F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

[BEagle]

The OBOGS is controlled by a solid state monitor/controller....

:hmm:

So that'll be OK then.

All the aircraft from the JP5 onwards (except the Bulldog) which I flew had either the simple and reliable Mk17 regulator or a mini-reg - with purely manual selection of Airmix / 100%. During AMTC training, we were also taught about the risk of 'Hunter Lung' through exposure to inappropriate levels of pure O2.

But some electronic system controlling the O2 level and reliance on that Nitrogen purging system? If it doesn't work correctly, surely there's a risk of hypoxia due to the wrong partial pressure of Oxygen and too much Nitrogen? Or whatever the Latin is for Hunter Lung if it allows excessive O2 levels?

[SpazSinbad]

What is 'Hunter Lung'?

[ORAC]

Mentioned on page 25, but covered in detail from page 54 onwards.


https://www.raf.mod.uk/rafcms/mediafiles/F16D6325_5056_A318_A8DEC9BA3B8A1157.pdf

[SpazSinbad]

Thanks 'ORAC' without the definition provided on page 25 being overly detailed it appears to me (if the pure oxygen is under pressure) that 'Hunter Lung' defines previously detailed "absorption atelectasis" as experienced in POUP PoxyLOXy Pure Oxygen Under Pressure systems (more often than not at high G but at low altitude) as exemplified in the A-4 Skyhawk series of aircraft (with some later exceptions detailed perhaps elsewhere - RNZAF A-4K KAHU upgrade). Then 13 + 1 pages of 'HUNTER LUNG' goodness from aforesaid PDF attached.
"...the breathing of 100% oxygen gave rise to a high incidence of chest discomfort and coughing following exposure to +Gz accelerations in flight – a condition which became known as ‘Hunter Lung’. The Institute conducted laboratory and field studies in the early 1960s which revealed that exposure to +Gz whilst breathing 100% oxygen results in collapse of the lower parts of the lungs. Experiments demonstrated that this lung collapse could be prevented by breathing gas containing 40% nitrogen...."
https://www.raf.mod.uk/rafcms/mediafiles/F16D6325_5056_A318_A8DEC9BA3B8A1157.pdf (3Mb)

[SpazSinbad]

For Pilots Starved Of Oxygen, Cobham's Breathing Sensor Could Help 14 Jun 2017 Lara Seligman [LOTS more info at the URL]
"...Cobham’s Aircrew-Mounted Physiological Sensing System (AMPSS) is a sensor suite that monitors pilots’ inhalation and exhalation throughout a flight, according to Rob Schaeffer, company product director for environmental systems. In a nutshell, AMPSS monitors the air flow entering and leaving the pilot’s body, assessing it for changes in pressure, humidity, temperature, oxygen concentration, flow rate, carbon dioxide content—anything that might cause hypoxia-like symptoms such as lightheadedness, tingling fingers or passing out.

“So we will know what’s going in and we will know what’s coming out, and then from a physiological standpoint we then start to draw some conclusions or make some educated guesses as to what’s going on in terms of the physiology of the pilot,” Schaeffer says.

AMPSS is small and simple: it comprises an inhalation module located on the end of the pilot’s mask breathing hose, and an exhalation module connected to the mask’s exhalation port. The pilot hooks it on before he even walks out to the cockpit, Schaeffer said. Yet despite the system’s simplicity, this would be the first time the Pentagon has implemented such a system.

Cobham delivered the inhalation piece of AMPSS on June 13 to the U.S. Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine at Wright Patterson AFB, Ohio, where the Navy’s aeromedical research unit will begin initial testing on the system. The company will deliver the exhalation module by the end of August. Testing could take anywhere from a few weeks to a few months, depending on how soon the services want to begin implementation, Schaeffer said...." Cobham Breathing Sensor Could Help Solve Pilots' Oxygen Problem | Defense content from Aviation Week (http://aviationweek.com/defense/pilots-starved-oxygen-cobhams-breathing-sensor-could-help)

[SpazSinbad]

Here is something for the F-35B some five years ago now from this USAF report from 2012 on various OBOGS (when F-22 was having troubles) 2 page PDF excerpt attached.

Aircraft Oxygen Generation 01 Feb 2012 United States Air Force Scientific Advisory Board
"...The F-35B has had a single hypoxia-like incident. In that incident the pilot had spent 25 minutes breathing the exhaust (CO) of the chase aircraft sitting on the ground before takeoff....

...A.13 Finding and Recommendation
Finding: With the exception of the F-22 OBOGS, AOG systems have a proven history of safe, repeatable performance with robust back-up in BOS or Plenum systems.

Recommendation: Remain wary of a rise in the rate of unknown cause hypoxia incidents and monitor filter status for contaminants."
http://www.airforcemag.com/DocumentFile/Documents/2012/AFSAB_Oxygen_020112.pdf (4Mb)

[SpazSinbad]

F-35 Lightning II Stealth (Test Flight) Salon du Bourget Paris Air Show 2017 #PAS17 HD

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAEP46SKMeA

[glad rag]

Thanks for that video spaz, from your perspective as an aviator what did you think?

Personally [and it's difficult really to judge distances on video] it was pretty high for a considerable period of the display, used maximum output from the engine [as you would expect] and at times the manoeuvres were checked then re-entered,display didn't really flow at those points...

[SpazSinbad]

'glad rag' unlike Sweetman (at airshows) I do not claim to be an airshow maneuver expert - especially just from a video without the context of the airshow itself. Personally I have only been at ONE airshow at Richmond c.1969-70 to see a RAAF pilot mate in the DELTAS (Miracles). I have been in two RAN FAA Airshows so I never saw them from the ground or the air really. Have not been to one since 1974 so you'll have to ask elsewhere. More professional videos should give a better vantage/view point with a commentary. My guess from a single watching (bin out&about today) was that the vertical climbs must be awesome to see but the rest is compromised by zoom effect without reference. Not a bad thing. On the day there will be a high or low display according to weather and I have no idea if we saw an amalgam of the two or just one display 'high'. Flow display? Don't care - just bank 'em and yank 'em and make noise.

Remember ZOOM lenses can give a weird perspective if one is not there to judge height. An airshow has a minimum height which MUST NOT BE BROKEN whilst I believe Paris has a perimeter for display aircraft; but not sure on those points. Meanwhile people will see what they see - 'can't climb; can't run; can't turn; can't whatever'.

I'm No.2 in an Macchi MB326H (on right during three takeoff) in 1974 and in the dual Vampire in the mixed flyby in 1969 then with an instructor LDR & moi No.2 in some formation aeros later (the mighty middie). :}

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tN3NYgIYXYo

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

[SpazSinbad]

Billie Flynn LM Test Pilot is lead for display, this video more professional but hey ask Billie to wear a tutu and ballet shoes to make it 'flo mo betta'. :E He would only BUG EYE you and prolly speak Francais. :8 :} Given the explanation about my disinterest in airshows I would say from dununda that it should be all about POWER POWER POWER - Don't Go HIGH! (famous USN LSO saying in cartoon form from SNOOPY). :ouch:

Lockheed Martin’s F-35A Performs Validation Flight at Paris Air Show 2017 – AINtv Express

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFa44zqfF3k

http://www.cv41.org/photos/gallery/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=25628&g2_serialNumber=2

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

[SpazSinbad]

F-35A Hypoxia Problems Date Back to 2011, Air Force Reveals 15 Jun 2017 Oriana Pawlyk
"More than a dozen Air Force F-35 pilots experienced oxygen deprivation symptoms between 2011 and this year, the service disclosed Thursday as it investigates a steady uptick of hypoxia-related incidents at Luke Air Force Base, Arizona.

It marked the first time many of the cases had been disclosed publicly.

In a statement Thursday, Air Force spokesman Capt. Mark Graff said that since April 2, 2011, there "have been 15 reported F-35A in-flight and ground physiological events."

"Five of those events were reported by Luke Air Force Base pilots between May 2 and June 8th, 2017," Graff said in an email. "In all cases, pilots were able to safely recover the aircraft via established procedures."

Graff said that the 10 previous cases were considered isolated incidents because they were not regular occurrences at a frequent rate. However, there were far fewer F-35s -- a model designed for taking off and landing on conventional runways -- in the Air Force's inventory during that timeframe.

"Overall, physiological events occur at low rates in all Air Force aircraft," Graff said. "The Air Force reviews all physiological events to learn from them and to ensure the safety and well-being of our pilots."... F-35A Hypoxia Problems Date Back to 2011, Air Force Reveals | Military.com (http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/06/15/f35a-hypoxia-problems-date-back-2011-air-force-reveals.html)

[SpazSinbad]

2nd training flight of the F-35 /sound + 3 camera Super ZOOM of DAS Zoomie.

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

[Rhino power]

Pretty dull in the horizontal plane, but the vertical pull from 3:39 and 'falling leaf' type descent was impressive. As usual though, airshow performance doesn't tell the whole story, but from a purely dynamic and visual perspective, any of the current in service jets (F-16/18/EF2K/Rafale/Gripen etc) wipe the floor with it, the SuperBug demo of the last couple of years is particularly impressive in all aspects, even more so in the high AOA regime...

-RP

[SpazSinbad]

Long article - best read at source - with lots of detail about various PE possibilities & incidents.
Still no answer for F-35 oxygen deprivation issues, US Air Force says 16 Jun 2017 Valerie Insinna
"...“We did not find a specific cause that we could put our finger on and just fix,” Leonard said. “In many ways, it was unsatisfying, but in other ways, it was very satisfying. … We scrubbed our maintenance practices, and we had the engineers and the folks from Lockheed [Martin] looking at those, and we found nothing we were doing incorrectly on the maintenance side as well as on the aircrew flight equipment side that would cause a physiological incident”

At this point, the U.S. Air Force and JPO have not been able to rule out a larger problem with the F-35’s On-Board Oxygen Generating System, or OBOGS.

“We do think the OBOGS system is not as robust as it can be, however, according to all of our testing, it meets the minimum standard, and then if you look at the number of sorties that we’ve had in the program overall, over 86,000 of them, it’s performed well in many cases,” he said.

The F-35 [huh? how does it do that?] will make some changes to the OBOGS system, which is produced by Honeywell, although Leonard declined to describe potential modifications....

...Leonard said the overall F-35 program has documented 23 physiological events, including three involving B-model and five with the C-model. Of those 23, the program office was able to determine the causes of 13 incidents, but 10 — including the five recent episodes at Luke — have not been explained. Only the incidents at Luke were assessed by the JPO this week, but future analysis will involve expanding the data pool to include the other unsolved occurrences...." Still no answer for F-35 oxygen deprivation issues, US Air Force says (http://www.defensenews.com/articles/still-no-answer-for-f-35-oxygen-deprivation-issues-air-force-says)

[George K Lee]

RP - more like "falling brick".

Demos are clearly not combat maneuvers but a good demo is designed to point to strengths and (sometimes) obscure weaknesses.

This demo is unusual in that it is really an expression of cognitive dissonance. Because the messages that (1) the F-35 is a competitive dogfighter despite what the eeevil naysayers think, and (2) "dogfighting" and "air show maneuvers" are irrelevant, are not compatible.

But otherwise it's pretty well what any sensible person would expect from a big-engine, small-wing tactical bomber. Newton's a bitch and so is Bernoulli.

[SpazSinbad]

Meanwhile back at the OBOGOLOG Jamboree.
While F-35 Incidents Still Mysterious, Return to Flight Expected Soon 19 Jun 2017 John A. Tirpak
"...The incidents affected five different pilots and five different aircraft from different production lots, so there were no common factors, Leonard said, nor were any of the procedures in maintenance or in the life support shop found to be improper or inadequate. The only consistency, he noted, were that the incidents occurred at about the same altitude or “cabin altitude”—the air pressure inside the cockpit. The intense scrutiny partnered “experts and engineers with operators,” and while flying is set to begin again, the investigation will continue.

In the meantime, Leonard believes flying can safely resume with several restrictions and “more robust” procedures. Those include avoiding the “flight regime”—the altitude and maneuvers—associated with the five incidents, but Leonard declined to identify what those are for fear that it would preclude an open-minded approach to finding the true root cause of the problem.

Leonard said scrutiny continues of the On-Board Oxygen Generating System (OBOGS), which was involved in a similar issue with the F-22 several years ago. He allowed that it’s “a possibility” the F-35 suffers from a problem similar to Navy F/A-18s and T-45s, which also have had OBOGS issues in recent months, “but we have not been able to test that, yet.”...

...There have been 23 cases of physiological incidents with the F-35 since the first examples began flying, and 10 of those—including the five affecting Luke jets—remain unsolved, Leonard observed. Of the 23 incidents, 10 affected F-35As, three affected F-35Bs, and five involved F-35Cs. He declined to discuss the specific symptoms of the five affected Luke pilots, noting that physiological symptoms of hypoxia and other breathing-related physiological issues differ from person to person...." http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pages/2017/June%202017/While-F-35-Incidents-Still-Mysterious-Return-to-Flight-Expected-Soon.aspx

[SpazSinbad]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeqryYh_yw0

F-35 Demo Pilot: Paris Performance Will ‘Crush Years Of Misinformation' 18 Jun 2017 Lara Seligman

http://aviationweek.com/site-files/aviationweek.com/files/uploads/2017/06/18/F35%20Paris%20Ribbon%20card.png
http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewNewAllBum/F-35AhighShowParis2017forum.gif~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewNewAllBum/F-35AhighShowParis2017forum.gif.html)

[George K Lee]

But if he's performing a vertical climb on takeoff - which I have seen lots of aircraft do that are not F-22s - then he has well under 50% fuel and no weapons because Newton. So how is that a combat configuration?

Mr Flynn is also misinformed as to display configurations used by other aircraft...

http://thumbnail.fast-air.co.uk/Farnborough-2010/BAE-Systems-Typhoon-ZJ700-IPA5-photo-2-590x.jpg

[Lonewolf_50]

But if he's performing a vertical climb on takeoff - which I have seen lots of aircraft do that are not F-22s - then he has well under 50% fuel and no weapons because Newton. So how is that a combat configuration?

Mr Flynn is also misinformed as to display configurations used by other aircraft...

http://thumbnail.fast-air.co.uk/Farnborough-2010/BAE-Systems-Typhoon-ZJ700-IPA5-photo-2-590x.jpg
George, while I had a visceral "yeah!" response to the Typhoon's load out I think the F-35's gig is "well, the weapons are internal usually because of stealth" ... but your other comments on air show maneuvers are for my money spot on.

[SpazSinbad]

Oops. Forgot to add the URL for the F-35 Paris 2017 airshow maneuvers:

F-35 Demo Pilot: Paris Performance Will ?Crush Years Of Misinformation' | Paris Air Show 2017 content from Aviation Week (http://aviationweek.com/paris-air-show-2017/f-35-demo-pilot-paris-performance-will-crush-years-misinformation)
"...Flynn said. The F-35 in its current 3i configuration is limited to 7g; when the fighter gets its full war-fighting capability with the final 3F software, it will be able to pull 9gs.... Flynn had to modify the routine to accommodate airspace restrictions unique to the Paris show, he said. Flying is limited laterally and vertically because of Le Bourget’s proximity to both to the city of Paris and Charles De Gaulle Airport. Flynn is also limited by time—he only has 6 min. for the routine at Le Bourget, where at most air shows he would have 10 min...."

Earlier VALIDATION flights for Paris with aircraft various: http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/video/lockheed-martins-f-35a-performs-validation-flight-paris-air-show-2017

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewNewAllBum/F-35Aparis2017demoFORUM.gif~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewNewAllBum/F-35Aparis2017demoFORUM.gif.html)

[SpazSinbad]

Luke AFB to Resume F-35 Flights After Hypoxia Investigation 19 Jun 2017 AP
"GLENDALE, Ariz. (AP) — Luke Air Force Base will resume flights of F-35 fighter jets Wednesday after experts and engineers investigated a series of events in which pilots reported symptoms of oxygen deprivation. Officials with the 56th Fighter Wing at Luke said Monday that no specific root cause for the events was identified but specific concerns were eliminated as possible causes including maintenance and aircrew flight equipment procedures...." https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/arizona/articles/2017-06-19/luke-afb-to-resume-f-35-flights-after-hypoxia-investigation

[SpazSinbad]

Luke F-35s To Resume Flying, With Temporary Restrictions 20 Jun 2017 Lara Seligman
"...The Air Force is not even sure the incidents are actually related to hypoxia, Canterbury stressed. The could be caused by hypocapnia— excess oxygen in the blood—or other physiological events that manifest similar symptoms...." Luke F-35s To Resume Flying, With Temporary Restrictions | Paris Air Show 2017 content from Aviation Week (http://aviationweek.com/paris-air-show-2017/luke-f-35s-resume-flying-temporary-restrictions)

[SpazSinbad]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0On-GMTSWvc

[Lonewolf_50]

Spaz:
Thanks for the video link. A very informative briefing to understanding what they were doing. Comment: pedal turn? That's a helicopter thing, isn't it? :eek: :confused:

[George K Lee]

I will stand to be corrected, but in a fighter it's a rolling maneuver at high alpha. It looks like a helo pedal turn when the flightpath vector is steeply downhill and airspeed is low, so the descent rate is hard to perceive.

The Su-35S display has a somewhat similar maneuver, but with more T/W to play with and better low-speed aerodynamics, the pilot can stop the turn and fly out. It seems that the F-35 has to stop, pitch down and dive to recover speed.

[Finningley Boy]

I've seen the video and would like to see the 'B' do the same stuff, the amount of fuel needed for its STOVL performance would suggest its greater weight and greater demand for fuel for the lift fan and all are severe limiting factors. When SDSR 2010 recommended the 'C' and angled deck carriers the Government should have looked elsewhere than BAE systems and their profit margin to get carriers that would meet the requirement.

