F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

except it doesn't work...

Yeah, it does, and does well. The ONLY areas where the helmet is currently coming up short now is in minor jitter and latency at the extremes, fixes for which have been bench-tested and are due to go to flight test soon.

[kbrockman]

JSF Rearward visibility issues fixed by simple but innovative solution from our Dutch friends;
http://www.geenstijl.nl/archives/images/jsfmetachteruitkijkspiegels

[SpazSinbad]

Yeah but it does not have twin overhead chromed dipsticks. :=

[kilomikedelta]

A pity that a pair of oversized dice hanging from the canopy arch would increase the radar signature. They would look really manly!

[Baron 58P]

This is from the Washington Post this morning - it gives both pro and con and leaves it up to the reader to decide. The only question answered seems to be that nobody can afford the F35....

F-35’s ability to evade budget cuts illustrates challenge of paring defense spending - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/f-35s-ability-to-evade-budget-cuts-illustrates-challenge-of-paring-defense-spending/2013/03/09/42a6085a-8776-11e2-98a3-b3db6b9ac586_story.html?hpid=z6)

[JSFfan]

That's the trouble when know-nothing journalists try to be a defence writer
Hatchet Job on the Potomac: The Washington Post Fails Its Readers | SLDInfo (http://www.sldinfo.com/hatchet-job-on-the-potomac-the-washington-post-fails-its-readers/)

[Biggus]

....and ultimately "know nothing" politicians make fiscal/policy/defence decisions, and usually don't stick around long enough to live with the consequences - it's called democracy!

[JSFfan]

What's worse is when these know-nothing politicians over-ride defence force planners and system evaluators recommendations for a great headline and photo op

[Biggus]

....yup, that's democracy for you alright!!

[Lonewolf_50]

"somebody" at the DOT&E finally discovered the "rearward" visibility might not be up to F-16 standards?
Was "up to F-16 rearward vis standard" in the requirements documnet?

I find the use of the word "discovered" suspect.

I will strongly suggest to you that this issue was raised years ago during CDR (at the latest) and the engineering and funcitonal issues and compromises were both accepted by the program office.

I remember over 30 years ago all of the talk about how new and magic the F-18 was going to be compared to the A-7 or the F-4.

Good plane, but it wasn't perfect, and it wasn't magic.

[JSFfan]

They are actually complaining about the luxurious ample headrest, which they found too large when compared to their itty bitty f-16 one

actually, I don't recall seeing mirrors in the f-35, I must go and find some pics of the cockpit

[Lonewolf_50]

Who is "they" JSFfan and in what context is the head rest being complained about? Rearward vis or overly comfortable cockpit? :p

[JSFfan]

They just don't get the 5th gen concept yet :cool:

http://pogoarchives.org/straus/ote-info-memo-20130215.pdf

The out-of-cockpit visibility in the F-35 is less than other Air Force fighter aircraft.
8 One rated the degree to which the visibility deficiencies impeded or degraded training effectiveness as “Moderate;” the other three rated it as “High” or “Very High.” 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. Of these, only the HMD cable has the potential to be readily redesigned.

In three cases, student pilots explicitly cited visibility-related impacts that could be directly applicable to the Block 1A syllabus (a largely benign visual search environment); several other implicitly did so.

[Courtney Mil]

But if they were to make the headrest smaller, then they'd beable to see the rear cockpit bulkhead and that would become the problem. It's always been perfectly clear that this airframe was not designed with rearward visibility in mind. Given the width of the cockpit and the front combing, downward and forward vis can't have been too far up the list either.

[JSFfan]

Yes, but they can't see out the back, let alone the bulkhead because of the super dooper headrest and the cockpit doesn't have mirrors,
[if only they had something that would give them 360 deg SA]

In three cases, student pilots explicitly cited visibility-related impacts that could be directly applicable to the Block 1A syllabus (a largely benign visual search environment); several other implicitly did so.

[LowObservable]

What is surprising is... that the rearward visibility limit surprised anybody.

When you design an airplane with the equivalent of a regional-jet engine stuffed vertically behind the seat, providing the pilot with a view around said engine is clearly problematical.

On the other hand, the new entrants to the JSF pilot community have been living on the same diet of propaganda that LMT feeds to the rest of the world (with the aid of shills and Internet-tough-guy know-nothings) so anything short of miracles comes as an unpleasant surprise.

[Courtney Mil]

JSFfan,

You need to hop on over to Cdr Sharkey Ward's private asylum, Sharkey's World, where the deluded fool has posted a wonderful piece of "analysis" that irrefutably proves that the UK must buy F-18 instead of F-35. It looks reasonably easy to disprove (as is usual for his psychopathic rages) so it shouldn't take you long to shoot him down.

Happy hunting :ok:

[Rhino power]

F-35 fighter forced to land in Texas en route to Nevada air base - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/f-35-fighter-forced-land-texas-en-route-011439147.html)

-RP

[JSFfan]

Courtney Mil, what? and miss all the fun here...never

LO, yes a big fan and 2 engines will be better ..I don't recall LM making big claims for the current block 1a, could you expand?


I don't know why the air forces don't listen to bloggers and agenda driven journalists these days, but it looks like another will join
Singapore set to complete F-35 assessment (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/singapore-set-to-complete-f-35-assessment-383321/)
"For the longer term, the Republic of Singapore Air Force has identified the F-35 as a suitable aircraft to further modernise our fighter fleet," he added. "We are now in the final stages of evaluating the F-35."

[Courtney Mil]

JSFfan, you don't have to miss a beat here just to sort out the decrepit sailor, my friend. If anyone can spike his guns, I'm sure you can.

[JSFfan]

It's a wonder why he doesn't submit his work to AVWEEK, it exceeds the bar that Sweetman set

[SpazSinbad]

F-35 canopy view when open - looking through it from front - for 'JSFfan': http://www.codeonemagazine.com/images/media/2013_News_Web_F35A_130306_f_oc707_908_1267828237_3530.jpg


Edited version:

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/2013_news_web_f35aEDs.jpg

[kbrockman]

JSF Nieuws.nl (http://www.jsfnieuws.nl/)
Last year in an interview (DODBuzz) admiral Greenert “painted a fairly bleak picture of the value of manned stealthy combat aircraft, which seems like a vote of no confidence for the Joint Strike Fighter program in regards to its effectiveness, utility and need.”

The Limits of Stealth

And in an opinion article in Proceedings Magazine of the US Naval Institute admiral Greenert wrote: “The rapid expansion of computing power also ushers in new sensors and methods that will make stealth and its advantages increasingly difficult to maintain above and below the water.”
(../..)
“For example, an aircraft or ship is designed to have a small signature or radar return when it is approaching a threat sensor—or has a “nose-on” aspect. Improved computer processing will produce new techniques that can detect stealth platforms at target aspects from which they have higher radar returns. Multiple active radars, for instance, can combine their returns through a battle-management computer so radar detections from a stealth platform’s less-stealthy side, underside, or rear aspect can be shared and correlated to allow the stealth platform to be detected and attacked. Similarly, passive radar receivers can capture the electromagnetic energy that comes from transmitters of opportunity—such as cell-phone or TV towers—and bounces off a stealth platform at a variety of angles. With better processing in the future, those weak, fragmented signals can be combined to create actionable target information.
Those developments do not herald the end of stealth, but they do show the limits of stealth design in getting platforms close enough to use short-range weapons. Maintaining stealth in the face of new and diverse counterdetection methods would require significantly higher fiscal investments in our next generation of platforms. It is time to consider shifting our focus from platforms that rely solely on stealth to also include concepts for operating farther from adversaries using standoff weapons and unmanned systems—or employing electronic-warfare payloads to confuse or jam threat sensors rather than trying to hide from them.” So far US Navy admiral Jonathan Greenert.

The relative small production quantity of F-35C (planning only 260); the fact that the US Navy will be the only operator; in combination with the technical problems; the delays of the Initial Operational Capability until 2019; the continuation of the production of the successful F/A-18 Super Hornet and the planned accelerated development of X-47B like carrier launched unmanned stealth aircraft are a combined, but growing and serious threat to the continuation of the F-35C development and production.

Source:
Prceedings, July 2012; Vol 138/7/1313; US Naval Institute; Admiral Jonathan Greenert; “Payloads over Platforms; charting a new course”
DODBuzz; 3-jul-2012; “Did CNO just take a big swipe at F-35?”
Reuters; 12-mar-2013; Cutting whole U.S. Navy buy of F-35s would hurt: top officer
Prices soar, enthusiasm dives for F-35 Lightning; pilots worry about visibility problem - Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/6/prices-soar-enthusiasm-dives-for-f-35-lightning/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS)
Also interesting how General Bogdan, Retired Adm. Gary Roughead, the chief of naval operations from 2007 to 2011, and the Boss of the USMC all seem to come to the conclusion that the JSF has basically given up on the joint part and developed into 3 separate fighters hampered too much by their commonality which is a big reason for the price inflation.
The US NAVY Admiral basically proposes to give up entirely on the A version and also doubts the value of the B, the USAF on the other hand prefers the A version because they want a light weight fighter, which is kind of ironic since it is anything but light.
Retired Adm. Gary Roughead, the chief of naval operations from 2007 to 2011, wrote a recent article for his new employer, the Hoover Institution, on how to reduce military costs. One idea: scrap the F-35A.

“My whole idea there was, even though there are a lot of commonalities, if you had one conventional takeoff-and-landing [feature], would you save on training pipeline? Would you save on the depot level work because of the fact you just have that one variant going through rework lines and perhaps logistics would come down?” Adm. Roughead told The Washington Times. “And then software changes would be more common to that one variant.”

Adm. Roughead, a career surface ship and fleet commander, said he canceled the DDG 1000, a next-generation destroyer, in 2008 because of projected long-term costs.

Pentagon officials have said in audit reports that the F-35’s 30-year, $1 trillion operating bill is not affordable.

“Both the Navy and the Air Force would fly the C,” Adm. Roughead said of his proposal. “You need the [F-35] coming off of aircraft carriers simply because of what the environments are going to be 10, 20, 30 years from now.

“You’ve got to stay with the carrier variant. But because it’s a conventional takeoff-and-landing aircraft, can you then make that one of two, as opposed to one of three, variants?”

The Air Force fighter community wants its own lighter-weight plane. And it is doing some second-guessing of its own on why the Pentagon agreed to a special vertical landing-and-takeoff Marine Corps version, the F-35B.

Read more: Prices soar, enthusiasm dives for F-35 Lightning; pilots worry about visibility problem - Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/6/prices-soar-enthusiasm-dives-for-f-35-lightning/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS#ixzz2NMd2Khwp)
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/652948.pdf
Also the last intermediate GAO rapport certainly had some positive notes
on the technical front with a lot of promises that many of the ongoing issues seem to have a solution in the future but when it comes to price the promises become rather vague and doubtful, as it stands no JSF batch pre 2017 will have a then year dollar average unit fly away price below 160 million$, this means nowhere near the 67million$ (more like 112 million$ in 2001$), post 2017 when production-rate goes up they somehow hope for a very drastic price reduction substantiated by exactly nothing, going on previous estimates unit prices will even go further up until 2019-2022 after which it would level of.

Not too long ago they hoped for an eventual baseline 2001 unit flyaway price of 106million$.
As things stand now the long term price projections are nothing short of voodoo science, nobody in their right mind can predict price levels more than 10 years into the future, we can only spot a trend and predict from that further forward, in the F35's case things look rather bleak on that front, not even thinking about the operational costs here.

Best thing about the JSF, the whole Nothrop-EODAS package, is now ready to be implemented on other platforms (acc. to Northrop themselves), pretty much negating the need for the JSF as a whole.
F16XL+EODAS or F18SSH+EODAS or any other platform which can get the Northrop system is pretty much as good as the F35, apart from the highly doubtful stealth characteristics and most likely cheaper to operate and with better flight and fight characteristics.

[SpazSinbad]

The first phrase from 'DODbuzz' is not made by the Admirable but by the DODcrud author. A spokesman for the Admirable clarifed the Admirable's intention later so that it reflects the Admirable's recent words below.... :=

UPDATE 1-Cutting C-model from U.S. Navy F-35 program would hurt -Admiral 12 Mar 2013

UPDATE 1-Cutting C-model from U.S. Navy F-35 program would hurt -Admiral | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/12/lockheed-fighter-navy-idUSL1N0C42L420130312?type=companyNews&feedType=RSS&feedName=companyNews)

"WASHINGTON, March 12 (Reuters) - The U.S. Navy's top officer on Tuesday said it would harm the overall F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program if the Navy completely scrapped its plans to buy 260 C-model planes that can land on carriers, but did not rule out a possible reduction in orders.
Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Jonathan Greenert told an investor conference that the Navy was committed to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program and needed the new capabilities it offered, but the Lockheed Martin Corp was still working through technical challenges at this point.
"We're in ... We need the F-35C; we need its capability. It has stealth, range, big payload capacity and an enormous electronic attack (capability)," Greenert told a conference hosted by Credit Suisse and defense consultant Jim McAleese.
Greenert said the new plane's capabilities were "tremendous," but there was still expensive work to do on integrating the F-35 into the Navy's carrier air wings.
"So the question becomes how many do we buy, and how does it integrate into the air wing," he said. "We are just sort of getting into the details of that."
Greenert said any move by the Navy to eliminate its total purchase would increase the cost per plane of the other models, but would also have consequences for other countries interested in buying the C-model.
"If we bought no Cs that would be very detrimental to the overall program because that's numbers," Greenert said, noting that any reduction in orders would raise the cost of the remaining planes to be purchased."

[kbrockman]

The first phrase from 'DODbuzz' is not made by the Admirable but by the DODcrud author. A spokesman for the Admirable clarifed the Admirable's intention later so that it reflects the Admirable's recent words below.

DoD Buzz was directly quoting the Admiral about his view on stealth, that's where the comment "Last year in an interview (DODBuzz) admiral Greenert “painted a fairly bleak picture of the value of manned stealthy combat aircraft, which seems like a vote of no confidence for the Joint Strike Fighter program in regards to its effectiveness, utility and need.” came from, it might be their interpretation but it is backed up by what the admiral said as can be checked on this Navy institute website.
Payloads over Platforms: Charting a New Course | U.S. Naval Institute (http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2012-07/payloads-over-platforms-charting-new-course)
this was basically his conclusion about the subject of stealth;
Those developments do not herald the end of stealth, but they do show the limits of stealth design in getting platforms close enough to use short-range weapons. Maintaining stealth in the face of new and diverse counterdetection methods would require significantly higher fiscal investments in our next generation of platforms. It is time to consider shifting our focus from platforms that rely solely on stealth to also include concepts for operating farther from adversaries using standoff weapons and unmanned systems—or employing electronic-warfare payloads to confuse or jam threat sensors rather than trying to hide from them.

besides some more interesting stuff was said in the end
while new ship and aircraft classes likely will continue to require more than a decade to join the Fleet. We appear to be reaching the limits of how much a platform’s inherent stealth can affordably get it close enough to survey or attack adversaries. And our fiscal situation will continue to require difficult trade-offs, requiring us to look for new ways to control costs while remaining relevant.
Also again places the comments about the lack of commonality between the A/B/C and its subsequent price implications into perspective, they have now effectively become 3 separate platforms and every single one of them is hampered by the commonality part that remains, maybe scrapping the A and even B might not be a bad idea, the C can than be optimised and used by all services ,just like the F18 works today.
Common hulls and airframes will decrease and stabilize shipbuilding and aircraft construction costs through the learning curve of serial production
Somewhere down the road they seem to have lost their vision about what the JSF was supposed to be, 1 common platform for 3 services became 3 different aircraft designed around 1 common general idea, it sounds the same but is in effect diametrically opposed to the original concept.

[SpazSinbad]

The DODbuzzED clarificaton (always re-interpreted of course - but hey that is what they get paid for - right?).

The Navy’s advanced weapons shopping list By Philip Ewing July 3rd, 2012

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/07/03/the-navys-advanced-weapons-shopping-list/

“There’s a reason Adm. Jonathan Greenert didn’t call for the Navy to back out of F-35, his spokesman said Tuesday — he doesn’t think it should. The chief of naval operations continues to support F-35C, said Capt. Danny Hernandez. So what was all that stealth skepticism in his Proceedings piece this month questioning the value of low-observable strike aircraft? That was Greenert arguing that stealth has a limit, Hernandez said, and that there may come a point at which the Navy has to draw the line or risk diminishing returns. Greenert believes one alternative is relying on tomorrow’s more precise, longer-range munitions to reach out and touch the bad guy. That way stealth makes less of a difference because you can stay out of his range. What does that mean in terms of programs?..."

[LowObservable]

Spaz - Because anonymous Internet posters are always more credible than people who put their names and professional reputations on the line?

What's interesting is that the Adm. says:

"So the question becomes how many do we buy, and how does it integrate into the air wing," he said. "We are just sort of getting into the details of that."

Because according to the program of record, the Navy Dept. total was set at 680, back in 2004 IIRC, and the Navy and Marines agreed in 2011 that there would be 340 Bs and 340 Cs, 80 of the latter being USMC-badged. So officially "the details of that" were already settled.

[ORAC]

Navy and Marines agreed in 2011 that there would be 340 Bs and 340 Cs, 80 of the latter being USMC-badged. So officially "the details of that" were already settled. That was before the price continued to go up and the AF Secretary made the following statement. The price goes up, the number goes down; so the price goes up and the numbers go down......

"No more money" for F-35 cost overruns: Pentagon (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/21/us-lockheed-fighter-idUSBRE82K00T20120321)

(Reuters) - Future cost overruns on the stealthy new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter built by Lockheed Martin Corp will reduce how many planes the U.S. military will ultimately buy, Air Force Secretary Michael Donley told a Senate committee on Tuesday.

Donley said the latest restructuring of the $382 billion program should allow the program to proceed with the "least risk," a message repeated by the Pentagon's F-35 program manager, chief weapons buyer and the Air Force acquisition chief at a separate House of Representatives subcommittee hearing........

Donley told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the F-35 program office and Lockheed had been told there was "no more money to put against contract overruns or problems." Any further cost growth would cut the total number of planes bought, he said, "because no more money is going to be migrating into this program," he said............

[Courtney Mil]

Could that not start a bit of a vicious circle? Something in the program costs more, therefore the government buys fewer of them, therefore the unit price goes up..... ...until a coutry decides it's all getting too much and pulls out, therefore the unit cost goes up, therefore...

If you see my point.

[Bastardeux]

Why the hell are the marines getting 420 aircraft yet the navy are only getting 260??? Who let the marines get so important in this programme, the whole thing stinks of them hijacking it and the aircraft is seriously compromised as a result...and all for them to fill a questionable requirement!

Pretty ridiculous if you ask me!

[orca]

Hijacking is an odd word to use in the circumstances. Do you mean 'were in at the start, will be in at the death and have never (publicly) waivered in their total support for the programme'?

[Lowe Flieger]

.....Something in the program costs more, therefore the government buys fewer of them, therefore the unit price goes up..... ...until a coutry decides it's all getting too much and pulls out, therefore the unit cost goes up, therefore...which is exactly the problem for many customers. If you tell LM that you limit is $xbn, then that's what they will charge. The variables are then how many jets you will get and what capabilities are included.

It seems you are either in and have to suck up whatever cost is forced on you to achieve your desired operational capability, or you are out. If the latter, it's a bit of a bind for the remaining customers who are then faced with the conundrum, only it just got a bit worse. Only governments can get themselves into such a fix. They really are the very last people you should give your money too. Only problem is that are alive to that one and don't give you any option - unless you are able to chose the jurisdiction to pay your taxes in.

The F35 programme is long past the point of being financially redeemable. If it had been a European project it would have collapsed years ago. There would not have been the collective will to have kept it above water. I think it will still survive but at the literal expense of huge costs, small unit numbers and initial poor performance. It has been a political play for some time now, and military capability is a side-show. It may eventually perform well, but that will happen because it has to once it's in service, otherwise you've thrown away the $bns spent so far. It's what you have so it's what you have to use.

