F-35 Cancelled, then what ? [Archive] - Page 42

FODPlod

28th Feb 2017, 11:44

Sounds like good value for money if four F-35s can do the work of 12 or 13 aircraft of the previous generation:
AVALON: USMC touts F-35B as ‘killing machine’ (https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/avalon-usmc-touts-f-35b-as-killing-machine-434632/)

The United States Marine Corps says that its three squadrons of Lockheed Martin F-35B fighters are performing well in exercises.

“We’ve got a real winner on our hands,” says USMC Lt. Gen. John Davis in a media briefing. He states that exercises have shown the short-takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) variant of the F-35 to be a potent “killing machine.”

The Marines have three squadrons equipped with the aircraft. VMFA-121 and VMFA-211 have achieved initial operating capability. VMFAT-501 is a training squadron.

VMFA-121 has deployed ten jets to Japan. Six more F-35Bs will deploy to Japan in mid-2017, bringing the squadron to full strength. Later, some of these aircraft will be deployed on an amphibious warship. Davis says that exercises show a very strong success ratio for the type.

“In one scenario where I would normally send in twelve to thirteen fighters and maybe lose half, I can instead use four F-35s. The can get in, crush the target, and get out.”

In another exercise, a force of four F-35s and four older fighters were deployed against a force of 20 “bad guys.”

“Let’s just say that the eight fighters had a good day, and the twenty had a very bad day.”

The Marines aircraft are using the type’s 3I software, which offers an interim capability until the upgrade to 3F...

Ian Corrigible

28th Feb 2017, 11:51

So what has Trump done to get lot 10 down in millions of $ in price?
“In terms of the projected prices, they were all to do with the ramp-up in rates and were well-advertised,” [BAE Systems Plc Chief Executive Officer Ian] King said on the conference call. “But if somebody wants to take credit for that finalization, negotiation, then they can take credit for that negotiation if they wish.”

F-35 partner disputes Trump's claim of securing big savings (https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-02-24/f-35-partner-disputes-trump-s-claims-that-he-secured-big-savings)

George K Lee

28th Feb 2017, 13:43

Quoth FODPlod...

Sounds like good value for money if four F-35s can do the work of 12 or 13 aircraft of the previous generation:

The good general's "previous generation" comprises clapped-out Classic Hornets and Harriers with warmed-over 1970s radar, superheterodyne/analog RWR and either no ECM or a bit of wheezy 1980s stuff. So the statement is not as exciting as enthusiasts might like.

Rhino power

28th Feb 2017, 22:00

...four F-35s can do the work of 12 or 13 aircraft of the previous generation

Also seems like utter bilge, unless somehow 4 F-35's can magically be in 12 or 13 places at the same time... :hmm:

-RP

Brat

1st Mar 2017, 00:19

...be an impressive jet and a considerable advance over current platforms but...

But what?

Despite your grudging acknowledgement above, you still seem bound and determined to condemn it, despite the endorsement of almost every pilot that flies it, the countless teams from various country’s who have evaluated and recommended it, and the successes it has had in the recent Red Flag exercises it has been engaged in.

Your area of expertise in evaluating it is...?

Rhino power

1st Mar 2017, 01:40

Your area of expertise in evaluating it is...?

None whatsoever, other than what info is available via open source, nor do I claim any particular expertise, what's your's?. Instead of cherry picking one sentence out of context which suits your stance, why not try answering the actual question I posed in the comment you quoted from?

IF the F-35 provides the edge over current IADS that it is supposed to do, that's undoubtedly a great operational asset but, given how late into service it is, will it still provide that edge over updated and in development systems? Will the updating of the onboard sensors/avionics be enough to counter the ever evolving IADS threat, or will the basic airframe and LO technologies built into it be the ultimate limiting factor?

-RP

SpazSinbad

1st Mar 2017, 05:25

“...Air Combat Command was beginning to envision a new kind of Red Flag—one still having a substantial live-fly element, but heavily supplemented with virtual elements and simulation. Though F-22s and (as of January) F-35s participate in Red Flags, the true scope of what they can do must be hidden from potential opponents closely monitoring the wargames. As a result, Red Flag will move increasingly into the virtual realm....”
http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2017/April%202017/USAF's-Aggressors.aspx

1Mb 11 page PDF of entire article: http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Documents/2017/April%202017/0417_Tirpak_Aggressors.pdf

SpazSinbad

1st Mar 2017, 05:26

repeat - slow posting

Buster15

1st Mar 2017, 06:03

Does that include being able to hit moving targets, as the completely out of date GR4 with Brimstone 2 ????????????

ORAC

1st Mar 2017, 06:07

12 more FA-18E/G orders. Keeps the line open pending more orders. $678M - works out at about $56M each.

https://www.govconwire.com/2017/02/boeing-lands-679m-navy-contract-to-produce-lot-40-growler-super-hornet-jets/

George K Lee

1st Mar 2017, 16:30

At the same time, Air Combat Command was beginning to envision a new kind of Red Flag—one still having a substantial live-fly element, but heavily supplemented with virtual elements and simulation. Though F-22s and (as of January) F-35s participate in Red Flags, the true scope of what they can do must be hidden from potential opponents closely monitoring the wargames. As a result, Red Flag will move increasingly into the virtual realm.

"Will move"... Suggests that there was little LVC to January's exercise, which means that Red was (mainly) confined to hardware on hand. Representative of most of today's threats, but not tomorrow's.

glad rag

1st Mar 2017, 18:14

Does that include being able to hit moving targets, as the completely out of date GR4 with Brimstone 2 ????????????

or armed recce with raptor (pod) and everything else bar the kitchen sink???

Brat

2nd Mar 2017, 01:38

None whatsoever, other than what info is available via open source, nor do I claim any particular expertise, what's your's?. Instead of cherry picking one sentence out of context which suits your stance, why not try answering the actual question I posed in the comment you quoted from?

So no particular expertise, and no cherry picking, your ‘question' isn’t really a question, you seemingly admit the ac is way ahead of whatever else is out there then pose alternatives that don’t even exist, and possible problems.

will it still provide that edge over updated and in development systems? Will the updating of the onboard sensors/avionics be enough to counter the ever evolving IADS threat, or will the basic airframe and LO technologies built into it be the ultimate limiting factor?

Since no other country is producing anything of that standard, or numbers of F-35’s already in service, then it would seem that a qualitative edge over potential opponents already exists.

‘But’... one may be sure that you will find disagreement with that.

Rhino power

2nd Mar 2017, 02:11

So no particular expertise, and no cherry picking, your ‘question' isn’t really a question, you seemingly admit the ac is way ahead of whatever else is out there then pose alternatives that don’t even exist, and possible problems.

Since no other country is producing anything of that standard, or numbers of F-35’s already in service, then it would seem that a qualitative edge over potential opponents already exists.

‘But’... one may be sure that you will find disagreement with that.

So, you won't divulge your 'expertise', yet question mine?
My 'question' is a 'question', which you obviously can't answer, or at least provide a sound opinion!
What alternative (to what exactly?) did I 'pose' that doesn't exist, and are we to assume that there are no possible problems then?

Since no other country is producing anything of that standard, or numbers of F-35’s already in service, then it would seem that a qualitative edge over potential opponents already exists.

The defining comment of your fanboy ignorance, I never even suggested anything in your quote, try actually reading my 'question', understanding it and then get back to me with a cogent answer, although I rather suspect we'll just get more fanboy pish...

-RP

A_Van

2nd Mar 2017, 05:23

Rhino power,

Though your questions (qouted below) are too general (and the general answer to the first one is "No", IMHO) they are quite wise and touch lots of issues.

IF the F-35 provides the edge over current IADS that it is supposed to do, that's undoubtedly a great operational asset but, given how late into service it is, will it still provide that edge over updated and in development systems? Will the updating of the onboard sensors/avionics be enough to counter the ever evolving IADS threat, or will the basic airframe and LO technologies built into it be the ultimate limiting factor? IMHO, the key words in the above quote are "current IADS" and "evolving IADS".

As for "current IADS", they differ greatly. For really modern ones, F-35 can hardly do anything alone. But if we add the whole crowd of EW, C4ISR and other platforms, then the question arises about the contribution of F-35 to this orchestra (and its added value vs e.g. the -18's family).

Regarding "evolving IADS", IMHO, as usual the advantage is on the ground systems side (as they are not limited that much in size, power, network links, etc.) Therefore, taking into account very long life cycles of modern planes (as compared e.g. with 50's and 60's) "modifiability" (quick and cost effective) becomes more and more important for any aircraft.

SpazSinbad

2nd Mar 2017, 07:33

The Arrival of the F-35C for the Carrier Fleet 27 Feb 2017 SLDinfo
"...The F-35s coming to the fleet will add significantly to this process. It is about rapid combat learning in a dynamic warfighting environment. We are shaping the foundation for “learning airplanes” to engage the enemy.

LVC will enable us to train in a more robust environment than we are on our current ranges that are geographically constrained, and currently do not have the full high end threat replicated. LVC will allow us to train to the full capabilities of our platforms across a variety of security environments and do so without exposing our training process to an interested adversary.

Question: What you are talking about is shaping real time combat forensics against an active and dynamic threat?
Rear Admiral Manazir: That is a great way to put it. And this capability is crucial going forward.

We’re back into a scenario where lots of threats around the world require us to react to enemy learning. Then, when they act in accordance to our reaction, we react again and so on. The enemy morphs to do X. We have to react and we now do Y.

What is not widely realized is that the evolving air wing on the carrier and on the large deck amphibious ships, is being shaped for a dynamic learning process. The F-35s will play a key role in this evolving process, but we are already underway with this process as you mentioned with regard to Fallon.

With regard to the air war, where it’s either air-to-ground missions or air-to-air missions, we can share that information and bring in more people into the discussion with our long-range information and communication systems...."
The Arrival of the F-35C for the Carrier Fleet | SLDInfo (http://www.sldinfo.com/the-arrival-of-the-f-35c-for-the-carrier-fleet/)

Rhino power

2nd Mar 2017, 09:04

A Van, thank you for your considered reply, that was all I was asking for in the first place, not the drivel that I actually received...

-RP

Lonewolf_50

2nd Mar 2017, 12:31

Regarding "evolving IADS", IMHO, as usual the advantage is on the ground systems side (as they are not limited that much in size, power, network links, etc.) Therefore, taking into account very long life cycles of modern planes (as compared e.g. with 50's and 60's) "modifiability" (quick and cost effective) becomes more and more important for any aircraft. A_Van, whether it is "quick" or "cost effective" isn't as important as being adaptable/modifiable. If it isn't modifiable, no amount of money or time thrown at it may meet the need to adapt.

Buster15

2nd Mar 2017, 12:39

[QUOTE=glad rag;9692423]or armed recce with raptor (pod) and everything else bar the kitchen sink???[/QUOTe
Glad rag.shame that the Mod are intent on retiring the RAF most trusted and most capable fast jet,this on the extremely short sighted policy of only having 2 fast jet types. I don't doubt Typhoon capabilities but it is crystal clear to anyone who understands these things that F35 will not be fully capable by2019. They will never admit it but we will only realise how effective tornado is when it is no longer available.

Harley Quinn

2nd Mar 2017, 15:05

They will never admit it but we will only realise how effective tornado is when it is no longer available.

Can't help but think this same sentiment was expressed when Nimrod and Harrier (all variants) were binned: the sky didn't fall down then and probably won't now if Typhoon can expand its capabilities. Anyway everyone needs a good holiday every now and again.

Brat

3rd Mar 2017, 01:38

Ex military aviator, 40 years in aviation, interested in a new aircraft.
A Van, thank you for your considered reply, that was all I was asking for in the first place, not the drivel that I actually received...

The drivel being a question you posed, rooted in outdated strategy, and, a network V’s a single piece of equipment, hardly apples to apples, or a sensible comparison/question. As the General said, a bit 20th Century.

...but, given how late into service it is, will it still provide that edge over updated and in development systems? Will the updating of the onboard sensors/avionics be enough to counter the ever evolving IADS threat, or will the basic airframe and LO technologies built into it be the ultimate limiting factor?

You seem to regard the F-35 as a static weapons system rather than a constantly evolving one...and as an aircraft, rather that the multi-purpouse, mutl-service, multi national integrative weapon system it is.

All Integrated Air Defence Systems are constantly being improved, as is the F-35... which is not just a LO airframe with some sensors. As IADS’s are a network so too are the capabilities, tactics, and evolving sophistication of air offence of which the F-35 is but one part. The F-35 can no longer be considered as a single system in isolation which is precisely what your ‘question’ supposes, but a force multiplying constantly developing platform that is part of a of combined offensive/defensive grouping with new capabilities being discovered every day.

Rhino power

3rd Mar 2017, 01:54

Brat, this is my last response to you on this particular subject, you could have chosen to politely reply to my original question, laying out where you thought I was mistaken and why, as A Van did, but no, you instead went on (and continued to do so) a holier than thou, fanboy-esque rant which ignored everything I asked about and indeed threw in some nonsense I never even suggested!
So, you can either jog on, or continue to flap your gums (metaphorically speaking...), the choice is yours but, I'm done...

-RP

FODPlod

3rd Mar 2017, 08:19

IF the F-35 provides the edge over current IADS that it is supposed to do, that's undoubtedly a great operational asset but, given how late into service it is, will it still provide that edge over updated and in development systems?
Yes because it is still the most advanced system in existence. Who can produce something equally capable any faster? By virtue of the minds, money and other resources being applied, it is certainly better than anything else on the cards. However, bear in mind that every weapon system is 'obsolete' from the moment it is developed because someone somewhere will have started working on a more advanced countermeasure.
Will the updating of the onboard sensors/avionics be enough to counter the ever evolving IADS threat, or will the basic airframe and LO technologies built into it be the ultimate limiting factor?
You've answered your own question unless you can identify a previous weapon system that has not eventually been surpassed or countered through technological development.

Just This Once...

3rd Mar 2017, 09:14

Ballistic missiles seem to have remained unsurpassed.

FODPlod

3rd Mar 2017, 10:36

... bear in mind that every weapon system is 'obsolete' from the moment it is developed because someone somewhere will have started working on a more advanced countermeasure...

You've answered your own question unless you can identify a previous weapon system that has not eventually been surpassed or countered through technological development.Ballistic missiles seem to have remained unsurpassed.

Aren't they a current weapon system, possibly unsurpassed for the time being but who knows what's around the corner? They are certainly not remaining uncountered. Here's some of the evidence: UK ballistic-missile defence - Drivers and Options by Peter Roberts (https://rusi.org/sites/default/files/201508_op_ballistic_missile_defence.pdf)
MORE and more states around the world are buying ballistic-missile defence (BMD) capabilities...

In fact, BMD is the single new capability aspiration within the force-development work of the MoD Main Building and front-line command. The operation of UK forces in a ballistic-missile threat environment and the emergence of a formal defence requirement are likely to be jointly considered within the context of the forthcoming national Security Strategy and associated Strategic Defence and Security Review. As a result, BMD could quickly emerge as both a political and military requirement...

Brat

3rd Mar 2017, 12:00

An interesting piece on the US Army’s plans for BM systems for anti-ship purposes.
https://www.wired.com/2017/03/army-converting-missiles-ship-killers-china/

And with the F-35’s ability to link with ground based missile systems and to direct and manage them as recently demonstrated, together with the recent USMC F-35 deployment to Japan, a US counter strategy to developing Chinese naval plans, and aggressive expansion in the S China seas would seem to be evolving.

@Rhino Powerbut, I'm done...
No problems with that here. Stick to the beer.

FODPlod

3rd Mar 2017, 13:38

That does seem to be fast becoming the fanboys sign off....

Now, about all this "proven", dare one say, fake news; what are your actual sources?
??????? Sun over the yardarm already? :)

Even Einstein would need a bit more of a steer than that. What on earth are you on about?

Brat

3rd Mar 2017, 15:08

On a lighter, and slightly thread drifting note, not F-35, but a significant military aircraft.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_AZeMRqCfg.

Old farts, ‘fanboys’ do maintain an interest in, not only past, but future developments.

I met and shook General Paul Tibbet’s hand when doing a Lear Jet rating some years ago at his company facility at EJA. Executive Jet Airways was founded in 1964 as a private business jet charter and aircraft management company. The founding members of the board of directors Air Force generals Curtis E. LeMay and Paul Tibbetts Jr.,

Air power and air superiority remain keystones to military strategy in global warfare, space the new frontier.

George K Lee

3rd Mar 2017, 16:05

So, Fodplod...

Yes because it is still the most advanced system in existence.

I don't know what you mean there, and I don't think you do either. We love to use the word "advanced" because it sounds as if it means more than "newer". And what "system" are you comparing it to? Fighters? Military aircraft? Military aerospace systems?

Who can produce something equally capable any faster?

Capable at exactly what? As has been laid out in detail in this thread and elsewhere, the F-35 is not as capable as an F-22 in A2A. It can't hit moving targets very well, absent lots more time and money (and there's no fixed budget or schedule). EOTS is not as good as Litening 4 at what targeting systems do, let alone Litening 5 or Talios. And if the target's more than 400-500 miles from a safe tanker line it's no use whatsoever.

By virtue of the minds, money and other resources being applied, it is certainly better than anything else on the cards.

By this standard, we'd just award Oscars according to the production budget and Concorde would have outsold every Airbus.

Brat

3rd Mar 2017, 17:30

By this standard, we'd just award Oscars according to the production budget and Concorde would have outsold every Airbus.

