F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

[SpazSinbad]

The stealth/RAM coating is the same on all F-35s - extra airframe/engine corrosion protection is a 'freebie' for the A model.

[glad rag]

freebie'

now you're taking the proverbial...:D

[LowObservable]

There are at least two potential problems with adding F-35B to the carrier deck.

One is the effect of hot and high-velocity outwash on aircraft handling and operations near the landing spot. CV ops seem to make full-time use of all the available area, right to the edge of the landing zone.

The other is that the 550 foot (clean TOW) take-off roll of the B is longer than the cat stroke, which may mean that the JBDs are in the wrong place.

[PhilipG]

As I understand it a B cannot vertically land with much weight on, possibly necessitating the jettisoning of weapons prior to landing if it has a heavy fuel load etc. To overcome this problem LM and the RN are developing rolling landings, using the brakes to stop the aircraft.
Two things come to mind, firstly is the landing gear and the brakes up for this, or will it be necessary to fit the heavier C type landing gear? Secondly will there have to be a barrier at the end of the angled deck to catch planes with brakes problems?

[Rhino power]

Surely fitting the gear from the 'C' isn't an option? Wouldn't it just add more weight and reduce useable payload further? We should've stuck with the 'C' the first time we switched from the 'B' instead of changing back to the 'B' again, or maybe even a split buy, 'C' for the RN and 'B' or 'A' for the RAF...

-RP

[glad rag]

And what company is running with the contracts for both the carriers and F35 in the UK?...

[PhilipG]

Rhino Power, that was my point, the level of weight that can still be added to the B is so low, I just have concerns about how a plane not designed to carrier land and use its brakes to stop in a short time is going to cope on let alone a calm sea....

[ORAC]

Secondly will there have to be a barrier at the end of the angled deck to catch planes with brakes problems? No angled deck, deleted from the design with the reversion to the F-35B.

[Lonewolf_50]

I can see haw the C model spending its life at sea will incur a maintenance penalty, but if you ditch the C and keep the Bs at sea for their whole life instead, why does the same not apply to them?
Yes, it does. I hear fresh water wash will be less of a problem when steam isn't used on the cats. :E
Gresham says he is an advocate of the F-35, but believes the Navy can have a completely capable version by modifying the B-model that is now being tested by the Marine Corps.
He misses the point of cat and trap air ops, methinks.
One is the effect of hot and high-velocity outwash on aircraft handling and operations near the landing spot. CV ops seem to make full-time use of all the available area, right to the edge of the landing zone.
Yes.
The other is that the 550 foot (clean TOW) take-off roll of the B is longer than the cat stroke, which may mean that the JBDs are in the wrong place.
I'd tend to agree, and good point.

[Courtney Mil]

Good answers, LW. Thank you. Me thinks so too.

[eaglemmoomin]

Right now I believe the max VL landing specs are 3,000ish pounds of unexpended munitions + reserve fuel SRVL adds another 2,000ish pounds on.

The idea is the plane is going 30 to 40 knots when it lands not the 180+ controlled crash that a normal carrier landing is. I don't get what all the worry is about if the brakes can't stop the plane at that speed then all versions will be running off the end of the runway and stacking it. Ultimately there was a bunch of money put aside for it but I don't think work starts in earnest for a while (until next year, maybe?).

Anyway most of time the planes won't have any weapons aboard as we can't afford it so it'll be fine!

I'm sure someone will be along with all the public domain diagrams and articles soon.

[Engines]

PhilipG and others, perhaps I can help here:

The F-35B has a Key Performance Parameter (KPP) that calls for it to be able to do a VL with a set load of weapons and fuel. That KPP was carefully decided to allow it to bring back a full internal load of weapons with enough fuel for two goes at an IMC landing on board ship. Incidentally, that's quite a lot more (as a fraction) than many famous naval and land based aircraft.

The KPP applies over a full (US defined) range of temperature, but the UK requested that LM look at ways to bring the KPP load back at even higher temperatures. That has led to investigating SRVLs. The B does not need any changes to landing gear to do these, and the aircraft has a good set of brakes, unlike the Harrier.

The CVF still has the space for an angled deck, all SRVLs would need would be a new set of lines and repositioned landing sight. However, as far as I know the UK are looking at SRVLs straight down the deck.

F-35B is also required to be able to operate from a CVN deck. I don't know if the US have done much serious work on how one might combine STOVL with cat and trap, although I'd expect trying to combine the rigid deck cycles of cat and trap with the more variable STOVL operating cycles to be a bit of a challenge.

That said, outwash from F-35B landing is not especially severe (this assessment based on the fact that I was involved in the early tests and trials on this issue), and I would not see landing a B on a CVN deck to be a big issue.

Hope this helps,

Best Regards as ever to all those who have to try to work these issues,

Engines

[PhilipG]

Thanks for that Engines, I can only hope that the bring back KPP is met by the F35B, it does mean that if there is an unused Storm Shadow being brought back, to do a VL theissile would have to be ditched.... I hope that the weight of the pylons does not mean that at the limit they have to be jettisoned...

[Just This Once...]

Jettison pylons?????

:eek:

[peter we]

The other is that the 550 foot (clean TOW) take-off roll of the B is longer than the cat stroke,

Thats the worse case scenario, without a ski jump and no WOD. The AV8-B reduced its take off roll by 75% with a ski-jump, it should be even more advantageous with the steeper angle on the QE class.

Edit: Engines explains it far better than I ever could.

[Engines]

PhilipG,

The KPP is being met. Achieving that was the main driver for the weight reduction programme, and it remains a requirement that can't be traded away.

Storm Shadow was, and is not, a weapon the F-35 (of any variant) is required to carry, let alone do a VL with. That would be beyond the bounds of physics. As I said in an earlier post, all combat aircraft have limitations on what they can bring back, even with conventional landings. A VL is the most difficult case, with just jet thrust to do the job.

The B can't jettison its pylons, they are hard mounted.

Hope this helps

Engines

[eaglemmoomin]

Thats the worse case scenario, without a ski jump and no WOD. The AV8-B reduced its take off roll by 75% with a ski-jump, it should be even more advantageous with the steeper angle on the QE class.

Edit: Engines explains it far better than I ever could.

That was refering to a CVN not our CVFs.

[Courtney Mil]

Engines, clear, wise words as ever. Thank you.

[JSFfan]

The USMC are buying the f-35C for use on 'real' carriers, so it seems they aren't planning on running the B off of them

[Finnpog]

Is that not a directive from the Department of the Navy to the Misguided Children?

[Finnpog]

LM doing some more PR in Canada. I guess that they see the Boeing interest as a threat.
Lockheed Martin launches Canadian PR campaign for F-35 - Politics - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/04/07/pol-lockheed-martin-f35-pr-campaign.html)

[JSFfan]

I give up with US procurement, It seems to be based on how much they donate to their reelection fund and the Swiss bank acc

[Courtney Mil]

I think there is more than a little truth in that statement, JSFfan!

[SpazSinbad]

I'll guess the CVFs will have a similar THERMION non-skid deck coating?

Lockheed promises tailhook fix to Navy’s F-35C 10 Apr 2013 Richard Sisk

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2013/04/10/lockheed-promises-tailhook-fix-to-navys-f-35c/

"...Navy officials also said that they’ll have to do refits of the big-deck L-class of helicopter assault ships to accommodate the extreme heat and noise generated by the Marine Corps’ vertical-landing version of the Joint Strike Fighter, the F-35B....

[Vice Adm. David Dunaway, head of the Naval Air Systems Command]...“I can promise you that problems will occur” in the process of acquiring 260 F-35C Navy versions of the JSF, and 353 [?] F-35B Marine versions, Dunaway said....

...In other testing, the Navy found that its L-class ships would have to be adapted to the F-35, and “ship change notices are going out now to the L-class ships,” said Rear Adm. Mark Darrah, commander of the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division. “We have to adapt the ships to the new environment” that comes with the F-35s, he said.

The Navy was adding thermite [THERMION - 'thermite' would be interesting!] coating to the flight decks to guard against the heat blast from the vertical-lift engines of the F-35Bs, Darrah said. Additional baffling will be added to the substructure to lower the decibel level below decks, he said...."
_______________

"Thermite is a pyrotechnic composition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrotechnic_composition) of metal powder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powder_metallurgy) fuel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel) and metal oxide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_oxide). When ignited by heat, thermite undergoes an exothermic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exothermic) oxidation-reduction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redox) reaction. Most varieties are not explosive but can create brief bursts of high temperature in a small area. Its form of action is similar to that of other fuel-oxidizer mixtures, such as black powder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder)."

Thermite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite)

[Courtney Mil]

Yes, I noticed the thermite thing too. What they want is quite tho opposite.

I'm also amused by two other bits in that: the fact that LM have suddenly said that they promise to fix the tailhook (does that mean they weren't trying to before?) and Lorraine Martin's (the name and initials of a true company girl!) statement about the tailhook that "Our original design was not performing as expected" - it's only job is to grab the wire and it wasn't doing that, so "not performing as expected" is one way of putting it!

Anyway, the article does give a sense that things are on the move in the programme.

[glojo]

:)It would have been more reassuring if Lockheed Martin had said 'The new tailhook WILL as opposed to 'should' but that is said tongue in cheek and no doubt the F-35C will eventually work.