FB:)

[ORAC]

Air Force gives House classified report on restarting F-22 program (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/air-force-gives-house-classified-report-on-restarting-f-22-program/article/2626511)

[George K Lee]

Finningley - The B is about 3000 pounds heavier than the A (OEW). Most of the difference is in the lift fan, so with no weapons and a light fuel load the B's CG will be quite a bit further forward than the A's (unless the A carries most of the fuel forward at part-load, which seems unlikely). Also, as part of the weight-saving exercise on 03-04, the B was given slightly smaller H-stabilizers. So it won't fly exactly the same way.

[Just This Once...]

I've seen the video and would like to see the 'B' do the same stuff, the amount of fuel needed for its STOVL performance would suggest its greater weight and greater demand for fuel for the lift fan...

Why would STOVL have a greater demand for fuel???

I think a quick refresher on how jet engines work may be in order!

:ok:

[Lonewolf_50]

Air Force gives House classified report on restarting F-22 program (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/air-force-gives-house-classified-report-on-restarting-f-22-program/article/2626511) ORAC, I for one hope that comes to pass. But as with all things modern, pricey, so what is the opportunity cost? What does DoD not procure to get the F-22? :mad:

[SpazSinbad]

IF youse crabsters wanna pay for it a 5% boost in engine powered lift thrust for F-35B (& other things enginewise) notification.

Faster and Farther with Growth Option 1.0 19 Jun 2017 Pratt & Whitney

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvxYzi8FvqM

[Finningley Boy]

Why would STOVL have a greater demand for fuel???

I think a quick refresher on how jet engines work may be in order!

:ok:

I'll bow to anyone's greater knowledge but I'd have thought that the necessity for a lift fan engine inside very much the same size airframe and the need to supply fuel to that lift fan engine from inside the same airframe would impose some sort of limit on weight and available internal fuel? Even without the use of fuel to the lift fan for 'STOVL' performance, in addition to fuel for the normal engine, I'd have thought the lift fan is surely just along for the ride? But again, I seriously would admit to not really knowing????:confused:

FB:)

[SpazSinbad]

Perhaps there is some word salad above about the F-35B LiftFan. There is ONE F135 engine in the F-35B requiring fuel. The LiftFan is driven by a shaft from that engine. Good explanation (amongst many others on the interrabble) here:

https://www.f35.com/in-depth/detail/how-it-works-f-35b-hover

[SpazSinbad]

Some 'poxy bits' from Cobham may be helpful for F-35 'hypoxia-like' symptoms :E (me no like hypoxia). := :}

US Air Force testing new sensors that could help solve F-35 pilot hypoxia puzzle 19 Jun 2017 Sebastian Sprenger
US Air Force testing new sensors that could help solve F-35 pilot hypoxia puzzle (http://www.defensenews.com/articles/us-air-force-testing-new-sensors-that-could-help-solve-f-35-pilot-hypoxia-puzzle)

[Finningley Boy]

Despite the F135 being the only engine which actually requires fuel, what's its fuel consumption like when driving the lift fan up to 20,000lbs of thrust continuously while trying to land on the deck of the carrier?

FB:)

[SpazSinbad]

I'm not a 'stop then land' STOVL pilot so most what 'I know' is from e-mails from ex-A4G gone STOVLies, articles & comments on fora such as this one. My overall impression is that a STOVL aircraft does not require more fuel in the landing phase particularly (no overhead bolter tanker required either) because of the certainty of landing vertically when in sight of that big flat deck. The STOVL Mode 4 flight can be relatively short depending on circumstances and it is guaranteed so no extra fuel is required in the landing pattern (unlike conventional carrier ops).

Yes the STOVL Mode 4 F-35B can burn fuel quickly as it is producing power approximately equivalent to being in afterburner however remember it is for a short time. I would like to be guaranteed a landing on a flat deck given enough fuel for that evolution. There is no 'trying to land' for the F-35B there is just 'STOP then LAND'.

BTW the F-35C appears to be a '3-wire machine' so far under test getting either 2 or 3 wire out of 150 attempts (discounting deliberate test bolters). It seems the F-35C will also stop 'trying to land' and as it says on the NIKE tin 'just do it'. :}

This particular thread must have a mine of information about 'stopping then landing' both for the Hairier & now the F-35B.

[George K Lee]

FB - Just to clarify things. I'm not sure that VL uses a lot more fuel than a conventional landing since the time in "V" mode is quite short. On the other hand, the V hardware is indeed along for the ride and is quite heavy. We know that the difference between A and B OEW is ~3000 lb, but the B also doesn't have an internal gun and is 7g rather than 9g.

The V hardware, particularly the fan, occupies space that would otherwise be available for gas and weapons. Internal fuel on the B is just about two-thirds of the A and the weapon bays are smaller.

JSF.mil > F-35 > Variants (http://www.jsf.mil/f35/f35_variants.htm)

[Finningley Boy]

Thanks Spaz and George, we're left with the same conclusion though, the 'B' is the runt of the litter, I can see how it was seen as a Harrier replacement in the Battlefield support role, exactly what the USMC require it for. However, it's now regarded as the replacement for the Tornado GR4, if we're getting 138, which I'll believe when I see, I think over 50% of them should be F-35As. Because apart from the party piece the 'B' is a poor relation to the 'A' and 'C'.

FB:)

[SpazSinbad]

Then 'FB' you ignore any advantages the F-35B brings. Just today I read something... Perhaps naval aviation is new to you - especially STOVL ops as performed by USMC?
"...The F-35B is also an important platform for the United Kingdom, which is a joint strike fighter program partner nation, said Rear Adm. Keith Blount, assistant chief of naval staff for aviation, amphibious capability and carriers for the Royal Navy.

The fighter will be flown off the nation’s new aircraft carriers, the HMS Queen Elizabeth and the HMS Prince of Wales, he said. The Queen Elizabeth could be deployed [wrong word here by reporter - she goes to sea for the first time] this month, with the Prince of Wales following in 18 months.

“We believe the QE to be a true fifth-gen carrier built from the keel up to accommodate fifth-gen fighter aircraft, and we’re very proud to say that the F-35B will be the aircraft of choice,” he said.

The STOVL variant is ideal for the types of missions the nation flies, he added.

“The opportunities and potential of this airframe are almost endless. So we see ourselves right at the very forefront of jet aircraft and carrier strike capability by blending the Queen Elizabeth-class with the F-35,” he said." Marine Corps Wants F-35Bs Delivered Faster (http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2017/6/21/marine-corps-official-service-needs-f-35s-faster)

[George K Lee]

With the greatest respect to Gen Davis and other senior Marine officers, their F-35B CONOPS is a very brave proposal.

My prediction is that if and when the UK does get more than the 48 F-35s that have budgets and delivery dates today, most of them will not be Bs - simply because there's no carrier space for 138 Bs, the RAF has no intention of re-inventing its Cold War Harrier operation, and if you have a runway the B is a much inferior aircraft to the A, while also being ~50 per cent more expensive.

[airsound]

the HMS Queen Elizabeth and the HMS Prince of Wales[PEDANT HAT] I hope National Defense misquotes the Rear Admiral, who, I'm sure, would never have prefaced 'HMS' with 'the'

In case you're unfamiliar with the niceties of British English, HMS stands for Her Majesty's Ship, and it's nonsense to say 'the Her Majesty's....' But sad to say, it's all too common amongst journalists (and others) who should know better.
[/PEDANT HAT]

[Finningley Boy]

Then 'FB' you ignore any advantages the F-35B brings. Just today I read something... Perhaps naval aviation is new to you - especially STOVL ops as performed by USMC?

To be honest Spaz, that well known statement from legal history springs to mind; 'well he would say that wouldn't he'. When a very senior officer is giving a press interview on a project coming to fruition' after such a long hard road of procurement, he'd be off to the tower if he made the least ways critical observation, however, constructive.

George,

I fully agree, if the B answers Naval requirements, then why did the USN go for the much more able C? I believe the B to be as originally intended, a Harrier replacement. There is no reasonable argument for advancing B over A or C.

Ok, algebra lesson over!:ok:

FB:)

[Lyneham Lad]

BBC - A multimillion-pound contract to support the new fast jets at RAF Marham in Norfolk has been unveiled. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-40367128)

The Ministry of Defence is investing £135m in new facilities in preparation for the arrival of the F-35B Lightning II aircraft next year.
The money will pay for a new hangar to house 12 of the jets and and provide vertical landing pads.
Two existing runways and taxiways will be resurfaced.
Defence Secretary Sir Michael Fallon said: "This contract will ensure that RAF Marham has the facilities to match this world-class aircraft when it arrives next year.]The Ministry of Defence is investing £135m in new facilities in preparation for the arrival of the F-35B Lightning II aircraft next year.
The money will pay for a new hangar to house 12 of the jets and and provide vertical landing pads.
Two existing runways and taxiways will be resurfaced.
Defence Secretary Sir Michael Fallon said: "This contract will ensure that RAF Marham has the facilities to match this world-class aircraft when it arrives next year.

[Rhino power]

...if the B answers Naval requirements, then why did the USN go for the much more able C?

The B does answer naval requirements (allegedly...), just not the USN's, who still use conventional cat and trap carriers so they have no need of the B, which is why the C is tailored to their needs, the B is tailored to (at the time the design was laid down) the Royal Navy and USMC's needs, pretty simple to understand really...

-RP

[Finningley Boy]

The B does answer naval requirements (allegedly...), just not the USN's, who still use conventional cat and trap carriers so they have no need of the B, which is why the C is tailored to their needs, the B is tailored to (at the time the design was laid down) the Royal Navy and USMC's needs, pretty simple to understand really...

-RP

It's very simple to understand depending on which way you read the bungling approach to procurement. I did say, that the B meets the original requirement for not just the RN, but the RAF, as a Harrier Battlefield Support aircraft. As a medium to long range Interdictor and, frankly, anything else, it is well short of what we could have had. There is one other reason for reversing the reversal of the 2010 SDSR, apart from BAE Systems' demand for remunerative compensation to redesign the Carriers with cats and traps, and that is the curious British fixation with jumping jets. After all we designed and built them! Didn't we!?:ok::confused:

FB:)

[Engines]

FB and others,

Perhaps I can help a little here, as there seems to be a bit of confusion over how the UK got the B variant.

In the first place, the original UK requirement for a Harrier replacement was a Naval Staff Target (NST) in the 80s for a Sea Harrier replacement, later called Future carrier Borne Aircraft (FCBA). It certainly wasn't envisaged as a battlefield support aircraft. The RAF weren't remotely interested at the time as they were concentrating on Eurofighter and a long range stealthy Tornado replacement. FCBA was required to provide fleet defence, reconnaissance and strike capability from small decks (invincible class) and the driving requirement was supersonic dash to intercept incoming targets. That ruled out a Harrier type solution with a single centrally mounted engine.

In the late 80s, after the end of a long running UK/US collaborative programme, the US had continued work (in some cases via black programmes) on advanced STOVL (ASTOVL) concepts. As a number of costly tactical aircraft programmes faltered and died, the DoD (not the services) launched the JAST programme to get a better handle on what a single seat, single engined ASTOVL combat aircraft could do with future propulsion technology. That led to JSF, and some smart footwork by some excellent people gave the UK a chance to join the programme, with the aim of meeting the FCBA requirement. The UK joined as (to this date the only) Tier 1 participant, via a separate document called the 'STOVL MoU'. The whole point was that the UK could bring decades of STOVL design, manufacture and operating expertise to the JSF programme that the US lacked.

Key point - the only reason the UK is in JSF (now F-35) is because of STOVL.

The JSF programme included years of requirement development - trading off various attributes against literally hundreds of operational scenarios. The B model design is driven by one clear and simple requirement -to be launch from and recover to small decks (USN LHAs and LHDs and UK Invincible class). The penalties in performance and capability were understood from day one - that's why the B's performance and payload requirements were, from the outset, lower than for the A or the C.

In the UK, a couple of years afterwards, 'Joint' became the name of the game, and FCBA became Future Joint Combat Aircraft (FJCA). By this time (around 2000) the RAF had realised that the only affordable way to replace Tornado was to use JSF. Joint Force Harrier was to be the 'hothouse' where future STOVL combat concepts and organisations were to be developed. Unfortunately, in the 'noughties' the UK end of things became seriously unravelled. Firstly, forced retirement of the Sea Harrier (the younger half of the Joint Force) undermined any serious ideas of joint force doctrine development. Meanwhile, the MoD was unable to decide whether it wanted the new carriers to actually be STOVL ships. It had already been hard to explain to our US partners on JSF that, yes, we were in JSF to get the STOVL aircraft but, no, we might actually want the C model. Or the F/A-18. Or the Rafale. Or even, the Good Lord help us all, a navalised Typhoon. But then it got worse.

The 2010 SDSR, which has to be one go the most incompetent bits of work ever carried out by a UK Government (sorry, my opinion there) decided that the UK would, after 15 years of working on JSF to get a STOVL aircraft, switch course to cats and traps. Not that the Defence Secretary's 'experts' had actually asked the Carrier Team how much it would cost to convert the carriers before making their amazing decision. (Seriously, they hadn't been asked). Come 2012, and it was 'off the train, on the train' and back to STOVL and the F-35B. And that's where we are today. We've got an aircraft that meets the KPPs set at the outset of the programme, which the UK signed up to in detail. We will have ski jumps and are working towards SRVLs, which will allow us to wring more capability out of the B.

In one important area, I fully agree with FB and others - the A model would be a better bet for the RAF's requirements (possibly the C model if range is the driving requirement). I don't think a buy of 138 Bs is the right option for the UK - I'd go for something like 55 Bs to be operated at sea by the RN and 85 As (or Cs) for the RAF to fly from land bases. But hey, what do I know. A split fleet need not be the cost disaster some describe - the avionics (big cost driver) are common, there's commonality within the engine and the aircraft systems as well. A common training and support system could deliver both STOVL and CTOL capability.

Hope this helps guide the discussion here - but let's keep the opinions and ideas coming - that's what PPrune is about.

Best Regards as ever to all those working d**n hard to bring the Lightning II into service,

Engines

[sandiego89]

Engines, what a great summary in a few paragraphs. Really well done in getting such a complex history in a readable format.


Remind me again, was the size of the Invincible lifts/elevators a hard requirement influencing JSF dimensions?

[SpazSinbad]

Thanks for the potted history 'Engines' - one hopes the crabs get a land version of the F-35 and leave the UK naval aviation to the RN Fleet Air Arm. Meanwhile here is a non UKian view of fings.

The Influence of Ship Configuration on the Design of the Joint Strike Fighter 26-27 Feb 2002 Mr. Eric S. Ryberg
“...UK OPERATIONAL NEEDS
The UK requires a Future Joint Combat Aircraft (FJCA) that will be a stealthy, multi-role aircraft to follow on from the Sea Harrier FA1, Harrier GR7, and Harrier T10 operated by the Royal Navy (RN) and Royal Air Force (RAF). The aircraft must be capable of sustained air defensive counter air, suppression of enemy air defenses, combat search and rescue, reconnaissance, and anti-surface warfare missions. While the STOVL JSF is to be evaluated for basic compatibility with INVINCIBLE-class (CVS) carriers, it is unlikely that the aircraft will ever be deployed aboard CVS for any extended periods. Instead, the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) has initiated development of a future aircraft carrier (CVF) scheduled to enter service at or about the same time as its JSF. The CVF program is currently in its concept development phase, and the ship will be designed for compatibility with the shipboard JSF variant, CV or STOVL, that will be procured for use by the UK's joint air forces. The UK's selection of JSF variant is scheduled to occur during the first half of 2002....”

“...Unlike the CV variant, the JSF STOVL variant did not have a spot factor requirement levied upon it. Instead, the ORD specified a spotting requirement in operational terms. The USMC operators required that it be possible to park a total of six STOVL variants aft of the island on an LHA or LHD, such that none fouls the landing area and that any one of them can be moved without first moving any other. This requirement constrains the STOVL variant's wingspan to be no more than 35 ft....” http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA399988 (PDF 1Mb)

[ORAC]

The idea of the entire force having the F-35B is that it allows a surge capability to be able to fully man both carriers whilst still allowing training at home and roulement to take place. The aircraft and landing systems on the carriers supposedly allow currency to be maintained.

Accepting that the F-35A may be more closely matched to the RAF role, the ability to surge the aircraft to sea would be lost. It may never be needed and the aircraft may spend the vast majority of their life in theatres such as Afghanistan, but the capability will be there.

The balance between flexibility and performance would seem to be tending towards flexibility.

[Lonewolf_50]

Engines, grateful for that insightful and concise summary. Learn something new each day. Thank you, sir!

[George K Lee]

Engines has most of the history right. However, the weight problems of 2003-04 - to wit, LockMart bid an airplane they didn't have a clue how to build - leave a B that is much less capable versus the A than had been predicted.

[SpazSinbad]

So peeps with the A have it right? RIGHTO. FookinA! :} Meanwhile back at 25,000 feet....

