F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

[JSFfan]

"The effectiveness of ANY weapon system cannot be objectively assessed by the fact that it can go quite fast carrying some weapons. The only OBJECTIVE assessment that we can do just now would be as I have said (and you have ignored) before is to run the simulations to check that it can do the job"

I agree, what happens under the skin is far more important
It is silly to use Jane's specs to judge an aircraft, but I'm not the one hand wringing over the F-35ab being a bit slower than a "clean" f-16 in level flight trans accel. (level flight trans accel is something I've never heard doing operationally) and for the hand wringers, block 6 has an engine upgrade
.
The not going as fast as a clean f-16 in trans acell has been public for 12 months now and I guess would have been known that the pre 2001 wasn't going to be met when they put the 2005 design into a wind tunnel.

The 9+ air forces are running sims, They started with a LER of 3:1 and now have a LER of 6:1, 4 vs 8.

[kbrockman]

We have an expression over here; "no more eggs from that farmer"
I think it's safe to say that people like Tom Burbage are one of those farmers,
He's been pretty much death wrong or wilfully deceptive in almost all of his statements concerning all things F35.

Trustworthy info is hard to get by on things like the F35 (or most other defence projects), the only thing we can put faith into are rapports from neutral overseeing boards like eg. the GOA or the defence commission or even people involved in the past that are no longer tied to the program and have nothing to benefit from it or those not directly involved that worked on similar programs.

Problem is that exactly these people are very critical about the way the JSF program is evolving, and more worryingly , what it will ultimately turn into and what price will have to be paid for this wonderweapon.

Hearing statements like today's , 'the F35 will basically outperform every 4th generation fighter' are questionable even if we only go by the raw data that is available, it all just doesn't add up.

Anyway, I'm getting rather tired about all this,we seem to rehash all this again and again and every time we actually see neutral rapports there just seems to be way too many problems and chronic performance shortfalls.

Maybe this whole program is indicative of the deeper problems in our societies and economies.
It has become a work-scheme and profit-scheme too big to fail, a bit like one of these massive banks or corporations that need to be bailed out at all costs destroying the fabric of what it was supposed to serve in the first place.

// my final rant.

PS; I hope we Belgians look at our empty pockets before committing to this atrocity and choose something a little more sensible, I'm not getting my hopes up though.

PPS I've been in the engineering sector basically my whole life and the idea that big projects like this are bound to run overtime, overbudget and out of spec is a fallacy , non politicised big projects can be executed within acceptable limits when only objective data and criteria are used.
just my two cents.

[JSFfan]

As to a timeline, it was made public in Jan 2012 and in Mar 2012 this was said
ParlInfo - Parliamentary Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade : 20/03/2012 : Department of Defence annual report 2010-11 (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=COMMITTEES;id=committees%2Fcommjnt%2F3cb4e326-70e4-4abd-acb7-609a16072b70%2F0001;query=Id%3A%22committees%2Fcommjnt%2F3cb 4e326-70e4-4abd-acb7-609a16072b70%2F0000%22)
we put the real data from the airplanes in the simulation and they run up many, many runs to get the numbers we are talking about.
Mr Liberson: And it is very important to note that our constructive simulations that Mr Burbage talks about without the pilot in the loop are the lowest number that we talk about—

the greater than six to one. When we include the pilot in the loop activities, they even do better when we include all of that in our partner manned tactical simulation facility.
Mr Burbage: We actually have a fifth-gen airplane flying today. The F22 has been in many exercises. We have one of the pilots here who flew it and they can tell you that in any real-world event it is much better than the simulations forecast. We have F35 flying today; it has not been put into that scenario yet, but we have very high quality information on the capability of the sensors and the capability of the airplane, and we have represented the airplane fairly and appropriately in these large-scale campaign models that we are using. But it is not just us—it is our air force; it is your air force; it is all the other participating nations that do this; it is our navy and our marine corps that do these exercises. It is not Lockheed in a closet genning up some sort of result.

[LowObservable]

To start with, let us be honest: Mr Flynn works for Lockheed Martin. And when he talks to the media in an official capacity, he answers at that moment not to the flight-test organization but to the company's marketing, advertising and communications side.

Everyone selling anything says what they can get away with, whether it is simply telling porkies or selective data. (As in the commercial airplane world, where there were 105 ways of quietly lopping a couple of seat rows and four revenue freight containers out of your competitor's jet in a supposedly comparable layout.)

But the aircraft does not lie.

Compared with the JSF:

The Phoon is two tons lighter empty, and will be lighter by a larger margin at start-of-combat with the same fuel fraction (which determines how long you can fight and still get home) and weapon load.

The Phoon has equal static mil thrust and 93 per cent of the max thrust. It has a lower-bypass engine cycle which is increasingly advantageous as speed increases. (The F135 is optimized for SLST - score another hit on A/C capability for the B version.)

The Phoon's body is several feet longer and has much less volume (by two weapon bays and 8,000 lb of fuel) so its fineness ratio is greater. It also has a lower cross-sectional area that peaks much further aft.

The Phoon wing is 20 per cent larger in gross area, probably 50 per cent larger in net area, has a lower T/C-ratio and greater sweep.

Laws of physics > statements of LockMart employee.

Basic Tech Intelligence > PR and advertising.

This is not to say that the F-35 was incompetently designed. The requirements for the F-35 and Typhoon were vastly different - as different as the Buccaneer and the F-4K/M, although both had two seats, two Speys and a radar, as different as a Tornado and an F-18.

LockMart and the JSF peanut gallery are free to argue that their approach delivers a better military capability, but to try to make the case that JSF is better at what a Typhoon is intended to do... Sorry.

Also, this is all a bit amusing coming from the crew who also tell us that "maneuvering is irrelevant". Make your bloody minds up, will you?

[Just This Once...]

Meanwhile the USMC are getting used to the idea that the F-35B will be covered in pylons, may need a jammer that does a bit more than what the APG-81 can provide, may need to carry IR weapons as a matter of routine and may need better defensive capabilities when having to fly under the weather to acheive VMC.

They are also starting to talk about a targeting pod too.

We have come a long way...

[peter we]

They got the Harrier working , I fail to see why the F32 wouldn't have worked out.

Because the people who got the Harrier working couldn't get it working and developed the F-35 instead, because that was the solution to the problem.

Excuse me if I am speaking out of turn.

[kbrockman]

Because the people who got the Harrier working couldn't get it working and developed the F-35 instead, because that was the solution to the problem.

Excuse me if I am speaking out of turn.

You mean that Boeing, aka ex-MDD didn't know about hot air ingestion and choose the wrong path , while all along they had the AV8B in their portfolio?

LID devices ,when the gunpods wheren't installed, was something they came up with, no?

Also the hot-air gasses on the X32 are a good deal further aft compared with the Harrier, hard to imagine that with some tweaking they couldn't get their system working adequately.

[JSFfan]

Meanwhile the USMC are getting used to the idea that the F-35B will be covered in pylons, may need a jammer that does a bit more than what the APG-81 can provide, may need to carry IR weapons as a matter of routine and may need better defensive capabilities when having to fly under the weather to acheive VMC."

There was talk of that jammer pod, I guess that may happen when you want IOC with block 2 and the cake isn't cooked till block 3, I haven't seen any real development of the idea, do you have a recent link? or are you reminiscing a what if

meanwhile the USAF seem happy and the USMC "will" be happy
http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Documents/2012/November%202012/1112fighter.pdf

He did say, however, that F-35 requirements call for it to go into battle with “no support whatever” from AWACS/Growler systems.

“I don’t know a pilot alive who wouldn’t want whatever support he can get,” O’Bryan acknowledged. “But the requirements that we were given to build the airplane didn’t have any support functions built in. In other words, we had to find the target, ... penetrate the anti-access [defenses], ... ID the target, and ... destroy it by ourselves.”

O’Bryan said the power of the F-35’s EW/EA systems can be inferred from the fact that the Marine Corps “is going to replace its EA-6B [a dedicated jamming aircraft] with the baseline F-35B” with no additional pods or internal systems.

Asked about the Air Force’s plans, O’Bryan answered with several rhetorical Questions: “Are they investing in a big jammer fleet? Are they buying [EA-18G] Growlers?” Then he said, “There’s a capability here.”

O’Bryan went on to say that the electronic warfare capability on the F-35Ais as good as, or better than, [that of the] fourth generation airplanes specifically built for that purpose.”
The F-35’s “sensitivity” and processing Power—a great deal of it automated—coupled with the sensor fusion of internal and offboard systems, give the pilot unprecedented situational awareness

[ORAC]

O’Bryan said the power of the F-35’s EW/EA systems can be inferred from the fact that the Marine Corps “is going to replace its EA-6B [a dedicated jamming aircraft] with the baseline F-35B” with no additional pods or internal systems. Asked about the Air Force’s plans, O’Bryan answered with several rhetorical Questions: “Are they investing in a big jammer fleet? Are they buying [EA-18G] Growlers?” Then he said, “There’s a capability here.” WILL F-35 CUSTOMERS GET ADVANCED JAMMER? (http://www.dailyairforce.com/172/will-f35-customers-get-advanced-jammer.html)

The U.S. Navy is providing some details about what the Next Generation Jammer might add to the air defense-busting capabilities of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, but the unique and futuristic capabilities of the jammer raise questions about how many of those yet-to-be-defined abilities will be available to foreign purchasers of the JSF.........

Still to be determined is whether the NGJ system will be exportable to other JSF-buying nations. The NGJ is designed to defend the F-35 against heavily protected surface-to-air missiles (SAM) and suppress integrated enemy air defenses such as the SA-20. Advanced SAM systems might be used by Iran, for example, to defend nuclear weapons, ballistic missile and key command-and-control sites. U.S. analysts say only a stealthy, high-flying, supercruise aircraft can avoid destruction in the heart of such defenses.........

[JSFfan]

"Still to be determined is whether the NGJ system will be exportable to other JSF-buying nations."

I did ask if there was a "recent link"
Ok, so it looks like you dug up a very old article, when there was talk about putting the NGJ on the f-35.
That question on export has already been answered for Aussies, we are getting the NGJ on the growlers when they are cooked and will probably finish up on UAV's. There are no plans to put the NGJ on any f-35

also Jurno speculation doesn't count "The NGJ is designed to defend the F-35 against heavily protected surface-to-air missiles " isn't a quote from Green

[ITman]

Pentagon lowers F-35 performance bar

BY: DAVE MAJUMDAR WASHINGTON DC
11:03 14 Jan 2013
Source: Flight International

The US Department of Defense is lowering the performance bar for the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter according to a new report by the Pentagon's director of operational test and evaluation (DOT&E).
The specifications for all three variants pertaining to transonic acceleration and sustained turn rates have been reduced. Worst hit in terms of acceleration is the US Navy's F-35C carrier-based model.

"The program announced an intention to change performance specifications for the F-35C, reducing turn performance from 5.1 to 5.0 sustained g's and increasing the time for acceleration from 0.8 Mach to 1.2 Mach by at least 43 seconds," reads the report prepared by J Michael Gilmore, the Pentagon's DOT&E. "These changes were due to the results of air vehicle performance and flying qualities evaluations."

The US Air Force F-35A's time has slipped by eight seconds while the US Marine Corps short take-off vertical landing (STOVL) F-35B's time has slipped by 16 seconds. However, turn rates for both the A and B models have been impacted more severely than the USN variant. Sustained turning performance for the F-35B is being reduced from 5G to 4.5G while the F-35A sinks from 5.3G to 4.6G according to the report.

Lockheed Martin

All three variants are having problems with their horizontal tails. "Horizontal tail surfaces are experiencing higher than expected temperatures during sustained high speed / high altitude flight, resulting in delamination and scorching of the surface coatings and structure," the report reads. "All variants were restricted from operations outside of a reduced envelope until the test team added instrumentation to the tailbooms to monitor temperatures on the tail surfaces."

Meanwhile, the F-35B and C variants continue to have issues with transonic roll-off and buffeting. On the F-35B, the program introduced vehicle systems software to reduce rudder and flaperon hinge moment in the transonic/supersonic region. "The program expected to see improvements in transonic wing roll-off with these changes, but results were not available at the end of November 2012," the report reads.

Transonic buffet is more severe on the F-35C compared to the other variants due to its larger wing. "The program is making plans for investigating how to reduce the impact of transonic roll-off in the F-35C with the use of wing spoilers; however, detailed test plans are not complete," the report reads.
Meanwhile, the aircraft's crucial helmet-mounted display still has problems with jittery images and is not meeting specifications for night vision acuity. Additionally, a new problem called "green glow" has been discovered where light from the cockpit avionics displays leak into the helmet-mounted display and degrade visual acuity. However, the image latency is now within tolerances. "Latency of the projected imagery from the DAS [distributed aperture system] is currently down to 133 milliseconds, below the human factors derived maximum of 150 milliseconds, but still requires additional testing to verify adequacy," the report reads.

Perhaps in worst shape is the F-35's software. According to the report, even the initial Block 1 software package is not complete, some 20% remains to be delivered and flight tested. An initial version of the more advanced, but still not combat capable, Block 2A software was delivered four months late to flight test. "In eight subsequent versions released to flight test, only a limited portion of the full, planned Block 2A capability (less than 50 percent) became available and delivered to production," the report reads. "The program made virtually no progress in the development, integration, and laboratory testing of any software beyond 2B. Block 3i software, required for delivery of Lot 6 aircraft and hosted on an upgraded processor, has lagged in integration and laboratory testing."

Meanwhile, structural durability testing continues, but the F-35B has hit a snag. "The program halted testing in December 2012 after multiple cracks were found in a bulkhead flange on the underside of the fuselage during the 7,000-hour inspection," the report reads. "Root cause analysis, correlation to previous model predictions, and corrective action planning were ongoing at the time of this report."

Lockheed could not immediately offer a substantive comment. "Our experts are going through it so it will be a while before we have detailed questions like yours answered," the company says, but adds, "From an Operational Test and Evaluation perspective, we fully expect to deliver a qualified product to OT&E as scheduled."

[ORAC]

JSFfan,

The point is as follows.

1. THe USN has accepted that the JSF internal jammer will be incapable of meeting the Day 1 threat by 2020 (prior to IOC) and that the NGJ is required to provide EW cover to penetrate enemy defences.

2. The NGJ integration with the JSF has been deferred indefinitely (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/in-focus-us-navy-next-generation-jammer-proceeds-but-f-35-integration-deferred-indefinitely-371742/) - which will, therefore require an escort jammer - either F/A-18G, UCAV or other.

3. Any partner nation not buying/ being allowed to buy the NGJ loses the Day 1 capability rendering the stealth aspects of the JSF of little or nugatory value.

It would be interesting to compare the cost and capability of a mixed F/A-18G + F/A-18E fleet versus an 18G/JSF and, for other partners such as the Dutch, Turks etc a Rafale/Typhoon/F-15E force fitted with NGJ for self protection.

[Exnomad]

Bearing in mind that the sizes of the ships was at least partly due to Brown.s desire to keep his pet shipyard busy. If at the outset VTOL was to be specified we could have had at least three smaller ships.
The present ones without cats and traps will not be able to operate conventional aircraft form other airforces, which was at least one of the claim originally

[Mk 1]

LO, lots of 'if's' there:

IF the F-22 had continued in production...IF the F-35 production doesn't top 3 figures...

I can top that: IF they stop production and terminate the program now then it could be the F-35 is probably the most expensive bird per unit production on the planet!

LO, one fact we do know is that F-22 production has stopped well short of the anticipated numbers (187 isn't it?). Obviously the final number of F-35's won't be known for probably 15-20 years, I guess they can crunch the figures then and we'll both know.

This is the sort of thing that Joe the alien (newly arrived from another planet) isn't going to understand. In this one statement you are comparing supposedly similar numbers of airframes (rough figs F-22 was supposed to run between 800-900 airframes wasn't it?) with 3 figs F-35 and seem to be surprised that the unit cost is higher DESPITE the F-35 having 3 versions designed and tested including a STOVL unit. And you've made this comparison based on a falacy (F-22 production has stopped - no use wishing for more, it's not going to happen).

So here my 'what if' for you based along similarly biased lines - what would the unit cost of the F-22 be if it had been designed in 3 versions incl VTOL- I'll even give you the original 800 odd production numbers - compared to the F-35 (orders standing at what 3000+?).

If you cannot see that the question you have asked and the comparison you have made is wrong then you've proved my point.

[ORAC]

Obviously the final number of F-35's won't be known for probably 15-20 years

Well it's been known for almost a year (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/21/us-lockheed-fighter-idUSBRE82K00T20120321) that's there's no more money - any cash for future price increases comes from reducing the number bought.

So the F-35 is already into a death spiral; as the price goes up, the number to be built goes down, which drives the price up, which drives the number down..... and so on to the end.

The only question is how many get built before the plug is finally pulled.

[Not_a_boffin]

Bearing in mind that the sizes of the ships was at least partly due to Brown.s desire to keep his pet shipyard busy. If at the outset VTOL was to be specified we could have had at least three smaller ships.
The present ones without cats and traps will not be able to operate conventional aircraft form other airforces, which was at least one of the claim originally

No - that's an urban myth perpetuated by those involved in the interservice attempts to scupper the ships as being "too big".

The requirement as signed up and endorsed jointly in 1998/99 meant that three smaller ships would not have been able to meet it. ISTR the one-eyed Scottish financial genius was still festering away in his Treasury back then. The ships (STOVL or CTOL) were always going to be too big to build in any existing single UK yard - a fact exacerbated by Paul Drayson using the Defence Industrial Strategy as a club to beat BAES and VT into a joint venture (which VT later left).

It's really quite simple. The build location was driven (primarily) by the beam of the vessel, which in turn was driven partly by the size of flightdeck and hangar needed and partly by the need to make the flightdeck capable of being angled. You simply can't do this on an overall beam much less than 65m.

When the build strategy was being determined, every single UK yard was looked at. That meant Barrow (no beam restriction on the ways, but no way to get her into the outfitting dock and more importantly she'd be too long and too deep), Govan (not enough length or beam on the building way), Scotstoun (too small in every respect), Swan Hunter (too small ever since the daft Dutch idiot who bought the yard put the building dock in), Portsmouth (not enough beam in C&D locks, plus limited draft in 3 basin), Harland & Wolff (plenty of room in the building dock, but no steel, outfit or technical organisation left for something of this size, Cammell Laird (shed too small and at the time in receivership). Rosyth could not have been used to build it, because the steel and outfit facilities simply aren't big enough and there is no real room to expand without building an entirely new facility where RD57 (the abandoned Trident docking facility) stands. Nigg Offshore yard near Inverness was also considered, as was Inchgreen dock on the Clyde, but both were essentially bare facilities with Nigg not having been used for years.

The other problem was that none of these yards were individually capable of fabricating all the steel units and outfitting them at a sufficient rate to meet the original in-service date.

Once people got their heads around those factors, it was obvious that if the ship was to be built in the UK, she would have to be built in heavily preoutfitted units and assembled in a suitable dock. MoD wanted the ship built in the UK to retain onshore design and build skills, as well as ensuring that some of the protective details in the design of the ship remained in UK eyes alone. That left a choice between Inchgreen, Harlands and Rosyth for the assembly location, which was not really a choice at all as neither of the first two were "secure" sites (Harlands managed to let PIRA bomb Fort Vic in build), nor did they have the space and infrastructure to accommodate the steel units and people needed to assemble the ships. Rosyth did - and apart from the crane, required only minor mods to the dock.

The idea that Rosyth was chosen to appease the Great Financial Genius / One-Eyed Pillock is superficially attractive, but is actually a myth. He - more than anyone - delayed the ships and increased the cost by continually blocking the order in his last years in HMT and as PM - it was only when he was grasping at any straw he could lay his hands on to get re-elected that the build contract was allowed to be signed.

If F35B (or indeed F35 in toto) is canned, the ships will still be capable of conversion to operate F18s or Rafale in CTOL mode if required. It was simply judged too expensive (on the basis of some rather funny numbers that even the HCDC couldn't work out) at the minute compared to using F35B - doesn't mean it can't be done.

I've been very impressed with the standard of build and outfit on QE whenever I've seen a unit. The constant arguing about the type of aircraft and the tortuous approvals process have not been success stories. The build most definitely is.

By the way, no-one would wish to operate f/w aircraft in VTOL mode from ships - no useful payload at all.