Lockheed Martin has come up with a new design for the tailhook on the F35 Joint Strike Fighters that should allow the Navy variant, the F-35C, to land on carriers

All along I have suggested that the US would have to adapt its ships to enable the F-35B to be operated from their decks and finally we are getting this confirmation.

I can understand why the US Navy could solely operate the one variant which would have to 'B' the B. :uhoh::) They would no doubt have them embarked on carriers along with tanking assets, AEW aircraft, plus if they were carrying any external payloads they could also have EW support. We would have none apart from a rotor wing, short range AEW that would offer coverage far in excess of that offered by a ship, but it surely cannot compare to the latest E-2D which is what we would have had prior to that last 'W' turn.

[Courtney Mil]

prior to that last 'W' turn.

Classic! Well done, Glojo. :D

[SpazSinbad]

The interim hook solution (I believe the hook change itself without the 'dampener' being modified to final solution) was tested successfully. Hence the flyinSloMo video seen earlier. It was news that apparently F-35C carrier trials are this year - instead of next. Perhaps the reference was actually to the 'cancelled due sequestration' 2nd set of USS Wasp/F-35B trials. I found that article riddled with odd, mangled quotes. Do USN people really speak that way? Or do reporters not record what they say accurately? I dunno. Tweren't there meself.

[CoffmanStarter]

F-35B BF-03 performing the first AIM 120 Weapon Separation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyCAGAv6w-A

Coff.

[eaglemmoomin]

Glojo I really don't think that cats+traps meant Hawkeye, COD and AAR.

The plans always been F35 + rotary wing as far as I can see looking at any public domain information available.

Plus rather a lot of money is being spent on the Merlins so you'll have a tiny buy of Hawkeyes with an American equipment supply chain spares etc and no consideration of UK specific requirements. Then no money going to the UK defence industry (and hence cycling back as corporation tax, income taxes and VAT) when you've lot quite a lot more platforms available that fit with all the training of your FAA crews.

Cats+traps makes it possible but I think it would be a hopeful pipedream to be honest.

[Backwards PLT]

Eagle - I think you are correct about the chances of a buy in the near future, but what I think many hoped would be that we would get cats n traps to allow a lot more flexibility and capability in the future.

Instead we have a "carrier" that has the short range version of F-35 with no AAR, rotary limited AEW and limited chance of getting a useful UAV (ie that can project a long way) or anything else that can't do VSTOL.

The QEC has limited utility on its own - the platforms on it are essential for it to do a good job and justify the enormous expense and the lack of cat n trap severely limits the platforms that can be used.

I think the RN have a saying something along the lines of spoiling the ship for the want of a ha'penny worth of tar.

[Heathrow Harry]

" no consideration of UK specific requirements."

UK Specific requirements = written for and by BAe shareholders...............

[ORAC]

" no consideration of UK specific requirements."

UK Specific requirements = written for and by BAe shareholders...............

The AgustaWestland AW609?? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AgustaWestland_AW609)

5I86xkB8lgg

[eaglemmoomin]

y " no consideration of UK specific requirements."

UK Specific requirements = written for and by BAe shareholders............... :ugh:
Seriously Harry I'd do a teeny bit of research before having a pop. You'll just look a little silly otherwise.

Lockheed Martin are prime contractor for the HM2 upgrades to Merlin, the Vigilance Pod is a Northrup Grumman development of the AN/APG 81, Augusta Westland make the Merlin as a subcontractor to Lockheed.

The other contender is a joint bid by Thales and Augusta Westland. Thales being responsible for the existing Seaking ASAC.

Notice an abscence of BAE?

[glad rag]

F-35B BF-03 performing the first AIM 120 Weapon Separation

What a load of shyte!

Now where's that clip of an inverted F3 doing it properly, powered and guided!

[Courtney Mil]

Yes, where is it? It might make a useful training video. Perhaps because the jet is designed to be primarily air-to-ground, they got the wrong experts involved in the AMRAAM integration and they didn't realise that air-to-air weapons get fired, not dropped.

[glad rag]

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lwgmnaIoxb1qdu8imo1_500.jpg

[Courtney Mil]

You'll have to guess.

[Heathrow Harry]

eaglemmoomin

my "pop" was that over the last 50 years "british requirements" have been the excuse for a fabulously expensive set of changes to proven designs which have added little or no extra capability

LM being involved with the merlin doesn't make me feel any better TBH

To be fair it works both ways - I understand the B-57 was a very expensive "re-modification" of a perfectly respectable Canberra and we all know what happens when the USAF or the USN decide to adopt one of the other's aircraft.......... :rolleyes::rolleyes:

[eaglemmoomin]

eaglemmoomin

my "pop" was that over the last 50 years "british requirements" have been the excuse for a fabulously expensive set of changes to proven designs which have added little or no extra capability

LM being involved with the merlin doesn't make me feel any better TBH

To be fair it works both ways - I understand the B-57 was a very expensive "re-modification" of a perfectly respectable Canberra and we all know what happens when the USAF or the USN decide to adopt one of the other's aircraft.......... :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Thing is Harry the devil is always in the detail there are teams of people that take part in studies and trials and so on to come up with those requirements which are then given to industry to some up with a solution that meets those requirements that in turn generates lots of requirements to allow the acheivement of the requirement upstream. BAE et all don't just make them up on the spot they all have to be agreed, before hand and then signed off and accepted.

Mind you can complain about the process taking way too long, and some of those requirements being OTT or gold plated but that is what happens when the scope constantly changes and/or are ill-defined or event's occur to require lots of changes.

Of course when any hi tech industry that we have dies on it's aaris and the ripple effects across the supply chain and thus any service/job connected or reliant on those industries go into decline because we've become an even bigger net importer of goods than we already are, with an even more buggered economy because we are reliant on the 'financial services' (cos thats worked out fantastically well so far for us:ugh:) and people are complaining about not buying British and propping up the tax payers and national deficit of lots of other countries instead then I'm sure then people will stop listening to Lewis Page.

[glad rag]

You'll have to guess.

I'm not "clever" enough, feet firmly on the ground and all that.....:rolleyes:

[Courtney Mil]

OK, want a clue?:cool:

[eaglemmoomin]

Has anybody seen this?

It's a fascinating program about a cheap light weight multi-national fighter program.

F-16, Sale of the Century - YouTube

Very interesting to see some similarities and some differences to the F35 project.

[TBM-Legend]

I understand the B-57 was a very expensive "re-modification" of a perfectly respectable Canberra and we all know what happens when the USAF or the USN decide to adopt one of the other's aircraft..........

How do you know that about the B-57? Even the UK changed the configuration on a number of models. Not all cross service aircraft have been expensive failures. e.g. the C-130/C-9/A-7/F-4/P-2/H-60/H-1models/ flies/flew for both services as examples.

[Courtney Mil]

A very interesting documentary, Moomin. The fact that they major on work-share, technology transfer and real costs to the customer (overseas in particular) isn't really a shock-horror revelation. And you're right, these may well be unpleasant similarities with the JSF programme. On the other hand, it may also be true to say that trying to tie down the workshare issue to avoid that sort of under-performance can also become a major stummbling block - look at Eurofighter and the legal hold-ups that caused.

The more things change, the more they stay the same. It won't be that many years before we see similar documentaries about JSF.

[eaglemmoomin]

True, from a UK persepective though I suspect we are 'ok' in several areas from an industrial and technological point of view, mostly due to experience from the Eurofighter production, development programs and the Tier 1 partner status. I can see though from a software point of view even though we may have 'limited access' to maybe some interface control documentation, other odds and sods, the review boards and maybe the software in small isolated subunits, we'd be totally stuffed without LM. Thus while in theory we have access in reality we (as in the UK) won't benefit from the data fusion technology and other cutting edge bits of the software development program..

It does look like the Netherlands are going through the same motions again.

[LowObservable]

Differences between F-16 and JSF? Just a few...

The F-16 started with a contract for two demonstrators with no operational requirement. The JSF started as a plan to dominate the world of combat aircraft.

The F-16 was sold on the basis of proven flight performance, the differences between the demonstrator and the F-16A being quite small and most of the avionics intro'd on the F-16A being off-the-shelf. The F-35 was sold on the basis of a pure X-plane program. The contest-winning design bore a superficial resemblance to the X-35 and the post-weight-panic design different again.

The EPAF nations, after selecting the F-16, negotiated firm fixed-price production contracts with guaranteed offsets based on risk-sharing partnerships.

After the initial F-16A launch, export customers were supported in adding weapons and equipment (Rapport 3 jammers for Belgium, for instance).

If the JSF had run to the F-16 timescale (starting with the first prototype contracts) it would have reached IOC around 2003 and made its combat debut in 2005, and by now the original customers would be getting a major upgrade and the third-generation updated model would be in production.

So really, no differences at all.

[Heathrow Harry]

"How do you know that about the B-57?"

See "Jet Bombers" by Bill Gunston - also includes the F-111 and the B-66 "re-invention" of the A3D.................. at enormous cost and little extra capability

[LowObservable]

Both the B-57 and B-66 stories are essentially true.

On the other hand, the economics of redesign were more reasonable than they might be today, given that the USAF built 400 B-57s and 300 B-66s. And some of the mods were not exactly irrational - ejection seats on the B-66 (there was a reason that A3D was said to stand for "all three dead"), and a proper windshield and Sapphire/J65s (versus adding a new engine to US inventory) on the B-57.