Air Force F-35 oxygen problems happened above 25,000 feet 21 Jun 2017 Travis J. Tritten
"..."All five of the incidents that we had in the F-35 all occurred above 25,000 feet and so what we think is going on is that the metering system at a higher altitude may not be metering the oxygen at the level that is absolutely required," Goldfein said. "That is what the engineers are looking at." He said the Air Force is working with F-35 maker Lockheed Martin and is confident an engineering fix will be found...." Air Force F-35 oxygen problems happened above 25,000 feet (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/jim-mattis-orders-study-of-all-tactical-aircraft-after-oxygen-problems/article/2626663)
USMC Temporarily Halts F-35 Flights as USAF Limits Luke Operations 23 Jun 2017 Brian Everstine
"...In addition, Air Combat Command has mandated that all pilots report hypoxia-like incidents through operational channels, as opposed to medical reports. This allows the information to be shared "across the enterprise," [ Air Force spokesman Col. Patrick] Ryder said...." http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pages/2017/June%202017/USMC-Temporarily-Halts-F-35-Flights-as-USAF-Limits-Luke-Operations.aspx
NOT ONLY BUT ALSO:
Marine F-35s grounded due to software concerns 22 Jun 2017 Aaron Mehta
"WASHINGTON – F-35B joint strike fighters based at Yuma Air Station in Arizona have been temporarily grounded due to issues with a key support system. The issue centers on the stealth jet's Autonomic Logistics Information System, or ALIS, The software behind ALIS is woven through the F-35, and plays a vital role in everything from planning missions to maintenance. In April, ALIS 2.0.2 was installed on F-35A models and Navy F-35C models, but was delayed in getting out to the F-35B jump-jet variants.

"Maj. Gen. Mark Wise, commanding general of 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing, made the decision to temporarily suspend VMFA-211 flight operations pending fixes to a recent ALIS software upgrade within version 2.0.2 that has presented some anomalies," Maj. Kurt Stahl, director of public affairs with the 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing, wrote in a statement. "There is nothing wrong with the performance or safety of the aircraft itself, but it is imperative that we ensure the ground-based ALIS system is working properly before flight operations continue...." http://www.defensenews.com/articles/marine-f-35s-grounded-due-to-software-concerns

[Finningley Boy]

The idea of the entire force having the F-35B is that it allows a surge capability to be able to fully man both carriers whilst still allowing training at home and roulement to take place. The aircraft and landing systems on the carriers supposedly allow currency to be maintained.

Accepting that the F-35A may be more closely matched to the RAF role, the ability to surge the aircraft to sea would be lost. It may never be needed and the aircraft may spend the vast majority of their life in theatres such as Afghanistan, but the capability will be there.

The balance between flexibility and performance would seem to be tending towards flexibility.

I don't think we're used to aircraft being lined up for the distant possibility of in depth protracted capability and why just the Carriers? What about other areas? If the surge is required for overland, say Central Europe, it would be a really raw deal for the RAF to be saddled with F-35Bs and not As and or Cs. Again, the B carries 14,000lbs of internal fuel, the A 18,000lbs, the space occupied by the lift fan and its drive shaft are a liability once airborne and not trying to land. The aircraft is 3,000lbs heavier, doubtless as a result of the additional metal denying room for more fuel and ordnance, some of that reduced fuel load has to support the drive of the lift fan when landing, more fuel denied for operational performance out of the already substantially reduced amount. If there isn't a significant penalty affecting the B's performance when all is considered then I'll accept that the B's cockpit canopy is an improved design over A and C as well!:hmm:

FB:)

[ORAC]

I don't think we're used to aircraft being lined up for the distant possibility of in depth protracted capability and why just the Carriers? What about other areas? Buying the F-35B does not preclude deploying to other areas; buying the F-35A/C precludes deploying on board the carriers. During the Falklands war the capability of the RAF GR3s to deploy on board the carriers proved vital.

I am no great fan of the F-35B, but I don't consider the reduced fuel load a critical deciding factor, and it doesn't require the additional holding and diversion fuel of the other marks. The reduced internal weapons load is an issue - but will be often operate in a theatre where external weapons can't be carried and AAR is not available?

[SpazSinbad]

Another explanation of PAS 2017 F-35A airshow maneuvers: 23 Jun 2017

F-35 Unleashed: Paris Flight Demo Displays Warfighting Potential | Defense content from Aviation Week (http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-unleashed-paris-flight-demo-displays-warfighting-potential)

[Engines]

FB and Others,

Thanks for the supportive comments. I'm probably pushing my luck, but I'll try to provide some information that might be useful.

Wingspan constraints - Spaz is right on the money with his quote from Eric Ryberg - the F-35B wing span was effectively constrained by a USMC requirement to park 6 jets aft of the LHA's island. There were some early ideas around getting the aircraft down UK CVS lifts (including unpowered 'drop down' wing tips) but these were all canned when the UK made it clear that the aircraft wouldn't be operated from CVS. The Uk's remaining requirements affecting ship ops were around the ski jump capability.

I think it's slightly harsh to say that LM 'didn't have a clue' how to build the aircraft. But LM did get their initial weight estimates badly wrong. I think the main reason was that their 'parametric weight estimation tools', which were based on building aircraft like the F-16, did not reflect the challenges of building an airframe with lots of big holes in it, like weapons bays and lift fan compartments. You can't pass load through thin air, so the structure has to go around the holes.

LM were told it was going to be very hard to build a STOVL aircraft within the weight budget, BAe's team at Farnborough (many ex Kingston) were flagging this as a major risk. Sadly, LM ignored them, and also ignored the NavAir weight estimation team, who were equipped with very good tools. It's also important to appreciate that all three variants had a weight issue. The B's was worst, as VL leaves just thrust and weight, but the A and the C were also very badly affected, especially their overall performance.

FB, as I've said, I agree that 138 B models doesn't appear to reflect the shipboard task. Surging to fully equip two carriers (say 24 apiece) should require no more than, say, 60 jets. That would leave 78 As for land based tasks. As I said in my last post, these are just guesses, the clever people in the staffs have got to square the circle.

What the UK can't have is a repeat of the bunfights that blighted Joint Force Harrier, with two services fighting (eventually to the death for both of them) over what they wanted their STOVL aircraft to do.

Alert - Engines opinion coming. It's my honest belief that the RAF are a highly professional, well trained and well equipped land based air force. However, they have never, so far, demonstrated any real commitment to the idea of maritime based air power. This, I suppose, is their big chance. Me, I'd give the RAF the aircraft they need and the Navy the aircraft they need, with common procurement, support, logistics and training systems.

But hey, I'm just a retired engineer.

Best regards as ever to all those managing the weight issues,

Engines

[George K Lee]

ORAC - "But will we often operate in a theatre where external weapons can't be carried?"

Errm - in that case, why buy F-35 in the first place? Particularly after it became clear (2003 or earlier) that the JSF-carrier was going to be Forrestal-sized and quite large enough for cats and traps?

Engines - Is it not also the case that the original overall length was constrained by the Invincible elevator? Or is there another reason why the jet is nine feet shorter than a Shornet?

[Frostchamber]

In considering the idea of split purchase it needs to be remembered that the commitment to 138 airframes is "over the life of the programme" - a typically Sir Humphrey qualification that it's all too easy to overlook. I have heard it suggested that the ambition is for an F35 fleet eventually comprising four squadrons.

If true (and I don't know if it is) I'm guessing that would imply a total uptake of around 90 airframes (long term attrition etc). Which magically leaves 48 left over - which, depending on just how long the programme runs, would allow for a final batch of very late model Bs to replace the early airframes and equip the carriers in their later lives.

Were that to happen, the question becomes how small a fleet is viable. Two sqns each if As and Bs sounds a bit meagre - would it be tenable?
The surge question is also important. "Surge" seems to have been adjusted down to 24 (presumably enough for many scenarios) and my guess is that the RAF brass will be briefing that the availability of two carriers means one available at all times and nothing more, thank you very much. But loss of the flexibility to go beyond 24 in extremis sounds to me like a fairly major disadvantage and a lost opportunity to exploit the carriers to the full.

The alternative is that my interpretation is wrong (wouldn't be the first time) and there is no need for a replacement batch in later years. If that allowed more than four sqns concurrently then a split purchase might be more viable.

[Engines]

George,

Thanks for coming back - perhaps I can help again here.

No, overall length was not constrained by CVS lifts. I can tell you for certain that the ORD did not require the aircraft to go down the CVS elevator.

The main thing constraining overall size was the requirement to build a STOVL single engined single seat aircraft. This, as I've posted before, was a quite deliberate move by the DoD to attempt to keep overall size and cost down. They'd seen three major tactical aircraft programmes fail as twin engined designs got bigger and bigger and more expensive. JSF was mandated to be single engined single seat.

The jet is nine feet shorter than an SH mainly because it's single engined, needs to do a VL, and can't carry another nine feet of fuselage around.

George, The QEC is big, but it's not Forrestal sized. Only two cats maximum, and no simultaneous launch and recovery. But it could take a C. The problem is that the UK:

a. Left the decision way too late
b. (In my view) can't afford the other costs of running cat and trap (machinery, training, currency, personnel)

Frost - estimating fleet sizes is an absolutely arcane black art that I was slightly involved in, and came away convinced that any numbers bid for are linked more to politics and budgets rather than a true military need. My opinion only - if you've gone to the trouble of putting a carrier group to sea with a QEC size ship, somewhere between 18 and 24 jets embarked would represent an effective capability. But it all depends on conops and such forth. Me engineer, no understand.

Best regards as ever to those sorting out the ops side of things,

Engines

[SpazSinbad]

'GKL' asked 'Engines': "...Engines - Is it not also the case that the original overall length was constrained by the Invincible elevator? Or is there another reason why the jet is nine feet shorter than a Shornet?"

Reading the RYBERG PDF it is made clear that CVS dimensions had little to do with ship compatibility for the F-35 (long passage about 'old ships going to be out of date' can be excerpted). Anyhoo graphics below show dimensions & wotnots. I see 'Engines' has answered whilst this info was being gathered.
References for the graphics below:

Carrier Variant Comparison (USN)
http://www.amdo.org/JSF_Program_and_33_FW_Updates.pdf
&
Welcome - Naval Postgraduate School (http://www.nps.edu/Academics/Institutes/Meyer/docs/Joint%20strike%20fighter.pdf)
&
F-35 Lightning II Program Status and Fast Facts 12 May 2017
https://a855196877272cb14560-2a4fa819a63ddcc0c289f9457bc3ebab.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/13567/f-35_fast_facts_may_2017_.pdf

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewNewAllBum/F-35fastFactsMay2017forum.gif~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewNewAllBum/F-35fastFactsMay2017forum.gif.html)

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewNewAllBum/F-35%20F-18s%20Carrier%20Variant%20Comparison%20USNforum.gif~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewNewAllBum/F-35%20F-18s%20Carrier%20Variant%20Comparison%20USNforum.gif.html)

[George K Lee]

I can tell you for certain that the ORD did not require the aircraft to go down the CVS elevator.

I believe that. However, by the time the JORD - which was the only ORD, previous versions having been interim - was blessed and issued in 2000, the program was inextricably committed to one of two basic designs that dated to 1995-96, when the expectation was that the JSF would serve on the CVS.

[Engines]

George,

I think it would be helpful if I replied again here.

Yes, my terminology fail - the 'ORD' I referred to was the JORD. When the programme was awarded to LM, this document became the 'JSF Air System Requirement Document'.

And yes, the overall design of what became the F-35 was certainly based on the LM X-35. But....the X-35 was a concept demonstrator, no more and no less. It set the basic layout of the aircraft, with an aft mounted engine, forward mounted lift fan, internal weapons bays and so forth. The F-35 was, in detail, a clean sheet design using a similar layout, and it went through a large number of iterations that adjusted every single dimension on the aircraft.

Let me say again - the overall length of the F-35 was not driven by the UK's CVS design. It came out of the need to achieve a very tough VLBB requirement, which was a KPP - couldn't be traded away. That meant an aircraft that was as light as possible. That meant an aircraft that was as compact in overall dimensions as possible - a bit like the way the Harrier was developed. By 2000, a longer aircraft could certainly have been developed, which would have helped a lot with internal fuel stowage - but it would have breached the VLBB KPP.

Hope this helps

Best regards as ever to all those who actually have to do the designing stuff,

Engines

[George K Lee]

Mr Engines - I don't want to continue this forever, but as it happens I too have been closely associated with this project for a long time. You're correct in saying that the requirement did not make the JORD, but by the time it was eliminated, there was no realistic way that the shape of either contender was going to change very much. Note that the Invincible elevator is 55 feet in length.

Mr. Hancock (http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/people/mr-mike-hancock) To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what modifications will be required to the dimensions of the Joint Strike Fighter to permit it to be operated from Invincible class aircraft carriers.

Mr. Spellar (http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/people/mr-john-spellar) The operational requirements document for the Joint Strike Fighter incorporates Royal Navy requirements, which are very similar to those of the US Marines. Royal Navy requirements include the ability for the Short-Take Off, Vertical Landing variant to operate from the Invincible class aircraft carriers without modification to the aircraft.

Joint Strike Fighter (Hansard, 10 February 1998) (http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answers/1998/feb/10/joint-strike-fighter)

(By the way, thanks for providing the incentive to go and hunt down a primary source.)

[Engines]

George,

Okay, I'm done too, thanks. Discussion's always good.

Best regards as ever to all those actually doing the hard yards,

Engines

[Not_a_boffin]

Back in 98, that "requirement" was about to be removed when the various CVS SLEP, CVS/JSF studies ongoing as required to support the CVF submissions exposed the impact on cost of trying to operate the 8 or so JSF you could fit on a CVS.


Note the use of JSF, two years before JORD frozen and three before downselect of X35 vice X32.

[SpazSinbad]

The crab drumbeat begins or continues or is just plane boring....

RAF set to scale back on supersonic F-35Bs jets for Royal Navy aircraft carriers 24 Jun 2017 Deborah Haynes

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/raf-set-to-scale-back-on-supersonic-f-35bs-jets-for-royal-navy-aircraft-carriers-5wm0nzfmx

[SpazSinbad]

Probably not the B model eh. Too fast for that one. Sigh. :}

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuOyTcki5RQ

[MSOCS]

Well it seems Low Observable is back under a different handle.

Welcome back Mr S. how's the NG job going?

[George K Lee]

You're barking up the wrong tree again, Mr Gas Generating Device, but I'm sure this forum would function better if everyone acknowledged their identities. As for me, I am...

Wait, I'm being un-Britishly rude!

You go first, old bean!

[MSOCS]

Oh my apologies, perhaps it was a leap too far. You're George K Lee!!!!! The one and only.

By the way, it isn't a "gas generating device" anyway. Rather, it removes unwanted, useless "gas" to leave a more useful substance.

[George K Lee]

Except when it doesn't, and instead causes the loss of higher cognitive functions.

[BEagle]

RAF set to scale back on supersonic F-35Bs jets for Royal Navy aircraft carriers...

That won't impress a certain septuagenarian ex-801 NAS SHAR pilot very much!

[Finningley Boy]

Spazsinbad,

Surely 48 to 60 F-35Bs would be enough to meet any deployment on either of the Carriers! I expected there was at least an outside chance that this would probably happen. Given the F-35 is also to replace the Tornado it surely isn't limiting the Royal Navy's ability to deploy the two carriers simultaneously if not all 138 aircraft are Bs!? It would make sense for the RN to get up of 60 Bs while 78+ As went to the RAF. Not making allowance for test, Evaluation and OCU aircraft and any attrition spares of course.


Beagle,

I did read that Sharkey is no fan of the F-35B either and thought the C was the best option, but any suggestion of limitation on the Navy, in terms of air power, to the benefit of the Light Blue will probably see Cdr Ward turn a darker shade than normal.

FB:)

[SpazSinbad]

'FB' seein' as how you asked me directly I must say it is all double dutch to me because I really have no interest in ukcrab aviation - just NavAv and I'm dununder to boot. However a person steered me to this '********' "b l o g s p o t' so that needs to be added to URL - this opinion may be useful to you - dunno:

F-35 split buy idea is nonsense: http://ukarmedforcescommentary.********.com.au/2017/06/f-35-split-buy-idea-is-nonsense.html 25 Jun 2017 OR https://tinyurl.com/y7ce4yh8

And yes 'sharkey' has blagged the F-35B compared to the F-35C but that is 'water under the bridge' because there ain't no Cs for CVFs or Naval Air Service - endof.

[Finningley Boy]

'FB' seein' as how you asked me directly I must say it is all double dutch to me because I really have no interest in ukcrab aviation - just NavAv and I'm dununder to boot. However a person steered me to this '********' "b l o g s p o t' so that needs to be added to URL - this opinion may be useful to you - dunno:

F-35 split buy idea is nonsense: http://ukarmedforcescommentary.********.com.au/2017/06/f-35-split-buy-idea-is-nonsense.html 25 Jun 2017 OR https://tinyurl.com/y7ce4yh8

And yes 'sharkey' has blagged the F-35B compared to the F-35C but that is 'water under the bridge' because there ain't no Cs for CVFs or Naval Air Service - endof.


This particular topic certainly has the proverbial wild follicle disappearing up some exhausts!:ok:

FB:)

[Finningley Boy]

'FB' seein' as how you asked me directly I must say it is all double dutch to me because I really have no interest in ukcrab aviation - just NavAv and I'm dununder to boot. However a person steered me to this '********' "b l o g s p o t' so that needs to be added to URL - this opinion may be useful to you - dunno:

F-35 split buy idea is nonsense: http://ukarmedforcescommentary.********.com.au/2017/06/f-35-split-buy-idea-is-nonsense.html 25 Jun 2017 OR https://tinyurl.com/y7ce4yh8

And yes 'sharkey' has blagged the F-35B compared to the F-35C but that is 'water under the bridge' because there ain't no Cs for CVFs or Naval Air Service - endof.

By the way, who wrote the editorial in the link? Are you seriously claiming that all 138 aircraft would need to be committed to the Carriers in order to ensure that at least one could put to sea with a full compliment! This sounds most inefficient.