[dervish]

Not a Boffin

I must say I enjoyed reading that last post. It should be required reading in MoD on so many levels. The one thing I'd say is that no reasonable person should expect the HCDC to be capable of working out anything related to defence. :E

[susanlikescats]

Dear JSFfan (love the name, I totally get it),

Have you looked around recently at the sort of flying things your near neighbours and possibly-soon-to-be-floating-off-your-shores-once-they've-got-the-carrier-thing-licked neighbours may be bringing to any party? Are you really convinced that whatever version of the 35 your American chums let you buy - and in the numbers you're able to afford - will do anything other than raise an amused eyebrow from these people?

I only ask because I've already seen the amused eyebrow being raised...

[Not_a_boffin]

The one thing I'd say is that no reasonable person should expect the HCDC to be capable of working out anything related to defence.

You are of course correct! What I meant was that even when it was clear that MinDEST, CDM and DCDS CAP didn't really know what was going on in the evidence sessions, they weren't pressed on the matter.

[LowObservable]

Mk 1...

I don't really understand what you are getting at.

My comment was: "Unit production cost of the B (under discussion here) is by any definition about three-quarters of what RAND estimated the F-22 would have cost in continued production, if everything goes to plan and at triple-digit total F-35 production rates."

I may have to be more detailed. I was not talking about the total number of aircraft built because it does not matter as much as production rate per year - not at any rate in defense economics, where everything is paid year-by-year, so a manufacturer can't take a loss in prospect of big profits down the road. F-35s to be bought in 2030 have no effect on 2018 costs.

All F-35 projections currently assume total all-variant rates well above 150/year, from 2018 buy year forward.

Even so, the average procurement unit cost of the F-35B in 2018 (in BY12 dollars) is $138 million. RAND's 2010 calculation was that building 75 more F-22s over about six years (on top of the 187 already funded) would result in an APUC of $173 million, at a far lower production rate.

So all the factors you're talking about have already been washed out of the comparison.

ORAC - O'Bryan's comments about the Marines not replacing the EA-6B and its implications for the F-35 EA capability are... interesting. There has never been any mention of an active EW system on the F-35 aside from functions built into the radar (X-band and front sector only). Indeed, the JSF requirement was written only a few years after the chief engineer at LM-Sanders, now BAE Systems Nashua, described active EW as "going the way of the buggy whip industry".

Also, it's hard to see why an LO aircraft would need high-powered jamming of the kind needed by an escort or stand-off EW aircraft. Certainly not for self-protection. And integrating such a thing into an aircraft that's already short of space and cooling, given the difficulty of adding large apertures to an LO airframe, would be challenging.

[JSFfan]

The point is as follows.

1. The USN has accepted that the JSF internal jammer will be incapable of meeting the Day 1 threat by 2020 (prior to IOC) and that the NGJ is required to provide EW cover to penetrate enemy defences.
NGJ won't be available till well after 2020, so I really don't know what your point is


2. The NGJ integration with the JSF has been deferred indefinitely (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/in-focus-us-navy-next-generation-jammer-proceeds-but-f-35-integration-deferred-indefinitely-371742/) - which will, therefore require an escort jammer - either F/A-18G, UCAV or other.

It seems by statements made that the partners are happy with the EW and in the article there is no mention of escort jamming the f-35, it's just your imagination, Australia has purchased the Growler and will be the only other to have the NGJ at this stage...it wasn't bought to escort f-35's...there is a reason you don't send emitting 4th gen AC with stealth planes on deep strike

3. Any partner nation not buying/ being allowed to buy the NGJ loses the Day 1 capability rendering the stealth aspects of the JSF of little or nugatory value.

nonsense

It would be interesting to compare the cost and capability of a mixed F/A-18G + F/A-18E fleet versus an 18G/JSF and, for other partners such as the Dutch, Turks etc a Rafale/Typhoon/F-15E force fitted with NGJ for self protection.

there is no way the rafale will get a NGJ, the french has burnt that bridge to us tech years ago, IMO Israel and japan would be suspect too.

The future may include the NGJ on UAV's being used to escort jam with the f-35, but it doesn't seem to be a requirement

@susanlikescats (http://www.pprune.org/members/404603-susanlikescats), if china kicks off, it will be a coalition of forces

[JSFfan]

Even so, the average procurement unit cost of the F-35B in 2018 (in BY12 dollars) is $138 million. RAND's 2010 calculation was that building 75 more F-22s over about six years (on top of the 187 already funded) would result in an APUC of $173 million, at a far lower production rate.

it gets tiring constantly correcting your errors, it's as if they are deliberate or you are using that fool Sweetman's deceptive numbers.
as you well know, the $~173 was the unit 2007/8 continue production and not the APUC and it would help if you put the rand link to confirm.

[glad rag]

NGJ won't be available till well after 2020, so I really don't know what your point isHmm. "The USN has accepted that the JSF internal jammer will be incapable of meeting the Day 1 threat by 2020 (prior to IOC) and that the NGJ is required to provide EW cover to penetrate enemy defences."

When will our aircrews be required to take this bird to war?? Are you saying post 2020 now :confused: :):):):)

if china kicks off, it will be a coalition of forces

Aye a coalition of 1 more like....

[SpazSinbad]

For 'JSFfan':

Management of Australia’s Air Combat Capability—F-35A Joint Strike Fighter Acquisition ANAO Audit Report No.6 2012–13 24 Sep 2012

http://www.anao.gov.au/~/media/Files/Audit%20Reports/2012%202013/Audit%20Report%206/201213%20Audit%20Report%20No%206%20OCRed.pdf (4.7Mb)

"...As at June 2012, the JSF Program Office estimated the Unit Recurring Flyaway (URF) cost of a CTOL F‐35A aircraft for Fiscal Year 2012 to be US$131.4 million. That cost includes the baseline aircraft configuration, including airframe, engine and avionics. The URF cost is estimated to reduce to US$127.3 million in 2013, and to US$83.4 million in 2019. These expected price reductions take into account economies of scale resulting from increasing production volumes, as well as the effects of inflation. The estimates indicate that, after 2019, inflation will increase the URF cost of each F‐35A by about US$2 million per year. However, these estimates remain dependent upon expected orders from the United States and other nations, as well as the delivery of expected benefits of continuing Will‐Cost/Should‐Cost management by the US Department of Defense...."

Graph from PDF will follow when PhotoBucket decides to work again....

Click thumbnail for big pic: http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/th_ANAOf35aUnitRecurFlyCostGraph2012.jpg (http://s98.beta.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/ANAOf35aUnitRecurFlyCostGraph2012.jpg.html)

[JSFfan]

the USN hasn't accepted that at all, block 2 doesn't have the block 3 capabilities. USMC has a gap till block 3 ...is it so hard to get that?

[JSFfan]

thanks SpazSinbad, it's a good doc. and puts the APA clown club and naysayers into perspective. That 83.4m is in ty2019$ too and not by2012$
my reference to the $173M was for the f-22, from the rand study and how LO is misrepresenting it
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2010/RAND_MG797.pdf

Note that AUC is for the next 75 units only. This should be clearly distinguished from

average procurement unit cost and program acquisition unit cost, both of which are calculations

of cost of all units procured since the start of a production run, which would in this case

include the 183 F-22As already procured (the program of record at the time of this analysis)

plus the next 75.

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

There has never been any mention of an active EW system on the F-35 aside from functions built into the radar (X-band and front sector only).

There are obvious reasons it hasn't been mentioned...but it is there. :cool: In fact, I'm surprised the technical media hasn't pressed the LM/JPO talking heads harder on this issue.

...it's hard to see why an LO aircraft would need high-powered jamming of the kind needed by an escort or stand-off EW aircraft. Certainly not for self-protection.

Really LO? I thought you had a deeper appreciation for EW/EA conops...Stand-off EW can do so much more than just "high-powered jamming" or "self-protection".

For the rest of you speculating on EW/EA, for any high-end threat scenarios, NO US/allied/coalition combat aircraft (including F-22, B-2 & F-35) is likely to go anywhere near Indian country without some kind of stand-off EW/EA support.

[JSFfan]

there is a difference between having it and needing it
http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Documents/2012/November%202012/1112fighter.pdf
O’Bryan certainly couldn’t go into the subject of the fighter’s EW/EA suite in any detail, or the way it might coordinate with specialized aircraft such as the E-3 Airborne Warning and Control System, RC-135 Rivet Joint, E-8 JSTARS, or EA-18G Growler jammer aircraft.

He did say, however, that F-35 requirements call for it to go into battle with “no support whatever” from these systems.
“I don’t know a pilot alive who wouldn’t want whatever support he can get,” O’Bryan acknowledged. “But the requirements that we were given to build the airplane didn’t have any support functions built in.
In other words, we had to find the target, ... penetrate the anti-access [defenses], ... ID the target, and ... destroy it by ourselves.

[Heathrow Harry]

This weeks "Economist" says that defence will be hit hard due to sequestration and that most of the hit will be on programs - overseas commitments will be (mainly) funded for the short term but F-35 procurement will probably be cut in half (if not cancelled all together) and the Army can say goodbye to their new armoured vehicles

[glojo]

Just how stealthy will this new aircraft be when loaded with all of its external equipment?

Those very nice support aircraft are all well and good IF you have them and for the shore based items.... If they have the legs to be permanently stationed over the warship when it is in an area of high threat.

I guess without that support the F35B HAS TO rely on its own stealth abilities.

[Courtney Mil]

Hi, Glojo. A good question there. As the external stores are today, they make a massive difference to stealth. It may be possible to design lower observable pylons, etc, but the radar cross section would still look very different to the clean aircraft. So you would effectively lose the LO characteristics and the aircraft would need to fall back on its amazing performance (acceleration and 9g capability). Or not, as it is in the case of the F-35.

The internal weapons bay is crucial to LO.

[SpazSinbad]

Perhaps this multi mission external pod for the F-35 will be useful as indicated.

F-35 Multi Mission Pod on Display 2012-07-10:

http://www.terma.com/media/199994/img_8360_464.png http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/th_img_8360_464.jpg (http://s98.beta.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/img_8360_464.jpg.html)

"...In 2004, Terma won the contract to design, develop, qualify, and produce F-35 Gun Pods for the F-35B and F-35C in partnership with General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products, a business unit of General Dynamics.

The F-35 Pod is a full monocoque composite structure in carbon fiber. It passed engineering test and qualification and has flown on the F-35 in February 2012 and is currently in the LRIP production phase.

The F-35 Pod Enclosure will provide real estate on the F-35, which can be used to expand the F-35 Special Mission functionality, by allowing the F-35 to fly Next Generation EW and ISR systems, such as Jammers and EO sensors...."
____________________

www.terma.com/media/199692/terma_update_july_2012.pdf (http://www.terma.com/media/199692/terma_update_july_2012.pdf)

[LowObservable]

FA-18 - Can you explain how the fact that the ASQ-239 has an active jamming function is deadly secret, but it is OK to disclose it here? Thx.

Also, maybe I was not clear enough: If a stealthy aircraft has jamming for self-protection, it doesn't (at least it shouldn't) need a lot of watts on target. It is therefore unlikely to be very useful for standoff or escort jamming.

Spaz - Using the Terma pod is certainly an option. However, I doubt that the pod has no impact for RCS since (1) it would be difficult and expensive and (2) if you're doing strafing, which I submit is >95 per cent of the reason for the pod, stealth is not as important as in some other missions.

PS - I have no idea what JSFfan is saying since he is on my Ignore list. However, from the replies I gather that he is continuing to dig his own grave at a rate that should see him emerging on Wimbledon Common in a couple of weeks.

[Courtney Mil]

LO, he said not to worry because everything is going to be fine.

[JSFfan]

re LO, for the others..the ASQ-239 isn't transmit sensors by what is public and feeds what it collects into the EW system, it builds upon the AN/ALR-94 and the ASQ-239 has been called a passive radar

[Courtney Mil]

And your take on Glojo's point, JSFfan?

[glad rag]

..the ASQ-239 isn't transmit sensors by what is public and feeds what it collects into the EW system, it builds upon the AN/ALR-94 and the ASQ-239 has been called a passive radar

Right gotcha.....


..:\

[JSFfan]

Back in the day before Sweetman had a dummy spit, he wrote

THE NEXT GENERATION

The fourth Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, aircraft 4004. Is due to make its first flight from Marietta. GA, in late July. As the first F-22 to carry offensive avionics. Its task is to demonstrate that a stealthy aircraft can be a fighter. Under a deal struck with Congress last year, the F-22 has to prove this key technology by the end of this year if the next ten aircraft are to be authorized.

The F-22 represents a radical departure from the traditional approach to EW. Passive systems, once considered to be defensive in nature, are now critical to detecting, tracking and even attacking the target. The active radar, while still a primary sensor, is used sparingly for specific tasks. Active jamming in the traditional sense has disappeared. The F-22 approach is echoed to some extent in most of today's advanced fighter programs, including the Dassault Rafale, Eurofighter typhoon and Saab JAS Gripen. It is also fundamental to the future of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF).

The F-22's EW philosophy is rooted in some of the earliest work on stealth. As the US Air Force (USAF) defined requirements and operational doctrine for the F-117 stealth strike aircraft and B-2 bomber, in 1980-81, A "Red Team" headed by Dr. Paul Kaminski was charged with looking for weaknesses and vulnerabilities in stealth technology. One of the Red Team's Most important conclusions was that a stealth aircraft could not survive by low radar cross-section (RCS) alone, but by stealth and tactics.

In the case of the F-117 the Red Team's recommendation resulted in the development of one of the first automated mission-planning systems, but this left the aircraft dependent on a pre-programmed flight plan. The B-2 was designed to feature a sophisticated defensive management system (DMS) which would allow the crew to respond to threat radars not anticipated by the mission plan. The initial DMS was abandoned in the late 1980s. Its successor is the APR-50, developed by IBM Federal Systems (later acquired by Loral and now part of Lockheed Martin).
The USAF's Advanced Tactical Fighter project, which led to the F-22, presented greater challenges. In the air-to-air regime, the primary threats are airborne and move rapidly, making identification, location and tracking more complex. The F-22's sustained speed also shortens engagement timelines by as much as 40 percent.
At the same time, the fighter's classic tool for situational awareness -- a powerful search radar -- can render its stealth characteristics moot. Low-probability-of-intercept (LPI) techniques are not very compatible with continuous searches over a large volume. The fighter's stealth is also of little use if it has to close to visual range in order to identify its targets. Passive search and track and non-cooperative target recognition (NCTR) are not luxuries for a stealthy air-superiority fighter.
The solution to this problem on the F-22 is sensor fusion. The principal sensors are the Northrop Grumman APG-77 radar and the Sanders ALR-94 passive receiver system. The fighter also has two datalink systems: one using the standard VHF/UHF radio frequencies and the other, the intraflight datalink (IFDL), a low-power LPI link which connects two or more F-22s at close range. The sensors are apertures connected to the fighter's Common Integrated Processor (CIP) banks in the forward fuselage.

The data from the APG-77, ALR-94 and the datalinks are correlated according to their azimuth, elevation and range. Data is combined into a track file, and the final target picture is obtained by choosing the read-out from the most accurate sensor. For example, the passive system may provide the best azimuth data, while the radar produces the most accurate range.

CIP software controls the APG-77 according to emission-control principles. The radar's signals are managed in intensity, duration and space to maintain the pilot's situational awareness while minimizing the chance that its signals will be intercepted. More distant targets get less radar attention; as they get closer to the F-22, they will be identified and prioritized; and when they are close enough to be engaged or avoided, they are continuously tracked.

Sensor fusion and emission control are closely linked. The more the datalinks and ALR-94 can be used to build and update the tactical picture, the less the system needs to use the radar. The IFDL provides another layer of protection against tracking, because any one F-22 in a flight can provide radar data to the others.
The APG-77 and ALR-94 are unique, high-performance sensors. The APG-77 has an active, electronically scanned array (AESA) comprising some 1,200 transmitter and receiver modules. One vital difference between an AESA and any other radar that has a single transmitter (including a passive electronically steered array) is that the AESA is capable of operating as several separate radars simultaneously. An AESA can change its beamform very readily, and its receiver segments can operate in a passive or receive-only mode. Unlike a mechanical antenna, too, its revisit rates are not constrained by the antenna drive, and it can concurrently revisit different points within its field of regard at different rates. The F-22 has space, weight and cooling provision for auxiliary side arrays on either side of the nose. If installed, these would provide radar coverage over almost 270[degrees]. The ALR-94, meanwhile, is the most effective passive system ever installed on a fighter. Tom Burbage, former head of the F-22 program at Lockheed Martin, has described it as "the most technically complex piece of equipment on the aircraft."

The F-22 has been described as an antenna farm. Indeed, it would resemble a signals-intelligence (SIGINT) platform were it not for the fact that the 30-plus antennas are all smoothly blended into the wings and fuselage. The ALR-94 provides 360[degrees] coverage in all bands, with both azimuth and elevation coverage in the forward sector.

A target which is using radar to search for the F-22 or other friendly aircraft can be detected, tracked and identified by the ALR-94 long before its radar can see anything, at ranges of 250 nm or more. As the range closes, but still above 100 nm, the APG-77 can be cued by the ALR-94 to search for other aircraft in the hostile flight. The system uses techniques such as cued tracking: since the track file, updated by the ALR-94, can tell the radar where to look, it can detect and track the target with a very narrow beam, measuring as little as 2[degrees] by 2[degrees] in azimuth and elevation. One engineer calls it "a laser beam, not a searchlight. We want to use our resources on the high-value targets. We don't track targets that are too far away to be a threat."

The system also automatically increases revisit rates according to the threat posed by the targets. Another technique is "closed-loop tracking," in which the radar constantly adjusts the power and number of pulses to retain a lock on its target while using the smallest possible amount of energy.

High-priority emitters -- such as fighter aircraft at close range -- can be tracked in real time by the ALR-94. In this mode, called narrowband interleaved search and track (NBILST), the radar is used only to provide precise range and velocity data to set up a missile attack. If a hostile aircraft is injudicious in its use of radar, the ALR-94 may provide nearly all the information necessary to launch an AIM-120 AMRAAM air-to-air missile (AAM) and guide it to impact, making it virtually an anti-radiation AAM.

Of course, there are some targets that do not emit signals. "We prefer it that way, because he's dumb," remarked one Boeing engineer. In this case, the F-22 can use its LPI features to track the target -- which is not a threat unless another radar is tracking the F-22 and datalinking information to the "quiet" aircraft -- and can, if necessary, identify it.

NCTR is a highly classified area. One of the few known techniques is jet-engine modulation, which involves analyzing the raw radar return for the characteristic beat produced by a combination of the radar-pulse frequency and the rotating blades of the engine. This technique is already used on operational radars (including the APG-70 in the F-15) but is vulnerable to countermeasures and dependent on target aspect.

Other NCTR techniques involve very precise range measurements. If the target's orientation is known, the distribution of the signature over very small range bins can yield a range profile which is characteristic of a certain aircraft type. It is possible that the F-22, which has a great deal of onboard processing power -- as well as a flexible, frequency-agile radar -- is designed to use an NCTR technique of this kind.

Unlike the Eurofighter Typhoon , the F-22 does not have an electro-optical (EO) system for target identification. F-22 program managers have said consistently that they believe that the F-22 pilot will be able to identify any target -- emitting or not -- beyond visual range (BVR). "We are confident that we can demonstrate to our leadership that we know what's out there, and that we will operate with rules of engagement that reflect that fact," USAF program manager Gen Mike Mushala remarked at a conference in 1997.

The ALR-94 drives the F-22's defensive displays. The system determines the bearing, range and type of the threat, and then computes the distance at which the enemy radar can detect the F-22. The pilot is the decision-maker and is provided with timely, graphic information to guide defensive maneuvers. On the main defense display, usually shown on the left-hand screen in the cockpit, threat surface-to-air missile (SAM) and airborne early warning (AEW) radars are surrounded by circles that show their computed effective range. On the right-hand attack display, fighter radars are shown as blue beams extending towards the F-22's position.

The F-22 has no dedicated jamming systems. However, the APG-77 array can be used to generate powerful jamming beams over a certain frequency range.
Developing such a system has been a tremendous challenge. The F-22 avionics-development program is methodical and has learned from the experiences of other projects. From the outset, all of the software was designed on the same hardware with the same compilers and operating systems. "It was a tremendous advance," comments Boeing F-22 avionics deputy manager Gherry Bender. "We got beyond the hardware integration problems."

The complete system is being tested in three stages, starting with the ground-based avionics integration laboratory (AIL), then moving to the Boeing 757 flying test bed (FTB) and completing its tests on the F-22 prototypes. The AIL, located at Boeing Field in Seattle, WA, includes a tower-mounted sensor suite. The FTB is fitted with a sensor wing above and behind the cockpit, which accommodates the F-22's full-size wing-mounted antennas in their proper orientation. Internally, it features a complete CIP bank, an F-22 cockpit -- both the AIL and FTB support pilot-in-the-loop tests -- and multiple engineering workstations. The FTB has worked with Navy aircraft out of NAS Whidbey Island, WA, and with Air National Guard F-16s based at Albuquerque, NM.