LF

[cokecan]

Bas,

the simple test for the USMC is 'would you prefer 420 F-35's, or 1200 AH-64's?' if the answer is F-35, then you can see that the USMC's 'doctrine' is all about being the big man, and not about providing CAS to the US Marine wherever he may be around the world.

as Orca says, its not that the USMC has hijacked JSF, just that no one has had the balls to say that the USMC's needs have been allowed to over-ride everyone elses, and seriously compromised the whole programme as a result, or that whatever the USMC might say, a supersonic stealth aircraft that is so expensive that it could never be risked at an austere, foward location, is not actually what they need.

[glojo]

Once you put Jeremy Clarkson in the cockpit then the whole program must surely have hit rock bottom.

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/images/media/2013_News_Web_F35A_130306_f_oc707_908_1267828237_3530.jpg

Thank goodness he is such a huge fan of all things American!


You need to hop on over to Cdr Sharkey Ward's private asylum, Sharkey's World, where the deluded fool has posted a wonderful piece of "analysis" that irrefutably proves that the UK must buy F-18 instead of F-35. It looks reasonably easy to disprove (as is usual for his psychopathic rages) so it shouldn't take you long to shoot him down. Nice to see that you still hold this man in such high regard :E:D

[ORAC]

Could that not start a bit of a vicious circle? The technical term is Death Spiral (http://www.acus.org/new_atlanticist/f-35s-cyber-death-spiral)....

[Bastardeux]

Orca,

No I mean hijacked.

Why for example, do they have priority for IOC? Why are they making the second largest purchase on the planet...for the most expensive aircraft? Why has the ability to hover been allowed to compromise the performance of the aircraft?

I couldn't agree more with cokecan, the role of close air support provided off LHDs should at the most, be filled by simple, sub-sonic aircraft that can go into austere environments and operate with as little support as possible.

More to the point, why does a branch of the navy - which already has its own air force - need its own air force with more 5th generation fighters than the rest of the world's air forces combined??...it doesn't.

The net result has been an expensive clusterf**k.

[GreenKnight121]

Well, lets see... the USMC is replacing 100% of its Hornets & Harriers with F-35.

The USN is only replacing "most" of its older Hornets with F-35... it is keeping all its Super Hornets, and the extra SHs it has bought means that F-35C will make up about 1/3 of the USN's fighter force (not counting the 80 Marine aircraft).


Oh, and the 80 USMC F-35C will actually be, for all practical purposes, USN aircraft... since the USMC is being required to operate them from USN CVNs to take the place of F-35C squadrons the USN isn't equipping!


So basically, the USMC gets only the 340 F-35Bs, while the USN gets its 260 F-35Cs AND the 80 USMC F-35Cs... but doesn't have to pay for purchase or operation of that last 80!

[orca]

Bastardeux,

I still don't understand the use of the word hijacked..but there you go. The USMC have stated a requirement and it looks to me that they will get the aircraft they want.

I don't disagree with anything else you say - none of it whatsoever. But the question that you should be asking is 'Why did the two other US services persist with the procurement of a system that, from its very inception, has had its performance dictated by the requirements of the USMC?'

I know we like to think that other customers matter - but I'm not convinced they do other than to reduce unit cost.

[TBM-Legend]

MARCH 14, 2013

Concurrent Productionâ•˙ Exacerbates Multiple Problems

When Money is No Object: the Strange Saga of the F-35

by LEE GAILLARD

On 14 January, very shortly after the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) released its 2012 annual report on progress in various Pentagon programs (including a 16-page section on the F-35), Turkey announced a one-year delay in the purchase of its first two Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighters. Why? High cost yield and flight and combat capabilities that are not at the desired level yet╡. In short, the F-35 doesnât work and itâ•˙s too expensive. (See GlobalFlight.)

Thats just the tip of the iceberg for what is the most expensive military procurement program in history. While some will argue that the key word in the Turkish statement is yet, one must ask whether Turkey or the United States and all other partner F-35 nations will ever get what they were initially promised.

Several sources (Aviation Week & Space Technology, FlightGlobal, et al.) have provided briefer summaries of the F-35 annual report. But few examine the implications of what the DoD has published, or ask questions that should have been asked years ago.


For its competition against Boeingâ X-32, Lockheed Martin built two X-35 prototypes, the first of which flew on 24 October 2000; the first Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) version flew about six years later, on 15 December 2006. Now, over 12 years since that first flight, roughly 65 F-35 airframes have been delivered 43 of them produced during 2011 and 2012; the 100th aircraft is now on the assembly line.

Not one is combat capable. Even in training flights they face restrictions.

We are dealing with an aircraft that has been produced and tested in fits and starts, hobbled by a massively expensive and ineffective program of what is euphemistically called a concurrent production where you build, fly, test, repair, redesign, retrofit, re-testall at the same time, a process patented by R. Goldberg; money is no object.

Part of the problem is, of course, that Lockheed Martin presented us with two versions of what Detroit would call a concept car a one-off only superficially representative design smaller and lighter than the actual fighter of which it was supposed to be a working prototype. The X-35A flew only 27 test flights in the one-month period before its test regimen ended on November 22; the X-35B (converted from the A) flew 48.9 hours of tests in 66 flights during the roughly six weeks from June 23 to August 6, 2001. And theC variants test regime lasted less than a month from February 12 to March 10, 2001: 73 test flights totaling 58 hours (including 250 carrier-type landings on the runway at Patuxent River; no mention of how successful the arresting hook turned out to be). For the most part, then, test sequences of roughly one month with flights averaging less than an hour each.

Under those conditions, what kind of ˘wring-out testing could these two aircraft do that would reveal future problems with transonic buffet, wing roll off, and the other significant issues that appeared from the start during testing of LRIP aircraft? Thus, when the Pentagon signed on the dotted line for the first lot of LRIP F-35s, it was buying an untested, larger, heavier paper design that hugely increased risks in any concurrent production program. We are now facing the consequences.



F-35 Lightning in flight.

For all F-35 versions, according to the DOT&E report, the pilots helmet-mounted display system doesnt work; the F-35C is not yet carrier-qualified because the tail hook didnt work, had to be redesigned, and only now is being re-tested; the ejection seat in all models would put pilots at serious risk in any non-level flight mode above 500 knots (i.e., most dogfight scenarios); since flight control software is itself still under development, the computerized flight control system lacks crucial intended capabilities; key structural components have cracked and require redesign. The list goes on. Yet Lockheed Martins Fort Worth plant keeps churning out F-35s in all their defective glory. And those aircraft already produced now need retrofits of software and flight critical hardware.

TBC

[TBM-Legend]

contd.
Lets take a closer look.

Structural Problems

In the recently released DOT&E report on 2012 F-35 testing and development, we observe that:

* High-speed high-altitude flight results in delamination and heat damage to the horizontal stabilizers and their stealth coatings (pages 30, 32, and 33 in the DOT&E report; all further numbers in parentheses refer to this report);

* A cracked wing carry-through bulkhead (36) halted durability testing for over a year until it could be analyzed and repaired;

* Weakness in the auxiliary air inlet doors on the -B version led to redesign and retesting and time lost (32);

* A crack was found in a forward rib of the F-35As right wing root╉in addition to the similar crack reported on in the FY11 DOT&E Annual Report (36);

* A crack was found in the right engine thrust mount shear web (37);

* Multiple cracks appeared in the lower fuselage bulkhead flange (37), effectively halting F-35B testing;

* All this in addition to earlier cracks discovered in the B's right side fuselage support frame as well as under a wing where a pylon and its weapon get attached (37) and yet another in an internal support structure.

All may require redesigning of parts and subsequent added weight (since strengthening weak parts often involves adding mass to the component as part of the redesign) when for two of the F-35 versions there is less than a one-percent weight gain margin left for the entire remaining development process, and only a one percent margin available to the F-35C. ˛Managing weight growth with such small margins will continue to be a significant program challenge (32); that˙s an understatement. Then there˙s the issue of retrofit to aircraft already delivered and others on the production line. (There are, of course, other structural issues not listed here such as the drive shaft for the lift fan (31), now undergoing its second redesign, plus damaged door attachments (31), etc., etc.) Trenchant DOT&E observation: ╲Results of findings from structural testing highlight the risks and costs of concurrent production with development (37).

Some obvious questions:

* Why yet another spiral development/concurrent production program when the same kinds of major problems and expenses had appeared years earlier with the V-22 Osprey during whose development 30 Marines were killed? (Not to mention our similar concurrent development fiasco involving the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS): as Rear Adm. Tom Rowden wrote recently in the U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings,˛In the interest of quick delivery to the fleet, ship design began before requirements were finalized, and building started before designs were stable. No wonder the Navy has conceded that LCS vessels are only rated for Combat 1+ levels lower than a tanker [as quoted by Mike Fabey in Aviation Weeks January 28, 2013 Defense Technology Edition]. Pathetic. Reminiscent of the current barely Block 1 training capabilities of the F-35?

* What was missing from wind tunnel tests and 3D computer modeling studies of flow, weight, and stress that permitted the cracking found in that wing carry-through bulkhead and other basic structural weaknesses to get through?

* Why werent two representative pre-production aircraft put through the wringer with several months of test flights to find these areas of stress and their causes before completion of final design and authorization of Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP)?

Performance Shortfall

Performance is where the chickens come home to roost. The intended performance envelope for the F-35 is, roughly speaking: altitude capability of 50,000 feet; 700 kts./Mach 1.6 airspeed; maximum g rating of 9.0 (-A), 7.0 (-B), 7.5 (-C) ; turn performance of 5.3 sustained g˙s (-A), 5.0 sustained gs (-B), and 5.1 sustained g's (-C); acceleration from Mach O.8 to Mach 1.2 intended to be within 65 seconds (SeeAviation Week.); angle of attack (AoA) capability to 50 degrees.

At the moment, however, this all seems wishful thinking. Undeveloped software, combined with disappointing results in real-world flight tests (results of air vehicle performance and flying qualities evaluations (30) ) have triggered flight restrictions and rolled back overly optimistic Key Performance Parameters (KPPs). For these and a variety of conditions that should not be occurring, flights are limited to top speeds of 550 (not 700) kts. (38) and altitudes of 39,000 feet (38) rather than 50,000 feet; AoA to be no greater than 18 degrees (vs. 50 degrees)as well as the imposition of other aircraft operating limitations that are not suitable for combat (38). KPPs for sustained gs in a turn have been weakened by 20 percent for the A (5.3 down to 4.6)(30), by 10 percent for the „B (5.0 down to 4.5) (32), and by 2 percent for the C (5.1 down to 5.0) (33). Transonic acceleration from Mach 0.8 to M. 1.2 suffers significantly: with the A version, it takes 8 seconds longer; 16 seconds longer with the B; and a worrisome 43 seconds longer with an increase of about two thirds. Although the F-35 is essentially a strike aircraft, acceleration capability could be critical in combat.

Transonic roll-off (where one wing loses lift sooner than the other when a shock wave forms at the top of the wing as the airflow reaches the local speed of sound) and buffet (or shaking of the entire aircraft) as more surfaces form shock waves and boundary layer flow becomes turbulent both were more serious than expected in the B and C versions, especially with the latter, whose wingspan is greater than that of the other variants: another possible problem in a combat situation.

Some fighter pilots offered their comments on FlightGlobal: What an embarrassment, and there will be obvious tactical implications, another highly experienced fighter pilot says. [It's] certainly not anywhere near the performance of most fourth and fifth-generation aircraft.

At higher altitudes, the reduced performance will directly impact survivability against advanced Russian-designed double-digit surface-to-air missile (SAM) systems such as the Almaz-Antey S-300PMU2 (also called the SA-20 Gargoyle by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization), the pilot says. At lower altitudes, where fighters might operate in the close air support or forward air control role, the reduced airframe performance will place pilots at increased risk against shorter-range SAMs and anti-aircraft artillery ( SeeGlobalFlight).

A few questions:

Why didn˙t earlier wind tunnel tests and computational fluid dynamic modeling predict problems involved in maintaining intended sustained gs in a turn?

Why was not poor F-35 transonic acceleration also predicted especially for the F-35C, whose eight feet greater wingspan contributes to the significantly larger Mach Cone (the zone of disturbed air behind the shock wave system generated by an aircraft at supersonic speed) that must be dragged during the transonic regime?

Why was there not greater fuselage application of area rule (that pinched waist so visible on the ubiquitous T-38 supersonic trainer), that brilliant 1950s design breakthrough by aerodynamicist Richard Whitcomb specifically to minimize transonic drag?

For the B model, the lift fan may have prevented such a waist pinch. But why have this tail wag the dog, mandating that commonality be based on the least aerodynamic of the three variants when fuselage area rule could well have been applied to the A and C versions, establishing a common baseline design of improved transonic efficiency and performance across the 2243 aircraft intended (in current projections) for the Air Force and the Navy plus all international customers not intending to order the specialized STOVL version that will be produced in the smallest numbers? Pinched-waist commonality would seem to make sense for the vast portion of the fleet numbering more than four times the 540 B variants tentatively listed for the Marine Corps and the Royal Navy. As it is, given unique differences in wingspan and arresting gear requirements and STOVL mechanical provisions, each version already differs from the other two versions. Commonality? But applying area rule to 75 per cent of F-35s produced would have added commonality where it is most needed, cutting transonic acceleration time while improving combat efficiency, range, and speed.

Weapons and Guidance Glitches

Most weapons tested for compatibility and safe release have worked so far, but under 1-g conditions in level flight. Have possible wind tunnel-based concerns about post-release unstable airflow around wing and fuselage attachment locations prevented more combat-realistic testing under higher˙s and in banking or diving modes?

Then theres the high-tech computer-linked helmet-mounted display system that will control these weapons (already in use with other aircraft and in other air forces)classified as deficient. Doesnt work. Why? Expected capabilities that were not delivered (35) include latency problems with the distributed aperture system (DAS) in the helmet-mounted video display. Latency some call it ╢transport time is the time between aircraft sensors signal acquisition and its transmission and projection in readable format on the pilot˙s helmet video display. Currently at .133 seconds, that time delay of over an eighth of a second then has to be added to the pilots additional physical response time of about .15 seconds if he or she is to react to the data displayed and launch a weapon. In dogfights with closing speeds of over 1000 knots, this cumulative delay of more than a quarter of a second can be potentially fatal, and the latency-derived .133 second margin of error in initial aim point stands as an unacceptable contributor to this dangerous combat deficiency. Then add in deficient˛night vision acuity, excessive jitter that degrades data and images, inconsistent bore sight alignment, distracting˛green glow seepage from other avionics, imagery and data unable to be recorded (35). Sothose high-tech air-to-air missiles and guided bombs cannot even be launched.

And the 25mm four-barrel rotating cannon with its 180 shells? Intended only for the Air Force F-35A version;-B and -C versions have no cannon, but will require external gun pods mounted by ground crews. Why did F-35 designers intentionally ignore the F-4 dogfighting debacle in Vietnam? The F-4 with no internal cannon and radar-guided Sparrow missiles that did not work at short range could not shoot down the MiG-17s and MiG-21s thrown against them. Gun pods then provided a poor interim solution before the F-4E was redesigned to carry an internal 20mm cannon.

Now we have the F35•ˇ for its Fighter role, although it seems primarily an expensive attempt to replace early model F/A-18s and the Marines subsonic AV-8B Harrier IISTOVL aircraft in their ground attack roles. (Ironically, what Hussein˙s tank crews feared most was the A-10 Warthog with its GAU-8/A Avenger seven-barrel 30mm cannon, which tore them to bits from above, where their armor was thinnest.)

Why, then, in the DOT&E report are there no results listed from airborne firing tests of the F-35A's cannon? If there have not yet been such tests, has a qualifying 25mm shell even been chosen? (We remember what inappropriate propellant selection did to M-16 rifle performance in Vietnam. Such testing early on will be crucial in determining the effect of recoil shock on the aircrafts structure and engine operation. Not to mention effects of the muzzle blast and combustion gasses on adjacent stealth coatings given that heat from air friction and radiational heating from the afterburner seemed to do such a job on the skin and coatings of the horizontal stabilizers.

No discussion. So cannon not tested and other external and internally carried weapons for all practical purposes unlaunchable because of deficient sighting system available to pilots, thus rendering all F-35s produced so far as little more than expensive aerial targets for their adversaries.

Vulnerability Increased, Combat Survivability Jeopardized

* In the live fire test and evaluation, None of the F-35 variants met the operational requirement for the HEI threatˇ posed by fragments and damage from a 30mm high explosive incendiary (HEI) shell (41). The Mirage 2000, MiG-29, and the Su-27 and its derivatives (these in service with a number of countries) and the T-50/PAK-FA shaped for stealth and now in development all carry 30mm cannon and could be considered potential adversaries for the F-35. But, given the F-35 basic design, ii is not just 30mm shells that pose a threat: any 20mm, 7.62mm, 5.56mm round from the ground or fragments from the smallest of shoulder-launched antiaircraft missiles penetrating the F-35˙s skin could trigger catastrophic loss of aircraft. The A and C variants have massive volumes of fuel surrounding the engine inlets, and the 270-volt electrical system provides ample charge for a fatal spark in the air/fuel mixture. Since the fuel is also being used as a heat sink to cool avionics and other systems (and has considerable trouble doing so on hot summer days), it is already at an elevated temperature. Furthermore, this pre-heated and volatile fuel is being used as the operating liquid in the Bs fueldraulic system that swivels the extremely hot engine exhaust nozzle during STOVL mode. (Eaton supplies the VDRP fueldraulic boost pump and the 4000 psi hydraulic power generation system.) What happens when a stray rifle bullet nicks a fueldraulic line and raw fuel sprays at 4000 psi into the broiling engine bay next to the 1500-1700 degree exhaust nozzle?

* All F-35 models rely on a highly computerized fly-by-wire flight control system, with primary avionics bays nested in the lower forward fuselage where they are most susceptible to ground fire. With even one hit to that flight control computer, the pilot immediately loses control of the aircraft and must eject.

*And that poses a further problem: the Air Force found the early LRIP pilot escape system to be a a serious risk since˛interactions between the pilot, the ejection seat, and the canopy during the ejection sequence are not well understoodˇ Sodon't get into a dogfight with MiG-29s or Mirage 2000s or Su-27s or PAK-FAs or any other fighter armed with 30mm cannon, and don˙t bail out if you survive their cannon fire? (We are reminded of equivalent survivability issues with the MV-22 Osprey, which cannot autotrotate to a safe landing if both engines fail, nor has it ever been tested in a power-out dead-stick landing: its glide ratio is abysmal, its fuselage is brittle (composites), and it has no crew ejection seats; yet it has been in full production for the Marines and the Air Force for several years.)

F-35B: STOVL Missions Raise Risks

That the F-35Bs lift fan system remains untested against live fire while in operation (when its rotating blades would be most failure prone) is probably irrelevant since AV-8BHarrier II-type vertical landings on unprepared surfaces just behind front lines will be problematic at best and even downright dangerous for the F-35B. Despite best USMC intentions regarding close air support and the F-35B˙s specialized STOVL capabilities, discussions had already begun three years ago on ways to limit heat damage to carrier decks and other surfaces, very possibly leading to˛severe F-35 operating restrictions and or costly facility upgrades, repairs or both (http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/07/19/jsf-heat-woes-being-fixed-trautman/). Indeed, Bill Sweetman (in his Ares blog for Aviation Week) quotes from a Navy report issued in January of 2010 which outlines what base-construction engineers need to do to ensure that the F-35Bs exhaust does not turn the surface it lands on into an area-denial weapon. And its not trivial. Vertical-landing pads will be exposed to 1700 deg. F and high velocity (Mach 1) exhaust, the report says. The exhaust will melt asphalt and is likely to spall the surface of standard airfield concrete pavements on the first VL. (The report leaves to the imagination what jagged chunks of spalled concrete will do in a supersonic blast field.) Heat-resistant reinforced concrete, special sealants the list goes on. And what about that unprepared field, where debris thrown up and sucked into the intakes as the F-35B touches down causes incapacitating foreign object damage (FOD) to the aircraft˙s engine? And what would be long-term effects on carrier decks? Not a pleasant scenario. Discussion of these problems‰and their solutions do not appear in the 2012 DOT&E report.