FB:)

[ORAC]

Speaking numbers, if one recalls GW1 each GR1 MOB of 3 Sqns supported 1 deployed Sqn. Why? Firstly the modification of "fleets within fleets" to supply jets to the same standard - and with enough airframe hours before their next major service which couldn't be done deployed. Second there was the need to deploy enough CR pilots for 24 hour operations, i.e. 3 or pilots per airframe instead of 1 to 1, whilst leaving a cadre at home to continue training and assessing the LCR crews as they worked up. Thirdly of course the need fo roulement and replacement for combat losses. Lastly the engineers and other essential support forces. We had got too used to the idea of the 3 day war where everyone was expected to work 247 before the nukes dropped and sustainability wasn't an issue. Then add an OCU of Sqn strength and an OEU.

Assuming the above even a single deployed carrier with 2 Sqns implies 2 MOB, say MR and LM each with 3 Sqns plus an OCU, 7 x 12, then add 30% for maintenance and attrition during fleet life, and you reach a requirement for 100-110 airframes. And that is before you even start to envisage the need to surge man the second carrier.

I really don't see how anyone envisages splitting the buy to include non-carrier capable airframes. And that's before the surviving Harrier Mafia VSOs weigh in on the advantages of STOVL for land operations in an era where everyone has UAVs and PCMs.

[SpazSinbad]

Scrolling down the page on the right hand side is a link:

https://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582

[Finningley Boy]

ORAC,

Shall we say this, during 'GW1' the RAF had the luxury of putting together an expeditionary force of 40 or so Tornado GR1s from 11 frontline squadrons, two OCUs and a Test and Evaluation unit. That doesn't mean that today with a force of only about 80 available airframes they couldn't do the same. They would be pushed but then again it is always a numbers game. If we were getting 238 F-35s, I'm absolutely certain we'd have people making the case for them all to be F-35Bs just the same. Cast your mind back to the 1970s and HMS Ark Royal, tell me, how many F-4Ks and Buccaneers did the Navy have available for any full scale deployment? Please don't point out that the RAF would have rendered their assets to make good the numbers. While some RAF Phantom and Buccaneer crews were carrier trained, they were few and far between and the bulk of the latter's aircraft were declared to SACEUR meaning operating from European Bases. I don't think the RN and the RAF had anywhere near 138 Buccaneers between them, the RAF had a few more Phantoms but I'm not certain the F-4Ms were carrier capable I certainly don't think the Germany based crews practiced carrier operations at all.

FB:)

[ORAC]

While some RAF Phantom and Buccaneer crews were carrier trained, they were few and far between and the bulk of the latter's aircraft were declared to SACEUR meaning operating from European Bases. Whilst not debating your point, upon the declaration of a certain RA measure various RAF assets, including 43 Sqn, were transferred from SACEUR to SACLANT. Land based yes, but for maritime operations/defence.

I spent too many hours of my life transmitting aircraft out to the "gate" and transferring them to the MM - and then having them engaged by the force they were on their way to defend. And the number of fighters and tankers required to support a single maritime CAP over the fleet from a land base is really mind boggling.....

[Finningley Boy]

ORAC,

Admittedly so, yes I'm aware that 43 Sqn were assigned to SACLANT, I believe 12 Sqn's Buccaneers as well (not to sure about the Lightnings of 23? or 111 when they arrived at Leuchars) but they still remained land based, as you say, the pool of aircraft which the FAA had was very much limited. My whole point from the outset is that the carriers wouldn't, I'd have thought, be dependent on any more than about 50 to 60 airframes which would surely provide a sufficient number to place at least one on a full scale war footing, if there was a need to deploy both in such circumstances anytime in the future then I'd say the international climate would need to deteriorate dramatically. Also, the 138 airframes are required to suit now, two distinct service requirements; the carrier expeditionary role and the land based rapid deployment. The latter is not cancelled out by the former, no matter what people like Lewis Page etc think. That said, I'm absolutely certain that a sufficient number of F-35As would provide the RAF units with a superior aircraft. There are occasions when land bases are available which better place aircraft than the carrier.

FB:)

[ORAC]

And their associated tankers of course. Modifying the Voyagers would be tricky expensive in terms of the contract and their peacetime airline leases.

[Finningley Boy]

Indeed ORAC, politicians from all parties who have been in Government since 1979 have had an unhealthy craving for civilianizing the Armed Forces. I But are you saying the Voyager is unsuitable for Tanking operations anywhere outside of the European Theatre?

FB:)

[Lyneham Lad]

This is all diverting rather further away from the topic of F-35 than usual!

[ORAC]

I am saying the F-35A needs a boom tanker, and none of the Voyagers is fitted with one. Modifying the contract would be very expensive as, even if the contractor agreed, those fitted could not be leased out for civilian use and the contractor would have to be compensated for the financial loss incurred.

[Finningley Boy]

And the F-35B?:confused:

Sorry Lyneham Lad but we are roughly on topic still.:ok:

FB:)

[PhilipG]

With the present UK infrastructure, there may well be an argument for a mixed buy of F35Bs and F35Cs.

Both versions use probe refuelling and are managed by the US Navy.

Personally I think a one type only order of F35Bs would be best however..

[2805662]

I am saying the F-35A needs a boom tanker, and none of the Voyagers is fitted with one.

Wasn't part of the Canadian-funded modifications to their proposed F-35A fleet going to be fitment of the extendable probe?

[ORAC]

They haven't ordered any, the same issue was raised and the only definitive response was that if it was asked for then Canada would have to meet the entire hardware and software design and trials cost as no one else had asked for it.

Frankly, I would imagine the mind boggling high Voyager contract changes would end up cheaper......

[George K Lee]

It would be illuminating to get quotes from Saab, IAI and LM for the non-recurring engineering cost of a boom on an F-35. Pity that you can't.

[Engines]

Perhaps I can add to the discussion here on the possibility of an A/B mix:

I've posted previously about this idea, and the numbers all depend on operational and fleet planning assumptions.

Operational assumptions should be fairly simple - what is the Force Elements At Readiness (FEAR) (the old terminology I admit) requirement? Can be succinctly set out as x number of aircraft capable of y set of roles, at z days/ weeks/ months of readiness. I suppose you could add capable of ops over a set number of days.

Back in the days when I was managing the Sea Harrier fleet, our Flag Officer always published updated FEAR requirements every 6 months, with any short term adjustments required for mod programmes or so forth. The key element for us was to have two front line squadrons of 8 jets at R2 (48 hours) to embark on a carrier for 6 months of ops. We expected one squadron to always be at sea, with the other at sea for around 40% of the year.

The training/OCU unit was at at longer period of notice for embarkation., around a month.

Looking at the F-35 fleet, my very rough estimate would be that from approximately 140 aircraft, around 70 F-35Bs would be required to produce 4 front line squadrons of about 12 plus an OCU of around 10. That would leave 12 aircraft in the sustainment fleet, about 17% of the total, which should be plenty. I would be aiming for two squadrons embarked at sea at any one time (24 jets) with the other 24 at around a month's notice.

Key point - the embarked jets aren't 'deployed' - they are operating from their main base. A large carrier like the QE class is built to support those jets and their personnel for long periods, providing very nearly the same support as available on a UK land base. In some ways, it's better - you get more work out of your embarked personnel than you do ashore. The difference between planning for 'embarked time' and 'deployments' is significant.

Similar sums might apply to an F-35A/C fleet, in my view. Historically, the UK military has been satisfied with very low levels of operational availability. In many cases, this has been due to mismanagement of the aircraft fleets, where successive mod and update programmes have been allowed to dilute the fleet to the point where only a small fraction of the fleet have actually been capable of operational use.

In other cases, the in service authorities have adopted servicing regimes that guarantee having a large number of aircraft being taken to bits all the time. A certain well known UK military helicopter has a contractor run support system that frequently advertises its many successes - I'm not surprised, as at any one time 25% of the fleet are being serviced. Christ on a bike, I could have kept a fleet of JCBs in the air if I'd had one quarter of the fleet guaranteed as a servicing 'float'.

As far as an F-35A/C choice goes, I'd suggest that the determinants could be range and AAR method. If the RAF really wants a long range bomber, the F-35C would seem to be the best choice - but it would be a fairly expensive option compared with the A. Then there's the problem of the F-35A's AAR receptacle. A study was done to look at making the probe and drogue standard fit across the F-35 fleet, and a think a RAND study found that there would be advantages in making the USAF restrict the boom system to the large aircraft it was optimised for.

Certainly, on the F-35A, the AAR boom receptacle takes up a lot of fuel tank volume (about 600 pounds as I remember) and adds a lot of weight, as the receptacle has to fairly stout to resist boom loads - it ends up being mainly steel. Again relying on memory, but I think going from boom receptacle to probe on the A was calculated to add around 50 miles to the combat radius.

As ever, it will be down to the clever folk up in town dealing with the Treasury.

Best regards as ever to those doing the long term costings, or whatever they are called now....

Engines

[2805662]

It would be illuminating to get quotes from Saab, IAI and LM for the non-recurring engineering cost of a boom on an F-35. Pity that you can't.
Should be a simple (!) matter of taking the B/C common probe (I'm assuming you meant probe, not boom) and grafting into the existing A model's space claim.

[PeterGee]

Spazsinbad,

Surely 48 to 60 F-35Bs would be enough to meet any deployment on either of the Carriers! I expected there was at least an outside chance that this would probably happen. Given the F-35 is also to replace the Tornado it surely isn't limiting the Royal Navy's ability to deploy the two carriers simultaneously if not all 138 aircraft are Bs!? It would make sense for the RN to get up of 60 Bs while 78+ As went to the RAF. Not making allowance for test, Evaluation and OCU aircraft and any attrition spares of course.


Beagle,

I did read that Sharkey is no fan of the F-35B either and thought the C was the best option, but any suggestion of limitation on the Navy, in terms of air power, to the benefit of the Light Blue will probably see Cdr Ward turn a darker shade than normal.

FB:)

I think a FE@R of 48 F35B aligned to carrier ops would be great. So how many B's would we need for that? I think that is the the issue. If you split the buy, we will have 2 squadrons on As and 2 of Bs. Now if we do need to surge the carrier force, I assume we would struggle. So is the extra performance really worth the constraint? (Wasn't the size of fleets the justification for canning SHAR and the Harrier?)

[ORAC]

2805662,

The issue is the cost. Whilst fitting it might be possible, the cost of all the flight trials required - the A being a substantially different aerodynamic shape to the B or C plus any required software changes would not be cheap. Nor, I have no doubt, would LM's price for the design, regardless of the work they claim to have already undertaken. And as I said previously, the UK would be stuck with the entire costs.

Reference the discussion on the weight saving and additional fuel gained in removing the USRRSI would be practical as presumably during weight saving it designed to take structural loads and would have to be replaced within something as strong rather than a fuel tank, and having both might be advantageous.

Weren't a couple of Mks of the A-7 dual capable?

https://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/06/19/lockheeds-comprehensive-qa-on-the-f-35/

Q: There was another component kerfuffle about a variant of this airplane: Canada had a little political dustup awhile back because its aerial refueling tankers use the probe-and-drogue system for its CF-18 Hornets. In that setup, the tanker trails a basket and fighter extends its own probe to refuel. But Canada plans to buy F-35As, which were designed for the U.S. Air Force’s refueling system, in which a human operator aboard the tanker flies a boom into a port on the fighter – in this case, on the A’s spine, aft of the cockpit. So has Lockheed talked with Canada about buying Navy-model Cs, to keep the probe-and-drogue setup, or modifying its As?

A: O’Bryan: “We anticipated a number of the operators would want probe-and-drogue refueling in the F-35A and we kept that space empty on the F-35A to accommodate probe and drogue refueling. We‘ve done a number of studies – funded studies, not projects – funded studies to evaluate that, paid for by the countries who want that to happen. It’s a relatively easy … doable change.”

[2805662]

ORAC,

All makes sense - especially the bit about the country that wants the probe paying for it.

Considering that the A is the cheapest model - to both acquire and operate - any cost delta between the A and the B could (presumably) comfortably cover the NRE for the probe for the A. The UK could even make money on the deal by negotiating a royalty into the CCP/ECP that any other country opting for the fitment of the probe, similar to that negotiated by Australia with the Hellfire missile integration on the Tiger helicopter.

My response was more aimed at the snark (not yours) to the effect that "only LM could do the NRE" as if it was somehow unreasonable that the OEM execute - and bill for - NRE on its airframe.

[Just This Once...]

O'Bryan could have equally said is "...all it would take is designing, manufacturing and qualifying a probe, together with the structural changes to the aircraft, writing and qualifying the new software and repeating all the nessasary clearance trials done to date."

It would be just as accurate but would give a better impression of the task. We live in an F-35 world where the small opening to allow the gun to fire can upset the aircraft enough for the gun to miss and the gun installation was part of the A design from the beginning. Slapping on a probe and going for it is probably not a viable option.

[ORAC]

In the same vein I was recalling the issues of taking the gun out of the RAF Eurofighter and having to replace it with a lump of metal the same size because of the FBW stability issues. I would imagine putting a probe in would have the problems.

[Engines]

ORAC,

Perhaps I can help a bit here.

You're absolutely right that any change now to the A is going to cost. How much depends on a number of things that none of us are fully sighted on:

1. Your point about structure - removal of the boom receptacle would change a number of structural parts on the upper surface - but the new configuration would be very close to the B model, so it's not all new stuff. Possibly.

2. Software - main change would be to the fuel system management software, moving fuel around the tanks and handling the refuelling flows. Again, moving closer to the B model system.

3. Fuel system hardware would also need changing to add the probe lines and remove the many changes that were required to the system to accept boom refuel rates. Once again, moving closer to the B layout.

4. The least hard part of the job should be installation of the probe itself. The aerodynamic shape of the fuselage forward of the probe is the same for all three variants, as is the location of the cockpit canopy arch. If the space is truly vacant on the A, probe installation should not be a major challenge.

Taking the gun off the Typhoon was a major challenge (I was told) due to the high weight of the gun system and the particular way the aircraft's flight control system works. Your point about the F-35A is well made, although the weight involved is less, and the flight control system is different, and I would expect some software changes to be required.

Best regards as ever to those working the options,

Engines

[SpazSinbad]

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

[ORAC]

Breaking News: The F-35 Is Still An Expensive Mess (http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/breaking-news-the-f-35-is-still-an-expensive-mess-1796484914)

[George K Lee]

We live in an F-35 world where the small opening to allow the gun to fire can upset the aircraft enough for the gun to miss and the gun installation was part of the A design from the beginning.

Aaargh, Sorry, but that fits firmly in the That's Why You Have Wind Tunnels And CFD bracket. So let me take a wild guess and suggest that the problem was obvious from day one, or at least from the point where the big 5-barrel 25-mm was substituted for the ATK-Rheinmetall 27, but some smartar*e waved it away by a PowerPoint concluding "addressable via flight control software", and a more senior schedule-driven person (preoccupied no doubt by the jet's unexpected acquisition of 3000 pounds of ugly surplus fat) declared said PPT to be the truth.

Not that it matters too much, as a gun on a stealthy bomber is about as relevant as pikes and boarding ladders on a submarine.

[Rhino power]

Not that it matters too much, as a gun on a stealthy bomber is about as relevant as pikes and boarding ladders on a submarine.

Which completely ignores the fact the that the F-35 won't always have to operate in 'stealthy bomber' mode, and that the gun could also be considered a cheaper option than a multi thousand $/£/¥/€ missile/PGM for soft target plinking, not to mention it being a weapon of last resort when you're all out of the previously mentioned exploding luxuries...

-RP

[IcePaq]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93NdwZAeXhI

[MSOCS]

RP, there's a lot of forgetting on this thread. You're right. People like George K Sweetman who have had no tangible connection with the F-35 beyond the odd invitational to FW ("target for tonight" - how awkward that was...), but years of desktop/basement supposition, somehow know everything. They distinctly forget that F-35 will spend only a proportion of its time on internal stores only.

At least Lara hasn't got the massive chip on shoulder of her forebear. She's very good indeed.

[TBM-Legend]

Remember the mighty F-105 had both probe and boom refuelling receptors...why not F-35?

[ORAC]

Must be an Australian airframe........

https://a855196877272cb14560-2a4fa819a63ddcc0c289f9457bc3ebab.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/17707/17p00145_04__main.jpg

[ORAC]

Meanwhile on the slightly more boring, but expensive, money front....

JPO, Lockheed Play Fast and Loose with F-35 Costs (http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/feature/5/184425/jpo%2C-lockheed-play-fast-and-loose-with-f_35-costs.html)

F-35 Unreliability Risks Strain on Pentagon Budget, Tester Says (excerpt) (http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/184902/f_35-reliability-getting-worse%2C-risking-increase-to-operating-costs.html)

[FODPlod]

Meanwhile on the slightly more boring, but expensive, money front....

JPO, Lockheed Play Fast and Loose with F-35 Costs (http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/feature/5/184425/jpo%2C-lockheed-play-fast-and-loose-with-f_35-costs.html)

F-35 Unreliability Risks Strain on Pentagon Budget, Tester Says (excerpt) (http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/184902/f_35-reliability-getting-worse%2C-risking-increase-to-operating-costs.html)

Genuine question intriguing me. Has any other aircraft, especially FJ in development, totalled anything like these flying hours with none (as far as I've heard) falling from the skies?

...More than 220 operational F-35s have been built and delivered worldwide, and they have collectively flown more than 95,000 flight hours.

For example, how does this compare with the F-16, F/A-18 and F/A-18 E/F? I've found nothing correlating total flying hours with loss rates.