The goal is to make the testing as realistic and repeatable as possible at each stage and, thereby, to minimize surprises at each succeeding stage. "The problem with integration is fault isolation," says Bender. "To do that, we need repeatability, combined with data gathering and reduction to get answers rapidly. If we can isolate faults on the FTB, it's a lot cheaper than doing the same on the F-22."
The first elements of the engineering-and-manufacturing-development (EMD) sensor suite for the F-22 were installed on the 757 in 1998, and powered up for the first time in December of that year. These first tests used Block-i software, which comprised the basic operating system, navigation and some radar modes. Its primary goal was to unearth any basic problems "so that we wouldn't have to rewrite a lot of software later," says Bender. The Block-2 software, which integrates some EW and communication, navigation and identification (CNI) functions, has been operating on the FTB since October 1999, and will be loaded on to the fourth F-22 for its first flight.

Block 3.0 is the most crucial step forward, because it introduces sensor fusion among the radar, EW and CNI subsystems. A development version of Block 3.0, called Block 3S, has been flying on the FTB since April. Block 3S was added to the development program in early 1999, and includes sensor functions but not sensor fusion. "It is a risk-reduction tool," says Bender. "With the software controlling the sensors and fusion in the feedback loop, it's sometimes hard to unravel what happened. Did the sensor fail, or did it do what it did because we commanded it to do it?"

The real Block 3.0 is due to fly on the FTB in August before being loaded on Raptor 4004 in October or November. "It will be a challenge," says David Anderson of the F-22 Plans and Programs Division at Wright-Patterson AFB. "There is some risk there, depending on the availability of the aircraft and the software. The degree of risk depends on who you talk to." One area which is receiving some special attention, though, is throughput in the main computer. "We can't afford too much delay between the collection of the signal and the point where it is displayed to the pilot. We're overcoming that," says Anderson. But, he says, the team is confident that they will pass the milestone on schedule.

The schedule appears to be tight, with two to three months between the first flight of Block 3.0 on the FTB and its first flight aboard the F-22. "The current avionics schedule," notes a disapproving General Accounting Office (GAO) in its latest F-22 report, "shows Block 3...being completed five months before the completion dates the Air Force considered realistic in 1997." The first flight of 4004 slipped from February to May 2000 in the course of 1999, further delaying the flight testing of Block 2 aboard the fighter, and that date has since slipped to July. So far, however, the program has avoided disasters, and key changes (such as the implementation of Block 3S) have been implemented in time to avert problems.

UP NEXT: THE JSF

Both Lockheed Martin and Boeing are closely involved with the integration of the F-22 avionics, so it is not surprising that the proposed offensive avionics system for both JSF candidates takes the F-22 as a baseline. Sensor fusion, including the ability to detect, identify and locate pop-up threats quickly and accurately enough to attack them, is basic to the JSF. Both teams plan to fuse data on large-format displays and to use AESA radars in an LPI mode.

In many ways, JSF's goals are more advanced than those of the F-22. They include the fusion of synthetic aperture radar (SAR) and electro-optical systems in both the offensive and defensive modes. The JSF system is also intended to cost and weigh less than the F-22 hardware and to make extensive use of commercial, off-the-shelf (COTS) technology.

The JSF is planned to have five basic sets of sensors which, as on the F-22, will be entirely integrated into the central processor. Two of these form the Multi-Function Integrated Radio-Frequency System (MIRFS). The MIRFS/Multifunction Forward Looking Array (MFA) is the functional equivalent of the APG-77 radar and is being developed, under a separate competition, by Raytheon and Northrop Grumman; neither company is specifically teamed with either of the prime contractors on this part of the JSF program.

The MIRFS/Electronic Warfare System (EWS) is the all-around passive element of the RE system. The MIRFS/EWS will use its own dedicated antennas and the MFA. Sanders is the MIRFS/EWS supplier to both teams, basing its work on its experience with low-observable (LO) apertures for the F-22.
Two sensor packages make up the EO system. The forward-looking BO targeting system (EOTS) is an infrared (IR) system to locate and help identify targets. The objective is to fuse JR and SAR imagery to detect and identify targets automatically with the minimum emission level. The EOTS will also function as a long-range IR search-and-track (IRST) system to detect airborne targets and as an EO system for airborne target identification.

The Distributed Aperture Infrared System (DAIRS) comprises a set of staring focal-plane-array (FPA) sensors covering a complete sphere around the aircraft and will combine three functions: it will feed a video signal to the pilot's binocular, day-night helmet-mounted display (HMD); will act as a missile-warning system, and will serve as an IRST to detect airborne threats.

The DAIRS and EOTS are the subject of a parallel competition, like the MIRFS/MFA. Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control form one team, with Northrop Grumman being responsible for the DAIRS and Lockheed Martin taking the lead on the EOTS. Boeing is presumably working with Raytheon.
Both teams are using FTBs in the current demonstration and validation stage of the JSF program. Boeing began testing the JSF's integrated avionics on its 737-based Avionics Flying Laboratory (AEL) in December 1999 and plans a total of 50 missions. Lockheed Martin is using the BAG One-Eleven, which has served as an FTB for many Westinghouse and Northrop Grumman radars.

Although the teams have common suppliers in some areas (e.g., Sanders is the contractor for the MIRFS/EWS in both cases), there are detail differences. For example, Lockheed Martin has chosen Litton Advanced Systems to team with Sanders on the EWS, providing its unique expertise in electronic-support-measures (ESM) technology. In particular, Litton is applying its long-baseline interferometry processing to the Lockheed Martin JSF, providing the aircraft with twice the receiver capability of the ICAP-III Prowler to the Lockheed Martin JSF at half the size, weight and cost. BAB Systems is also a member of the team.

The EW and sensor systems proposed for the JSF would not be affordable using today's technology. One of the most costly aspects of the F-22 system is the need to provide separate antennas for all wavebands and aspects and to make those apertures compatible with stealth. F-22 antennas are installed in cavities lined with radar-absorbent material and covered with specially formulated materials which allow the signals of interest to pass through, while absorbing hostile signals. On the JSF, the goal is to reduce the cost and complexity of the antenna systems by making the antennas simpler and using a single antenna or aperture for many tasks.

Although Boeing and Lockheed Martin have demonstrated some key JSF functions on their test-bed aircraft, it is worth remembering that the F-22's avionics functions were demonstrated on the same level during the demonstration and validation phase of the ATF program in 1989-90. The GAO has said that several unspecified aspects of the JSF program are still not ready for EMD, and it is more than likely that the very sophisticated, yet low-cost technology proposed for the aircraft is among them.

[Heathrow Harry]

all well and good but its late, it always seems to get later, no-one knows what it will cost and they are cutting the performance specs

Just put the programme out of its misery

[Lonewolf_50]

Still to be determined is whether the NGJ system will be exportable to other JSF-buying nations. The NGJ is designed to defend the F-35 against heavily protected surface-to-air missiles (SAM) and suppress integrated enemy air defenses such as the SA-20.
Advanced SAM systems might be used by Iran, for example, to defend nuclear weapons, ballistic missile and key command-and-control sites. U.S. analysts say only a stealthy, high-flying, supercruise aircraft can avoid destruction in the heart of such defenses.
I'd like to point out that deep strike is typicaly made by a strike package, not just by a formation of fighters. That means that the Joint Force will already proven jammer kit to support that strike package.

Also, I seriously doubt F-35 is how you go after nuke sites. There are other ways to peel that onion.
The future may include the NGJ on UAV's being used to escort jam with the f-35, but it doesn't seem to be a requirement
As soon as you start jamming, "stealth" becomes somewhat moot, right?;) But you did read my mind.

[glad rag]

The NGJ is designed http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u119/MoleyRUFC/3c8da956.jpg

Oh reilly...........

[JSFfan]

As soon as you start jamming, "stealth" becomes somewhat moot, right?http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif But you did read my mind.

Yeah, having a big broad jammer is like having a big sign saying "here I am..kill me" it kind of defeats the whole point of 5th gen EW/EA and VLO.
Sweetman use to know that, as per the article

[ORAC]

Which is the point.

The USN state that within 5 years the stealth capability of the F-35 will be insufficient to penetrate modern AD systems without EW support. It can't be internal, because that defeats the whole purpose/ effectiveness of the stealth - so they will use the F-18G with NGJ as a stand-off jammer pending a UCAV escort jammer.

The point being an cadjunct jammer platform will be required, ideally MADL compatible or linked through an ACN.

The RAAF will be OK if they operate in a similar manner. Other forces have to decide if they wish to go down the same path, either by finding the extra cash for the adjunct platform, or reducing their F-35 buy by enough to buy a mixed force. The issue being every jammer platform reduces the number of strike platforms which can be bought-

It raises the further issue that for a carrier force each jammer platform displaces a strike platform; and for the USMC and RN no Suitable STOVL platforms exist.

The USMC could operate with the USN jammers, though that again compromises their carrier strategy; what does the RN do?

I suppose the UK can accept they will have no Day 1 capability against a modern force, we'll never have the numbers or ability to fight one except in a US lead coalition anyway, and it should be good enough to fight against a 3rd world military such as The Argentine.

As long as the carrier can get within 100nm of the coast and the targets aren't more than 150nm inland. Because ignoring the lack of a suitable EW platform, that lack of organic AAR is a real capability killer.

[Courtney Mil]

You're assuming this is about high powered jammers AND that it's not being used stand-off.

[JSFfan]

first of all, I'll need a credably source for " The USN state that within 5 years the stealth capability of the F-35 will be insufficient to penetrate modern AD systems without EW support"

[ColdCollation]

ORAC's post just reinforces that, in both money terms and numbers, we're paying far too much for a stealth capability that is in any case compromised.

The main justification for F-35 as far as I can make out is Day One capability. Now it looks like we won't get that.

Madness.

[ORAC]

Next-Gen Jammer Key To F-35 Effectiveness (http://www.aviationnewsreleases.com/2010/08/next-gen-jammer-key-to-f-35.html)

NAVAL AIR STATION PATUXENT RIVER, Md. — The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter’s mission is to penetrate the threat ring of the world’s best anti-aircraft defenses and survive, but its formula will work only if the right improvements and upgrades are in place, including the Next Generation Jammer (NGJ).

New integrated air defense networks — some of them fielding improved versions of the S-300 family like the NATO-dubbed SA-20 and SA-22 — are already on the way. The antidote for these long-range, high-altitude missiles is expected to be the NGJ, which is to be fielded in 2018.............

[JSFfan]

sorry, David's opinion isn't a credable source, it's going to take a decent quote at least.
I gave a credable source that said the opposite of your claim


just so there is no misunderstanding, it is CONOPS for the growler to escort jam with the H and SH

[Bastardeux]

Care to explain why David's opinion isn't credible yet you seem to find Lockheed's official press corps the cold hard truth?

[JSFfan]

he's a Jurno, your claim is "The USN state that within 5 years the stealth capability of the F-35 will be insufficient to penetrate modern AD systems without EW support"

you're welcome to have it as your opinion, but not say it's a USN statement

[Bastardeux]

Wait, how are you qualifying your claim that it wasn't a USN statement?

[MSOCS]

Appreciate I'm 54 (boring) pages late to the debate here but why is there a sudden focus on the F-35's intrinsic EW capability - oh, and I really don't want to read through 15 or so different links from various dubiously-informed folk.

Certainly, if I were building a 5th-Generation platform and it was running late and over the cost baseline predicted, I wouldn't serve the public its capabilities on a plate. So, where exactly do you believe the detection and EA capabilities fall short on this platform?

LO?

[Lonewolf_50]

MSOCS:

The sales line of the JSF being low observable brings with it a reduced risk against being detected on the way to the target, and thus argues that some strikes don't need the attendant dedicated EW aircraft.

Me, I think that's a load of wishful thinking, but that seems to be some of the sales pitch.

What actual capability is resident ought to be still in the "Classified" drawer.

:mad:

[ORAC]

Well Tom Burbage as the Lockheed Martin F-35 VP (http://www.smh.com.au/national/growler-obsolete-in-5-years-expert-says-20120823-24pb0.html) for one, as well as being the one saying that the F-18G would be obsolete within 5 years. He proclaimed the need for the NGJ and that the fact that it would be carried by the F-35.

I note LM was gone quiet on that front since F-35/NGJ integration was been indefinitely postponed. Unsurprisingly really, when you consider how it impacts the stealth signature.....

[Lonewolf_50]

IMO, Burbage is full of more crap than a Christmas Turkey, claiming the Growler to be obsolete in 5 years. It's the kit on the Growler, not the airframe, that makes it so very useful beyond the life of the airframe as a tactical aircraft.

See also EA-6B and EF-111.

[LowObservable]

MSOCS

I would think that the detection capabilities are quite good, because BAE Nashua (once Sanders) knows that stuff.

What is not clear is what there is in active jamming beyond that provided by the radar. Back when stealth was new, it was generally held that active jamming was no use on a stealth aircraft and could indeed be undesirable - what if the EW decided to jam a radar that hadn't even detected the aircraft yet? YOOHOO here I am! And you know I'm a stealth aircraft because your active can't see me...

One of the questions is whether that has changed, and how.

[Just This Once...]

If your aircraft had super-dooper LO capabilities that covered the entire RF threat spectrum then the need for a high tech DRFM jammer is not that great.

If you are limited by the laws of physics then an all-aspect DRFM jammer could be handy.

If you have any concerns that the mere existence of LO aircraft around the globe may drive threat system designers to use different bits of the RF spectrum sometime in the next few decades, then you need to have the next bit of the countermeasures cycle ready - and in your weight growth and signature budget.

[glad rag]

Pretty good summation there.

Next they will be telling us they drag it along behind at a [classified] distance :suspect:

Which of course brings it's own little nest of [3D networked] vipers....:}

[Archimedes]

If your aircraft had super-dooper LO capabilities that covered the entire RF threat spectrum then the need for a high tech DRFM jammer is not that great.

If you are limited by the laws of physics then an all-aspect DRFM jammer could be handy.

If you have any concerns that the mere existence of LO aircraft around the globe may drive threat system designers to use different bits of the RF spectrum sometime in the next few decades, then you need to have the next bit of the countermeasures cycle ready - and in your weight growth and signature budget.

On behalf of JSF Fan, may I insist upon you providing a credable [sic] source that shows that the F-35 is limited by the laws of physics? :rolleyes:

[JSFfan]

please stop dancing, you made a big claim repeatedly through this ""The USN state that within 5 years the stealth capability of the F-35 will be insufficient to penetrate modern AD systems without EW support"

now either show this USN statement or retract your claim


Well Tom Burbage as the Lockheed Martin F-35 VP (http://www.smh.com.au/national/growler-obsolete-in-5-years-expert-says-20120823-24pb0.html) for one, as well as being the one saying that the F-18G would be obsolete within 5 years. He proclaimed the need for the NGJ and that the fact that it would be carried by the F-35.

I note LM was gone quiet on that front since F-35/NGJ integration was been indefinitely postponed. Unsurprisingly really, when you consider how it impacts the stealth signature.....

it's a running media theme of australia doesn't need growlers and the $1.5 billion will be wasted
I also think you may have a comprehension issue, Tom didn't say what you said he did [and he's not a top dog in USN],He didn't "proclaimed the need for the NGJ and that the fact that it would be carried by the F-35." there isn't a quote from Tom in the whole story.

in fact the reporter is making the claim that the 18g would be redundant in 2023 [2018 + 5 years] hence the title "Growler obsolete in 5 years" and then added, which seems to be paraphrased or misunderstood something Tom said whilst in Australia...the reporter said "the f-35 was one of the planes that would be able to carry the next generation jammer",,,as we both know that isn't in the planning

Mr Smith [our Minister of Defence]said.
''The purpose of the Growler, of course, is it provides a capacity to jam the communications system of an adversary … jam the communications system of a group of terrorists as well as a traditional adversary.''

[kbrockman]

please stop dancing, you made a big claim repeatedly through this ""The USN state that within 5 years the stealth capability of the F-35 will be insufficient to penetrate modern AD systems without EW support"

now either show this USN statement or retract your claim

I don't know for certain but maybe they are referring to what the new CNO said not too long ago;
"sensors will start to circumvent stealth" in the future.

"The rapid expansion of computing power also ushers in new sensors and methods that will make stealth and its advantages increasingly difficult to maintain," Adm. Greenert wrote in July. "It is time to consider shifting our focus from platforms that rely solely on stealth."
Will Stealth Survive As Sensors Improve? F-35, Jammers At Stake (http://defense.aol.com/2012/11/27/will-stealth-survive-as-sensors-improve-f-35-jammers-at-stake/)


PS, this ,already widely known principle,could mean very bad news for all things stealth and also bad news for jammer technology
Quantum Imaging Technique Heralds Unjammable Aircraft Detection | MIT Technology Review (http://www.technologyreview.com/view/508826/quantum-imaging-technique-heralds-unjammable-aircraft-detection/)
Quantum Imaging Technique Heralds Unjammable Aircraft Detection

Physicists have exploited the quantum properties of photons to create the first imaging system that is unjammable

https://www.technologyreview.com/sites/default/files/images/Quantum%20imaging.png

[ORAC]

I know a lot of people out there don't like or trust Carlo Kopp's analyses and think he has an agenda, but he knows his subject and does his research. I haven't seen many challenge his facts, only his conclusions. In which case this paper reveals a lot about the capability of the F-35 stealth against double digit SAW systems. 3 years old but the design hasn't changed.

Assessing Joint Strike Fighter Defence Penetration Capabilities (http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2009-01.html)

[LowObservable]

ZOMG Orac, you've really done it now. Trollocalypse in 5..4..3...

[JSFfan]

ORAC, getting desperate now when you have to drag out clown club as a source..
http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House_of_Representatives_Committees?url=jfadt/defenceannualreport_2010_2011/submissions/sub8.pdf
APA (represented by Messrs Goon and Mr Kopp) and RepSim (represented by Mr Mike
Price) are mainly critical of F-35 cost estimates and capabilities, and in their testimony, made several errors of fact and misrepresentations about F-35 capability.
As neither APA nor RepSim have access to the detailed classified F-35 data, their analysis is basically flawed through incorrect assumptions and lack of knowledge of classified F-35 performance information. Without this knowledge, APA and RepSim can only speculate on the F-35's capabilities and its ability to counter extant and evolving threats.... is inconsistent with years of detailed analysis undertaken by Defence, the JSF Program Office, Lockheed Martin and the eight other F-35 partner nations.



does this mean you don't have a link and just made up "The USN state that within 5 years the stealth capability of the F-35 will be insufficient to penetrate modern AD systems without EW support"

[Lonewolf_50]

If you have any concerns that the mere existence of LO aircraft around the globe may drive threat system designers to use different bits of the RF spectrum sometime in the next few decades, then you need to have the next bit of the countermeasures cycle ready - and in your weight growth and signature budget.
Give that man a cigar.

"Stealth" was a means of dealing with the problem in the 1970's and 1980's era tech of radar coverage of target areas, its intent being that "the bomber always get through." The tech had been in development for some time, yet by the time B-2 was fielded, the setting for which the requirement was established had morphed considerably. Fortunately, B-2 retained for a while some distinct advantages as a delivery platform versus a certain class of air defense architectures.

If military hardware history tells us anything, it tells us about technological advance/edge, counter, counter counter, and so on. (Granted, submarines are still about the best "stealth" platform yet to be put into the field, but they are not aircraft.)

It should not surprise us at all that between R & D, advances in math, and advances in computing power that a "counter" to stealth is at least in the works if not in a prototype stage.

This brings me back to JSF and B-2. B-2 was stealthy and in the field twenty years before JSF can hope to be IOC. The old saw about "building kit to fight the last few wars" screams at me.

As I don't know enough else about F-35 I won't comment, but that is the basket into which we (in the US) chose to put our eggs in the late 1990's. It's been the Fargin elephant in the defense acquisition room for nearly twenty years.

It has foreclosed, due to its budgetary impact, programs like Comanche and a field artillery system that other services ran up the flag pole. Bang for buck, we aren't sure what we'll really get.

It is the V-22 Osprey, second edition, with afterburner. (As a program).

Until it goes out into the field and operates, I'd not blame anyone, particularly a nation with a modest defense budget, for being massively skeptical about its bang for buck payoff as a core weapons system in the combined arms kit a given MoD has and maintains.