[Courtney Mil]

we'd be totally stuffed without LM.

Er, well, yes. They're basically, in effect, without beating about the bush, designing and building it.

[GreenKnight121]

There were 75 B-57A/RB-57As built, virtually to the British pattern save for trading the Avons for J65 (Sapphire 100).

After that came the 200+ B-57Bs... these had a new "fighter-cockpit (fore-aft seating), a rotating bomb bay, fuselage-mounted speed brakes, 4x.50 Browning mg in each wing (8 total), 4 stores pylons under each wing (8 total), as well as more minor changes.

[WhiteOvies]

The sad fact is that the Forces have been hollowed out so much in recent years that we'd be stuffed on Tornado and Typhoon too without BAES. Likewise the contractors on MFTS etc.

Finding true specialists within the trades, with years of experience on type, in 2nd line bays, frontline and training Sqns etc is becoming increasingly rare. In fact it is these ex-CPOs, CTs etc that now work for the contractor.

I can't see LM and F-35 being all that different to be honest.

[JSFfan]

LowObservable, you didn't watch the video or you are trying to do a revisionist history..you are factually incorrect so which one?

[Courtney Mil]

Actually, I think LO and Moonin make pretty good points. Anyone know when the documentary ws made?

[JSFfan]

except that the not to exceed price was ripped up with the price through the roof, most didn't get their offset and originally a limited daylight plane with lots of mods during development and when put into production still had a heap of problems

[Courtney Mil]

Indeed, JSFfan. And it would be hard to suggest that F-35 costs haven't already done the same. I haven't looked for a figure recently, but it must be 80% over budget already - or did I hear 90 from somewhere, you would probably know better than I? And we've still got a long way to go.

I don't think LO's version of the history is that far off. Anyway, I was really thinking more about Moomin's slightly brighter thoughts about the technology

'ok' in several areas from an industrial and technological point of view

Hopefully the Level 1 partner status will keep the UK in reasonably good shape there.

[JSFfan]

depends what and how you want to count...in same year dollars the APUC has gone up 50% from 2001..but I would use the 2006 average of abc price of $74m that has risen to $92m plus the engine that has stayed reasonably steady about half of the rises are due to the usa gov changes
the main rise is in the SDD which the usa is wearing and doesn;t affect the partners or FMS

did you watch the video? I also have and posted a GAO doc on the f-16 showing what a mess it was
and the fa-18 doubled in price too

[Finnpog]

I like the RN Leading Hand's details on the nosegear doors as well.

[Courtney Mil]

...and the ensign. Style!

[orca]

First flight and you get your name on the aeroplane! Brilliant!

Or maybe with the RAF fellow flying his a few weeks ago they now have one each and a spare.

[WhiteOvies]

ZM135 and ZM136 at Eglin, so one each! ZM137 still undergoing test flights at Fort Worth prior to delivery.

Although looking carefully at the pics I think that may actually be one of the USMC jets...

[flynavysomerset]

BZ Shipmate. :ok:

[Mach Two]

Good to see. I wonder why it took the Navy pilot so much longer to get to that stage of training than the Royal Air Force pilot. Still, well done for getting there eventually.

[dat581]

Royal Navy pilots have been off flying the Super Hornet in the USN for a few years to gain fast jet training with no RN aircraft in service. It probably means nothing that an RAF pilot flew first but if you want to troll for some Sharkey bites go right ahead.:zzz:

[lj101]

Mach Two

First international student-pilot flies F-35 (http://www.eglin.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123340973)


Inter service politics I assume was the deciding factor, and the time line wasn't that long.

[WhiteOvies]

Aircraft serviceability, sim availability, weather etc...? Probably just the usual reasons that Studes on the same course don't fly at exactly the same time.

The gap was't that much if you check the dates, although the press release was a bit slower.

[Mach Two]

Of course, yes. Different studes progress at different speeds for all sorts of reasons. Oh, my!

[Justanopinion]

I wonder why it took the Navy pilot so much longer to get to that stage of training than the Royal Air Force pilot. Still, well done for getting there eventually.

Of course, yes. Different studes progress at different speeds for all sorts of reasons. Oh, my!

I suppose going to a two seat community you had first hand experience of progressing through training courses at a different rate to the others. Never mind. Still, well done for getting there eventually.

[FB11]

Same old sad stuff.

Yaaaaawwwwwwnnnnnn........zzzzzzzzz

[FODPlod]

I wonder why it took the Navy pilot so much longer to get to that stage of training than the Royal Air Force pilot. Still, well done for getting there eventually.Of course, yes. Different studes progress at different speeds for all sorts of reasons. Oh, my!

:=

Is it because the pilots bound for FAA squadrons do the extra module... you know, the one covering air combat?

[Courtney Mil]

Er, excuse me! Fewer two-seat, air-to-air jibes, if you please.

[dat581]

A question for the two seat chaps: Is there a need for a two seat F-35? Not thinking about the cost of developing a two seater at this stage there are several missions that have been the domain of the two seater. Long range interception, Fast FAC, SEAD and numerous others. Add to the mix conversion training would be simplified (that seams less of a bother these days) so is there a need for a TF-35? (F-35D?)

[Courtney Mil]

Interesting question, Dat. Of course, you'd have to take that stupid lift fan out to make room, which might be a problem. Or move the fan back and take out even more fuel - but then the term 'long-range' would be even less appropriate.

There are better jets to do long-range interception, in my opinion, but the systems and cockpits of today make that a perfectly viable single-seat role anyway. JSF is still more 'strike' than 'fighter'. Some of the other roles you mention could be done by either, but some scenarios COULD benefit from a two-place a/c. Perhaps a bigger issue is using such an expensive asset to get in close and mix it in the battlespace (or is it battlesphere today?); the 'close' bit could fut JSF in an environment where it derives little protection from its stealth, whilst being disadvantaged by its other characteristics that have come about due to the compromises that stealth demands.

Hey, here's a thought. Maybe they could design a WSO pod to go in the weapons bay. It could have all his displays and controls in it and a plexiglass nose section for visibility. If required to look outside, the bay could open, pop him out in the airflow and then put him away again when no longer required. Even better than the 'nav-in-the-nose' Canberra. As long as he doesn't get launched or dropped. :uhoh:

[JSFfan]

Yawn, no wonder you are here and not in system and platform evaluations

UK slashes F-35B numbers but might look to split buy with F-35As (http://www.janes.com/products/janes/defence-security-report.aspx?ID=1065969970&channel=defence&subChannel=business)
(condensed)
UK Defence Secretary Philip Hammond said the UK would order 48 F-35Bs to equip the UK's future carrier strike force. He added that a follow-on conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) F-35A would be set out in a future Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR), with the aim of replacing the Eurofighter Typhoon in UK service.
We will not finalise our decisions on the F-35 programme until SDSR in 2015

dat581 (http://www.pprune.org/members/297100-dat581), there is a lot of automation on the f-35, freeing the pilot fot tactical, sld is the best site to read about it

[Courtney Mil]

JSFfan,

Are your remarks directed at me? If so, let me take you through it all slowly.

1st para, you can disregard, it's called jesting.

3rd para, you can disregard, it's called absurdity.

There are better jets to do long-range interception - aircraft that really are long-endurance and long-range that are designed for air-to-air with no compromises for other purposes. This does not diminish the effectiveness of JSF in other roles, it's simply not its prime function.

the systems and cockpits of today make that a perfectly viable single-seat role anyway - so it can be done by today's single seat a-a aircraft for the reasons you make in your statement "there is a lot of automation on the f-35". That's nothing new, there is a lot of automation in all modern cockpits. Again, an aswer to Dat.

Some of the other roles you mention could be done by either - single seat OR two-seat. But, look at my previous statement, so you probably don't need two-seat (answering part of Dat's question).

JSF is still more 'strike' than 'fighter' - Already been discussed here and elsewhere at length. Don't worry yourself, it doesn't mean JSF isn't going to be good in its intended role.

Perhaps a bigger issue is using such an expensive asset to get in close and mix it in the battlespace... ...put JSF in an environment where it derives little protection from its stealth, whilst being disadvantaged by its other characteristics that have come about due to the compromises that stealth demands. - Another old argument. Dat asked about fast-FAC, my response: fine as long as it doesn't incolve getting in close where JSF is not optimised to operate.

As for

UK slashes F-35B numbers but might look to split buy with F-35As

Surely that's old news. What is the relevance?

[JSFfan]

the only thing that could be better is the f-22, but in the system the f-35 is better and it's no surprise, is it?

[Courtney Mil]

Then what were you taking issue with and why the "Yawn" as if you know all this already and it's so boring to go over it again?

[eaglemmoomin]

JSFfan that article in Janes is supposition by a journalist nothing more so I wouldn't put too much store by it. All we really know is that 48 F35B is the initial buy and a final decision on total numbers will be taken in the next review due in 2015. Theres been nothing about split buys.

I also have to say before you start chucking stones. Can I ask if you are either a pilot or an engineer involved in military aerospace activities? Otherwise it seems like a statement designed to get scorn and ridicule poured on you.

[kbrockman]

I'm surprised some people here seem to know for fact that the F35 will replace the Typhoon.
Follow up orders , if at all in originally planned numbers, will only be decided at SDSR2015.
Also drop2 T1 typhoon upgrades are ongoing with drop 3 upgrades already in the testphase and drop 4 is already in the planning stage, meaning the 2019 planned T1 retirement is no longer a fact.