F-35C: Carrier Capabilities in Jeopardy

Carrier capability is currently nonexistent: the F-35C is therefore unable to perform carrier-based missions for which it was designed.

* Arresting hook: not operational could not catch the cable and had to be entirely redesigned. A basic design issue is that the distance between the F-35Cs main landing gear (MLG) and the tail hook is too short, providing insufficient time after passage of the main wheels over the wire for it to bounce up and be snagged by the hook. The new hook, with a sharper point, is now being tested on an arresting cable-equipped runway simulating a carrier deck. Unfortunately, these tests have been less than fully successful. In addition, the situation has now morphed into a systems engineering issue in that a recent study shows â higher than predicted loads (39) being passed from the hook to the airframe. Will further cracking soon occur in key support frames to which the hook system is attached, requiring additional redesign of basic structure and adding yet more weight?

* Significant carrier landing approach problems: when 30 degrees of flaps are required to meet the KPP for maximum approach speed of 145 knots at required carrier landing weight (33), poor handling qualities result; a 15-degree flap setting improves handling (33) but raises approach speed above the KPP limit. (And higher touch-down speed will further degrade arresting cable bounce time needed for the arresting hook even as it further increases stress on the aircrafts tail hook mounting points.)

* The need for 43 additional seconds to accelerate from Mach .8 to Mach 1.2 (33), along with more severe transonic buffeting and wing roll off than in the other two variants, suggests that the C has become essentially a subsonic aircraft in both air-intercept and ground-attack modes.

* Tactical data transfer: doesn˙t work pilot cannot transfer video data or crucial recorded mission data to the carriers intelligence system, and the carrier cannot receive Link 16 datalink imagery transmissions (39).

* Maintenance Repair & Overhaul (MRO) datalink: inoperable˛design of the JSF Prognostic Health Maintenance downlink is incomplete‰as are so many other software-reliant systems. (How do you deliver an aircraft‰or more than 65 of them when basic parts or systems have not yet even been designed?!) Result? An efficient pre-landing prognostic maintenance transmission becomes a lengthy and inefficient post-mission diagnostic analysis. And, as in so many other time-consuming cases with the F-35, once design is complete, more time will have to be wasted in regression testing of the revised system for all versions of this aircraft (see below for further examples).

In short, it would seem that the Navy has a 5th-generation supersonic carrier-based strike fighter that struggles in the transonic regime, has significant speed or handling problems during landing approach, is currently equipped with a tail hook that does not work, and once on board cannot download crucial mission data or essential maintenance requirements.

* Mission Availability, Reliability, and MaintenanceWith this Prognostic Health Maintenance datalink inoperable, the degrading of efficient MRO operations has an obvious impact on subsequent aircraft reliability. Meanwhile, concurrent development has forced the incorporation of other unproven and immature subsystems into the overall JSF systems package with predictable results on reliability.Mean flight hours between flight critical failurewere 40 percent below expectations for the F-35A, 30 percent below for the F-35B, and 16 percent below for the F-35C .

* Corrective measures related to these critical failures? The F-35A˙s mean corrective maintenance time is2 to 3 times the period allotted. For the „B,\s 78 percent more than time allowed, and 65 percent over for the C. Massive immaturity of the Joint Technical Data (JTD) maintenance program and the Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS) require multiple workarounds (42) by the maintenance crew and further compromise aircraft availability, causing frustrating additional operational delays. Indeed, regarding those USMC F-35Bs deployed to Yuma, AZ:Without a certified and functional ALIS system, the aircraft are essentially inoperable (Senior F-35 official warns on software breakdowns, relationship crisis (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/senior-f-35-official-warns-on-software-breakdowns-relationship-crisis-376590/)).

Its little surprise that the Air Force˙s Operational Utility Evaluation (OUE) that ran for two months from September through November, 2012, included no combat capabilities because the overall system itself was still under development and so immature that ˛little can be learned about operating and sustaining the F-35 in combat operations from this evaluation. But they did discover the disconcerting impact of the critical failures and maintenance problems listed above:

* Mission availability rate for the F-35A consequently averaged less than 35 percent,˛meaning three of nine aircraft were available on average at any given time);

* And for those available aircraft, reports from the field at Eglin indicate that pre-flight prep for the F-35 requires roughly 44-50 maintenance man-hours, close to double the total maintenance man-hours per flight hour for the F-16.

* Despite that extended pre-flight prep,cumulative air abort rates for both the A and „B variants averaged roughly five aborts per 100 flight hours‰despite the goal of 1.0 air abort per 100 flight hours as a threshold to start an evaluation of the systems.[readiness for training] (author emphasis; ]]38. Readiness for combat? Not mentioned.

Software: The Noose Thats Strangling the F-35

In a nutshell, the software just isnt ready. Were no longer climbing into P-51s. Since at least the F-16, software has been absolutely essential for onboard computer systems that maintain stability of fly-by-wire aircraft whose design intentionally places them on the thin edge of instability to permit almost instantaneous change in flight path crucial in a high-speed dogfight or in avoiding a SAM. Without such computers and software, pilots cannot control the aircraft.

Now take the F-35 and all its automated functions╉from helmet-cued weapon sighting to datalink sensor transmissions to other aircraft andâ•œthe list goes on. It is said that the F-22 Raptor, the F-35˙s older brother, has 2.2 million lines of computer code; a recent estimate for the F-35s Block 3 (combat capable) mission systems software postulates that the aircrafts own computers will harbor approximately 8.6 million lines of software code‰not counting even higher requirements in related ground systems. Yet Block 3i software, required for delivery of Lot 6 aircraft and hosted on an upgraded processor, has lagged in integration and laboratory testing. Block 2B software is what is required for only the most basic˛initial, limited combat capability for selected internal weapons (AIM-120C, GBU-32/31, and GBU-12) (34), yet DOT&E admits that the program made virtually no progress in the development, integration, and laboratory testing of any software beyond 2B (author emphasis;)‰i.e., no tangible progress toward anything resembling real combat capability. In the wishful thinking department, full combat System Design and Development capability is tentatively scheduled for Block 3F software to be installed starting with production Lot 9 (34), which means on airframe number 214 at the earliestâ•œpossibly sometime in 2017. As for that Block 3i software, those Lot 6 aircraft are already on the assembly line (starting with airframe number 96); while delivery may begin in 2014, dont hold your breath: given program history to date, this mission software may well not be ready and Lot 6 aircraft will be in danger of being undeployable not much better than â hangar queen so often grounded for other glitches. (Will Turkey have waited long enough?)

How bad is it? Its all summarized in that Pentagon report: Flight restrictions blocked accomplishment of a portion of the planned baseline test points until a new version of vehicle systems software became available). And when it comes to internal weapons release and guidance, basic mission systems capabilities, such as communications, navigation, and basic radar functions), and more‰fully coded software is essential. Yet aircraft are being delivered with major variances that defer testing and add a bow wave of test points that will have to be completed in the future), while such regressive testing of systems that should have been tested earlier but were forced to be deferred massively complicates any results-based linear (not concurrent) testing and development program. At the time of the reports release, even the minimal capability of Block 1 software included in delivered aircraft was deficient by 20 percent (34). Block 2A software was delivered to flight test four months late and 50 percent deficient (34). Let the report speak for itself: Testing needed for completion of the remaining 20 percent of Block 1 capabilities and 50 percent of Block 2A capabilities will have to be conducted while the program is introducing Block 2B software to flight test. Software integration tasks supporting Block 2B (and later increments) were delayed in 2012 as contractor software integration staff were needed to support Block 2A development, test, and anomaly resolution (35). So much for any attempt to install mission and flight control software in any logical sequence where later and more complex versions can build on a foundation of previously installed systems. And thats just a small sampling. Sounds like absolute chaos.

Who is the supervisor for software development? For software integration? Why havent they been replaced?

Better yet, why hasn't software development and integration, at this point, been transferred to a different vendor?

These seem to be some basic questions that no one is asking.

Equally depressing news has appeared in previous Pentagon annual reports on the F-35, and surely these reports have been distributed to members of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees.

Why have they taken no action regarding the mismanagement of the most massive and expensive military procurement program in our history?

More important, when will they start to do so?

Lee Gaillard holds degrees from Yale University and Middlebury College. He served in the Marine Corps Reserve, worked in publishing for Time-Life International in New York, in industry as a senior product marketing specialist for the world˙s largest manufacturer of semiconductor assembly equipment, and in secondary education as teacher, department head, and school administrator. In 2002, Gaillard attended the Royal Institute of International Affairs defense conference in London, U.K.:˛Europe and America: A New Strategic Partnership, subsequently writing two related articles that appeared in Defense News. After Airways Magazine (July 2005) published his examination of the National Transportation Safety Board˙s flawed investigation of the American Airlines Flight 587 disaster, he served as a consultant to ˛Airline Cracks, a documentary on load-bearing composite structures in commercial jetliners, telecast by ITV-West (Bristol, U.K.) on Oct. 4, 2005. In 2006, the Center for Defense Information published his monograph on the V-22 Osprey.

Gaillard has been writing about aviation and defense issues for over 25 years. His more than 100 articles and book reviews have appeared in newspapers, professional journals, and magazines around the country╉on topics ranging from the role of luck in the Battle of Midway (Naval Institute PROCEEDINGS) to˛Submarine Design: Aeroengineering Dimensions╡ (Submarine Review) and the V-22 Osprey˙s readiness for combat (Jane˙s Defence Weekly). He is listed in recent editions of Who˙s Who in America and is a contributor to the Straus Military Reform Project.

[SpazSinbad]

Original article 04 March 2013?

Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names » When Money is No Object: the Strange Saga of the F-35 » Print (http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/03/04/when-money-is-no-object-the-strange-saga-of-the-f-35/print)

[SpazSinbad]

A long article with only a few excerpts below:

F-35 Production on Track, Program Chief Says 14 Mar 2013 By Claudette Roulo | American Forces Press Service

F-35 Production on Track, Program Chief Says (http://www.asdnews.com/news-48155/F-35_Production_on_Track,_Program_Chief_Says.htm)

"The F-35 Lightning II joint strike fighter program is a different program than it was four years ago, the F-35 program executive officer said here yesterday.

In a speech at the McAleese/Credit Suisse Defense Programs Conference at the Newseum, Air Force Lt. Gen. Christopher C. Bogdan told attendees that he and his predecessor, Navy Vice Adm. Dave Venlet, worked with Lockheed-Martin and Pratt & Whitney to reform the problem-plagued development program....

...F-35 production is “the shining star” of the program, the general said. About 30 aircraft are being built each year, he said, and the cost per unit has come down with each successive low-rate initial production, or LRIP, lot. Between LRIP 4 and LRIP 5, there was a 4-percent decrease in build costs, Bogdan said, a trend he said he believes will continue until per-unit costs approach the original 2001 estimate of $69 million....

...Bogdan said recent criticisms about technical issues and allegations of limited aft visibility are ill-informed. “I don't lose sleep at night over the technical issues on this program,” he said. There are known solutions for all of the known issues with the aircraft, he added.

“We have yet to fly a single air-to-air engagement with another F-35 or another airplane,” he said. “The airplane's not ready to do that. We're still doing basic training on the airplane, [and] we're still doing basic testing on the airplane. So for someone to assess that the visibility behind the airplane is such that it will 'get gunned down every time,' [is] a little premature."

Bogdan summarized his expectations. “We are trying to instill a level of discipline in this program such that there are no surprises, we have predictable outcomes, (and) when we have problems, we have ways of solving those problems,” he said. “(This is) very hard to do on a very big, complex program that has lots and lots of decision-makers (and) lots and lots of pots of money, but I think that's an absolute necessity to get the program moving in the right direction.”

[t43562]

This is probably naive but shouldn't software be something that one doesn't ever develop from new by now? In the computing world you do have windows and the UNIX derivatives (like linux, the mac, android etc) but you also have a great deal of stuff which simply gets bolted together in a different way and put on a new device - lots of reuse in other words and not a lot of "from the ground up" developments.

Surely with aircraft it must be approaching that point? If it's always re-writes then how can anyone ever get rid of the bugs? Surely the next aircraft must not require more than 20% new software?

[Courtney Mil]

So that they can annoy you with updates just when you don't need it...

http://www.1e.com/blogs/files/2013/03/clip_image001.png

[Biggus]

I still think people underestimate the software problems/issues in modern generation aircraft!


I think I read somewhere in one of the many articles that, having been behind in the development of software, they had now "caught up"? How? People working longer hours? More people drafted into the project (cost implications, and a time/manpower issue of bringing people up to speed on a project they have just joined)? Cutting down on testing time, leaving undiscovered "features" in the software to bite someone further downstream? Proceeding with development with the next issue of software before the previous one has been properly tested and corrected?

Get it wrong, rush it, skimp or do it cheaply and it will ultimately bite, possibly fatally.

[SpazSinbad]

For 'Biggus':

F-35’s ability to evade budget cuts illustrates challenge of paring defense spending By Rajiv Chandrasekaran, 10 March 2013

F-35’s ability to evade budget cuts illustrates challenge of paring defense spending - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/f-35s-ability-to-evade-budget-cuts-illustrates-challenge-of-paring-defense-spending/2013/03/09/42a6085a-8776-11e2-98a3-b3db6b9ac586_print.html)

"...To stay on track, he [Gen. Bogdan] has adopted a get-tough approach with Lockheed and Pratt & Whitney, the contractor building the plane’s engine. Instead of allowing Lockheed to manage the development of millions of lines of software code for the plane — one of the most vexing technical challenges — his office, which has now grown to 2,000 people, is taking charge. “We have forced discipline on them,” he said of Lockheed.

Until recently, he said, Lockheed’s software developers worked at computers that were not connected to each other. “I couldn’t believe it,” he said. Changes imposed by his office have reduced software revision cycles from 27 days to three...."

[Biggus]

Spaz,

Thanks for the reply - I appreciate your efforts.

I'm sure the pentagon "taking charge" of the software development will make everything alright!

After all, the pentagon has such a great pedigree of managing major software projects, and some of the best software engineers and project managers in the world, on 6 figure salaries, don't they.......?? Software's just like widgets after all, just crank the handle faster to turn it out quicker! :(

[glad rag]

I await JSF fan's reply with baited breath.

[JSFfan]

reply to what? silly articles? or the software that I think orac? put up a link to some time ago, explaining that it is a core that is then added to and the plugins doesn't need the core rewritten like other planes

[Courtney Mil]

silly articles

Well, that's OK then. No need to worry about any of that. Straight to the point, stout analysis and overwhelming evidence.

[JSFfan]

"Not one is combat capable. Even in training flights they face restrictions"

it's called lrip sdd

[kbrockman]

Denmark Relaunches Fighter Jet Competition | Defense News | defensenews.com (http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130314/DEFREG01/303140009)
LONDON — Denmark has restarted a competition to select a fighter jet to replace the Air Force’s fleet of F-16s and has reopened the door to a bid from Eurofighter with the Typhoon.

Anybody here willing to bet if they really will abandon the JSF and go for something a little bit more affordable and sensible?
If they do it will be very hard for the Dutch DoD to convince their parliament to go ahead with their JSF plans, a new multi-party acquisition program ala F16 in the late 70'ies might once again be a very real possibility.
Personally I'm rooting for a B/NL/DK and maybe a 4th partner like CANADA joint venture and then, hopefully a split buy , Gripen NG + EF T3 or GripenNG + F18SSH ,possibly even with EODAS(like Northrop already said would be available for other platforms) + latest most powerful F414 engines

Too many advantages over the JSF to simply disregard.
-more involvement in developping high asset core systems
-cheaper purchasing costs
-2 platforms , optimal use, cheap to operate over the long run.
-lots of commonality between the possible fighters , RADAR+ weapons in case of the EF+GnG, engines+ possibly other Northrop kit that could be implemented on the Gripen, even an EJ200 (26,000Lbs thrust) equipped Gripen might be a possibility.
-2 seater available, I know some of you think that it is a thing of the past but I still believe their are many missions that benefit from the second pair of eyes ,hands and brain-halfs.

Like a clever Admiral said before, we shouldn't be too focused on stealth and maybe go for the more fiscally attainable alternative(s).




fingers crossed, but I'm realist enough to know that this is possibly a small politically correct detour to the inevitable JSF.

PS
If the JSF gets chosen by the nations involved we'll be looking at
30 for the Danish Air Force
38 for our Dutch friends (forget about the 55 figure quoted last week)
20-ish for our Belgian Air Component
if all is payed for , the pilots can be happy to clock 100 hours per year, after that , the wallet is empty.

Next step will be to just give up completely on maintaining an air Force because it will be more Farce then Force.
The guys at Lockheed have then effectively done what not even the Sovjets could for 50 years post WWII , destroying the core of the West European Air forces.

[JSFfan]

"The guys at Lockheed have then effectively done what not even the Sovjets could for 50 years post WWII , destroying the core of the West European Air forces."

I'm pretty sure it's self inflicted...what is EU designed to replace the eurocanards?

[hval]

This....

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/2/13/1360757302390/Iranian-fighter-jet-008.jpg

Edited to add. Well, not really a European design.

[Bastardeux]

silly articles?

Interesting view, despite the fact that it's by a long way, the most informed article I've ever seen written on the JSF and it's not been written by a 'know-nothing' journalist.

20-ish for our Belgian Air Component

This really is a tragedy...presumably they'll have around 13/14 operational? Subtract 2 or 3 for an OCU/OEU component, gives them the ability to surge 6 to a combat zone and have 3, maybe 4 (at a push) deployed over the long term. Given typical availability of a FJ fleet and the evidence above, that'll probably leave them with the ability put 2 (max 3) aircraft into the air in a Gulf War 1 type scenario and 1 (max 2) into the air in an Afghanistan type scenario...

Even if I'm off by a factor of 50% on deployable assets, the numbers are still so tiny it remains nothing more than a token contribution. What Lockheed will have done is neuter the Belgian Air Force.

[Bastardeux]

P.S. JSFfan, the French have proven the Rafale to be a war winner and the Swedes seem pretty damn happy with the Gripen. Yes the Typhoon started out as a clusterf**k, but even that is maturing into a decent multi-role aircraft...and reliable too!

[hval]

Bastardeux,

Yes the Typhoon started out as a clusterf**k, but even that is maturing into a decent multi-role aircraft...and reliable too!

To be fair, using that very same argument the F35 will turn out to be an excellent aircraft. After all, given time and money anything can be made to work well.

I still think it is too ugly and should have been put down at birth.

[GeeRam]

20-ish for our Belgian Air Component

That half the number of F-104's the BAF lost in accidents :eek:

[JSFfan]

Bastardeux, the eurocanards are fine for now, but as I said, "what is EU designed to replace the eurocanards?" come 2030

[Lonewolf_50]

What Lockheed will have done is neuter the Belgian Air Force

Not quite. The Belgians themselves have done that over the past thirty years. You get what you pay for. (And you don't get what you won't pay for).

I still think it is too ugly and should have been put down at birth.

hval, the EA-6B is one of the ugliest planes I've ever seen, but it sure did a fantastic job for a long time, and is still out there doing missions.

Ugly is hardly a criterion for acceptance. :cool:

[kbrockman]

I'm pretty sure it's self inflicted...what is EU designed to replace the eurocanards?