[LowObservable]

A few basics on Kopp's comments:

It is widely agreed (including by LockMart) that outer mold line is the principal driver of aircraft signature in the frequencies of greatest concern.

The most basic calculations of RCS are a product of Maxwell's equations and Ufimtsev's Theory of Physical Diffraction. Neither of these things are classified.

The limfac into the 1970s was the ability to model complex shapes and curves with reasonable confidence - that is, one would know that the model stuck on the pole would not have unexpected signature. The F-117 was made possible by working both ends of the problem: increasing computing capacity with hardware and software, and simplifying the calculation by using an all-planar shape.

Clearly, the computer hardware problem is no longer a limfac, nor does one need to see anything secret to write an RCS-estimation program or develop an accurate wireframe.

Materials are important but still have less impact on overall RCS than shaping, particularly at stealth-fighter levels. Mostly, what they do is take care of edges, apertures, holes and doors and other discontinuities. (If we could achieve all-round broadband - 30dbsm with RAM, we'd do it.)

LockMart and others have been careful to criticize Kopp for not having access to the classified details (no :mad:, Sherlock) but have not said (a) that he's wrong or (b) that F-35 RCS is equivalent to F-22.

Subject to the Rice-Davies Stipulation, it should be noted that competitors have come to the same conclusions as Kopp, broadly speaking.

[JSFfan]

what part of "clown club are clueless morons" didn't you understand?
As a constrained by politeness ADF statement, this is damming

APA's criticisms of the F-35's aerodynamic performance and stealth capabilities, and

their claim that the F-35 will not be competitive in 2020, is inconsistent with years of

detailed analysis undertaken by Defence, the JSF Program Office, Lockheed Martin and

the eight other F-35 partner nations.

7. To comprehensively rebut many of APA's assertions in regard to F-35 performance would

require release of highly sensitive U.S. data. As neither APA nor RepSim have access to

the detailed classified F-35 data, their analysis is basically flawed through incorrect

assumptions and lack of knowledge of classified F-35 performance information. Without

this knowledge, APA and RepSim can only speculate on the F-35's capabilities and its

ability to counter extant and evolving threats.

@Lonewolf_50 (http://www.pprune.org/members/307224-lonewolf_50), any chance you can flick an email to russia, china and a dozen countries in the EU and abroad that are developing VLO 5th and 6th gen to not waste their time :)

[Courtney Mil]

JSFfan,

You're behaving like a petulent child now. No here is having a go at you, just expressing opinions about a possible future platform. Or is JSF really a matter of life and death to you for some reason?

[JSFfan]

I have no problem with opinions, it's when facts are made up it gets silly

[glad rag]

Define a fact against an opinion.

In truth all we have are opinions, even you.

[Bevo]

I am some what reluctant to jump into this discussion, but since the merits of signature reduction have been raised I thought I would add this.

RF “stealth” does not make an aircraft “invisible” and it never has. What signature reduction does is to make an aircraft more difficult to detect in a given frequency range. In the air-to-air arena the radars are generally in the X to Ka-bands because of the need for a smaller antenna to fit on a fighter aircraft (leaving out AWACS for the time being). These bands require a set of materials and shaping which is characterized by the F-22.

In the air-to-ground arena these higher frequency bands are associated with mobile SAM radars for same size reason in that they are easy to move around and have very good range resolution. This is where the F-117 was optimized and where the F-22 is also fairly good.

Now you also have the lower frequency bands associated with the long range, high power, search radars which feed cueing information to the shooters and allow them to be more effective by only have to look at a particular sector of their firing area. These lower frequency bands require a set of materials and shaping which is characterized by the B-2. The F-22/F-35 are not that good in this arena. And most operational tests against SAM systems assume a cued system giving the shooters the best chance for an engagement.

Then there is the issue of IR detection which can be reduced in the mid-wave with materials as the detected energy is primarily reflected energy. However signature reduction is very difficult to do in the long wave where skin heating is the primary source of the energy detected. As a target, the only good news is the IRST systems do not track in range but only in azimuth. While there are ways of passive ranging a target they mostly rely on a non-maneuvering target.

The conclusion is that for every aircraft a decision must be made as to whether the cost of signature reduction and the advantage it creates in the combat arena are worth the cost in design and maintenance. RF signature reduction in air-to-air still reduces the range at which most fighters can detect and range on a target. For some manufactures, however, the advantage of stealth has been over stated.

[glad rag]

decision must be made as to whether the cost of signature reduction and the advantage it creates in the combat arena are worth the cost in design and maintenance.

I think many [most?] are just balking at cost plain and simple.

[PhilipG]

I think that a number of countries must be considering not just the undefined cost of acquisition of the F35 but also the unquantified cost of operation for the F35 when it arrives, in the mean time they have to cover the not inconsequential cost of keeping their "legacy" fleets airworthy.
I am surprised that more countries have not gone the way of the RAAF.

[John Farley]

Bevo

Thank you. At last an educational unbiased post by somebody who knows what they are talking about.

[Lonewolf_50]

@Lonewolf_50, any chance you can flick an email to russia, china and a dozen countries in the EU and abroad that are developing VLO 5th and 6th gen to not waste their time
A semi serious response to a silly jab follows.
Their production costs are a fraction of ours. That is an economic edge they'll have for another generation at least. Whether or not their designs, manufacturing, and maintenance standards are up to 5 and 6 gen fielding and operations is an unknown. But the effort is being put forth, and there are decent brains in those design houses as well.

On to more substantial matters.
Then there is the issue of IR detection which can be reduced in the mid-wave with materials as the detected energy is primarily reflected energy. However signature reduction is very difficult to do in the long wave where skin heating is the primary source of the energy detected.
One cannot outfox physics. ;)
As a target, the only good news is the IRST systems do not track in range but only in azimuth. While there are ways of passive ranging a target they mostly rely on a non-maneuvering target.
There are ways of using passive detection to determine position, but can you do that with the granularity needed to match a weapon to a target? R & D continues.
The conclusion is that for every aircraft a decision must be made as to whether the cost of signature reduction and the advantage it creates in the combat arena are worth the cost in design and maintenance. RF signature reduction in air-to-air still reduces the range at which most fighters can detect and range on a target. For some manufactures, however, the advantage of stealth has been over stated.
This point, to me, is the key matter in the acquisition, production, and fielding problem. The Cold War "our quality will overcome their quantity" thinking was never put to the test. Quantity has a quality all its own. The down side was also that each one of your own losses was equivalent to four or five of their losses, depending upon how you modeled the "force multiplier" numbers. JSF attrition rates, and the number of sorties you can generate as you lose planes in a hot war, tell me two tales:
The war better be "short" and each loss hurts the operational commander a lot. As a defense planner, is that giving you the bang for your defense buck that you think you are paying for?
I think many [most?] are just balking at cost plain and simple.

Indeed. Even when a cost is reduced relatively by the economies of scale of a large production run, the delta between how much money is even available at all, no less for a portion of the combined arms package, gross numbers for smaller military establshments make for some real pigs in the purchase and ongoing maintenance budgets.

I don't think you'll be able to do simple sheet metal bending to repair or return to service the fancier and fancier geometries of composites used in these elegant aircraft designs.

Has that recurring cost been fairly assessed?

I suspect those costs, which we'd typically cover with "Operations and Maintenance" funds in annual appropriations, are going to surprise some folks. The smaller your military establishment, the bigger the sticker shock when those numbers skew out of conservative forecasts.

When will we know if JSF works? When will we know if we get a good bank for that buck? And if we don't, what is Plan B?

There isn't one, on this side of the pond, and there isn't the money to have one. The money has already been consumed by the 800 pound acquisition gorilla. Brer Rabbit has at least one foot in the tab baby, and my be about to kick it again.

The "High Low mix" myth isn't even a viable position to advocate. "Either or" has disappeared. By IOC, all eggs are in one basket, no turning back. :uhoh:

OBTW: that "rosy picture" is for the best funded military establishment on the planet.

[JSFfan]

Bevo, it's like a game of snakes and ladders, ever evolving.
just to add to what you said

the JORN would be a good example of what a long range radar can do, it's said to be a world leader, but LO materials move on too

Patent US20100271253 - CNT-BASED SIGNATURE CONTROL MATERIAL - Google Patents (http://www.google.com/patents?id=E0jYAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false)
it seems LM has access to computer controlled, radar multi-band frequency nanocomposites, the evolving game goes on

[cuefaye]

Head of DSTO in Australia made a very public comment in 1999 that stealth was a decaying asset in capability terms, and especially in the air-to-surface role. I thought that was a very perceptive and, especially in Canberra at that time, highly contentious comment. I sided with him then, and down the track nothing persuades me otherwise.

[JSFfan]

One cannot outfox physics. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif
That's probably why they added a bucket of physics in the mix of the IR spray coat and two buckets to the avionics and engine IR management

[kbrockman]

JSF Nieuws.nl » Dutch F-35 IOT&E and the reliability of the US Government (http://www.jsfnieuws.nl/?p=940)
Situation 2008: promises

In the MOU, signed by Dutch secretary of state Jack de Vries on the 30th of May 2008, we can find in paragraph 5.2.4:
“ The NL MOD share of the Financial Cost Ceiling is 30M TY U.S, dollars. The NL MOD Non-financial Cost contribution includes, but is not limited to, munitions, use of two (2) JSF Air Systems, and the services of trained personnel for IOT&E efforts.”
The planning was that the IOT&E would take place from mid-2012 until mid-2014, 2 years, separated in a Block 2 and a Block 3 part.

Situation 2013: deception

This week the Dutch parliament received a surprising letter, telling the members of parliament:
- The cost ceiling will be broken, cost of IOT&E participation will be about € 54 million (US$ 73 million)
- The IOT&E will take 4 years, not 2 years
- The IOT&E planning is now from 2015 until 2018, however it may be a little later
- The two Dutch F-35s can not be used until that moment (2015)
- We have to pay “parking costs” several millions a year

We could have bought the Dutch F-35As some years later, now we bought potential “hangar queens” from the much more expensive, early LRIP3 and LRIP4 series (having saved about US$ 100 million). We invested over US$ 250 million in these two planes, that will be parked for several years, useless investment by a country with a defence budget under high pressure.


Also, the institute Clingendael, the most influential study bureau in Holland has just come out with a very critical rapport on the JSF and the effects it will have on the Dutch DoD.
Clingendael: krijgsmacht mét JSF minst aantrekkelijke toekomstscenario :: nrc.nl (http://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2013/02/14/clingendael-krijgsmacht-met-jsf-minst-aantrekkelijke-toekomstscenario/)

[Lonewolf_50]

ken, does this remind anyone of the NH-90 program? :p

That sobering letter ought ot raise as many flags in Washington as it does in Amsterdam. :mad:

[JSFfan]

gee, welcome to the world of US procurement. I'm surprised you guys are seeing this as new news, It's understandable that the jurno doesn't know and even some of the politicians, but IOT&E concluding in 2018 for full production in 2019 has been known for quite some time.
Also if that jurno thinks the costs he reported are the only IOT&E costs for the dutch, he has some more surprises coming

[Heathrow Harry]

The issue must be that computing power evolves at a faster rate than aircraft design & procurement - and in the case of the F-35 the basic shape will be 15 years old before the plane is in service

Computing power will be enormously more effective and costs will be a lot lower (which is more than you can say for the F-35) so the "stealth" we're hoping for just won't be there

Fine if you intend to bomb Chad but against the Red Hordes it could look pretty sick

[kbrockman]

I'm surprised you guys are seeing this as new news,

That was not the point I was trying to make, it is an indication of how controversial the JSF has become in the mainstream media lately and an indication how it probably will lead to the entire cancellation of the whole program.

BTW today it was again an important story in the most important news programs.

[JSFfan]

"an indication how it probably will lead to the entire cancellation of the whole program."

why do I feel like this is just a eurocanard's fanboy dream?
there is plenty the media can complain about, I have a few gripes myself...but love it or hate it, the f-35 is what a dozen and more countries will be flying
at this stage the SDD wraps up in 2016, the design is locked in 2017 and final IOT&E 2018 for FRP 2019

@harry, if you think the f-35 will be in bad shape in the future, just imagine how much worse off the 4.5gen will be

[kbrockman]

why do I feel like this is just a eurocanard's fanboy dream?

I have no problem admitting that a European alternative would be better but in the case of Holland, a choice for the F18 or F16 NG aircraft would also be very sensible.
I bet they'll have much more to say and a substantially bigger part in design/production of more vital high end parts or maybe even complete systems iso being a simple parts producer without even the slightest input on vital and technologically advanced parts of the program, call it an investment for the future aeronautics industry.

The way I see it the best would be, one of the Eurocanards>F16V or F18SSH>nothing>........>JSF.

Besides if anyone here deserves the title "Fanboy" I suggest you qualify before basically everybody else ;) (all in good gest)

[JSFfan]

it's unaffordable for one country....europe tried a joint team to keep up and showed they couldn't organise a nookie in a brothel. The plan to 'vastly' improve on the f-15,16,18 failed, coming up with the typhoon which I thought would be the best of the 3 ...only to be let down by poor development funding like the rafale has.
it's even the same story with choppers.

[LowObservable]

Here (Google Translate is your friend) is the Dutch defense ministry letter:

http://www.ftm.nl/upload/content/files/brief%20JSF%20ministerie%20van%20Defensie.pdf

Basically, here's the story:

2008 - Cloggies decide to buy two JSFs that will be delivered by 2013 in time to support IOT&E for Block 3, which they are told will start in 2013.

2008-12 - Various opposition pols attempt to kill buy on the grounds of delays and cost increases. Defense ministry assures them that all is well. AN-1 is rolled out at Fort Worth and flies, no delivery.

2013 - Defense ministry admits that IOT&E will not start until 2015 (absolute earliest) and that the two jets (total cost over a quarter of a billion dollars) may be stuck in a hangar until then.

Oh, and from 2009...

http://www.jsfnieuws.nl/wp-content/DutchAirForceAssociation_Gripen_2009.pdf

[Courtney Mil]

LO, good presentation there from SAAB. I look forward to JSFobsessive addressing all of that.

JFSfan, your rantings might have slightly more credability here if you didn't always make out that the F-35 programme is absolutely perfect and the answer to everyone's problems. Your posts reflect a total refusal to see any problems. Perhaps the LockMart pension is so good that you feel happy doing this. You are becoming a fanatic.

[JSFfan]

perhaps it would help if you read my posts?
"there is plenty the media can complain about, I have a few gripes myself..."

[Courtney Mil]

I have been reading.

[Biggus]

JSFfan,

While I'm somewhat reluctant to stick my head into the buzzsaw that this thread has become (will it still be running in 2018?) I feel I must respond to the comments you made in reply to kbrockman's "update from Holland".

While you may despair of people who aren't fully "in the know", or are even misinformed, you would do well to remember that all military procurement decisions in the western world are ultimately made by politicians, who, while they are briefed by their military advisors, generally themselves are well short of being "in the know".

Politicians just see cost increases and overruns, delays in delivery, and subsequent bad press, often when they are trying to get re-elected, cut budgets, and justify military expenditure to an electorate more interested in tax cuts, better schools, hospitals, etc. In USA politics may keep programmes alive that should be cut, to preserve jobs, the aerospace industry, etc - but export customers may well look elsewhere as costs rise, deadlines slip, and the project attracts bad press with comments about "capability reductions", etc....


"love it or hate it, the f-35 is what a dozen and more countries will be flying
at this stage the SDD wraps up in 2016, the design is locked in 2017 and final IOT&E 2018 for FRP 2019" ... only time will tell whether or not your prediction comes true, but it may ulimately have very little to do with the technical capabilities the aircraft finally delivers.

[JSFfan]

it's the way US procurement works and I can't see it changing, our fa-18 doubled in price and was late, the f-111 was even a bigger mess-up...it's a bit silly blaming the plane.

Look elsewhere? australia needs a new plane now, it's just costing money refitting old hornets and buying gap filling super hornets and growlers
without being too platform centric because it's ultimately the system what counts ... I can't see anything else the west has worth buying as a next gen systems strike fighter to last till 2050...any ideas?
please don't say a eurocanard, the swiss leak showed they aren't even much better than their old hornet

[kilomikedelta]

'The lady doth protest too much, methinks.' Hamlet, Act III, scene II.

[Bevo]

John Farley – thanks for the compliment. Coming from you it means a lot


Bevo, it's like a game of snakes and ladders, ever evolving.
just to add to what you said

the JORN would be a good example of what a long range radar can do, it's said to be a world leader, but LO materials move on too

Patent US20100271253 - CNT-BASED SIGNATURE CONTROL MATERIAL - Google Patents (http://www.google.com/patents?id=E0jYAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false)
it seems LM has access to computer controlled, radar multi-band frequency nanocomposites, the evolving game goes on
As a recently retired division director having worked in the proprietary defense area for a major contractor, I am well aware of the advances in both low frequency magnetic materials as well as the key advances in leading edge construction. The fact remains that in a fighter sized aircraft like the F-35 you will most likely be detected WELL in excess of 60 nm by the latest VHF radar systems especially when they can use both vertical and horizontal polarization.

And just for the record I do not believe that RF signature reduction is no longer relevant. Given modern design tools, adding signature reduction to the design process does not cost nearly as much in trade-offs or cost that it once did. I just believe it is some times over hyped.

[JSFfan]

Just to clarify, you made sense and that's all I needed...I was agreeing with you. I added Jorn HF OTHR and CNT to support what you said, being the limit of both ends that I know of. As I see it, VLO is just an enabler to get your system into play at a tactically significant range, it isn't pixie dust. Like yourself John makes sense and I read him with interest here and at another site.

[Courtney Mil]

It's the high reliance on stealth that worries me too. It is possible to achieve amazing RCS reduction using CNT-based material. However, we have to remember that RAM design is a trade-off between (frequency) bandwidth and RCS reduction (or, more correctly, reflection loss) even using multiple layer CNT material. Here's a set of graphs that illustrate my point. I should point out that the test material involved here IS a CNT layer, but is NOT that used in JSF. It's just illustrative of the properties.

http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0022459610004275-gr8.jpg

The point here is that we can (in this case) get a -25db change in reflectivity (which is a huge reduction), but only in relatively narrow frequency bands. Clearly, additional RCS reductions can be achieved by form design, ect, but even this tends to be quite directional (it varies with aspect angle). The upshot is that you design to minimize reflectivity in certain directions and at certain radar frequencies. You cannot put on a cloaking device that is effective at all frequencies, at all aspect angles.

So, we seem to have here an aircraft that should be able to use its stealth features at range to reduce significantly the probable detection range of an enemy fighter equipped with a conventional, current generation radar. The obvious tactical advantage here is to obtain first A-A launch before the enemy have a probability of detection. So far, so good.

By definition these will be relatively long range shots (maximizing first shot capability) and, therefore, not maximum Pk (especially as JSF isn't the best platform to accelerate and climb to maximize energy at launch) and may be expected to achieve a kill rate of, let's say 25% - highly dependent upon dozens of factors, but let's give it the benefit of the doubt and assume 25%the remaining shots defeated kinematically or by countermeasures. We've achieved 2 things, reduced enemy numbers and disrupted them, probably causing them to manoeuvre. (NOTE: it is possible to have a much higher first launch success rate, but it would require the enemy to be unaware that they had been targeted).

But what next? The JSFs either keep closing on the enemy to prosecute the attack or attempt to reset. In the former case, even after an f-pol manoeuvre, they are increasing their distance from the carrier (combat fuel) and decreasing range to the enemy (and, therefore, increasing the probability of detection). So, we are rapidly moving to a situation where JSF's LO advantage is being lost and it's lack of manoeuvre disadvantage is becoming much more crucial. As we reach the stage when they're exchanging high Pk shots, the airframe/engine/fuel combination could place JSF at a significant disadvantage.

The reset option can be dangerous as the enemy could still be closing in range and at some point the JSFs have to face up to them, costing energy and time and exposing themselves at aspect angles where the RCS may be considerably larger.

All highly hypothetical and this is just one scenario. I deliberately haven't tried to predict an outcome or compare performances with specific threat types. I could offer others that would look much worse, but I've gone on long enough.

My conclusion: we're putting an awful lot of faith in LO on a platform that can be outclassed in CERTAIN other areas even by SOME current generation fighters. LO may give them a great advantage for penetrating on day one, but will it be enough to ensure operational effectiveness thereafter?

[LowObservable]

Let's get this clear: We find that carbon nanotubes can be made into infinitely capable Super-RAM, light, thin and broadband. So the first thing we do, of course, is.... publish the whole damn thing on the monkey-fighting Internetz?

Needless to say the fans have had this incongruity pointed out to them before, and then they go and parrot it elsewhere.