George, Concorde would certainly have had, and held, the Oscar for being the fastest civilian transport. It did not outsell Airbus...or even the A-380, so no Oscars there. We deal with what is, not with what might have been.

We also deal with what is...now...and in regard to future platforms, based upon present development, as opposed to vapourware. We certainly like the word ‘advanced', if justified. The F-35 is indisputably in advance of anything similar being developed by any other country at the present time.

Capability, with regard to the F-35, is indisputably evident, and not to recognise that is blinkered in the extreme.

The F-35 or item in discussion, is, an ongoing presently, in service, piece of military hardware. The naysayers, detractors and critics constantly seem to overlook this.

Brat

3rd Mar 2017, 17:38

Spain, Switzerland and Belgium in talks with LM on the F-35.
Lockheed says in talks with Spain, Belgium, others on buying F-35s | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-airshow-australia-lockheed-idUSKBN16A0DW)

Or are these just more infatuated ‘fanboys’.???

Heathrow Harry

3rd Mar 2017, 17:43

LM need to make more trips???

George K Lee

3rd Mar 2017, 17:45

Well, Brat, that's a lot of words to say not very much.

We deal with what is, not with what might have been.

Deep philosophy, dude. Are you disputing my point that effort and resources aren't the sole constituents of excellence, as Fodplod seemed to be saying? Nobody's arguing that Concorde wasn't fast. It was really, really fast and its unrefueled range at supersonic speed has never been bettered. But that didn't make it a better commercial airplane than an Airbus, because the mission of a commercial airplane is to support itself aerodynamically and economically at the same time.

Capability, with regard to the F-35, is indisputably evident, and not to recognise that is blinkered in the extreme.

The F-35 is delivering some of the capability originally requested - as a stealth bomber with some A2A capability - but if you want a :mad:ing cookie for doing this seven years late and double-digit-billions over budget you don't get it from me.

The F-35 or item in discussion, is, an ongoing presently, in service, piece of military hardware.

To be accurate, or even ongoingly and presently accurate about an item in discussion, whatever that means, it has been declared operational, but not under the criteria in the SDD contract.

glad rag

3rd Mar 2017, 20:34

Seem to remember the term " jollies" or perhaps it some $$$$ bad $$$$ news courtesy of Pres Trump.

SpazSinbad

3rd Mar 2017, 21:26

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21ETvx7jPLM

Brat

3rd Mar 2017, 23:30

Seems someone may have briefed him.

A_Van

4th Mar 2017, 08:50

Brat,

Your passion towards F-35 is respected and appreciated. Would be stupid to object that it is a nice, "advanced" (whatever it means) and the best (assume F-22 is out of the scope of comparison) a/c of its kind in operation/service at the moment.

However, I suppose there are many folks "here" used to strict formulations and definitions. And some of your statements seem not so solid from this standpoint.

E.g., concerning Concorde, Tupolev Tu-144 performed its maiden flight earlier than Concorde, had higher cruise speed (only about 50-100 km/hr, but still..), flew higher and had higher passsenger capacity. However, it also represented a much greater commercial failure than Concorde, and its regular flights lasted for about two years only as its costs ineffectiveness was enormous.

As for F-35, you wrote: "The F-35 is indisputably in advance of anything similar being developed by any other country at the present time."

Words such as "being developed" make your statement disputable, in turn. I do not know much about the Chinese stuff, but the Russian one is quite comparable. It is not in the serial production, but being developed and tested, indeed.

It is even more questionable to consider F-35 superiority over modern IADS's and other networked infrastructures it is supposed to deal with. The whole F-35 programme lasts for extremely long time. All the techniques and technologies (and even specific implementations and solutions) it is based on were carefully studied some 15-20 years ago by those who later implemented "opposing systems".

FODPlod

4th Mar 2017, 09:50

Brat,

Your passion towards F-35 is respected and appreciated. Would be stupid to object that it is a nice, "advanced" (whatever it means) and the best (assume F-22 is out of the scope of comparison) a/c of its kind in operation/service at the moment.

However, I suppose there are many folks "here" used to strict formulations and definitions...
Okay. Assuming for the moment that you and your fellow F-35 doom-mongers succeed in persuading us "fanboys" that it's an expensive "turkey", no "better" or "more capable" than anything else currently flying or in development, what's your plan for convincing all those who've flown the aircraft, or been closely involved otherwise, such as these? Here's what pilots who've flown the F-35 have to say about the most expensive weapons project in history (http://uk.businessinsider.com/why-f-35-worth-every-penny-heritage-foundation-2016-8?r=US&IR=T/#the-f-35a-has-superior-threat-detection-1)
"Only the pilots who have flown the fighter actually know how well the Air Force version of the F-35 can perform, and the 31 who were surveyed for this paper expressed a high degree of confidence in this extraordinary fighter," wrote the report's author, John Venable, a senior research fellow for defense policy and a retired US Air Force Thunderbird commander.

His findings: Pilots prefer the F-35.US Air Force Pilot: The F-35 Stealth Fighter Is the World's Best (http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/us-air-force-pilot-the-f-35-stealth-fighter-the-worlds-best-16790)
"There is nothing that I have seen from maneuvering an F-35 in a tactical environment that leads me to assume that there is any other airplane I would rather be in. I feel completely comfortable and confident in taking that airplane into any combat environment,” Lt. Col. Matt Hayden, 56th Fighter Wing, Chief of Safety, Luke AFB, Arizona, told Scout Warrior in a special pilot interview.

Furthermore, several F-35 pilots have been clear in their resolve that the multi-role fighter is able to outperform any other platform in existence.

Buster15

4th Mar 2017, 12:22

FIGHTER,really is it a fighter. Depends on terminology. Also is it or will it really outclass every other aircraft. I seriously doubt it is better than typhoon in true a2a. You only have to look at the statistics. Typhoon is lighter has a much bigger wing and much more power as well as greater range. Pilots who fly new jet will always say it is the best thing since sliced bread. It is their job after all. Let's keep things in perspective. After all the billions spent on F35 and all the years of development it should be good. The question is how long stealth and it's clever electronics can keep a very average basic platform ahead of its rivals.

FODPlod

4th Mar 2017, 13:35

Pilots who fly new jet will always say it is the best thing since sliced bread. It is their job after all...
I think you're very brave to be accusing pilots of being liars in this forum. ;)

After all the billions spent on F35 and all the years of development it should be good.
Agree. What's more, some 15 per cent of EVERY jet, with production set to reach nearly 4,000 aircraft, will be built in the UK. The return on investment from foreign sales should pay for the UK's order several times over.F-35 work to generate billions for UK economy (https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/f-35-work-generate-billions-uk-economy/)
“The amount of revenue the UK will generate from the F-35 programme in its totality will create multiples of return on their investment”

The above was said Declan Holland, BAE Systems commercial director for its UK F-35 business. Holland continued, “Ultimately, the UK will take in about GBP1bn of business each year on this program.” Holland goes on to note that the program could continue into the 2040s”.

At peak, the F-35 will support 25,000 jobs in the UK over the next few decades and pump £1bn a year into the economy.

A_Van

4th Mar 2017, 13:49

FODPlod,

you and your fellow F-35 doom-mongers succeed in persuading us "fanboys" that it's an expensive "turkey" Calm down, please. Don't be so nervous. There was neither sarcasm, nor irony in my words as follows:
Would be stupid to object that it is a nice, "advanced" (whatever it means) and the best (assume F-22 is out of the scope of comparison) a/c of its kind in operation/service at the moment.
Thus, your argumentum ad hominem is not applicable here.

Regarding what's your plan for convincing all those who've flown the aircraft, or been closely involved otherwise, such as these? there is no plan, let them enjoy flying it. You have your toys, we have ours, no envy.

The same about the cost (you said "expensive turkey"). If the customer is ready to pay and has money, it's his business.

I was only meaning that this aircraft is not a silver bullet.

Turbine D

4th Mar 2017, 14:21

Words, words and more words... We will know how good or bad it really is when it is battle tested, real time. That has yet to happen. For sure, we know how expensive it is to buy one. What isn't known is how expensive it will be to maintain in combat situations, except it will be more expensive than current aircraft.

Turbine D

4th Mar 2017, 14:29

Sounds like good value for money if four F-35s can do the work of 12 or 13 aircraft of the previous generation:
This is good news, we can pare down quantity of F-35s desired accordingly, correct?

George K Lee

4th Mar 2017, 16:04

Once again the old reverse ad hominem comes out.

I think you're very brave to be accusing pilots of being liars in this forum.

Nobody's accusing anyone of anything. Buster just said it was part of their job to say nice things about the jet, as indeed it is, see this:

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

And since everyone's into appeal-to-authority mode here, do you mind if I pull rank?

http://docs.house.gov/meetings/AS/AS25/20170216/105552/HHRG-115-AS25-Wstate-HarrisJ-20170216.pdf

On page 6, Harris is urging Congress not to authorize more than 48 F-35As per year through FY22 (2024 delivery year) - previous plans have called for the rate to rise to 60 or 80 jets. If you read the whole thing, the message is that "we'd like to hold back from getting every F-35A LM can build until we have the fixes and improvements in Block 4".

Which is pretty logical, even though it doesn't exactly mesh with the fans' view of the current capability. With some improvements to datalinks, sensors and memory, and some artificial intelligence to process sensor data onboard in real time, the F-35 should get close to Deptula's E/R/A/F-35 ideal and will be quite useful for many missions. Now, how many of those will take advantage of supersonic speed and a 9g airframe is another story...

Brat

4th Mar 2017, 23:52

Tupolev Tu-144 performed its maiden flight earlier than Concorde, had higher cruise speed (only about 50-100 km/hr, but still..), flew higher and had higher passsenger capacity. However, it also represented a much greater commercial failure than Concorde, and its regular flights lasted for about two years only as its costs ineffectiveness was enormous.
For which it got the Golden Raspberry.

but the Russian one is quite comparable. It is not in the serial production, but being developed and tested, indeed.
Aah the PAK-FA T50. You jest. Do give a heads up when it goes into production, the initial order is ...er 12. Engine to follow some years later.
Russia's New PAK-FA Stealth Fighter Might Have a Fatal Flaw (or Two) | The National Interest Blog (http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russias-new-pak-fa-stealth-fighter-might-have-fatal-flaw-or-16628)

The one partner the Russians did manage to persuade to join the project, India, has been most unhappy with it.

Comparable...possibly not.

Turbine D

5th Mar 2017, 00:19

Brat,
Indeed, according to Russian sources, there is a lively debate within the Russian military as to whether or not stealth aircraft like the T-50 are worth the money.
Something the US Department of Defense ought to be looking at in a lively debate as well, example F-35.
So the POTUS is currently proposing a $50B increase in the US Defense spending budget. Hopefully, if this proposal comes about (doubtful), the majority of whatever it turns out to be won't be consumed by the F-35 program, both procurement, ongoing maintenance and whatever upgrades are required to keep up with the times...

BTW, never underestimate the capability of the adversary, what you read in a magazine article might not be what you think, that is, unless you are a standing member of one or more government technology intelligence agencies and in the know. ;)

Brat

5th Mar 2017, 11:32

Aah yes about ‘fanboys’... how about the pilots who will be sitting in F-35 seats, or, the commanders who will be sending their young men into battle in F-35’s. How do they feel about the new weapon system.
Marine Corps: F-35 is the best thing on the block (http://www.australiandefence.com.au/news/marine-corps-f-35-is-the-best-thing-on-the-block)

And when do they want them...
Top Marine Corps aviator wants F-35Bs faster than planned (http://www.defensenews.com/articles/marine-corps-general-wants-to-bump-yearly-f-35b-buy-from-20-to-37-a-year).

What I am reading is what the people who are using the system say, not what the armchair critics like A Van and Rhino say.

Far from underestimating the enemy...hard to estimate the ‘equivalent' enemy machine A Van touts, it simply isn’t there to be estimated, the lively debate in the US military seems to be, not about whether the F-35’s are worth the money, but why can’t we get these weapons quicker.;) ;)

IcePaq

5th Mar 2017, 13:03

Sure are a lot of pages for a "what if" title.

George K Lee

5th Mar 2017, 13:53

The lively debate in the US military seems to be, not about whether the F-35’s are worth the money, but why can’t we get these weapons quicker.

I suggest that you study MG Jerry Harris' testimony (linked in my previous post) and the evolution of the Navy's procurement plans in the last three years. After all, in the US military, these are the largest aviation services, the services that have the deep-strike mission, and those principally charged with providing air power to COCOMs.

We all know what the Marines think, but as the man said "where you stand depends on where you sit". Having planned very little in life-extensions or upgrades for Hornets and Harriers, and not having bought a single new fighter in decades, the Marines have a fleet of old and not-very-technically-current airplanes.

Moreover, their airplanes come from the Navy budget. At no point do Marine procurement and operations costs converge in a single Marine top-line where the Commandant and a (theoretical) Marine Corps Secretary have to trade F-35s against amphibs or new barracks or V-22s.

So it's hardly surprising that the Marine leaders want more F-35s, is it?

Brat

5th Mar 2017, 15:23

The links in your previous posts seem nothing but enthusiastic, with little evidence of ‘holding back’.

As for your ‘we all know what the Marines think’ is perfectly appropriate since as their role is, front line, first use, expeditionary force, and, the ground force projection unit of the US Navy, they are likely to be early to any conflict. And where else would their budget come from as a part of the US Navy?

As for the USMC 'not having planned any life-extensions for their Harriers' you seem to have picked on the only Harrier operator that has extended the life of that system well beyond any other Nation or Air Force/Navy that operated the type, and, will continue to use them until at least 2025. The Hornets are planned to go on till 2029.

So much for your Having planned very little in life-extensions or upgrades for Hornets and Harriers, and not having bought a single new fighter in decades, the Marines have a fleet of old and not-very-technically-current airplanes. https://news.usni.org/2014/11/03/u-s-marines-retire-harrier-fleet-early-planned-extend-life-hornets
https://news.usni.org/2014/11/03/document-2015-u-s-marine-corps-aviation-plan

At present the USMC is the largest unit with the most modern warplane on active service in the air today.

More study George, would indeed seem very appropriate, your isolation in S Skerry is doing you no good.

George K Lee

5th Mar 2017, 17:13

The keyword is "planned". A planned life extension is not the same as "keeping them airborne because the replacement is late and expensive".

Marines Are Flying Only 60% of F-18 Hornets They Need « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary (http://breakingdefense.com/2016/04/marines-are-flying-only-60-of-f-18-hornets-they-need/)

As for your ‘we all know what the Marines think’ is perfectly appropriate since as their role is, front line, first use, expeditionary force, and, the ground force projection unit of the US Navy, they are likely to be early to any conflict.

Ah, yes, the amphibious landing on a defended coastline, last actually done... well, quite a few years ago. And if you were to do that, an F-35B would be useful as part of a balanced force that could defend itself against the probable threats.

FOG

5th Mar 2017, 19:48

Mr. Lee,

You do not know how Marines think nor the actual history the Hornets in Naval aviation.

The Marine Corps looked at the E/F and decided to keep updating our Hornets, to include aggressive SDLM cycles. The stupidity of “growing” the Hornet in size to do the mission of the Tomcat (big engine variant) seemed evident. Actually we wanted a legacy variant that had VG intakes, two D nozzles, and over 22K of thrust a side but…

The navy let their legacy Hornets de-grade, lack of updates and SDLM cycles, putting the money into E/F/G issues.

Starting 10-12 years ago the navy complained that couldn’t make their deployments. They were the 1st service to de-establish reserve squadrons and give the jets to the AD component. Then all but one Marine reserve was ordered de-established to give the AD navy newer more capable jets with more upgrades than any of the AD navy jets. Next it was whole squadrons of jets swapped, Marines getting clapped out, non-upgraded jets numbers not even flyable while the navy rec’d FMC jets.

The navy won in keeping their squadrons deploying vice the Marine solution of sending additional Marine squadrons. The navy won in papering over problems in the E/F/G program. Not nearly the first time and probably not the last time that navy aviation has covered up screw-ups at the expense of the Marine Corps and in my opinion the USA as a whole.

Actual historical facts are the USMC planned for, and executed, life extension programs. The upgraded A-D (22.5K per side thrust, VG intakes, two d nozzles, electronics) was seen as a threat to the E-F and told NFW and STFU.

The error in your procurement is that congress appropriates money to Marine aviation but is managed by DON. NAVAIR re-programs Hornet money at will with little oversight.

S/F, FOG

Turbine D

5th Mar 2017, 20:19

Brat,
the lively debate in the US military seems to be, not about whether the F-35’s are worth the money, but why can’t we get these weapons quicker.
If you were really astute about the interworking of the Washington, DC scene, you might fill in the background for your comment besides what you have read, written by the Marine aviation head. For openers, keep in mind the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, presently, is a Marine Four Star General, Joseph Dunford, appointed by then President Obama. The new Secretary of Defense, Jame Mattis is a retired Marine Four Star General,appointed by Trump, a very good choice. The head of Marine aviation isn't naive about Washington politics. He wants the F-35B quicker as he has a direct line to the top at the moment that rarely happens. Also, the sooner he gets them, the sooner he can accurately figure out how much more money will be required to fix them and/or upgrade them and the number of personnel required for the whole works. Even if he got more, quicker, they aren't ready for deployment in the field, yet. The best laid plans of mice and men often go astray. The Navy has much sway about F-35Bs how many go to the Marines, when and at what cost. They are battling for funding as well, remember F-35Cs, 3 new aircraft carriers, new subs, etc., etc.? Besides that, the USAF and US Army hold sway as well. Congress may give money to the Marines, but the US Navy decides.