[SpazSinbad]

You'll have to go read about the F-35A fire damage total at Eglin AFB during takeoff:

Details divulged of F-35A catastrophic engine fire (http://www.standard.net/Military/2015/06/16/Details-of-last-year-s-F-35A-catastrophic-engine-fire-detailed-in-new-Air-Force-report)

Accident Report: http://www.standard.net/attachment/2015/06/16/F-35-accident-report-pdf.pdf (2.1Mb)

[FODPlod]

You'll have to go read about the F-35A fire damage total at Eglin AFB during takeoff:

Details divulged of F-35A catastrophic engine fire (http://www.standard.net/Military/2015/06/16/Details-of-last-year-s-F-35A-catastrophic-engine-fire-detailed-in-new-Air-Force-report)

Accident Report:http://www.standard.net/attachment/2015/06/16/F-35-accident-report-pdf.pdf (2.1Mb)

Thank you but, as I understand it, the A/C was still on the ground and the pilot walked (ran?) away so not exactly a 'flying' accident. Catastrophic but remedied fairly quickly and not really what I was looking for, i.e. "falling from the skies".

[SpazSinbad]

So close and yet so far away (according to some) but hey Mishappily Pilot walked away - always a good thing:
"..At the correct rotation speed, the MP [mishap pilot] began to rotate, or lift the nose wheel off the ground in anticipation of takeoff. During rotation, the MA engine stalled and displayed an ENG STALL (engine stall) Integrated Caution, Advisory, Warning (ICAW) at 09:10:06L. The MP heard an audible bang and felt the aircraft decelerate about the same time the MP received the ENG STALL ICAW and the MP subsequently applied the ABORT procedure at 09:10:07L. The MP received other warnings and cautions including FIRE FIRE..."

[sandiego89]

.....not really what I was looking for, i.e. "falling from the skies".


FODplod, no I can not think of a FJ program that had not had such an event (ie: crater) with this many hours. Yes we know about the ground fires. And it is operating in squadron use, at sea, in major exercises, at airshows and abroad- it does not seem to be babied any longer. Impressive. I am sure there are several who will roll out the "unsafe" and "told you so" headlines when it does happen. :(


The Super Hornet took awhile for the first loss (midair I believe). F-14 perhaps the shortest (flight #2)

[melmothtw]

FODplod, no I can not think of a FJ program that had not had such an event (ie: crater) with this many hours.

Has any other FJ had so many restrictions placed on it with this many hours? Genuine question. Might help explain the lack of a 'crater'.

[George K Lee]

So does anyone want to take a bet on when an F-35 will score a guns kill in A2A, or when an F-35A will make a guns pass at a ground target in combat?

Or even on how much live gunnery training will be included in the standard syllabus?

[Just This Once...]

I guess it will use its gun when it deploys to a theatre that requires it. Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Libya are all recent and current conflicts where guns have frequently been used in anger from all the deployed fast jet types.

Guns always fall out of fashion between conflicts but suddenly we remember how useful they are when we do deploy for real.

[SpazSinbad]

Another LM F-35 Chief Test Pilot explanation of the PAS 2017 maneuvers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUoa-T_aRjM

[George K Lee]

Illuminating interview with Bogdan:

http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2017/August%202017/Clear-of-the-Turbulence.aspx

[glad rag]

Genuine question intriguing me. Has any other aircraft, especially FJ in development, totalled anything like these flying hours with none (as far as I've heard) falling from the skies?

Considering 48% are unavailable at any given time it
does skew the supposed metrics..

[ORAC]

USMC Expeditionary Advance Base Operations. Lots of interesting concepts, but scroll down to the STOVL FARP Barge.

https://marinecorpsconceptsandprograms.com/sites/default/files/files/EABO%20Concept%20Toolkit%20(Public).pdf

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DECVf4bWsAApm5L.jpg

[George K Lee]

Thanks, ORAC...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WAwuSK36Gw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlDXQdgx_QU)

[ORAC]

What a surprise!!!!!!

Pentagon predicts F-35 program costs to jump by $27 billion: report | TheHill (http://thehill.com/policy/defense/341312-pentagon-predicts-f-35-program-costs-to-jump-by-27-billion-report)

The Pentagon’s F-35 fighter jet program, the most expensive program to date, is expected to jump by at least $27 billion in costs, Bloomberg reported.

The total acquisition cost for the Lockheed Martin-made F-35 is predicted to spike about 7 percent to at least $406.5 billion, according to a draft of the Selected Acquisition Report, to be submitted to Congress this week. The uptick follows several years of declining estimates. The report expected the current cost of $379 billion from a previous high of $398.5 billion in early 2014.

F-35 program spokesman Joe DellaVedova didn’t immediately respond to Bloomberg on the cost estimate increase. The Joint Strike Fighter program office typically waits until the report is formally released to Congress before commenting.

Delayed testing could be one reason for the increase. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) in April released a report that said “cascading F-35 testing delays” could add more than $1 billion to the cost of the program......

[SpazSinbad]

Some response here with USMC adding an extra 13 F-35Bs to total buy which is incorrectly recorded as extra F-35Cs in the SAR table seen here:
"...Some of the acquisition cost increases come from the Air Force’s decision to whack the size of its maximum annual purchase of F-35As from 80 per year down to 60, stretching the service’s planned purchases by six years. The Total Program Cost Estimate rose by $11 billion, a substantial portion of the $27.5 billion acquisition cost increase...." Marines Add 13 Bs To F-35 Buy; Acquisition Costs Rise « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary (http://breakingdefense.com/2017/07/marines-add-13-bs-to-f-35-buy-acquisition-costs-rise/)

http://breakingdefense.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2017/07/SAR16-Cost-Fact-Sheet-July-2017-791x1024.jpg

[ORAC]

Which is how the spiral starts. The price goes up so they cut the numbers and stretch them out; which ruins the planned programme so the price doesn't come down for the next round; so the price goes up so they cut the numbers and stretch them out.....

[SpazSinbad]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xLz4Sg4N5I

[SpazSinbad]

Don't know how bad a tailwind direction or strength is for a NO START F-35 but....
"...The pilot escaped from the aircraft but sustained burns to his head, neck and face...." F-35A engine fire at US Air Force base sparked by strong tailwinds (http://www.defensenews.com/articles/f-35a-engine-fire-at-mountain-home-afb-sparked-by-strong-tailwinds)

[keith williams]

“[Integrated power pack] and engine start issues with a tailwind were known prior to the incident. However, the publications were written and communicated in such a way that the F-35A pilot community had only vague awareness of the issue. This vague awareness led to inadequate training for engine starts with a tailwind,” Col. Dale Hetke, the AIB’s president, wrote in his statement of opinion on the investigation.

My memory is failing as I get older, but way back in the 1960s we knew enough to turn the aircraft into wind if there was any significant tailwind on the line.

[SpazSinbad]

30 knot tailwind (if straight down the jet pipe) seems to me to be outrageous - turn the bastard into the wind youse lazy sods: :}

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-pins-f-35a-engine-fire-on-strong-tailwinds-439269/

[SpazSinbad]

Tailwind Caused September F-35 Engine Fire 13 Jul 2017 Brian Everstine and John A. Tirpak
"...Because the fire spread with speed, the pilot had trouble following the checklist. For example, the pilot did not move the engine switch to “off” in accordance with the egress checklist. Within seconds, the fire reached the landing gear.

“It stands to reason that if the engine switch had been moved to off at the first indication of fire, fuel would have been shut off to the engine nearly immediately and the fire would not have burned as long,” the report states. The pilot was under duress, however, and sustained burns to his head, neck, face, and ears.

Following the AIB report, AETC implemented procedural fixes and checklist changes to prevent similar mishaps, including a 20-knot tailwind limit for the start of an F-35 engine...."

REPORT: http://www.airforcemag.com/AircraftAccidentReports/Documents/2017/09232016_F35_MOUNTAINHOME.pdf (1.4Mb)

http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pages/2017/July%202017/Tailwind-Caused-September-F-35-Engine-Fire.aspx

[keith williams]

30 knot tailwind (if straight down the jet pipe) seems to me to be outrageous - turn the bastard into the wind youse lazy sods:

The only solution to this kind of problem is a software upgrade (150 000 000$ bracket) so that the aircraft refuses to start its engines in a strong tailwind. (I initially thought that a warning message might be enough, but on reflection this would probably be ignored by the pilot).

[Just This Once...]

30 knot tailwind (if straight down the jet pipe) seems to me to be outrageous - turn the bastard into the wind youse lazy sods:

The aircraft are usually parked on the ramp under sun shelters in individual bays; this seems to limit creative thinking. With such an automated start sequence the ability of the aircraft to set fire to itself does seem to be an oversight.

Back in the day of line ops on the GR1 with an inconvenient tailwind for start it was common practice to use a bin lid held near the jet pipe during the early part of the start....

[SpazSinbad]

From the accident report/diagram the wind at 30 cannots was straight up the tail pipe whilst the Pilot Notes said there was an issue with windy up yur pipe starts but no mention of a windspeed limit - that is NOT helpful - NOW there is a limit of 20 cannots. I reckon some thoughtful appreciation of the prevailing weather / wind would have caused the aircraft to be parked arseabout. A handy 17 million dollar lesson methinks.

[BEagle]

Just This Once wrote:
Back in the day of line ops on the GR1 with an inconvenient tailwind for start it was common practice to use a bin lid held near the jet pipe during the early part of the start....

During my (very) brief time on the Buccaneer, having got behind the progress line due to weather, our course was ordered to fly one Saturday morning in November, the exercise being a 'high' level navex, then RTB.... The first crew off reported that the cloudbase was relatively low on take-off, but 'befehl ist befehl' in the eyes of the less-than-cuddly 237 OCU staff and off we all went in turn. On recovery it was hardly surprising that 2 out of the 3 of us didn't see the lights at the adjusted Decision Height we had to use, not actually having IRs on type. So we were diverted to Mildenhall, landing after 40 min IMC off another GCA. The 3rd crew went slightly below DH, saw the lights and landed for the customary bollocking.

At Mildenhall, a bus turned up with some annoyed 237 OCU pilots on board who'd been sent to ferry our 2 jets back. Starting was a bit of an issue as we'd been parked tail to wind, which by the time the ferry crews had arrived had picked up rather...

So the trick was to hold an intake blank behind the jet pipe, wait until LP rotation had stopped, then try a 'normal' start. Sounds good in theory, but as I watched this pantomime there was an almighty roar and a sheet of flame shot out of the starboard jet pipe, reaching back as far as the air brake petal....:eek: But that didn't seem to worry the crew, who were soon on their way back to Honington. No idea what damage that might have done, or whether any comment was made after landing....:uhoh:

[glad rag]

Front hinged canopy would only concentrate hot gasses and flame around pilots head...

[SpazSinbad]

JEEVES removes pretend headgear F-35 pilot. (PhotoBucket has lost the marbles so I'm putting JPG here.)

[glad rag]

What a surprise!!!!!!

Pentagon predicts F-35 program costs to jump by $27 billion: report | TheHill (http://thehill.com/policy/defense/341312-pentagon-predicts-f-35-program-costs-to-jump-by-27-billion-report)

The Pentagon’s F-35 fighter jet program, the most expensive program to date, is expected to jump by at least $27 billion in costs, Bloomberg reported.

The total acquisition cost for the Lockheed Martin-made F-35 is predicted to spike about 7 percent to at least $406.5 billion, according to a draft of the Selected Acquisition Report, to be submitted to Congress this week. The uptick follows several years of declining estimates. The report expected the current cost of $379 billion from a previous high of $398.5 billion in early 2014.

F-35 program spokesman Joe DellaVedova didn’t immediately respond to Bloomberg on the cost estimate increase. The Joint Strike Fighter program office typically waits until the report is formally released to Congress before commenting.

Delayed testing could be one reason for the increase. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) in April released a report that said “cascading F-35 testing delays” could add more than $1 billion to the cost of the program......

Testing!!

Funny how someone has signed off IOT with "testing" incomplete...

Wonder how the ballistic/hydrostatic testing is going to go

:}

[glad rag]

JEEVES removes pretend headgear F-35 pilot. (PhotoBucket has lost the marbles so I'm putting JPG here.)

"warning do not cut canopy within 3 inches of frame"

guess they must have a special template in the crash wagons


ROFL. NOT.

[ORAC]

The Times devotes its front page, and a large number of articles inside, trashing the UK F-35B programme today. Behind a paywall, but I include the last to give a taste. Looks like someone in the MOD wants to wield a large axe.

Britain spends billions on flawed fighter jets (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/britain-spends-billions-on-flawed-fighter-jets-qrtj95kvh)

Jets are overbudget, unreliable and vulnerable to cyberattacks. (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/jets-are-overbudget-unreliable-and-vulnerable-to-cyberattacks-v3gt8dcbb)

Upgrades and extras push up flyaway costs (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/upgrades-and-extras-push-up-flyaway-costs-t2jhslw6d)

If this were a car...... you wouldn't buy it (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/if-this-were-a-car-you-wouldnt-buy-it-3m06gvjlc)

F-35: Behind the story (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/the-f-35-behind-the-story-rjgtv0hpd)

Malfunctioning £309,000 helmet left pilot floundering in darkness (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/malfunctioning-309-000-helmet-left-pilot-floundering-in-darkness-gzqvxtdrm)

The glossy promotional video for the F-35 fighter jet’s £309,000 helmet promises flawless night vision, maximum comfort and a unique 360-degree perspective that lets pilots “see” through the plane. Actual footage of the Generation III helmet display from an exercise shows the reality: a pilot putting himself in danger because the night vision malfunctioned. The test pilot tried to land on an aircraft carrier at night — the same manoeuvre expected of British pilots when they test-fly the jets from the first of two carriers next year.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/imageserver/image/methode%2Ftimes%2Fprod%2Fweb%2Fbin%2Fa4d50a52-6a3a-11e7-bbfb-4556e0d95963.jpg?crop=961%2C641%2C-0%2C-0&resize=996

The night-vision helmet display during the carrier landing approach

“He’s looking down at the right, trying to establish where he is,” Lieutenant-Colonel Tom Fields, the exercise evaluator, notes in a video of the exercise. “His words after [he landed]: ‘Control, you are going to have to give me a compelling reason to do that again.’ ”

Nick Bartlett, a flying qualities engineer, said that as soon as the pilot took off he knew “this is not good. It was almost like a fog for him. At that point I became uncomfortable.” Erik Gutekunst, a colleague, said: “Any time I start talking about it I get heebie-jeebies. It became very clear that the picture he was working with was unsatisfactory for doing any sort of operation within the vicinity of the ship.” Lieutenant-Colonel Fields summed it up. “We got lucky. There’s no way around it.”

Until recently, the F-35’s helmet was so heavy that lighter pilots were banned from wearing it in case they broke their necks on ejection. A “lite” version required the cockpit to be redesigned to have somewhere to put a spare visor, a report for the Pentagon noted.

Other problems are more serious. Gun strafing symbols, which line up targets for the pilot, were “currently operationally unusable and potentially unsafe”, according to the December 2016 report. The night-vision technology was less accurate than in older aircraft, making identification of targets “more difficult if not impossible”. “Green glow” — a leakage of light around the edge of the display — was improved from previous models but was “still a concern”.

In 2015 a separate report into a dogfight test between an F-35 and an older F-15 aircraft noted that the pilot’s helmet kept smacking into the canopy when he tried to turn around. “The helmet was too large . . . to adequately see behind the aircraft,” the report said.

The helmet is still in development, and many bugs will be ironed out. But countries including Britain are purchasing the F-35 today, meaning that they could face higher bills to upgrade the helmet as solutions are discovered.

Planes too heavy to land

Of all the problems faced by the F-35 Lightning fighter-bomber, being too heavy might prove one of the most costly (Alexi Mostrous writes).

Buried in a US defence report is a passage that will worry taxpayers handing over about £150 million per jet. A key performance requirement for the F-35B is that it can use thrusters “to safely conduct a vertical landing” — on land or on aircraft carriers. The report found that when early versions were upgraded, they would be over the weight permitted for a safe landing. Britain bought four of the 14 aircraft affected, records suggest. The report estimates further upgrades, to bring the aircraft up to its full potential, would push it over an even stricter “structural limit”. Without the upgrade the aircraft will miss out on future software and hardware updates. This could mean that Britain paid millions of pounds for redundant aircraft.......

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/imageserver/image/methode%2Ftimes%2Fprod%2Fweb%2Fbin%2Fd3b93848-6a4e-11e7-bbfb-4556e0d95963.png?crop=2711%2C1807%2C619%2C195&resize=1370

[SpazSinbad]

Can't read the links above but appropo 'night vision' the guys & gals must be ****tin bricks. Twas thus ever.

https://fightersweep.com/8267/picture-day-sailors-refueling-f-35b-lightning-ii-joint-strike-fighter/

https://i0.wp.com/fightersweep.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/f-35b-refueling.jpg

https://i0.wp.com/fightersweep.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/f-35b-refueling.jpg

[Heathrow Harry]

that Times article brought back memories of the TSR-2 and F-111K debacles - state of the art aircraft, late, technical issues and over budget in parlous economic times - and with a possible Labour Govt waiting in the wings.....................

If it becomes a UK political football all bets are off

[safetypee]

Re “you are going to have to give me a compelling reason to do that again.”
I recall similar words being uttered by a very pale and sweaty Harrier test pilot in the late 70s, who had just completed the first night evaluation of a vertical shipborne landing. The ship was of course ‘HMS’ Bedford (Sam Kidd), a very realistic 2x4 and chickenwire night-lighting mockup of an aircraft carrier, on an otherwise completely blacked out airfield.
Yet x years later, a developed system, aircraft and ship, was ‘at war’; and now with further development is the norm for such operations.