CM - Very true, so much so that people have been fired for pointing it out. First-look, first-shot only works if the first shot works, so if your adversary concedes the first look, but denies you a high-Pk first shot outside mutual detection range, the value of first-look is much reduced.

Running in unseen and taking the first shot, but using all your shots to kill only a fraction of the adversaries, then finding yourself kinematically unable to avoid the WVR against faster, more agile and still lethal survivors, sounds like a classic "I'm not sure you thought your brilliant plan all the way through" move.

[Courtney Mil]

It's worse than that, LO, the hundreds of excellent papers on this (and closely-related topics) published on the interweb are brilliantly detailed; good enough to allow the enthusiast to knock some up in his garden shed. A lot of good stuff from Russia, China and India, so we should expect the opposition to be flying equally invisible platforms.

[JSFfan]

it's a nice picture that shows a base line reduction with 3 spikes left, which can be attenuated with a spoonful of physics rather the the bucket of it needed to reduce the baseline in the first place, the big one may be a resonant frequency but heck..it's all over my head
I guess they throw a patent on it for wide use. it's not secret, it isn't black tech that they want no one to know about..or it may even be an exercise in misinformation

[Courtney Mil]

or it may even be an exercise in misinformation

No, these are peer reviewed, independent, scientific studies by the people that are developing this technology. To interpret the graphs, pick ONE colour and see what the effect on rf reflectivity is over a range of frequencies. As I said, huge reductions in the narrow band that is targeted and very little elsewhere. It's all to do with the dimentions of the inside of the nanotube. Result, radars at different frequencies will be affected to massively different degrees.

It's an easy matter to use a different frequency for, say, AI radar. The traditional band was due to historical physical limitations. Bad news for those relying on stealth.

[hval]

Low Observable and Courtney Mil,

Funnily enough much of the research in to nanotube particles has been carried out by civilian organisations and universities, and that includes Chinese organisations. The Chinese have also been publishing data.

There are actually many civilian uses for microwave absorption materials such as electronic shielding in electronic goods, ovens and many other applications.

[Courtney Mil]

hval,

My point exactly. The research extends into comms too, where it's making huge improvements to the issues of interference. Not many military contractors conduct this sort of research on there own and, as we use more and more emerging technologies in civil and mil fields, we have to rely on researchers with funding to push the boundaries.

[hval]

Courtney Mil,

I agree that it is now very difficult to keep information secret; particularly when many of the new developments and technologies are now developed by private organisations.

It doesn't help when the Chinese nick all your top secret new super duper aircraft details.

[NITRO104]

CM said,
"In the former case, even after an f-pol manoeuvre, they are increasing their distance from the carrier (combat fuel) and decreasing range to the enemy (and, therefore, increasing the probability of detection)."Indeed and I wonder how'd the cranking work, since the LO plane may need to expose its rather "inconvenient" aspect, during the maneuver.
Staying "on-course", in front LO cone, would just bring it sooner to the merge...

[Courtney Mil]

I would still want to crank, Nitro, if only to slow my approach to the bad guys so that my kill assessment and second shot was still at a reasonable range. But, as you say, I'd want to know where my RCS weak points were.

I like your use of the term "inconvenient".:ok:

[Just This Once...]

I'd want to know where my RCS weak points were.

Start with a plan view and with ruler follow the leading and trailing edges. That one will never be classified or unknown to the enemy.

So whilst you hold you adversary on the beam it would be about now that you wish your APG-81 wasn't bolted down or that a repositioner was in your weight and trim budget.

[Courtney Mil]

Hmm. Good point, well made.

[LowObservable]

Interesting application of that theory was the AGM-129 Advanced Cruise Missile, which looked much like a fat pencil. Yes, there was a big spike on the side, but if you could see it, it was moving at 90 deg to your radar beam, so no Doppler... and of course it was flying at low level so that would be the only way to pull it out of the clutter.

[SSSETOWTF]

or that a repositioner was in your weight or trim budgetOh my sainted trousers! The bashing of the F-35 by the club of the uninformed has finally moved from being just a bit amusing to outright hilarious.

[LowObservable]

SSSEtwhatever...

Please explain further. I know that the Church of Fixed AESA maintains that there are ways to view the world beyond +_60 deg. off boresight & that repositioners are merely a bodge used by the unwashed, but can you enlighten us further?

[glad rag]

When are these aircraft due in either RN or RAF Operational Service?

[cuefaye]

Indeed SSSETOWTF!! And very tedious.

[lj101]

Glad Rag

Some sketch details of a time line here albeit not 'official' and no details of 'operational' forecast date.

First U.K. pilots begin training to fly F-35 - Community - Crestview News Bulletin (http://www.crestviewbulletin.com/news/community/first-u-k-pilots-begin-training-to-fly-f-35-1.54149)


The U.K. has purchased three of the planes, two of which already are at Eglin. The third is expected in February.

For now, those planes are added to the Marine fleet of 11 F-35Bs. The three planes are expected to be flown to the U.K. by 2018.

[John Farley]

In my view the only way to get the UK buy cancelled would be to show that it is (now) the wrong spec for our military needs. Wailing about costs and timescales will never cut it as those arguements applied to just about every past aquisition and never stopped any of them.

[SSSETOWTF]

LO & co,

There's no church of fixed plate AESA, just common sense and my experience of working on both fixed and repositioning AESA radar programs. I know which one I prefer by a country mile and it doesn't involve anything flapping around.

In terms of performance, the F-35 is just fine. It out-climbs a single bubble Hornet in dry power and out-accelerates the F-18 in level flight in reheat through the Mach - I've seen it with my own eyes from both cockpits. So if you're waxing lyrical about how great the Hornet is on one hand, it's completely contradictory to turn around and bash the F-35 (even if some of the spec numbers have changed over time).

There's a lot of frothing at the mouth about how stupid LM are for building stealthy aircraft, but the very people who are alleged to have figured out stealth-defeating technology are spending a lot of money frantically developing their own stealthy aircraft as fast as they can. So in my opinion it's also utterly contradictory to mank on about how dumb the Americans are for developing and building stealthy aircraft if you think the Russians (+ Indians) and Chinese are so very clever.

Regards,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly!

[LowObservable]

SSSE - That's just your opinion, man.

Actually, the people who actually build 3000-foot-runway-operable SSSE jets today, and will deliver a very nice AESA-equipped version to IOC in 2018, think that a repositioner (which rotates rather than flaps) is a neat idea with real utility.

Faster than a Hornet? True, and my Plymouth Reliant can blow the doors off your AMC Pacer.

That said, what is likable about the Super H (from my viewpoint) is that it is here and relatively affordable and has lots of proven capability. But "threats", you say. Well, the major threat to everyone's military capability today is fiscal.

Stealth is a very powerful technology. It also has costs in terms of money and other capabilities forgone, as we are seeing every day. I believe every air arm will eventually employ stealth technology.

But the US has spent 30 years chasing the idea that all its combat aircraft (including helos at one point) should be stealthy, and so far we have seen that it is about as practical an idea as equipping one's entire navy with submarines.

And if there is any frothing at the mouth about LM, it is mostly occasioned by their utter failure to execute on time and on budget, exacerbated by their arrogant refusal to admit that they have underperformed.

[WhiteOvies]

People get very wrapped around the axle about the cost of these aircraft to the UK, completely missing the fact that from a National perspective they are effectively cost neutral due to BAES share.

Buying SH/Rafale etc does nothing for UK industry apart from drive further redundancies, makes the carriers unaffordable with cats and traps requirement and keeps us out of the stealth game, which must have some merits or why else would nations also be developing it.

The UK buy in to F-35 is as much for keeping BAES at the cutting edge of technology as it is about capability for the RN/RAF. To think any different is frankly naive.

The situation is different for the other partners but just for once I believe the UK politicians actually got it right on the balance of investment when it came to being a Level 1 partner.

[hobobo]

Faster than a Hornet? True, and my Plymouth Reliant can blow the doors off your AMC Pacer.

The real question of course is how fast does it need to be. The Navy clearly believes the Hornet to be fast enough to do what they want it to do.

[GeeRam]

Wailing about costs and timescales will never cut it as those arguements applied to just about every past aquisition and never stopped any of them.

Except MRA4.....

[glad rag]

The UK buy in to F-35 is as much for keeping BAES at the cutting edge of technologyJust to clarify, what cutting edge do LM allow BAES to "keep"?

[John Farley]

GeeRam

Except MRA4.....


True - but I have a feeling that was an example of industry and MOD mismanagement that went rather beyond the normal scale involved in most programmes delays.

[ORAC]

Wailing about costs and timescales will never cut it as those arguements applied to just about every past aquisition and never stopped any of them. TSR-2, MRA4, AFVG, SR.A/1, SR.53, SR.177, Avro 720/730, AW.681, HS P.1154..........

I won't list the rest, a fair few are in Project Cancelled. You might claim that most were cancelled due to the Duncan-Sandys review. I'd counter that a major factor behind that was the financial crises of the time, and point out that we are in a time of similar crises and defence cuts, proportionally more savage than at that time.

[WhiteOvies]

Glad Rag - apart from the Test Pilots (BAES have more qualified F-35 pilots than MOD) there are also the Flight Test Engineers & Field Service Engineers etc who have been working on F-35 for several years. Their knowledge and experience is already being used to support other projects in the UK, particularly the new carriers predictably.

New manufacturing techniques, investment in tooling and ground testing and all the assosciated jobs at the BAES sites. Assuming the programme continues and FMS sales continue (price tag depending) the amount of work done by BAES will be massive. I'm sure it's available online but you might be surprised to see how much of every single jet (A, B and C variant) is built in the UK.

But the Stealth crown jewels and mission systems: most of the UK specialists in these areas who have been granted access by the US still wear uniform. But won't forever...

[LowObservable]

WO - I would be careful about saying anything like "cost neutral to the UK".

BAE has a large share but the most valuable part of it is not UK-domiciled, nor does UKG control the technology. RR has a big share now, with LiftSystem development and production, but there is little indication that it will continue once Marine and RN orders have been filled.

So the biggest UK piece is tin bashing, which is important but with an important caveat: it does not bring a lot of support business. That massive share of the program remains under US control.

So what is the UK-based share of the LCC of an F-35? I would guess single digits.

[John Farley]

Sorry I should have made it clear that IMHO the costs/timescales were wailed about with so many aquistions that actually happened in the end.

[LowObservable]

True, JF, but the more recent record in the US is that many programs have not made it through the Valley of Death without being cancelled or procured in tiny quantities, and the time to play the game is running out. By 2030, even if all goes to plan, half the USAF's fighters will be 40 years old or more.

[JSFfan]

so are you are suggesting is that US cancels the f-35, with the par for the course procurement system....spends another ~20 years and ~$50b developing a 'new' plane. when it's been in production for 10 years by 2045, even if all goes to plan, half the USAF's fighters will be 55 years old or more.

[peter we]

So what is the UK-based share of the LCC of an F-35? I would guess single digits.

Its just over 20% (excluding the LliftFan I believe). At least 90% of that will go straight back into the UK taxpayers coffers

Have you ever sat down with a calculator and worked out what that figure is? Its huge, its going to a profit center for the UK.

So the biggest UK piece is tin bashing, which is important but with an important caveat: it does not bring a lot of support business. That massive share of the program remains under US control.


The UK owns a large part of the Intellectual property of the F-35 (20%?). Lockheed said BAE can't be replaced as they own so much of the design


The Navy clearly believes the Hornet to be fast enough to do what they want it to do.

There is a chart somewhere showing time to accelerate for the F-16, F-18, F-35, Typhoon and others. The Hornet distinguished itself by being exceptionally slow.

[SpazSinbad]

From: http://www.nps.edu/Academics/Institutes/Meyer/docs/Joint%20strike%20fighter.pdf

2009 Chart for 'peter we': http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/th_F-35bevilaquaAAcombatPerformance2009.jpg (http://s98.beta.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/F-35bevilaquaAAcombatPerformance2009.jpg.html) Click Thumbnail

[Courtney Mil]

I hope I am not included in the so-called "anti-JSF crowd" or the "JSF bashers". Please let me know if I am. As the potential future, primary platform for RAF and FAA ops, I want it to as successful as it can be.

Two points now. One is "can it crack it in various scenarios? " The other is, why do those that are a so fanatically pro-JSF have to feel that any conversation or challenge about the tactical application of JSF is automatically a challenge to its suitability to meet our future requirement?

4.5g? Yeah. Give me that!

In my earlier post, I offered a scenario that MIGHT expose some weaknesses in the design concept that is highly relient on LO. Maybe exposing the weaknesses in on other areas; doubts in my mind due to the poor kinetic properties that make the jet far less manoeuvrable than most third generation fighter/bombers.

The opposition will be feilding aircraft with similarly excellent LO characteristics AND good energy manoeuvrability.

If I am "outright hilarious" for offering a possible scenario, then I would ask to tell me why.

As for the attack on being able to reposition a phased array I can offer only this. Why the hell would you not want the extra scan width? Answers on a postcard please.

[Mk 1]

CM - "The opposition will be feilding aircraft with similarly excellent LO characteristics AND good energy manoeuvrability."

Because they have not been constrained by the short fat design due to the need to fit the STOVL variant onto an LHD lift. It worries me a tad too - lets hope tactics, avionics and the support packages can help compensate.

You would put me into the 'Pro' JSF camp, but I am not blind to its faults and limitations. Why the pro crowd get annoyed is that by and large the 'anti' JSF crowd seemingly cannot find a single redeeming characteristic to the design, and the degree of misinformation and speculation being propagated by some is nothing short of incredible. That combined with the calls that the sky is falling every time a fault grounds the airframe (remember it still has 'training wheels' fitted). Apparently no other airframe has ever had an issue when being developed! That is then usually followed by claims that either we need to:

1. Put the F-22 back into production (difficult, expensive and time consuming and ignores the requirements of navy and marines).

2. Or just order more of the existing 4th to 4.5gen designs (which is why the potential adversaries are developing 5th gens - gee these people are keen to send out OUR pilots to the gunfight armed with a knife).

3. Or in light of the recent combat experiences in the sandpit that all we really need is a bunch of armed trainers for CAS. This conveniently ignores the fact that it is far smarter to gear up and train to fight a high intensity conflict, then amend tactics to fight an LIC, than to equip and train to fight a low intensity foe and then suddenly require a military to re-arm itself with a modern interceptor/strike force. The Kiwi's disbanded their fast jet force (albeit armed with obsolescent A-4k's) around a decade ago - People Who Know Things have pointed out that to reform the ability to maintain, train and operate fast jets (quite apart from the lead times from ordering to delivery of airframes) would be many years - possibly as many as 10 in peacetime.

[JSFfan]

"4.5g? Yeah. Give me that! "

you've stepped away from reality because you can't fly a 4.5 gen off your carrier and then there's that other thing called CONOPS

as to capability
ParlInfo - Parliamentary Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade : 16/03/2012 : Department of Defence annual report 2010-11 (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=COMMITTEES;id=committees%2Fcommjnt%2F2dbe833f-6e45-4a8a-b615-8745dd6f148e%2F0001;query=Id%3A%22committees%2Fcommjnt%2F2db e833f-6e45-4a8a-b615-8745dd6f148e%2F0000%22)
Airpower Australia and RepSim claim that the F35 will not be competitive in 2020. Airpower Australia's criticisms mainly centre around F35's aerodynamic performance and stealth capabilities. These are inconsistent with years of detailed analysis that has been undertaken by Defence, the JSF program office, Lockheed Martin, the US services and the eight other partner nations. While aircraft developments such as the Russian PAK-FA or the Chinese J20, as argued by Airpower Australia, show that threats we could potentially face are becoming increasingly sophisticated, there is nothing new regarding development of these aircraft to change Defence's assessment. I think that the Airpower Australia and RepSim analysis is basically flawed through incorrect assumptions and a lack of knowledge of the classified F-35 performance information.

With the F35s, given that they will have, I think, better situational awareness—and I think most people would agree with that—with the tactics that they use, and I do not want to go into detail, certainly what you are not going to do is charge in within digital range. The F35 will use its better situational awareness to work itself into a position and to manoeuvre around the area to present the best tactic for it. In simulations—and what you propose there is very similar to what would go on in a manned simulator event—the outcome of those, if the F35s are allowed to play to their strengths and use their better situational awareness and sensors, is that they can prevail in that situation and they do defeat that higher-end threat in those simulations.

[SpazSinbad]

Old quote I know but someone in Oz does not think much of that SupaDupa...

Australia’s multi-billion dollar defence dilemma ABC TV 18 Feb 2008

The 7.30 Report - ABC (http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2007/s2165833.htm)

...“MARK BANNERMAN (ABC TV interviewer): ...Last year, the then Defence Minister Brendan Nelson made a decision to purchase 24 Super Hornet jet fighters. It left defence experts stunned. Last year, you effectively said this plane was a dog. Have you changed your view in any way about that?

PETER CRISS: I said it was a super dog and it's a super dog squared as far as I'm concerned. As we found out more and more about it, it's abysmal in every area that is so critical to buying a fighter strike type aircraft. It cannot perform.

MARK BANNERMAN: The former chief of Australia's operational Air Force isn't just worried about the choice of the Super Hornet that he believes is slower and more vulnerable than the plane it replaces, what really concerns Peter Criss most is that no one inside the Defence Force or the department was prepared to stand up and argue against the decision.

PETER CRISS: I know there's a bunch of them that know the Super Hornet is a dog, alright. They've told me, they've told acquaintances of mine, friends of mine that they are terribly concerned about it. But it was the decision taken by the Minister at very short notice for whatever reasons and foisted on them....”

[dat581]

I remember that 7:30 report episode ( the show can hardly be called a report ), Peter Criss described how he would run a large strike package with Super Hornets and all the man did was display a lack of knowledge of the aircraft and how to get yourself shot for negligence in wartime. He seamed very bitter that the F111 was being retired and that he no longer had a say in how the RAAF was run.

The 7:30 report also interviewed an RAAF pilot who had extensive experience on the Super Hornet. He had 55 minutes of positive comments and five minutes of negative comments. The ABC ran the five minutes of negative comments along with Peter Criss's diatribe as expert commentary. Luckily most Australians think the same of the ABC as Brits do of the BBC; left wing drivel.

[SpazSinbad]

Reach for the Sky Blurb 14 Feb 2013 but program not shown until the 18th

REACH FOR THE SKY - Four Corners (http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2013/02/14/3690317.htm)

"The JSF project could cost Australian taxpayers tens of billions of dollars. Is this plane a super fighter or a massive waste of money?..."

This Four Corners website will make the program available soon after broadcast:

ABC iview (http://www.abc.net.au/iview/#/series/four%20corners)

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

This would be the same Peter Criss that did that ridiculous hypothetical with Chris Mills on 4Corners ~5 years ago of F-111s going unescorted downtown to Jakarta... :ooh:

In fact, he very nearly did just that in 1999, hence why he's a "former" ACAUST! :hmm:

Speaking of 4Corners, looks like the ABC will be taking another crack at the F-35 tonight...pity SECDEF didn't have the nuts to put someone up from DMO/NACC to counter the disinformation... :rolleyes:

[JSFfan]

I saw an interview promo...I'm glad they didn't bother to fact check..they said we didn't buy the SH in 2005-7 to replace the obsolete f-111 in 2010, when the f-35 was then US IOC in 2015...it was because the f-35 was late... it's always good to be a historical revisionist that doesn't let facts get in the way

[Courtney Mil]

JSFfan,

"4.5g? Yeah. Give me that!" = 4.5 x 9.8067 metres per second squared=Acceleration in a turn. NOT generation 4.5.

[cuefaye]

In fact, he very nearly did just that in 1999, hence why he's a "former"
ACAUST!


What nonsense!

Also, just watched the Four Corners piece. In my view, quite a well-balanced programme. The words used by Ned Frith to describe the JSF project in 1996, and which resulted in his early 'retirement', were quite prophetic.