The first F35A's will eventually replace the Tornado's ,which are currently getting their final upgrades, and only the oldest Typhoons will be replaced by the F35 if they get them in sufficient numbers.
Typhoon is here to stay till at least the middle of the century and in all lkelyhood in larger numbers than the UK's F35A+B.

Also, speaking of the twinseater issue, I've read an interesting piece explaining that in the future twinseaters might proove to be a big asset, certainly when hybrid UCAV-manned-AC operations are more common.
The F35 just has no place and weightmarging to make a twinseater likely.

There has been very little relevant news lately concerning the F35, which seems to have taken the focus of the whole F35 saga for now but besides some vague longterm commitements there also has been little good news about the F35, for many nations, it still is by no means a reasonable follow up for the platforms it was envisioned to replace at its conception.

[dat581]

The F-35 may enter service with enough sensors and computing power on board to make the starship Enterprise look like sopwith camel but one computer cannot be upgraded and that sits between the pilots ears. You can have all the automation you want but for example during close air support having a single crew member fly the aircraft, watch the air to air situation and try to listen to a frantic soldier in a fire fight on the ground screaming for help to save his men is a big ask. I once asked an RAAF Super Hornet pilot about "helmet fires" and he told me that they sometimes get information overload on a mission with data coming in from the radar, targeting pod and link 16. When his WSO spoke up he said: "That only happens to nose gunners". :} The point they made was two heads are better than one no matter how much wizardry is on board.

Other wise I will defer to Courtney's professional experience ( at least until I can fly FAC missions in a C182).

[JSFfan]

well if you want longer range than a f-22, that's the f-35

the systems and cockpits of today ....SH, phoon, rafale, gripen are all 4th gen and are not comparable to the f-35 systems and cockpit, even the f-22 doesn't measure up

JSF is still more 'strike' than 'fighter....I think it will do both of those roles and the more roles that are mapped out for it..quite sufficiently

Perhaps a bigger issue is using such an expensive asset ...but it's cheaper than some and only a bit dearer than others and if you count capability, it's a bargan

@.... I know we like the twin seats and it was an initial concern of mine but the H/SH and the f-35 are diffferent animals

[Courtney Mil]

I agree with the three previous posts (Moomin, Kbrock and Dat). Kbrock, I think Moomin's comment about the mixed buy is spot on. So, like you, I don't think anyone does know that yet.

[Courtney Mil]

SH, phoon, rafale, gripen are all 4th gen and are not comparable to the f-35 systems and cockpit

Have you used, experienced or worked on any of those cockpits? Have you any experience of their configurations or functionality at all?

JSF is still more 'strike' than 'fighter....I think it will do both of those roles and the more roles that are mapped out for it..quite sufficiently

And again, my point is that it is not optimised for long-range air-to-air, there may well be assets that are.

[kbrockman]

Perhaps a bigger issue is using such an expensive asset ...but it's cheaper than some and only a bit dearer than others and if you count capability, it's a bargan



I have never heard anybody else than LM and its cronies state that the F35 is "a bargain".
I do however remember many generals saying that the acquisition and , more importantly, the operational costs are the biggest cause of concern.
I also remember Gen Bogdan stating that we might have to give up some of its capabilities to make the F35 work (something like a Chevy iso a Ferrari).


PS , About the split buy, I seem to remember that back in 2005-2006, the RAF even planned to go for the F35C iso A as the replacement for TORNADO, that was long before the whole carrier VSTOL vs CATOBAR controversy.
But I agree , before 2015 nobody knows how many , if at all, and what type of F35 will be added in the future.

[PhilipG]

Can I just add a penny's worth here, computing power increases as we all know Moore's Law, the systems in the F22 are ancient as I understand it.
There is implicitly no reason why all the on board systems from an F35 could not be put on a 4.5 generation plane as I understand it, obviously it would help that the F35's integrated helmet could be demonstrated to work.
That is if it was thought worth while changing out the sensor suite and architecture of a functioning aircraft to put in the F35's so superior systems...:rolleyes:

[JSFfan]

@eaglemmoomin I didn't know UK Defence Secretary Philip Hammond was a journalist
the f-35 is costing a mint for the US to develop, but the actual plane isn't too bad for the partners and FMS

yep 2015 will tell us more about what the UK plans are

[Courtney Mil]

JSFfan,

You seemed to have accidentally missed the questions again.

QUESTION 1:

SH, phoon, rafale, gripen are all 4th gen and are not comparable to the f-35 systems and cockpit


Have you used, experienced or worked on any of those cockpits? Have you any experience of their configurations or functionality at all?


QUESTION 2:

Can I ask if you are either a pilot or an engineer involved in military aerospace activities? Otherwise it seems like a statement designed to get scorn and ridicule poured on you.

[JSFfan]

no, I referred him to SLD to read all about it from pilots that are actually flying it and I'm paraphrasing what they have said

looking through the eyes of a 3rd or 4th gen pilot not in the loop will tell you nothing..that is also indicated by the pilots flying the f-35

[kbrockman]

There is implicitly no reason why all the on board systems from an F35 could not be put on a 4.5 generation plane as I understand it, obviously it would help that the F35's integrated helmet could be demonstrated to work.


It was 2010 when Northrop explained that the EODAS/EOTC+AESA could partly or completely be used by other platforms besides the F35B.
They also stated that it was not out of the realm of possibilities that their systems could be in use in other fighters before the F35 reached IOC.

[Courtney Mil]

Hmm. Maybe the questions were worded badly or not clear enough, JSFfan.

Have you used, experienced or worked on any of those cockpits? Have you any experience of their configurations or functionality at all?

Can I ask if you are either a pilot or an engineer involved in military aerospace activities?

[Biggus]

CM,

The answer's no, as I expect you already know, but you won't get that response - just more internet quotes!


As an aside, I would suggest that any comments from a UK politician about future defence plans/intentions really aren't worth the paper they are printed. Anything beyond 2015 represents nothing more than aspirations and sound bites.

[NITRO104]

No argument - JSFfan is on a mission...

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51WKQ3NZS8L._SS500_.jpg

[Courtney Mil]

Blimey, Nitro. That was obscure!

Biggus, you may well be right.

[JSFfan]

CM likes to do this every few pages

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/424953-f-35-cancelled-then-what-88.html#post7780138

[t43562]

On reading about the suggestion that other platforms might be able to have EOTS fitted I found this which seemed interesting:

http://selex-es.com/~/media/Files/S/Selex-Galileo/products/land/situational-awareness/VIGILX.pdf

[CoffmanStarter]

Here you go JSFfan ... seems to be right up you street ... I'm sure you will be well received.

Webinar Date: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 at 1pm EST, 12:00 PM CST

Webinar : Join us as an F-35 expert and F-35 test pilot discuss why the F-35 is the best solution for Canada (https://event.on24.com/eventRegistration/EventLobbyServlet?target=registration.jsp&key=7126662B4532D1B55D61ACD48211259F&eventid=606258&sessionid=1&mode=preview)

Feel free to pop back and let us know how you got on ...

[Courtney Mil]

CM occasionally likes to check that certain people aren't passing off stuff they've heard and not fully understood as their own wise words. He also likes to make sure that such 'facts' aren't being misused either intentionally or unintentionally. It would be very easy for someone with an unexplained fanaticism to give people the wrong impression and to mislead them. We wouldn't want that, would we?

Out of interest, JSFfan, have you used, experienced or worked on any of those cockpits that you mentioned? Can Eaglemmommin ask if you are either a pilot or an engineer involved in military aerospace activities?

[JSFfan]

thanks for that, it will be worth viewing, It's always nice to get the story from someone who knows, the interviews on SLD are worth reading too
The Way Ahead with the F-35B: A Discussion with the Deputy Commandant for Aviation | SLDInfo (http://www.sldinfo.com/the-way-ahead-with-the-f-35b-a-discussion-with-the-deputy-commandant-for-aviation/)

CM, I take what people who know seriously, someone playing at 'objective concern' not so much
Air Cdre Bentley : If I can talk to simulations, and then Gary can—he probably talks best to simulations—I would say this. You can only truly represent what the F35 is capable of and what other fifth generation and other fourth generation aeroplanes are capable of when you have all of the classified information. Trying to simulate something that you do not fully understand is based on false assumptions and false ground rules. If you go in with false assumptions and false ground rules, you will get false answers.

[CoffmanStarter]

http://i1004.photobucket.com/albums/af162/CoffmanStarter/unusual_sarcasm_notice_zps9594cf6d.jpg

[Courtney Mil]

Oh dear me. Now look what you've done, Coff. They'll blame us, you know!

[CoffmanStarter]

http://th109.photobucket.com/albums/n76/rickosports/flash%20pix/th_DogLaughing.gif#laughing%20muttley%20graphics

[LowObservable]

You can only truly represent what the F35 is capable of and what other fifth generation and other fourth generation aeroplanes are capable of when you have all of the classified information.

That statement would certainly seem to undercut the validity of any effort to simulate JSF-versus-anything-Russian-or-Chinese, would it not? One side of these sims is always open-source intel + common sense analysis. Why should such techniques not work in both directions?