I'd suggest you pay more attention to the politics of Washington before believing everything that's gloriously written about the F-35Bs. You should keep in mind the B model is the most expensive of the three models by far and may be the least capable of the three. I judge from your writings you aren't interested in what things cost and how many you can buy with the least monetary expenditure. But, believe it or not, there are people in power in Congress that control the check book who are interested in costs and they are knowledgable about the F-35s and they in the end will be the financial deciders.

George K Lee

5th Mar 2017, 22:53

The upgraded A-D (22.5K per side thrust, VG intakes, two d nozzles, electronics....

That sounds like a very impressive proposal, FOG. When was the configuration defined? It's hard to see how the weight of 2D nozzles and inlets, and presumably heavier engines (unless they achieved some ungodly high T/W) would have affected an airplane that already had bring-back issues. More detail on timing, project number &c would be welcome.

It's a bit of a puzzle since in my experience the Marines' aviation thinkers were focused on ASTOVL, which begat CALF, which begat JAST, which begat JSF very early on, before even the various Advanced Hornet proposals that led to E/F saw the light of day. Pray enlighten us.

I'm also intrigued by your comment on budgets. AFAIK the only PB/NDAA does not have a line item anywhere for "Marine Aviation", procurement, O&S and R&D being handled through the relevant DoN P-1, O-1 and R-1 books and the detail thereof. F-35C and F-35B are adjacent to one another in all the DoN budget docs.

FOG

6th Mar 2017, 00:14

Mr. Lee,

97-98 time frame at Pax river. I was doing fleet support (flying in support of) the F. The C with the mods was on the flightline. Supposedly the weight increase was less than 1k Lbs. The PROJECTED numbers for range, on station, etc. were impressive (figures given were in the 20-30 % range). I never saw any projected bring back figures but with the increased thrust and altitude it would have been impressive.

The proposal was to replace USMC A/s then C’s and finally D’s. The USN was adamantly opposed to the project as it was a threat to their Tomcat replacement, the E/F.

As far as what happens on capitol hill on the budgeting side all are approved with considerations of where and to whom the assets go to, i.e. a form of congressional pork barrel where individual congressional members give their buy-in with the caveat to their districts, etc. Once the assets are in place the services play inter-service politics and move the assets.

Take a look at the history of the Harrier with the kluged together APG-65 installation vice installing APG-68.

I have never flown the JSF, only a couple of sim hops. The B/C mix is also a political issue. I am biased in my opinion. I would hope that the USMC receives more Cs and they go to Hornet squadrons due primarily to the cultural differences between the Harrier and Hornet communities.

The fact of the matter is that the senior aviators currently flying X (fill your favorite legacy acft) will not get the most of the JSF. I remember the 90s with pilots wearing t-shirts the said “I don’t give a Phuck how you did it in a Phantom”. Basically aviators brought up in legacy platforms trying to use the Hornet as an improved Phantom.

There is a lot of learning to be done. Integrating the JSF into the CAS/BI fight with UAVs and artillery on the good guy’s side along with ongoing IADS plus electronics is going to be difficult (read expensive). Not doing the work ASAP is going to hurt (meaning far more expensive).

S/F, FOG

George K Lee

6th Mar 2017, 00:34

Cool story. Why on earth were the high sheriffs at 8th and Eye behind it in 1997-98? By then, everything I heard from anyone at USMC air was all-JSF, all the time. That was the PoR.

Brat

6th Mar 2017, 01:49

If you were really astute...
No Turbine, just have my head out of my posterior.

Even if he got more, quicker, they aren't ready for deployment in the field, yet.

Turbine D, like George... you really must get the facts straight. USMC F-35’s have already deployed to Japan.

FOG

6th Mar 2017, 04:56

Mr. Lee,

That was the Harrier mafia that was all JSF, along the lines of the Phrog mafia in USMC rotary wing. Building the MEUs around the -46 centric composite squadron with the embarked Harrier bubbas gave both communities more pull/influence etc. than either should have. That is not only my opinion but others who were “Super MEU” augments, Herk, Hornets, and Queers.

The other factor was abortion of the APG-65 installation into the Harrier and the Harrier community getting an inferiority complex after telling 1st USMC Hornet drivers, then USN Hornet and Tomcat drivers and finally USAF Eagle drivers what they had to teach them on using a radar wasn’t applicable to them as the Harriers could drop a notch or two of nozzle.

At the time frame DCS(A) was doing a traveling road show on how great the JSF was going to be. The promises undersold the sensor/electronic ability to a large degree (just from memory it was to be evolutionary improvements) and really oversold the airframe performance (6g level turns at max weight at any altitude from SL-40K’).

The JSF is what we have. Was it extremely stupid to get “one” aircraft to fly three very different profiles? Is it smarter (and cheaper) to design for a task then modify to other tasks as technology and knowledge increase?

S/F, FOG

George K Lee

6th Mar 2017, 11:06

No Turbine, just have my head out of my posterior.

That's a well-reasoned argument. It even includes a polysyllabic word!

FOG:

Was it extremely stupid to get “one” aircraft to fly three very different profiles?

RAND has one answer. I don't believe that a possible alternative - which was to develop a family of "cousin" airplanes sharing avionics, propulsion, LO and other technologies and components - was ever studied.

However, the story about the Short Stirling bomber of WW2 was that the bosses had decreed that the fuselage be designed to accommodate standard RAF packing crates and the wingspan constrained to fit RAF hangars. This was good for a wry laugh, but now the plan is that in 2040 the USAF will still be buying fighters that were length-limited by the Invincibles' elevators.

ORAC

6th Mar 2017, 12:01

but now the plan is that in 2040 the USAF will still be buying fighters that were length-limited by the Invincibles' elevators. And NASA will still be launching solid fuel rockets width limited by Roman chariot wheelspan.......

Brat

6th Mar 2017, 12:29

That's a well-reasoned argument. It even includes a polysyllabic word!
And George, that’s a pretty poor response to my pointing out some of the more glaring errors in your arguments.

It does however seem that the discussion/thread may well have concluded that the F-35 is an ongoing weapon system that looks increasingly unlikely to be cancelled, despite the valiant efforts of the nay-sayers.

glad rag

6th Mar 2017, 13:48

No Turbine, just have my head out of my posterior.

Turbine D, like George... you really must get the facts straight. USMC F-35’s have already deployed to Japan.

Indeed perhaps they are going after the factory, not the pickups, this time....touché

Turbine D

6th Mar 2017, 13:52

Brat,
Turbine D, like George... you really must get the facts straight. USMC F-35’s have already deployed to Japan.
Do tell the entire story.

Step one - A squadron of Marine F-35Bs have been relocated to Japan.

Step two - Will operationally deploy at sea onboard an amphibious assault ship in 2018.

I know you would like to believe that they are good to go today at a moment's notice, but... :=

George K Lee

6th Mar 2017, 14:00

Good point, TD....

There's a distinction between "deployed to Joint Base Bunga Bunga to support combat operations in Grungistan" and "deployed to a 5000-person airbase that's been active for 62 years".

glad rag

6th Mar 2017, 14:22

I do enjoy reading the proponents offerings although they do tend to spin faster than a miele at max chat..... Ergo replace A10 in CAS from altitude with pgm doesn't need ll role, no it can't hit moving target, OK its got a great gun to chew them up....:ugh:

Brat

6th Mar 2017, 15:06

A great Laurel and Hardy act, the deadly duo now focussing attention to the difference between the words ‘deploy' and ‘relocate’ with hearty back claps for each others diminishing attempts to highlight the problems, shortcomings and general unsuitability of the F-35.

With both the USMC and USAF having declared the F-35 combat ready they aren’t going to Japan as gate guardians. Guys, surely you can do better.

The F-35 like all development programs has problems and is under intense scrutiny...and so it should be, as should, and does every military program. People lives and possibly survival depend on that. As problems are highlighted they are addressed, the attention of a great number of responsible people and organisations of over 10 countries are intently scrutinising every development. The program continues despite your misgivings.

SpazSinbad

6th Mar 2017, 16:32

F-35B First Aerial Gun Fire
"Maj John Dirk fires the F-35 gun pod for the first time airborne on the F-35B on Feb. 21, 2017, near NAS Patuxent River, Maryland."
BiggaPitcha: https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3878/33043145441_efe2c8a051_o_d.jpg (2.9Mb)

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3878/33043145441_b79dab579f_z_d.jpg

George K Lee

6th Mar 2017, 16:51

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronization_gear#/media/File:Fok_E_I%27s_U-0_%26_Stangensteuerung.jpgcor blimey hold the :mad: front page. And if the Parabellum jams my dog will bite your rudder off.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/weapons/guns/fokker-e1.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronization_gear#/media/File:Fok_E_I%27s_U-0_%26_Stangensteuerung.jpg

Turbine D

6th Mar 2017, 17:17

Brat,
A great Laurel and Hardy act, the deadly duo now focussing attention to the difference between the words ‘deploy' and ‘relocate’ with hearty back claps for each others diminishing attempts to highlight the problems, shortcomings and general unsuitability of the F-35.
You misunderstand, the only countering of your posts are to set the record straight which you fail to do at times. And one of the things is that the F-35B isn't quite ready for prime time, yet, whether in Japan, California or Maryland, although you seem to think so... For example:Maj John Dirk fires the F-35 gun pod for the first time airborne on the F-35B on Feb. 21, 2017, near NAS Patuxent River, Maryland.
Surely the F-35 program isn't going to be cancelled at this late date in time, it is what it is. However, there are definitely some problems, the F-35s are late to the main stage. When you are late, you lose competitive advantage and value, proven fact. They cost too much, some key electronics have yet to be resolved and most importantly none represent the complete capability of what was advertised to the American people by the F-35 program management or Lockheed-Martin at the program onset. But, this minor deficiency was corrected by moving the goal posts in the correct direction and by clever advertising and a massive PR campaign, like no other program before it.

Yes, it does take time to wring out all the little nuances that appear at the beginning of any new program. However, this was a different kind of program, a concurrency program where the elements of concurrency are known. But, everything about concurrency wasn't known in the F-35 program. Painfully, when this happens, it is development on the run and that is what is taking place now.

FODPlod

6th Mar 2017, 17:45

F-35B First Aerial Gun Fire

BiggaPitcha: https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3878/33043145441_efe2c8a051_o_d.jpg (2.9Mb)

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3878/33043145441_b79dab579f_z_d.jpg
"Maj John Dirk fires the F-35 gun pod for the first time airborne on the F-35B
on Feb. 21, 2017, near NAS Patuxent River, Maryland."

Nice one. Thank you.

And earlier still, https://youtu.be/69Nv3FIHNK0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69Nv3FIHNK0)
https://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getasset.aspx?itemid=64522
"F-35 test pilot fires the first aerial gun test burst of the GAU-22/A 25mm gatling gun
from F-35A aircraft, at Edwards Air Force Base in California, Oct 30th 2015."

Lonewolf_50

6th Mar 2017, 17:54

George, that previously successful mode was studied and rejected out of hand by the imperative of the JSF concept of "one size fits all will surely save us money." Never forget the political climate of the late Bush 41 and early Clinton Administrations: peace dividend, save money, reduce military size by about 40% or more from Cold War levels. That underwrote everything (and IMO, it's amazing that Osprey survived that.)

Between Roles and Missions battles, and the Goldwarter Nichols sledgehammer from Congress, that family of studies were either unfunded, or defunded in a hurry. ( This info is second hand from a few Pentagon vets involved in the requirements development of JSF ... my god, it's been over two decades since that conversation. I are gettin' old.)
About the term Deployed: some of you need to stop with your semantic horseapples and get a freaking grip. The Squadrons in Iwakuni are Forward Deployed just as I was Forward Deployed to NAF Atsugi in support of support Seventh Fleet ships home ported in Yokosuka (https://www.cnic.navy.mil/regions/cnrj/installations/cfa_yokosuka.html) (albeit a quarter of a century ago). Hey, look an E-2D squadron has forward deployed to Iwakuni (https://www.cnic.navy.mil/regions/cnrj/news/e-2d-advanced-hawkeye-coming-to-japan.html). Deployed means deployed, and if you don't like it, go to the back of the bus. (OK, cantankerous old salt mode is now secured).

F-35B's in Iwakuni are Forward Deployed aircraft squadrons (http://www.mcasiwakuni.marines.mil/News/Press-Releases/Press-Release-View/Article/1053308/f-35b-arrives-in-japan/) .... iIf they are only an 80% all up round, as it were, so be it. ( We didn't have Penguin on our Seahawks, but somehow we managed to get our mission done .. but wait, some of you cry, you can't have been deployed, you didn't have Block I upgrade!) :ugh: The Marine Aviators will do what ever they are called on to do, and if it ends up like Task Force Smith, some heads will roll only after some of our people die. See also submarines being sent on patrol with torpedoes that didn't f@!@ing work, WW II. An old habit in the Department of the Navy. :mad::mad: Real life isn't a video game.

PS: at last, the f@!@ing gun works. All saints be praised. :D Systems integration is like a turtle: slow and plodding but it's eventually get there.

George K Lee

6th Mar 2017, 18:25

There's a distinction between "deployed to Joint Base Bunga Bunga to support combat operations in Grungistan" and "deployed to a 5000-person airbase that's been active for 62 years".

So these cases are the same? You can call it semantics, but there's a difference between going to Iwakuni (or Lakenheath. for that matter) on a long-planned operation, and being able to answer the phone for a Cocom needing support. There always is one, and it's normal. It's the difference between IOC and FOC.

Lonewolf_50

6th Mar 2017, 18:40

George, I have said about all I am going to say regarding the semantic horseapples. When the phone call comes, they will go, with the tools they have. That's how it works. I suspect that if you served that you understand the point I am trying to make. The further point I will make is that the F-35 will not be in a fight all by itself, nor is it supposed to win the fight all by itself. (I realize that anyone who served in an Air Force will have a hard time understanding that, since apparently air power all by itself can win a war if one is air minded enough. :ugh: :ugh: )

The USMC lives and dies by the combined arms fight. It's what they do.

Brat

6th Mar 2017, 21:39

When you are late, you lose competitive advantage and value, proven fact

Quite so. It would seem therefore that the Russian and Chinese competitors are at a disadvantage with 5th Gen answers to the F-22 Raptor.

The F-35 is a 5th Gen successor to the F-22, building upon what has been learned.

The competitive advantage you refer to appears...for the time being to have been retained. It is not being counted upon, but being built upon. What is not being contemplated is reliance on falling back on 4th Gen assets and simply upgrading them, particularly when potential adversaries continue to develop their 5th Gen efforts.

SpazSinbad

6th Mar 2017, 23:10

Unusually long article about F-35B SRVL development in BAE Warton SIM with 'Wizzer' Wilson. Worth reading for the details - especially about hazards of SRVL - video same source: 03 Mar 2017 Liat Clark
Flying the F-35B: inside BAE's secret war machine simulator tucked away in a quiet UK village

F35B jet simulator: behind the scenes of BAE's top-secret project | WIRED UK (http://www.wired.co.uk/article/f35-simulator-bae-systems-warton)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThCuLN_FaF8

Brat

6th Mar 2017, 23:34

Thanks, informational.

He makes an interesting point about Brit innovations ending up being adopted by the USN, and the SRVL possible being another.

Another point the USMC made the other day was once air superiority over a particular theatre has been made their F-35’s can then use pylons and become a bomb truck, something often overlooked.

SpazSinbad

7th Mar 2017, 00:22

The USMC expressed interest years ago in SRVL development but did not say why. My guess is that SRVL would be useful for a USMC F-35B EMERGENCY SRVL aboard CVNs [not likely otherwise given that USN says 'no F-35Bs on CVNs] but NOT however for LHAs - decks not wide enough amongst other issues. However the BEDFORD ARRAY SRVL landing aid [on CVFs] (not mentioned in video or above post) was deemed useful by USN PaxRiver VX-23 LSOs years ago now - along with the HUD indicators to go with it for CVN use - but nothing heard since. A lot of useful old USN info has disappeared from the web - sadly.

2805662

7th Mar 2017, 01:55

PS: at last, the f@!@ing gun works. All saints be praised. :D Systems integration is like a turtle: slow and plodding but it's eventually get there.

Indeed. In the case of the second generation RAF Harriers, they never got the gun/s to f@!@ing work!

ORAC

7th Mar 2017, 06:04

The USMC expressed interest years ago in SRVL development but did not say why Perhaps for the years they will be operating from the QEII?

Brat

7th Mar 2017, 08:29

A good point.

I wonder if, being on an RN vessel releases them from USN 'dry ship' rules?

SpazSinbad

7th Mar 2017, 08:46

Perhaps for the years they will be operating from the QEII?
'ORAC' the USMC interest was expressed years ago when the contract to develop the SRVL was made. (I'll dig it out) Any F-35B operators from CVFs now would be interested in SRVLs Shirley.

ByTheBy found this 'USN interest' story from 2014... URL does not work NOW - so short excerpt

US Navy sees benefits in SRVL for F-35C carrier recovery 18 March 2014 Gareth Jennings
"London - IHS Jane’s Defence Weekly The US Navy (USN) has seen benefits in aspects of the UK’s Shipborne Rolling Vertical Landing (SRVL) technique for recovering the Lockheed Martin F-35C Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter on to the deck of its aircraft carriers, it was disclosed on 19 March [2014]....

