yeah, ain't that the question?

[Darren_P]

Stray thoughts ref the video in #9653:-
The pilot's head/neck take quite a vertical and axial jolt as take-off is initiated. Future spinal/nerve problems?

I noticed that especially at 3:51 where something on the pilot's helmet appears to unexpectedly pop up.

[alexv]

Didn't anyone think about sewing a few bars of lead into the ejector seat of underweight pilots ?????

As far as I know these jets are usually flown by the same pilot (that's why they paint the pilot's name under the canopy, so he can find his bird in the parking lot, with all of them being painted the same and not having any distinctive equipment, as in 'mine the one with the white racing stripes and the big spoiler). So, adding a few lead bricks to the seat shouldn't be a problem.

Or else, give them to the pilot to put them in his pockets: they have these cool cargo pants with all those pockets....

I am running off to the patent office to register my idea.

[Engines]

LL and others,

Perhaps I can help here...

1. The jolt on launch is noticeable and is probably associated with the forces applied by the catapult shuttle on the nose tow bar, which compresses the nose leg as it starts the stroke. I've spoken to a number of 'old and bold' naval aviators, and there is a variety of opinions on how 'hard' the start of a cat stroke is. What I do know is that the US Navair teams are very experienced in this sort of stuff, and I am certain that they will have fully evaluated the forces applied to F-35C pilots' heads and necks during launch. So, my take: looks severe, but very probably OK. What IS interesting (at least to me) is that F-35C launches look as if they are 'both hands free', with pilots' right and left hands holding the handles on the cockpit arch during launch.

2. Maintenance of stealth coatings on board got a LOT of attention in the early days of the JSF programme. There was a recognition that the techniques used on B-2 and F-22 weren't going to 'cut the mustard', and a number of new technologies were developed for F-35. Now, most of this was kept 'US eyes only', but again, given the attention that Navair were giving to this subject, I'd expect that some form of workable solution has been developed. Again, rather a qualitative assessment, but the F-35's approach to physical signature reduction appeared to be less 'extreme' than some of the solutions applied to B-2 and F-22.

3. A/B on launch: the F-35C launches shown so far appear to be at relatively low weights, which is understandable. Also, the A/B on the F-35 does not deliver the huge increases in thrust that happened with aircraft like the F-4 - I believe that the difference between dry and full A/B is about 4,500 pounds. So, I'd expect fewer A/B launches with F-35C.

Hope this helps, best regards as ever to all those working hard to deliver the new aircraft to the front line,

Engines

[SpazSinbad]

F-35 Lightning II Program Status and Fast Facts May 9, 2016
F-35C F135-PW-100; 40,000 lbs Max.; 25,000 lbs Mil.
Maximum Power (Max) = with afterburner; Military Power (Mil) = without afterburner;
https://a855196877272cb14560-2a4fa819a63ddcc0c289f9457bc3ebab.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/13567/f-35fast_facts_2q2016.pdf (75Kb)

[Engines]

F-35 Lightning II Program Status and Fast Facts May 9, 2016
F-35C F135-PW-100; 40,000 lbs Max.; 25,000 lbs Mil.
Maximum Power (Max) = with afterburner; Military Power (Mil) = without afterburner;
https://a855196877272cb14560-2a4fa819a63ddcc0c289f9457bc3ebab.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/13567/f-35fast_facts_2q2016.pdf (75Kb)

Spaz, many thanks - those are very surprising figures, but I am happy to be put right. So, about 15,000 pounds delta from A/B - now it all depends on how much 'grunt' the catapults can deliver over the stroke for a max weight F-35C launch. And of course, how much Wind Over Deck (WOD) is available.

Damn complicated stuff, this cat and trap stuff.

Best regards as ever to all those working the cat launch sums,

Engines

[SpazSinbad]

No worries. DT-II was about finding limits for catapults and arrests. The catapult has no trouble for a max. weight launch for an F-35C - with or without burner I have no idea. However the burner is variable on the catapult much the same as the Super Hornet. It is some percentage below full burner during initial part of launch and at full burner by the end - all automatic - from 'pop' stall lessons learnt with the Super Hornet which is at 122% at JBD on burner then automatically at 150% by the end by design change. This was built in to the F-35C from the getgo. The amiable butler wrote about this some time back when F-35C was JBD testing but PDF no longer available at URL:


JBD Testing A Key Step For Joint Strike Fighter Aviation Week & Space Technology Jul 18, 2011 p.84
Amy Butler | Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, N.J.
"...Even without the more extensive data provided by today’s sensor array, Super Hornet engineers gained valuable experience during JBD trials that led to a change in how the aircraft is launched. During testing, hot air was inadvertently recirculated into the air intake of the Super Hornet, prompting a “pop stall,” or hiccup in the airflow for the propulsion system. The result was a dangerous fireball coughing from the back of the Super Hornet, says Briggs.


The design fix was the creation of a limited afterburner setting for launch. Engineers crafted software such that the engine is at 122% of military power when a pilot sets it to afterburner. By the time the jet reaches the edge of the deck, the system automatically opens the throttle to full afterburner at 150% of power without intervention by the pilot, says Briggs.


Having completed the first phase of JBD trials with a single F-35C, engineers are eager to test a more realistic scenario with one aircraft in front of the deflector and one behind.


Because of this lesson, the limited afterburner setting was designed into the F-35 in its infancy...." http://www.navair.navy.mil/lakehurst/nlweb/PAO/InTheNews/2011-07-18_JBD_Testing.pdf


VIDEO shows variable burner I believe, sound guys play air guitar, DT-11 2015


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plVFx2Vbx5U

[MSOCS]

Yes Engines, the Cat launches are completely hands free. Not unusual as I believe Hornets do so too.

[SpazSinbad]

Picture here shows the two hands on the towel racks just after cat shot leaving deck:


http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/550589-f35-c-first-deck-landing-9.html#post8746452

[Lyneham Lad]

LL and others,

Perhaps I can help here...

1. The jolt on launch is noticeable and is probably associated with the forces applied by the catapult shuttle on the nose tow bar, which compresses the nose leg as it starts the stroke. I've spoken to a number of 'old and bold' naval aviators, and there is a variety of opinions on how 'hard' the start of a cat stroke is. What I do know is that the US Navair teams are very experienced in this sort of stuff, and I am certain that they will have fully evaluated the forces applied to F-35C pilots' heads and necks during launch. So, my take: looks severe, but very probably OK. What IS interesting (at least to me) is that F-35C launches look as if they are 'both hands free', with pilots' right and left hands holding the handles on the cockpit arch during launch.

2. Maintenance of stealth coatings on board got a LOT of attention in the early days of the JSF programme. There was a recognition that the techniques used on B-2 and F-22 weren't going to 'cut the mustard', and a number of new technologies were developed for F-35. Now, most of this was kept 'US eyes only', but again, given the attention that Navair were giving to this subject, I'd expect that some form of workable solution has been developed. Again, rather a qualitative assessment, but the F-35's approach to physical signature reduction appeared to be less 'extreme' than some of the solutions applied to B-2 and F-22.

3. A/B on launch: the F-35C launches shown so far appear to be at relatively low weights, which is understandable. Also, the A/B on the F-35 does not deliver the huge increases in thrust that happened with aircraft like the F-4 - I believe that the difference between dry and full A/B is about 4,500 pounds. So, I'd expect fewer A/B launches with F-35C.

Hope this helps, best regards as ever to all those working hard to deliver the new aircraft to the front line,
Engines

Engines - thanks for responding to my somewhat layman-ish observations. Appreciated.