Development flying entails the rule of war - ‘no plan survives contact with the enemy’; with time and financial wriggle room things get sorted. However, there is increasing evidence that the F35 has little wriggle room, weak funding, and is rapidly running out of time as military strategy changes.
Another rule of war involves adaptability, agility, and flexibility; yet many modern aircraft programmes suffer increasing complexity, proportional to Moore’s law - because we can do it, not always because we need it, breeding ‘tight coupling’ where any small change involves many other interactions, cost, time, …

Thinks, why was I always duty pilot in the tower for the difficult flight tests - also the day that the Harrier nose leg oleo failed on a ski jump takeoff; … (‘I know nothing, I come from Barcelona’), a harbinger of doom.

[Not_a_boffin]

Looks like someone in the MOD wants to wield a large axe.


Looks like someone in Land HQ is getting their retaliation in first........

[George K Lee]

One does wonder why the Times chose to move now. There seems to be not much that's new (although apparently they state that the four test aircraft are overweight for VL). That will give the flacks, shills and fans their usual "nothing new, known issues, solutions in the works" response...

[MPN11]

The article certainly didn't make pleasant reading. How much is ill-informed, or hyperbole, I cannot say ... but it sounds seriously dismal even if only part of it is accurate.

[Buster15]

The article certainly didn't make pleasant reading. How much is ill-informed, or hyperbole, I cannot say ... but it sounds seriously dismal even if only part of it is accurate.

What really annoys me is that we are scrapping a purfectly capable front line strike tornado gr4 fleet; albeit now only two squadrons simply on the basis that we can only operate two fast jet types, typhoon and F35.
At present neither has the same strike capabilities as tornado. Yes typhoon is scheduled to carry Brims tone and Storm Shadow but not until 2018.
The sensible option would be to manintain tornado capabilities until both typhoon and F35 are at least as operationally capable.
Will that happen - Not a chance as political decisions have been made...

[airsound]

ORAC, George K Lee, MPN11 et al…

There’s a good response to the Times article, from Howard Wheeldon FRAeS, in one of his occasional commentaries. It’s not a blog, and it’s only available to his 6,000-odd email subscribers, but here are a couple of relevant paragraphs:
The Times report highlighted a number of issues that had been known for several years [and have been] long ago resolved. I see this ‘report’ for what it is meant to be, politically damaging. Negative, spurious and speculative and for the most part, unsubstantiated, the report appears … to be directed at political and other decision makers in the UK. It should thus be seen for what it is - an intent to do harm to both UK and US defence strategy … those that direct it, and all those many thousands of skilled workers in the UK and elsewhere who are engaged in the F-35 build programme.
All that said, I am not for one moment going to suggest that there are not certain truths to be found in the Times article in respect of technical and software related issues that have needed to be resolved over time or that even now, everything is perfect on the F-35 programme.
……

[But] Times journalists engaged on this particular defence witch-hunt have dragged out a number of so-called specialists to add seeming value to this speculative, unnecessary and damaging article. One example of this comes from the now well-known critic of how the UK does defence in the form of Commander Nigel ‘Sharkey’ MacCartan-Ward, a former Royal Navy pilot some 35 and more years ago who this time has the effrontery to suggest that “Britain might have lost the Falklands war in 1982 had it relied on the F-35 jet” because, he adds, “of the length of time it takes to download and interpret critical battlefield data hoovered up by the aircraft”, something he suggests “can be done only back on the carrier”.
What absolute nonsense this is and, as far as I am concerned, those that were used to flying jets of a bygone age can have little comprehension of the level of situational awareness that a pilot of an F-35 has.
There is much more in Wheeldon’s commentary, and, whilst you might consider it to be somewhat establishment-friendly, it does set out arguments that need to be placed against the Times' tendentious article.

[ORAC]

Where the leaks come from is obvious in one of the articles - and the drift of the others in the problems with the F-35s linking with the carriers; the dire state of the carriers networking; and the vulnerability of all and ALIS to cyber attack....


The newest part of the military, in charge of networks and cyber-matters, must save up to £400 million this year to help bail out the rest of defence. Pressure on the budget for Joint Forces Command (JFC) is symptomatic of a failure by defence chiefs to prioritise information-sharing over the procurement of equipment such as fast jets and warships, former commanders and defence industry sources said. “Hardware has triumphed and networking and connectivity has failed,” a senior defence source said.

All parts of the armed forces have to find additional savings over the year because of a hole in the defence budget of between £1 billion and £2 billion.

The JFC, led by General Sir Chris Deverell, was created in 2011 to take charge of areas that span the navy, army and air force, including information systems. It was hoped this would ensure a greater appreciation of IT at the heart of fighting. Six years later, officials at the Ministry of Defence are aware that networking and connectivity for their two new aircraft carriers and the fighter jets that will fly off them is vital but there is insufficient funding left to buy and install the desired systems.....

[pr00ne]

Buster 15,

First off it's three squadrons and not two; 9, 12 and 31, secondly it may be a "perfectly capable first line strike Tornado GR4 fleet," but it's been in service for over 36 years and it has been worked very hard operationally for 26 of those years almost continuously.

Typhon and Lightning will have all of the capabilities of Tornado less the large Reconnaissance pod, and the GR4 doesn't go until 2019, when these capabilities will be worked up on Typhoon and on the way on Lightning.


Let the old beast go...

[KenV]

Testing!!

Funny how someone has signed off IOT with "testing" incomplete...:}Hmmmm. Is this actual ignorance or willful ignorance?

See that "I" in IOC"? That stands for "Initial". A lot of testing is required to change that "I" into an "F". Even after that "I" becomes an "F" constant testing will continue. Tornado, Typhoon, Super Hornet, Eagle have been fully operational for a long time, yet testing continues. C-17 production line recently closed, yet testing continues. B-52 has been flying for well over 6 decades and testing continues. Nearly 8000 737s have been built, yet testing continues. It's the nature of aviation.

[SpazSinbad]

SAR Selected Acquisition Report Dec 2016 as at 26 Jun 2017 as of FY2018 President's Budget
Estimated Combat Radius NM for F-35A = 669
Estimated Combat Radius NM for F-35B = 505
Estimated Combat Radius NM for F-35C = 640
http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=25039 (PDF 0.7Mb)
F-35 Unit Cost Dec 2016 SAR
The DoD average F-35 Aircraft Unit Recurring Flyaway (URF) Cost consists of the Hardware (Airframe, Vehicle Systems, Mission Systems, and Engineering Change Order) costs over the life of the program. The URF assumes the quantity benefits of 132 FMS aircraft and 609 International Partner aircraft.

The current estimate for F-35 total procurement quantity increased from 2443 to 2456. This is the result of an increase of 13 F-35B aircraft to be procured by the United States Marine Corps (USMC). The increase is reflected in both the aircraft and engine subprogram and results in a change from 680 to 693 in the Department of Navy Aircraft Procurement accounts. The USMC validated this requirement through the Marine Corps Requirements Oversight Council (MROC). The additional aircraft are fully funded and the funding is reflected in the FY 2018 President's Budget submission. The additional aircraft were added after the completion of the congressionally directed Department-wide fighter mix study. The strategic review will assess future tactical fighter force inventory requirements across the Department.

F-35A (Conventional Take Off and Landing) URF - $67.7M (BY 2012)
F-35B (Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing) URF - $77.1M (BY 2012)
F-35C (Carrier Variant) URF - $78.1M (BY 2012)

[SpazSinbad]

Some extra cute/pastie because some of youse will not see the entire artickle....

F-35B begins new ski-ramp testing campaign 17 Jul 2017 Richard Scott
"The F-35 Lightning II Pax River Integrated Test Force has begun a second round of land-based F-35B ski-ramp testing at Naval Air Station (NAS) Patuxent River...

...The Phase 2 test programme began in June and is designed to expand the ski-jump envelope. This includes launches with external stores, increased crosswind conditions, and take offs at a range of different speeds....

...Three of the five F-35B system design and development aircraft have been used for Phase 2 testing, which has to date been shared by six pilots. “At least one additional pilot will be introduced shortly, in preparation for the First of Class Flight Trials on [HMS Queen Elizabeth ] next year,” Wilson added. “We will complete by the end of the year; most likely by the end of October...." F-35B begins new ski-ramp testing campaign | Jane's 360 (http://www.janes.com/article/72352/f-35b-begins-new-ski-ramp-testing-campaign)
Photo: "F-35B test aircraft BF-1 seen during Phase 2 ski ramp testing. The aircraft is pictured here configured with external pylons and AIM-9X missiles. Source: Dane Wiedmann/Lockheed Martin" http://www.janes.com/images/assets/352/72352/1693387_-_main.jpg

http://www.janes.com/images/assets/352/72352/1693387_-_main.jpg

[Buster15]

Buster 15,

First off it's three squadrons and not two; 9, 12 and 31, secondly it may be a "perfectly capable first line strike Tornado GR4 fleet," but it's been in service for over 36 years and it has been worked very hard operationally for 26 of those years almost continuously.

Typhon and Lightning will have all of the capabilities of Tornado less the large Reconnaissance pod, and the GR4 doesn't go until 2019, when these capabilities will be worked up on Typhoon and on the way on Lightning.


Let the old beast go...

Thank you for your clarification although I believed that 12 squadron had been stood down. No matter, my point is about RAF operational capabilities which come 2019 will be severely degraded. Remember they will only have 107 typhoon jets and hardly any operational F35. Assuming even a very optimistic 50% serviceable typhoon, they are likely to be extremely short of jets to do even the most basic requirements. I would also not dismiss the benefits of Raptor pod.
It is interesting that the RAF are flying mixed typhoon/tornado sorties over Iraq to get the best of both aircraft usage.
As to Let the old beast go, my simple question is WHY. The B52 is significantly older yet the USA continue to upgrade it. Reason, it can do things that other jets cannot.
I have no concerns about tornado being retired. My concern is that it is being done for the wrong reasons.

[Bismark]

Estimated Combat Radius NM for F-35A = 669
Estimated Combat Radius NM for F-35B = 505
Estimated Combat Radius NM for F-35C = 640

Of course combat radius is from launch/refuelling point. Bit of a red herring really.

[PhilipG]

Of course combat radius is from launch/refuelling point. Bit of a red herring really.

I was always under the impression that the C had the largest range, a specific advantage over the A.

Has something happened to reduce the range of the C, or are apples and pears being compared?

[BossEyed]

As well as airsound's link above to Howard Wheeldon's response to The Times stories, here's a thoughtful discussion along similar lines from "Sir Humphrey" of the Thin Pinstriped Line blog - he is normally very considered in what he writes and it would seem he is well plugged into UK Defence Procurement at a fairly senior level so what he says is usually well worth reading, even if you don't necessarily agree with him.

"Which version of the Truth to believe?"

Edit. Oh, why does PPRuNe do that? The link is here, but you need to replace the asterisks with "b l o g s p o t" (without the spaces):
https://thinpinstripedline.********.co.uk/2017/07/which-version-of-truth-to-believe.html

[KenV]

I was always under the impression that the C had the largest range, a specific advantage over the A.

Has something happened to reduce the range of the C, or are apples and pears being compared?
That's what I thought too. Not sure but I believe the A combat radius is for a USAF combat loadout and the C for a USN combat loadout, which are different. In addition, the empty weight of the C is considerably higher than the A to accommodate carrier operations. Perhaps the two together are driving the seeming disparity.

[airsound]

Thanks muchly, BossEyed - I hadn't come across Sir H in this guise before. He's good, isn't he - although you might feel that it's easy for me to say that, but you couldn't possibly comment

I couldn't get your linky thing to work though. Here's another attempt.
https://thinpinstripedline.********.co.uk/


Ok PPRuNe, you win. But if you google thinpinstripedline you'll find it. As of today, it's still the top blog.

[Brat]

A frequent contributor and member of ARSE (Army Rumour Service) Humpy, Jim30 makes very good sense in his take on the Times article.

[glad rag]

"
Typhon and Lightning will have all of the capabilities of Tornado less the large Reconnaissance pod, and the GR4 doesn't go until 2019, when these capabilities will be worked up on Typhoon and on the way on Lightning."

Which is a complete fantasy...

[glad rag]

Hmmmm. Is this actual ignorance or willful ignorance?

See that "I" in IOC"? That stands for "Initial". A lot of testing is required to change that "I" into an "F". Even after that "I" becomes an "F" constant testing will continue. Tornado, Typhoon, Super Hornet, Eagle have been fully operational for a long time, yet testing continues. C-17 production line recently closed, yet testing continues. B-52 has been flying for well over 6 decades and testing continues. Nearly 8000 737s have been built, yet testing continues. It's the nature of aviation.


You have repeatedly taken others to task re the capabilities of F35 deployed to forward locations. Are you now saying that those aircraft are actually less than capable and in fact have not been subjected to the more stringent testing required to operate in such a region?

I don't think it's fair to belittle you further as you are obviously an enthusiastic follower of the "program" which is fine.

[SpazSinbad]

I was always under the impression that the C had the largest range, a specific advantage over the A.

Has something happened to reduce the range of the C, or are apples and pears being compared?
IF one looks at the graphic OR the SAR PDF itself OR the attached PDF OR the more comprehensive page .GIF attached now - an explanation is forthcoming:
[SAR Dec 2016] "Change Explanations
(Ch-1) Operational Requirements Document (ORD) Change 3 dated August 19, 2008 as modified by JROC Memorandum 040-12 dated March 16, 2012. For Demonstrated Performance, extensive flight test data was used to calibrate the aero-performance model. The values listed herein as “Demonstrated Performance” are based on the final aero-performance model (up-and-away) for the F-35A and F-35B."

[SpazSinbad]

This OBOGS change is specific for the F-35 so it goes here:

Clearing the air: F-35s to get upgrade for oxygen generating system over hypoxia concerns (http://www.defensenews.com/articles/f-35s-to-get-software-upgrade-for-oxygen-generating-system-hopefully-preventing-hypoxia-symptoms)

[glad rag]

This OBOGS change is specific for the F-35 so it goes here:

Clearing the air: F-35s to get upgrade for oxygen generating system over hypoxia concerns (http://www.defensenews.com/articles/f-35s-to-get-software-upgrade-for-oxygen-generating-system-hopefully-preventing-hypoxia-symptoms)

I'd be more concerned about the mechanical aspect of changeover system between beds along with nitrogen narcosis/purging effects from the closed bed getting into breathing air.....

[SpazSinbad]

Some sensible detail about that 'low light flat deck F-35B landing' during DT-III some time back. Quotable Quote is excellent:
"Officials with the Pentagon’s F-35 program office remain tight-lipped about a troubling issue with the Joint Strike Fighter‘s helmet night-vision camera that forced a test pilot to land “in a fog” on an amphibious ship last fall. But they say improvements to the software in the pricey helmet are underway and will be ready for testing this fall. The problem landing came to light this month, when the Flight Test Safety Committee posted videos from a May workshop in McLean, Virginia to its website.... [excerpt below]

...In his presentation, Fields [Marine Lt. Col. Tom Fields, F-35 government flight test director] gave credit to the pilot, who positioned himself on the flight deck using two generators he remembered walking past on his way to the aircraft.

“I think his words later were, ‘screw you, ship, I’m landing on you,'” Fields said. “We got lucky. There is no way around it. We got very lucky that night.” https://www.defensetech.org/2017/07/19/officials-say-little-f-35-helmet-glitch-night-landing-video/ Hope Hodge Seck July 19, 2017
https://www.defensetech.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/F-35-helmet-video-1200x800-777x437.jpg
"Video recently released by the Navy shows an F-35B pilot landing the aircraft "in a fog" aboard an amphibious ship in fall 2016 due to a problem with the night-vision camera on the helmet mounted display. (screen grab from U.S. Navy video)"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3vbPEtSbv0

[Brat]

The article certainly didn't make pleasant reading. How much is ill-informed, or hyperbole, I cannot say ... but it sounds seriously dismal even if only part of it is accurate.

With Red Flag-3 (US only), now beginning, with two services, USAF and USMC, putting their respective F-35 models into action the results will no doubt be of great assistance to UK planners for their future decisions on the numbers and types, as the respective strengths/weaknesses of each model, and unit deployment/performance can be assessed.

With regard to the Times article, it is interesting to hear directly from the chiefs of staff who will be responsible for tactically employing these aircraft in any future conflict, and, from the men who will be out there fighting with the new aircraft and hoping to come back. This was from the recent previous Red Flag.

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

Its a sort of ...pudding thing.

[BEagle]

300 indicated at 34650' (M0.86) for routine AAR must be interesting...

But that big, expensive helmet still looks like a significant risk to me. Yes, it's very clever with the distributed vision system and all the projected symbology, but how often would the average fighter pilot find him/herself clouting it against the canopy when moving his/her head to look out normally? And if the pilot drops it whilst walking out or crewing-in, is it tough enough to cope?

[SpazSinbad]

IF the HMDS was fragile we would have heard about it by now. There are concerns during catapulting that are being sorted. With new lightweight HMDS the pilot will carry a visor for day or night depending on situation to have only one visor fitted (a cockpit space for other visor needs to be found). Does the cockpit look roomy to you and have you any stories that indicate your worst HMDS fears? OMG the pilot is put in charge of a 100 million dollar airyplane - wot if he fckus up? 100 mil down the drain - wattle they think of next?

[BEagle]

You really think we would have heard about it?

Has it been deliberately knocked off a table or dropped during simulated everyday use? Or are such tests on a $400k helmet deemed unnecessary. I hope that the first time someone finds out won't be when a pilot slips on a wet deck.