...“Joint research efforts on both sides of the Atlantic have developed enhanced aircraft flight controls and displays which are applicable to both the F-35C… and the F-35B… SRVL recovery to the aircraft carrier, albeit separated by some 70 kt approach airspeed,” a statement read, adding: “The recent flight simulation trials at Warton tested these enhanced control law modes for F-35C arrested recoveries to a Nimitz-class carrier and gained positive feedback from the US Navy and F-35 test pilots involved in the trial.”

According to James Denham from the Aeromechanics division at the US Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR), simulations show that adopting aspects of the SRVL manouvre for F-35C conventional landings result in more accurate touchdowns, less bolters, and reduced pilot training.... [Perhaps there is a mixing of 'Delta Flight Path' for the F-35C & Bedford Array - LSO School newsletters described what they thought of the Bedford Array - no longer available online sadly]

...The USN has been taken by the improved safety and ease of use of the Bedford Array in particular, as the optical landing system (‘meatball’) currently used on its Nimitz-class carriers..."
http://www.janes.com/article/35640/us-navy-sees-benefits-in-srvl-for-f-35c-carrier-recovery
_______________________________________

WOW! Did not remember how ANCIENT the USMC interest has been but back in dem daze theys waz only buying F-35Bs without the subsequent USN arm twisting to get some USMC F-35Cs for CVN ops [no Bees CVNs]

US Marines eye UK JSF shipborne technique 15 06 2007 Flight International
“A shipborne rolling vertical landing (SRVL) technique being developed by the UK for the Lockheed Martin F-35B is being eyed by the US Marine Corps as a way to facilitate operation of short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) Joint Strike Fighters from US Navy aircraft carriers.

The F-35B is scheduled to replace USMC Boeing F/A-18s and concerns have arisen that integration of the STOVL JSF with conventional US Navy fighters will disrupt carrier landing operations....

...For the USMC, the technique would allow a conventional approach to a short land-ing on the carrier and could ease integration of the F-35B with US Navy F/A-18E/Fs.

“We strongly support what the UK is doing on rolling landings,” says Lt Gen John Castellaw, USMC deputy commandant for aviation. Studies on how the F-35B will be operated continue, but SRVL “appears to be a viable option”, he says. The F-35B will also replace the USMC’s Boeing AV-8Bs, but these normally operate along-side helicopters from assault carriers too small for conventional fighters.

“We continue to work with the navy on this,” Castellaw says, pointing out the STOVL Harrier has been operated successfully alongside US Navy fighters as part of an air wing the carrier USS Roosevelt.”"
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/06/15/214672/us-marines-eye-uk-jsf-shipborne-technique.html
________________________________________

FARNBOROUGH: BAE to ramp up work on JSF production 13 Jul 2010 Craig Hoyle
“...Considerable work has already been conducted to prepare for the UK’s future operation of the F-35B. Qinetiq’s VAAC Harrier test aircraft supported the development of its flight control laws, & also tested a shipborne rolling vertical landing (SRVL) technique. This will enable the STOVL type to return to the carrier’s deck at a greater landing weight, allowing unused stores to be kept on the wing, rather than jettisoned before landing.

Developed for the UK as an alternative to making a vertical landing, the concept also has the backing of the USMC, which plans to adopt the procedure when operating its F-35Bs from the US Navy’s Nimitz-class aircraft carriers...."
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/07/13/344057/farnborough-bae-to-ramp-up-work-on-jsf-production.html
_______________________________________________

JSF To Develop Landing Technique For U.K. Carriers 15 Oct 2010 – Graham Warwick
“While the future of the U.K. Royal Navy’s two new aircraft carriers is uncertain, Lockheed Martin has been awarded a $13 million contract to incorporate shipborne rolling vertical landing (SRVL) capability into the F-35B for the U.K....
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/asd/2010/10/15/03.xml
________________________________________

RAMP UP Deck-mounted ski-jump assembly marks key step toward U.K. carrier-based JSF operations
Guy Norris, Aviation Week & Space Technology / 19 Aug 2013 pp. 33-35
“...Design work is also close to completion on the shipborne rolling-vertical-landing (SRVL) system, which is being developed for the U.K. by Lockheed Martin, BAE Systems and Northrop Grumman. The SRVL technique, which will also be used by the U.S. Marine Corps while operating F-35B short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing variants from U.S. Navy carriers [one guesses CVNs meant], enables the aircraft to land at heavier weights than possible when making a vertical landing. Initial flight trials of the F-35B, including SRVLs, are expected in 2018...."
________________________________________

F-35B begins 'ski-jump' trials for carrier operations 23 Jun 2015 Gareth Jennings
"...As part of this work [Wizzer] Wilson himself has developed new helmet-mounted symbology, known as the Ship Reference Velocity Vector (SRVV), to help the pilot better judge his approach to the ship.

BAE Systems has also built a networked 180° panoramic cockpit position and a 180° panoramic landing safety officer (LSO) position to simulate and help train for carrier deck movements. While all of these technologies and techniques are being developed chiefly with the UK in mind, both the US Navy and US Marine Corps have shown strong interest and may well adopt some or all of the concepts for their own use.”
http://www.janes.com/article/52509/f-35b-begins-ski-jump-trials-for-carrier-operations [not working now]
__________________________________

At last a working URL: http://aviationweek.com/awin/uk-looks-ahead-f-35-carrier-ops

George K Lee

7th Mar 2017, 10:46

I wonder if, being on an RN vessel releases them from USN 'dry ship' rules?

Do you actually believe that no such situation has arisen since June 1914?

More seriously: The landing-aid history started with SRVL, which the RN was exploring because of concerns that the F-35B's VL performance might be deficient under some circumstances. James Denham at NAWCAD was involved with early SRVL tests using QinetiQ's VAAC Harrier, and proposed a test to explore whether direct lift control could be exploited on non-STOVL jets (a STOVL jet has DLC inherently). Magic Carpet (it's the world's longest acronym) is a flight control and guidance software change that provides some control of vertical acceleration independent of alpha. Last I looked it was being rolled out on F/A-18 and incorporated in F-35C.

Engines

7th Mar 2017, 11:41

George (and others),

Sorry if I'm repeating myself here but....

The F-35B's vertical landing performance was not, and is not, 'deficient'. It meets the KPP set down in the user's requirement, and it was a Key Performance Parameter because VL performance was a driver of the design. (The existence of this KPP was a main driver for the redesign for the aircraft after 2003 when LM allowed the weight of all three variants to get out of control).

The UK signed up to the original requirement, which used a US Mil Spec definition of a 'tropical day'. Later on (around 2003) the UK came back and asked if the VL performance could be maintained at even hotter temperatures and lower densities (this set of conditions were called the 'UK Hot Day' and reflected conditions they had experienced in the Northern Gulf in preceding years).

LM did a short study and examined the potential of an SRVL. Initial assessments showed that these could deliver a serious amount of additional 'bring back' on a 'UK Hot Day', and things moved on from there. Progress was stopped when the UK switched to cat and trap in 2010, and had to be restarted in 2012, when they changed back to STOVL. The recent articles show how far they've come, including the development of the novel 'Bedford Array' landing lights aid. The F-35B's very advanced flight controls help to deliver low workload SRVLs, but as Wizzer points out, wet or slippery decks have to be considered. Normal carrier borne stuff.

So to summarise - the UK asked for more performance over the original requirement, and the SRVL has been adopted as the way to achieve it. It's called getting as much out off the aircraft as you can. Hope this helps.

Best Regards as ever to all those developing new ways to do carrier borne aviation,

Engines

George K Lee

7th Mar 2017, 13:56

Thanks for the clarification. That was what I meant by "under some circumstances" but I was trying to be brief and didn't intend to imply that the jet had missed its bring-back KPP (which would be a shame, considering the time and money it has cost to meet it).

Brat

7th Mar 2017, 14:40

I wonder if, being on an RN vessel releases them from USN 'dry ship' rules?

George I was referring to this...:)
https://news.usni.org/2014/07/01/hundred-years-dry-u-s-navys-end-alcohol-sea

KenV

7th Mar 2017, 15:13

I wonder if, being on an RN vessel releases them from USN 'dry ship' rules? I can answer that. I served on a foreign exchange cruise with the Royal Netherlands Navy whose ships are not dry. There were no drinking restrictions other than the restrictions imposed by the RNlN. Hope this was helpful.

George K Lee

7th Mar 2017, 15:14

Do you think I or anyone else here did not know about Sec. Daniels (a nasty piece of work he was too)?

SpazSinbad

7th Mar 2017, 16:26

Thanks 'Engines' always an 'old faithful' of brill info :-)

Billie Flynn Canuckian F-35 Test Pilot quoted in AirForces Monthly Magazine July 2014 which was reproducing a Canadian Skies magazine article:
"...The F-35 is designed to operate from the extremes of 55C [131F] down to well below -40C [-40F]...."

US Mil Spec Hot day was 32.1C, 1013Mb. — UK Hot Day 35.5C, 992Mb.

Development of the Shipborne Rolling Vertical Landing (SRVL) Manoeuvre for the F-35B Aircraft
"(footnote page 4)...Ambient Temperature: 35.5ºC and Pressure: 992mb..."
https://vtol.org/store/product/development-of-the-shipborne-rolling-vertical-landing-srvl-manoeuvre-for-the-f35b-aircraft-9024.cfm

FOG

7th Mar 2017, 16:42

Approximately ten years ago there was interest in B’s being able to work on/off CVNs, hence the interest in SRVL.

At a working lunch in Ft. Worth (Rail Head BBQ, show id and get 50% off except for beer) with working class knuckle draggers a few things were discussed and brought up to the big brains at LM, NAVAIR, and PAX. The relative easy issue was the differences in LSO TTPs between the Harrier community (and the proposed B) and all the other fixed wing communities.

The part we couldn’t figure a cheap, easy or workable solution to was SRVL with the deck rigged. Under perfect-very good landings there was clearance between the nozzle and wires. Beyond the (high) probability of nozzle strikes on the wires what are/were the effects of the high heat on the wires over X time frame as the acft. rolled past.

The only solution we could come up with to operate Bs from a CVN was to re-rig and then re-rig for everyone else. Not exactly optimal for ops beyond the original concern Harrier style landing patterns being integrated into normal CVN recovery ops. Plus decreasing safety in an already very dangerous arena with increased rigging and derigging…

S/F, FOG

Vzlet

7th Mar 2017, 17:00

Hence that "mad dogs and Englishmen" bit?

SpazSinbad

7th Mar 2017, 17:07

And now... Something Completely Different.... 07 Mar 2017

Have Israel?s new F-35s seen combat? | Air Forces Monthly (http://www.airforcesmonthly.com/2017/03/07/have-israels-new-f-35s-seen-combat/)

sandiego89

8th Mar 2017, 12:31

And now... Something Completely Different.... 07 Mar 2017

That would indeed be interesting, Israel seems to put systems into use quite quickly.

Lonewolf_50

8th Mar 2017, 13:20

But sandiego89, they didn't properly declare IOC! They can't have used them to drop bombs!

SpazSinbad

8th Mar 2017, 13:35

Israeli F-35A pilots did not fly the aircraft under training in USofA. They flew only in the Full Mission Simulator there. Once the aircraft were flown to Israel by American pilots (delayed by fog) the Israeli pilots started to fly their F-35As.

George K Lee

9th Mar 2017, 15:45

The Israelis may have used the aircraft. The capabilities claimed by the program would support a fixed-target strike from a main base. However, the S-300 has been around for some time and I would expect that the IAF already had ways to deal with it.

The question is whether this operation indicates that the contractual requirements for F-35 SDD completion, including a formal IOT&E, are mere bureaucratic pettifogging or whether they actually matter. I suspect that they do, when it comes to sustained combat and training with normal contractor support.

Mogwi

9th Mar 2017, 16:32

As far as I know, I was the first (and only!) pilot to carry out an SRVL in the jumping bean. It was on 1st May 1982 and I was not sure whether I would be able to hover due to a slight difference of opinion with a Spanish-speaking gentleman with a big gun. Result - Gert big 'ole in my tail and damage to my rear end! All was well and the jet was flying again in the morning.

Nothing new etc!

tartare

9th Mar 2017, 20:59

If true that is a very interesting story about the IAF F-35s.
Gotta admire them - no mucking around.
Mazeltov!

Brat

9th Mar 2017, 21:49

NoHoverstop

9th Mar 2017, 23:33

As far as I know, I was the first (and only!) pilot to carry out an SRVL in the jumping bean

...in the 20th century. It's been done in the 21st (on a French ship with an older jet).

Well done by the way. We suspected it had already bin-dun but I didn't have any proper info on your event before the 2007 demo.

SpazSinbad

10th Mar 2017, 20:35

'NoHoverstop' I had read somewhere that the VACC Harrier only did SRVL approaches to CdeG in 2007 - I would have to go search for that quote though. Meanwhile USMC F-35B at their first Red Flag in 2016 part of summary quote from an FOI PDF available: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3514589-Executive-Summary-of-VMFA-121-Support-of-Red.html OR http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=24330 (PDF 0.4Mb OCRed here)
“...Overall, the F-35 was far more survivable then the participating legacy aircraft. Debrief analysis of each F-35 loss was either the result of a pilot's individual employment error or the result of a scenario/airspace limitation. Due to the large number of assets involved, pilots were, limited to a 1000 foot altitude block. Block adherence and no-fly areas within the range complex prohibited pilots from positioning themselves in the most lethal or survivable position. Even with those restrictions, it was extremely difficult for the opposing red force to acquire and successfully engage F-35s. As the squadron commander, I am extremely proud at the humble professionalism we brought to this exercise. Our maintenance department worked hard and delivered combat capable aircraft !or every vul. Our pilots seamlessly integrated with other aircrew and cyber/space operators. We capitalized on our opportunities to lead the events as Mission Commanders, Package Commanders, and Tactical Mentors. Most notably, our pilots were the Mission Commanders for the event with the most capable enemy threat laydown as well as the VIP event with the Secretary of the Air Force and USAF Chief of Staff present. This was the first Red Flag exercise with F-35 participation and the USMC lead [led?] from the front....”

ORAC

10th Mar 2017, 21:29

One presumes they picked the most serviceable and reliable they had...

....VMFA-121 also left a seventh jet behind at its base in Arizona due to a malfunctioning integrated power package (IPP), which provides electrical power for the aircraft, Bardo noted. In all, fewer than two of the squadron’s fighters— 23 percent—were “full mission capable” at any one time, on average. Crews kept approximately 53 percent of the six planes “partial mission capable” throughout Red Flag 16-3. “Notably, these numbers only reflect the six aircraft deployed to Nellis AFB,” Bardo stressed.....

NoHoverstop

10th Mar 2017, 23:46

'NoHoverstop' I had read somewhere that the VACC Harrier only did SRVL approaches to CdeG in 2007 - I would have to go search for that quote though.

Are you sure you haven't mis-remembered a description of the HMS Illustrious 2008 trial, rather then the 2007 PA Charles de Gaulle demo? SRVL approaches were flown then to overshoot (or to stop alongside and VL), with the overshoot usually being very low (initiated past the point where on a QEC ship with nominal aim point geometry, the aircraft would have already crossed the stern). SRVL landing on Illustrious wasn't done because with the ramp at the bow and one of the two experimental Bedford Arrays actually on (rather than in) the flight deck at the stern*, it was "VL room only". Charles de Gaulle the previous year had neither of those two issues, but it also didn't have North Atlantic in Winter waves.

Oh and it's VAAC - Vectored-thrust Aircraft Advanced flight Control :ok:

*in the cases where this array was used the overshoot had to be a bit higher.

FOG

10th Mar 2017, 23:55

ORAC,

In actual fact few naval aircraft are Full Mission Capable (FMC), most are partial mission capable (PMC).

The short version is that everything has to 100%, no outstanding work to be done (such as updates, etc.) to be considered FMC by the MESM. As an example and acft has dual GPS and dual INS with whatever scheme of cross loading and one of the four goes down. The acft is PMC. Another acft in the same squadron is the hanger queen, no INS or GPS working and only one radio that works in one band. The hanger queen is also PMC if it can take off and land safely in VMC.

The MESM codes aircraft A-Z. FMC-PMC-NMC.

The real question is how many, if any, missions were changed or dropped due availability.

S/F, FOG

SpazSinbad

11th Mar 2017, 00:01

'NoHoverStop' I agree with your summation & my misrembering. To be clear then: the VAAC Harrier did SRVL to touchdown aboard CdeG? Good point about the weather - the Bedford Array should help with that up to sea state 6? Are you able to say anything more about the CdeG SRVLs please?

SpazSinbad

11th Mar 2017, 00:16

For 'FOG'....
Operations: Based upon historic readiness rates of 50-60%, and with 6 aircraft in Nellis, the majority of sorties were planned as a two ship. Four ship surge events on Tuesday and Wednesday nights were chosen based on OCA and SA mission sets. Planned vs executed sorties and hours are as follows:

Sorties, Planned / Executed: 70 / 67
Hours, Planned / Executed: 91 / 94.1
Readiness Execution Rate: 98.5%

1 sortie cancelled for maintenance (executed. tasking as a three ship)
2 sorties cancelled for weather (event cancelled for Thunderstorms / Icing in the NTTR)..."
&
"...Maintenance summary: Aircraft readiness exceeded the historical averages. Six aircraft were deployed to Nellis AFB. The squadron's seventh aircraft remained in Yuma with a persistent IPP problem that was discovered after completion of the Iwakuni modifications. The Average readiness rates for the three week of the exercise are listed below. Notably, these numbers only reflect the six aircraft deployed to Nellis AFB.

Ready Basic Aircraft (RBA) : 77%
Full Mission Capable (FMC) : 23%
Partial Mission Capable (PMC) : 53% ..."