[SpazSinbad]

Info on different load outs and HMDS III testing along with JPALS:


The Navy's F-35 variant has successfully completed testing with a max weapon load - Business Insider (http://www.businessinsider.com/f-35c-completed-testing-with-full-weapon-load-2016-8)

[SpazSinbad]

https://www.dvidshub.net/image/2818807/uss-george-washington
"160823-N-RG522-334 ATLANTIC OCEAN (Aug. 23, 2016) An F-35C Lightning II carrier variant, assigned to the Salty Dogs of Air Test and Evaluation Squadron (VX) 23, approaches the flight deck of the aircraft carrier USS George Washington (CVN 73). VX-23 is conducting its third and final developmental test (DT-III) phase aboard George Washington in the Atlantic Ocean. The F-35C is expected to be Fleet operational in 2018. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Jonathan Price)" https://www.dvidshub.net/download/image/2818807


http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewNewAllBum/F-35Cload4bombsWingFantailUnderCVN73aug2016cropForum.jpg~origi nal (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewNewAllBum/F-35Cload4bombsWingFantailUnderCVN73aug2016cropForum.jpg.html)

[glad rag]

I might be repeating a point here but what is the point of spending billions of dollars on a stealth aircraft only to hang all it's s##t outside?
More importantly all that the above will do is lead to over utilisation of the aircraft (outside of its stealth role) with subsequent degradation of the finish and technological aspects that provide the LO capability..

Meanwhile a reality check..

AzyH0M4C8TY

[SpazSinbad]

This pod is happy to be 'on speed' (Optimum Angle of Attack).


https://www.flickr.com/photos/lockheedmartin/29182351665/
"An F-35C Lightning II comes in for a landing on USS George Washington (CVN-73) while carrying external stores during F-35C Development Test III. Lockheed Martin photo by Michael D. Jackson. 21 Aug 2016"
https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8533/29182351665_3d637e8eb8_o_d.jpg


http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewNewAllBum/F-35CgunPodRampDT-IIICVN73%2021aug2016forum.jpg~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewNewAllBum/F-35CgunPodRampDT-IIICVN73%2021aug2016forum.jpg.html)

[Maus92]

Good thing they're not hanging any Sidewinders off the outboard pylons - might rip a wing off.

[MSOCS]

I might be repeating a point here but what is the point of spending billions of dollars on a stealth aircraft only to hang all it's s##t outside?

How many times do you need to be told that stealth isn't the only reason for the F-35? The real magic is 'under the bonnet' so avoid getting absorbed by the paint or colour of the car.

More importantly all that the above will do is lead to over utilisation of the aircraft (outside of its stealth role) with subsequent degradation of the finish and technological aspects that provide the LO capability..


Over-utilisation? Are you smoking pot? Do you really believe that F-35 is purely a 'day one of the war, nothing more' fighter? If so, you completely miss the mark, yet again. This aircraft is a 'day one, to last day' weapons system and has to be tested as such, hence the fits you see above.

Read Justin Bronk's comments on IR of both F-22 and F-35. Here's a clue: F-22 is hotter than F-35....

[FODPlod]

Good thing they're not hanging any Sidewinders off the outboard pylons - might rip a wing off.
I'm interested. What is the evidence for your scornful suggestion?

[SpazSinbad]

Weapons Tester Cites Further F-35 Challenges 23 Aug 2016 Lara Seligman
"...the program is discovering integration problems with both SDB 1 and AIM-9X. DOT&E is particularly concerned with December testing of the AIM-9X, which revealed “load exceedances,” or excess stress, on the Navy F-35C variant’s wing structure during landings and certain maneuvers. This will either limit the F-35C’s ability to carry AIM-9X or require a redesign and testing of the supporting wing structure, DOT&E says..."
Weapons Tester Cites Further F-35 Challenges | Defense content from Aviation Week (http://aviationweek.com/defense/weapons-tester-cites-further-f-35-challenges)

[Turbine D]

MSOCS,
How many times do you need to be told that stealth isn't the only reason for the F-35? The real magic is 'under the bonnet' so avoid getting absorbed by the paint or colour of the car.
The real proof of the pudding will come on the day the F-35 will sneak up behind a Russian bomber undetected and follow it like two F-22s demonstrated very recently. So tell us, when will that day come and the real F-35 magic, you point out, demonstrated?

[FODPlod]

Weapons Tester Cites Further F-35 Challenges 23 Aug 2016 Lara Seligman

Weapons Tester Cites Further F-35 Challenges | Defense content from Aviation Week (http://aviationweek.com/defense/weapons-tester-cites-further-f-35-challenges)
Nothing about wings being ripped off then.

[SpazSinbad]

For HORNET boosters: http://navylive.dodlive.mil/2016/08/26/what-is-it-like-to-fly-the-navys-f-35c/
____________________________

First Fleet F35-C Carrier Qualifications, Final Round of Testing Conducted at Sea 26 Aug 2016 Donna Cipolloni
"...Cmdr. Ted "Dutch" Dyckman, Air Test and Evaluation Squadron (VX) 23 test pilot, landing signal officer, and squadron operations officer at Pax River, started out flying F/A-18 Hornets, moved to F/A-18 Super Hornets, and now flies the F-35C. This was his third ship trip and 50th trap -- and he has a definite favorite.

"I prefer the F-35," he said. "It's easy to fly, autopilot is nice, cockpit has good visibility, and mission systems make it easy to do your task."

One of the most difficult and hazardous tasks in naval aviation is landing on the deck of an aircraft carrier, something now made simpler by Delta Flight Path. Developed by Lockheed Martin after a lot of crosstalk and technology sharing with NAVAIR personnel, the semi-automated landing mode significantly helps lower a pilot's workload task.

"The control laws allow aircraft to fly a commanded glide slope," Dyckman said. "Before, you had to manually fly that path through the air. Now, at the push of a button, the airplane will tip over and fly that path. If I have a good approach behind ship, I can push one button. If there are deviations, I can make a correction. Other than that, I may not touch the stick at all during the approach, from the start until touchdown. Coming to the ship is as easy as landing on an airfield now and that enables us to spend less time training guys to land on the ship."

Other testing involved improved nighttime visibility for the aircraft's third generation helmet, which displays symbology right on the pilot's visor.

"I don't have to look down for a piece of info on one display, then to another display and correlate it all in my head; everything appears in the helmet," Dyckman said. "When I look out, even if I'm looking away from where I'm going, I can see my target information, airspeed, altitude, threats. With this airplane, I basically have a display with my aircraft in the center and it presents information for situational awareness."..." http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=96397

[MSOCS]

The real proof of the pudding will come on the day the F-35 will sneak up behind a Russian bomber undetected and follow it like two F-22s demonstrated very recently. So tell us, when will that day come and the real F-35 magic, you point out, demonstrated?

A question nobody could confidently answer. In fact, prior to the F-22 intercept story, nobody could have answered it about the F-22 either. For F-35, it'll happen when it happens, but probably not before it is deployed to an operational theatre. That may happen sooner than you think.

JATK, you need some sleep. Go and re-read some of your posts which I'm sure will send you off in no time. Works for me.

[SpazSinbad]

http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/424953-f-35-cancelled-then-what-484.html#post9485226
'Darren_P' said: [My guess is that a NATOPS check will be made to secure visor before catapulting]
"I noticed that especially at 3:51 where something on the pilot's helmet appears to unexpectedly pop up."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBsgIBO5ry0

[Obba]

Watching the F35's moving about on the deck, I thought the front wheel steering was very nimble and quick.
How does the pilot control the 'steering'?