[Lonewolf_50]

peter we, I am curious as to why the chart presented used the F-18C rather than the E/F as a comparison. :confused:

[kbrockman]

The four corners program was certainly interesting, although somewhat swayed towards the anti F35 side.
Most interesting parts for me was ;
-the idea of a mixed fleet being back on the table (Australia -> 48F35 + 48SH)
-the recognition of what prices are going to do once order volumes decrease (the death spiral)
-General Bogdan acknowledging that it could well be possible that some of its capabilities have to be forfeited ,although he didn't directly said so this was exactly the case, he certainly indicated that it could be an issue with his Chevy/Ferrari remark.
-Tom Burbage's statements made during his last visit to Australia that now seem to be nothing more than hollow phrases.
-the acknowledgement that the whole purchasing process was corrupted from the very beginning.
A no-competition entry into a paper program with a lot of empty promises made by the supplier towards the clients setting up mechanisms that make the clients dependant from the very beginning till the very end while basically keeping all high tech and expertise info for themselves, doing all this relying on a lot of people in the participating countries that are so far up LM's ass (pardon my French) that it becomes nauseating to see.
I've even seen it on this board where some implying that one of the benefits of this F35 is that a lot of military personnel currently serving on this project can later join the ranks of Bae and LM as a follow up career.
In many parts of government that would be considered a very clear form of corruption, normally it would be impossible for an involved government worker to go and work immediately for a supplier he worked together with while still being enrolled on the government payroll without respecting a pre set time-frame where they cannot work for said supplier (or sometimes even in the same sector).
Too many politicians, Generals and strategically placed higher officers or defence contract workers change too quickly from one side to the other.

Eg, Jack de Vries first the second in command in the Dutch DoD (secretary to the minister) and immediately afterwards goes working for the company, Hill &Knowlton, that does the PR for the JSF.
or:Robert Greenwald: The Real Scandal Involving Generals (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-greenwald/once-a-soldier-always-a-s_b_2161490.html)
Between 2009 and 2011, at least nine of the top-level generals and admirals who retired took positions with these five companies. In fact, 70 percent of the 108 three-and-four star generals and admirals who retired during this time period took jobs with defence contractors or consultants.
...

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

The business of Generals taking jobs with military contractors is a difficult one. Where the heck else are they supposed to work?

Ever tried the "The military gave me transferable skills" argument in a job application recently? I have - gets you nowhere, or worse.

Equally, we don't want second-rate equipment because some General wants a cushy paycheck for taking overseas jollies twice a month.

The mere fact that lots of Generals take contractor jobs is just that. A fact, not evidence of corruption.

[ORAC]

Time: The Most Expensive Weapon Ever Built (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2136312,00.html#ixzz2KsWbxuIe)

Marine Major Aric "Walleye" Liberman was uncharacteristically modest for a Navy SEAL turned fighter pilot. He had just landed an F-35--one of the 2,457 jets the Pentagon plans to buy for $400 billion, making it the costliest weapons program in human history--at its initial operational base late last year. Amid celebratory hoopla, he declined photographers' requests to give a thumbs-up for the cameras that sunny day in Yuma, Ariz. "No, no, no," he demurred with a smile.

Liberman's reticence was understandable. For while the Marines hailed his arrival as a sign that their initial F-35 squadron is now operational, there's one sticking point. "It's an operational squadron," a Marine spokesman said. "The aircraft is not operational."

The F-35, designed as the U.S. military's lethal hunter for 21st century skies, has become the hunted, a poster child for Pentagon profligacy in a new era of tightening budgets. Instead of the stars and stripes of the U.S. Air Force emblazoned on its fuselage, it might as well have a bull's-eye..........

Between 2009 and 2011, at least nine of the top-level generals and admirals who retired took positions with these five companies. In fact, 70 percent of the 108 three-and-four star generals and admirals who retired during this time period took jobs with defence contractors or consultants.

The $360 Billion Gorilla in the Sequestration Debate (http://www.pogo.org/blog/2013/02/20130211-the-360-billion-gorilla-in-sequestration-debate.html)

[kbrockman]

The business of Generals taking jobs with military contractors is a difficult one. Where the heck else are they supposed to work?

I don't know how things work on your side of the pond but over here, Generals (also Judges and some other positions in government) don't retire at all they are put on rest meaning no active command, they however keep a large portion of their pay until they die and keep the title (and many of its benefits).

I fail to see why they should be accommodated in a different manner compared with other government employees.
Most Generals stop working at or close to retirement age anyway, why should they be entitled to earn so much extra over an already very good 'pension -pay'.

Don't get me wrong, I don't mind people working past their retirement entitled age but why agree with the mechanism that exists now which is way too easy to be corrupted (again, not saying that those who do are automatically corrupt).
The idea that Generals or other highly trained and educated military employees post retirement can only work for the defence industry, and more specifically the part of the industry they used to work together with while enlisted, is a too easy excuse.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

I agree, it's tricky. One of the main problems is the very limited list of companies in the defence industry.
Of course many VSOs will take jobs in the industry. They enjoy it, they're good at it and it's where their expertise lies.
If the Government, on behalf of the people, think there is too much risk of corruption, then the Government should be expected to pay extra to exclude these people from their chosen profession. Anything else is 'guilty until proven innocent'.
Personally, I think the solution is to trust them (after all, we trusted them with the defence of the nation), but have mandatory long prison terms if found guilty of fraud. I'd like to do the same with politicians. No one wants to spend their retirement being Bubba's New Best Friend in a prison shower.

[cuefaye]

Isn't the issue one of being in a paid advisory position, as opposed to being paid to 'run the project'. Either way, the contractor will be in control. All of them will be very well paid, will rub shoulders with the good and great, and will retire handsomely. Thereafter, the devil will take etc etc. Trust me, I was there once ---

[peter we]

2009 Chart for 'peter we'

Thanks, but this is what I was referring to

http://3.bp.********.com/_FQ9dZwknXCw/TJd1W_JWQSI/AAAAAAAAANg/dSZYhZAtsoY/s1600/f35vMIG.jpg

edit: Blocked, nobody likes that site..

peter we, I am curious as to why the chart presented used the F-18C rather than the E/F as a comparison

Dunno, the chart above claims to be a estimation of a F-18F


This is the search if you want to look at it.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=lockheed+acceleration+chart+against+the+f-35&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=yGE&tbo=d&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=ZZIiUZ_fCMab1AWq04C4CQ&ved=0CAoQ_AUoAQ&biw=1600&bih=709

[LowObservable]

Spaz's charts are from a presentation by Paul Bevilaqua in 2009.

However, all the graphics in that presentation are earlier than 2009, I would guess around 2002, so they may no longer be reliable.

FA - Since the questions to any AusDND rep would be along the lines of "You told us these were the facts in 2002-10, and these are the facts today, would you care to explain the discrepancy?" I would call the decision to not appear "diplomatic jaundice".

Bogdan can, at least, present himself as part of the clean-up team. There has been no similar awakening in Australia.

[kbrockman]

Entire F-35 fleet grounded over engine issues - Navy News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Navy Times (http://www.navytimes.com/news/2013/02/dn022213-f35-grounded-again-mil/)
Entire F-35 fleet grounded over engine issues

By Aaron Mehta - Staff writer
Posted : Friday Feb 22, 2013 14:36:54 EST

ORLANDO, Fla. — The DoD has suspended all test flights for the entire F-35 joint strike fighter fleet due to engine problems.

The move comes nine days after the Pentagon cleared the F-35B jump-jet variant, designed for the Marines, to resume tests after a month long suspension. Both suspensions are due to problems with the engines.

Unlike the last suspension, which was only for the B variant, this suspension affects all three variants — the F-35A Air Force conventional takeoff version, the F35-B for the Marines, and the F35-C carrier variant for the Navy.

[LowObservable]

Oh dear, here we go again.

[Courtney Mil]

Don't worry, LO. JSFfan will soon show us that it's all OK.

[ORAC]

U.S. Grounds Entire F-35 Fleet Over Engine Issues (http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130222/DEFREG02/302220023/U-S-Grounds-Entire-F-35-Fleet-Over-Engine-Issues?odyssey=nav%7Chead)

[JSFfan]

you might need to wait for a week before you crack the champers. it may not be a design fault and be a defective part

It is too early to know the fleet-wide impact of this finding, however as a precautionary measure, all F-35 flight operations have been suspended until the investigation is complete and the cause of the blade crack is fully understood

Bates added that the engine with the crack has 700 total engine operating hours, with 409 of those accrued in flight. He believes the engine analysis should take "roughly" a week.

[Milo Minderbinder]

We'll be told it was due to the "wrong kind of air" soon

[Willard Whyte]

Is it too late to re-open TSR2 production?

Can't be any less of a risk.

[CoffmanStarter]

WW ... I've got two genuine TSR2 titanium rivets ... any help ?

[glad rag]

you might need to wait for a week before you crack the champers. it may not be a design fault and be a defective part

A lot can happen in seven days........:hmm:

[ORAC]

It's not whether it's major or minor; or a design or manufacturing fault - it's that it happened at all. The next in a seeming never ending list of issues leading to groundings, delays, slippages, cost increases.

With the forthcoming sequester and the febrile mood in Congress it doesn't help a program which already has the crosshairs on it's chest.

[Lima Juliet]

Coff

If it's going to be a Naval variant TSR2, you'll need golden rivets not titanium...:ok:

LJ

[TBM-Legend]

This grounding is why any air force should have at least two combat aircraft types. The RAAF model of 100 F-35's only is flawed for this reason alone.

[Lima Juliet]

TBM

I agree to a certain extent, although for operations you can take more risk than in peacetime. The UK has the Tutor and Tucano grounded at present and that has put a stop on pilot training - but it's peacetime. If we needed to fly them operationally (which we obviously don't), I am sure we would if the risk was outweighed by the operational need.

LJ :ok:

[Courtney Mil]

you might need to wait for a week before you crack the champers

I think you're, once again, assuming that people here WANT F-35 to fail. Don't confuse discussing its shortcomings and taking interest in its development and operational suitability with wishing the project dead.

Remember the original post was asking what would we do IF F-35 were cancelled, an invitation to discuss the relative merits of the possible alternatives, not just Dave itself.

[John Farley]

ORAC

I disagree.

My take on the event is well done the team.

I say this because another potentially serious fault has been uncovered safely by a well managed modern approach to development. As such it represents another step in ensuring the product will be as refined as possible before entry into operational service.

I do not say the above as a fan but as a simple statement of fact that applies to the development and testing any new aircraft.

[Mk 1]

@ TBM legend: When was the last time the RAAF had that luxury? Go back the the F-86 - one type. Mirage IIIO again single type, F/A-18 single type. Had the Muusorians/Kamerians decided to send air assets against us if any of these types were grounded we would have been stuffed. I suppose the FAA A4's may have been used in the past and the Hawks could be pressed into service as second line day fighters now - but hey we have always been this vulnerable, its always been managed in the past and it will be in the future.

[LowObservable]

The program leaders get a pat on the back for acting promptly and with safety in mind.

My guess is that the test fleet should be back up (probably with special inspections) relatively quickly, with Eglin and Yuma following later because, frankly, they are not on the critical path to IOC. Whenever that might be.

Note that a blade in this stage failed before, in 08 (delaying first flight of BF-1). It's also an unusual design because the LPT has the job of driving the lift fan as well as the engine fan and is consequently providing about two-thirds of the T/O and landing thrust.

[Heathrow Harry]

John F
" product will be as refined as possible before entry into operational service."

would you care to give a estimate of when you think this may be................

[ORAC]

Technically you are correct John - but I'm talking politics and the sequester coming up in March could force choices (http://defense.aol.com/2013/02/21/air-force-chief-says-70-percent-of-all-combat-aircraft-non-comb/).

[John Farley]

would you care to give a estimate of when you think this may be................

Sorry I have no data on which to base an estimate.

[tucumseh]

My take on the event is well done the team.

I say this because another potentially serious fault has been uncovered safely by a well managed modern approach to development. As such it represents another step in ensuring the product will be as refined as possible before entry into operational service.

I do not say the above as a fan but as a simple statement of fact that applies to the development and testing any new aircraft.



Well said JF. The only thing I'd say is that this wasn't down to a "modern" approach, but good old fashioned implementation of mandated regs. The "modern" approach (here) is to wait until **** happens, then deal with it. In aviation that often means people die, but our politicians and MoD seem happy with that.


“Anomalies in testing should bring your organisation to a standstill. They are a violation of requirements. They are a clue something worse may happen.”

[ORAC]

A good comprehensive report.

F-35 Grounded After New F-135 Engine Problems (http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?shop=dae&modele=feature&prod=142927&cat=5)

[SpazSinbad]

2012 Performance Chart F-35 comparo 4th Gen Aircraft with A/G loadout for 'peter we': http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/424953-f-35-cancelled-then-what-58.html#post7700570

F-35 Lightning II Range Requirements 03 Oct 2012
Brad “Bones” McCoy F-22 and F-35 Strategy and Assessment

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2012targets/WMcCoy.pdf (3.8Mb)

Click thumbnails: http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/th_F-35aeroPerformComparo4thGenAGload.gif (http://s98.beta.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/F-35aeroPerformComparo4thGenAGload.gif.html) http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/th_F-35missSysComparo.gif (http://s98.beta.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/F-35missSysComparo.gif.html)

[LowObservable]

Typical JSF brochuremanship to be recycled by the fans. Obviously if you select the right air-to-surface load and corners of the flight envelope, an internal-weapon design will look good. And what is "Advanced 4th Gen"? We don't know so those comps have been pulled out of marketing's ear. Inaccurate and outdated assessment of the competition - Gripen NG does not have PS-05 radar, Typhoon AESA has not been Caesar for years.

[JSFfan]

sounds like typical denial of the facts to me LO... care to show which 4th gen with an equivalent air/ground load can match the f-35 ?

[cokecan]

JSFan..

yes - currently any of them that are allowed to fly.

when a British - or Australian - PM can pick up the phone to his CAS and say 'i have a problem, and i want it to dissapear in a ball of smoke and flame', and that CAS has the ability to use an F-35 that will make the PM's wish come to fruition quicker, from further away, with greater accuracy and efficacy, and in a way that poses less risk to the crew than is currently the case than with a Typhoon, GR4 or Super Hornet, then the F-35 will be 'better' than any of those aircraft.

however, until it does so - and the current money is on about 2020 at the very earliest - it will be ****, because it delivers fcuk all capability.

[Biggus]

See post 1114!

[kbrockman]

About the engine issue the JSF is currently experiencing, could this be the
same issues as they had a couple of years ago with the STOVL engine which was also a blade issue?
JSF Nieuws.nl (http://www.jsfnieuws.nl/)
Long history of engine problems since 2006

It can not be excluded that the root cause of the current problem is more structural than a simple manufacturing error or an isolated incident. Since 2006 there had been a series of engine problems with the F-135 engine.

Already in May 2006, Aviation Week reporter David A. Fulghum wrote 0a detailed article “Joint Strike Fighter F135 Engine Burns Hotter Than Desired” and described the risk of a shorter engine life or engine damage caused by higher than expected temperatures on the F-135 engine.
In August 2007 and February 2008 there were serious problems. Turbine blades broke off suddenly by a form of metal fatigue. The cause was sought in a combination of factors.
On 30 August 2007 in test engine FX634, after 122 hours of testing, a turbine blade in the 3rd LPT stage broke off completely. On 4-February-2008 something similar happened to engine FTE06, also in the 3rd LPT stage, after 19 hours.
These problems with the engine contributed significantly to the delays in the JSF test program for the period 2007-2008.

Redesign of the engine in 2008

In early 2008, an engine, the FX640 ground test engine, was equipped with numerous sensors and instruments. On April 21, 2008 a test process was started to find the cause of the problem. Through a detailed test plan the forces and tensions that arise in the engine were mapped by different power ranges. At that moment it seemed to be primarily an issue of the F-35B STOVL (vertical landing) version. The cracks in the turbine blades were created in exactly the same place, and seemed to occur when switching from forward to vertical drive. Later in 2008, the results became available. The blade crackes seemed to have been caused by certain vibrations that triggered a material failure.
This led to a redesign of a number of elements in the engine. One of the upgrades was a change of the distance between the turbine blades. After the redesign the engine was retested and recertified. At the end of 2008 Pratt & Whitney issued a press statement, that they were convinced that the problems were solved.

In 2009, problems with redesigned engine

In July 2009, the then head of the JSF Program Office, General Heinz was still not happy with the F-135 problems, he said against the press: “The problems include too many individual blades that fail to meet specifications, as well as combined “stack-ups” of blades that fail early. I’m not satisfied with the rates that I’m getting.”
A few days later he was commissioned by the Pentagon not to comment publicly on problems with the F-135 engine.
In September 2009, again serious engine problems revealed during testing of the Pratt & Whitney F-135 engine. At a crucial moment in the debate in the U.S. Congress on the choice of two competing engine types (the Pentagon want to delete the second engine choice (GE / Rolls Royce F-136) a Pratt & Whitney F-135 engine broke. Again the cause seemed to lie in broken turbine blades. However, now the problem occurred in the new engine type with the redesigned turbine blades.

Engine problems continuing until now

After problems in 2009 officials no longer publicly commented about the engine problem. Also there were no indications that there actually were problems with the engine or that there were any reliability issues.
In April 2011, however, Admiral Venlet, the then Head of JSF Program Office, told reporters that some engine problems were impacting on the delivery schedule.
The grounding of last week put the engine back in the spotlight of publicity. However, at this moment it is not the complex F-35B STOVL version, but an engine in an F-35A, the Air Force version.
For Pratt & Whitney, hopefully it is an one-off, and not a structural problem.

[SpazSinbad]

Will this news make the F135 5% better or worse:

Pratt & Whitney to test upgraded F135 this year (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/pratt-whitney-to-test-upgraded-f135-this-year-382781/)

[JSFfan]

Isn't that due in block 5/6 and prior engines will be modded on overhaul, what has been said is that they aren't interested in more wet thrust because there are reasons that ~40k is set at max but want the better efficiency and I guess more dry thrust

[LowObservable]

Spaz - Not necessarily better or worse. However, it will make UTC shareholders richer, particularly since they now have a monopoly on the JSF engine, and that's what matters, surely?

And IIRC, back during the Engine War that ended last year, P&W's stated position was that the GE engine's potentially greater power (due to its design being frozen after the 2003-04 weight increases) was of no value.

[kbrockman]

More Super Hornets for the RAAF, almost certainly will lead to less F35's I think or at best much later than originally planned.
http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2013/Australia_13-05.pdf
The Government of Australia has requested a possible sale of up to 12 F/A-18E/F Super Hornet aircraft, 12 EA-18G Growler aircraft, 54 F414-GE-402 engines(48 installed and 6 spares) 2 engine inlet devices, 35 AN/APG-79 Radar Systems, 70 AN/USQ-140 Multifunctional Informational Distribution System Low Volume Terminals (MIDS-LVT) or RT-1957(C)/USQ-190(V) Joint Tactical Radio Systems, 40 AN/ALQ-214 Integrated Countermeasures Systems, 24 AN/ALR-67(V)3 Electronic Warfare Countermeasures Receiving Sets, 72 LAU-127 Guided Missile Launchers, 15 M61A2 Vulcan Cannons, 32 AN/AVS-9 Night Vision Goggles or Night Vision Cueing Device System, 40 AN/APX-111 Combined Interrogator Transponders, 80 AN/ARC-210/RT-1990A(C)Communication Systems, 100 Digital Management Devices with KG-60’s, 36 Accurate Navigation Systems, 30 AN/AYK-29(V) Distributed Targeting Systems(DTS), 4 AN/PYQ-21 DTS Mission Planning Transit Cases, 24 AN/ASQ-228 Advance Targeting Forward Looking Infrared (ATFLIR) Pods, 40 AN/PYQ-10 Simple Key Loaders (SKL), 80 KIV-78 Mode 4/5 Module, 48COMSEC Management Workstations (CMWS), 24 AN/ALE-47 Electronic Warfare Countermeasures Systems, 80 Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing Systems (JHMCS), and 400 AN/ALE-55 Fiber Optic Towed Decoys. Also included are system integration and testing, tools and test equipment, support equipment, spare and repair parts, publications and technical documents, personnel training and training equipment, aircraft ferry and refueling support, U.S. Government and contractor technical assistance, and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated cost is $3.7 billion.


Canada soon to follow ?
Maybe also a split fleet like most air forces had in the past.
Boeing touts fighter jet to rival F-35 ? at half the price - Politics - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/02/27/pol-fighter-jets-boeing-superhornet-f-35-milewski.html?cmp=rss)
With Ottawa now reviewing its previous commitment to buy the F-35, Boeing is making an aggressive pitch to Canadian taxpayers, offering to save them billions of dollars if they buy Boeing's Super Hornets instead.

Boeing isn't pulling its punches. The Super Hornet, it says, is a proven fighter while the F-35 is just a concept — and an expensive one at that.
Ricardo Traven is a former Canadian air force pilot and now chief test pilot for the Super Hornet, Boeing's rival fighter jet to Lockheed Martin's F-35.Ricardo Traven is a former Canadian air force pilot and now chief test pilot for the Super Hornet, Boeing's rival fighter jet to Lockheed Martin's F-35. (Terry Milewski/CBC News)

"We call it competing with a paper airplane," says Ricardo Traven, Boeing's chief test pilot for the Super Hornet. A Canadian who flew fighters for 15 years in the Canadian air force, Traven dismisses the F-35 as a "shiny brochure of promises," and contrasts it with "the real thing," which looms behind him in a top-secret hangar at Boeing's vast production line in St. Louis, Missouri.