JSFfan,
I realize my statement is very black and white (it's the internet therefore,...) and that is not solely LM who is to blame, our politicians and their disdain of most things military and a large part of the population that just cares too little about defense matters have done nothing good for our defense budget and how the money is spent.
I would love to see us spending at least 2-2.5% of GDP on defense like agreed upon by most NATO partner nations.

However, now we have come to a point that we don't even get the technological and monetary feedback any more, we used to get from programs like the F16 before, now we just write a check , get a token contractor-deal making large volume but mostly low tech parts (forget about making something like Carapace or something similar), and are basically committed to it for the next 30-40 years no matter what upgrades, future unforeseen maintenance issues, or specific new weapons or new system integrations are going to cost us (price- time and politically wise).

The F35 will eventually work just fine, I'm sure about that, I have great confidence in the engineering prowess of the designers, workers, pilots and engineers involved.
This will change nothing about the facts that it is way too expensive and...
-very heavy, no follow up for what are basically LWF's like the F16 and 18 or M2000
-very bulky and aerodynamically challenged (yes I know it can carry some of its ordnance inside) , the ability to get away heroically and quickly from the battlefield once the bombs are dropped and the missiles are gone is not of insignificant importance.
The JSF is a pig going into the fight ,like almost all other platforms will be too, but unlike the others it will still be a pig going home which could be very problematic if you're operating in contested airspace.
-a big big engine that is therefore also very thirsty, noisy and expensive to replace/maintain if necessary, fuel cost money too you know.
- the best part, its sensor suite (EO DAS) is suitable for many/most other fighters acc to Northrop anyway.


About your remark about the Eurocanards, that's just pure BS, you might as well ask why the US isn't already working on anything more than just a concept to replace their F22's (same timeframe).
the Rafale and EF have the biggest part of their life in front of them and are very relevant, certainly if a partnership of nations decides to buy them in sufficient numbers and contractually demand system upgrades and development in the future.
The Gripen NG is an equivalent of the Hornet saga, a good idea evolving into its own follow up, almost entirely a new plane, new airframe, larger wings, new engines , new avionics/sensors, etc... .
I ask you, where do you think most state of the art weapon systems come from besides the US? China? Russia? anywhere else? I don't think so !
Besides our American friends, only our European companies have shown the ability to design, develop and build large complex state of the art large weapon systems
We might not spend enough of our money on defense but we still manage to make cutting edge system.
Granted we also have our fair share of failures ,A400M, although that looks better and better lately and the needless NH90 (what does it deliver that the Blackhawk cannot?) but we also have perfectly good systems ,Gripen, many ships and subs, A330MRTT, RAFALE, and even the Typhoon which is a fantastic fighter notwithstanding all of its development problems, and many many more ... .

[LowObservable]

GK121 - The Navy "pays" for all F-35Bs and F-35Cs. They all come out of the same pot of aviation investment. Marine air was described to me by a CV-community guy as "the obnoxious little brother" that everyone tolerated up to a point. "But now he's getting expensive".

[hval]

Lonewolf 50,

hval, the EA-6B is one of the ugliest planes I've ever seen

Uhmmm, I think I must have a problem. I actually find it quite attractive. Take away all the jewellery, the piercings and the wrinkles so that she looks as young as she once did and she is a pretty design; ish.

Edited to add. Not even the Mother and Father of the F35 could ever admit that their child has class, elegance or even is attractive. Nope, plain ugly.

[Courtney Mil]

kbroc,

Excellent post. :D

[JSFfan]

I didn't even suggest EU can't. I said there is nothing planned and the eurocanards won't be day 1

[LowObservable]

KB - In fact the trend is for the US to become less of a factor in international markets as its over-spec'd products cease to be affordable solutions to anyone's needs.

The US no longer exports most land-warfare weapons (GD is a big player in armored vehicles, but through Euro subsidiaries) and has not exported a warship in decades. With the exceptions of Apache and Chinook, the US has been pushed out of most helicopter markets. The A400M and KC-390 will outlast the C-17 in production and the latter will start to eat the C-130E/H replacement market. The only places where the US is strong in large UAVs are MidEast markets who don't buy stuff from Those People.

JSF is the US industry's last stand in the fighter market.

[hval]

LowObservable,

JSF is the US industry's last stand in the fighter market.

I enjoyed what you wrote, not just the above that I have quoted, but your other comments. I hadn't actually looked at the situation in this way.

I am not sure I agree/ disagree and shall have to go away and think about it.

[Bastardeux]

JSFfan, well I know BAE are working on 'Taranis'; which would fill the stealthy, deep strike capability of the F35 pretty well...it doesn't have to contend with humans (and all the many performance limitations and aircraft complexities that entails), a lift fan or a million and one different specifications from different services. And I think it's due to fly this year.

As for the development of an aircraft that can hoover up information and then distribute it to all his pals in the airspace, I don't see why that couldn't be integrated into later model 'eurocanards' as you put it.

[JSFfan]

"over-spec'd "

no problem then. In the asian century the EU can bury their planes [iraq] or not even bother to take off [libya]

[kbrockman]

I'm pretty sure it's self inflicted...what is EU designed to replace the eurocanards?

I'm not suggesting you said we cannot build them, I was just elaborating on your remark.
You did however imply that there is already a need to replace the Eurocanards, I strongly disagree, there is no more need for a Eurocanard replacement then there is need for a F22 (or even F35) replacement.

Your remark about a day 1 weapon is somewhat of a false dichotomy remark, it suggests that there is only 1 way/weapon-type to achieve a successful first day war scenario.
different type of adversaries demand different type of capabilities, lot's of possible adversaries don't need stealthy weapons (MALI/Afghanistan type wars.
Wars against more potent adversaries (for the sake of argument let's say the likes of IRAN or the old IRAQ) can be fought in day 1 with other weapons like UCAV, Tomahawk, Scalp or ,like already specified by US military, better long range (stand off) weapons.
Real large scale wars (think China) will need much more than just a limited amount of difficult to maintain and operate stealth aircraft like the likes of F35 are, numbers will be important and the JSF doesn't have them.

I think that every single manned aircraft stealth program so far has delivered too little because it is too complex and therefore not attainable in sufficient numbers ,F117 (already retired), B2 , F22 and now it seems also the F35.
It seems to be a good thing for small and fairly light UAV's but anything more than that is too much of a compromise for the platform as a whole.

[JSFfan]

did you miss this, I did suggest a timeline, I don't see 4th gen survivable post 2030 because of what the air forces are saying..I'm pretty sure there was something said about retiring typhoons about 2030 and looking at f-35mk2
http://www.pprune.org/7742364-post1332.html
the eurocanards are fine for now, but as I said, "what is EU designed to replace the eurocanards?" come 2030

[kbrockman]

It's called the future,

Post 2030 there is nothing today that will do, not the Eurocanards, not the Russian or Chinese fighter-jets and not the F22 or F35.
Our Eurocanards by then will need to be upgraded (like everything else too) to be able to keep the upper-hand.

You somehow have fallen into one of the cheapest marketing traps ever conceived by any company in the arms industry, the generations trap, LM most successful selling tool.

The F22, EF, Rafale ,SH , Gripen NG and now also the F35 are all of the same generation, modern highly efficient and extremely reliable engines, modern production methods, modern avionics, modern materials, modern link capabilities, all the latest weapons can be integrated, that is what makes them the most current generation fighters, not 1 specific capability like eg stealth.

Originally LM described 5th generation as super-cruise, stealth(VLO), easy to maintain, sensor fusion, and highly manoeuvrable with lots of SA.
Lacking any of these points would mean not 5 th generation .
Please tell me what aircraft is 5th gen with these original parameters? The F22 comes closest (but still lacks HMCS, HOBS and is by no means easy to maintain), second comes the EF which in its T3 outfit will tick all boxes except VLO, the F35 doesn't even come close on speed and agility but still LM maintains that nothing but their products are 5th gen, strange, no?

One thing is certain if 2030 comes and we need to use our airforces let's hope the enemy has no more than a couple of dozens of fighters because we sure as hell will not have anywhere near enough of them to fight them off if we keep on getting involved in projects like the F35.

[JSFfan]

well if phoon is second to the f-22 ...it's a wonder they don't tell someone [aussie, singaphore, japan, half of europe etc where they lost comps] and market it worldwide, I'm sure it would win every comp if they told them..or did they do their own eval's

[kbrockman]

well if phoon is second to the f-22 ...it's a wonder they don't tell someone [aussie, singaphore, japan, half of europe etc where they lost comps] and market it worldwide, I'm sure it would win every comp if they told them..or did they do their own eval's

Who says EF is second to F22? I tried to show U how idiotic the 5th generation definition really is/was.
Besides that there is more than just merit to choose for a certain fighter, if so EF would have won in Singapore, Rafale in Switzerland, etc... .

Political alliances, price, Transfer of technology, economic packages, size of air force, quality of air force and many more parameters are what determines who buys what.
The Americans score really big on many of these points, certainly on many of the nations you mentioned ,Norway, Netherlands, Japan, Israel, SKorea, Canada, and to a lesser extent UK and Australia, come to mind.

[JSFfan]

no you didn't but it has been said, you said something nearly as silly "F22, EF, Rafale ,SH , Gripen NG and now also the F35 are all of the same generation"

[NITRO104]

Against my better judgement...:O
JSFfan, when US came with the idea of stealthy F15 (ATF), European nations acknowledged that, pointed to Lampyridae and said "No, thank you." and went for the Eurofighter, but with the same level of threat in scope.
So you see, European constructors consciously turned down the "benefits" of the stealth and with a good reason as it turned out, considering histories of US' stealth programs, in spite of what you think, or believe.
Now, the JSF is having a tough time, in great part due the stealth and we'll see how the program plays out, but it doesn't look overly good so far (budget and time cap, crisis management, etc.).

[kbrockman]

you said something nearly as silly "F22, EF, Rafale ,SH , Gripen NG and now also the F35 are all of the same generation"

What part do you consider to be so silly then?
They are all conceived and developed in roughly the same time frame give or take 20 years (between first ATF, EF and now the F35 and GripenNG), since the lifespan is about 40-50 years (F16/Tornado/M2000/F15/F18/...) , it is a fair assessment that the ones I mentioned are roughly the same generation, disregarding what LM defines as a generation, it's basically nonsense.
IMO,
Current generation: RAFALE/EF/GRIPENNG/SH/F22/F35/F15SE
last generation: F14/F15/F16/F18/TORNADO/M2000/VIGGEN
Before: F4/F104/F5/F105/MIII/BAC-LIGHTNING/
Before: Ouragan/F86/F84/HAWKER HUNTER/
Before: All the first jet fighters.

[glad rag]

JSF, I think you are [continuously] missing the big picture.

The primary point of any armed force is to DETER.

Do you honestly believe the F-35 would play a significant part in deferring a numerically and technologically superior foe?..and I'm including weapons in this mix here...bearing in mind you can have 90% "superiority" but it's that last 10% that gets you killed....?

[Finnpog]

In some ways I feel that the 'challenge' of stealth, and I suppose the F35 project itself, is doing to the western defence budgets a similar thing that the 'challenge' of Ronald Reagan's "Star Wars" technological race did to / for the Soviet economy.

Having too few super-dooper things is not always (or ever) the counter to having more, slightly less-super-dooper things.

You need to have enough pf them to be able to make use of them; and this is the Achilles' Heel of the project and as said earlier, is complicated further with the mantra of the design having commonalities - but chasing the mediocre characteristics imposed by the -B model design.

[Lonewolf_50]

and the needless NH90 (what does it deliver that the Blackhawk cannot?)
Hammer strikes nail perfectly. What it does is keep a certain number of egos and work shops running.
but we also have perfectly good systems ,Gripen, many ships and subs, A330MRTT, RAFALE, and even the Typhoon which is a fantastic fighter notwithstanding all of its development problems, and many many more ...
Heh, Horizon Frigate. Heh.

kbrockman, I must applaud your very on point comments. :D

I've become convinced since about 2002 (when I had some very small play in some JSF stuff, part of which was "where's the first base and how do we deal with the noise complaints already coming in from California before the first sortie is flown ...) that F-22 and JSF are the last manned fighter the US aircraft manufacturers will build.
Why the last:
Because we can't afford the next generation, we can't afford (or won't afford) the cost of training the pilots, and the next group of "silver bullet" machines will be unmanned. Sadly, they'll all be disabled on day one of the war by a computer virus, leaving us with BFA to fight with ... :mad:

[henra]

well if phoon is second to the f-22 ...it's a wonder they don't tell someone [aussie, singaphore, japan, half of europe etc where they lost comps] and market it worldwide, I'm sure it would win every comp if they told them..or did they do their own eval's

Is it possible that you have problems with proper reading?
I guess anyone except you understood the irony kbrockman wanted to point out.

LM used criteria to claim only their own aircraft would be of the latest generation, yet their own product (F-35) fails in more criteria of their own checklist than most of their contemporaries.

Claiming that only F-35 will be survivable post 2030 is far fetched.
To say the least.

[LowObservable]

A lot of air forces selected the F-35, indeed. Who would not go for a sub-$50 million, 2013-IOC (full capability) jet that costs less to fly than an F-16?55

[Lonewolf_50]

LO, was that how it was marketed? :confused:

Ouch, looks like the target and the projectile are still trying to get in touch via cell phone on that one.

[cuefaye]

LO

That was exactly what Lockheed was touting around Canberra in 2000. Marketing falsehood in the extreme; as most, at the time, realised.

[ORAC]

Navy Stuck Between the Rock and Hard Place on Joint Strike Fighter (http://www.informationdissemination.net/2013/03/navy-stuck-between-rock-and-hard-place.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+InformationDissemination+%28Information +Dissemination%29&utm_content=Google+Reader)

[BEagle]

Have they got the arrestor hook issue sorted yet?

In truth, that is, rather than in the imagination of some Lockheed liar or JASFanboy.

[Lonewolf_50]

The F-18 and its procurement process was savaged by an author in the book

The Pentagon Paradox.

Oddly enough, the F-18 seems to have worked out operationally. I seem to recall some years ago a problem with the fin/tail and cracks, that was sorted, even though it was initially a black eye to the program. (Was it in CF-18's first, or in test? I forget).

The F-35 is being savaged during its development and LRIP process. I have an idea that it will work out ... but cost growth, as a factor, strikes me as a significantly differnt scale than the F-18. I have not yet done the sums, so it may not be as different now as then.

What I am pretty sure is true is that between the F-18 and the F-35, some of the rules of acquisition in our country have changed (Federal Acquisition Regulations) and "cost as a variable" has gotten to have a larger impact on decision matrices.

[LowObservable]

I recall the book was critical of the bass-ackwards process by which attempted commonality ended up as a separate program, and of the fact that the rosy promises (the Hornet was presented as a combination of a mini-F-15 and a Tornado, back in the day) were not fulfilled. It turned out all right in the C/D version.

The problem is one of magnitude. If it was one loused-up program it would be one thing, but this is now not only the entire future of TacAir but the future of combat air power, because I really don't see how anything like the current procurement plan can be executed without deferring LRS-B, UCAV or whatever else comes next into the 2030s.

"Cost as an independent variable" was one of the doctrinal fictions that got us into this mess. It was applied chiefly in the 1996-2000 phase of defining the joint operational requirement, but the unfortunate fact was that a very large percentage of the cost was baked-in by the design of the prototypes, and the pursuit of "cost reduction" resulted in taking on high-risk approaches to manufacturing technology and subsystems (see Boeing 787), many of which have not panned out.

[ORAC]

Oddly enough, the F-18 seems to have worked out operationally. Most cracking and other such issues can be solved by beefing the airframe up a bit. Similarly capabilities can be added. Check out the growth in capability, and weight, of the later versions of F-15/16/18.

One of the worrying factors in the F-35 is the lack of growth margin both in internal space and F135 potential thrust growth without causing a thermal problem. The lack of cooling vents due to stealth requirements means the fuel is used as a heat sink and is nearing the upper limit requiring fuel to be kept for cooling at the end of the mission.

PW claim 10-20% more thrust can be achieved by incorporating ceramic blades and other ADVENT engine upgrades - but where does the heat go?

[Lowe Flieger]

.....PW claim 10-20% more thrust can be achieved by incorporating ceramic blades and other ADVENT engine upgrades - but where does the heat go? Straight on to the acquisition budget?

LF

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Following on from my posts from earlier pages here (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/424953-f-35-cancelled-then-what-61.html#post7727461) and here (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/424953-f-35-cancelled-then-what-62.html#post7728388), there is a good article over on/at Eaglespeak (http://www.eaglespeak.us/2013/03/the-legacy-of-lex-common-sense-call-on.html), which links to (and refers to) comments by the late Neptunus Lex.

Over the past few weeks, we have discussed on Midrats at various times the concept of an F-35B equipped "small carrier" force (listen to Captain Wayne Hughes here, our discussion with Lieutenant Colonel James W. Hammond IIIhere). Lex, of course, beat us by a couple of years.

His argument - that the Navy needs twin engine fighters for the "big deck" carriers was then, and is now, correct. But we also need versatility. And Lex's suggestion is a pathway to having that flexibility that allow us to respond to all sorts of events appropriately. We want to avoid that "all problems are nails" problem, don't we?

The Marines (and Army, if it comes to that) need more - local air support with rapid sortie rates. Small carriers (of which we have several) offer optinons. In Lex's words:

The new America class of amphibious assault ships represent a fork in the road for Naval Aviation. The USMC needs to embrace the concept and run with it. . . . While big-deck CVNs will continue to be the centerpiece of American overseas crisis response for the foreseeable future, the dynamics of the Arab Spring have shown us that we do not have enough assets to cover all of our interests simultaneously. The F-35B+LHA combination could be one of the most cost effective and efficient solutions for engagement in the changing landscape of crisis response.

[BEagle]

The F-35B+LHA combination could be one of the most cost effective and efficient solutions for engagement in the changing landscape of crisis response.

That must be the first time anyone's read 'F-35' and 'cost-effective' in the same sentence....:uhoh:

[kbrockman]

Quote:
The F-35B+LHA combination could be one of the most cost effective and efficient solutions for engagement in the changing landscape of crisis response.
That must be the first time anyone's read 'F-35' and 'cost-effective' in the same sentence....

Could be but isn't going to be since the original plans of acquiring 6 LHA's have already been altered, the LHA's will be cut @2 , the following ones will once again be LHD's (with well deck).

[JSFfan]

fixed it for you

The F-35B+LHA/LHD combination could be one of the most cost effective and efficient solutions for engagement in the changing landscape of crisis response.

while a Wasp operating in the sea control (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_control) or 'harrier carrier' configuration carries 20 Harriers (though some ships of the class have operated as many as 24), supported by six Sikorsky SH-60 Seahawk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_SH-60_Seahawk) helicopters for anti-submarine warfare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-submarine_warfare)

[Bevo]

The Marines (and Army, if it comes to that) need more - local air support with rapid sortie rates. It is interesting that we are now justifying the F-35B because it provides close air support. Given the stealth, high-end onboard avionics, and other costly systems, we will now use the aircraft in a role that the “low cost” A-10 is optimized to perform.

[Lonewolf_50]

A-10's don't fly off of boats.

[Bevo]

A-10's don't fly off of boats.

Agreed - however one has to wonder when either the U.S. Marines or the Army will be in a position to need close air support when there are no big deck carriers are available or no Air Force presence. I guess during the next big Marine only amphibious assault. :confused:

[LowObservable]

A smaller or low-cost carrier could be a useful complement to a CVN for the US, or a means for a smaller power to afford sea-based air power.

Here is how not to do it:

1 - Start with a ship that isn't really an aircraft carrier at all, because much of its internal volume comprises a dock, barracks, garage and infantry supply depot.

2 - Decide that what you need is a fighter with the operating empty weight of an F-15 and a price tag 60-70 per cent of an F-22. Better yet, one that can't do CAS until Block 4 or 5.

3 - Ignore the need for AEW, tanking, EA &c.