I also noticed the Pilots name/nickname is only on the right side, (although they enter from the left).

[MSOCS]

Nose Wheel Steering is effected with rudder pedal inputs. High and Low gain are selectable. Individual toe brakes on each rudder pedal also brake the respective main wheel.

The jet can almost turn within its own length through 180.

[Engines]

Glad,

Perhaps I can help - although I'm definitely not an expert.

The steering is controlled exactly as MSOCS says. The only thing I'd add is that the F-35C is nimble about the deck because it's designed that way. The twin wheel nose gear allows 'spot turns' as well as very precise positioning of the aircraft. (It is also a key part of the USN specification for attachment to the catapult shuttle, and nose gear behaviour during launch). Precise control is important on any carrier deck, even more so with cat and trap, where the aircraft has to be controlled to within an inch or so to engage with the catapult gear. In addition, some of the deck spotting patterns require very exact positioning.

Some readers may not know that marshalling signals on flight decks are mandatory, not advisory as on land bases. The 'yellow shirts' you see in these clips are highly trained and experienced, and they need to be. They are making a difficult job look easy. Before powered steering nose gear, moving jet aircraft around on flight decks was quite a challenge, especially where space was tight on some of the smaller carriers. The UK came up with some very ingenious 'roller' systems that positioned the aircraft on the catapult.

The F-35B gets away with a (much lighter) single wheel nose gear because the F-35's basic braking systems are very good, and the main gears are widely spaced. As MSOCS so rightly points out, the aircraft can do very compact spot turns if required. The undercarriage layouts of the Sea Harrier (and the GR7s) were, frankly, a bit of a mare on small flight decks, with any spot turns risking loss of an outrigger tyre. F-35 is a real step forward in this respect.

Hope this helps, best regards as ever to the yellow shirts doing the business out on deck,

Engines

[MSOCS]

Indeed Engines, a single-wheel nosewheel needs just a wee bit of forward motion before gradually throwing full input in, unlike the C's layout.

gr, not interested in sounding like an expert, just being good at my job.

[riff_raff]

The hands-off launch is used because the steam catapults produce peak accelerations high enough to cause a temporary loss of pilot consciousness. The new EM catapult systems may reduce the peak launch accelerations experienced by carrier pilots so it is less of a problem.

Drivers of NHRA Top Fuel dragsters and Funny Cars experience higher peak acceleration rates at launch than carrier pilots. Occasionally up to 8g's at launch, during a run lasting less than 4 seconds at top speeds over 300mph. The drivers wear neck braces and mouth guards to keep from damaging their teeth or biting their tongues.

[SpazSinbad]

"Temporary loss of consciousness"? not likely nor safe - never happened. However... the catapult stroke on HMAS Melbourne was 100 feet (lengthened c.1971) at 6 G and it all happened in less than two seconds (quoted and I was not counting) to around 100 knots wheel speed for an A4G Skyhawk. The effect I liken to a punch in the chest that was painful but no loss of consciousness. The G loading at launch is fore and aft; the Skyhawk was rated to 9 G maximum in that direction specifically for max. load catapults in difficult environments (hot day - nil wind etc.).

And to comment on the link info below: there is a thread about F-35C catapult already mentioned recently whilst both hands of the F-35C pilot are on the towel racks during catapulting. Specifically in the case of the Skyhawk a drop down handle was provided that was clutched together with the throttle at full power for catapulting so that the throttle could not be reduced during the launch. The right hand was cupped in the stomach to catch the stick moving back during launch. Scroll down the page at 'Canute' URL below for a more detailed description.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwZyPrkWS3c

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2UbG7aWrHc

[Canute]

The hands-off launch is used because the steam catapults produce peak accelerations high enough to cause a temporary loss of pilot consciousness. The new EM catapult systems may reduce the peak launch accelerations experienced by carrier pilots so it is less of a problem.


Nope.

Hands off the controls during carrier catapault launches [Archive] - PPRuNe Forums (http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-489707.html)

[sandiego89]

Engines: ...The twin wheel nose gear allows 'spot turns' as well as very precise positioning of the aircraft. (It is also a key part of the USN specification for attachment to the catapult shuttle, and nose gear behaviour during launch)...

....The F-35B gets away with a (much lighter) single wheel nose gear because the F-35's basic braking systems are very good, and the main gears are widely spaced....





Would like to get someeducation on single vs twin nose wheel dynamics for catapult capable aircraft.





As I understand the twin nosewheel has become essentially standard with the move from bridle launchedaircraft to nose gear launched aircraft. The nose gear seems much more heavily loaded and the twin nose wheels straddlethe catapult track where the shuttle goes. Some bridle launched aircraft such as the F-4 had twin nose wheels, manydid not.



So how did/do aircraft with asingle nose wheel such as the A-4, F-8 and Super Entendard get away with “mindingthe gap’? Was the tire (tyre for my UKfriends) not cut on the track? Was it amatter of the bridle launch cable imparting much less load on the nose tire andmore of the strain on the mains? I notethat ALL nose gear launched aircraft have twin front tires and have a noticeable nose down compression orbobble immediately as the catapult strokes. One poster seemed that this bobble on the C seemed excessive, but itlooked similar to any F-14 or F/A-18 stroke.



So were some bridle launched aircraftable to get away with a single nose tire?



Happy for any insight- thanks, Dave

[SpazSinbad]

Complex & Robust Flight International F-35 Special 2014
"Mark Ayton explains the highly complex landing gear systems used on the F-35...

......Patented by Carpenter Steel, Aermet 100 has very high strength and slow crack propagation properties, so if a crack develops in the material, the crack will spread slowly with further load applications. By contrast 300M or 4340M grade steel has the same strength quality, but poor crack propagation. This gives more opportunities to discover cracks in the structure before a catastrophic failure occurs.

Each type of F-35 landing gear has a Goodrich-proprietary system integrated within the aircraft’s maintenance system to help the maintainer assess the level of the gas and oil in each shock strut during servicing....

...Cats and Traps
Landing gears for the F-35C CV variant have to be able to withstand extreme high energy landings typical of naval aircraft operating from an aircraft carrier as well as the nose tow launch. Both the F-35C nose and main gears are made primarily of Aermet 100 steel.

The nose gear of the CV variant is a dual stage gas over oil cantilever strut with a staged air curve that provides a source of high energy, which helps the aircraft to achieve adequate angle of attack when released from the catapult during take-off from the aircraft carrier. The CV nose gear carries a complex mechanism which positions the launch bar in readiness for various stages of operation during the launch of the aircraft off the carrier. The mechanism is driven by a power unit comprising a number of powerful springs and a small internal actuator.

There are two reasons for having a staged shock strut for the nose gear on the F-35C CV variant. One is to provide a stable platform for loading and unloading weapons and for engaging the catapult equipment. The second is to store energy gained from the compression of the strut under the high pressure effect of the catapult. When the catapult lets go of the launch bar, the energy is released, providing a rotation that helps achieve the angle of attack necessary to get off the deck.

Similarly when the aircraft hits the deck on landing the strut is compressed and energy is stored to help rotate the aeroplane and get it back off the deck if the arrestor cables are missed and a ‘go-around’ or ‘bolter’ is required. Bolter is the term used when the aircraft’s tail hook misses the arrestor cables on the carrier deck forcing the pilot to go around for another landing.