Backing up a little to the 1-v-2-seats: I believe that the FAF, who at one point planned to take most of their Rafales with two seats, have not gone as far as intended in that direction, and indeed if you look at pix related to the Mali op you'll see lots of single-seaters loaded to the walls with LGBs, AASMs and pods.

On the other hand, I also believe that the USN has loaded its Block 2 Shornet buys heavily with the station wagon model and of course the RAAF has bought only Fs. The USN has certainly made a big deal of two seats in the FAC-A role and the ability to have the nose gunner :E focus on the sky and the GIB on the ground. One argument is that although automation has improved the sensors have become more capable and there is a bigger picture to comprehend.

There's probably little point in a two-seat JSF, though - it is indeed highly automated, so the back-seater can do little except watch as the sensor-fusion gizmo puts on its wizard hat and separates the righteous from the ungodly, without explaining how it does that because it is secret.

[Snafu351]

Webinar Date: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 at 1pm EST, 12:00 PM CST

Webinar : Join us as an F-35 expert and F-35 test pilot discuss why the F-35 is the best solution for Canada (https://event.on24.com/eventRegistration/EventLobbyServlet?target=registration.jsp&key=7126662B4532D1B55D61ACD48211259F&eventid=606258&sessionid=1&mode=preview)

Surely JSFfan will be attending as the F35 expert?

[HalloweenJack]

JSFfan


are in serving in the military?

[cornish-stormrider]

JSFFAN will be attending as he is actually building the damn thing and is sick of all you naysayers dissin the product......

FWIW I think he comes across like a 12 yr old with a real thing about an 80's supercar pin up.

"my car is better than all of the ones you grown ups drive but I have no real idea and won't tell you that I'm 12"


la la la I'm not listening to you but am totally sold on the blurb put out by the dealer! this car goes elebenty bazillion miles an hour and corners at 1200g etc.

feel free to play along. but remember - opinions are like arseholes, everyone's got one.

[eaglemmoomin]

LO I think it's fair to say APA et al don't have access to the F35/F22/F15/F16/F anything or SU anything performance models. I think the US is a bit more unique in that repect as they have had access in the past to several MIG models and some Sukhoi's and clearly know the performance envelopes of their own kit.

I can't imagine any modeling of the PAK-FA or others would be anything other than guess work though.

[CoffmanStarter]

Cornish old chap you are clearly to young to remember the original Supercar from the 60's :ok:

http://www.aiai.ed.ac.uk/~bat/GA/IMG/supercar-johnny-lightning-2.jpg

Good old Jerry Anderson RIP

[kbrockman]

Just some interesting info that somehow fits in this debate

Boeing and USAF will have to recertificate entire F-15SA flight envelope (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-and-usaf-will-have-to-recertificate-entire-f-15sa-flight-envelope-384156/)
"The entire F-15 flight envelope requires clearance for the F-15SA fly-by-wire system," the USAF says. "The flight test to certify airworthiness will take approximately a year and a half to accomplish."

True fly-by-wire is a departure from the traditional F-15 hybrid electronic/mechanical flight control system. Previous incarnations of the jet were equipped with a dual-channel, high-authority, three-axis control augmentation system superimposed on top of a hydro-mechanical system.

[Courtney Mil]

Kbrock,

Thanks for posting that. It makes me wonder why they even want to go for full digital in a jet that was designed, aerodynamically, to be hyd/mech/elec. I can't think what advantage FBW will bring to a stable, but agile, jet. Any ideas anyone?

Oh, and 18 months to test it? Half of me thinks that's optomistic and the other suddenly sees the answer to my question. It's all Boeing income. Maybe it's my cynical side creeping in.


LO, that's what I think too. Actually, I think it's more than you think - or maybe more than you are stating here.

Coff, that wasn't a super car, the definition of LO and VLO kept changing and it ended up 93% over-budget (anyone recognise the figure 93%?). The operators did appreciate the excellent rearwar vis, but it failed its MoT test. Who would have thought?


HJ, if you get an answer I shall be very, but pleasantly surprised.


Moomin, spot on.


Now, more important, this is the first Weber outing of the year and, at the moment, we have a slight sticking problem due to start of year burning off and insufficient oiling. Off to sort it out.

[CoffmanStarter]

Courtney ... Get one of these old chap ... I did ... an AWT 5 Burner burning Propane. With the cowl down EGT rises quickly to normal ... back off the throttles and the jobs a good en ...

I won't tell BEagle if you swap your Weber in for something a little more sporty :ok:


http://www.comparestoreprices.co.uk/images/unbranded/a/unbranded-antony-worrell-thompson-signature-4-burner-gas-bbq.jpg

PS. The kit pic is correct ... but that's not my back garden :{

[JSFfan]

That statement would certainly seem to undercut the validity of any effort to simulate JSF-versus-anything-Russian-or-Chinese, would it not? One side of these sims is always open-source intel + common sense analysis. Why should such techniques not work in both directions?

who said red air was russian or chinese in the 4 vs 8 ..6:1 LER ???????????

[LowObservable]

EM - Always a good question as to what one actually means by "legacy" or "4gen" or "advanced 4gen". Let's not forget the 2008 paper which compared the F-35 to the Su-30MKI and Gripen C... which pre-date the F-35, in IOC terms, by almost 20 years. If the threat is an even earlier Su standard, or a MiG-29, you can probably score pretty well.

[Courtney Mil]

who said red air was russian or chinese in the 4 vs 8 ..6:1 LER

Good question. But here we go again. So what was it then? I think I could make a well-informed guess about appropriate adversaries. You go ahead and have a go.

[Bevo]

Thanks for posting that. It makes me wonder why they even want to go for full digital in a jet that was designed, aerodynamically, to be hyd/mech/elec. I can't think what advantage FBW will bring to a stable, but agile, jet. Any ideas anyone?

I believe this is part of the answer and it appears to be more about yaw stability in rolling maneuvers with the outer wing stations asymmetrically loaded:

However, Saudi Arabia's 84 F-15SAs on order will have its two outer wing weapons stations activated, making it necessary to implement a fly-by-wire flight control system.

"The main benefit for the fly-by-wire system is to compensate for the stability differences induced by carrying weapons in the one and nine stations - not used to date on any F-15 platform," the USAF says.
I know that the F-15C has ballast in the nose to ensure stability (it was removed, under waiver, for some of the early airshows performed by the company pilots). I’m not sure about the F-15E, but the F-B-W may allow more pitch rate with a more aft CG.

[Rulebreaker]

The only advantage I can think off for fbw on f15 at this stage is envelope protection and stoping the pilots from breaking the jet due to over eagerness.

On the two seat v one if we ever decided to fly a uav from a jet maybe the second crewman would be off benefit.

[Bevo]

I don’t believe I had seen this on this thread. Seems a shame to waste the assets by storing them.

The Netherlands is to place its Lockheed Martin F-35A Joint Strike Fighter test aircraft into temporary storage, pending a final decision on how to replace its air force's Lockheed F-16 fighters.
Newly appointed defence minister Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert announced the decision to park the test assets in a letter to the Dutch parliament on 4 April. A first example - delivered in late 2012 - and a second, expected to be handed over in mid-2013, will be stored at Edwards AFB, California, where they will be kept in airworthy condition and flown occasionally by US Air Force pilots. The effects of the decision will be discussed with the F-35 Joint Program Office.
http://www.flightglobal.com (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/dutch-government-opts-to-store-f-35-test-aircraft-384394/)

[LowObservable]

Bevo - and adding insult to injury, they have to pay parking fees to LockMart!

So the FBW is about re-activating stations one and nine, then. It may also help with flight characteristics generally, and it's also possible that it is a better idea, as the people who understand how to fix analog and electro-mechanical stuff fade away. Plus this description of the current system sounds scary.

Previous incarnations of the jet were equipped with a dual-channel, high-authority, three-axis control augmentation system superimposed on top of a hydro-mechanical system.

:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

[kbrockman]

Bevo,

That's been in the stars for a long time already.
Next week thursday all other alternatives will be presented in the parliament but it seems unlikely (but not at all impossible) that they are going for anything other than the F35, numbers will be much lower than originally planned, the ruling party today stated that even a number as low as 33 is acceptable and workeable.

The problem is that the ruling party VVD (right wing liberal democrats) is very much in bed with LM and Dutch companies involved in the JSF.
The upper echelon of the military (particulary the Air force) is very US oriented, they have wet dream about having another longterm overseas training base in the US which means many visits and longterm stays in the US, which is much prefered over France, cold Sweden or some boring base in the UK; Spain or Germany.

The other services, Army and Navy however have nightmares about the havoc the F35 is going to inflict on the rest of the defense budget, also (and I know this very first hand) the rest of the Air Force is having sleepless nights about future opportunities, 33-38 (of which 6 in the US on a permanent base) aircraft that are substantially more expensive to operate on a per hour base and much of the maintenance (let alone upgrades) which can only be done by LM related private externa companies (contractors)
is going to cut deeply on all available positions in the Dutch Air Force.

Also supporting aircraft like their Trainers or refuellers can be used much less, even further degrading the available positions.

This thing is going to handicap their entire Military, they are now betting heavily on a deeper partnership with other NATO allies (preferably neighbouring nations) to alleviate some of their biggest concerns regarding quantity issues.