If the Marines were actually serious about doing expeditionary air power off 3,000-foot runways (can't go shorter because they need C-130 support) they'd look at JAS 39E. Then do an SCB-125-type job on a few amphibs and go with Sea Gripen.

[Lonewolf_50]

Please remember, BEvo, that USMC combined arms includes airborne fires and CAS from the Cobra. It isn't only fast jets that brings it from the air.

LO: Agreed on the AEW and tanking matter.

[Lyneham Lad]

Amidst all the bickering, progress continues to be made (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/rafs-first-operational-f-35-pilot-flies-first-training-sortie-383642/)

Flight International The first operational UK pilot selected to fly the Lockheed Martin F-35B undertook his first training sortie in the Joint Strike Fighter on 19 March at Eglin AFB, Florida.

"It flies very smoothly," says Royal Air Force Sqn Ldr Frankie Buchler, who previously flew the Sepecat Jaguar and Eurofighter Typhoon. "Nothing unexpected, it went pretty well."

US Marine Corps Capt Daniel Flatley, who was flying as Buchler's instructor in another F-35B, says the purpose of the first training sortie was primarily to familiarise the student with the differences between the simulator and the real aircraft. Additionally, the student had to familiarise himself with flying the F-35B around the traffic pattern at the base.

Click on the link for the remainder of the article.

[CoffmanStarter]

Some interesting "quotes" here just out of Nellis ...

Orlando Carvalho, Executive Vice President Lockheed Martin Aeronautics ... said squadron's pilots and maintainers "would take the F-35's performance to new heights and define the very tactics the F-35 will one day use to defend freedom around the world."

http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-toilet06.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)

Nellis Press Release F-35 (http://www.nellis.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123340874)

Coff.

[cokecan]

dear god they don't half talk some utter fcuking c0ck.

[Lonewolf_50]

cokecan, I feel your pain, given that I had to do a lot of work with the USAF while I was in the USN.
One of the focus areas for the 422nd TES will be operational testing to develop tactics for the aircraft and pilots.
OK, straightforward enough, once they figure out the color and logo on their ascots. :p
The second priority of the warfare center is integrating the capabilities of air, space and cyberspace to achieve greater warfighting effect in the battlespace.
Uh, what was that again? Are we gonna overwhelm the enemy with buzzwords?
The final warfare center's priority is to use the triad of live flying, virtual or simulator flying, and the constructive or synthetic threats and battlespace to test and develop tactics and conduct advanced training of future leaders using the F-35A.
Trying to translate that into English. In Navese, I think it means "train the way you expect to fight" but I may have missed a few idiomatic, and idiotic, tidbits of Air Force jargon there.
Nellis is scheduled to receive 36 F-35A Lightning IIs by 2020.
I guess we wouldn't want to be hasty, seeing as how it is currently 2013. How many will they have crashed by then, I wonder? :confused:

I think I discovered the source of Global Warming. The fusion of the LM and Air Force PR machines. :p

[JSFfan]

I think you may have missed what's up, I took it as the flag waving seppo stuff like 'defend freedom around the world'

[cokecan]

i can only hope that LM and the USAF are playing 'bollock-speak bingo' - if they actually talk like that, they must have achieved the highest concentration of men never to have touched a woman in all of human history.

they make Royal Artillery SO3's sound positively 'hip'...

[Lonewolf_50]

JSFfan:

You could argue that the "around the world" line is either
a reference to how many different nations will be (they hope) flying the bird, or
what the LM spokesman hopes is his forthcoming evening's entertainment as resourced by his expense account.

[peter we]

cyberspace

Where is that?

Do they think they are in TRON?

[Lonewolf_50]

The USAF think that anything with the word "space" in it is their domain.

Airspace
Outer space
cyber space

[CoffmanStarter]

LW50 ...

So Hydrospace belongs to the US Navy :}

[Lonewolf_50]

I hope so, but I'll not put it past the Air Force to try and own that. You may or may not recall that the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, a few back, by name of McPeak, claimed that seapower was a sub set of air power. He also advocated a thing called "virtual presence" as an asset of air power.

Sorry, the "thinkers" in the USAF tend to be loony. The pilots tend to be pretty good.

In other space news, the Army wants to own battlespace, but IIRC someone in the Navy coined that phrase during the roles and mission debates of the early 90's.

[ORAC]

Battlespace? obsolete. The new paradigm is the Battlesphere (http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vol12/no4/page26-eng.asp).....

[LowObservable]

LW50 - IMHO the loony thinkers are the land-war zealots who quote Thucydides, various Romans and Clausewitz to explain why the Navy is a secure transport service and the Army should own all the aircraft.

Like the American Enterprise Institute head-cases who compared a dispersed off-runway F-35B force to cavalry, I kid you not.

I mean, I think we had a discussion in the Global Unpleasantness of 1914-18 about whether the airplane was a very fast horse, a long-range gun or a kind of torpedo boat, and it concluded with a firm "none of the above".

[Lonewolf_50]

LO:
no argument there.

ORAC:

FFS, it's almost as though the development of new buzz words is believed to improve fighting effectiveness. The critical battlespace is that space between the ears of the commander, be he in charge of a fire team, a battalion, a ship, or a corps.

Further comments :mad:

[BEagle]

Lonewolf_50, was it your lot who dreamed up the cringingly stupid title 'Warfighter'...:mad:

[Lonewolf_50]

Probably. "Support to the Warfighter" may have been coined to convince Congress that the money was being spent on operations rather than another golf course at a given Air Force Base. :E

Linked, I'll guess, to the never ending arguments over the "tooth to tail" ratio of forces and resources.

EDIT: I did some poking around, and found someone who first began hearing that term in the days of Cheney as Sec Def (Bush 41) and a few of his minions, like Wolfowitz. Not sure how accurate that is, and I seem to recall more "warrior" jargon from the Army in the 90's than "warfighter" until OEF, when "warfighter" sprang up all over the place.

Anecdotal, so of limited value in tracking down the culprits. It was someone on our side of the pond, just not sure who.

We in the Navy were all full of "... From the Sea" and "Forward, From the Sea" as our sales pitch to Congress in the roles and missions debates of the same era.

Oddly enough, THAT is the era which gave rise to the JSF requirements ... and here we are, still talking about JSF. Circle closed, eh? ;)

[Stuffy]

Project Cancelled.

[WhiteOvies]

Stuffy,

Where did you here that?? Or are you talking about a specific country?

[Stuffy]

Today at the RAF Museum. Somebody very knowledgeable about the project, insisted the technical problems are insurmountable.

[kbrockman]

Today at the RAF Museum. Somebody very knowledgeable about the project, insisted the technical problems are insurmountable.

an irrefutable source.

[Stuffy]

Better than you will read here. I'm off to the bookies to see what odds they'll give me.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Stuffy, check your calendar. You're 10 days early.

Just because it doesn't work doesn't mean it won't be bought!

[kbrockman]

Just because it doesn't work doesn't mean it won't be bought!

Just not a lot of them will (or can ) be bought , what are they gonna do with so few frames, fight of an invasion from Luxembourg???
Dutch orders for F-35 likely to be scaled back: sources - The Globe and Mail (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-business/european-business/dutch-orders-for-f-35-likely-to-be-scaled-back-sources/article10081027/?service=print)
The Netherlands was slated to buy 85 F-35 A-models to replace its F-16 fighter jets. But the former defence minister last year said the government would buy as few as 56 F-35s because costs had risen and only 68 F-16s needed to be replaced.
....
With a budget of about €4.5-billion to replace the F-16s, the Netherlands can only afford 33 to 35 F-35s, the source said, citing estimates from the General Auditor’s office, which checks that the government spends public funds as intended.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Luxembourg has the highest per capita income on the planet, and it isn't buying any F-35s. Those two facts may not be unconnected.

[A2QFI]

Doesn't have an Air Force is another reason for non-procurement! Only 1000 people in their whole "Military"

[JSFfan]

Cancel the program. Some people on the internet don't like it.

[Stuffy]

What do people here, not understand, the two words:

Project Cancelled ?

Just because the politicians are covering up what has happened......

Need I say more ?

[JSFfan]

Of course it is, that's why the UK just ordered another 4 for lrip 8

[CoffmanStarter]

Looks like the USMC have got it to go up and down in vertical mode :D

USMC F-35B (http://www.hqmc.marines.mil/News/NewsArticleDisplay/tabid/3488/Article/140062/marine-corps-first-operational-f-35b-conducts-initial-vertical-landing.aspx)

[SpazSinbad]

Utubby Vid: DOD_100768291-1080x720-3000k

DOD_100768291-1080x720-3000k - YouTube

"Published on Mar 21, 2013
Maj Richard Rusnok, first "operational" STOVL sortie at VMFA-121 squadron, MCAS Yuma, Arizona"

VL + RVL by different F-35B aircraft.

VL Picture: http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/Yuma_VL-v2.jpg

[peter we]

Luxembourg has the highest per capita income on the planet, and it isn't buying any F-35s. Those two facts may not be unconnected.

Most people who contribute to Luxembourg's GDP commute to work from the surrounding countries, much like defense they rely on their neighbours.

Labour force 368,400 of whom 154,900 are foreign cross-border workers commuting primarily from France, Belgium, and Germany

[Stuffy]

This is Russian propaganda.

But it has some good points:-

The Truth About the Useless F-35 & F-22 - YouTube

[Courtney Mil]

Just so the guys in the Zils don't come round my place again, I have to say it's a great movie. By the way, the last guys you sent are still in my basement.

What can one say? The SUper Flanker is a hell of a jet and they told us what we already know about the F35 in close, visual combat. Let's hope the long range stuff is so good they never have to get there.

[Stuffy]

How many Super Flankers can be bought with the cost of one F-35 ?

Is the F-35 a Yak 141 in drag? They both burn up the tarmac on landing.

[Courtney Mil]

When we were doing the future basing plan for F-35, the burning up of the tarmac and the noise were the two biggest issues. When Lossie was the base of choice, the cost drivers included both of those. Big bucks and the worry about where else they might be able to operate from.

[JSFfan]

except that it's bullschite and rand didn't conduct a study as per their statement
you guys should know better than using Kopp as a source
APA clown club is a joke

I'm pretty sure russia ended wvr bfm in the 80's when they brought out hobs and hmd and the west played catch-up, the odds of a mutual kill is too great.

[Courtney Mil]

JSFfan,

In air-to-air warfare, one cannot always choose where one fights the battle. If defenders fail to score 100% BVR the only way to engage the rest may well be a WVR fight; either that or run away, in which case the attackers win.

[keesje]

I'm not a Sukhoi Su30/32 fan, but it seems to me the available space to put in a very large antenna and the payload available point to good long range/ BVR capabilities.

The bigger problem is that the Sukhois are enthusiastically exported and rebuild in and around Asia (China). In serious numbers.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/81/Operators_of_the_Su-30.png/800px-Operators_of_the_Su-30.png

File:Operators of the Su-30.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Operators_of_the_Su-30.png)

Combined that with:

- F22 age and export restriction
- US defense cuts
- questions around F35 performance and price
- earlier then expected/ hoped J-20, J-31 prototypes flying in China

.. and it becomes clear countries like Australia, Japan, Taiwan are getting nervous and have started their own, independent programs.

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z160/keesje_pics/stealthoverview_zps32c008f0.jpg

[JSFfan]

there is wvr, then there is as I said wvr bfm which doesn't seem to be a good idea
AIM-9x SIDEWINDER Trial - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=4g4_jzqBJnA#t=29s)

[dat581]

Australia has not started a separate programme.

[Courtney Mil]

JSFfan,

Nice video. Look at shot 4 there. That IS BFM - a single circle turning fight.

[JSFfan]

that's what I mean, it's not a good idea with hobs and hms

[glad rag]

Flares worked a treat :D.

The ol "over the shoulder toss" with the A****M video is was always good for a laugh as well.....

[Heathrow Harry]

what is the availability of Su30/32's in places like Algeria, Venezuela, Uganda Vietnam, Malaysia & Indonesia ???

probably around 10% on a good day

[JSFfan]

glad rag, the aussies did asraam ots shots at woomera a litle while back, no video of it though and I'm surprised that the US releases video

Heathrow, it's no secret that we use jorn to keep up with the movements of each fighter in our region. you also have to take out the number of fighters that are used as personal toys by some big wigs, but they are getting better, indonesia sent some su-30 to an ex we did last year, opex pitch black
All Images - FotoWeb 7.0 (http://images.defence.gov.au/fotoweb/Grid.fwx?archiveId=5003&search=su-30)

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

keesje

I'd have to question the accuracy of that second chart...only a minor point, but the "F-35 C" on that chart is actually an F-35A. Makes me wonder what else is wrong? :hmm:

I didn't think the KFX and Shinshin had even been launched let alone properly defined yet. The artist sure must be good if he can draw scale plan representations of them! :ok:

Oh, and Australia has it's own independant programme? :eek: Got a plan view of that one? :8

[keesje]

Of course the Australians didn't start their own program. They are on the JSF track, which is the perfect replacement for F111's, F18s and everything required for the next 30 yrs..

There are more initiatives though. Turkey is looking with Italy at options (TFX) and possibly Saab. India has set apart billions for their AMCA, the Koreans are reconsidering their KF-X and talking to Turkey (?)

I'm not sure the Germans/ French are sitting on their hands either. Even the frigg'n Iranians are developping a light stealth fighter. The Brazilians will come out if they can make money, Russia and China are steadily progressing. The Japanese are starting to loose their patience begging for F22s.

I'm just not sure the JSF is the answer to all requirements.

Sooner then we think/ hope a J-31 might land on a carrier & we can all be surprised again.

[eaglemmoomin]

As has been pointed out ad nauseum the Aussies have no seperate 'interceptor' program. I don't see why the chart applies to the F35? It's a strike fighter not an interceptor and I doubt anybody is dumb enough to try and use one as such. The F35 is being bought to replace F16, F18, A10 type aircraft which seems to be where it's KUR's are pitched. It's fairly clear that there has been some requirements creep with some of the stuff it's now expected to do and I suspect kinematically it'll probably be only just functional at them. But overall it's the first truly integrated military jet and I think the avionics and sensor fusion will be a winner. As for the performance side of it I'm almost certain like every other jet there will be multiple revisions to get it where it needs to be once it goes operational.

[Lowe Flieger]

...the F35 [is] a strike fighter not an interceptor and I doubt anybody is dumb enough to try and use one as such.Royal Navy to protect their carrier[s]? USMC for point defence if their big cousins are not around?

I understand your point but if F35 in one of its guises is to replace F16, [F15?] F18, at least partially, and AV8B, it will be called upon for air defence duties to some extent. This may not have been its primary function but it will have to get adequate at it at the very least.

LF

[Finnpog]

I had momentarily forgotten that the F-16 was one of the fleets scheduled to be assimilated by the Borg / replaced by the F-35.

If that is the case, it will need to be as effective at the 'Fighter' bit as it is at the 'Strike' element.

And as for replacing the A-10? I think not..!

[Lonewolf_50]

And as for replacing the A-10? I think not..!

As we on this side of the pond(s) discovered (and keep discovering since about 1989), there is no replacement for the A-10.

I seem to recall attempts just before Op Desert Storm to get the A-10 retired, all efforts coming from the USAF side, not the Army. (Nor the Marines).

The Warthog flies yet, and is a favorite of ground commanders.

[layman]

...the F35 [is] a strike fighter not an interceptor and I doubt anybody is dumb enough to try and use one as such.


The RAAF was proposing a solely F35 fleet.

Now it will be mixed with the (currently) 24 SH. The SH was the replacement (sort of) for the F111, not the F/A18

cheers
layman

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

Of course the Australians didn't start their own program...
But...but...you said...
...and it becomes clear countries like Australia, Japan, Taiwan are getting nervous and have started their own, independent programs...
What "independant program" is Taiwan doing by the way?

Even the frigg'n Iranians are developping a light stealth fighter.
I'm sorry...you call that fibreglass mockup joke of a thing they did, a development? :}
The Japanese are starting to loose their patience begging for F22s.
Ummm...but F-22 production ended in 2012, and the Japanese ordered the F-35 in 2011...so when will they lose patience begging for the F-22? :}

Quit while you're ahe...behind Keesje!

[SpazSinbad]

Singapore Poised To Announce Purchase Of 12 F-35Bs By Colin Clark 25 March 2013

Singapore Poised To Announce Purchase Of 12 F-35Bs (http://defense.aol.com/2013/03/25/singapore-poised-to-announce-purchase-of-12-f-35bs/)

"WASHINGTON: Singapore is expected to announce sometime in the next 10 days that it plans to buy its first squadron --12 planes -- of some 75 of Lockheed Martin's F-35Bs,

[Stuffy]

I am still going with Project Cancelled.

Single engine.

Can't land where it doesn't burn up the ground.

Cannot be fitted with an arrester hook.

Stealth = overated.

And, very very very expensive.

Cancel it and build/buy something more practical.

[WhiteOvies]

Stuffy,

So was Harrier.

Not true.

It's a STOVL jet, no need for a hook. If you need a hook buy F-35C.

Ask a pilot, would you rather have it or not have it doing the sort of missions envisaged? If it gives them a better chance of surviving I'd suggest they'll want it.

Maybe you have a point on this one.

What other jets do you know that can go off a ski jump that are politically acceptable to UK?

[Stuffy]

It's a pile of expensive junk. A Corporate toy.

The Sukhoi uses a ski jump.

WTF ????

What does politically acceptable mean ?

Strewth, give me strength.

[flynavysomerset]

In my opinion this is excellent news. I personally can not see F35 being cancelled. This buy only goes on to strengthen the case of the aircraft, globally and in the Pacific.

The UK is correct to continue with the purchase of the Lightning II, it will be a formidable platform for many years to come operating from the maritime and land environment.

:ok:

FNS

[JSFfan]

RAF Marham to be the base for the next generation of fast jet strike aircraft - News - Eastern Daily Press (http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/raf_marham_to_be_the_base_for_the_next_generation_of_fast_je t_strike_aircraft_1_1990712)

Mr Hammon said Marham had always been the first choice to be home for the Lightning II.

He said the joint strike fighter will be based at Marham as part of a combined RAF and Royal Naval force which would operate the aircraft both from land bases and future aircraft carriers.

“That’s extremely good news for this station, extremely good news for this community and extremely good news for the RAF and Royal Navy.

I know you will share with me the excitement of having the world’s most advanced fighter aircraft based here and operating from here.”

[keesje]

I'm sorry...you call that fibreglass mockup joke of a thing they did, a development?


The Iranians themselves said it was just a mock-up during the broadcast (not uncommon for new programs). "Don't let the facts ruin a good story" ;)

What "independant program" is Taiwan doing by the way?

Taiwan to Seek Development of an Indigenous Stealth Fighter | Defense Update - Military Technology & Defense News (http://defense-update.com/20130314_taiwan-to-seek-development-of-an-indigenous-stealth-fighter.html)

Quit while you're ahe...behind FoxtrotAlpha18 ;)

[Lonewolf_50]

That's funny, Peter, the close air support I worked and helped coordinate for our own and coalition forces in Afghanistan included Warthogs. The ground commanders I worked directly with always wanted more Warthog.

What were you saying, again?

[CoffmanStarter]

Looks like Commander Ward doesn't like the F-35 in his latest missive from Sharkeys World :hmm:

Commander Ward on the F-35 (http://www.sharkeysworld.com/)

Coff.

[4eyed anorak]

I know this has been mentioned before. B.a.e to produce a naval Typhoon, create and safeguard jobs and get in my opinion a better aircraft. :ugh:

[ian176]

Interesting executive summary - his beloved Harrier wouldn't do too well against his criteria...

[Courtney Mil]

Indeed not, Ian. The SHAR fails on almost every point. But you have to be fascinated by a guy who's blogs have an executive summary. I did try to put JSFfan up against him a while back, but there was no interest. Maybe he wasn't so sure of his ground after all.