The CV nose gear also has a locking drag brace and a launch bar that acts to transmit the high launch load from the catapult equipment to the airframe. A separate retract actuator provides the force to retract the gear into the wheel well. One end of the retract actuator is attached to the landing gear structure and the upper end to the airframe structure. Fitted to the aft of the strut is a power unit housing an actuator that hydraulically lowers the launch bar to the deck to engage the catapult. When the launch bar hits the deck a second set of springs inside the power unit provide lighter power so that the launch bar can move up and down to engage the shuttle, without jamming or binding, or badly wearing the deck or the launch bar. Large powerful springs are able to pull the launch bar back up to an intermediate position when the hydraulic power is released.

The power unit also has a linkage that operates off the motion of the drag brace during retraction to position the launch bar in a stowed position (virtually parallel to the strut) when the gear is retracted. During the retraction process the launch bar moves upwards but also rotates around the strut to reduce the actual footprint within the stowage bay. The torque arms that typically maintain alignment between the strut piston and the steering unit are on the aft of the strut as well, and have a fitting at the apex that engages the repeatable release holdback bar (RRHB) of the ship. This bar holds the aircraft back during engine runs and while the load builds during the start of a catapult sequence. Once the load reaches an adequate level, the RRHB releases the torque arm fitting, allowing the aircraft to be catapulted to flight. In comparison to the F-35A CTOL and the F-35B STOVL, the nose gear of the F-35C CV has a dual wheel/tyre arrangement to straddle the catapult equipment and to adequately react to the loads. Nose wheels are the same as those used on the other variants but the tyre was developed specifically for the F-35C.

Like the CTOL and STOVL variants, the CV main gear is a dual stage gas over oil cantilever strut with staged air curves that provide a stable platform for loading and unloading weapons and hold stored energy to assist in getting airborne in the case of a ‘bolter’ during carrier operations.

The main gears have a retract actuator between the strut and the airframe, providing the force to retract the gear into the wheel well. Each also has a drag brace with locking linkage and locking actuator with backup springs to react fore and aft ground loads. The F-35C’s drag braces attach to a collar on the strut and a pivot pin in the aircraft that roll around the strut centreline during retraction to minimize the amount of space in the bay when retracted.

Featuring a long main strut the F-35C’s main gear has a shrink mechanism to shorten the strut prior to retraction so it will fit within the available space. The Goodrich-proprietary shrink mechanism utilizes a novel transfer cylinder to convert high pressure and low flow aircraft hydraulics into a low pressure and high flow shock shrink hydraulics. Unlike the nose gear, the CV main gear system utilizes the same main wheel and brake as the F-35A CTOL. All tyres used on the F-35C CV variant are significantly more robust than the CTOL and STOVL variants, because of the high energy landings on top of arrestor cables."

[SpazSinbad]

Steam Catapult track of HMAS Melbourne is not a problem for single nosewheel tyre of the A4G Skyhawk. All A4G tyres were about double the air pressure (about 300 psi?) - compared to land - for carrier ops, arresting and catapulting. This could be a problem when landing ashore on short wet NAS Nowra runways, after being catapulted from the ship (and don't forget to arm the spoilers - not used onboard).


http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewNewAllBum/MELBOURNEcatTrackPurpsFORUM.jpg~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewNewAllBum/MELBOURNEcatTrackPurpsFORUM.jpg.html)

[ORAC]

Air Force Prepares to Hash Out Future Fighter Requirement | DefenseNews (http://www.defensenews.com/articles/air-force-future-fighter-jet-penetrating-counter-air-next-generation-air-dominance)

WASHINGTON — After undergoing a yearlong effort that explored the tactics and technologies needed to control the skies in the future, the Air Force is taking its first steps toward making its next fighter jet a reality. The service has already begun preliminary work ahead of a 2017 analysis of alternatives that will shape the requirements and acquisition strategy for the F-35 follow on, which the Air Force been termed Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) or Penetrating Counter Air (PCA).

But Brig. Gen. Alexus Grynkewich, who led the Air Superiority 2030 enterprise capability collaboration team (ECCT), emphasized that there are two major differences between the NGAD effort and its that of legacy fighter jets. The first is the relatively rapid method of acquiring it. “We need to have something by the late 2020s,” he said in an interview with Defense News. “I think a realistic timeline is somewhere around 2028 with key investments in some key technology areas, you’d be able to have some initial operational capability of a penetrating counter air capability.” ..........

Requirements are not set in stone and could change during the AOA process, but Grynkewich believes that range and payload will be two of the most important attributes of the aircraft. NGAD, like other fighter jets, will need to be able to penetrate enemy air defenses and enter contested spaces, but it will also need to be able to operate at greater distances than current platforms, he said........

The Air Force is off to a good start, but still has much work to do in terms of establishing what performance variables will take priority, said Mark Gunzinger, senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. Like Grynkewich, Gunzinger mentioned payload and range as two key characteristics of the aircraft.

“When you consider the kinds of geography that our future fighter aircraft may have to operate in, such as the Western Pacific, overcoming that tyranny of distance means that we probably will need combat aircraft for longer ranges,” he said. A larger payload would also be vital in such scenarios because the jet will likely have to stay in the area of engagement for longer durations and have enough weapons capability to make an impact on enemy assets........

[SpazSinbad]

F-35C Completes DT-III Ahead of Schedule 29 Aug 2016 CVN-73
"The F-35 Patuxent River Integrated Test Force (ITF) completed the third and final shipboard developmental test phase (DT-III) for the F-35C Lightning II aboard USS George Washington (CVN 73) Aug. 25 - one week earlier than scheduled.

The highly diverse cadre of technicians, maintainers, engineers, logisticians, support staff, and test pilots assigned to the Salty Dogs of Air Test and Evaluation Squadron (VX) 23 showcased their trademark test efficiency and effectiveness by completing 100 percent of the required DT-III test points during 41 flights logging 39.7 flight hours and featuring 121 catapults, 70 touch and go landings, 1 bolter, and 121 arrestments. The team also completed their previous two shipboard detachments early - DT-I aboard USS Nimitz (CVN 68) in 2014 ended three days early and DT-II aboard USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69) in 2015 ended six days early. The Salty Dogs returned to Naval Air Station Patuxent River on Aug. 26."
https://www.f35.com/news/detail/f-35c-completes-dt-iii-ahead-of-schedule

[SpazSinbad]

LM GM Weekly Update 26 Aug 2016 Jeff Babione
“F-35C DT-III
As the Edwards test team continues to knock it out of the park, the F-35C is wearing out the three wire on USS George Washington (CVN 73) for DT-III. Now finishing up their second week of action out at sea, the team is literally blowing through test points, surpassing minimum wind over deck and high wind over deck points up to 45 knots.

Those are very difficult points to meet and the team is doing an outstanding job of completing these crucial test points. The aircraft and team continue their impressive streak of 114 arrestments and zero bolters. If you add the 120 arrestments the pilots from VFA-101 completed last week during pilot carrier qualifications, the F-35C has accomplished an astonishing 234 arrestments without a single miss during this deployment....” https://a855196877272cb14560-2a4fa819a63ddcc0c289f9457bc3ebab.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/17150/f35_weekly_update_8_26_16.pdf (0.74Mb)

[Tourist]

"the F-35C has accomplished an astonishing 234 arrestments without a single miss during this deployment....”

Interested to know what a normal rate would be?
Difficult to know if this means its an easy aircraft to land or exceptional pilots on the programme.

[SpazSinbad]

I will look around for a 'normal rate' for which aircraft? I guess now that Hornet/Super Hornets are only around that would be it? USN LSOs keep precise detailed data about every pilot and every carrier landing (at the LSO school). More information used to be made available online however for several years now their monthly newsletter has not been made public so recent information is likely to be scarce indeed.