FOG

11th Mar 2017, 20:31

SpazSinBad,

Good numbers for maintenance. I’ve been out for a few years so wondering if definitions have changed as to what constitutes FMC, PMC, etc. I remember BC (before Clinton) that the acft had to able to launch w/in two hours of a notification to be eligible for a particular category. Then Clinton change (96/97?) allowed a down acft that could be made flyable if missing parts were made available in X days then with Y hours to repair plus whatever time required to do engine runs, etc. be reported as FMC/PMC, etc.

I would like a return to the old pre BC way, to include reporting SORTS. A return to the old way would cause a shock to the whole military system but give a much more accurate assessment of readiness. The other advantage in that none (or very few) of the current AD are familiar with the old system necessitating inviting fat old guys in for a week or two of help.

S/F, FOG

ORAC

11th Mar 2017, 20:44

I do recall a TACEVAL at Leuchars when, in the run up to a Survival Scramble we had an F4 check in on state as a "war goer". It was in a hangar on jacks, a single engine installed and the crew sitting on boxes. They claimed if needed the gear be be blown down and they'd get off on the one engine - better than the alternative.

The point being all figures are massaged to the absolute limit a squadron, then a wing etc can gat away with....

SpazSinbad

12th Mar 2017, 16:47

Podcast: View from the Cockpit – What the F-35 Can Do 11 Mar 2017
Jen DiMascio, Lara Seligman and Graham Warwick | Aviation Week & Space Technology
"Aviation Week Editors Jen DiMascio, Lara Seligman and Graham Warwick talk with Marine Lt. Col. David Berke. The team at Aviation Week has reported on the F-35 program for years from a programmatic and technical perspective. But Berke, who has flown the F-22, the F-35 and the F-18, tells them why the F-35 is a superior aircraft."
Video: Podcast: View from the Cockpit ? What the F-35 Can Do | Podcast content from Aviation Week (http://aviationweek.com/podcast/podcast-view-cockpit-what-f-35-can-do)

t43562

13th Mar 2017, 08:13

Video: Podcast: View from the Cockpit ? What the F-35 Can Do | Podcast content from Aviation Week (http://aviationweek.com/podcast/podcast-view-cockpit-what-f-35-can-do)

He spent the whole time talking about situational awareness with about 10 seconds on stealth being the way to give you that information sooner than your opponent would get it. So one question that I wonder about is whether a UCAV would be a cheaper way to "spice up your legacy aircraft" rather than an F-35 by giving them the information they need.

Another thing that I wonder about is: hasn't the Gripen had this sort of thing for ages?

FODPlod

13th Mar 2017, 09:25

"Aviation Week Editors Jen DiMascio, Lara Seligman and Graham Warwick talk with Marine Lt. Col. David Berke. The team at Aviation Week has reported on the F-35 program for years from a programmatic and technical perspective. But Berke, who has flown the F-22, the F-35 and the F-18, tells them why the F-35 is a superior aircraft." Podcast: View from the Cockpit – What the F-35 Can Do 11 Mar 2017
Jen DiMascio, Lara Seligman and Graham Warwick | Aviation Week & Space Technology

Video: Podcast: View from the Cockpit ? What the F-35 Can Do | Podcast content from Aviation Week (http://aviationweek.com/podcast/podcast-view-cockpit-what-f-35-can-do)
Yeah, but what does he know compared to people with hundreds of hours of experience of denouncing F-35 on the internet? :hmm:

Brat

13th Mar 2017, 10:37

:) How true. Love it.

SpazSinbad

13th Mar 2017, 10:49

7. David 'Chip' Berke: 5th Gen Experience Published on May 11, 2015
"In April 2015 Centre for Military Studies and the Williams Foundation hosted a symposium on "Integrating Innovative Airpower" in Copenhagen. The symposium was attended by international scholars, military practitioners, and representatives from the defense industry."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxK6O5--9Z0

PhilipG

13th Mar 2017, 11:27

As I heard that interview, what was being said was "This is a great machine as it has up to date systems that make life easier for us". It was recognised that in Desert Storm the Hornet was the cutting edge, being able to communicate and do multiple roles.

I am sure that we all now benefit from fast WiFi, think MALD as opposed to 28.8k modems think Link 16. I am sure that what can be achieved with a present day PC / Tablet / Smart Phone would be totally foreign to someone in the late Twentieth Century.

Or put it another way if I was driving a 1997 Volkswagen Mk3 Golf GTI and then jumped into a Mk7.5 Golf GTI, I am sure I would singing its praises, as it is a far more competent vehicle.

I do not know what systems there are at the core of the Raptor but thinking that the first flight was in 1997 when the fastest Intel processor was the Pentium ll with a clock speed of 300 MHz whilst now a 7th generation Inter Core i7 has a base frequency of 3.6 GHz, it is not surprising that the F35 is seen as a game changer. As it would be a game changer using a modern SmartPhone when you are used to a 1997 Nokia.

We all use the cloud and the internet to work and communicate, that is what the F35 is doing basically.

So the point of this post is "Is it the F35 that is a ground breaking, game changing system in it's totality, or is it the advances in the sensor systems technologies and the integration of these that leads to give a materially improved situational awareness, in the way the information is collected, displayed locally and communicated that is the game changer?"

If it is the later, the situational awareness, there is no implicit reason that this technology cannot be installed on legacy aircraft, as I see it, there is obviously cost to consider.

ORAC

13th Mar 2017, 11:44

Here comes the advances Super Hornet. Only question now is how many will be procured to displace how many F-35C squadrons.

Controversy, cost and Trump: The F-35 Program in the eyes of its Chief Officer (https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/strike-air-combat/406-controversy-cost-and-trump-the-f-35-program-in-the-eyes-of-its-chief-officer)

One of the key players behind project, head of the F-35 Joint Program Office Lieutenant General Christopher Bogdan, has tried to set the record straight at a conference in Australia.....

The second portion of the task, said Lt Gen Bogdan, is largely focused on the US Navy.

"The US Navy has always had a plan to use both the super-hornet and the F-35 C together on their large deck carriers. They have always said that both the Super Hornet and the C model would be complementary to each other. That hasn't changed," Lt Gen Bogdan said. "The question that was asked, and the specific answer we're trying to give the new administration is, ‘What is the right mix of F-35 C's and advanced Super Hornets on large deck carriers now and in the future?’ And that investigation is ongoing."

Lt Gen Bogdan was quick to state that this question should not be of concern for Australia. "I think the subtle piece that's important here, especially for Australia is that, that investigation and that set of questioning, and that tasking is nothing to do with A models or B models," Lt Gen Bogdan said. "There is absolutely no intention at this point in time, to change the programme of record on the A model or the B model. This was a unique question about the C model, about the mix of aeroplanes on an aircraft carrier, and about the advanced super-hornet and the F-35 C.

"So, from that perspective those are very reasonable questions that the new administration asked, and we're setting out to answer them – neither question has been answered yet.........."

MSOCS

13th Mar 2017, 12:58

KenV

13th Mar 2017, 13:50

Philip. To answer your question, there's nothing to stop the processing and sensors being integrated on legacy aircraft (other than appetite and money)... but, good luck getting them into the fight for the sensors to be of real practical use; they'll be picked off by Dd-SAMs at range.

Like a 3-legged milking stool, stealth is an essential leg in the capability. Without it the capability collapses. Sensor fusion and networking are the others, as Chip says.USN uses a different approach that uses a different third leg or perhaps more accurately a fourth leg. Rather than depending on stealth (or just stealth alone), USN is developing active jamming technology, buying dedicated jammer aircraft, and developing tactics to go with them. USN believes there is more than one way to skin the SAM cat and is not putting all their eggs into just stealth.

George K Lee

13th Mar 2017, 14:22

If Berke's airplane flew as fast as he talks it would blow the doors off a MiG-25.

If he doesn't stop saying "really really" all the time, someone might think he's auditioning for the Spice Girls' comeback tour.

Marines are brave, we get that, and will go wherever they are ordered (as if other services might not?), but that's not the point. If the risk assessment says "if we send in the MEU without the fighter and AEW cover provided by the CSG, there's a probability of 0.x that one of the amphibs will eat an ASCM or two", that order's not going to be issued above a certain very small value of x.

Accepting the principle repeated endlessly by yea-sayers on this thread - that you're qualified only to discuss airplanes you've flown - Berke isn't qualified to compare F-35 with its contemporaries (and note that he doesn't try) and his experience other than F-22 and F-35 is on 1970s-technology aircraft. So - although MSOCS' point has some validity - this doesn't say too much about the value of the F-35 vs. Rafale or JAS 39E.

Apps. Apps are great. Will the system accept apps - user-created or third-party - and when?

Also, as a couple of people note, he talks about LO a little and STOVL hardly at all, and dismisses the F-35's (supposed) kinematic disadvantages as not the way things are done these days. Which is a shame, because it's the combination of supersonic/high-g, LO and STOVL that has cost tens of billions and multiple years of delay to do.

glad rag

13th Mar 2017, 23:59

FODPlod

14th Mar 2017, 08:45

"Stealth aircraft are designed to avoid detection using a variety of technologies that reduce reflection/emission of radar, infrared, visible light, radio-frequency (RF) spectrum, and audio, collectively known as stealth technology."

http://defense-update.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/f35_thermal_view_1021.jpg

What's your point? The crucial word is "reduce". Low observability isn't claimed to be the same as invisibility.

http://i1188.photobucket.com/albums/z412/Anonymouse365/Space%20hopper_1.jpg https://i.ytimg.com/vi/rAvnMYqj2c0/hqdefault.jpg

Thermal imaging might even 'see' an F-35's pilot for a fleeting moment at extremely close range but it wouldn't do any good. He/she and their aircraft have already moved on at Mach 1+ having seen and zapped (or ignored) you long before you saw them.

PhilipG

14th Mar 2017, 12:07

I thought that half of the point of improved situational awareness was that this enabled longer range targeting of weapons, assuming that the weapons are cleared for use.

So is the discussion about the difference in sensor range to that of the SAMs?

Why would it be thought to be a good idea to use a dumb gravity bomb on a defended target, putting the F35 in danger when a standoff weapon could be used, or indeed a number of stand off weapons could be simultaneously targeted from a number of similar or dissimilar platforms.

Again is it the stealth that is the game changer or is it the sensor accuracy and integration to improve situational awareness and thus targeting accuracy for advanced standoff weapons?

This brings of course the concept of the arsenal plane being fed coordinates from a stealth plane, implicitly the range of the attacking munition must be greater than the defending one for this concept to work.

George K Lee

14th Mar 2017, 13:12

Low observability isn't claimed to be the same as invisibility.

It's not?

"Simply put, advanced stealth and sensor fusion allow the F-35 pilot to see, target and destroy the adversary and strategic targets in a very high surface-to-air threat scenario, and deal with air threats intent on denying access -- all before the F-35 is ever detected, then return safely to do it again."

Setting the Record Straight on F-35 - Sep 19, 2008 (http://news.lockheedmartin.com/2008-09-19-Setting-the-Record-Straight-on-F-35)

To be fair, you have half a point. Thermal imaging as such is a close-range threat. Its close cousin, infrared search and track, is another kettle of fish, particularly if you insist on being supersonic. The ideal gas equation is a :mad:.

A_Van

14th Mar 2017, 16:31

G.K.L.

The quote you copied is from a LockMart promo booklet. It's OK to put it like this for a general public, it's a marketeer job. But any radar expert would laugh at such general statements. Especially when they ("workers of wonders and miracles" at LM) address strategic targets and not just 3rd generation aircraft operated by poorly trained and nearly illiteral guys from "3rd world". In reality one can't bypass the laws of physics.

P.S. I am not objecting that F-35 is a great machine, but while letting one's imagination fly, there should be certain limits.

George K Lee

14th Mar 2017, 16:33

I was citing, not endorsing.

It should be called "radar camouflage" again.

TEEEJ

14th Mar 2017, 19:21

Navy’s new stealth fighters debut at Culdrose
14 March 2017

The Navy’s first ‘stealth fighter squadron’ is in operation on UK soil.
Four life-size models of the F-35 Lightning II – built from fibre glass – are in use on the replica flight deck at RNAS Culdrose so aircraft handlers from HMS Queen Elizabeth can get used to the size and weight when they start working with the real thing next year.

https://navynews.co.uk/assets/upload/files/20170314ax-2.jpg

https://navynews.co.uk/assets/upload/files/20170314ax.jpg

https://navynews.co.uk/archive/news/item/16025

More images at following link.

http://www.gateguardsuk.com/gallery/3545189

From

http://www.gateguardsuk.com/home/3545187

SpazSinbad

14th Mar 2017, 23:50

Why The F-35 Is The Iphone Of Fighter Aircraft 13 Mar 2017 Russ Read
"...F-35 manufacturer Lockheed-Martin offered the following example as to why to the sensor-fusion engine is a crucial addition in a white paper: The F-35 and Advanced Sensor Fusion (http://www.sldinfo.com/whitepapers/the-f-35-and-advanced-sensor-fusion/)

"An enemy pilot effectively neutralizes sensor A from one F-35 in a formation of several. The likelihood that enemy will be able to do the same to another F-35 in the same formation is slim to none. It is extremely difficult for the enemy to defeat multiple sensors on multiple F-35s simultaneously. Because the sensors between the F-35s are fused, the pilot in aircraft #1 can simply tap in to aircraft #2’s sensor suite."

...What makes the F-35 most like the iPhone is its user potential. Berke explained that the original iPhone was branded as an Mp3 player, cell phone and internet device, but developers have now made it so much more. Similarly, now that F-35 operators have their hands on the aircraft, they are likely to continue to develop its capabilities, according to Berke.

“The F-35, it’s light years beyond anything we already have,” said Berke. “The only way I know that is I flew F-18s, F-16s, F-22s and F-35s operationally for 23 years, that’s how I know that.”
Why The F-35 Is The Iphone Of Fighter Aircraft | The Daily Caller (http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/13/why-the-f-35-is-the-iphone-of-fighter-aircraft/)

George K Lee

15th Mar 2017, 12:00

I would certainly hope that the F-22 offers capabilities over and above the F-16 and F-18, for all the money we spent. And the F-35 likewise should be "light years" beyond the Classic Hornet and any US-operated F-16.

But once again - it's not an iPhone until new mission functions (apps) can be integrated without spending months/years and millions on regression testing. This can be done and may one day be done on the F-35 but it is not present yet, as a quick and unbiased scan of the last several DOT&E reports will tell you.

By the way, the example of cross-platform fusion you describe was briefed by Ericsson (now Saab) in 2002 and some similar functions were available on the JA 37 Viggen. "Any radar, any shooter" was a standard feature of JAS 39A/B.

t43562

15th Mar 2017, 12:33

It would be a surprise if the "iphone" of planes was really alone in all its innovations - after all the iphone is far from alone.

I found this interesting, for example, because to me it is an approach to addressing the problem of trying to upgrade the software of an aircraft quickly and deal with all the safety implications:

http://www.gripenblogs.com/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=705

You will obviously note the use of a 'phone' metaphor.

SpazSinbad

15th Mar 2017, 20:08

Youse Brits may be interested in this - will wait for the moans....

F-35 successfully conducts first firings of MBDA?s ASRAAM - MBDA (http://www.mbda-systems.com/press-releases/f-35-successfully-conducts-first-firings-of-mbdas-asraam/) 15 Mar 2017

Lima Juliet

15th Mar 2017, 20:36

100th anniversary of 17(F) Sqn at Edwards AFB :ok:
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/a3/f1/2c/a3f12ce3a100988d944a55ffb54a59bc.jpg

ORAC

16th Mar 2017, 05:14

March 15 (UPI) -- Canada's government formalized its plans to purchase Super Hornet fighter jets from the United States when it issued a letter of intent to the U.S. on Tuesday. The letter follows months of negotiations between Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's Liberal government, U.S. defense officials and Boeing representatives. Canada's request calls for the procurement of 18 F/A-18 Super Hornet aircraft.

Trudeau's government began exploring a potential Super Hornet buy in November 2016 as a temporary solution for replacing the country's aging fighter fleet, opting to distance itself from the Lockheed Martin-led F-35 program. While Canada maintains the procurement is a temporary solution until an open and transparent competition can be initiated to replace the country's CF-18s, defense officials say the decision marks notable progress toward a permanent replacement.

"Today's announcement shows important progress toward getting the brave women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces the equipment they need to protect Canadians and Canadian values around the world," Canadian National Defense Minister Harjit Sajjan said in a press release. "We will assess whether an interim Super Hornet fleet purchase will help ensure Canada remains a credible and dependable ally for many years to come."

Canada's next step for the procurement will involve further negotiations with Boeing and other suppliers to develop an official proposal. The country expects an official response from the U.S. in the early fall of 2017.

http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/government-canada-announces-next-steps-potential-procurement-interim-fighter-capability-2202856.htm

Bing

16th Mar 2017, 09:03

100th anniversary of 17(F) Sqn at Edwards AF

I know the F-35 programme is delayed but that's ridiculous.

George K Lee

16th Mar 2017, 17:59

Transonic non-stealthy* jet fires infrared-guided missile. You get an incentive payment! You get an incentive payment! Everyone in the studio today gets an incentive payment!

http://www.f-100.org/images/f-100d_sidewinder.jpg

* That's by LM's definition in which no aircraft with external stores is stealthy.

Seriously, though, it's a better F-35 weapon than an AIM-9X.