I'm sure the Minister will read Sharkey's 'paper' with interest.

[peter we]

Given that only one appears to have been lost during and since OIF, I'd treat that with a fair amount of suspicion.

Op Desert Storm had four Hog losses, mostly to MANPADS and SHORAD.

Ok, maybe I'm mistaken, but I'd though I'd read it here that the A-10 was withdrawn due to vulnerability to manpads.

[keesje]

I know this has been mentioned before. B.a.e to produce a naval Typhoon, create and safeguard jobs and get in my opinion a better aircraft.

I think the RAfale might be more practicle. The French could be asked to compensate the jobs otherwise e.g. Merlins

[TEEEJ]

Stuffy wrote,

Cannot be fitted with an arrester hook.

Stuffy,
Your reply to WhiteOvies shows that you don't understand the F-35 variants. The only variant fitted for arrested carrier recovery is the F-35C. You do understand why the F-35B doesn't require an arrester hook? Did you also want a hook on the Harrier? :)

https://www.f35.com/the-f-35/f-35-overview/multirole-variants/f-35b-stovl.aspx

https://www.f35.com/the-f-35/f-35-overview/multirole-variants/f-35c-cv.aspx

F-35C

The aircraft is designed to operate from large aircraft carriers using catapult launch and arrested recovery.

https://www.f35.com/the-f-35/f-35-overview/multirole-variants/

[keesje]

Another senior official also says CAPE is looking at eliminating the A-model. "During the latest sequestration drill, CAPE took another run on cutting out one of the variants of the JSF," he says.
"The argument is the air force should do it and buy the C version. I went through that drill before, but it lost legs."

http://www.flightglobal.com/Assets/GetAsset.aspx?ItemID=48884

Additionally, three former officials also say their information suggests CAPE is once again examining the cancellation of the F-35A model jet.
CAPE had previously studied terminating the F-35A at the behest of then-undersecretary of defense for acquisitions, technology and logistics John Young, during his tenure which ended in 2009.

Former USN chief suggests DOD should cancel F-35A in favour of C-model (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/former-usn-chief-suggests-dod-should-cancel-f-35a-in-favour-of-c-model-383969/)

No need to ask any allies, or even consider their interests.

IMO Europe needs it own next generation fighter bomber.

[GeeRam]

And at the same time.....:E

But Air Force pilots dismiss the idea of flying a heavier fighter jet, and instead propose that the Marine Corps abandon its version, the F-35B, arguing that its costly helicopter-style landing feature is useful only at air shows.

Prices soar, enthusiasm dives for F-35 Lightning; pilots worry about visibility problem - Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/6/prices-soar-enthusiasm-dives-for-f-35-lightning/?page=all)

:p

[glad rag]

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/)

The report shows that the F-35A “is flawed beyond redemption,” commented POGO staffer and veteran defense spending analyst Winslow Wheeler.
und

Prices soar, enthusiasm dives for F-35 Lightning; pilots worry about visibility problem - Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/6/prices-soar-enthusiasm-dives-for-f-35-lightning/?page=all)

Pentagon officials have said in audit reports that the F-35’s 30-year, $1 trillion operating bill is not affordable.Like the song says it's a long way to the top.............

kYEfusT0PgQ

[Stuffy]

TEEJ,

I am aware of the different variants. The F-35C has arrester hook problems and issues with the nose wheel collapsing when fired from a catapult, steam or electro-magnetic.

The F-35B can land vertically, with the engine angled downwards at the rear, and the turbine behind the cockpit driven by a prop-shaft from the engine. This arrangement means it carries half the load of the F-35C. The prop-shaft driven turbine being redundant in forward flight. The very hot gases from the rear of the engine when landing in the vertical mode causes problems where it can land.

The Harrier can land almost anywhere, even landing in an an emergency on the cargo of a small spanish freighter at sea.

The Harrier can also, in all intents and purposes, fly backwards. Vectoring in Forward Flight or 'Viffing'. Which caused massive grief to Argentine pilots.

Trillion-Dollar Jet Has Thirteen Expensive New Flaws
Trillion-Dollar Jet Has Thirteen Expensive New Flaws | Danger Room | Wired.com (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/12/joint-strike-fighter-13-flaws/)

The author of the article thinks the F-35 is VTOL, in operation it will be STOVL.


Pentagon says F-35 jet still facing serious problems | The Times of Israel (http://www.timesofisrael.com/pentagon-says-f-35-jet-still-facing-serious-problems/)

[JSFfan]

2011 problems, most of which have a fix. I see what's wrong, you guys are living in the past

[JSFfan]

Lockheed (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-03-27/lockheed-s-troubled-f-35-said-to-be-unscathed-in-budget)
The funding includes $6.36 billion to build all 29 of the F-35s previously planned for 2014, including 19 of the version designed for the Air Force, six for the Marine Corps and four for the Navy, according to a budget document obtained today by Bloomberg News.The remaining funds would be for continued development and spare parts.

The proposal for the Joint Strike Fighter will be part of a $526.6 billion defense budget that President Barack Obama will propose next month for the fiscal year starting Oct. 1, according to government officials familiar with the budget plan who asked not to be identified discussing it in advance.

...

“The big decision for me on F-35 will be the decision on the FY 2015 budget: Do we ramp up or not?” Kendall told reporters March 12 at a defense conference in Washington.

The Defense Department plans increases to 44 planes in fiscal 2015 and 66 in fiscal 2016, according to figures included last year in its long-range budget plan. A new plan for fiscal 2014 to 2018 will be released next month.

“Overall, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program is moving in the right direction after a long, expensive and arduous learning period,” the U.S. Government Accountability Office said in a report this month.

“Going forward, ensuring affordability -- the ability to acquire the aircraft in quantity” that keeps the per-plane price down -- “is of paramount concern,” the GAO said.

[Stuffy]

A typical comment is, this programme is too big to fail.

Have you heard the phrase, 'This bank, is too big to fail?

Nothing is too big to fail.

Without doubt, this is a massive, mega zillion dollar project.

If it is fundamentally flawed, which is the contentious part.

If it is, it is not too big to fail.

Then the brown stuff hits the turbine, to put it politely.

If I were some very rich country, and I wanted an effective machine, and the decision was down to me and my cronies.

I would pick a practical reliable solution. Which given a choice, would be the Eurofighter Typhoon.

Some things are too clever for their own good.

It is, after all, a stealthy Yak-141 with a computer.

KISS - Keep it simple stupid. Is still very true.

In the future, who will be your enemy, and do you really need this very very very expensive technology, that can be seen with a crude J-Band radar ?

[JSFfan]

sorry, the UK wont be ordering any more phoons and getting rid of what they have come 2030, from what has been reported

[Stuffy]

A lot depends on what is called The Kondratiev Long Wave Theory of economics.

A major conflict will not happen until the 'Upwave' begins.

The last time that was 1939/40.

This time it could be 2020-25.

[Rhino power]

...and getting rid of what they have come 2030, from what has been reported

Dream on...

-RP

[JSFfan]

RAF - Typhoon FGR4 (http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/typhooneurofighter.cfm)
A total of 53 Tranche 1 aircraft were delivered, with Tranche 2 contract provisioning for 91 aircraft. 24 of these were diverted to fulfill the RSAF export campaign, leaving 67 Tranche 2 aircraft due for delivery to the RAF. The Tranche 3 contract has been signed and will deliver 40 aircraft. With the Tranche 1 aircraft fleet due to retire over the period 2015-18, this will leave 107 Typhoon aircraft in RAF service until 2030.

[Bastardeux]

The latest gen I heard was that Tranche 1 will now be kept, of course you won't find an official source because it's not official policy at the moment. But it goes to show you how far off the mark an official plan can be...remember we're all in the organisation your trying to get one-up on us with, JSFfan.

[WhiteOvies]

Stuffy,

I hate to say it but you're making stuff up. F-35C had no issues with the nose gear collapsing on catapult launch, either steam or EMALS. The evidence is on Youtube if you're doubting. Unfortunately only 1 EMALS launch was able to be conducted before the EMALS broke (for an issue not related to F-35C).

The hook issues are true and well documented but successful fly-in arrestments were achieved last year at Lakehurst. Again see the Pax River Integrated Test Force 2012 Review vid.

If you do watch them, please note the substantial UK involvement in the test programme.

[JSFfan]

It would make sense to keep T1 till at least your f-35b is IOC, 2018 +2 years = 2020?

[SpazSinbad]

For 'WhiteOvies' reference:

F-35C Flyin Arrests 2012

F-35C Flyin Arrests 2012 - YouTube

F-35C Arrest SloMo Orig NOW 1-8slow Again HiDef

F-35C Arrest SloMo Orig NOW 1-8slow Again HiDef - YouTube
__________

Same same SloMo .MP4 (7.7Mb) at PhotoBuckie:

F-35CArrestSloMoOrigNOW1-8slowAgainHiDefYOUtube.mp4 Video by SpazSinbad | Photobucket (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/F-35CArrestSloMoOrigNOW1-8slowAgainHiDefYOUtube.mp4.html)

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/th_F-35CArrestSloMoOrigNOW1-8slowAgainHiDefYOUtube.jpg (http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/F-35CArrestSloMoOrigNOW1-8slowAgainHiDefYOUtube.mp4)

[Bastardeux]

It would make sense to keep T1 till at least your f-35b is IOC, 2018 +2 years = 2020?

Oh jesus christ. No. To bring it up to full T3 standard, not extend its longevity by a handful of years.

[JSFfan]

I seem to recall that it is a too major of a job, like the early f-22, just too hard

[Frostchamber]

Not so long ago the suggestion that the entire RAF FJ fleet would comprise 6 sqns would have prompted a fair bit of arm waving. Yet with the OSD of Tornado now 2019 that is precisely what the RAF is slated to have, including what will still at that point be at best a limited IOC for the single F35 sqn. I guess the judgement is that that will permit QRA plus deployment of a small number overseas if required, but to say its bare bones seems a bit of an understatement.

In these circs my guess was that the rumour of retaining at least some T1s would make some sense, since even if used mainly in the in the air to air role it would permit an extra sqn or so to be stood up and relieve a bit of the pressure. I suspect structural issues would make it impractical to bring them up to full T3 standard but upgrades such as those currently under way ought to mean they could do a job?

I also struggle with the idea that the T1s have already been flogged to death after such a short time in service, but happy to defer to those better placed to judge.

[TEEEJ]

Stuffy,

As ably pointed out by other posters you are living in the past. You obviously didn't keep up with developments and problem solving such as the hook tests.

You wrote

'Viffing'. Which caused massive grief to Argentine pilots.

What other urban myths are you still clinging on to?

AVM Johnson: During the campaign I read newspaper reports about the Harrier's VIFFing tactic, and some correspondents claimed that if you saw an enemy fighter astern you could VIFF vertically upwards or downwards, and if the enemy helpfully carried straight ahead you easily manoeuvred into a good attacking position. Was this tactic used in the Falklands?

Cdr Ward: No. Although the Harrier is capable of VIFFing it is not a good combat tactic because you lose a lot of energy. The Harrier's success was due to its great manoeuvrability and our sound training.

-- The Story of Air Fighting Air Vice Marshal J.E.`Johnnie'Johnson CB,CBE,DSO and two Bars, DFC and Bar ISBN 0-09-950330-1

[eaglemmoomin]

A typical comment is, this programme is too big to fail.

Have you heard the phrase, 'This bank, is too big to fail?

Nothing is too big to fail.

Without doubt, this is a massive, mega zillion dollar project.

If it is fundamentally flawed, which is the contentious part.

If it is, it is not too big to fail.

Then the brown stuff hits the turbine, to put it politely.

If I were some very rich country, and I wanted an effective machine, and the decision was down to me and my cronies.

I would pick a practical reliable solution. Which given a choice, would be the Eurofighter Typhoon.

Some things are too clever for their own good.

It is, after all, a stealthy Yak-141 with a computer.

KISS - Keep it simple stupid. Is still very true.

In the future, who will be your enemy, and do you really need this very very very expensive technology, that can be seen with a crude J-Band radar ?

I think it more likely that requirements from the block 3 software would be either dropped or elongated into a block 4 delivery. Certain hardware upgrades would be postponed or weapon integration programs would be moved to the right and possible jet purchases would be elongated also by keeping the line running longer to save money now to waste it later. The jets themselves will get delivered.

I have to say stating KISS and the Typhoon in the same sentence in the context of naval aviation is mind bogglingly dumb imho. You have an airframe not designed to take off and land on an aircraft carrier so would need extra avionics, gear strengthening and structural strenghtening to take the violent take off and arrestment pounding they'll be getting and you'll be buying it in tiny tiny numbers compared to other partner nations who will have no interest in the variant. Not to mention it'll take several years to do with both more development and integration cash needing to be spent all while two 65,000 ton aircraft carriers in need of modification to use said jet are sat around like lemons waiting to be squeezed. Factor in that you've gone around this loop once already with another aircraft (of which you already own four of) and are spending lots of money training your maintainers and pilots to fly said aircraft. Seaphoon now would kill UK fixed wing carrier borne aviation deader than a dead thing.

What part of any of that is in anyway KISS. Seaphoon was an option years ago when the French wanted to have the capability in Eurofighter and we nixed it (they buggered off not long after) because we didn't need carrier borne EFA, ooops.....

[Stuffy]

The French have navalised the Rafale.


Why the Joint Strike Fighter is a calamity in progress | smh.com.au (http://m.smh.com.au/world/why-the-joint-strike-fighter-is-a-calamity-in-progress-20120509-1ycjt.html)


Pentagon Downgrades Specs for Its Premier Stealth Jet — Again | Danger Room | Wired.com (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/02/pentagon-downgrades-jet-specs/)

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/29/us/in-federal-budget-cutting-f-35-fighter-jet-is-at-risk.html?ref=f35airplane&_r=0

[LowObservable]

Once again - I do not see the C ever becoming the standard version or replacing the A. OEW is a whacking 5500 pounds heavier even without an internal gun, while the bigger wing increases transonic drag. I believe that most of the greater range versus the A can be accounted for by extra fuel, most of which is in space that would otherwise be occupied by the gun and feed system.

[Stuffy]

A navalised Eurofighter has been considered a while ago.

Eurofighter: *News Detail (http://www.eurofighter.com/media/news0/news-detail/article/press-release-eurofighter-naval-version-makes-debut-at-aero-india-2011.html)

Naval Eurofighter: An Aircraft Carrier Version Under Development | Navy & Maritime Security News at DefenceTalk (http://www.defencetalk.com/naval-eurofighter-an-aircraft-carrier-version-under-development-31926/)

[cokecan]

oh Stuffy, you need to do a bit more reading.

the French did not 'navalise' Rafale, they designed it as a carrier aircraft from the first time pencil touched paper.

i could probably turn my Mondeo into a Landrover Defender given enough cash, but it would not be cheap - or cheaper than just buying a Landrover Defender - and it would not be finished over the weekend. it would also be ****.

your posts are getting (got long ago...) embarrassing.

[Stuffy]

So why did BAe try to sell a naval version of the Eurofighter?

Read the links.


You'll be embarrassed when the F-35 gets cancelled in 2014.

[eaglemmoomin]

Oh Stuffy I know the Rafale has a naval variant why do you think I said the time for Seaphoon was when the French wanted to add it to the Eurofighter requirements. The fact is that yet again UK decision makers were shortsighted and opted to save cash today to blow truckloads of cash years later is just a typical fact of shortsighted UK defence procurement. Personally I'd get procurement well away from politicans its's always far too short term.

Trying to bodge those requirements back into the aircraft now is a non starter, a fancy vapour ware presentation does not an aircraft make.

Seaphoon was a) a political attempt by the UK government to influence the USA on certain F35 technologies (a negotiating tactic in effect, which worked btw) and b) desperate BAE marketing gimick to try and influence the Indian MMRC competition (ignoring the fact India had already bought a bunch of MIG29 carrier borne aircraft and are currently building an indigenous jet the Tejas).

Look at all the developmental problems we've had with the F35 are you really suggesting that we do do it all over again? The time to can F35 and do something else was probably 6 years ago when we still had time to spec an alternative.

[cokecan]

Stuffy,

the only word in your post worth reading is 'sell'. thats what BAES do, they sell stuff - ideally stuff that doesn't have a fixed price.

[Stuffy]

Shortsighted defence procurement. Definitely can't argue with that.
Dozy Civil Servants wanted to remove the gun from the Eurofighter.

The title of this thread is 'What next if the F-35 is cancelled'.

Not.

'The F-35 is a great bit of kit, no matter that it costs a fortune. And my boss says I must support it because I am a management lackey'.

[WhiteOvies]

Stuffy,

I'm not a management lackey I'm a serving member of HM Armed Forces...how about you?

However, you have brought us back to the thread.

Frankly, if F-35 is cancelled we are up s#$t creek. There is no alternative or Plan B without spending billions on converting the carrier back to cats and traps and buying Super Hornet or Rafale. That's if we keep the Carriers at all and don't try to flog them to someone who has money and wants a big carrier.

So, lots of jobless people in the Navy and RAF, as well as BAES, and a completely toothless military.

[eaglemmoomin]

Stuffy if the F35 is cancelled then our military aerospace industry is buggered as several important employers are dependent upon it for the next decade or so. We would have two next to useless leviathan aircraft carriers (or two enormous LPH to replace HMS Ocean and Invincible depending on glass half empty/half full tendencies).

I don't wish to be Mr negative but we've pretty much allocated budget for the carriers now, they are so intertwined with the aircraft that if they go then the justification for UK fixed wing naval aviation goes with them for ever. Again cancelling EMCAT (the UK version of EMALS was utterly utterly moronic) was what killed any chance of cat and trap on our carriers at least there was the likely hood of designing the thing for our carriers unlike EMALS which is designed to go in a totally different carrier (notice how no Nimitz class CVN is getting it?).

Then again the manning requirements of a Cat and Trap vessel are massive the CVN's are some 4000+ sailors, our old Audacious class carriers were 2000+ crew not including flight crew I think. The STOVL QE's are a little over 600ish from memory.

This thread really should be what we did wrong at the early design and requirements stage. Having read several studies written by naval personnel while attached to various bits of the MOD you can see the thinking and logic of our choices and why F35 got picked then you can see where some politician/the treasury tipped up and totally crapped on the idea.

[Stuffy]

Say the word management, and I reach for my gun.

In 1934, work on the two Cunard Liners, Queen Mary and Elizabeth was stopped. This was the bottom of the Great Depression.

I expect 2014, to be about the same point.

Work will be stopped on the two carriers.

If one reads my link, a navalised Eurofighter will not need a catapult. Just a ski ramp like the Admiral Kuznetzov of the Russian Navy.

The point of this thread, is, 'What Next'? If the F-35 is cancelled.

Not the pros and cons of the F-35.

I wish people would address the issue.

It is not impossible that the F-35 is cancelled.

[Roland Pulfrew]

Well if your assumption

Work will be stopped on the two carriers.

is correct, it will be largely irrelevant. Typhoon FGR4, 5 and 6 will stay in service till their planned OSD (and beyond). We will look at procuring something off the shelf in 2025/30/35/40 as, when and if the economy picks up.

Just as an aside, it wasn't Dozy Civil Servants wanted to remove the gun from the Eurofighter but an RAF 2 star

[eaglemmoomin]

Stuffy you do realise that most of the first CVF QE has been already stuck together. In a couple of months it will be floated out of No1 dock in Roysth.

The carriers would still HAVE to be built the UK gov has a binding commitment to provide work equivalent to two naval vessels a year until 2020ish. This is what 'retaining a sovereign ship building capability' really means. This was the deal agreed to stop BAE shutting down all the yards while the government constantly buggered about over several years of delays and constant mind changes with signing the contract for CVF (intended originally to be delivered this year with Harriers operating off it after trials in 2014ish) and T26 (which they still have not done).