Otherwise pilots both test and squadron have been quoted often enough that the F-35C is an easy aircraft to carrier land. It is a 'three wire machine'. At first there are test pilots then come the F-35C instructor pilots of VFA-101 who have day qualified. Later when HMDS III becomes certified for ordinary night use onboard then they (instructors) will go back for night quals.

[SpazSinbad]

This jargon filled explanation perhaps requires explanation of Case Recoveries and Rules to Live by - just say so.... otherwise the quote gives an idea of broad requirements.

COE/Blue Water Certification Paddles Monthly June 2011
"...What are Event Factor (EF) and Combat Boarding Rate (CBR)? Event Factor measures the ability for the flight deck and air wing to work together to maximize lethality and survivability. Here is how it is measured over the course of a launch and recovery: Event Factor = (Total # of Launches + Total # of Recoveries)/(Minutes Elapsed)...

...As for Combat Boarding Rate (CBR), it is calculated by the number of traps divided by the total number of “attempted‟ traps with 90% being the goal for Case I/II and 85% for Case III. Both metrics are related to each other due to the fact that a bolter obviously hurts both your EF as well as your CBR.

Historically speaking, it tends to be a bit harder for Carrier Air Wings to achieve their Combat Boarding Rate numbers than Event Factor. Squadron LSOs need to train your Ready Rooms to consistently shoot for a 55-60 second interval vice 45 seconds, be very disciplined in the pattern, and to safely get aboard on the first pass while not violating the “Rules to Live By.”" http://www.hrana.org/documents/Paddles-MonthlyJune2011.pdf [no longer available]

[Tourist]

Thank you for that.

[NutLoose]

Some positives

F-35A continues fifth-generation tradition of air superiority against legacy aircraft > Hill Air Force Base > Article Display (http://www.hill.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/931394/f-35a-continues-fifth-generation-tradition-of-air-superiority-against-legacy-ai)

[ORAC]

As a follow on to the USAF looking for a new fighter in service by 2030.....

The Looming Air Superiority Train Wreck (http://warontherocks.com/2016/08/the-looming-air-superiority-train-wreck/)

.........."The Air Force’s realization of its declining air superiority capabilities places America’s allies in an invidious position. With doubts now about whether the U.S. Air Force can be relied upon to win future near-peer air battles, American allies may need to reconsider their force structure plans and alliance relationships. This later aspect might be especially prominent if worries over revisionist state adventurism materialize.

An option for the allies might be to delay buying the current F-35 configuration aircraft until the U.S. Air Force’s intentions concerning new air superiority systems are clearer. At that time, allies might then be able to buy into a long-term robust air superiority solution, perhaps some element of a systems of systems that might include evolved F-22s or F-35s (if they were allowed access to these). This approach would perhaps allow them to remain operationally useful American allies past 2030 when at the moment it seems their value sharply diminishes............"

[ORAC]

Last ever unmanned QF-4 flight acted a target for an F-35 firing 2 x AIM-120, and survived. Some scepticism as to the claim it was supposed and the Mx were made to self-destruct.

https://theaviationist.com/2016/08/31/usaf-qf-4-phantom-is-shot-at-by-an-f-35-with-two-aim-120s-during-last-unmanned-mission-and-survives/

[glad rag]

Lol that can't be right ORAC, we should ask a distinguished expert [on this very forum] to validate these preposterous claims of failure...

OyOyOy RN fleet defence with a pair of ASRAAMs on the outer pylons [if the wings dont rip off (lol btw)] way to go F35B.

[Lonewolf_50]

Update 1:The reason for the QF-4 not being shot down is probably that the test was not a test of the AIM-120 missile’s ability to hit a target (something that has been proved in the past) but on the F-35’s ability to track the target and guide the AMRAAM until this reached the kill envelope. Once the missile starts self-guiding to the drone the test is accomplished and there is no need to waste a costy unmanned aircraft: the AIM-120 is directed to self-destruct before impact. GR, did you bother to read the article? This is from the article, FWIW.
Is it fact or speculation? Don't know, but it makes a certain amount of sense.
Just out of curiosity, how much test flying and weapons testing have you done? Test programs are a thing of their own.

[FODPlod]

Last ever unmanned QF-4 flight acted a target for an F-35 firing 2 x AIM-120, and survived. Some scepticism as to the claim it was supposed and the Mx were made to self-destruct.

https://theaviationist.com/2016/08/31/usaf-qf-4-phantom-is-shot-at-by-an-f-35-with-two-aim-120s-during-last-unmanned-mission-and-survives/
I wonder how many other missile test firings this particular QF-4 has 'survived' during its service? It's almost as though someone might want to retain its DAS and other expensive gizmos and recover the full telemetry data for detailed analysis. ;)

I believe we've even flown the odd re-usable target drone in the past ourselves.

[ORAC]

Well they are "missiles" not "hittiles", and designed for a near miss so that the warhead chops the plane in half, rather than hitting the jet pipes etc. With the proximity fuses disabled a hit is a misfortune rather than a success.

I'm just bemused at the self-destruct excuse, I thought the telemetry was used to show how close they came, and the self-destruct was that built in regardless to ensure no blue-on-blue fratricide if they missed the planned target.

[Courtney Mil]

We don't fire live rounds with any of the fuzes disabled. What is the point of throwing an AIM120 warhead into the sea? The real question is was it purely a telemetry round?

The reporting is, for good reasons, a little vague. The bottom line is if the ac radar can get the missile to a pol with a decent Q, the missile does the rest. That what the slammer does.

[glad rag]

I wonder how many other missile test firings this particular QF-4 has 'survived' during its service? It's almost as though someone might want to retain its DAS and other expensive gizmos and recover the full telemetry data for detailed analysis. ;)

I believe we've even flown the odd re-usable target drone in the past ourselves.

ROFL.

Sure let's leave the data "lying around" to be recovered.

After all it's only the performance of the primary AA weapon with the future mainstay of western manned aviation.

Mind you, probably safer than being held on a LM database.

ROFL.

[glad rag]

Well they are "missiles" not "hittiles", and designed for a near miss so that the warhead chops the plane in half, rather than hitting the jet pipes etc. With the proximity fuses disabled a hit is a misfortune rather than a success.

I'm just bemused at the self-destruct excuse, I thought the telemetry was used to show how close they came, and the self-destruct was that built in regardless to ensure no blue-on-blue fratricide if they missed the planned target.

I dont get the destruct gig unless it was

1. to sanitise wreckage/debris #

2. weapon heading ofrange (again?? the cousin's ain't that gash)

# many moons ago I was "attending" a accident scene when some polite civilian chaps drafted me to "vet" certain bags of detritus, I was able to convince them that all IC's and supporting components could in theory retain code, but there was no sign of a ferrite iron core in the slightest ;) ...

[FODPlod]

I wonder how many other missile test firings this particular QF-4 has 'survived' during its service? It's almost as though someone might want to retain its DAS and other expensive gizmos and recover the full telemetry data for detailed analysis. ;)

I believe we've even flown the odd re-usable target drone in the past ourselves.ROFL.

Sure let's leave the data "lying around" to be recovered.

After all it's only the performance of the primary AA weapon with the future mainstay of western manned aviation.

Mind you, probably safer than being held on a LM database.