[JSFfan]

"12 F/A-18E/F Super Hornet aircraft and 12 EA-18G Growler aircraft and associated equipment, parts, training and logistical support for an estimated cost of $3.7 billion."

we will then have a 24 sqd of growlers which we will keep, the 12 new and the 12 already wired

as per the original plan....our stop gap 24 SH, which is now 12 new and 12 existing, will be looked at these being replaced when we have ~75 F-35 with the prospect of taking our fleet to ~100, this has always been the case


Canada is a different story, they aren't looking for Growlers or a stop gap, so I don't see a SH buy on their horizon

[Willard Whyte]

Canada is a different story, they aren't looking for Growlers or a stop gap, so I don't see a SH buy on their horizon

Maybe the Canucks don't let any 'foreigners' look at their OTH-SW radar.

[JSFfan]

I bet when the northern lights are running, it messes it up something awful, so with me being well over the canadian horizon, it may give me a visual. My crystal ball shows it's the same stuff our new gov did in 2007/8, to keep face after bagging it in opposition.

[BEagle]

When F-35A is cancelled by the Canadians, perhaps we'll see this sort of thing going on in Canada before very long:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/RafaleAAR_zpse29430e0.jpg

(Photo via a top Luftwaffe mate!)

I gather that the RCAF were mightily impressed by Rafale in Libyan operations last year...:ok:

In addition, it would make a good choice for the RN to operate from the UK's new aircraft carriers if F-35B is scrapped.

[SASless]

The F-35 Program is looking more and more like a big fat Turkey to Budget cutters!

If the USAF is forced to terminate their program.....you reckon that will put an end to it all together or will foreign orders keep the program alive?

[Courtney Mil]

SAS,

I can't believe the minority stakeholders could raise the cash to keep it going. How far along does a programme have to be before it can't realistically be cancelled?

[SASless]

It all gets down to Politics.

My impression of events is the Military is playing a game on Congress and the President with a view towards getting their budget made good again.

There was an article out this morning that pointed out some programs that both could be cut and some that need to be cut.

Lets look back at some of the spending that has gone on in the past few years with huge price tags and not a lot of promise or increased capability over current systems or weapons.

The Navy's Littoral Combat Ship program is a very good example of bad spending.

The USMC's hydro-plane Armored Amphibious Tractor Program was an un-mitigated disaster.

The F-35 Program is another program that has been a disaster....both in costs and questionable improvement over existing and much cheaper proven systems.

The US Navy insists on keeping their Ships deployed....steaming around the World and wearing them out doing so. That mindset has been under review since the 80's and was part of the Briefings I was privvy to regards the differences between the Soviet and American Navies.

The Army is being forced to up-date thousands of M-1 Abrams Tanks....and buy new ones....as a political deal.

The Coast Guard's procurement of a new line of Cutters has also been a disaster at no small expense.

What the Military is doing is cutting back on training, flying hours, some overhauls and some deployments, cutting Elementary Schools for Dependent Children and other tactics to create a false crisis.

One example of the problem.....the Joint Chiefs Staff has grown to almost 5,000 people in the Pentagon in the past few Years. Tell me that is not an indicator of the kind of management problem the Military has.

We have far more Generals/Admirals today than we did during WWII when we had almost 18,000,000 people in Uniform.


Here is one program that certainly could have been cancelled sooner.

Typo Leads To Creation Of $179M Gorilla Warfare Program | The Duffel Blog (http://www.duffelblog.com/2013/02/typo-causes-creation-of-179m-gorilla-warfare-program/)

[Sandy Parts]

Courtney - how about 1 aircraft delivered to customer and 2 others flying with customer crews, all taking part in mission system flight testing? hmmm - that project's 12 aircraft still ended up being smashed to bits behind covers and all the in place support kit (sims etc) also being destroyed after being ripped out of buildings. It would appear to be never too late to cancel if the costs saved over the long-term make it worth the short-term furore. It might help the politicians in those areas affected that there are a few years until the next election as well...

[Courtney Mil]

What a crying waste, Sandy. Funny that a system that's working and ready to go gets canned, but one like Nimrod AEW is propped up beyond all reason.

[Biggus]

Who said it was "working and ready to go".... (sorry for the thread drift)

[WE Branch Fanatic]

And The US Navy insists on keeping their Ships deployed....steaming around the World and wearing them out doing so. That mindset has been under review since the 80's and was part of the Briefings I was privvy to regards the differences between the Soviet and American Navies.


Surely deploying to sea is what a Navy is for? You cannnot influence world events from your home port!

I have heard a rumour that the number of US carriers will fall. The AV-8B equipped amphibious vessels can help fill this gap, embarking a decent number of jets and acting as light (sic) carriers. If CVN numbers do decline, then surely the continued development and procurement of F-35B will enable the small (in relative terms - 40 000 tons is not small) carriers to mitigate against the risks caused by having less supercarriers.

I read a suggestion from an American Gentleman that politics was perhaps part of the UK's decision to revert to F-35B for CVF, as it would strengthen the USMC's hand in Washington.

I seem to remember discussing these issues back here (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/478767-no-cats-flaps-back-f35b-85.html#post7419790) in September:

An American gentleman once pointed out that (in his view) the United States uses AV-8B equipped amphibious ships in a similar fashion to the way it used its smaller carriers (eg the Essex class) during the Cold War (and they can embark up to twenty Harriers to act as a light (sic) carrier). In other words, it gives the US an option short of sending a CVN, and of course more ships with a fixed wing capability is useful. As such, it offers Washington a degree of political dexterity. Consider the deployment of USS Kearsarge during operations in Libya last year.

Additionally, the reason the USMC wanted the Harrier back in the 70s was that it provided them with firepower only a short flying time from the shore, making up for the loss of the six inch and eight inch gun cruisers that provided naval gunfire support during the Cold War conflicts in Korea and Vietnam.

Both arguments seem sound to me, and relevant today to a future of (relatively) small scale, littoral engagements.

[Courtney Mil]

Surely deploying to sea is what a Navy is for? You cannnot influence world events from your home port!

IMHO the wisest words I've seen you post here. Well said.:D

[cuefaye]

WEBfoot

That's unkind

[Courtney Mil]

Oh, it's a term of endearment. He's never complained.:ok:

[orca]

Which would all be fine if it weren't for the way the USMC actually use the amphibs. If one were to ask a USMC Harrier driver how they felt on the deck and how they fared in the priority stakes etc you would probably find repeated tales of woe - not being able to get off the deck due helo ops and a myriad of other RW centric stories.

But it's their train set and if that's the way they want to play with it I wish them all the best. They are pretty formidable as a stand alone entity.

I think you might find it very easy to 'Red Team' statements such as those that seek to justify a Harrier's lack of speed, legs and bring back by saying that they are all plusses because it means you can bring the ship in closer. Slightly skewed thinking really. This is the same ship that's rippling helos like there's no tomorrow to get as much ammunition, water, food to the heroes on the ground as possible.

[Lonewolf_50]

In other words, it gives the US an option short of sending a CVN, and of course more ships with a fixed wing capability is useful
No, it doesn't, since the Amphibs are not deployed with organic AEW, nor is the actual Air Wing component remotely as capable.

In Re AEW: Hawkeye is not a VSTOL aircraft.

Now, if you want to "put a big ship somewhere" and you don't think any actual incoming air assets are likely to show up, sure, send LHA/LHD and a few escorts depending upon how you want the presence mission to play out. Been on a few of those.

But DON'T EVER PRETEND than a Harrier carrying amphib in the USN is a sub for a CVN plus its embarked airwing.

NOT EVEN CLOSE.

I am an American. I was a career Naval officer (aviator sort).

I find your citing "some American" of dubious understanding to be suspect.

EDIT: as to this little joke ....
Additionally, the reason the USMC wanted the Harrier back in the 70s was that it provided them with firepower only a short flying time from the shore, making up for the loss of the six inch and eight inch gun cruisers that provided naval gunfire support during the Cold War conflicts in Korea and Vietnam.
Sorta funny, given that the battleships were reactivated for Viet Nam (see USS New JErsey's fun and games there) for Lebanon (80's) and for Desert Storm. Oddly enough, that didn't put the Harriers to bed. Neither did the RAP rounds for 5", nor the proposed RAP rounds for the 16" before the monpower bill in Rummy's and Cohen's Navy coudl get you the manning of four Arleigh Brurkes for one BB.

You'll also find that, in the 1970's, the USN tried to put an 8" gun on the Spruance and hull -- it didn't work out very well. Likewise with Ticonderoga, same basic hull, and that didn't either. Don't recall if it was money or structural mods, but I think it was a bit of both.

That initiative was in fact directly related to the need for NGFS better than the 5" gun on most destroyers and then cruisers as the 6" and 8" cruisers were one by one retired. USMC continual demand for NGFS over time has, in a pure sense, remained an unfilled desire.

The Marines desire for a jet that operated at something other than a big airfield, or from a flat top, is part of their general operating philosophy of air power being a sub set of the larger battlefield funciton of "fires" but I am digressing into doctrine here.

Anyway, I find some of the mythology to be amusing, some less so.

On the other hand, who knows what soap was being sold in DC when the Harrier was proposed for a Marine Air Wing?

Lobbying for a capability results in some curious statements, like the "ring of iron" justification for more LA class SSN's to be in Direct Support of the CVBG ... and which more or less was never going to happen in practice.

[GreenKnight121]

You'll also find that, in the 1970's, the USN tried to put an 8" gun on the Spruance and hull -- it didn't work out very well. Likewise with Ticonderoga, same basic hull, and that didn't either. Don't recall if it was money or structural mods, but I think it was a bit of both.

That initiative was in fact directly related to the need for NGFS better than the 5" gun on most destroyers and then cruisers as the 6" and 8" cruisers were one by one retired. USMC continual demand for NGFS over time has, in a pure sense, remained an unfilled desire.

The 8"/55 Mk.71 MCLWG worked fine... it was test-fitted on a Sherman-class destroyer (USS Hull DD-945)... which was 4,050 tons full load, half the 8,040 tons full load displacement of a Sprucan. In that installation there was some hull cracking, but that was to be expected.

The Spruance & Ticonderoga classes had been designed from the start for the gun to be fitted, but none ever got it even for test purposes, as Jimmy gracefully managing the decline of America Carter canceled it in 1978 to save money AFTER it had passed all development and operational testing and had been approved for pre-production work. (The gun barrel for the Mark 71 was the Mark 28 Mod 1, a 55 caliber two-piece loose liner barrel. The production gun mount was to have used a one piece monobloc barrel designated the Mark 32.)

There were claims that the accuracy wasn't sufficient... but meeting the accuracy requirements was always contingent upon the procurement of a laser-guided round. However, to save costs the CLGP projectile program was deferred.

[Not_a_boffin]

the United States uses AV-8B equipped amphibious ships in a similar fashion to the way it used its smaller carriers (eg the Essex class) during the Cold War

Nope. The Essexes either embarked a full CAG (albeit without A6 and F4, chocka with A1, A4 and F8) and did strike ops - and plenty worked Yankee station during Vietnam, or they designated them CVS, filled the deck with S2 Trackers, a few E1 Tracers and used them to provide the ASW cover for carrier groups in 2nd, 6th and 7th Fleet AORs. They never sent them as a substitute for the post Forrestal ships in any meaningful way.

given that the battleships were reactivated for Viet Nam (see USS New JErsey's fun and games there) for Lebanon (80's) and for Desert Storm. Oddly enough, that didn't put the Harriers to bed

While New Jersey was reactivated specifically to provide NGS off Vietnam, the subsequent reactivation of the entire class in the 80s was to provide Surface Action Groups to counter perceived threat from the Sov Kirov class. They were obviously able to provide NGS for both Lebanon and DS, but they were not reactivated specifically for those ops.

Otherwise, what Orca & Green Knight said.

[SpazSinbad]

Some USN CVSs (USS Bennington mid 1960s) had these VSF = ASWFitRon (same same A4Gs aka VF 805 aboard HMAS Melbourne):

VSF Anti-Submarine Warfare Fighter Squadron

The VSF Story by CDR Robert R. 'Boom' Powell Part 1 - VSF-1 Anti-Submarine Warfare Fighter Squadron One ADMIN/Personnel Office (http://www.ebdir.net/vsf1/boom_powell_part_1.html)
&
The VSF Story by CDR Robert R. 'Boom' Powell Part 2 - VSF-1 Anti-Submarine Warfare Fighter Squadron One ADMIN/Personnel Office (http://www.ebdir.net/vsf1/boom_powell_part_2.html)

“...Once in WestPac, although Intrepid picked up a VFP-63 Photo-Crusader detachment and YF-111 provided three F-8Cs and pilots to fly photo escort, VSF-3 was considered the resident fighter squadron. The squadron color was red, Ready Room 1# (nearest the flight deck) was assigned-to be shared with the 'Sader pilots--and flight deck alerts during ship transits were stood by an A-4B with a centerline fuel tank and a pair of AIM-9 Sidewinders....”

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Which would all be fine if it weren't for the way the USMC actually use the amphibs. If one were to ask a USMC Harrier driver how they felt on the deck and how they fared in the priority stakes etc you would probably find repeated tales of woe - not being able to get off the deck due helo ops and a myriad of other RW centric stories.

But it's their train set and if that's the way they want to play with it I wish them all the best. They are pretty formidable as a stand alone entity.

True, but on occasions they have operated as AV-8B carriers with an increased number of jets. Playing second fiddle to rotary wing operations is probably a cultural thing. The USMC used to like embarking aboard RN decks to get experience of having the deck mostly to themselves, but despite the UK having a STOVL future to prepare for this no longer happens for some reason - although it would benefit both parties.

No, it doesn't, since the Amphibs are not deployed with organic AEW, nor is the actual Air Wing component remotely as capable.

In Re AEW: Hawkeye is not a VSTOL aircraft.

Now, if you want to "put a big ship somewhere" and you don't think any actual incoming air assets are likely to show up, sure, send LHA/LHD and a few escorts depending upon how you want the presence mission to play out. Been on a few of those.

But DON'T EVER PRETEND than a Harrier carrying amphib in the USN is a sub for a CVN plus its embarked airwing.

NOT EVEN CLOSE.

Quite agree. However, if CVNs become less available, then jets embarked aboard the LHA/LHD may be the only shipborne jets available. F-35B will be a lot more capable than Harrier, with significant ISTAR capabilities of its own. My argument is NOT that a LHA/LHD is as good or as capable as a CVN and air wing, but that since your politicians seem intent on reducing the number of deployed/ready CVNs (a dangerous move in my opinion) then you need to look at other ways of operating fixed wing aircraft at sea or from the sea.

Nope. The Essexes either embarked a full CAG (albeit without A6 and F4, chocka with A1, A4 and F8) and did strike ops - and plenty worked Yankee station during Vietnam, or they designated them CVS, filled the deck with S2 Trackers, a few E1 Tracers and used them to provide the ASW cover for carrier groups in 2nd, 6th and 7th Fleet AORs. They never sent them as a substitute for the post Forrestal ships in any meaningful way.

Indeed, but whilst the numbers of big deck carriers were being built up, they did sterling work.

Interesting article here: Navy's Newest Assault Ship Moonlights as Pint-Sized Aircraft Carrier | Danger Room | Wired.com (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/10/navy-mini-carrier/)

It’s not a totally reckless wager, but it does involve some risk. With the America class, the Pentagon is taking a chance on air power and, more to point, on the Marines’ version of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. When America‘s sister ship Tripoli enters service in 2018, the Navy will (in essence) possess 13 carriers — these two smaller, newer models, plus 11 of the big, nuclear-powered variety. That’s up from the 11 nuke flattops in today’s fleet. Commensurately, the number of old-school assault ships will drop by two.

The sailing branch’s other assault ships — currently numbering nine — can also support dozens of helicopters plus a handful of Harrier jump jets apiece. But they lack the facilities for sustained flight ops, meaning they’re more assault ships than classic carriers. The older vessels are built around cavernous “well decks” — in essence, giant swimming pools that open to the sea through the ships’ sterns, allowing them to launch and recover landing craft, hovercraft, swimming vehicles and river boats. These small craft are the primary means of moving Marines onto shore, complemented by helicopters and V-22 tiltrotors taking off from the flight deck.

America and Tripoli don’t have well decks. In their place, the newer ships possess extra hangar space, bigger tanks for aviation fuel and larger weapons magazines. These facilities allow America and her sister to operate, for days on end, as many as 30 fixed-wing planes including today’s Harriers plus the F-35B stealth jump jet that’s still in testing. “It is, for all intents and purposes, a light aircraft carrier,” Navy Capt. Jerry Hendrix wrote of America. But the new ship and her sister can still send Marines ashore in helicopters and V-22s.

Needs must.

[Lonewolf_50]

GreenKnight: thanks! I could probably have looked some of that up. What my ship driving brethren who knew anything about that told me, back in the 80's, was that the program kept getting "approved, unfunded" in successive budget allocations. Sort of the old IPTL and not quite able to make the "cut line" and eventually, as you point out, the program got funding starved and went the way of the plains buffalo. Too bad, as the accuracy issue was most likely something fixable with improvements in FC systems (similar to things like CORT in the FFG-7 class) or guidance packages like Copperhead.

WEB, I see we agree, more or less. Thanks for your expanding on that thought. Then again, one would hope F-35 would be considerably more capable than Harrier, it's had the benefit of a lot of tech improvements over the last 30 years. ;)

@ not a boffin: I'll provisionally agree, given that the upgrades also included the deck launched Tomahawk, helicopter facilities upgrade, and of course comms suite upgrades for C4I.

The NGFS was still a capability, but you are more correct than I about why the BB's were reactivated when they were.

[LowObservable]

LHA-8 and subsequent (after Tripoli) revert to the well deck.

The big problem with the "mini-carrier" argument is that there is no AEW, no EA, no persistent surveillance and no tanking, which gets important when your jet has the fuel fraction of a clean F-16, or if you have enough jets on board to worry about a fouled-deck situation.

However, I believe the main reason for cutting off the no-well-deck class at two ships is that the amphibious function gets problematic.... You have a whole load of Marines, vehicles and gear and, mostly, small-cabin V-22s to get them anywhere.

[JSFfan]

It depends on the CONOPS, the Aussie 'carrier' will be only rotary and will rely on off board assets...nothing is a single platform affair

[Lonewolf_50]

LO: if it hasn't got a well deck, is it really an amphib? :confused:
Philosophical argument, I suppose.

There's quite a bit of heavy equipment for a MEU/ MEB, etc, that you can't transport via Osprey, and even CH-53E can't lift it all. It takes LCAC to get a Main Battle Tank ashore ... I note from a little googling that a follow on to LCAC called SSC (ship to shore connector) got a contract awarded in 2012 for an IOC of 2019 ... we'll see how that works out. :p

[orca]

I just can't see the USMC, with their political lobby and public following using an amphib as a purely FW platform or even a FW heavy platform....because essentially that would mean leaving the marines (the crucial bit, the fundemental bit, the marines bit) behind.

And once you leave something behind once you do it twice and that road leads to fewer marines - at a time when there are still CVNs around and I think we all agree that in FW terms they 'bring a little more' to the party than an amphib.

Please also bear in mind that these Harriers would have to come from somewhere and the helos would have to go somewhere - in a way more efficient than just moving a CVN - unless you genuinely think an amphib would sail in that config...which is about as likely as the Sahara freezing over and the camels coming home on skates.

[Rulebreaker]

Not the most positive message for the f35

F-35 Report Warns of Visibility Risks, Other Dangers | Defense News | defensenews.com (http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130306/DEFREG02/303060011/F-35-Report-Warns-Visibility-Risks-Other-Dangers?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE)

[GeeRam]

Not the most positive message for the f35

F-35 Report Warns of Visibility Risks, Other Dangers | Defense News | defensenews.com

Hmmmmm.......

From that report....

.....“An example where maintainability needs to improve is engine replacement. One unscheduled engine removal and replacement occurred during the OUE, which required 39 hours of elapsed maintenance time,” according to the report.

“For the five unscheduled engine removal and replacements that have occurred in the F-35A fleet, the mean elapsed maintenance time for this task is 52 hours".........

:eek:

Is this why they chose to call it the Lightning II :E

[John Farley]

Rulebreaker & Geeram

We don't know of course whether the numbers quoted are correct or even comparable.