Stuffy you don't just wire an arrestor to the back of a Typhoon and cross your fingers and hope for the best.

The nose wheel will have to vastly strengthened to not collapse as it goes off the ramp and when it crashes onto the deck when arrested. What are its slow speed handling charecteristics when trying to get back on the deck. Could the Typhoon get off the deck with a meaningful load of fuel and weapons without a catapult, how much would it's range be effected. The F35 uses both wing lift and jet borne lift from the massive lift fan to get off the deck (max weapon load of 15,000 pounds or over double Harrier) in a short takeoff. How much runway does the Seaphoon actually need for meaningful loads? Whats the sortie and recovery rate like because of these issues in comparison to the F35B.

Because it can't get back on deck as easily as a STOVL/VTOL aircraft you need organic AAR available from the carrier when you can't trap and your eating into the fuel reserve. It goes on and on.

All of these things generate hundreds and thousands of requirements that have to be approved it would take years and lots of money to actually make Seaphoon a reality and the costs would be prohibitive because of the small buy.

Hence why the treasury would just laugh and take away all the toys.

[kbrockman]

Wetter or not the F35B will be cancelled will be entirely dependant on how the struggle for funds will unravel between the US different defense departements.
USAF and NAVY have already painted a bulls eye on the STOVL F35B for the MARINES, the LHA project is pretty much death after the first 2 (out of a planned six) 'carriers'.
The fight for money has just begun and it is not entirely unfathomable that the B version will be placed on the chopping block to assure the rest of the F35 purchase, 260C's for the NAVY and a decent amount of A's for the USAF will inevitably drive the unit price further up (because of the cut B's) but as a whole ,the acquisition price will be substantially lower and further development and commonality will be greatly simplified and improved with the most difficult version out of the way.

Money, money and money will be the biggest enemy of the F35,many of the originally planned purchasing numbers will simply never come to fruitation, UK, Australia, Canada, Denmark, Holland, Italy and even the USAF will most likely either not order at all (not USAF) or order a substantially lower amount of JSF's.
3130 copies could very well be closer to 2200-2500 (included the likely singapore and JAPAN ones) as soon as reality sets in.
The easiest way to save money will be to get rid of the B version, no matter how much the UK wants it.
Looking at the size of the Marines and more importantly the likely future generals in charge in the Pentagon, the Marines will have to come to terms with the fact that their JSF ratonalisation is the most difficult to defend.

I really like the UK's 2 new Carriers and contrary to what so many people claim, I do think that they can serve many useful missions in the future but I really fear that they could fall victim to what could very possibly happen in the US once the Obama administration makes the long overdue cuts in the government budget.
The last 2 years of his presidency could very well turn out in his electoral favor, the house and the senate will most likely go all democrate, once this happens all bets are of as to what will happen with the Defense budget, the JSF will never be cut, the USAF just has no other alternative but the B elimination is more than just a distant possibility.

So back to the original question, for the UK, what will happen when the F35B is cancelled?
Not many people might want to hear it but a (temporary until a midlife update point where some Cats can be installed)-skijump in combination with some SH's (or yes, even a Seaphoon) and some arrestor hooks might well be a solution.
Given the relatively low wingload , high T/W ration and rather long run to a fairly big skijump, I wouldn't be surprised that they can take off at almost MTOW, with as little as 15-20 knots WoD.

Besides a navalized Typhoon will undoubtly be expensive but EF consortium already calculated that it (CAT+TRAP outfit) will add about 2,500lbs over the OEW and most of the Typhoon systems are already very well protected against a saline environment.

[GreenKnight121]

kbrockman (http://www.pprune.org/members/111172-kbrockman)... apparently you missed the news that Singapore has just signed up for an initial buy of 12 F-35B, with the intent of buying 75 total.

That means the F-35B will have 3 confirmed foreign buyers in addition to the USMC, and if Spain ever gets some spare cash they have declared they will replace their Harriers with F-35Bs, making 4 international buyers.

This will put F-35B numbers* to nearly twice that of F-35C** (485-600+ vs 340).


There is discussion that this total will drive the unit cost of the F-35B to equal or below that of F-35C... which would eliminate the claimed economic case for canceling the F-35B, especially considering that development of the -B is further along than that of the -C.

Canceling F-35C, accelerating development of the carrier-capable UCAV, and buying more F/A-18E/Fs would save more money than canceling F-35B.


However, I really don't see any version being canceled.
After all, Australia, the UK, and Turkey are all still firmly committed (Turkey is to purchase ~100 F-35A), as are Norway & Israel.



* 340 USMC + 75 Singapore + 48-138 UK +22-50+ Italy

** 260 USN + 80 USMC

[ORAC]

Seaphoon was an option years ago when the French wanted to have the capability in Eurofighter and we nixed it (they buggered off not long after) because we didn't need carrier borne EFA, ooops..... the French requirement was for an aircraft which could operate off the Foch, which limited weight/size to thr size of the Rafale. The other EFA partners, not just the UK, needed an aircraft which couldn't be built within that limit, which is why the French walked. Not a UK decision and if the French had looked beyond the Foch the EFA could have been radically different.

[eaglemmoomin]

The Rafale is what a tonne or two lighter is it not? Slightly longer legged but not quite as fast but it's engines are more efficient, something like that? They also wanted a larger work share, and a true swing role aircraft. Which lets face it is where the Typhoon is now going (far far too late imho) and has got to go if we want to off load some of the Tranche 3 jets that we contractually obligated to buy to buy. I honestly think the French got the Rafale more right than we did with the Typhoon at least initially. I still think we as in the other Eurofighther nations nixed what the France wanted though as we all split off and started the Typhoon development from memory.

[Stuffy]

The title of this thread is F-35 cancelled, then what?

Well.

Then what?

[Courtney Mil]

Typhoon's development was severely dented by the consortuim of nations, that's why it's taking so long to get there. Lucky we had Tornado to do the other stuff. There was always talk of a 'navalized' Typhoon - one of the restrictions on the size and weight from the days when the French were in the programme. But it may be much more than a hook and a bigger nose gear leg; the internal structure wasn't designed for too many arrested landings.

[eaglemmoomin]

Wetter or not the F35B will be cancelled will be entirely dependant on how the struggle for funds will unravel between the US different defense departements. USAF and NAVY have already painted a bulls eye on the STOVL F35B for the MARINES, the LHA project is pretty much death after the first 2 (out of a planned six) 'carriers'. The fight for money has just begun and it is not entirely unfathomable that the B version will be placed on the chopping block to assure the rest of the F35 purchase, 260C's for the NAVY and a decent amount of A's for the USAF will inevitably drive the unit price further up (because of the cut B's) but as a whole ,the acquisition price will be substantially lower and further development and commonality will be greatly simplified and improved with the most difficult version out of the way. Money, money and money will be the biggest enemy of the F35,many of the originally planned purchasing numbers will simply never come to fruitation, UK, Australia, Canada, Denmark, Holland, Italy and even the USAF will most likely either not order at all (not USAF) or order a substantially lower amount of JSF's. 3130 copies could very well be closer to 2200-2500 (included the likely singapore and JAPAN ones) as soon as reality sets in. The easiest way to save money will be to get rid of the B version, no matter how much the UK wants it. Looking at the size of the Marines and more importantly the likely future generals in charge in the Pentagon, the Marines will have to come to terms with the fact that their JSF ratonalisation is the most difficult to defend. I really like the UK's 2 new Carriers and contrary to what so many people claim, I do think that they can serve many useful missions in the future but I really fear that they could fall victim to what could very possibly happen in the US once the Obama administration makes the long overdue cuts in the government budget. The last 2 years of his presidency could very well turn out in his electoral favor, the house and the senate will most likely go all democrate, once this happens all bets are of as to what will happen with the Defense budget, the JSF will never be cut, the USAF just has no other alternative but the B elimination is more than just a distant possibility. So back to the original question, for the UK, what will happen when the F35B is cancelled? Not many people might want to hear it but a (temporary until a midlife update point where some Cats can be installed)-skijump in combination with some SH's (or yes, even a Seaphoon) and some arrestor hooks might well be a solution. Given the relatively low wingload , high T/W ration and rather long run to a fairly big skijump, I wouldn't be surprised that they can take off at almost MTOW, with as little as 15-20 knots WoD. Besides a navalized Typhoon will undoubtly be expensive but EF consortium already calculated that it (CAT+TRAP outfit) will add about 2,500lbs over the OEW and most of the Typhoon systems are already very well protected against a saline environment.
The F35B goes OCU in 2015 with the USMC. It's already done 74 take off and landings on an LHD. It's scheduled to go back this year and weapons will be involved this time. The C is still being tested for it's hook mods and it's not going to be 100% known until actual carrier trials start in 2014.

The LHA already built/in build are Flight 0 the follow on will be flight 1 and will have the dock added back in while retaining the additional air capability (I suspect they will get even bigger). The original plan was for four LHA now it's two. The America's are not cancelled the build rate has been slowed and a redesign is happening to make them more like the older LHA's. There are more B's in the buy than C's which will be the last jet off the lot.

Obviously because in the UK the F35 is so inextricably linked to our carriers and the 'centrepiece' of our defence strategy and we are a Tier 1 nation anyone with an interest in the F35 would know all this.


STOBAR is the worst solution of them all, all the bad bits of cat and trap and VSTOL opeartion rolled into one sub optimal mess. If the UK were to go STOBAR that would be it we'd have a crap capability for decades and still have most of the equipment, training, qualification and man power penaties of having gone Cat+Trap. Without the range, carry and secondary airframe benefits of a Cat+Trap carrier.

Honestly if you were the treasury and had the defence minister in front of you'd be saying:

So first of all we delayed building the carriers and added several billion onto the cost then changed our mind mid way through build about the planes and carriers (after having already messed about with the design at least four times during the design stage (CVF is actually the 'delta' design)). Now we've decided to bin the plane again after having spent all the development money and more money testing and training effort on them. So we'll be ripping two fully built carriers apart to fit arresting gear (a big job in it's self) then down the line we'll rip them apart again. We will also be then spending more development time, testing and money on another plane to make it fit for UK naval air requirements. Have I got all of that right?

'Close the door on your way out by the way old boy'.

The F35 'replacement' if it happens is keeping more of our Typhoon tranche 3 (the ones without a funded AESA radar as of yet) and adding more capability to it to turn it into the aircraft I personally think it should always have been. But from a naval strike perspective and Force 2020 I think you'd be ripping up the strategy and changing the doctrine as we would not be 'doing' naval strike at all.

[eaglemmoomin]

Typhoon's development was severely dented by the consortuim of nations, that's why it's taking so long to get there. Lucky we had Tornado to do the other stuff. There was always talk of a 'navalized' Typhoon - one of the restrictions on the size and weight from the days when the French were in the programme. But it may be much more than a hook and a bigger nose gear leg; the internal structure wasn't designed for too many arrested landings.

I totally agree. But then again I don't think Typhoon would have happened at all without the consortium. Ultimately there are what 700+ jets in total I think and many of these will eventually be true swing role multi role aircraft. I can only wonder what would have happened if we'd have worked with the French as a group we might have dented sales of the F18E/F instead of scrabbling around for buyers and now being dictated to by the newer Eurofighter customers.

Then again without the utterly stupendous cock up, losing the enormous Indian MMRCA contract and the Saudi buy would we be getting all the goodies onto Typhoon and some industry funding of other bits of capability? We've already stuffed it in Brazil as well.

[Bastardeux]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say I think cancelling the F35B would be great for us in the long term.

It would obviously mean having to refit the ships as soon as they're completed, therefore not getting either of them into service before 2020, but that would allow HM government to legitimately not make the F35C operational before 2020 and pin it on the Americans for cancelling our chosen varient while staying loyal to the programme overall.

Net result would be an awful lot of pressure relieved from the procurement budget up to 2020 and we could keep (and fully upgrade) T1 Typhoon as well as buy a few more...eventually replacing the oldest T1 airframes as we begin to finally get F35C into service. We'd end up with the aircraft that actually suits our needs and the deep strike role, which it supposed to now be fulfilling.

It would of course, pip the current story to become the most farcical procurement in history!

[eaglemmoomin]

I personally think keeping T1 for QRA only and some 'austere' air to ground capability is a valid approach.

However if the JSF gets canned in particular the B then we just close the book on Carrier air as we won't be able to afford the additional cash burden post 2020 what with CROWSNEST, T26, Successor, MHPC, FRES. Apache upgrades (or whatever replaces it) still all to pay for. Maritime patrol when it comes back or have we not noticed the farcical UOR procurement for you guessed it UAS patrol solutions for the RN and draw down of the Seaking AEW fleet.

Thats the normal trick of moving it all to the right, covering your ears singling la la la and hoping the whole rotten edifice doesn't come tumbling down on top of you when you have a third of the time to do four times the amount of work. It's why we are in the huge steaming mess we are already in.

I'd rather we stick to the original bloody plan (we'd already have sodding supercarriers with aircraft on them if we had). I understand that development is tough and things go wrong and integration and testing is always the thing that no one realisticaly budgets for and is always the thing that rips the bum out of a military project. But constantly going backwards and forwards makes a an already bad situation even worse.

If the current plan doesn't 'fly' then forget it ditch the lot and move on and stop whining about not having UK 'carrier' air.

Cats+Traps, non existent Hawkeye buys etc etc and crack on making the best out of another horrific procurement mess the Typhoon.

Also DPOC got binned several times. Do we really need long range low level nap of the earth bombing runs? How many Tornado's have gotten bricked? I'd rather leave that for UCAV's when they come on stream in 30, 40 years (current UCAV's have a million miles to go imho).

[LowObservable]

GK - Singapore is reportedly about to sign up..

If the B gets less costly than the C, it will be because the C gets more expensive in even smaller numbers.

Meanwhile, the B survives only through the lobbying power of the Marines. The AF regards Marine Air as a distraction, and big Navy tolerated it as long as it was relatively cheap, which it no longer is. (Quick, can you mention any US non-Marine uniformed military leader who has come out in public and said how vital the B is to a joint campaign?) Financially it is a very tempting quick kill.

[eaglemmoomin]

But LO what do you then do with the 11 odd amphib assault vessels. The US increasingly seems to use them for smaller operations instead of a CVN and the strategy is increasingly airborne based (whether you agree with it or not). It's an intrinsic requirement for the USMC and ultimately their buy is bigger than the C buy and crucially there is no ready alternative unlike the C.

Again call it inter service politics and being a 'bit clever' if you like but the B will be OCU on Block 2B software in 2015 and on excercise in 2017. Production aircraft again at 2B will be being delivered in 2015 to the UK for land based qualification in 2016. That means you have an engaged user base that really want the thing (because their conops, even if you disagree, is totally buggered without it). Meanwhile what does the USN do Greenert bigs up UCAVs, they order more F18 and make noises about a sixth gen manned fighter. Doesn't make you feel the USN F35C love really does it.

As for the CVNs Ford is costing near $15billion. They are struggling to keep all 11 going as many are coming up for their $1.5 billion dollar refit and refuelling periods and are being delayed. Lincoln is sat in dry dock so the next CVN due for refit and refuelling could be impacted and USS Enterprise is not being defuelled as of yet so will need maintaining.

Some are being kept in port instead of going on operations and they are cutting the number of air wings. If anything is in danger it's the C. It has the slowest acceleration of the lot of them, will the last delivered and won't actually get on an actual deck to confirm it's ability to trap until 2014 if the hook change is not good enough and a redesign is necessary then the C will be in major trouble it's a big IF mind as the redesigned hook looks like it works fine on a totally stationary static level strip of land.

I think it's more likely if the project is not protected (I think various senators will stick their oar in) that a salami slicing of each variant will occur or even more likely purchases and the rate of production will be slowed down.

[ORAC]

The campaign against the F-35B is ongoing however...

Counterpunch: Caveataxpayer Emptor - Slimy Double-Talk About the F-35 (http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/03/28/slimy-double-talk-about-the-f-35/) by Winslow T. Wheeler

Winslow T. Wheeler is director of the Straus Military Reform Project of the Center for Defense Information, which recently moved to the Project on Government Oversight. For 31 years he worked on national security issues for U.S. senators from both political parties and for the Government Accountability Office.

The same article is repeated in this week's issue of Time (http://nation.time.com/2013/03/27/marine-f-35-jump-jet-pr-caveataxpayer-emptor/).

[glad rag]

Obviously because in the UK the F35 is so inextricably linked to our carriers and the 'centrepiece' of our defence strategy and we are a Tier 1 nation anyone with an interest in the F35 would know all this.
Right, so as a Tier 1 nation we get to fund the most expensive, least capable varient.

As the Yanks don't normally get it
<sarcasm mode on>
GoodPlan
<sarcasm mode off>
:ugh:

[eaglemmoomin]

Well I think it's important that people keep the project on it's toes so it doesn't back slide into the horrible mess it was in a few years back.

Mind you I think Wheeler has gone quite a bit away from analysis now gone into opinion and has gotten so entrenched that when actual progress is made he ignores it.

I've seen articles else where that the USMC has an enormous mock base made up of AM-2 (matting) or whatever it's called right next to the UK ski jump site that has been in use for decades with the Harrier and will be used for the F35B. Also that the USMC tested Thermion coatings in 2011 on USS Wasp due to the self same concerns Wheeler raised and they are going to 'wheel' it out on the LHD/LHA's and they've already worked out how close deck crew can get to the F35B on landing and takeoff again thanks to the USS Wasp trials.

[glad rag]

All of which would be fine If

1. It displayed above cutting edge performance

2. It didn't cost so much.

3. It had far less questions against it.

But I doubt it's going to be cancelled, the program is way to far advanced.

Pity the poor buggers who will have to fight it against matching [or above] foes....

[eaglemmoomin]

Right, so as a Tier 1 nation we get to fund the most expensive, least capable varient.

Depends on how you look at it. It has a combat range of over 450nm, is a true swing role multi role aircraft, can carry 15,000lbs of ordinance and has an AESA radar, passive sensor suite and is properly datalinked as networked asset, the potential thanks to that AESA to a lot of secret squirrel radar modes that we as a country just don't currently have, it is supersonic and can supercruise somewhat ,it performs loaded about as well as an F18 (the sustained figures are not so hot mind, but isn't that more about maintenance of the airframe and LO materials than the aircraft's instantaneous capability). It kicks Harrier so hard into the long grass it's not true. No it's not as good as F22 that's what Typhoon is for.

Nope it doesn't go quite as far and carry quite as much as the other two versions (which is a shame) but it has the exact same avionics fit which I think is far far more important given the proliferation of smart weaponery. Basically we've compromised on range and load a bit, to guarantee that we can get two aircraft carriers into service to have a 365 24/7 carrier capability. I'd rather that than have a part time carrier like the French.

Typhoon will have a base model version of CAPTOR-E by 2015 but we don't have any proper funding for all the modes and gucci bits as of yet (hopefully someone will sack up and sort that out) and it won't take off and land on an aircraft carrier.

[WhiteOvies]

Wheeler needs to update his stance rather given the progress made over the last couple of years. :ugh:

EagleM - The 'Dummy Deck' at NAS Pax River is made of AM-2 matting. Pax also has a ski jump (for future F-35B testing) and a steam catapult and arrestor wires (used for both F-35C and X-47 testing).

Dedicated facilities such as EMALS at Lakehurst are used for the majority of F-35C cats and traps testing.

USS Wasp trials proved that from a deck crew perspective you can operate F-35B exactly the same as a harrier.

To get to Stuffy's point though (and the thread title) I just cannot see Seaphoon becoming a reality. I saw the brief given to the Indians and while the design work has all been done, it is a lot of work/expense to beef up the undercarriage and fuselage.