ROFL.
Education can be a wonderful thing: ;) The Final Mission: The USAF’s QF-4 Target Drones by Mark Munzel (http://www.pprune.org/The Final Mission: The USAF’s QF-4 Target Drones by Mark Munzel)
...In support of U.S. test and evaluation activities, Phantom drones also act as targets for non-lethal tests of missiles, radar and other sensors, and defensive systems. They also support Air Force and Navy training, such as "Combat Archer" missile shoots. Both services also employ sub-scale target drones, which are less costly to operate than FSATs. But only a full-scale target offers the flight characteristics, performance envelope – including subsonic and supersonic flight at altitudes up to and above 50,000 feet – endurance, radar and infrared (IR) signatures, and damage resistance of a real aircraft....

...To evade the weapon system under test, the drone’s flight profile may include defensive maneuvers (including 6-G turns and vertical maneuvers), chaff and flare releases, and radar jamming. Test results are recorded by telemetry and, at WSMR, by optical systems. If the drone is destroyed, its wreckage falls onto the range...

[Rhino power]

It's almost as though someone might want to retain its DAS and other expensive gizmos and recover the full telemetry data for detailed analysis. ;)

The QF-4 does not need to survive a missile shot to have the telemetry data recovered, it's all transmitted live during the flight by the 'expensive gizmos', having the jet back on the ground provides no more info than if it was actually shot down, except for maybe the blast/frag pattern if it survives a live warhead shot...

-RP

[FODPlod]

The QF-4 does not need to survive a missile shot to have the telemetry data recovered, it's all transmitted live during the flight by the 'expensive gizmos', having the jet back on the ground provides no more info than if it was actually shot down, except for maybe the blast/frag pattern if it survives a live warhead shot...

-RP
Bandwidth and/or non-lossy data compression must have improved significantly to permit real time radio transfer of all fine detail recorded data, including hi-res video, since my day but I'm prepared to take your word for it.

[Rhino power]

Bandwidth and/or non-lossy data compression must have improved significantly to permit real time radio transfer of all fine detail recorded data, including hi-res video, since my day but I'm prepared to take your word for it.

I guess so, the QF-4 carries no onboard recorders, even regular squadron jets have been carrying ACMI/RAIDS pods for years now which transmit real time telemetry during ACM, so it's not without precedent...

-RP

[RetiredF4]

Whatever the cause, good that the jet survived it's last mission.

[Rhino power]

Whatever the cause, good that the jet survived it's last mission.

+1 :)

Lets hope when the last manned flyers are finally retired in December, that those painted up in heritage colours are preserved and not just unceremoniously dumped on some weapons range...

-RP

[Obba]

I was going to make a new post. However, I thought this news should go here..
Not sure on how old this is BTW..


CNN is reporting that 435 F15's are to be modified;


Air Force investing $12B in F-15s - CNNPolitics.com (http://edition.cnn.com/2016/09/02/politics/us-air-force-f-15-upgrades/index.html)


But isn't the idea of 'stealth' and particularly the F35 - is to see the enemy before they can see you? And its been said, that as you (the enemy), can see it, you're already dead?


So how important is it to have a dog-fighting plane in todays Gen 5,6 world?

[MSOCS]

Obba, I think being a good dog fighter is important if it's non-stealth vs non-stealth. The somewhat rhetorical question is, "how many F-15 kills were as a result of a dog fight won?"

[Royalistflyer]

Could it be that the current velocity of radar technology improvement is dictating that stealthy aircraft are pretty well a waste of time? Could it be that the combination of radar that can detect but not designate and aircraft/missile radar that can designate simply make stealth pointless? Hence the refurbishment of the F-15. And maybe the pointlessness of the F-35.

[MSOCS]

Royalistflyer, I think that's an over-simplistic assumption which doesn't account for the sheer technical difficulty of such a concept. To suggest that the USAF's decision to upgrade their F-15 fleet is proof that stealth is "pointless", is a bold leap. Stealth isn't - and has never been - a panacea. It re-baselines the lethal and survivable characteristics of air platforms in the face of newer, more clever radars and EW; radars and EW that may render non-stealthy inventories extremely vulnerable in a near-term fight.

If I have a fleet of jets with hours left to fly on them, I'd like them to be useful in conflict for their remaining life. Ergo, I upgrade them to keep that vulnerability as low as possible, in itself making them more lethal as a result; clearly I'd add direct lethality improvements as well. Agile, E-scan radars, digital EW and a bunch of other eye-watering tech can give a decent hike to an aged platform for relatively low cost, but it will never have the already-described pedigree that stealth affords.

We ignore our potential adversaries' capabilities at our own peril, but we're also very quick to criticise our own. Ultimately, that approach keeps us honest, focused and may even give false succour and confidence to our foes. It's a good thing, IMHO.

[ORAC]

We ignore our potential adversaries' capabilities at our own peril... one wonders why the Indians aren't inquiring about the F-35?
Chinese LRIP J-20 photographed in Tibet. Might just be high level trials, might not....

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CrUirPLUMAIbUjn.jpg

[Royalistflyer]

MSOCS: In the past we (our misguided politicians?) have made bold predictions that turned out to be very wrong. Nevertheless, I have the impression that near term fights seem unlikely given the air-to-air missile range capabilities. The idea that one approaches unseen and kills the opponent - and that by the time he can see you, he is dead seems to be the "dogfight" premise for the F-35/F-22. However given that the likely arms sellers to our possible opponents are already developing aircraft with similar stealth to F-35/F-22, then when you can "see" him, he can "see" you too. Doesn't that sort of cancel out? Marginal technological advantages will come into play and last for a short while. Nevertheless, I just don't see us (UK) in conflict with any major player who could own such technology. Russia isn't going to attack west. China is more interested in buying us than fighting us. And if we're seriously smart we won't go getting involved in a fight with Iran. So I would question our need for F-35/F-22 technology.

[MSOCS]

Ah, the old conundrum, per Cold War then: they'll never attack us so why bother! Sadly we need full-spectrum capabilities for self-assurance so that argument fortunately never takes hold with those who have a responsibility to protect.

You assert that Russian/Chinese stealth is equitable to F-22/F-35. That, again, is a bold statement. There are physical aspects in the pictures of both J-20 and T-50 that tell me they are reduced signature compared to Mig X and Su-Y, but perhaps not true LO or VLO. Whether that reduced signature can be maintained, relatively cheaply in-Service ("supportable"), is also another consideration of importance.

Beyond this, we seem to have little debate on the tactics and training either "side" employs for these latest capabilities. The USA are THE global experience in the 'operationalising' stealth in combat aircraft.

[ORAC]

And the Japanese can't build motorcars - or so Fors and GM chortled and sneered back in the 70s. And all the Chinese build are sheep watches - but now they make electronic innards of just about everything we use.

Never rest on your laurels, and never underestimate your potential enemy.

[MSOCS]

Indeed ORAC, and never pass up an opportunity to patronise anonymous posters on an Internet forum.

[glad rag]

Marginal technological advantages will come into play and last for a short while

Never has a truer word been spoken on this thread!

[KenV]

one wonders why the Indians aren't inquiring about the F-35?Have you considered the Build in India directive? Given that countless companies spread among numerous nations are involved in F-35 manufacture and assembly the chances of India getting a significant share in that at this late stage are slim to none. The Russians and Chinese are offering India the opportunity to both influence the design of the aircraft and to produce/assemble the aircraft they are developing. Further, both the Russians and Chinese appear to be willing to co-develop and share the resulting technologies with India. India very much wants to advance their domestic aviation capabilities. So the reasons are complex and involve economics, politics, technology transfer, maturing/growth of domestic industry, and lots more, and not simply aircraft performance.