Let us hope they are indeed correct and comparable as going from a 1-5 average of 52 to 39 for No6 is a very reasonable learning curve that bodes well for the future after the procedure has become standardised and the troops well trained and experienced in the operation.

[Courtney Mil]

From such a poor starting point it should be easy to find some improvement.

[kbrockman]

I seem to remember some people here saying that we should wait and see what the regular pilots think once they flew their new toy.
From the looks of it they are not uniformly positive ,to say the least.
Pilot Comments Less Than Stellar

The most attention-grabbing part of the report features comments from the pilots who flew the initial OUE training flights. Each student accomplished six flights and one taxi-only maneuver in a Block A-1 configured F-35A.

Pilots identified a number of issues, many of which stemmed from the immaturity of the aircraft.

All four pilots commented that there was poor visibility from the cockpit, which appears to be the result of design flaws.One pilot said he had difficulty seeing other aircraft due to the location of the canopy bow, while others identified the lack of rear visibility as a major, potentially deadly, flaw.

“The head rest is too large and will impede aft visibility and survivability during surface and air engagements,” commented one pilot quoted in the report. “Aft visibility will get the pilot gunned every time.”

“The majority of responses cited poor visibility; the ejection seat headrest and the canopy bow were identified as causal factors. ‘High glare shield' and the HMD cable were also cited as sources of the problem,” reads the report.

Most worrisome for JSF supporters is this conclusion: “Of these, only the HMD cable has the potential to be readily redesigned.”

Another common complaint involved the failure of the radar system.

“The radar performance shortfalls ranged from the radar being completely inoperative on two sorties to failing to display targets on one sortie, inexplicably dropping targets on another sortie, and taking excessive time to develop a track on near co-speed targets on yet another sortie,” according to the report.

All of the pilots had issues with the helmet-mounted display (HMD) at some point in their training flights. While acknowledging that the JSF program is working to further develop the helmet, the authors of the report say the pilot comments make it “clear that some of these issues have the potential to significantly hamper more advanced combat training and operational capability in the future if not rectified.”

Not all complaints were unanimous. One pilot complained about the touch screen interface used to control the radios, saying it “is not readily accessible, requires more channelized attention, has no tactile feedback, and is error prone - particularly during demanding phases of flight or under turbulent flight conditions.”

Other pilots did not publicly share any concerns they had with the touch screen, which the report says could be because it was not an issue raised in exit interviews.

[Rulebreaker]

While I would agree with John that things should improve it does make you wonder if there running before they've learned to walk.

I did find the visibility criticism odd kbrockman especially as there has been much talk of the ability to be able to look through the jet.

[Lonewolf_50]

About touch screens: an overhyped invention.

I used to have a cell phone that operated with buttons. My new cell phone uses touch screen, but also has a sliding keyboard. (Voice activation is of course a very handy feature ... if you like to use that app). I entered numbers a lot faster on the old 4x3 keypad than on a touch screen. I did it by feel.

With my new phone, I find the difference similar. I enter data faster, and with less visual field attention that with a touch screen.

As that pilot noted, touch screen requires too much attention as compared to tactile senses aiding your visual senses in keying in information or data into a system.

If you set up a 4x3 pad for radio freq selection, it is easy to key in numbers without having to look at them. Same is true with switching pre channelized freqs by feeling the number of clicks as you go up or down a channel selector.

Simple stuff, none of which requires visual field task sharing.

Further comments :mad:

[JSFfan]

a lot of the simple stuff is voice command, so block 1a has limitations...who knew:{

[kbrockman]

Just for information purposes
This is what Northrop said about arguably the best piece of the JSF pie.
https://defensenewsstand.com/index.php?option=com_customproperties&view=show&tagId=10&Itemid=412&limitstart=20

Northrop: DAS Could See Action On Other Platforms Before F-35 Hits IOC
Inside the Air Force - 02/22/2013
With development of its next-generation Joint Strike Fighter sensor package essentially complete, Northrop Grumman is receiving requests to adapt its Distributed Aperture System to other platforms and keeping a close eye on its performance as related to the F-35's sometimes-troublesome Helmet-Mounted Display System.

also
I did find the visibility criticism odd kbrockman especially as there has been much talk of the ability to be able to look through the jet.
6th Mar 2013 21:56

Apparently it was an issue for those that are going to have to fly it on a day to day base, maybe they are not expecting to be able to rely solely on the data provided by the sensors alone.

[orca]

Maybe - just maybe - they were all ex viper drivers and have been used to no canopy bow for a while. I'm not sure poor rearwards vis gets you gunned every time but I take the point.

[Bushranger 71]

Hello JSFfan; re your #1226 post.

There is heaps of imagery and text stuff referring to STOVL potential for the Australian Canberra class LPD and the F-35B gets mention in some DoD material.

http://i599.photobucket.com/albums/tt72/Bushranger71/SHIP_LHD_Navantia_lg_zpsb7b7de51.jpg


The JSF is looking more like a dead duck each day and it is only the American politicians who are not yet coming to grips with the reality of a very flawed project that is likely to cause the US huge political embarrassment.

If Australia is going to be able to afford reasonable air combat capability, then it cannot realistically be the very costly unproven F-35A for the Air Force, let alone F-35B for the Navy.

There has been a project ongoing in Navy circles for a time considering the OV-10 for operation from the Canberra class flat tops. Methinks not a very good option, although Super Tucano would be a good alternative; if a naval version is developed, as mooted in some quarters. A simple arrestor system could be easily retro-fitted to these ships.

Whatever is embarked on these LPDs, the escort requirements are going to be very costly for the smallish ADF.

[JSFfan]

except that the f-35b isn't a conop on it and never was and support will be from off board including f-35's. From what I have heard the ADF say if gov want a fixed wing option they need to buy extra ship/s for that conop.

the point I was making is that even though we could, we wont even run f-35b on our LHD, let alone AEW/EA.
As current air AEW/EA is off board for US LHA and it comes down to systems, not everything is on one platform

[Bastardeux]

Will be very interesting to see what happens over the next few months, this is out of the Wall Street Journal:

Gen. Bogdan also warned that the across-the-board sequester cuts could slow acquisitions and drive up costs. "If sequestration happens the way it is planned to happen, it could very well break the program," he told The Wall Street Journal

Plus the US house of reps just passed a bill that is likely to get through the senate, which doesn't reverse any of the cuts, but just gives the military discretion over how and what it cuts...who else sees the elephant in the room??

[Lonewolf_50]

Bushranger, stronly suggest you look at UAV's for the OV-10 role and function. Cheaper and easier to operate.

[airborne_artist]

New Pentagon super fighter will get pilots shot down, warns report - Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/6/report-super-fighter-will-get-pilots-shot-down/#ixzz2MsWqXtPC)

The U.S. Air Force (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/us-air-force/) version of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter has shortcomings that will get pilots shot down in combat, according to a leaked Pentagon (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/pentagon/) report evaluating combat testing of the plane.
“The out-of-cockpit visibility in the F-35A is less than other Air Force (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/air-force/) fighter aircraft,” states the report from the Defense Department's Directorate of Operational Test and Evaluation (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/defense-departments-directorate-of-operational-tes/), referring to a pilot’s ability to see the sky around them.


Test pilots’ comments quoted in the report are more blunt.
“The head rest is too large and will impede aft [rear] visibility and survivability during surface and air engagements,” said one. “Aft visibility will get the pilot gunned [down] every time” in dogfights, opined another.

[Bushranger 71]

Hi Lonewolf 50. Aye, I omitted mention of UAVs which also get reference in some of the literature that has originated from within Australian DoD circles.

The RAN shed 2 aircraft carriers years back, although one of them was extensively used for logistic support throughout the Vietnam War. With aircraft embarked, they were of course very costly to operate for a pretty small Navy, now manned by around 16,000 personnel.

But having since acquired LPDs with a ski-jump ramp, they do have some flexibility if the below deck layout is configured more for aircraft support than ground forces transportation. Embarking sizeable land force components/assets on a single platform is not a great idea in my view - as demonstrated in the Falklands War - and Australia could have done with lesser capacity amphibious support vessels. But the 2 x Canberra class carriers are an expensive reality now and best use must be made of them.

By the way, my background is Air Force not Navy, but I find carrier ops a very interesting topic.

[Lonewolf_50]

By the way, my background is Air Force not Navy, but I find carrier ops a very
interesting topic.
I hope you had a chance while serving to go out there and see it for yourself. Nothing quite like it. :ok:

[SpazSinbad]

'Bushranger 71' said: "...By the way, my background is Air Force not Navy, but I find carrier ops a very interesting topic."

We probably have a mutual friend LEUT 'Bomber' Brown (+ others) No.9 Sqdn South Vietnam (however I was back at NAS Nowra with the A4G). You will see not only a bunch of stuff about the RAN Fixed Wing in those years but also a fair bit about RAN Helo Ops including EMU and No.9 (but only a small amount compared to the overall size of the PDF). Otherwise individual smaller PDFs may be found on these same web pages. There is some info about the LHDs and whydontwegetsomeF-35Bsonem...

Some 1,000 odd pages mostly at beginning of this PDF are about 'Carrier Ops and How to Deck Land' in general including old RN ops and current USN ops, with reference to the beginning and future F-35 ops; and of course including a bunch of A4G stuff aboard HMAS Melbourne scattered throughout the PDF. :eek:

On this SpazSinbad SkyDrive page is a segmented (.RAR/.EXE) version of the latest 4.4GB PDF dated 06 March 2013 in this folder:

https://skydrive.live.com/?cid=cbcd63d6340707e6&sa=822839791

FOLDER: '_Final_06mar13_A4G_4-4GB-PDF'
_______________

Otherwise entire same PDF on GoogleDrive (sign in for free):

https://drive.google.com/?authuser=0#folders/0BwBlvCQ7o4F_aDhIQ0szeVJFY0U

FOLDER: 4.4GB PDF A4G Skyhawks RAN FAA

FILE NAME: A4G-FAA_Scrapbook_06mar2013_9,631ppFINALv11.pdf (4.4GB)

This 4.4GB may be archived on a DVD but best viewed when file on computer hard drive.

[JSFfan]

Bushranger (http://www.pprune.org/members/288518-bushranger-71), I'd be thinking more about under water stuff

[Bushranger 71]

Apologies if I digressed a bit from the primary thread theme.

Lonewolf_50; I was fortunate to get some experience aboard RAN warships, but only a little on carriers. Regrettably though, never managed to get aboard the big US platforms which have always awed me.

Hi SpazSinbad; thank you for the beaut info. I guess I am breaching 'security' now, but JB (Bomber) and I have had lots of dialogue over the past couple of years re the OV-10 Bronco study.

Deviating a bit more. During the Vietnam show, we often had to deliver high volume ball ammunition as close as 10 metres from own troops when they were in dire situations. That cannot be done with acceptable risk from platforms only equipped with explosive ordnance, such as Apache/Tiger AAH. While Predator and the like can probably hang around in murky weather conditions, such UAVs presently only deliver very costly guided HE weaponry (like Hellfire), so their usability in very close quarters combat situations is doubtful. That may of course change with advancing technology, but I do not see them replacing helo gunships or even something like a Super Tucano in the nearer term.

Having said that, there are lots of potential benefits in operating UAVs from carrier platforms.

[SpazSinbad]

'B71' said: "Hi SpazSinbad; thank you for the beaut info. I guess I am breaching 'security' now, but JB (Bomber) and I have had lots of dialogue over the past couple of years re the OV-10 Bronco study."

'B71' yeah 'Bomba' put me on to that Bronco / Super Bronco train a while back - pages from the Navy League story about 'Broncos on LHDs' used to be in the BIG PDF - I took 'em out when that idea seemed to get no traction.

Another Navy League story by ex-A4G pilot then RN SHAR pilot Mark Boast is in the large PDF in the beginning pages in 'How Deck Land' section around page 1487 is his 'How to Land a SHAR' from 'The NAVY Jul-Sept 2008 Vol.70 No.3 - The Magazine of the Navy League of Australia':

http://navyleague.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/The-Navy-Vol_70_No_3-Jul-2008.pdf
________________

A few pages also from another Navy League Magazine about 'how to beg for F-35Bs on our LHDs' in the LHD section around page 4754. The original PDF is here:

THE CHALLENGES OF AN ORGANIC FIXED WING CAPABILITY FOR AUSTRALIA’S LHDS
Oct 2010 By Mark Boast in THE NAVY VOL. 72 NO. 4

http://navyleague.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/The-Navy-Vol_72_No_4-Oct-2010.pdf

“The best way to overcome a challenge is to understand it. With this in mind former Sea Harrier squadron commanding officer Mark Boast takes a look at the challenges that could confront the ADF adopting organic CAS for the new Canberra class LHDs."..."

[WhiteOvies]

SpazSinbad, Bushranger,

Not sure if it made the press in Oz but your SecDef had a very good look around F-35B at NAS Pax River last year. Hopefully someone in the RAN has at least thought about the possibilities of embarking a USMC or UK F-35B det on board, even if the economics mean that Oz can't afford it's own.

Seems a shame to have a ski-jump and never use it....;)

[JSFfan]

There is talk of Lilly-padding, but I guess that would be only for those forces that are cleared for a ski-lift

[SpazSinbad]

There is a CVF style ski jump at Pax River for F-35B testing. I'll guess that the Spanish LHD will require F-35B trials so expect the USMC at least (I doubt if the CVFs will ever appear near Australia but who knows) to trial their F-35Bs on Oz LHDs with VLs and STOs during exercises to the North of Oz at the end of this decade.

[dat581]

I think I read somewhere (probably in the same Navy League Magazine) that the Oz LHDs left the ski jump in the design because it was easier than redesigning the bow area. This didn't stop the government insisting that the ships didn't have the extra jet fuel capacity or the magazines to carry the weapons to support the F35B on board in any useful way.

A USMC or RN F35B landing on a RAN LHD in Sydney Harbour would be a good way to grab some public support...

[Deaf]

Interesting suggestion:

What if China Not Just Hacked — But Sabotaged — the F-35? | emptywheel (http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/02/24/what-if-china-not-just-hacked-but-sabotaged-the-f-35/)

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Oh, yeah. Can't possibly be an American corporate cock-up

Must be Chinese sabotage

or maybe it was Bigfoot, or Aliens......:hmm:

[kilomikedelta]

Shareholders desperately want to believe in boards of directors and corporate executives. To suggest otherwise is apostasy.

[ihg]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/6/report-super-fighter-will-get-pilots-shot-down/

So, finally, just ...
15 years after the MOCK-UP,
13 years after the first flight of the X35,
7 years after the first flight of the F35A,
and now with some 50+ of them flying around,

"somebody" at the DOT&E finally discovered the "rearward" visibility might not be up to F-16 standards?

Some design flaws are really hidden well below the surface, and takes years of intense research to reveal.

I am deeply impressed by this stellar analytical performance of the DOT&E.

Luckily they found out in time.

Uhm, and just in case, you guys at LM run out of ideas to solve this dilemma, I have one of this cute little rearward looking cameras on my car, you might take a look...:}

[CoffmanStarter]

Even better still ... Bolt a R2D2 Droid on top ... Bob's your uncle, job done :ok:

Even more crazy install a fully articulating Nav :}

[Courtney Mil]

The Chinese didn't sabotage the data when they hacked in. They inserted mind control software that made the engineers introduce manufacturing flaws. There's worse to come now, as they work on a computer virus that can infect people. It's true.

Back to the thread, didn't we comment a year or more ago that the visibility from the F35 cockpit looked really poor? All the talk about sensors mitigating that issue brushed concerns aside. Maybe LM designers should have listened to us at PPRuNe.

[ColdCollation]

A recurring observation about the F-35, here and elsewhere, is that it's a densely packed, 'fat' shape. Stealth needs aside, there's none of the coke-bottling of area ruling and nor could there be; the weapons bays see to that.

The canopy has always looked broad by comparison with that of, say, the F-16. Broadness equates to shallow viewing angles from the pilot's eyeline. Does this really come as a surprise, then, or is it something else that was conveniently overlooked/was hoped would be 'alright on the night'?

[BUCC09]

One advantage to the F-35 Poundstretcher's broad cockpit will be having plenty of space to stow magazines and what not. For those long sorties :cool:

[JSFfan]

I find it funny that people are over looking eodas, this was a questionnaire regarding block 1a after all

Joint Program Office DOT&E OUE Response
(Source: F-35 Joint Program Office; issued March 6, 2013)

The U.S. Air Force conducted the Operational Utility Evaluation for its F-35As and determined its training systems were ready-for-training. F-35 operational and maintenance procedures will continue to mature as the training tempo accelerates.

The DOT&E report is based upon the Joint Strike Fighter Operational Test Team report which found no effectiveness, suitability or safety response that would prohibit continuation of transitioning experienced pilots in the F-35A Block 1A.1 transition and instructor pilot syllabus.

There are no issues identified in the DOT&E report that the Air Force and the F-35 Joint Program Office didn't already know about, and are working to resolve.

There is a deliberate process in place to validate the training system's effectiveness through advancing training blocks as they are made available to the warfighter.

[Bastardeux]

JSFfan, it's bad news. Accept that fact.

[JSFfan]

What?, it's bad news because the eodas isn't in block 1a or that there are no effectiveness, suitability or safety response that would prohibit continuation of transitioning experienced pilots in the F-35A Block 1A.1 transition and instructor pilot syllabus.

The previous delays are bad news and it would be bad news if this was block 3 and eodas wasn't intergrated

[Bastardeux]

It's bad news because it's an airshow jet.

[JSFfan]

block 1a isn't even an air show jet, it's less than that

[ORAC]

This is a problem of expectations.

When the F-22 was designed it was as a fighter, so even though a bubble stealth canopy is difficult and expensive, it got one. When the F-35 was designed iit was as a bomb truck, so in the same manner as the F-117 the lower cost option was taken at the expense of visibility.

Unfortunately the F-35 has increasingly been sold as the equivalent or superior to the current 4th generation fighters, so the expectation of the pilots is that it will have the same visibility - which it hasn't.

The problem is to either scale back the expectations of the pilots - which I would now adjudge an impossible task, or improve the visibility - a politically/financial impossibility.

Not sure where they go from here.

F-22 vs F-35 canopies

http://www.airforce-technology.com/uploads/feature/feature99531/4-4.jpg http://www.armedforces-int.com/upload/image_files/corporate_policy/images/projects/12/f-35-cockpit-b.jpg

[JSFfan]

The F-35's "bubble canopy" is the eodas, heck it's even a floor canopy full 360deg

[Bastardeux]

except it doesn't work...

[JSFfan]

nope it doesn't work in block 1a, infact I don't even think it's fitted
block 2a is flying with the test pilots and will be cleared this year, that might be better

[orca]

I think that Raptor's HUD must get in the way - it's right in his line of sight.

[WhiteOvies]

I would say that it also depends on your background as a pilot when it comes to your perception of how much of an issue items like the canopy arch are.

If you are used to having one (ex-Harrier pilot) then it is a less of a problem to you than if you are not used to having one (F-16 Pilot).

It's a similar story with other non-electrically augmented vision issues: a Tornado pilot would probably think the visibility is great, even without DAS, compared to a GR4, whereas a Typhoon pilot may have a different opinion.

[SpazSinbad]

There is a part translation (how good I do not know) on F-16.net but anyway here is the URL:

- Det går sakte men sikkert fremover - regjeringen.no (http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/fd/tema/kampfly-til-forsvaret/--det-gar-sakte-men-sikkert-fremover.html?id=715294) 21 Feb Partner Presentation

One para 'translated': ..."- We see that progress with the helmet is now so good that [they/we] are likely to go back to one solution at the next major milestone in April, and [they/we] will then scrap the backup solution which began its work last year. A Lightning Protection solution has now been agreed on and restrictions on flights in thunder storms will be lifted in 2015, concurrently with software version "2B" being installed in the aircraft. This is the software the U.S. Marine Corps will be operational with in 2015, and where shortly after the use of F-35 in hot military operations if necessary. The development of software in general, where we previously saw a backlog has now been dealt with [caught up on], and the development of Block 2B software is now on track to be installed in 2015. This shows that the measures taken just months back, are now showing results, says Klever...."

Some graphics on the website tell 'costs' stories....
_____________________

Google Translation (Norwegian to English) of the same page as above:

Google Translate (http://translate.google.com.au/translate?sl=no&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.regjeringen.no%2Fnb%2Fdep%2Ffd%2Ftema%2Fk ampfly-til-forsvaret%2F--det-gar-sakte-men-sikkert-fremover.html%3Fid%3D715294)