If we are forced to pay for cats and traps on the Carriers whether we like it or not (by an F-35B cancellation) we are still better off, as a nation, buying F-35C as we have invested so much already. Remember that BAES builds, in the UK, a significant portion of every single F-35 (A, B and C). By the time we have rebuilt the QEC to be capable, F-35C will be a more mature airframe and off the shelf Rafale or Super Hornet will be distinctly old. Alternatively skip F-35C altogether and go unmanned with an off the shelf UCAS/UCLASS buy (if allowed by the US, which after our comedy involvement in F-35 variant swapping may be an issue).

If the Indians had agreed to front-up the development costs for Seaphoon when they were looking at commonality between land based and sea based fighters, rather than taking the sensible option that they did, then maybe a UK buy would be a possibility. Without it, it's just a fantasy.

[SpazSinbad]

Thanks for your input 'eaglemmoomin' but one small point (and I'll look for the news report which of course may change now that sequestration has been modified I believe somewhat)

'eaglemmoomin' said: "...It's [F-35B] scheduled to go back this year and weapons will be involved this time...." however I have read that one early consequence of sequestration kicking in was that this second trial of F-35B on USS Wasp this year (2013) had been cancelled. However things change and change again - as we know.
__________________

Navy to Cut Air Wings, Deployments, Jets 20 Feb 2013 The Virginian-Pilot| by Dianna Cahn and Mike Hixenbaugh

Navy to Cut Air Wings, Deployments, Jets | Military.com (http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/02/20/navy-to-cut-air-wings-deployments-jets.html?comp=700001075741&rank=5)

"NORFOLK -- A little more than a week before the first wave of federal budget cuts would take effect, the Navy on Tuesday released an updated list of savings, including canceling the Bataan amphibious ready group's deployment, buying four fewer F-35 fighter jets and nearly halving training programs for midshipmen, flight officers and new pilots.

The $8.6 billion in cuts are a consequence of Congress's failure to pass a new budget and across-the-board reductions demanded by sequestration. Congress has until March 1 to avert the latter....

...The document shows that the Navy plans to cancel construction of a destroyer, saving $1.4 billion. It would scuttle plans for further testing of the Marine variant of the F-35 fighter plane aboard the Norfolk-based amphibious assault ship Wasp and buy four fewer F-35s -- two each of the next-generation Navy and Marine Corps jets. It is also likely the Navy would not purchase a second Virginia-class submarine in 2014...."

[LowObservable]

EM - To begin with, what you do with the LHA/LHDs is (drum roll) what they were designed for (the basic hull design of even the newest ships pre-dates the Harrier in USMC service) which is to transport Marines, weapons, and vehicles in a warship-hard hull and get them to shore and support them with LCACs and helicopters.

They do this very well, the LHA-6/7 mongrels without a well deck having already been deemed a mistake before the first one is complete.

They are not very good aircraft carriers because they have inadequate hangar space, JP and weapons capacity, and narrow decks. The not-much-larger UK carriers can support a much bigger air wing - 35 F-35s plus AEW assets, versus 22 on the LHs if you push all the helos overboard.

Also, when the Ministry of Truth at Fort Worth says that the F-35B can carry 15,000 pounds of ordnance, I think that they mean that its various station capacities add up to 15,000 pounds. Real world? Maybe I could load the internal stations (3K), carry the gun pod (makes it 4K) and two 2K bombs on inner pylons (8K) and two AIM-9s (call it 9K). My operational radius will be well under 300 nm, I will be well subsonic and non-stealthy.

Supercruise? No, the F-35 was not designed to sustain >M1.0 without afterburner and contrary to various shills, cannot do so.

Kicks the Harrier into the long grass? Well it should, given that the basic design of the Harrier is now 55 years old and that it has never had a from-the-wheels-up development program - it's still an evolutionary development of the first P.1127/Pegasus.

WhiteOvies - Wheeler raises a perfectly valid point. As you note, the VL pad at Pax is AM-2 mat, but laid over concrete as a heat-shield rather than as a structural surface over dirt or cr@ppy asphalt. The VL pads at Yuma and Beaufort are made of heat-resistant concrete. There's some notion of a "creeping vertical" landing but there is no word as to when that will be demonstrated at all, let alone on the equivalent of a 3,000-foot-somewhere-ending-in-stan runway.

The Thermion coating reflects one of the two LH-related heating questions, which was the effect of F-35 exhaust on non-skid surfaces. The other was the long-term effect (if any) of heat and blast in terms of thermal/mechanical fatigue.

[SpazSinbad]

'WhiteOvies' not only is there AM-2 matting testing at PaxRiver but also there is an humungous lot of AM-2 at '29 Palms' in California which will one day be tested I guess:

'29 Palms' (what is "Psalm 29" I wonder? [ Bible Text: Psalm 29 (CEV) (http://www.bible.gen.nz/amos/bible/ps29.htm) for text ) airfield diagram from: http://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/1303/03160AD.PDF (100Kb)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b1/Twentynine_Palms_SELF_-_USGS_22_May_1994.jpg

Twentynine Palms Strategic Expeditionary Landing Field - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twentynine_Palms_Strategic_Expeditionary_Landing_Field)
_________________________

Some PDF info about USAF use particularly of AM-2 matting (USMC / USN mentioned only):

http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/DOD/UFC/ufc_3_270_07.pdf (0.3Mb)
________________________

AM-X will be the new kid on the block at some point perhaps:

Decks for Rapid Runway Mat Applications Dean C. Foster, P.E., P.S.
Materials and Manufacturing Directorate, Air Force Research Laboratory
Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio 45433

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a468966.pdf (1.7Mb)

Click thumbnail for bigga pickcha of AM-X: http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/th_CompositeAM-Xmat.jpg (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/CompositeAM-Xmat.jpg.html)

[WhiteOvies]

LO,

I'm sure everyone will be watching how Yuma gets on with it's pads now they're using them.

A lot of the info garnered from the Wasp sea trials has been fed back to the UK for use in FOCFT with QEC. Significant involvement on the test team at Pax for all the sea trials is one of the benefits of being a Tier 1 partner.

Of course at the time of the first trials in 2011 the UK was still buying the C variant...

[SpazSinbad]

For the sake of the conversation about NAS Patuxent River and VL Pads. There are two - one has AM-2 Matting over concrete the other is over asphalt. Location of these VL pads follows in the graphics. Note the asphalt / AM-2 pad has many markings for test purposes. These graphics were made for F-16.net with many other graphics/text indications about these pads and the Ski Jump and whatever else you may find interestin' at the PaxRibber. Location No.4 on the airfield graphic is the asphalt/AM-2 combo whilst Location No.3 is the other VL pad with concrete/AM-2 combo (lower right of photo) near the Ski Jump.

Click thumbnails for a bigger looksee:

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/th_NASpatuxentRiverGoogle.jpg (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/NASpatuxentRiverGoogle.jpg.html) http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/th_NASpatuxentRiverZoomGraphic.gif (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/NASpatuxentRiverZoomGraphic.gif.html)

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/th_SkiJumpPaxRiverVLpadCentrefield.jpg (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/SkiJumpPaxRiverVLpadCentrefield.jpg.html) http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/th_NASpatuxentRiverAM-2asphalt.jpg (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/NASpatuxentRiverAM-2asphalt.jpg.html)

[GreenKnight121]

To begin with, what you do with the LHA/LHDs is (drum roll) what they were designed for (the basic hull design of even the newest ships pre-dates the Harrier in USMC service) which is to transport Marines, weapons, and vehicles in a warship-hard hull and get them to shore and support them with LCACs and helicopters.

Really? What world are you living in?

USMC Harrier (actually Kestrel, designated XV-6A) trials started in 1965, and continued through 1968, including take-offs & landings aboard USS Raleigh LPD-1 (1966) and USS Independence.

Purchase of 12 Harriers (designated AV-8A) authorized by Congress 20 September 1969, first flight of USMC Harrier 20 November 1970, delivered to USMC February 1971. 102 purchased, plus 8 TAV-8As.


The Tarawa class was approved for production in 1968... 3 years after the USMC began Kestrel evaluations, and concurrent with the formal USMC request for purchase of Harriers for operational squadrons. Construction on the lead ship of the class began 15 November 1971... 1 year after the first USMC AV-8A Harrier flew!
There is only 1 Tarawa-class LHA left in commission!

The Wasp-class LHD, while based on the LHA, was significantly modified internally... the first was ordered on 28 February 1984... 6 months after the first production AV-8B flew (29 August 1983)!



So USMC involvement with, and desire for, the Harrier was concurrent with the designing of the LHA hull, not after it.

Construction of the first LHA hull began nearly a year after the first Harrier was delivered to the USMC, and just after the first AV-8A squadron (VMA-513) was declared operational (May 1971).

[kbrockman]

For the umptied time, the EODAS/EOTC + AESA point in favor of the F35 is pretty much made redundant by Northrops statements made as far back as 2010 that they can and will implement it partially or entirely on other airframes if customers ask to do so, it is a subsystem, not dependant on the rest of the F35.

also,

I'm not saying that I would prefer a Seaphoon or SH iso a F35B for the UK QEC types, I'm only giving a hypothetical future in case the F35B is offered on the altar of future budget plans/shrinkage.
Cancellation for 1 of the f35 versions (B or C) is still a very real possibility, the technological or operational issues are not the future potential problem, the very likely possibility of a political shift post 2014 election is a much bigger danger for either the F35B or C or both.
I didn't take the possible Singapore order into consideration and if they would sign up for 75 F35B's than that would indeed be a big boost for the B-version.

Also since we're talking about the future, 1 of the many things I'm still want to see answered is how they are seeing the F35 developping in the future beyond its MLU date.
Like its predecessors, the F35 will need to be upgraded which will inevitably lead to more wheight, more volume and more systems.
Contrary to its predecessors which litterally (size) and figuratively (power, W/L) had tons of extra room for growth and did so succesfully, the F35 is already stretched to (or some say even beyond) its limits.
The EF, RAFALE, Gripen NG and SH will fly and fight well into the 21st century, maybe even for 40 more years, I don't see the F35 operating longer either, it will go the way of the F117, stealthy at its conception which gave it an edge but when detection technology caught up it was just too compromised to develop it any further and give it a new lease of life, same goes for the F35. (IR-stealth wise the F117 still outperforms the F35 btw)

PS The idea that the MARINES F35B is an effective CAS platform is just ridiculous.

[SpazSinbad]

'LowObservable' said: "...
Supercruise? No, the F-35 was not designed to sustain >M1.0 without afterburner and contrary to various shills, cannot do so.'..."

F-35A Testing Moves Into High Speeds By DAVE MAJUMDAR : 13 June 2011

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=6792072&c=FEA&s=CVS (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=6792072&c=FEA&s=CVS)

"...Compare And Contrast

The F-35's ability to carry weapons and a large fuel load inside its own skin makes the plane far less draggy on a combat mission than the F-16 or F/A-18, which sling missiles, bombs and fuel tanks below their wings and fuselage, Griffiths said . Moreover, a combat-laden F-16 loses much maneuverability, whereas the F-35 is barely affected by carrying 18,000 pounds of internal fuel and 5,000 of internal weaponry. "It flies fantastic," he said. Griffiths declined to compare the F-35 to the F-16s he once flew. But he noted the F-16 is only technically an 800-knot and Mach 2.02 aircraft. In practical terms, most pilots will never see speeds above 700 knots or Mach 1.6 because real-world load-outs don't allow it. The F-35 can't supercruise like the F-22 Raptor, but the test pilots have found that once they break the sound barrier, supersonic speeds are easy to sustain. "What we can do in our airplane is get above the Mach with afterburner, and once you get it going ... you can definitely pull the throttle back quite a bit and still maintain supersonic, so technically you're pretty much at very, very min[imum] afterburner while you're cruising," Griffiths said...." [Lt. Col. Hank "Hog" Griffiths, an F-35 test pilot and director of the integrated Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) test force] (Some shill eh - concession to minimum A/B use however.)

[SpazSinbad]

'LowObservable' said: "...WhiteOvies - Wheeler raises a perfectly valid point. As you note, the VL pad at Pax is AM-2 mat, but laid over concrete as a heat-shield rather than as a structural surface over dirt or cr@ppy asphalt. The VL pads at Yuma and Beaufort are made of heat-resistant concrete. There's some notion of a "creeping vertical" landing but there is no word as to when that will be demonstrated at all, let alone on the equivalent of a 3,000-foot-somewhere-ending-in-stan runway...."

"...BF-1 accomplished the first F-35 five Creeping Vertical Landings (CVLs) on August 23 [2012]...."

F-35 Lightning II Program Status and Fast Facts September 5, 2012

http://f-35.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/F-35-Fast-Facts-September-5-2012.pdf (164Kb)

[SpazSinbad]

'LowObservable' also said: "...The Thermion coating reflects one of the two LH-related heating questions, which was the effect of F-35 exhaust on non-skid surfaces. The other was the long-term effect (if any) of heat and blast in terms of thermal/mechanical fatigue."

I had thought this THERMION topic was covered here already. I'll have to check. Anyway IF - as said by many by now - that the F-35B thermal/exhaust footprint is equivalent to the AV-8B then where is the problem? THERMION is a new non skid coating that is slated to be used by all USN flat decks eventually because of all things it is more hard wearing than the current non-skid. But hey the F-35B is going to melt all around it I know. :bored:
________________

'GreenKnight121' seems to have the THERMION gen covered here:

Ref1: http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/478767-no-cats-flaps-back-f35b-49.html#post7208946
&
Ref2: http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/478767-no-cats-flaps-back-f35b-24.html#post7139699

[Easy Street]

"What we can do in our airplane is get above the Mach with afterburner, and once you get it going ... you can definitely pull the throttle back quite a bit and still maintain supersonic, so technically you're pretty much at very, very min[imum] afterburner while you're cruising," Griffiths said...." [Lt. Col. Hank "Hog" Griffiths, an F-35 test pilot and director of the integrated Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) test force] (Some shill eh - concession to minimum A/B use however.)So, dressed up in a load of (undeniably authoritative) fluff, it can't supercruise. Which was what LO said.

The increase in fuel burn from max dry power to min afterburner is significant.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

My old Tornado F3 cruised at M0.99 in dry in 1991.

22 years of progress with the F-35 in that department then!

[SpazSinbad]

'EasyStreet' my quote does not suggest 'supercruise' but 'above Mach 1 at min. A/B setting'. If the exact numbers are out there I'll attempt to find them - one day. The definition of 'supercruise' seems to vary a lot but the quote does not imply 'supercruise' at all.

[ORAC]

My old Tornado F3 cruised at M0.99 in dry in 1991. The Lightning cruised in cold power at M1.3 in the 1960s......

[JSFfan]

Depends what speed you are calling 'cruise', LM is M1.5 plus isn't it?
the f-35 is a 750 kt limited to M1.6, I'll let the experts do the alt and speed conversions, but I work it out to be M1.6 in the low 20k ft and at 35k ft the AB will be well backed off

When asked, Lt. Col. Hank "Hog" Griffiths is also quoted as saying the f-35a will do M1.25 in dry.
and
http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Documents/2012/November%202012/1112fighter.pdf
The F-35, while not technically a “supercruising” aircraft, can maintain
Mach 1.2 for a dash of 150 miles without using fuel-gulping afterburners.
“Mach 1.2 is a good speed for you, according to the pilots,” O’Bryan said

The high speed also allows the F-35 to impart more energy to a weapon such as a bomb or missile, meaning the aircraft will be able to “throw” such munitions farther than they could go on their own energy alone."

that's M1.2 dry with with bombs and missiles, no 4.5 gen can match that

[Easy Street]

The definition of 'supercruise' seems to vary a lotAu contraire, I think it's universally understood to mean 'able to sustain supersonic level flight without reheat'.

Lt. Col. Hank "Hog" Griffiths is also quoted as saying the f-35a will do M1.25 in dry.No he isn't. He is saying that it can get up to M1.25 in reheat. When you cancel reheat, you are (for a moment) doing M1.25 in dry power. By your rationale, a Tornado F3 can do M2.0 in dry power!

Arguments about how long it takes to slow to subsonic speed are irrelevant - if you cannot sustain >M1.0 without reheat, you are not supercruising, even if you cover 150 miles during the deceleration.

[JSFfan]

do you have a link to what you claim?

"Mach 1.2 for a dash of 150 miles without using fuel-gulping afterburners."

for reference the f-22 is said to have a M1.5 dry for a 100 mile dash

[Bastardeux]

I don't think it's ever been touted to have supercruise, and to suddenly make up that it does would be a very bold thing to do...

Easystreet is right, the only definition I've EVER heard, is being able to sustain supersonic without using reheat in level flight. Because Lockheed tries to suggest high subsonic speed or low reheat in supersonic is also supercruise, doesn't make it so.

[JSFfan]

supercruise for LM is M1.5+, M1.2 dry isn't classed as supercruise, although the eu would class it as such

[WhiteOvies]

Kbrockman: I'd suggest that the first upgrade would be from Pratt & Whitney, giving more thrust or making the F-135 lighter or both. Engine technology hasn't stood still either since the design of the F-135 which takes it core from the older F-22 engine.

This sort of upgrade worked extremely well on the Harrier, and as further weight reduction on the Dave B will be difficult given the lengths already gone to, I see it as the priority.

With the advances in Avionics technology I seem to recall that the GR7 to GR9 upgrade actually lightened the aircraft whilst increasing the capability. Which was handy when the requirement to carry Sniper, a Terma pod and a useful weapon load was essential. Weight growth over the lifetime of an airframe is not a given, but more thrust is always good.

[JSFfan]

engine upgrade is slotted for block 6, prior blocks get the engine upgrade at major o/haul

[Rhino power]

supercruise for LM is M1.5+

LM saying that is a bit like BOEING trying to redefine what a thermal runaway is in regard to the 787 Flatliner's battery woes, it suits their PR bilge. Supercruise is widely accepted as being the ability to maintain supersonic flight with a useful weapon/fuel load without the use of re-heat. I assume the quote about the F-35 being able to do a 150 mile dash at M1.2 was with an internal weapon load? Typhoon has demonstrated supercruise with a useful external load so your assertion that no current 4.5 gen fighter can match the F-35 may be a little flawed...

-RP:ok:

[JSFfan]

yes, I said that eu supercruise isn't M1.5+
the phoon with with 2 x 2,000lb bombs, missiles and fuel for the same or greater combat radius?

[Rhino power]

Can't remember the exact figures, and can't be ar$ed to go trawling through umpteen million web pages to find them but, i think the Tiffie was with an air to air weapon load.

-RP

[Courtney Mil]

so technically you're pretty much at very, very min[imum] afterburner while you're cruising," Griffiths said

It doesn't matter how much you dress it up with claims and comparisons to other aircraft (in-service aircraft), that means (as many others have said here) it doesn't supercruise. Yet another of its shortfalls like acceleration time and sustained g. But it seems that we are able to continue to conveniently overlook these performance issues once they are a few weeks old.

[JSFfan]

well if you can ignore this, there isn't much to say
"The F-35, while not technically a “supercruising” aircraft, can maintain
Mach 1.2 for a dash of 150 miles without using fuel-gulping afterburners.
“Mach 1.2 is a good speed for you, according to the pilots,” O’Bryan said"

[Courtney Mil]

You've said it yourself,

The F-35, while not technically a “supercruising” aircraft

I can't see much doubt there.

[JSFfan]

well if M1.5+ is your standard, only the f-22 supercruises

[Courtney Mil]

If Lt. Col. Hank "Hog" Griffiths, director of the integrated Joint Strike Fighter test force, says it needs min burner to maintain supersonic, I don't see any argument.

[ORAC]

if M1.5+ is your standard The only person here defining arbitrary standards to try and deny an incontrovertible fact is yourself. When in a hole, stop digging.

[JSFfan]

sorry guys, I'm not in a hole..it seems you can't accept that the f-35 goes M1.2 in dry

you have it wrong courtney, he said cruise, not supersonic

[Just This Once...]

I have the F-35 performance figures in front of me every day - it does not maintain M1.2 in dry.

Stop arguing with those who fly or have flown in supersonic aircraft.