[KenV]

However given that the likely arms sellers to our possible opponents are already developing aircraft with similar stealth to F-35/F-22, then when you can "see" him, he can "see" you too. Doesn't that sort of cancel out?It cancels out only if the opponents truly have stealth "similar to F-35/F-22." Not even the Russians and Chinese are making that claim. Their stealth capability is more akin to the Super Hornet's stealth, which is forward aspect only and somewhat limited at that. And beyond achieving that level of stealth, there is the issue of maintaining it in the field. Only one nation has ANY experience with maintaining stealth in an operational environment. It is no trivial matter.

[ORAC]

AW&ST: DOD Authorizes More Funds To Cover Stalled F-35 Contract
Sep 7, 2016

Almost two years after the Pentagon awarded Lockheed Martin the latest F-35 contract, the company is still waiting on the funds needed to build the next batch of fighter jets.

Frank Kendall, the Pentagon’s top weapons buyer, said Sept. 7 that the department is still negotiating deals for the ninth and 10th batches of Lockheed’s F-35, valued at about $16 billion total for more than 140 aircraft for the U.S. Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and international partners.

As negotiations drag on, Lockheed is being forced to pay suppliers out-of-pocket for long-lead work on the next batch of aircraft. But the Pentagon is at last providing some relief. The department recently authorized additional funding to reimburse the company for costs incurred on an anticipated 10th batch of F-35s, Kendall said. The latest agreement, officially called an undefinitized contract action (UCA), comes on top of a similar deal to refund Lockheed for costs associated with the ninth lot of aircraft, Kendall said.

The Pentagon has been promising that a contract award to Lockheed for the combined ninth and 10th F-35 Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) lots is just on the horizon for almost a year now. The Joint Program Office had hoped to announce an agreement at the Farnborough International Airshow in the UK in July, but no such deal emerged. The last F-35 contract, valued at $4.7 billion for 43 jets, was signed in November 2014.........

[glad rag]

Tick, tock indeed. I wonder if someone is hanging back 'til just prior the election..

[SpazSinbad]

LM F-35 GM Weekly Update 01 Sep 2016 Jeff Babione
"Two F-35Cs from the ITF at Pax River recently completed ship trials while operating from USS George Washington (CVN 73) off the Atlantic Coast. The ITF flew nearly 40 hours and checked off 613 unique test points that further validated the carrier suitability of the F-35C. The jets accrued 121 catapult launches and arrested landings, 70 touch-and-goes and 125 wave-offs, with only one bolter or missed arrestment. The team once again understood their mission and went out in one of the harshest working environments anywhere, and flawlessly executed the final F-35C ship trial for SDD. The launch of CF-3 and CF-5 for their return flight to Pax River signified the completion of five years’ worth of carrier suitability testing.”...
...Northern Lightning Exercise
As the F-35Cs returned to Pax River, 14 F-35As from Eglin were executing a two-week deployment as part of the Northern Lightning exercise in Wisconsin. The F-35As from the 58th Fighter Squadrons flew 102 out of 104 scheduled sorties with aircraft availability averaging 80 percent for the duration of the deployment. All 14 F-35As are operating with older 2B software, making these sortie and availability rates even more impressive.”..."
https://a855196877272cb14560-2a4fa819a63ddcc0c289f9457bc3ebab.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/17168/f35_weekly_update_9_1_16.pdf (0.7Mb)

[SpazSinbad]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyBFv11tFsU

[ORAC]

F-35 May Never Be Ready for Combat (http://www.pogo.org/straus/issues/weapons/2016/f-35-may-never-be-ready-for-combat.html)

[t43562]

The software problems concern me because the fact that things don't work properly at this stage suggests that their development process is not a good one and even perhaps that the design is not that great. A "good" process doesn't release features until they "add value" - i.e. they may not be everything you wanted them to be but they have to be good enough to be useful before you impose them upon your users.


With the wrong design some tasks become Sisyphean - possible enough in theory to keep your masters cracking the whip (no we can't change direction now - just work smarter!) but so hard as to slow your work down to a crawl. One does make bad designs - I certainly have. It's not so common to recognise that and even less common to be allowed to fix it.

[Lonewolf_50]

You have continuously deleted anything negative to the "program" whilst allowing shrills like spaz and msocs free reign ...
Glad Rag, are you kidding? I look at our current page count, based on 20 posts per page, in a thread I've been participating in since near its beginning. It has reached page 487, during which time it has seen a non trivial volume of criticism of the F-35, both the aircraft and the program (much of it justified). How do you arrive at the statement You have continuously deleted anything negative to the "program" with a straight face?

As to Spaz and his never ending enthusiasm / shilling for the program -- I am pretty sure that most participants in this thread do what I do: consider the source. ;) (PS: as to your film clip, I want one, but the Missus has told me that she wants the roof replaced and the kitchen redone first, so my budget seems to be unable to allow it. Rats).


For ORAC: at the risk of sounding like a parochial rotary wing shill, this bit in the linked article annoys me.

Air support for friendly troops fighting the enemy is exactly where the lack of a usable cannon is most distinctly felt—and the F-35 won’t have a usable and test-proven cannon until 2019 at best. Cannons are the most effective weapon in far more CAS situations than rockets (which the F-35A currently does not carry) or a couple of guided bombs (which it does). This is true especially when the plane needs to engage a target in a “danger close” situation, with the enemy in very close proximity to friendly troops.
A few points.
1. That's what attack helicopters are for.
2. The last ten years 2.75 inch rocket improvement program gives the attack helicopter even more options to offer to the ground commander.
3. They weren't trying to replace the A-10's amazing gun/plane suite. Nothing can, nothing will.
4. The author seems to not know how "danger close" you can get with current LGB's.
5. All that said, it is troubling to see that the software world is the long pole in this circus tent, and apparently getting longer.

[Hempy]

5. All that said, it is troubling to see that the software world is the long pole in this circus tent, and apparently getting longer.

Hammer, nail, on the head, for hitting.

In 2016 hardware is nothing without the software that controls it. Unfortunately 'soft' is the optimum word in this equation.

Maybe they just need to hire some 20 year old MIT geniuses to sort this out on a good seven figure sum, because at the moment the cart is dragging the horse.

[ORAC]

Lonewolf

It was an observation given to me over 20 years ago that the MOD still spent 90% of the upfront money derisking airframe and electronic issues, at a time when software had already assumed most of the complexity and accounted for 90% of the slippages in such programmes (this was in the particular example of IUKADGE.

I then encountered exactly the same problem on NATO ACCS, where they thought they could reuse 20 year old flat files for 90% of the software, and ended up replacing all of it with nearly a 10 year slippage.

I find little difficulty in finding the same issue occuring again - and am amused, but hardly surprised, when even a 4 star suggests that he'd like, at this stage, changing the entire softwRe over to a new open-architecture, in the expectation it can be done in 5 years - and will save money.....

[t43562]

The software in your phone is really very old - not obsolete but parts of it have a very long development time and have appeared in many products before they even appeared in a phone.

The problem for the old phone makers is that their software was designed for very inadequate hardware. It was full of clever tricks to make the most of what it was running on but all of this became irrelevant when new chips came out with enough power to run the operating system from a desktop computer. Then all the trade-offs were worthless and the desktop operating systems wiped out the specialist phone ones. So now you're using Linux on an Android phone and Apples' Darwin (also a unix) on an iPhone.

Desktop operating systems were what America was good at and they neatly turned the tables on everyone.