With a little bit of bad luck ,and history says that it is completely within the realms of possibilities, there is going to be a steep learning curve in the beginning of its (F35) operational life.
This will inevitably lead to a hightened accident rate for the first 10-15 years.
Every lost F35 will be nothing less than a substantial loss of available power.
Flying the F35 around the good weather bases like they do now in the US is nothing like operating in a highly used airspace, with sometimes very challenging weather conditions in the hands of pilots with widely varying levels of experience.

Besides the introduction of this new platform, they are also going to have to rewrite a lot of the tactics syllabus to compensate for the new feature of stealth, I'm really wondering how they will make this workeable with the limited anount of flying time they will have.

The US , UK and countries like Israel Norway and Singapore, who all have money and resources to burn can maybe make full use of the full capabilities the F35 promises to achieve.
But countries that are more financially challenged will have some real problems achieving the same level of capacity.

Besides all this the question remains, what is the justification for the JSF, the few advantages it offers over its competitiors is completely negated by the fact that countries like the Netherlands have no need for these capabilities.

Also I still remember the beginning of the MLU program for our F16's and how much we added to that upgrade coupled with the fact that many of the F16's subsystems could be developped by our own industries, all that is lost with the F35, for every bolt, codeline or weapon that needs changing we'll be forced to call and pay what LM dictates (no contract can foresee the future that well and predict all the costs long ahead).

This is a historic blunder of epic proportions an it will bring many airforces/militaries down to their knees or severely cripple their longterm prospects.

Today we still have a big edge on most of our most likely future adversaries, most of that edge comes from the fact that the balance between technological capabilities, training doctrine and quantity of material and personnel is still fairly good, the F35 will effectively change that and destabelize it for the worse.


Also as a final thought exercise on what the future can bring for us European nations;
Lately their have been many developments in the world that indicate that the future will most likely hold many challenges for us , on many accounts more than for our US allies.
Contrary to the vast resources the US uncovered in the last decade (OIL and GAS reserves more than anybody else in the world), we in Europe have very little of such reserves.
This means that the Us can (and will) stop fixating on the Middle East and Russia and relay their interests on where they deem them to be served the best, namely the Far East.
We , on the other hand, will be forced to protect our interests and also will need to protect ourselves just because we are located so close to these troubled areas in the world.
We just cannot afford to be fully dependant on the US when it comes to stuff as important as a frontline fighter, certainly not with the terms attached with the JSF (F18, F15 could be acceptable).
We absolutely need to retain the ability to design, build and operate high end fighters like we did before.
Luckily we have all that we need for now and still posses the ability the stay at the edge(forefront) of weaponsystem development.
The Gripen NG, RAFALE and TYPHOON can serve all our needs well into the next couple of decades provided we keep developping upgrades and expand upon their existing capabilities.
In 15-20 years we might want to start thinking about making our own replacment for our DELTA-CANARDS.

Also many people might not like the idea but the defense industry is also a good exporting industry, no need to leave that entirely to our US friends when we can make and sell a valid product ourselves.

[Rhino power]

It may also help with flight characteristics generally
Could be something in that, didn't the USAF lose an F-15D due to loss of controlled flight attributed to an assymmetric fuel load in the underwing drop tanks? I think the USAF pilot didn't manage to eject but the RAF exchange backseater did?

-RP

[JSFfan]

CM...well it seems you need to be part of the RAF F-35 team to know.
As well as Foreign threats, would anyone be surprised if the air forces would also sim their aircraft, including the Typhoon for the RAF and Super Hornet for the RAAF against the F-35?

Mr Liberson : Our current assessment that we speak of is: greater than 6 to 1 relative loss exchange ratio against in 4 versus 8 engagement scenarios—four blue at 35s versus eight advanced red threats in the 2015 to 2020 time frame.

Air Cdre Bentley : ... We have provided that analysis to all the participating nations and to all their officials. They have all of the details of those threats and all of the details of those analyses. Each of those nations, each of those experts in those nations, have taken that analysis and have done analysis of their own and have come up with an agreed position, that the F35 is the best aeroplane for them.

Mr Burbage : ...We do not give one side an advantage or a disadvantage; we put the real data from the airplanes in the simulation and they run up many, many runs to get the numbers we are talking about.

Mr Liberson : And it is very important to note that our constructive simulations that Mr Burbage talks about [is] without the pilot in the loop [and] are the lowest number that we talk about—the greater than six to one. When we include the pilot in the loop activities, they even do better when we include all of that in our partner manned tactical simulation facility.

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

[HalloweenJack]

JSFfan - I`ve asked you a question , its rather rude of you to ignore it.

[Courtney Mil]

Halloween Jack,

I have asked the question and been ignored. Moomin recently asked for credentials at Post#1856:

Can I ask if you are either a pilot or an engineer involved in military aerospace activities? Otherwise it seems like a statement designed to get scorn and ridicule poured on you.

and you have asked the question. As Biggus rightly said at Post#1869,

The answer's no, as I expect you already know, but you won't get that response - just more internet quotes!

And he was absolutely right. All we got was another, irrelavent quote.

Given the lack of substance of his posts and his obvious lack of understanding of anything to do with military aviation and technology, one should probably assume that he is a young, amature enthusiast with more zeal than insight - I'm sure there's a term for that. Unfortunately, the random nature of his posts are not helping the debate here as he has a tendency to pass off assumption and incorrect analysis as fact - not deliberately, I don't think. To be honest, I think at the moment he is doing more harm to the pro-JSF lobby's case because of the number of discredited claims he makes.

I'm not trying to have a go here, I just think it's important to make it clear which posters are reliable and which are not.

[Courtney Mil]

kbrockman,

Thank you for your excellent post. A very interesting piece of analysis. Not sure about your confidence in the UK economy, though. I think what you've said there probably applies to some degree to all potential customers.

[LowObservable]

Mr Liberson : Our current assessment that we speak of is: greater than 6 to 1 relative loss exchange ratio against in 4 versus 8 engagement scenarios—four blue at 35s versus eight advanced red threats in the 2015 to 2020 time frame.

So why did we give LockMart all that money to develop the F-22? Should we not be retiring it, and spending the giga$ programmed for its upgrade on a new AAM for the F-35?

I try not to do math in public, but this sounds like 4x F-35s with a total of 16 AIM-120s versus 8x Su-35s with 48-64 AAMs (R-77 + R-73, both in advanced versions).

On the basis of claimed and demonstrated performance, T/W, wing loading &c, aircraft performance = advantage Sukhoi.

In this scenario (and people who fly these things, jump in and correct me) I presumably want to use my datalinks &c to target each bogey with two AIM-120s, because if I fire everything and do not win decisively, any one of the surviving (and :mad:ed-off) Sukhois can kill all of us like a fox in the chicken run - the "run" in this case being fenced in by kinematics.

That means an average Pk around 0.5 for AMRAAM (very rough - some of my AMRAAM pairs will both kill the same target and some will fail) which is quite reasonable as long as the targets don't do anything effective - but the more the targets anticipate, evade and jam, the closer you have to get to achieve that kind of Pk.

So the key factors in getting that 6:1 are how close the JSFs can get without being detected, and whether/when/how the targets respond to the attack. That's when you have to start guessing about the capability of the Su's radar, IRST and EW suite.

Conclusion 1: The results of such sims are highly dependent on assumptions based on guesswork and analysis, regardless of classification level.

Conclusion 2: The CLER will be extremely sensitive to detection range. For instance, if improved IRST detects and tracks reliably beyond the missile's high-Pk launch range, the JSF may be entering a world of pain.

Conclusion 3: The aforementioned gigabucks being spent to keep the F-22 alive and up-to-date says that the USAF doesn't believe this 6:1 malarkey.

[JSFfan]

CM, engines is the only poster here I listen to, everyone else is shear speculation and LO's above post is a very good example of it

[Courtney Mil]

Actually, LO's post is rather good. If you would like to specify anything you know to be incorrect in his post, perhaps we can both help you out with some explanation. Bear in mind his conclusions are his own, whcich parts of the analysis do you not like?

Also remember we went through all the simulation stuff a couple of weeks ago and you admitted to not understanding it then, so let's not go there again.

[Stuffy]

Interesting thread about the Dutch F35 cancellation:-

Dutch Cancel Order for F-35 JSF|F-35|Forum :: F-16.net (http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-14065.html)

[Courtney Mil]

If the Dutch do withdraw could this be the encouragement other wavering European participants need to pull the plug too?

The biggest risk to the programme is most likely the price rise death-spiral. So, I wonder what price difference a Dutch cancellation might make. Anyway, nothing solid so far.

[LowObservable]

CM - Nobody wants to incur the wrath that will come down upon the first rat to leap over the side. And the problem with the Dutch situation is that while there's a majority coalition that agrees that the idea that JSF is a bad thing, they agree on the cube root of :mad:-all else.

[eaglemmoomin]

Interesting thread about the Dutch F35 cancellation:-

Dutch Cancel Order for F-35 JSF|F-35|Forum :: F-16.net (http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-14065.html)
Not really very interesting at all, the thread is nearly three years old! It really only shows that its been a highly politicised purchase for many years. There is a newer thread. It's fair to say that Boeing and Saab have been lobbying and are making presentations today, however Gen Bogdan is giving a presentation tommorrow.