SpazSinbad

16th Mar 2017, 22:34

Further to 'TEEEJ' Dummy Deck info above:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMVR_wyrQU8

ORAC

23rd Mar 2017, 07:43

SNAFU!: F-35 Program Office still not happy about price...signals the Navy WILL get Super Hornets... (http://www.snafu-solomon.com/2017/03/f-35-program-office-still-not-happy.html)

SpazSinbad

23rd Mar 2017, 07:56

:} Yep the USN really needs more ARFers (AirReFuelling) - go here for the beer: 21 Mar 2017
"...The tanking mission accounts from anywhere from 25 to 30 percent of Super Hornet sorties,..."
https://news.usni.org/2017/03/21/skunk-works-head-latest-navy-mq-25a-requirements-pushing-competitors-redesign-offers

Turbine D

23rd Mar 2017, 18:51

Spaz,
Yep the USN really needs more ARFers (AirReFuelling)
I think you are correct, The Navy needs more ARFers for either the Super Hornets or the F-35Cs... That is to say, if they want to protect the carriers...

What to do, what to do?

America's Lethal F-35 vs. F/A-18 Super Hornet: Who Wins? | The National Interest Blog (http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/americas-lethal-f-35-vs-f-18-super-hornet-who-wins-15670)

SpazSinbad

23rd Mar 2017, 19:30

An April Fool Day article from 2016? Clearly in the last year the USN have cancelled the F-35C - not. In other news:

[F-35C Nose Gear/Catapult Fix] Next Big F-35 Contract Expected Later This Year 22 Mar 2017 Oriana Pawlyk
“...Babione [LM company’s general manager overseeing the F-35 program] said the company is moving quickly to repair the F-35C after it experienced rough acceleration during catapult-assisted takeoffs from Navy carriers — a hit on the most-expensive variant in the program, which was esti-mated to take months to fix, according to an Inside Defense report.

Babione said Lockheed and partners recently finished some testing at Naval Air Engineering Station Lakehurst in New Jersey, “trying two different techniques. One was changing the way the pilot straps in — how they get into the seat, how do they pull their harnesses,” he said. [wow]

Additionally, he said, “we changed the hold-back fixture... a little less load holding the airplane back when it launches” which reduces the stored energy in the nose gear.

Engineers haven’t yet determined whether one of or both techniques will be implemented, Babione said. Testing crews “will want to go back out to the carrier... sometime this fall,” he said....”
https://www.dodbuzz.com/2017/03/22/next-f-35-contract-lrip-11-expected/

Lyneham Lad

23rd Mar 2017, 19:35

The full Breaking Defence article (http://breakingdefense.com/2017/03/lockheeds-not-cutting-f-35-costs-enough-but-we-know-how-assad-bogdan/?utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=48977760&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8E38pUjKRetZS1tonk15gSNnO360k0ikcJwV12QEdafEgZMHQNNXELq_AiNi WlrmfKGSHNLo2QHUUCQD_jumWKglBVbg&_hsmi=48977760), referred to in post #10393.

ORAC

23rd Mar 2017, 20:43

If you follow the link in 10393 the story therein there already contains your link.

sandiego89

23rd Mar 2017, 22:27

Retiring the S-3 (in the tanking role) seems to have been shortsighted. Many had many hours left

ORAC

24th Mar 2017, 06:23

IIRC the S-3 only carried the same amount of give-away as the F-18 in tanker fit. Better to carry additional F-18s as it gives a multi-role as well as a self-defence capability.

Just This Once...

24th Mar 2017, 08:25

My memory cannot recall the typical give of the Hoover, but I do remember that it sipped its own fuel so could hang around for a long time before offloading its fuel. This gave much-needed flexibility during launch & recovery cycles and reduced its own deck-cycle count. When full of gas you could see them flying for the better part of 10 hours.

Multi-role is how you define it as you will not see SHornets chasing subs or irritating surface groups for an extended vul. Regarding extra F-18s, the US carrier groups have not expanded their strike aircraft numbers to fill the vacated space, they are just doing without. The SHornet is a big, modern, highly capable and reasonably expensive platform. Using a third of this capability as a terminal tanker whilst leaving other capability gaps open makes questionable sense. Of course, other new capability requirements come to the fore and a long endurance BACN / Link capable platform is sorely needed for the Growler, F-35 and the wider Fleet.

Not_a_boffin

24th Mar 2017, 09:30

All of which continues to re-inforce the logic for what was once the Common Support Aircraft (CSA), intended to replace E2/C2/S3 and the capability of the KA6D.

Whatever the CoD V22 ends up being, it won't do all that. MQ25 or whatever it is today won't do that either.

One wonders how much the relaunch of an S3-type, relatively low performance, simple aircraft might have cost if done at the right time.

ORAC

24th Mar 2017, 11:03

Well the MQ-25 is supposed to do the AAR and BACN in a hostile environment in the western Pacific and the Osprey the CAD. I doubt there is the funding for another platform on top those.

SpazSinbad

24th Mar 2017, 11:23

One for the death spiral crowd - mebbe....

Poland mulls F-35, F-16A/B fighters acquisition (http://www.defensenews.com/articles/poland-mulls-f-35-f-16a-b-fighters-acquisition)

George K Lee

24th Mar 2017, 16:26

From that BD story:

“Blueprint for Affordability has been modestly effective."

I think we all know what that means in the argot of the Five-Sided Squirrel Cage, to wit, :mad:-all measurable benefit. Which leaves us with two possible explanations:

1 - The JSFPO and LockMart didn't understand the cost structure of the program well enough (after >15 years) to design an effective cost-cutting program, or

2 - Blueprint for Affordability was a PR exercise and nothing else. Ha ha n00bs, got you again!

Maybe some of the F-35 enthusiasts here can come up with a third option, but I can't.

glad rag

24th Mar 2017, 20:10

What's your point? The crucial word is "reduce". Low observability isn't claimed to be the same as invisibility.

http://i1188.photobucket.com/albums/z412/Anonymouse365/Space%20hopper_1.jpg https://i.ytimg.com/vi/rAvnMYqj2c0/hqdefault.jpg

Thermal imaging might even 'see' an F-35's pilot for a fleeting moment at extremely close range but it wouldn't do any good. He/she and their aircraft have already moved on at Mach 1+ having seen and zapped (or ignored) you long before you saw them.

Keep dreaming pal.

ORAC

24th Mar 2017, 20:31

Best he puts on all his maps - "Here there be PIRATES (http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/infrared-search-and-track-systems-and-the-future-of-the-1691441747)"

SpazSinbad

29th Mar 2017, 00:26

Brit Voice in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tBj3BY3AuQ

ORAC

29th Mar 2017, 06:57

F-35 program chief Bogdan to retire; deputy director to be his successor (http://www.defensenews.com/articles/deputy-f-35-director-expected-to-take-over-program-this-summer)

ORAC

31st Mar 2017, 19:00

SNAFU!: The F-35. FUBAR BUNDY! (http://www.snafu-solomon.com/2017/03/the-f-35-fubar-bundy.html)

SpazSinbad

1st Apr 2017, 16:23

Dreams Do Come True - BUNDY RUM 4 EVA!

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-cancel-f-35-purchase/

Turbine D

2nd Apr 2017, 21:03

Spaz,

Some facts you might not be aware of not shown on You Tube:

- In 2001 the DoD budgeted the F-35 program at $233B for 2,866 planes. It now estimates the F-35 program will cost $391B (68% more) for 2,457 planes (14% fewer) with estimates of maintenance and parts over the life cycle of the program bringing the total costs to more than a trillion dollars.

- Of 63 largest DoD programs initiated before the beginning of Obama administration, only 13 were on budget. The remainder were over budget by a cumulative $296B. Putting this in perspective, $296B would give almost 3 million Americans a $100,000 college education.

- Defense contractors have thrived. Those delivering the 10 most costly programs, the F-35 program being the most costly, have seen cumulative total returns almost triple that of S&P 500 index between 2002 and November 2016. Since then the returns have increased even more with Trump proposing an additional $54B in DoD spending.

- The goal of DoD managers is always the same get a "go" decision. Push a great new program out into the field. Price it low enough that it doesn't get pushed behind another program. Present cutting-edge features. Have minimum knowledge as to what it will cost and whether the features are achievable so that the DoD is not deliberately deceiving anyone. Look at any of the 50 over budget programs and this has been the DoD operational methodology.

- The winners are the Contractors, the Lobbyists and members of Congress and their staffs that are gullible to both the lobbyists and DoD claims. The losers are the taxpayers and the end product users.

- The number of people in the Pentagon (DoD) Procurement and Acquisitions bureaucracy is 207,000 at this moment, give or take a thousand or so. The number of Marines currently on active duty is 163,375.

- Since 1959, 17 Defense Secretaries have committed to bring about effective and efficient management of the defense acquisition process. The F-35 Program is a poster child of success to date.

You Tube videos (PR) of F-35s in early stages of takeoffs, landings, firing rockets, etc., 16 years after program start are interesting. Everything depicted is expected of a fighter jet. What isn't depicted is the financial carnage and waste that has taken place until now. :ugh:

SpazSinbad

2nd Apr 2017, 21:07

'Turbine D' you say you live in Middle America. I do not. Moan to someone else thanks.

Turbine D

3rd Apr 2017, 00:23

'Turbine D' you say you live in Middle America. I do not. Moan to someone else thanks.
Spaz,
I do live in Middle America, I can tell, you don't. Middle America is where F-35s are built in the same factory where F-16s were built. There is a difference. The F-16s and F-15s were designed and built in Middle America to recover from a Washington, DC error at that time, whereas the F-35s have been designed in Washington, DC or surrounds, a historical repeat error in the making. The workers in the Middle America factory do their very best to provide F-35 aircraft to the design requirements they are provided and they do. I am not moaning, but you might be in the future.

If you truly live in Oz and are a taxpayer, you might be part of one of two things that are going to happen as a result of purchasing 72 highly expensive F-35s because of wasteful use of resources. Your personal taxes will go up or the Australian national debt will, neither of which are financially good for you.

F-35s are not going to be "gifted" to Australia as they might have been if the availability had been on time. But now, we have "The Art of The Deal" leader, and I don't think there will be any gifting going forward. He is a winner when it come to negotiations involving prices.

Keep showing the F-35 You Tubes, they are interesting, demonstrating the given, should be basic capabilities of fighter jets....

Thanks for your interesting, but misplaced viewpoint. ;)

SpazSinbad

3rd Apr 2017, 01:22

'Turbine D' the money for the F-35s for Oz has already been set aside with a good margin for accounting for currency fluctuations. Thank goodness Oz is not like the USofA in many respects. Be condescending about YouTube Videos - no one forces you to watch them - have some respect for yourself and STOP!

President Frump has stopped tweeting about stuff so there is hope that is permanent.

PEI_3721

3rd Apr 2017, 07:54

To view, if only for the 'shopped' graphic
Next Big Future: Director of Testing says F35 needs years and billions to get near combat usable but DOD says US taxpayers should be fine with barely usable for $100+ billion and 12 years late (http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/04/director-of-testing-says-f35-needs.html)

Truth in jest?

SpazSinbad

3rd Apr 2017, 08:51

POGO are good at getting the circle jerk of posts going. It is complete here with 'ORAC' posting the 'SNAFU BUNDY' article which references the original POGO here:

F-35 Continues to Stumble (http://www.pogo.org/straus/issues/weapons/2017/f35-continues-to-stumble.html#conclusion)

Now the future has caught up with us and we are back there with the above URL:

Next Big Future: Director of Testing says F35 needs years and billions to get near combat usable but DOD says US taxpayers should be fine with barely usable for $100+ billion and 12 years late (http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/04/director-of-testing-says-f35-needs.html)

POGO STICK IT I reckon.... :}

glad rag

3rd Apr 2017, 09:53

'Turbine D' the money for the F-35s for Oz has already been set aside with a good margin for accounting for currency fluctuations. Thank goodness Oz is not like the USofA in many respects. Be condescending about YouTube Videos - no one forces you to watch them - have some respect for yourself and STOP!

PERHAPS! he would if you answered a straight question with a straight answer...

(wellitisthef35threadsoitskindagrantedIsuppose)

SpazSinbad

3rd Apr 2017, 10:41

" New York, London, Paris, Munich..." everyones talkin' about - POP MUSIC - The TOE RAGS

SENATE - FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE LEGISLATION COMMITTEE - Estimates - (Public) 21 Oct 2015
"...Senator WHISH-WILSON: Could you tell us what you have budgeted for?
Air Vice Marshal Deeble: The current budget for the JSF program, including the infrastructure elements, is $17 million. That includes recent updates to exchange rate.

Senator WHISH-WILSON: Seventeen billion or million?
Air Vice Marshal Deeble: Seventeen billion, sorry. That includes the purchase of 72 aircraft. The first aircraft were purchased in LRIP 6. The value of that was $126.7 million for those first two aircraft. Over the life of the production, which will go out to 2023, we are expecting the average cost of our aircraft to be $90 million each....

...Senator WHISH-WILSON: My next question was the time frame for delivery. You are saying four aircraft in the next—
Air Vice Marshal Deeble: The first two aircraft were purchased under LRIP 6, and they were delivered in 2014. The next aircraft that we will receive will be Low-Rate Initial Production 10. That will be in 2018. Eight aircraft will be purchased at that point in time. The following year, in LRIP 11, we will purchase another eight aircraft. Following that, on an annual basis, we will be purchasing 15 aircraft each year out to 2023, where we will purchase the last nine aircraft to take us to a total of 72 aircraft...."
About the multinational F-35 program [25 Sep 2014]
In 2001 and 2002 a total of nine nations agreed to participate in the development of the F-35. In addition to the United States this included the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Canada, Italy, Turkey, Australia, Denmark and Norway. Of the nine countries in the program, seven have now made a final decision to buy the F-35. In 2007 the partners then signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on the continued production, development and sustainment of the aircraft, and this agreement also established the management structure for the program that exists today.

Another important feature of the multinational program is that it negotiates joint contracts on behalf of all the partner nations. The various partner countries therefore have no separate contract with Lockheed Martin and Pratt & Whitney for the purchase of the F-35. This is negotiated by the program office and the PEO, Lieutenant General Bogdan. This helps ensure that countries are able to negotiate with industry as one single entity...."
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?shop=dae&modele=release&prod=156934&cat=3

Turbine D

3rd Apr 2017, 14:02

Spaz,
Turbine D' the money for the F-35s for Oz has already been set aside with a good margin for accounting for currency fluctuations. Thank goodness Oz is not like the USofA in many respects.
That is interesting. How much money has been set aside for maintenance, fix-it programs and spare parts for the 72 jets? I think Oz will be getting the same F-35s the US will be getting, no better. Do you think the 2015 estimates are still valid?

An MOU is exactly that, it isn't a firm fixed contract. It expresses intent to buy or sell and identifies other side items, maybe.

So the US DoD is negotiating the price of the F-35s bound for Oz. How hard do you think they will negotiate with Lockheed Martin and Pratt & Whitney verses if Oz were to do their own negotiating? L-M says they aren't making money on the F-35s, P&W definitely aren't making money on the engines, so how can those loss gaps be closed? If Bogdan and the DoD squeeze L-M and P&W really hard to lower the price of F-35s going to US Services, does Oz and others get the benefit of that squeeze? Think about it... The goal of offering F-35s to other friendly countries is to offset the cost of F-35s to the USN (USMC included) and the USAF. It would seem to me the higher the price to Oz and others results in lowered procurement costs to the US, wouldn't you think? Since there isn't a catalogue price listing, is Oz really getting a good deal compared to the exact same aircraft going to Israel?

Relative to YouTube videos, I said they were interesting. Matter of fact, YouTube is a US company now owned by Google and are easily accessed here, in Middle America. :cool:

glad rag

3rd Apr 2017, 20:37

Oh dear has someone spat their dummy out again?

SpazSinbad

3rd Apr 2017, 21:31

Geez, I thought I had a "interesting, but misplaced viewpoint" according to 'Turbine D'. WinSome LoseSome.

baron_rouge

4th Apr 2017, 09:09

I can't see that this has already been posted. Interesting read. http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2016/pdf/dod/2016f35jsf.pdf

SpazSinbad

4th Apr 2017, 10:18

Searching the forum or this thread with the file name 2016f35jsf.pdf There is a reference or two to it: on 11th then 13th of Jan this year

http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/424953-f-35-cancelled-then-what-506.html#post9636683
&
http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/424953-f-35-cancelled-then-what-post9638707.html?highlight=2016f35jsf.pdf#post9638707

A_Van

4th Apr 2017, 14:39

In fact, this DOT&E report is the main technical reading. Strange that this stuff is new to some subscribed to this topic.
Conversely, most of the journalist publications in the media are just "lyrics" and cries on politics and money. Some comments and considerations in this thread, like e.g. from Turbine D., are much more wise, IMHO.

ORAC

5th Apr 2017, 09:49

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/art-f-35-deal-did-204700528.html

Lockheed deal on F35 possible (http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/03/lockheed-deal-on-f35-possible.html)

Investigative Lead: Lockheed Martin Promised an F-35 Block Buy for Not Complaining About Boeing Deals (http://www.pogo.org/straus/issues/weapons/2017/lockheed-martin-promised-f-35-block-buy-boeing-deals.html)

ORAC

5th Apr 2017, 15:37

U.S. mulls F-35s for Taiwan deal (http://www.the-japan-news.com/news/article/0003615320)

WASHINGTON/ TAIPEI — The United States is considering a new package of arms sales to Taiwan, sources said.