So I personally hope that "someone" is writing general purpose software for aircraft right now that assumes the wonderful hardware that aircraft will have in the future rather than trying to do clever tricks with what can be fitted and powered within current aircraft.

To me it seems like it's risky to hope that one company can do it properly to order because I'm not really sure that an effort that big has ever really been successful entirely by design.

[Lonewolf_50]

Lonewolf

I then encountered exactly the same problem on NATO ACCS, where they thought they could reuse 20 year old flat files for 90% of the software, and ended up replacing all of it with nearly a 10 year slippage.
ACCS: arrgh. I was involved in two related NATO programs (via Capability Packages) about 20 years ago that tied into ACCS. arrrrrgh. I may not feel the pain as deeply as you do, but it was painful enough.

[hunty]

This makes interesting reading.


http://www.pogo.org/straus/issues/weapons/2016/f-35-may-never-be-ready-for-combat.html (wlmailhtml:{DA667D2A-68CB-4363-9107-776F885B9994}mid://00000002/!x-usc:http://www.pogo.org/straus/issues/weapons/2016/f-35-may-never-be-ready-for-combat.html)

[ORAC]

hunty, see 9735 - 7 posts back

[SpazSinbad]

There is a very short video and a long article here: [UK F-35Bs mentioned elsewhere - to follow]

Video: Successful F-35, SM-6 Live Fire Test Points to Expansion in Networked Naval Warfare
"...The MADL linkage to Aegis and potentially other ground stations opens up the potential for a greater networked battlespace for U.S. forces and potentially U.S. allies...."
https://news.usni.org/2016/09/13/video-successful-f-35-sm-6-live-fire-test-points-expansion-networked-naval-warfare#more-21593
____________________________________

http://www.sldinfo.com/captain-nick-walker-provides-an-update-on-the-queen-elizabeth-class-carrier-at-the-williams-foundation-air-sea-seminar/

http://www.sldinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Future-UK-Requirements-1024x794.png

[Hempy]

Spaz, well and good, but all AESA equiped gen 4/4.5 aircraft have the same capability, no?

[Engines]

Hempy and others,

Perhaps I can help here.

The link SpazSinbad posted was referring to use of the F-35's MADL link system. (Not AESA radar per se). This is, as far as I am aware, a new system that was developed as part of the F-35 programme.

MADL stands for Multifunction Advanced Data Link, and comprises a number of dedicated antennae located around the airframe to provide full spherical coverage. I'm relying on Wiki here, but it's been described as a 'fast switching narrow directional communications data link' that operates in the Ku band. If you want to see one, look at the aft end of the fairings immediately below the tail fins and you'll see a hexagonal panel. That's a MADL antenna. MADL was designed for communication between F-35s, a programme to retrofit it to F-22 was cancelled around 2010 or so I understand.

The thing that interested me about the link he posted was that the potential for using MADL on land and sea based platforms was certainly raised early on in the F-35 programme by Brits working in the Mission Systems area. (It might have also been spotted by US people, but we would not have been sighted on that). The point is that MADL offers very fast data transfer rates, with low probability of interception, and decent ranges. (I'm being vague here on grounds of security, more more importantly, it's the limit of my knowledge). In the case of integration of the aircraft with UK QEC class ships, MADL offered an excellent way to provide mission data updates to aircraft ranged on deck at a high alert state. (This was a part of UK requirements for what was then called FJCA). The only alternative around at the time was to go out and manually load a new mission plan via the data 'brick', or to try to use Link 16. MADL, as far as I remember, offered much faster and more secure data transfer than any other method we could come up with. I believe that a preliminary study was carried out.

At present, F-35 is the only aircraft fitted with MADL, again as far as I know. However, I'd expect it, or developed versions, to become a common data link system in coming years. That would apply to both air and ground platforms. Hope this helps a bit,

Best regards as ever to those building the data pipes,

Engines

[Hempy]

Engines, thank you. I take it that the advantage is that MADL has the capability to send and receive over 360 degrees, rather than AESAs 60 degree off angle limit? AESA was tested to gigabit/sec datalink at least 10 years ago.

[BEagle]

So, a bit like JTIDS for the 21st century really?

I recall an excellent article describing how L16 3rd party targeting enabled a few F3 AIM-9 'silent kills' at Red Flag - which really upset the USAF targets!

[KenV]

I take it that the advantage is that MADL has the capability to send and receive over 360 degrees, rather than AESAs 60 degree off angle limit? AESA was tested to gigabit/sec datalink at least 10 years ago.

Recieve rates up to 1 gbit/sec and transmit rates up to 548 mbit/sec were achieved IN THE LAB back in 2007. The testing involved lashing the F-22's APG-77 radar to an L-3Com progammable modem. So yes it was done and the concept was proved in the lab using one specific AESA radar. And yes in THEORY any AESA radar could be modified to accomplish this operationally, but no it is not (yet?) a built in feature of any production AESA radar.

LINK (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/elec-tricks-turning-aesa-radars-into-broadband-comlinks-01629/http://)

[Hempy]

Sorry KenV, I get a 'page not found' 404 error on your link.

I do confess to having a little insight into AESA's datalink capabilities. It wasn't just lab tested, it was well and truly field tested.

BEagle, link-16 is omnidirectional. I'm assuming this is where Engines is coming from, as MADL seems to be (from what I can gather) full spectrum as well, but with a larger bandwidth. Other than the placement of sensors though I'm still struggling to spot the difference..

[BEagle]

The original VC10K L16 installation was to have included a CRPA, but £££ dictated the cheaper omnidirectional solution for the OP ENGADINE cheapo fit, as well as deletion of the HPA.

[Hempy]

are you drunk?

[ORAC]

As I understand it, the LM Crowsnest platform uses MADL, which will be seamless with F-35, and the Helo providing a MIDS gateway.

What happens when the F-35 gets out of Helo range around the carrier I would leave to Engines to explain.

[Engines]

Hempy,

Perhaps I can help a bit further, but I would stress that I'm not a data/comms specialist. The main differences between a system like MADL and Link 16 are to do with bandwidth and comms security.

The Link 16 systems I've experienced normally operate over the UHF part of the spectrum - MADL is at a much higher frequency (Ku band) which gives it far more bandwidth. This is going to be exploited between F-35s in a number of ways, mainly to do with sharing real time tactical information between a flight of aircraft, up to 4 or more.

The other main attribute is security - MADL uses a system of steered beams to link from aircraft to aircraft - there are multiple antenna locations on the F-35, could be 5 or 6. These are used as required to maintain the MADL link between platforms./ The steered beams reduce the probability of detection or intercept, according to those I worked with on the programme.

ORAC, sorry, I can't explain your reference to helo range and F-35, unless you're highlighting the fact that a helo based platform has less range than an F-35. There's plenty of stuff out there on F-35 comms capabilities, I do know that it has SATCOM receive capability, so I guess that might be a possible route. I'd hazard a guess that in the fleet air defence role, you'd want the Crowsnest to be able to communicate with the F-35s - sorry, can't be any more help than that.

Best regards as ever to those clever people who know about this comms stuff,

Engines

[SpazSinbad]

Recently there was mention of Winders on Wings of F-35C issues according to DOT&E. The fix is on way.
F-35C will begin flight testing in November to assess design fix 14 Sep 2016 Lee Hudson
"The Joint Strike Fighter program will begin flight testing a design fix in November aimed at providing greater support for the weight of the AIM-9X air-to-air missile, an issue that was highlighted in a recent memo by the Pentagon's chief weapons tester...."
https://insidedefense.com/daily-news/f-35c-will-begin-flight-testing-november-assess-design-fix