The reality is that it's far more likely that the Dutch will either just buy less of them or procure later in smaller drips and drops or hang on until the aircraft goes into full rate production and then purchase, and I'm sure there will be varying levels of economic impact for local industries if the Dutch go that route and a corresponding increase in everyone elses purchase hence immense political presure. So you have the double hit of displeasing your political allies, your local aerospace industry and the worker/unions involved.

The problem with any re-tendering process at this point is that it will take years and then you'll have a different set of industrial/political wrangling (Boeing don't have any existing workshare agreements for the F18, and SAAB have a plane in development that carries halfish the armament that the F35 does and has less range than the F35B) to go through with no firm date on your aircraft because your armed forces will inevitably want specific requirements embodying in the purchase all of their asssumptions and planning will have been for this other aircraft and will thus have to change adding yet more delay and cost.

[Courtney Mil]

As it turned out, Moomin, it was quite interesting as it triggered your analysis. Maybe a rather selfish, national perspective, but I hope the Dutch do stay for our sake and your points do offer some hope. It should be a matter of buying the best for a country's needs, but it looks to me like The Netherlands may be driven by other issues. NATO commonality must be an issue too - in some ways a good point to consider.

[LowObservable]

SAAB have a plane in development that carries halfish the armament that the F35 does and has less range than the F35B...

So the F-35 can carry 8 x AAMs and 4 x LGBs? Wake me up when that happens.

http://www.saabgroup.com/Global/Documents%20and%20Images/About%20Saab/Newsroom/News/_SKA3096_gripen_ng_large_dr.jpg

As for range, given that the F-35B has about the same internal fuel fraction as the Gripen, but even if it ever gets external tanks has about the same external fuel in pounds (on an aircraft twice the size) I would be interested to know how it gets better range.

[glojo]

When Scotland get their independence and join NATO, no doubt they will be placing an order for this fine aircraft and that might help keep the price down for the rest of us? :ok:;)

[Courtney Mil]

http://www.belgian-wings.be/Webpages/Navigator/Photos/Airshows/Florennes%202012/Grippen%20Eyes%20Fs%20230612%20KBx%20IMG_4969.jpg

Just for grins...

[eaglemmoomin]

LO are you confusing the UK with Denmark? They are buying the A model not the B. I thought I'd throw in the normal adnauseum refrain about lack of range and payload with respect to the Gripen using the B's specs :8 Then again we have some fairly aircraft carrier specific requirements that they don't.

To be fair I did use the Gripen D's payload and range cos that's the 'cheap' one but the new one is still an ongoing development and if it goes like every other aircraft development I'm sure we'll see the over promise and under deliver, exceeding costs cycle start on the Gripen E.

[CoffmanStarter]

I like that Courtney :ok:

Q ... If you pull up do the eyes close ?

[Biggus]

Surely any assessment of loss exchange ratios in the 2015-2020 timeframe is a fairly pointless exercise - for an aircraft that won't be in service by then! :ok:

[LowObservable]

EM - Denmark? [Shome mishtake here shurely. - Ed.] And the B was the version you compared it to.

I would also check Saab's track record before you assume delays, overruns &c on JAS 39E.

[JSFfan]

Surely any assessment of loss exchange ratios in the 2015-2020 timeframe is a fairly pointless exercise - for an aircraft that won't be in service by then! http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gifYou'd better flick an email to the USMC..they think they are going IOC in 2015

Also remember we went through all the simulation stuff a couple of weeks ago and you admitted to not understanding it then, so let's not go there again. That was when you said you have no idea about the f-35 sims ..wasn't it?
Paraphasing Bentley..... Trying to speculate on something that you do not fully understand is based on false assumptions and false ground rules. If you go in with false assumptions and false ground rules, you will get false answers



"Air Cdre Bentley : If I can talk to simulations, and then Gary can—he probably talks best to simulations—I would say this. You can only truly represent what the F35 is capable of and what other fifth generation and other fourth generation aeroplanes are capable of when you have all of the classified information. Trying to simulate something that you do not fully understand is based on false assumptions and false ground rules. If you go in with false assumptions and false ground rules, you will get false answers."

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

While I am generally pro-JSF, trying to engage JSFfan is kinda like trying to reason with the screaming madman on the street corner. Reminds me of...oh never mind. :ooh:

Anyway, just ignore/block him - he adds little or nothing to the debate. In fact, as a supporter, he adds nothing to the cause either! :hmm:

[JSFfan]

The Dutch seem to have a waver of the OT&E commitment that they brought the 2 f-35 for
eaglemmoomin second paragraph sums up nicely what may happen


As to the Gripen E, if the package price is $150M ea when $150M is the Super Hornet package price ea and the F-35A is FMS package of $180M ea ..it is really false advertising using the word 'cheap' and Gripen in the same sentence



this guy has issues with the prices and such going around and his links are here
Canada and the F-35|F-35|Forum :: F-16.net (http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-23044-start-105.html)

Economically seen it’s not possible, to my opinion, on the long term, building jets and hardly not get them sold
Saab never really succeeded to sell Gripens. 38 Gripens and that’s it. Besides leasing 28 Gripens (Swedish Airforce). Eventually, Saab opted to sell 500 and 400 Gripens

Will you will look at this (or anyone else)? Were I am wrong or what could may be right? Gr. m

Price per Gripen (as stated here)
Quote: The price per plane for Switzerland is solid and lands of 100 million Swiss francs, or 745 million Swedish kronor, for a Gripen E-plane, said Tagesschau.
Sweden, however, said to buy plane between 115 and 130 million Swiss francs (860-970 million) per plane. The number varies depending on the equipment Sweden decide to buy the plane.
According to Defense Minister Tagesschau Karin Enstrom has confirmed that Sweden is paying more per plane.



Price per jet:
Swiss:
CHF 100 = € 81.8 =$105.6

Sweden:
CHF 115 = € 94.07 = $ 121.44
CHF 130 = € 106.34 = $ 137.28


Development costs
Switzerland does not have to pay development costs

Quote: Entwicklungskosten verlangt haben. Offenbar geht es um 330 Millionen Franken, wodurch die Gesamtkosten der Gripen-Beschaffung auf 3,46 Milliarden steigen würden.

Gemäss den Gripen-Kritikern besteht die Gefahr, dass Kosten einfach vom Entwicklungs- in den Upgradetopf umgelagert werden – und diese späteren Aufrüstungen wird die Schweiz bezahlen müssen. Deshalb ist es entscheidend, welche Ausstattung und welche technische Leistung für den Jet vereinbart werden, den die Schweiz kauft


Google translator
Quote: Have called for development costs. Apparently there's about 330 million francs, bringing the total cost of the Gripen procurement would rise to 3.46 billion.

According to critics, the Gripen is a risk that the costs are simply rearranged development in the pot upgrade - and this will have to pay for upgrades later to Switzerland. Therefore, it is important to decide what features and what kind of technical performance for the jet are agreed that Switzerland buys




Excluding development cost: Package deal
o CHF 3,126 million > €2,557.06 million = $3,301.16 million
o Per Gripen E: 116.23 = $150.05 million

Including development costs: Package deal
o CHF 330 million > € 269. million = $348.49 million
o CHF 3,460 million >€ 2,830.27 million = $ 3,653.87 million
o Per Gripen E: €128.64 = $166.08 million


Twoseater: Gripen F
One newly disclosed development is that Sweden and Switzerland plan to operate only the single-seat JAS 39E. “It’s a cost question,” Nystrom explained. “If we were to go with a two-seater, we’d like to have an enhanced back seat, and we don’t have the money for that.” Weapon system operator training would also consume more resources.


Swiss: lease 11 Gripen C/D

Lease: 11 Gripen C/D’s (8 Gripen C / 3 Gripen D)
CHF 44 million per year > € 35.99 million = $ 46.47 million
Till 2021, at least 5 years > CHF 220 million = € 179.96 million = $ 232.33 million

22 Gripen E: CHF 3,126 billion
Lease: CH 220 million
Total: CHF 3,346 billion > € 2.737.01 = $3,533.49

Total per Gripen E: CHF 152.09 million = € 124.41 million = $160.61 million

Quote: The F-5Es have to be retired soon, so Switzerland will lease 11 JAS 39C/D Gripens in 2016-17 as a bridge to the new version. The first of 22 JAS 39Es will arrive in mid-2018. Eleven aircraft are to be handed over by the end of 2019 with the remainder arriving in 2020-21.
The JAS 39Cs will be returned to Sweden one-for-one as the JAS 39Es are delivered, but the JAS 39Ds (three of them) may be retained longer. There is no current plan to replace the country’s Boeing F/A-18C/D Hornets: “We will operate those aircraft as long as possible, and as long as Boeing supports them,” Antognini says.