As for having to change visors when it gets dark / light, how many hands does that take? Day visor off, where do I put that? In the night visor stowage...which is still occupied. OK, I'll balance it on my knees whilst faffing about with the night visor....oops, it's now somewhere on the floor which I cannot reach whilst I'm wearing this damn helmet...and now it's down by the rudder pedals.

Having to change visors in flight is frankly ridiculous.

[SpazSinbad]

I give in - so many unanswerable questions. Just provide some evidence please. My common sense informs me that the HMDS is rugged enough for every day use whilst that would have been part of the specifications for it. Everything about military equipment is that it is designed for the rugged outdoors (can't say about Brit equp butt). Do night vision goggle peeps wear their night vision goggles during daylight? Just flip 'em down I suppose and get rid of them before ejecting - yeah right.

We are told the F-35 has a good auto pilot which pilot can control very easily with simple switchology - so hands free flying is a no brainer. I'll guess fumblebum pilots are weeded out long before they get to the F-35. Shirley Frankly is my ridiculous middle name.

By the by with one switch the pilot can view behind with HMDS via the DAS - targets are tracked through 360 degrees - they know where youse are at and they keep track within at least ten miles and can differentiate between bogies & goodies which many stories relate is very difficult with modern aircraft having seemingly similar visual characteristics.

As for the HMDS tests. By golly gee they test a 100 million dollar airyplane thoroughly over many years - ya think they will get around to testing the HMDS under many conditions? OH NO they have to treat it as though it is a FABERGE EGG! :}

[SpazSinbad]

For 'BEagle': the very first F-35A has been destroyed (eventually) during Live Fire Evaluation tests LFE. I think destroying one or several HMDS for testing purposes is easy enough but I have no information that this was done. This 2.5Mb PDF has a tonne of info about it from 2010: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a528013.pdf

[SpazSinbad]

'BEagle' I'm hoping we do not lose a pilot or airyplane to this ongoing OBOGS/oygen supply mystery. This latest incident cause was soon found but not previous. However 'help is on the way' and it seems will be tested and retested - any volunteers? Pick Me Pick Me Pick Me! :}

Fix Elusive As Another F-35 Pilot Reports Trouble Breathing | Defense content from Aviation Week (http://aviationweek.com/defense/fix-elusive-another-f-35-pilot-reports-trouble-breathing)

[glad rag]

So everything just going swimmingly then.....

[Brat]

No. Does it ever on complex equipment?


You really think we would have heard about it?
How many helmets and how long have they been used? With the number of operational aircraft, hour flown, and critics ready to jump on every known weakness before now, it would most probably have been highlighted. It was after all designed, in part, for protection.

[glad rag]

Project to big to cancel?

"You can fix everything with time and money"

Nope!

Just ask Musk!!

Well it is "his" money after all......

https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/6oax7b/official_discussion_recap_thread_elon_musk/

[SpazSinbad]

A few years back an Australian Federal Parliament Enquiry into the F-35 consistently spelt helmet 'HELMUT'. I like it. :} Often this vital bit of info about the helmut liner being the part which is individually fitted to the pilot noggin is left out - therefore the helmut liner is transferable to another suitable helmet (in case the original needs some work). :} HANCHE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_J2RLnGIp8

[SpazSinbad]

One year ago a Gen Bogged Down explanation about HELMUT wait time / 2 visors etc.

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

[Lonewolf_50]

"Too big to cancel" happened a long time ago.
Fancy helmet. I hope it is fit for purpose. (See what I did there? ;) )

[IcePaq]

Still less expensive than a formula one car's steering wheel.

[SpazSinbad]

How much does the latest whizbang wide view HUD cost? Buehler? Anyone? Dunno. Head Hanche from Norway has an answer for the view (from an F-35A I will guess).
"...A negative in training one on one has been that the view out of the cockpit is not as good as on the F-16. The visibility in a F-16 is especially good, better than in any other fighter I've flown. I could turn all the way around in my seat and see the opposite wingtip. In the F-35 I can't do that because the seat blocks some of the view. This made me a bit frustrated after the first flights. I had to learn to move different. Now I move forward in the seat before I lean a bit sideways and turn my head to look back. That way I can look around the sides of the seat. In the F-35 you learn to work around the issue and it's not a real disadvantage once you know how to do it...." http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=23004 (PDF 0.8Mb)

[Lonewolf_50]

How much does the latest whizbang wide view HUD cost? Buehler? Anyone? Dunno. Head Hanche from Norway has an answer for the view (from an F-35A I will guess). The PT regime for this fighter means more neck exercises, if this gentleman's observation is the gospel. That and strong abs, strong core, if you are moving your whole body during a fight with a G load on.

[George K Lee]

Only one kind of g load to undergo in a turning fight. High, rapid onset, but brief.

[SpazSinbad]

Doc! My Neck Hurts PDF 1Mb from APPROACH Lt. Mark Jacoby and Tina Avelar in USN Flying Safety Magazine APPROACH March/April 2007: http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=17656 (1Mb 2 page PDF)

The A-4A to A-4F had abysmal rear views and my neck still hurts. :} Apparently yonks ago in 2008 a future change to the F-35s was a wider, more capacious canopy. The pilot can still look rearwards via HMDS to 6 o'clock view with a button press.

From 2008 Canopy Expansion Notional BLOCK 6: http://norway.usembassy.gov/root/pdfs/volume-1---executive-summary---part-1_dista.pdf NOT WORKING

NOW at : http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_download-id-14514.html (PDF 3.5Mb) [see page 15 / 9 of 11 wide pages]

[Brat]

With Red Flag 2017-3 ending shortly, the USAF and USMC F-35 types that have been taking part will soon be providing some feedback for the UK on how to split the forthcoming buy.
https://theaviationist.com/tag/red-flag/

[melmothtw]

With Red Flag 2017-3 ending shortly, the USAF and USMC F-35 types that have been taking part will soon be providing some feedback for the UK on how to split the forthcoming buy.

I can't see anything in the link you have provided that relates to briefing the UK on any split buy.

[SASless]

Interestingly, even though it will probably not embed simulated shipborne or remote base operations (that are what the F-35Bs, in spite of the limited range and internal weapons capacity, was somehow designed to conduct) the Marine Corps will expand the role of the 5th Gen. aircraft in RF, covering also EW and CSAR support tasks.

A RF mission is usually made of 20-25 adversaries: not only aircraft, but also ground-to-air threats, moving and unknown threats etc. In other words, the old fixed scenario has become much more “dynamic” requiring a real-time “combat battlefield” coordinator.

Therefore, the most recent RF scenarios aim to develop the ability to fuse all the combat capabilities. In this context, the F-35 brings to the package the ability to penetrate deep into the most complex and “unknown” environments providing the “overall control” of the battlefield. The F-35, as well as any other modern aircraft with similar sensor fusing ability, can also work in a complementary fashion with the 4th generation fighters, sharing the information with all the other “players” while providing its own amount of fire power to the team.

Stealth technology (capability to survive and operate effectively where others cannot) combined with 5th generation features (i.e. superior information management), were pivotal to achieve the overall RF’s mini-campaign results.


But no SpecOps involvement, Terrorist Attacks....Airborne Air Field seizures allowed by Opposing forces?

Just a very narrowly designed scenario that affords the Good Guys a chance to test their new kit and tactics in a controlled environment?

Are the Opposition allowed to wage war based upon known and suspected capabilities of potential enemies like the Russians, Chinese, and North Koreans or combinations of potential combinations of enemy forces where the "Bad Guys" might prevail no matter how the Friendlies operate?

I remember when Exercises were scripted and we found out how bad an idea that was....then there was far more ability for the "Bad Guys" to be....Bad Guys with freedom to be good at what they did and that model paid off handsomely.

As Red Flag morphs......is it regressing in seeking a desired outcome over being a genuine test of the gear and crews to determine weaknesses and failures?

[SpazSinbad]

IOC aircraft will be 3F soon whilst everyone is figuring out how to operate the F-35s IF they are not 'hypoxic'. Also several articles (including in UK) have made it clear only some F-35 capabilities can be exercised in networked FMS Full Mission Simulators due to secret capabilities not for 'outside viewers' in exercise areas.

Story that goes with USAF F-35 OBOGS investigation video here: Wright-Patt researchers hunt for clues of stealth fighter problem (http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/wright-patt-researchers-hunt-for-clues-stealth-fighter-issue/hhIGNUw1lnnUhpwUCz3ynI/)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-s_ApDIge80

[Brat]

I can't see anything in the link you have provided that relates to briefing the UK on any split buy.

Translation and comprehension attempted.

Since the lessons learned from the exercise will be shared, the interoperability of the two different types with the other participants, and the methods and possibly different practices of the two operators USAF/USMC, will provide those in the choice of type for the MOD with a greater knowledge to base how that split might go between RAF/FAA.

Was that really required?

[Brat]

But no SpecOps involvement, Terrorist Attacks....Airborne Air Field seizures allowed by Opposing forces?

Just a very narrowly designed scenario that affords the Good Guys a chance to test their new kit and tactics in a controlled environment?

Are the Opposition allowed to wage war based upon known and suspected capabilities of potential enemies like the Russians, Chinese, and North Koreans or combinations of potential combinations of enemy forces where the "Bad Guys" might prevail no matter how the Friendlies operate?

I remember when Exercises were scripted and we found out how bad an idea that was....then there was far more ability for the "Bad Guys" to be....Bad Guys with freedom to be good at what they did and that model paid off handsomely.

As Red Flag morphs......is it regressing in seeking a desired outcome over being a genuine test of the gear and crews to determine weaknesses and failures?

Guessing that if folks scripted your exercises that way, they may well do that in Red Flag, that idea obviously not being new.

The idea of these hugely complex and expensive exercises is to get the maximum out of them rather than just ‘good results.’

Integrity is generally a given factor though it is acknowledged that some boondoggling does take place and has done...forever.

[glad rag]

But no SpecOps involvement, Terrorist Attacks....Airborne Air Field seizures allowed by Opposing forces?

Just a very narrowly designed scenario that affords the Good Guys a chance to test their new kit and tactics in a controlled environment?

Are the Opposition allowed to wage war based upon known and suspected capabilities of potential enemies like the Russians, Chinese, and North Koreans or combinations of potential combinations of enemy forces where the "Bad Guys" might prevail no matter how the Friendlies operate?

I remember when Exercises were scripted and we found out how bad an idea that was....then there was far more ability for the "Bad Guys" to be....Bad Guys with freedom to be good at what they did and that model paid off handsomely.

As Red Flag morphs......is it regressing in seeking a desired outcome over being a genuine test of the gear and crews to determine weaknesses and failures?


Very good point! French Rafael becoming the burglar soaking up the frequencies, Brit Tiffies being reigned in after embarrassing the hosts in the desert heat....

[SpazSinbad]

Believe it or not - Red Flag without EUROs - but I digress....

B-2, F-22, F-35A and F-35B in First Red Flag Together 27 Jul 2017 TIRPAK
"...The 10 F-35Bs that deployed were a mix of aircraft with the 2B and 3i software, Vaughan said. They were “really the same” in the way they operated, and the commonality and software stability was “extremely good,” Vaughan said....

Fournie reported there was a Virtual/Constructive element of the game that posited large numbers of aircraft “fighting” in the space outside the Nellis complex, in order to tax the Air Operations Center and make scenarios larger and more complex. Because the F-22 still cannot transmit data over a secure data link to the F-35 and “fourth gen” aircraft, communications continue to be made over “secure voice,” officials said. The F-22 can receive data from the F-35 via the Link 16 datalink."
http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pages/2017/July%202017/B-2-F-22-F-35A-and-F-35B-in-First-Red-Flag-Together.aspx

[melmothtw]

Quote:
Originally Posted by melmothtw View Post
I can't see anything in the link you have provided that relates to briefing the UK on any split buy.
Translation and comprehension attempted.

Since the lessons learned from the exercise will be shared, the interoperability of the two different types with the other participants, and the methods and possibly different practices of the two operators USAF/USMC, will provide those in the choice of type for the MOD with a greater knowledge to base how that split might go between RAF/FAA.

Was that really required?

Ah, so when you said "...the USAF and USMC F-35 types that have been taking part will soon be providing some feedback for the UK on how to split the forthcoming buy", you didn't read anywhere in the story that this is what is going happen, you just inferred from the story that this is what you think is going to happen. Thanks for the clarification.

[Brat]

Ah, so when you said "...the USAF and USMC F-35 types that have been taking part will soon be providing some feedback for the UK on how to split the forthcoming buy", you didn't read anywhere in the story that this is what is going happen, you just inferred from the story that this is what you think is going to happen. Thanks for the clarification.

Aah indeed, pray do tell, what you think is logical/likely/probable/ with the present situation of the UK being a major partners/customers, and British crews participating in the development of the F-35? But to assuage the critical quibbler in you, I should have qualified this with 'it will probably’ 'it is likely that’ ‘perhaps this might’. I somehow doubt that this will satisfy as a number of your post indicate but it will have to do.

[glad rag]

Aah indeed, pray do tell, what you think is logical/likely/probable/ with the present situation of the UK being a major partners/customers, and British crews in participation.

Fewer and fewer airframes for the spend.

[Brat]

It certainly seems that in this release the integration is going well between the two services at Nellis.
https://www.dvidshub.net/news/241971/f-35a-f-35b-integrate-red-flag

Perhaps with a better than expected force multiplication with existing assets there may well be fewer airframes needed, if indeed that ever were the case.

Then again there will always be those in, or in a future Government who feel we do not need the armed forces at all.

[SpazSinbad]

Allo Allo Allo New by 2020 Italian Navy LHD 'TRIESTE' with 6 F-35Bs & some helos. TWIN Islands! What were they thinking? Must be a feature NOT a bug & no skijumping?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25anJzSybOk

[spectre150]

Very good point! French Rafael becoming the burglar soaking up the frequencies, Brit Tiffies being reigned in after embarrassing the hosts in the desert heat....

Oh dear. Presumably by Rafael you mean Rafale, by Tiffies you mean Typhoons and by reigned you mean reined.

Yes it is a slow day in the office but I was bored.

[BEagle]

Does anyone who isn't either a sp:8tter or a MS Flight Sim geek refer to the Typhoon as a 'Tiffie'?

[spectre150]

Does anyone who isn't either a sp:8tter or a MS Flight Sim geek refer to the Typhoon as a 'Tiffie'?

The same people that call a Tornado a Tonka I would imagine :ok:

[glad rag]

The same people that call a Tornado a Tonka I would imagine :ok:

Wow that is SO TTTE.

Arr, them were the days, working 6 days a week and a new pair of slippers hanging in the ablutions on a Monday morning....

[SpazSinbad]

Breathe with me - in your own time - COMMENCE! :}
Navy Unit Joins USAF Human Performance Wing for Hypoxia Research 04 Aug 2017 Brian Everstine
"A Navy research unit has joined the Air Force’s 711th Human Performance Wing to help research what is causing “hypoxia-like” symptoms during flight. The Naval Medical Research Unit-Dayton is working with the wing at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, to solve the problem. USAF F-35 pilots at Luke AFB, Ariz., have experienced physiological episodes during flight and the Navy is dealing with similar instances in its T-45 aircraft, along with some F-18 Hornets...." http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pages/2017/August%202017/August%2004%202017/Nuclear-Posture-Review-Looks-Out-20-Years-Some-Dover-C-5s-Return-to-Flight-USAF-Navy-Tackle-Hypoxia-like-Issues.aspx

[SpazSinbad]

US Army interest in F-35 overhead but not as one may expect.

U.S. Army Eyes F-35 As Missile Defense Sensor 08 Aug 2017 James Drew

U.S. Army Eyes F-35 As Missile Defense Sensor | Defense content from Aviation Week (http://aviationweek.com/defense/us-army-eyes-f-35-missile-defense-sensor)

[ORAC]

If they want a missile sensor they'd be better off with a UAV like the RQ-180. All round stealth, far higher orbit with a much larger footprint and 24 hours TOT as opposed to 1 to 2.

[ORAC]

Link is to the Russian Sputnik report. There are Washington military blogs reporting the same thing, but they are all subscription.

Upgrade is required because the F-35 design is so old and computers advance so fast, even a car is now far more powerful. Tempus fugit.

https://sputniknews.com/military/201708091056304418-f35-data-processor-production-plan/

https://www.motor1.com/news/174162/ford-gt-computing-power-f-35/

[SpazSinbad]

I like some good ole sput in my nik but WTF F-16.net has the GAO report here:

F-35 FOM Follow On Modernisation GAO 686436
http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=25129 (PDF 300Kb)

[ORAC]

From the report above.

"....Going forward, an area of potential concern we identified is the apparent planned concurrency between Block 4 development and the procurement of Block 4 aircraft. Our assessment of DOD’s most recent Block 4 schedule (from August 2016) indicates that DOD was planning to request funding in February 2018 to purchase the first aircraft with the initial increment of Block 4 capabilities. This will come as part of DOD’s fiscal year 2019 budget request, more than 2 years before the development and testing of the first increment is complete. In addition, program and officials acknowledged that the aircraft’s current data processor is operating at maximum capacity, and an updated processor with increased capacity is likely needed for the first increment of Block 4 to function as intended. F-35 program officials acknowledge this risk and note that an updated processor may not be available until the second increment of Block 4. This poses a risk that the testing and delivery of the first increment of Block 4 capability may not be achievable as planned. As a result, DOD may be negotiating prices for those aircraft without knowing if or when the more advanced capabilities will be delivered and whether they will function as required. Consequently, Congress will be faced with the challenge of making funding decisions with limited information. Figure 1 illustrates this concern.