Multiple sources close to the bilateral matter revealed that the United States would sell the weapons to Taiwan as early as this summer. Among the weapons are cutting-edge fighter jets, which past U.S. administrations did not allow to be sold to Taiwan. The arms package could be worth the highest amount ever.......

According to a former senior official at the U.S. State Department who is well-informed of the deliberation process, cutting-edge F-35 stealth fighter jets and the most advanced missile defense system are under consideration.........

Lyneham Lad

5th Apr 2017, 19:32

Presumably something that just might be discussed at Mar-a-Lago tomorrow (6th).

sharpend

6th Apr 2017, 11:51

After reading a few informed comments re the F35 being unfit for purpose, I now read this:'Security concerns have been raised about plans to carry out major servicing work on the UK's new F-35 fighter jets in Turkey.' BBC today. I just gets worse. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39501299

SpazSinbad

6th Apr 2017, 12:13

This must be bulldung then: 07 Nov 2016
"...F135 engine heavy maintenance in the European region will initially be provided by Turkey in 2018, supplemented by Norway and the Netherlands within two to three years...." Pentagon Assigns First F-35 Component Repair Facilities | Defense News: Aviation International News (http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2016-11-07/pentagon-assigns-first-f-35-component-repair-facilities)
Theys ain't heavy I guess: 11 Jul 2016 https://www.rolls-royce.com/media/press-releases/yr-2016/11-07-2016-rr-pratt-and-whitney-team-up-to-support-uk-f-35b.aspx

MSOCS

6th Apr 2017, 14:15

Sharpend, "events dear boy, events!" The world changes. There will be plenty of other countries willing to conduct the engine overhauls if Turkey were to be placed on the naughty step.

Rolls Royce....?

Turbine D

6th Apr 2017, 14:36

Spaz,
This must be bulldung then: 07 Nov 2016
and
Theys ain't heavy I guess: 11 Jul 2016
Did you happen to note that neither article dealt with engine overhaul? One dealt with aircraft maintenance, the other with engine technical logistics which isn't overhaul.

SpazSinbad

6th Apr 2017, 18:10

'Turbine D' your reading comprehension is poor. First article states: "...F135 engine heavy maintenance...". Then second article prefaced with my comment "Theys ain't heavy...".

Lyneham Lad

6th Apr 2017, 19:48

BBC News:-
Security concerns have been raised about plans to carry out major servicing work on the UK's new F-35 fighter jets in Turkey. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39501299)

SpazSinbad

6th Apr 2017, 20:07

LL 'sharpend' post 10429 above got to the BBC 'turkey engine' news first....

Turbine D

7th Apr 2017, 00:41

Spaz,
You are correct about the first article, I missed it. As to the second article, it read well without your preface editorial...

MSOCS

7th Apr 2017, 00:57

Hey girls, stop the handbags, if there's a political concern over engine overhaul in Europe it has nothing to do with the Program. Stop conflating the ebb and flow of statecraft with procurement.

I know you want to blame the F-35 Program for tomorrow's downpour but the illusion of bad press can only support the BS so far.

glad rag

9th Apr 2017, 16:29

Hey girls, stop the handbags, if there's a political concern over engine overhaul in Europe it has nothing to do with the Program.

Actually it has everything to with the program as the program runs under contract.

So you want to change a program contracted baseline then it's even more £££$$$ down the porcelain

MSOCS

9th Apr 2017, 17:34

Sorry GR, let me be clearer on cause and effect. The Program has not caused the political doubt over Turkey - it has nothing to do with it.

Now, will it affect the Program? Yes, as you say, but that's not what I was talking about. It would cost in contract terms, and likely a lot, but if that trigger was pulled it'd be for a good reason I'd imagine. I have a feeling I know what that'd be, too.

glad rag

10th Apr 2017, 15:51

Rhino power

15th Apr 2017, 17:36

F-35 deploys to Europe for the first time > <p style=font-size:20px>U.S. Air Forces in Europe & Air Forces Africa</p> > Article Display (http://www.usafe.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1153203/f-35-deploys-to-europe-for-the-first-time/)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFhVVW2aGuA&feature=youtu.be

-RP

ORAC

21st Apr 2017, 06:31

F-35C targeting system guides weapon to moving target > Edwards Air Force Base > News (http://www.edwards.af.mil/News/Article/1158108/f-35c-targeting-system-guides-weapon-to-moving-target/)

glad rag

22nd Apr 2017, 01:33

It sure hit something..

Here ya go..

Prs_BMzb_eI

sandiego89

23rd Apr 2017, 16:54

PhilipG

23rd Apr 2017, 17:08

A source reporting that a Israeli Air Force F-35A was (again?) believed to be used in a recent strike on Syria.

Plus 3 more new jets just arrived in country.

Israel launches missile attacks on Syria (http://www.bignewsnetwork.com/news/252913355/israel-launches-missile-attacks-on-syria)

It would be interesting to know what standoff weapons were used by the IAF F35A, I was not aware that any were cleared for use with software version 3i.

sandiego89

23rd Apr 2017, 18:40

Yes I was wondering the same- the article uses the words missiles and "bombed"- or of course the F-35 could have been part of the raid but not the drop ship....

SpazSinbad

24th Apr 2017, 18:58

F-35 GAO Report 24 Apr 2017:
U.S. GAO - F-35 Joint Strike Fighter: DOD Needs to Complete Developmental Testing Before Making Significant New Investments (http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-17-351#summary_recommend)

49 page PDF: http://www.gao.gov/assets/690/684207.pdf (2.1Mb)

One page PDF HIGHlites: http://www.gao.gov/assets/690/684208.pdf (162Kb)

TLB

25th Apr 2017, 14:35

skydiver69

25th Apr 2017, 17:01

SpazSinbad

25th Apr 2017, 19:35

'TLB' would this opinion have any bearing? [20 Apr 2017]
"...Service leaders have urged moving forward with Block 4 development plans because of the need to stay ahead of the rapidly advancing threat of adversary air defense systems and aircraft. They also base that suggestion on experience with operational F-35s, which they have said are performing well and meeting or exceeding expectations, even with the transitional 3i software." http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pages/2017/April%202017/GAO-Hold-off-on-F-35-Block-4-Until-3F-is-Done.aspx

Brat

1st May 2017, 00:41

Let's see if I have this right: the aircraft is a year from completing the development phase; initial OT&E won't even start for another year; and yet the USAF and USMC have declared IOC and the aircraft is deployed operationally.

This present 5th Gen asset, is here, now, in operation, with 1,000’s of hours behind it.

It is the leading 5th gen asset on the planet... and we still have p*ssers and mo*ners who bask in their orgy of criticism.

Delighted to be on this side of the F-35 fence.

SpazSinbad

1st May 2017, 00:55

Latest F-35 Flight Hours:
"...more than 90,000 F-35 flight hours." 26 Apr 2017 https://www.f35.com/news/detail/lockheed-martin-delivers-new-capabilities-for-f-35-logistics-system

Buster15

1st May 2017, 15:22

Here we go again..... 5th generation. Someone has swallowed the advertising blurb. It is only 5th generation when it is used in a stealth mode. Has it???? If not then it is only another modern jet.

sandiego89

1st May 2017, 16:15

Here we go again..... 5th generation. Someone has swallowed the advertising blurb. It is only 5th generation when it is used in a stealth mode. Has it???? If not then it is only another modern jet.

Buster, look a few posts above yours. IF the Israeli F-35's were used on these recent combat raids do you think they were squawking proper codes and talking with Syrian airspace controllers? I think not.

I also imagine they have been using their 5th generation advantages in many recent exercises...

Buster15

1st May 2017, 17:03

I am sure that the Israeli AF are very secretive about how they use their jets. The point I am trying to make is about the title 5th generation and from that, that the inference all pre so called 5th generation aircraft are somehow inferior. There are lots of attributes that for example Typhoon or F18 Growler posess that F35 does not. Just because they are not termed 5th generation doesn't render them inferior. LO is likely to become defeated at some point and then the real question is whether F35 remains the most capable jet on the planet...

MSOCS

1st May 2017, 17:25

Buster. 5th Gen is not just "stealth" so your statement is a little short of the whole truth. 5th Gen is taking multiple data sources from sensors both on and off the F-35 and fusing them to provide the best, correlated and "adjudicated" version of environmental truth that is possible. 5th Gen is also about networking that data, not just amongst other F-35 either. The stealth part simply makes the whole platform a lot less vulnerable and very pervasive as a threat to the enemy.

The information bit is often glossed over but given the anticipated confusion and cluttered nature of future warfare, knowing what's going on around you will dictate whether you live or die, succeed or fail.

PS - you're right about Typhoon and Growler etc. These have design and capability making them stronger in specific areas like sustained manoeuvre, acceleration and EW. Thus the important part is interoperability, or "5th/4th". This is where we are finding much synergy, commented upon recently during Ex ATLANTIC TRIDENT 17.

ORAC

2nd May 2017, 05:15

That'll the operational aircraft with 90K hours behind it then? No doubt that is one of the reasons for wanting to retire the F-15C, got to find the money from somewhere. Also interesting they are working to keep it out of the purview of Congress....

DOD may reduce JSF procurement to cover development delay (https://insidedefense.com/daily-news/dod-may-reduce-jsf-procurement-cover-development-delay)

A Government Accountability Office report released this week reveals the Defense Department may reduce F-35 Joint Strike Fighter procurement funding between fiscal years 2018 and 2020 to pay for system development and demonstration delays.

The program estimates it will need about $532 million to pay for a five-month delay to closing the JSF's development phase, and the GAO report states that the bulk of that money -- about $353 million -- would be needed in FY-18, according to preliminary budget projections. The Pentagon is expected to deliver its FY-18 budget request to Congress by the end of May.

To address that gap, the program plans to pull $451 million from procurement funding between FY-18 and FY-20 and redirect it toward SDD completion. The report states the program would then try to reprogram funds from elsewhere in the budget to recoup the procurement funds."According to program officials, the majority of the reprogramming actions will be below the threshold that triggers prior approval of the congressional defense committees per DOD policy," the report states.

One exception to that will be $57.9 million in Marine Corps aircraft modification funding, which will need to be approved by Congress.

Even with that budget maneuvering, the program would need to find another source to fund the additional $81 million it projects it will need to complete SDD, the report states.

SpazSinbad

2nd May 2017, 05:28

Who Knows if this Reps/Senate Budget 01 May 2017 will be signed by the President - this Friday is deadline.
"...The bill funds 74 F-35 fighter jets at $8.2 billion..." US lawmakers reach 2017 budget deal through September (http://www.defensenews.com/articles/us-lawmakers-reach-2017-budget-deal)
"...The Navy would be able to buy... two additional Lockheed Martin F-35C Joint Strike Fighters.... The Marine Corps would receive funding for four additional Joint Strike Fighters – two F-35B short-takeoff and vertical-landing variants and two F-35C carrier variants..." https://news.usni.org/2017/05/01/omnibus-spending-bill-gives-navy-21b-for-shipbuilding-16b-for-aircraft-additional-aviation-maintenance-spending#more-25436

Lonewolf_50

2nd May 2017, 13:50

@ORAC
The report states the program would then try to reprogram funds from elsewhere in the budget to recoup the procurement funds. "According to program officials, the majority of the reprogramming actions will be below the threshold that triggers prior approval of the congressional defense committees per DOD policy," the report states. Gee, this sounds familiar, didn't we hear this same song about 15 years ago as it was getting off the rails after the winning design was selected?

KenV

2nd May 2017, 14:47

That'll the operational aircraft with 90K hours behind it then? No doubt that is one of the reasons for wanting to retire the F-15C, got to find the money from somewhere.Retirement of F-15C is tied to extensively upgrading AND service life extending F-16Cs. However, this is only cost effective if the highest cost option to extend the service life of F-15Cs is chosen. Current already underway (and funded) programs to upgrade the F-15C fuselage longeron, upgrade the radar, upgrade the primary computer, and several other upgrades will be MUCH cheaper than upgrading and SLEPing the F-16Cs. And this ignores the greater range, payload, endurance, and speed of the F-15 over the F-16.

But in my mind the important thing is that USAF has finally well and truly bought into the idea that an all stealth fleet of F-22s and F-35s is not a good idea, nor is it affordable. USAF has come around to the Navy idea of a mixed fleet of legacy aircraft (Super Hornet) and F-35. The question is will the USAF F-35s be mixed with SLEPed F-16s or F-15s? My bet is that they'll ultimately go with the F-15. But who knows?

SpazSinbad

2nd May 2017, 16:22

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvbUyc49MWY

SpazSinbad

3rd May 2017, 12:02

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

SpazSinbad

4th May 2017, 17:08

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txooHvssic4

PhilipG

4th May 2017, 20:10

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txooHvssic4

I am sure it will be interesting to see this,if it is appropriate, once the F35 is cleared for more aggressive flight profiles.

MSOCS

4th May 2017, 23:09

To be frank PhilipG, for the "Loop", that's about as aggressive you can get. I've probably flown it at least 100 times in 4 different aircraft types and, for non-native-to-UK pilots, some are clearly enjoying themselves and quote comfortable with both aircraft and low level flying in the UKLFS. This is the last place you need to pull 9Gz at low level - if it is, you've porked the racing line and your judgement sucks.

Sorry but unless I've misinterpreted, your comment comes across as quite amateur to a seasoned operator. This because the jet is now cleared for the full profile and these pilots are clearly flying with due regard to the terrain not the load limit of the aircraft.

SpazSinbad

5th May 2017, 08:20

IF this graphic is correct then F-35As have 2 Gs to go from 7-9 as they are 3i jets at moment. However the flat deck landers are 'not quite' their full G capacity with 2B at 5.5 G for USMC and USN yet to reach IOC but at 7.5 G - if they are built for it. (see grey shaded area with order of Gs F-35A, B & C. http://i.imgur.com/a5QL39F.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/a5QL39F.jpg

SpazSinbad

8th May 2017, 10:51

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlhEQ-qNtwI

SpazSinbad

15th May 2017, 18:49

Air Force to Release F-35 Weight Restrictions > U.S. Air Force > Article Display (http://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1182874/air-force-to-release-f-35-weight-restrictions/)

FODPlod

15th May 2017, 22:01

Air Force to Release F-35 Weight Restrictions > U.S. Air Force > Article Display (http://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1182874/air-force-to-release-f-35-weight-restrictions/)Less than 136 lbs?

I wish!

SpazSinbad

15th May 2017, 23:09

So you weigh more than 245 pounds or is that what you are worth - less than 103 pounds? Pick one. :}
"...The requirement is for the seat to be certified for any pilot weighing between 103 and 245 pounds...."

SpazSinbad

17th May 2017, 02:44

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

SpazSinbad

18th May 2017, 11:22

Exclusive: F-35 Fighter PEO Bogdan's Full Exit Interview 25 May 2017

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-EufOSYEu4

Rhino power

18th May 2017, 12:18

Germany requested classified data from the U.S. military on the F-35 fighter jet (http://www.defensenews.com/articles/germany-requests-classified-data-from-us-military-on-f-35-fighter-jet)

-RP

ORAC

27th May 2017, 10:57

As the orders for FA/E-18s stack up, the required number of USN F-35Cs goes down.....

Super Hornets see boost in new US budget request (https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/super-hornets-see-boost-in-new-us-budget-request-437672/)

"President Donald Trump’s proposed budget would add funding to buy up to 74 Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornets through 2022, or 60 more than planned in previous budget forecasts.

The Navy is requesting 14 Super Hornets in Fiscal 2018 to mitigate the service’s strike fighter shortfall, officials said this week. In addition, Trump’s budget proposal inserts new plans to procure 23 more F/A-18E/Fs in FY2019, 14 in FY2020, 14 in FY2021 and 15 in FY2022. The recent request not only includes funding for new Super Hornets, but also advanced procurement dollars to address advanced capabilities."......

Boeing to Integrate Infrared Search, Tracking System in F-18 Combat Jets (https://sputniknews.com/military/201705261053998616-f18-infrared-search-tracking-system/)

WASHINGTON (Sputnik) — US aerospace giant Boeing won $89 million to build a new Infrared Search and Track System into the Navy's F/A-18 Super Hornet aircraft, the Defense Department said in a press release.

"The Boeing Co., St. Louis, Missouri, is being awarded an $89,000,000 contract for incorporation of the Block II Infrared Search and Track System (IRST) in the F/A-18 E/F aircraft," the release explained Thursday. "The contract includes the initial design and development, procurement of prototyping hardware, technical risk reduction efforts, integrated product support, and technical reviews of IRST Block II with the F/A-18E/F aircraft."....

SpazSinbad

27th May 2017, 11:49

Generale Now UnBoggedDown fites back:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JmO-fISJ48

ORAC

30th May 2017, 19:34

Unit Cost of F-35s Delivered This Year Still Exceeds $206M (http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/feature/184049/unit-cost-of-f_35s-delivered-this-year-still-exceeds-%24206m.html)

PARIS --- The average unit cost of Lockheed Martin F-35 fighters in the ninth Low-Rate Initial Production Lot 9 (LRIP 9) is $206.3 million, according to our analysis of all 46 contracts that have been made public for Lot 9. This is just $16.7 million (or 7%) lower than the average cost of the Lot 5 aircraft ordered in 2012 – fully five years ago.

Separately, a direct comparison of Lot 5 and Lot 9 aircraft costs released by the F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) shows that the cost of a “generic” F-35 has actually increased by $7.63 million over the same five years, 2012 to 2017. The “generic” F-35 is a notional aircraft used to compare unit costs from year to year; it is the average cost of one aircraft of each of the three versions (F-35A CTOL, F-35B STOVL and F-35C CV) in the same production lot.