According to our past work, programs that limit concurrency between development and procurement are more likely to deliver promised capabilities within estimated cost and schedule parameters. Concurrency has been a significant contributor to many of the problems with the baseline F-35 acquisition program, which is currently expected to cost more than $104 billion, or 45 percent, over the original estimate, and to be more than 5 years behind schedule. As of April 2016, DOD estimates a total of nearly $2 billion in concurrency costs in the baseline program.

We are not making any recommendations at this time because program officials told us that the concurrency issue is being considered as part of their reassessment of Block 4. We will therefore reassess this issue when DOD’s F-35 Block 4 baseline report is issued and brief the congressional defense committees on our findings."........

[SpazSinbad]

OH well - the F-35Bs keep jumping that Sky de Ski - when will they ever lurn? :} [Pete Wilson first launch with Paveway IV & ASRAAM] + Camera Dummy AIM-9s
F-35B Loads Up for Ski Jump Testing 27 Jul 2017 Jeff Babione
"... At Pax River, the team is doing just that as they began another round of ski jump testing for the F-35B. For this second phase of F-35B ski jump testing, the intention is to expand acceptable wind envelopes and maximum gross weight capability, including carriage of external stores. This will provide the fleet with the capability to carry heavy store configurations in a wider range of weather conditions while operating on board the Queen Elizabeth Class Carriers, which will begin initial trials with the F-35B next year. So far, the jet has handled the heavier loads well and the plan is to progress through the rest of the testing including symmetric and asymmetric loadouts while carrying external GBU-12s, Paveway IV bombs, AIM-9X and AIM-132 missiles." https://a855196877272cb14560-2a4fa819a63ddcc0c289f9457bc3ebab.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/17766/f35_weekly_update_7_27_17.pdf (0.2Mb)

[glad rag]

Is the jockey in the ejection posture?

PS 130 million for a non stealth configuration your having a laugh..

[SpazSinbad]

Sure. And he is hypoxic and battling skidmarks on his uderps to boot. Why not? He ain't stealfy - he's my brudda (from another mudda). :}

[SpazSinbad]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxBE2Tz3NVQ

[SASless]

A brand new Aircraft Carrier built for Ski Ramp VTOL Jets.....that are all grounded. That must put a dent in the Operational Sortie Tempo.

[SpazSinbad]

Got a link to where there is news that: "all STOVL F-35Bs are grounded" today or recently? Thanks.

[SASless]

Small problem with the O2 system?

[SpazSinbad]

So the 'F-35B grounded' idea came to you as an early 'the sky is falling' moment? No links huh. Oh well the closest I can get today is a story about F-35As at LUKE AFB in 'merica wot are still puzzled by the oxymoronic hypoxifyingly difficult to solve OBOGS issues - but they still fly under 25,000 feet whilst no other base or variant of F-35 is thusly obliged.

Air Force looks toward lessening F-35 flight restrictions at Luke AFB (http://www.defensenews.com/air/2017/08/14/air-force-looks-toward-lessening-f-35-flight-restrictions-at-luke-afb/) 15 Aug 2017

[KenV]

Haters are gonna hate. Facts don't matter.

[glad rag]

Haters are gonna hate. Facts don't matter.


What part of pay billions before we design the new processor let alone test it and the software don't you understand?

[glad rag]

Small problem with the O2 system?


Not just the 35 to be fair......still at least the seat should work now..

[t43562]

This interview of the VAAC Harrier test pilot is interesting:

7GNurIW6ics

[KenV]

What part of pay billions before we design the new processor let alone test it and the software don't you understand?Hmmmm. New processor?! What part of "Small problem with the O2 system?" is related to the processor? And what part of haters are gonna hate is hard to understand?

[ORAC]

Hmmmm. New processor?! KenV, see my post #10704 above. Full report here (https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/686436.pdf). Being cynical (moi?), keeping it in the baseline program means further cost increases in the baseline can be claimed on the costs of adding "new capabilities".....

"The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is the Department of Defense’s (DOD) most expensive and ambitious acquisition program. In April 2017, we reported that acquisition costs alone are estimated at nearly $400 billion, and operating and sustainment costs are estimated to be over $1 trillion. Meanwhile, due to evolving threats and changing warfighting environments, DOD has begun planning and funding the development of new capabilities for the F-35, known as F- 35 follow-on modernization. The research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E) funding needed for the first modernization phase, known as Block 4, is projected to be over $3.9 billion through 2022, which would exceed the statutory and regulatory thresholds for what constitutes a major defense acquisitions program (MDAP), and would make it more expensive than many of the other MDAPs already in DOD’s portfolio.

However, DOD does not plan to make the F-35 Block 4 a separate MDAP. Instead, DOD plans to manage it under the existing F-35 acquisition program baseline. As we recommended in our April 2016 report, the modernization program should be designated as its own separate MDAP, similar to the F-22 modernization program........"

[Lonewolf_50]

I note that the F-35 is still not cancelled.

Maybe it is time for a new thread?

[SpazSinbad]

Now for SomethingCompletelyDifferent an zoom view of HUD during an SRVL showing particularly the ETR Engine Thrust Request along with the two nozzle deflections in lower left corner. KIAS is Top Left with RadAlt Height Top Right.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8M7RcWuZMs&t=6s

[sandiego89]

Now for SomethingCompletelyDifferent an zoom view of HUD during an SRVL showing particularly the ETR Engine Thrust Request along with the two nozzle deflections in lower left corner. KIAS is Top Left with RadAlt Height Top Right.




That was interesting, thanks Spaz. The HUD symbology is quite intuitive.

[SpazSinbad]

A WIDER view of the same SRVL approach.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02krA7oRK9Y

[Brat]

I note that the F-35 is still not cancelled.

Maybe it is time for a new thread?

It would certainly be a matter of great interest and possible concern to the various countries that have invested the huge ammounts of time effort technology money manpower in this multi-national project, oh...and have purchased planes, that the ‘doubters’ seem to blithely ignore.

[SpazSinbad]

How the SHRDLU SRVL Night Lights are dimmed QNLZ FlyCo Console. Glideslop Angel shows 7 degress of separation. :}

[Flap62]

Not sure if internet shenanigans have interrupted your post but it largely appears to be an unintelligible series of meaningless letters. Also not sure what a glideslop angel is?

[SpazSinbad]

Well the :} says it all - just lampooning the fat finger spelling errors here along with the CRAB acronyms which are NEVER explained but I have my NavAv - so there! :}

[SpazSinbad]

UK crabs may get a handle on this ex-AF Canuckian Test Pilot Billie Flynn lingo:

Podcast: From F-16 To F-35: A Test Pilot's View 22 Aug 2017 Lara Seligman
Video: Podcast: From F-16 To F-35: A Test Pilot's View | Podcast content from Aviation Week (http://aviationweek.com/podcast/podcast-f-16-f-35-test-pilots-view)

'glideslop angel' = glideslope angle
'SRVL' = Shipborne Rolling Vertical Landing
'QNLZ' =
"...Special thanks goes to my hosts aboard the HMS Queen Elisabeth who included Group Captain Paul Godders, Cdr Uves Wood, Royal Navy, Lt Sarah Simmons RN – QNLZ Senior Air Engineer and WO Mick Davidson – ex QNLZ Air Engineering Department Coordinator now Fleet Air Arm Command Warrant Officer." Visiting the HMS Queen Elizabeth: The Transformation of British Projection Forces | SLDInfo (http://www.sldinfo.com/visiting-the-hms-queen-elizabeth-the-transformation-of-british-projection-forces/)
''7 degress' was my bananafunga '7 degrees' (one guesses angle for glideslope SRVL)
'FlyCo' = Flying Control from AFT (one nearest the stern) Island (sticks out from deck)
'SHRDLU' = https://www.google.com.au/search?q=shrdlu&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-US:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe=&gfe_rd=cr&ei=XimdWaryK4Pp8wf_k6yoBA
'JACKspeak' LURNit: https://owlcation.com/humanities/JackSpeak---The-Language-of-the-Royal-Navy-

[ORAC]

Hmmm, sounds like "flappen jacken......"

MmOdI80sC5U

[ORAC]

Another proposal to solve the commas/datalink problem.

Northrop's fix for F-35 and F-22 communications problem involves Global Hawk drones (http://www.defensenews.com/air/2017/08/23/northrops-fix-for-f-35-and-f-22-communications-problems-involves-global-hawk-uavs/)

[BEagle]

The U.S. Air Force’s two most advanced fighter jets, the F-35 and F-22, cannot currently transmit and receive information between each other because both use different secure data links.

Madness. To require some Babel fish*-equipped drone to sort out such nonsense is a ridiculous notion.

*For those who don't understand this, it is from Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. 'The Babel fish is small, yellow, leech-like, and probably the oddest thing in the universe. It feeds on brain wave energy, absorbing all unconscious frequencies and then excreting telepathically a matrix formed from the conscious frequencies and nerve signals picked up from the speech centres of the brain, the practical upshot of which is that if you stick one in your ear, you can instantly understand anything said to you in any form of language: the speech you hear decodes the brain wave matrix.

[SpazSinbad]

Perhaps they'll understand it all when hypoxic? Anyhoo sticking one in my ear sounds nasty.

Flight Doctors Key To Cracking Hypoxia Mystery 23 Aug 2017 Lara Seligman
"...All data indicate that the F-35 Obogs is by and large operating as designed—although the Air Force has tweaked the algorithm that meters oxygen concentration at various altitudes, he noted. The team also is looking at other pieces of the F-35 life support system—for instance the mask, Flottmann said...." Flight Doctors Key To Cracking Hypoxia Mystery | Defense content from Aviation Week (http://aviationweek.com/defense/flight-doctors-key-cracking-hypoxia-mystery)

[SpazSinbad]

I wonder wot he does with the babelfish during this evolution?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-rXZ75hkLM

[Brat]

The glide path angle at London City 5.5, and Seon in Switzerland, don’t remember the angle but steep, with sheer cliffs to the port side and an offset step to the right at the bottom, do stick out as being memorable. but the glide slop indicator seemed perfectly logical.This was puzzling.

The approach symbology for the F-35 on first exposure reminded me of a comment made by an ‘older’ pilot first exposed to ‘glass cockpit’. When asked by his sim instructor how he had found the experience, his comment was, “now I know how my dog feels when we are watching PM’s questions time on the TV.”

As an afterthought, the glide angle on an engine out in a Bensen Autogyro is around 45 degrees.

[SpazSinbad]

Aaahhh the BECKinator is changing our language - heehaw....
"...[Wing Commander James Beck] Commander Beck told this website “With F-35s on the HMS Queen Elizabeth, I can float them anywhere I want. “I can float the aircraft carrier anywhere I want, I can float this offshore to any country, any continent and I can fly in when I choose – not when they permit me to do so. “There is nothing they can do.”...
&
...Describing flying the F-35, he said: “I don’t even think about flying it, I just sit there and look good and think about fighting.”... F-35 Lightning warplanes 'own the skies' and can fly 'anywhere' boasts RAF commander | Daily Star (http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/640095/F-35-Lightning-RAF-Britain-Royal-Navy-HMS-Queen-Elizabeth-Russia-China-Fifth-Generation)

[Martin the Martian]

Did he add "mwha-ha-ha-ha!" afterwards, while rubbing his hands with glee?

[SpazSinbad]

Prolly & RAFieChapies need to NOT add 'the' to HMS Queen Elizabeth but further news for the hyperpixilated:
"Luke Air Force Base on Wednesday lifted altitude restrictions on the F-35, but Air Force officials are no closer to understanding what prompted five physiological incidents earlier this summer....

...The base also found success with updated pilot training and pre-flight procedures, including increasing the minimum levels for the backup oxygen system and having pilots mask up as soon as they get to the jet, Heyse said [Maj. Rebecca Heyse, spokeswoman for the 56th fighter wing]." 30 Aug 2017 https://www.defensenews.com/air/2017/08/30/f-35-altitude-restrictions-lifted-at-luke-air-force-base/

[KiloB]

Interesting that four "B"s have just been sent to 'show the flag' in the north of South Korea. Is this as close as the F35 has come so far to active service?

[sandiego89]

Interesting that four "B"s have just been sent to 'show the flag' in the north of South Korea. Is this as close as the F35 has come so far to active service?


No. There are pretty good indications that Israeli F-35A's were engaged in actual combat operations by early 2017.


One source: Israel's F-35s may have flown combat mission against Russia in Syria - Business Insider (http://www.businessinsider.com/f-35-combat-mission-syria-2017-4)

[SpazSinbad]

Bs will add sting to WASP in a little while:
USS Wasp departs to join 7th Fleet forces in Japan 30 Aug 2017 USS Wasp Public Affairs
"NORFOLK, Va. - Amphibious assault ship USS Wasp (LHD 1) departed for Sasebo, Japan, Aug. 30, where it will assume duties as the forward-deployed flagship of the amphibious force of the U.S. 7th Fleet. The shift will introduce an F-35B Joint Strike Fighter-capable amphibious assault ship to the Indo-Asia-Pacific region, pairing it with the F-35Bs of Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (VMFA) 121...." USS Wasp departs to join 7th Fleet forces in Japan | Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet (http://www.cpf.navy.mil/news.aspx/110348)

[sandiego89]

Interesting, have been used to seeing the WASP in Norfolk waters for years, but now she is headed to her new homeport in Japan, part of the pivot to the Pacific to put the most modern/modernized gear in that theatre. This will allow the BON HOMME RICHARD to return to the US for refit, including the F-35B mods. Guess you just can't roll on that special deck coating like I did for my garage floor ;)

[mattyj]

F-35's, Strike Eagles and B-1B's all out turning the Korean soil in preparation for potato planting I guess..does that mean the 35's are fully operational and ready to be let loose against little Kim?

[Pali]

Slovakia as a NATO member uses ageing Mig29s which we have since Warsaw pact era. There is an ongoing discussion on replacing them. So far the most probable candidate would be Gripen also because Czech Air Force uses them and both countries cooperate traditionally quite tight in the area. (There is an agreement in existence where both countries can cover the neighbours airspace at times if needed.)

Today I saw an article about F16 as another candidate. But because it is expected that Russia could introduce 5th generation fighter in the next future the speculation is that we should jump from Mig29 directly to F-35. I almost spoiled my keyboard with coffee reading this as I don't know what happens with this jet at all and secondly due the traditionally low defence budget I consider this rather unlikely.

Any ideas?

[SASless]

It would seem there are some who think the USMC should get out of Aviation altogether....and rid itself of the F-18 and F-35....and pass those roles on to the US Navy.


USMC should drop the F-35 and V-22 ? and perhaps the F-18 while it?s at it ? Foreign Policy (http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/09/06/usmc-should-drop-the-f-35-and-v-22-and-perhaps-the-f-18-while-its-at-it/amp/)

[Lonewolf_50]

@SASless: Douchewads like that have been singing a similar song for a few decades.


The USMC does combined arms warfare right , and the rest of the Joint Forces community ought to pay closer attention to how they do it. Ricks is citing a number of "thought pieces" that amount to throwing spaghetti at the wall and seeing if it sticks. (I agree with Ricks, however, that Shoe is less likely to be right about the UAV thing ...)
I long ago stopped my subscription to USNI Proceedings, which I had had delivered to me for over 20 years. Why? Quality degradation.

[George K Lee]

In which LW50 summarizes the quality of any discussion of Marine air power.

[Lonewolf_50]

In which LW50 summarizes the quality of any discussion of Marine air power. Having worked the Joint Forces Air piece both with, and without, folding in the USMC in various operations I find aviators of all sorts quite air minded. What I find most pronounced is how the Marines "get" combined arms warfare" better than the others. The Organic Marine Aviation in a given MAGTF works very well, and fits into the Joint fight very well.

Not sure what your experience is in the combined arms fight in sizes small, medium, and large. (The Marines stay out of the "bomber command" bit but are keenly interested in the interdiction and strike pieces, since that shapes the battlefield).

[SpazSinbad]

Apparently F-35 pilots do not wear oxy mask at all times when on ground. Our A4G SOP was to don it as soon as strapped in and take it off when unstrapping when chocked engine off in the line.
"...Painstaking investigations are still underway, looking at the state of the aircraft, pilot, and environmental conditions in every incident, but there seem to be two causes, both solvable...." JPO Fixing F-35 Oxygen, Carrier Landing, Software Glitches: VADM Winter « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary (http://breakingdefense.com/2017/09/jpo-fixing-f-35-oxygen-carrier-landing-software-glitches-vadm-winter/)

[SASless]

Until recently, a small navy airfield near a river was conducting tests on an unmanned aircraft.....which makes me suspect Pilotless aircraft are still being considered even if not being touted too loudly in public.

But then....a lot of stuff goes on that doesn't exist doesn't it.

Sort of like meeting someone and having to do the "where do I not know you from...." routine before chatting in public.

[SpazSinbad]

Fixes for 'green glow' have improved the view with more to come perhaps....?
"..."They had a very productive day," he said. "We had the test pilots wearing the new helmet with the new organic LED configuration to assess the green-glow fix." Green-glow typically occurs at night and makes it difficult for pilots to see certain objects. The Navy deems the O-LED helmet "acceptable," but Winter said the new configuration needs to be tested in darker conditions at sea." https://insidedefense.com/insider/navy-postpones-f-35c-sea-testing-due-hurricane-irma

[SpazSinbad]

You can drag the video slider to MINUTE 20 to see 'Brick' Wilson tell tall tales & true of the legendary F-35C at HOOK17:

https://livestream.com/wab/tailhook2017/videos/162471073 [F-35C bombed up in JPG is going faster than Mach 1]

From MINUTE 31:20sec there is a clip showing what the F-35C pilot sees through the HMDS (now with 'optical tracking' whatever that means) and other stuff.

Overall the F-35C test pilot segment of the video is 18 minutes long from minute 20 into the video itself - slide slider to it.