JPO’s figures show that, of the three variants, only the F-35A saw its cost decline, by a modest $3 million over those five years. The cost of both other variants increased substantially (see Table 2). JPO only compares airframe costs, and for reasons it has not explained excludes engine and other costs. Both our detailed analysis of Lot 9 contracts, and the JPO’s own figures, contradict many public statements by Lockheed Martin and the F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) claiming that unit costs are dropping with each successive LRIP lot, and that by 2019 the unit cost of an F-35A will have dropped to $85 million.

Most recently, JPO Director Lt. Gen Christopher Bogdan was quoted at a Dec. 19 press conference as again promising lower prices. “By the time the plane enters Full Rate Production in 2019, .... the price will be down to $80-$85 million for an F-35A, $110 million for a F-35B, and a $96 million for an F-35C.” This now looks more implausible than ever.

As things stand, Lot 9 aircraft being delivered today cost $206.6 million on average, including their engines, fixes, retrofits and upgrades, Furthermore, the JPO continues to award contracts for Lot 9, so it is likely the unit cost of Lot 9 aircraft will continue to grow. Four Lot 9 contracts have been awarded so far this year.

What all this shows is that neither Lockheed Martin nor the Joint Program Office have a real handle on their public statements about aircraft unit costs, which cannot be independently substantiated........... [more]

Just This Once...

30th May 2017, 20:20

Quite a convincing piece given the references and the links to all the contracts.

I wonder who gains the most from the deliberate deception regarding true cost?

SpazSinbad

4th Jun 2017, 05:36

F-35A Lightning ll Demo!! Practice for the 2017 Paris Airshow!! TXAVGEEK Published on Jun 2, 2017
"F-35A "AF-78" (13-5072) from the 388FW, Hill AFB, Utah performing a low show aerial demonstration practice for the 2017 Paris Airshow at NAS Fort Worth JRB!" [Flown by LM F-35A Test Pilot]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsEl_IL_5-M

peter we

6th Jun 2017, 20:16

Quite a convincing piece given the references and the links to all the contracts.

I wonder who gains the most from the deliberate deception regarding true cost?

The owner of the website, defense-aerospace.com: the professional website for aerospace, defense and military news and information (http://www.defense-aerospace.com) who works for the one of the Eurofighter manufacturers.

The article is bull****.

glad rag

6th Jun 2017, 21:49

So you say.

Davef68

7th Jun 2017, 08:59

glad rag

8th Jun 2017, 10:27

How ODD that Boing would want to build a IRST system from the ground up when there are already "world class" IRST systems available?

:hmm:

George K Lee

8th Jun 2017, 13:30

It's not Boeing's IRST, it's an LM product.

sandiego89

8th Jun 2017, 14:52

Saw the first aircraft roll out of the Japanese assembly line. I would think increasing share would come from this line for other customers in the area as well, and hints of fuselage production (not just assembly). Japan seems to have a pretty good record with license production and creating local jobs.

Japan Rolls Out First Domestically-Built F-35 Stealth Fighter | The Diplomat (http://thediplomat.com/2017/06/japan-rolls-out-first-domestically-built-f-35-stealth-fighter/)

SpazSinbad

9th Jun 2017, 00:04

LM F-35 GM Update 01 Jun 2017 Jeff Babione
"Final ASRAAM SDD Test Complete
The Pax River team is also completing significant testing, including the final test for the AIM-132, Advanced Short Range Air-to-Air Missile (ASRAAM), as part of flight science SDD testing. The U.K.’s Royal Air Force will primarily use this missile. It will provide the U.K. with enhanced aerial combat capabilities, engaging targets within visual range and under complex environmental conditions. The missile launch was the eighth required for the test team to clear the envelope.

This cool photo is a great example of how Pax River ITF photographers capture stunning content to show off to the world. The U.K. will utilize ASRAAMs along with the yellow ordnance you see in this photo, called Paveway IV bombs." https://a855196877272cb14560-2a4fa819a63ddcc0c289f9457bc3ebab.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/17655/f35_weekly_update_6_1_17.pdf (0.85Mb)
http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewNewAllBum/F-35BtestAIM-132ASRAAMforum.jpg~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewNewAllBum/F-35BtestAIM-132ASRAAMforum.jpg.html)

SpazSinbad

9th Jun 2017, 19:26

F-35s Grounded at Luke AFB After Pilots Report Hypoxia-Like Symptoms 09 Jun 2017 Oriana Pawlyk
"The Air Force has grounded all F-35 Joint Strike Fighter operations at Luke Air Force Base, Arizona, after pilots complained of hypoxia-related symptoms, officials said Friday.

"The 56th Fighter Wing at Luke Air Force Base, Arizona, canceled local flying operations today for F-35A Lightning II aircraft due to a series of five incidents in which pilots have experienced hypoxia-like symptoms," Air Force spokesman Capt. Mark Graff said in an email statement.

He did not say when flight operations would resume.

Base officials informed the service that since May 2, five F-35A pilots have experienced "physiological incidents while flying," the statement said. In each case, officials said, the aircraft's backup oxygen system kicked in, and the pilot followed the correct procedures, landing safely.

"In order to synchronize operations and maintenance efforts toward safe flying operations, we have canceled local F-35A flying. The Air Force takes these physiological incidents seriously, and our focus is on the safety and well-being of our pilots," said Brig. Gen. Brook Leonard, 56th Fighter Wing commander. "We are taking the necessary steps to find the root cause of these incidents."

The Air Force said Friday it had contacted other F-35 squadrons and international partners operating the aircraft to educate pilots on the incident.

"Pilots will also be briefed on all the incidents that have occurred and the successful actions taken by the pilots to safely recover their aircraft," the release said."
F-35s Grounded at Luke AFB After Pilots Report Hypoxia-Like Symptoms | Military.com (http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/06/09/air-force-grounds-f35-operations-luke-afb.html)
ALSO HERE: F-35s at Luke Air Force Base grounded after pilots suffered oxygen deprivation 09 Jun 2017
https://www.airforcetimes.com/articles/f-35s-at-luke-air-force-base-grounded-after-pilots-suffered-oxygen-deprivation

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

SpazSinbad

9th Jun 2017, 21:12

http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pages/2017/June%202017/USAF-Temporarily-Grounds-F-35As-at-Luke-After-Hypoxia-Like-Incidents.aspx
&
http://breakingdefense.com/2017/06/jpo-launches-team-to-look-at-5-f-35a-luke-afb-hypoxia-events/

USAF cancels F-35A flying at Luke AFB 09 Jun 2017 Leigh Giangreco
"After five oxygen deprivation incidents, the US Air Force has temporarily canceled Lockheed Martin F-35A flying operations at Luke Air Force Base, Arizona. Since 2 May, five F-35A pilots at Luke have reported “hypoxia-like symptoms,” said the USAF on 9 June.

The crews experienced a range of symptoms, from slight dizziness and disorientation to tingling and coldness in their extremities, but were trained to recognise the problems and landed safely using the aircraft’s backup oxygen system, says a spokeswoman for Luke AFB. Flight operations will resume 12 June, she says.

Fifty-five F-35As are stationed at Luke AFB, but the hypoxia issue only applies to 48 of those aircraft; seven aircraft flying at Mountain Home Air Base, Idaho for training this week returned to Luke on 9 June.

The F-35 Joint Programme Office had stood up an action team weeks ago to probe the oxygen issue, but after the fifth incident on 8 June, Luke AFB took the dramatic step of suspending flights.

“We have no idea what’s causing it,” the spokeswoman says. “There's been no testing across the board, we’re going to dig through the data to find some trends.” The USAF does not yet know if the F-35s at Luke come from the same production lot, but the service is focusing on that aspect today, she adds.

The hypoxia incident appears to be isolated to Luke AFB and will not affect the F-35A’s appearance at the Paris air show, Lockheed spokesman says. The aircraft pair for the show will fly from Hill AFB, Utah and their test pilots have not experienced issues, says Lockheed...." https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-cancels-f-35a-flying-at-luke-afb-438124/

Fonsini

10th Jun 2017, 03:48

Raptor cough, T-45 OBOGS safety issues, and now the F-35. Von Richtofen never had these high-tech breathing problems.

F-35 jets grounded at U.S. Air Force base in Arizona: officials | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-lockheed-airforce-idUSKBN1902QU)

SpazSinbad

10th Jun 2017, 04:18

A couple of earlier article posts about this HICCUP here: SCROLL Down for more Coughs

http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/424953-f-35-cancelled-then-what-525.html#post9797867

glad rag

10th Jun 2017, 17:01

"There's been no testing across the board, we’re going to dig through the data to find some trends."

I'll just leave that there for those members who are so quick to decry those that ask questions and then point out the answers don't match.

George K Lee

10th Jun 2017, 18:45

The announcement comes a little more than a week before the F-35A heads to the Paris Air Show. Lockheed Martin pilots are expected to conduct a flight demonstration during the show... and the demo will go forward as scheduled, said Lockheed spokesman Mike Rein.

"We are going as planned," he said. "Our pilot hasn't shown any symptoms."

That's a great example of flight safety discipline there. Either LM demo pilots don't breathe oxygen like the rest of us, or their PR guy is breathing something that he shouldn't be breathing.

SpazSinbad

10th Jun 2017, 22:15

Hmmm, flight safety from afar from info in disjointed articles online, from 'concern trolls'. Below is a quote from the URL immediately above the F-35 OBOGS graphic not quoted at the time:
"...Maj. Rebecca Heyse, spokeswoman for the 56th, stressed that flight operations are currently only suspended for one day, and will resume on Monday...." [at LUKE AFB]
After some 95,000 F-35 flight hours this is the first we hear of any 'hypoxia or related events' confined to LUKE AFB F-35s. As for testing previously one would assume the life support systems would have been the first to be tested thoroughly. Previously whilst USN OBOGS undergoing scrutiny with aircraft not grounded Shornetwise & Goshawks confined to limitations it was usually stated that the F-35 had no such issues.

Article here mentioned above has some balance without sensationalism: http://breakingdefense.com/2017/06/jpo-launches-team-to-look-at-5-f-35a-luke-afb-hypoxia-events/

& yet another story here: http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pages/2017/June%202017/USAF-Temporarily-Grounds-F-35As-at-Luke-After-Hypoxia-Like-Incidents.aspx

SpazSinbad

12th Jun 2017, 18:40

A TWITTER with more to follow I guess:
"Valerie Insinna‏: Breaking: The F-35 flight suspension at @LukeAFB will continue until the Air Force figures out a risk mitigation strategy, the base says.
https://twitter.com/ValerieInsinna/status/874314296917987328

SpazSinbad

12th Jun 2017, 23:27

Luke Air Force Base extends cancellation of F-35 flight operations 12 Jun 2017 Valerie Insinna
"F-35 flight operations at Luke Air Force Base, Arizona, will continue to be suspended as analysts investigate five incidents where pilots suffered hypoxia-like symptoms, a spokeswoman for the base said Monday....

...Maj. Rebecca Heyse, spokeswoman for the 56th Fighter Wing, said a JPO team of engineers, maintainers and aeromedical specialists arrived on base Sunday and are currently narrowing down potential causes for the incidents. The hope is to identify the root cause over the next couple days, but no date has been set as this time for a tentative resumption of operations, she told Defense News....

...At this point, little is known about the incidents themselves, including whether the On-Board Oxygen Generating System failed in any of the cases. All five events occurred with different jets from multiple squadrons and production batches, Heyse confirmed. However, because only pilots from Luke AFB have developed hypoxia-like symptoms, the service continues to believe it remains a localized problem.

Brig. Gen. Brook Leonard, commander of the 56th Fighter Wing, will make the final call on when to resume flight operations."
Luke Air Force Base extends cancellation of F-35 flight operations (http://www.defensenews.com/articles/luke-air-force-base-extends-cancellation-of-f-35-flight-operations)

glad rag

13th Jun 2017, 12:32

does the BOS go with the seat on ejection? or does the sea have a separate O2 supply?
Just asking due to the location on that diagram..

"Brig. Gen. Brook Leonard, commander of the 56th Fighter Wing, will make the final call on when to resume flight operations"

Hmmm.

SpazSinbad

13th Jun 2017, 12:49

Could've & Should've given the URL for the PDF from whence Honeywell/F-35 OBOGS GIF graphic came: [same same OBOGS in Eurofarter & F-35/F-22]
https://aerocontent.honeywell.com/aero/common/documents/myaerospacecatalog-documents/Defense_Brochures-documents/Life_Support_Systems.pdf (4Mb)
"...Typical System Architecture
A typical system is shown in Figure 4. [wot you see above in GIF grfx] The OBOGS is controlled by a solid state monitor/controller that monitors the PPO2 level of the OBOGS product gas, and adjusts the cycling of the beds to produce the desired level of oxygen concentration shown in Figure 2. [seen in PDF] This process is known as concentration control and means that no air-mix, or dilution, of the product gas is required at the regulator.

The breathing gas then passes to the pilot’s breathing regulator, either a console/panel-mounted, ejection seat-mounted or pilot-mounted device. The regulator is a demand flow regulator like those of GOX and LOX systems, differing only in the fact that they operate at lower pressures and do not air-mix. The final system element is a back-up oxygen cylinder mounted on the ejection seat to provide oxygen during pilot ejection, or in the unlikely event of an interruption in the OBOGS supply....

...Breathing gas purity – OBOGS regulators do not air-mix thus the pilot is not susceptible to smoke and fumes from the cockpit. Oxygen concentration is controlled inside the zeolite beds and is hence free from contamination...."
Quote from 2 page PDF attached about the MB F-35 Ejection Seat: http://militaryrussia.ru/forum/download/file.php?id=28256 (PDF there no longer available)
"...The catapult houses a 300L backup oxygen system (BOS) which can be removed or re-charged on the seat. Both the SCP and BOS are supplied by Honeywell Aerospace based in Yeovil, Somerset, UK...."

glad rag

14th Jun 2017, 09:51

Hmm are the symptoms hypoxia or aerotoxic syndrome?

SpazSinbad

14th Jun 2017, 10:17

'anorexia nervosa'/syntoxic aerodrome'? I guess 'glad rag' you did not read the post immediately above your own?
"Breathing gas purity – OBOGS regulators do not air-mix thus the pilot is not susceptible to smoke and fumes from the cockpit. Oxygen concentration is controlled inside the zeolite beds and is hence free from contamination...."

glad rag

14th Jun 2017, 12:53

Where does the gaseous input for the OBOGS system come from spaz?.?.?.

Would it be the same source as the cabin pressurisation system spaz?

?.?.?.

SpazSinbad

14th Jun 2017, 16:15

Some quotes from the Honeywell OBOGS 8 page PDF but reduced to 6 pages by deleting the front/back covers deemed irrelevant - the full 8 pages can always be downloaded from the URL given. One graphic is already above the other below the quotes below. Conditioned Engine Bleed Air is the source and yet... read quotes.

"...On-Board Oxygen Generation Systems (OBOGS) HONEYWELL 16 Jan 2008
Honeywell developed OBOGS technology in the 1980’s to allow an aircraft to generate its own oxygen during flight. OBOGS takes advantage of a molecular sieve material, Zeolite, which traps nitrogen molecules when air is passed through it, allowing it to act as a molecular sieve. Figure 3 shows an OBOG concentrator with 2 zeolite-filled beds. The lower zeolite bed is currently producing oxygen. Conditioned engine bleed air enters the lower bed, having first been filtered to remove particulate contaminants, and is then reduced to a suitable pressure by the Pressure-Reducing Valve. As the air passes along the zeolite bed, the nitrogen molecules within it are adsorbed by the zeolite.

At the far end of the bed, a product gas that is up to 95% oxygen is produced, the balance of the gas being made up of argon. The presence of argon has been widely shown to have no physiological effect on crew/pilots.

Over time, the bed becomes saturated with nitrogen, and oxygen production is switched to another bed that has been purged of nitrogen. The upper bed in Figure 3 is in the process of having the nitrogen removed, by using part of the product gas from the lower bed to ‘purge’ the nitrogen out of the bed to then be vented overboard. Once the upper bed is clean, oxygen production will be switched to it, whilst regeneration of the now nitrogen full lower bed is carried out, and so the cyclical process continues.

Typical System Architecture
A typical system is shown in Figure 4. The OBOGS is controlled by a solid state monitor/controller that monitors the PPO2 level of the OBOGS product gas, and adjusts the cycling of the beds to produce the desired level of oxygen concentration shown in Figure 2. This process is known as concentration control and means that no air-mix, or dilution, of the product gas is required at the regulator.

The breathing gas then passes to the pilot’s breathing regulator, either a console/ panel-mounted, ejection seat-mounted or pilot-mounted device. The regulator is a demand flow regulator like those of GOX and LOX systems, differing only in the fact that they operate at lower pressures and do not air-mix. The final system element is a back-up oxygen cylinder mounted on the ejection seat to provide oxygen during pilot ejection, or in the unlikely event of an interruption in the OBOGS supply.

Benefits of OBOGS compared to GOX and LOX...
...Breathing gas purity – OBOGS regulators do not air-mix thus the pilot is not susceptible to smoke and fumes from the cockpit. Oxygen concentration is controlled inside the zeolite beds and is hence free from contamination...."
https://aerocontent.honeywell.com/aero/common/documents/myaerospacecatalog-documents/Defense_Brochures-documents/Life_Support_Systems.pdf
http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewNewAllBum/OBOGShoneywellConcentratorOperationForum.gif~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewNewAllBum/OBOGShoneywellConcentratorOperationForum.gif.html)