Flying costs
A. Swiss flying cost Gripen E (based on 180 hours, Swiss)
22 Gripen E: operating cost per year, next 30 years

Per year: CHF 100 million = € 81.8 million = $ 105.6 million
Per Gripen E: CHF 4.54 million = €3.71 million = $ 4.79 million

180 hours: CHF 25,222.22 = € 20,631.67 = $26,635.49 per flying hour
Source: Lt Gen. Markus Gygax, commander Swiss Airforce
Article: Getting the Gripen, Airforces Montly, jan. 2012


B. Swiss flying cost Gripen E (based on 180 hours, Swiss)

Per year: CHF102 = € 83.44 = $ 107.72 (22 Gripens)
Gripen E: CHF 4,63 million > per flying hour: CHF 25,722.22 = €21,040.67 = $27,163.51

Quote: Estimated in the draft are the operating costs: 102 million francs per year (6 million Swiss francs for the operation of real estate included). The operating cost per hour in the template are not explicitly mentioned. This amount, taking into account the specified annual costs for personnel (24 million), maintenance (51 million) and fuel (21 million), more so than in previous presentations Saab journalists presented. The calculation of operating costs per hour sets the Switzerland based on a flight operating time of 180 hours per year. At 22 Gripen, this gives cost of 24'242 francs per flight hour. Saab announced during a presentation in Sweden at a price of less than 10,000 francs. (Basler Zeitung) Here is still a need for clarification. (Basler Zeitung)



Either Saab claims less than CHF10,000 per flying hour
€8,179.96 = $10,560.33 per flying hour

May be this concerns a specific Swedisch situation? For instance Swedisch pilots does not make comparable flying hours as the Swiss (180 hours). As well as the Dutch and Belgium (180 hours)

Interesting, Dutch National Audit Office; when less F35’s will be bought flying hours will raise from 180 hours to 240 flying hours per F35 per year

Preparing For War
NATO demand 160-180 flying hours per pilot per year. If the entire Swedish Air Force would be at this high alert it would stress the economy a lot. A squadron also need time to train new pilots and to replace the old guys retiring or leaving for HQ duty or schools. Therefore there will never be a time when all pilots in the Air Force are in combat status.


There are very few Swedish pilots with a 1000 flying hours

Flying hours Gripen
(may be I am be totally wrong calculating, tried to make some kind of calculation having some idea)

Swedisch Airforce
Total Gripen flying hours (after first delivery):
2000: 12,000 flying hours

2004: 45,000 flying hours (142 Gripens)
2000-2004 > 33,000 flying hours > Per Gripen: 4 years: 232 flying hours > 58 flying hours per year

2005: 60,000 flying hours (159 Gripens)
2004-2005 > 15,000 flying hours > Per Gripen: 94,3 flying hours per year

2007: 96,320 flying hours (193 Gripens)
2005-2007 > 33,320 flying hours > Per Gripen 2 years: 172.6 fling hours > 86.3 flying hours per year

2000-2007 > 84,320 flying hours > Per Gripen 7 years: 436.8 flying hours > 62,4 flying hours per year (193 Gripens)
2008 > 100,000 flying hours




1. The Swiss don’t pay developmentcosts

2. All costs will be paid by the Swedish government, when development of the Gripen E will be more expensive

3. A Gripen F will not be developed. Gripen D’s have to be ordered as well, or training in Sweden?

4. Not included reconnaissance pods, as well as targeting pods (The Swiss want to introduce this capability)

5. Updating will be extremely expensive, when not that much Gripen E’s will be ordered

6. The Gripen E does not exist yet and will have to be developed
According the Swiss chief flight engineer; 70% of the Gripen E exists on paper.

7. Conclusion: after delivery of the first Gripen E’s these jets still will have to be tested for some years. It will take a long time before the Gripen E will be really operational

8. There will be no Gripen F (two seater)

9. The Gripen E will be more expensive, there are no examples of such projects without cost overruns. Either the Swedish government guaranties and will pay cost overruns concerning Swiss Gripens

10. Considering as well, to build a Gripen E a Gripen C will be needed

11. The real cost of a Swedish Gripen E can be seen as the cost of a Gripen C included (as well as development cost included)

12. The Swiss still can decide not to order the Gripen E (When the Swiss population votes against ordering the Gripen)

13. In that case, when no partner will be found, Sweden does not order the Gripen E as well



Source: Gripen THE GRIPEN IS LIKE A KNIFE THAT CUTS BAD
The chief engineer of the Swiss Air Force criticized the Swedish fighter jet

Quote: The list of whistleblowers, however, shows the opposite. The wings, for example, exist only in the computer. The radar is true in parts of the prototype and many components are still in development. Because of this new radar in the aircraft tip future weighs 200 pounds more, the Saab Gripen must extend back to 37 centimeters, so it does not tilt forward. This explains Björn Danielsson, an ex-fighter pilot of the Air Force and consultant of Gripen manufacturer Saab.

Rates: march 21, 2013

[GreenKnight121]

Unfortunately true.

I am a F-35 supporter... and F-35B especially.

However, I do recognize the many difficulties and problems that have occurred, and even though most have been fairly well corrected, cost and slow development rate remain considerable concerns.


That said, JSFfan (and certain other posters on other boards that may well be JSFfan by other names) frustrate me considerably, as they regularly destroy any attempt at a reasoned debate, and cause those whose minds used to be open to evidence to harden their positions and close their minds in reaction to his incessant screaming of "all's well with F-35 and everyone else is stupid".

[Courtney Mil]

Reminds me of...oh never mind.

Like SAMXXV but without the good points.

[Mach Two]

I'm amazed it's taken some of you so long to wake up to to the disruptive and negative effect JSFfan has on this thread. On my ignore list now.

[Biggus]

"Surely any assessment of loss exchange ratios in the 2015-2020 timeframe is a fairly pointless exercise - for an aircraft that won't be in service by then!" :ok:


"You'd better flick an email to the USMC..they think they are going IOC in 2015"...

I'm sure they (USMC) will (and I have actually read some of this thread, so was already aware of that!), and even if they're not fully ready no doubt they will be pressurized into saying they are, but the hint is the letter I in IOC. Time will tell, but I don't think many nations will have fully operational JSF units up and running by 2020. That's my personal opinion, there was another hint in the :ok:

[Courtney Mil]

M2, as you well know, I have been alive to JSFfan's annoying behavior for a while now. There is a whiff of the juvenile about it all and an amazingly selective memory. There is also a lot of picking up other people's responses on other forums and pasting them in here as if they are exactly what he was thinking - or in some cases his own words.

I can read all the internet material I wish to, I don't need some kid to keep pasting chunks of it here so that I have to wade through his rubbish to get at the discussion.

Back to business...

I'm not at all surprised to see Switzerland waltzing towards the Grippen - maybe not necessarily for all the right reasons. But assuming the Swiss aren't likely to fight Russia or China anytime soon, it could turn out to be a reasonable choice for them in the long term.

[kbrockman]

NL comission presentations so far:
First up, SaaB Gripen
-Best value for money
-Got a lot of follow up questions
-Really bad English

2nd F35 by LM
-Shady second hand car dealer impression
-many vague promises about future items/plans.
-Used old sales numbers to show that scale of economy is crucial to keep the price low
-Managed to insult (granted not deliberatelly) one of the commission members.

3rd Rafale by Dassault
-Seemed very good prepared
-Was very open about pretty much everything
- The only thing he didn't answer was unit price. He said that would be determined if the Dutch opened up for a new full evaluation off all craft and would be dependent on type of aircraft, specific equipment, spare parts and ammo delivered with the aircraft. There would also be access to and participation with the upgrade projects, also There would be a substantial order from dassault in the Dutch economy as part of the offset.


LTG Bogdan today, just missed the livefeed -> anybody who saw it pls comment.

Last Boeing for the SH starting 14.30h
Live debat plenaire zaal - Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal (http://www.tweedekamer.nl/vergaderingen/commissievergaderingen/live_debatten_commissiezalen/player.jsp?zaal=N) 005&title=Wttewaal van Stoetwegenzaal&analoog=Encoder06_Wittewaal_Extern350k&adsl=Encoder06_Wittewaal_Extern500k

If you want to see you'll have to select connection type first

[Courtney Mil]

Kbrock,

Thanks for the update. Breaking news!!! Smart move by Dassault to offer the offset, might that make up for being under-cut by SAAB?

Sounds like a poor effort by LM, but I'm not that surprised that they're fielding old sales figures after Bloomberg quoted the programme as seven years behind schedule and 70 percent over initial cost estimates.

[kbrockman]

looks like Boeing is also very good prepared (didn't saw the first part though) and seems to promisse offset possibilities from the whole Boeing company, not defense part alone.

[Bastardeux]

Italy May Cut $6.6 Billion in Defense Spending This Year - Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-16/italy-may-cut-6-6-billion-in-defense-spending-this-year.html)

Looks like the Italians' quite frankly ludicrous official order of 90 jets is about to take another massive hit...possibly fatally.

Reading of them cutting their measly budget down to E20 billion, suddenly makes me feel rather fortunate that I'm in the RAF!!

[eaglemmoomin]

NL comission presentations so far:
First up, SaaB Gripen
-Best value for money
-Got a lot of follow up questions
-Really bad English

2nd F35 by LM
-Shady second hand car dealer impression
-many vague promises about future items/plans.
-Used old sales numbers to show that scale of economy is crucial to keep the price low
-Managed to insult (granted not deliberatelly) one of the commission members.

3rd Rafale by Dassault
-Seemed very good prepared
-Was very open about pretty much everything
- The only thing he didn't answer was unit price. He said that would be determined if the Dutch opened up for a new full evaluation off all craft and would be dependent on type of aircraft, specific equipment, spare parts and ammo delivered with the aircraft. There would also be access to and participation with the upgrade projects, also There would be a substantial order from dassault in the Dutch economy as part of the offset.


LTG Bogdan today, just missed the livefeed -> anybody who saw it pls comment.

Last Boeing for the SH starting 14.30h
Live debat plenaire zaal - Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal (http://www.tweedekamer.nl/vergaderingen/commissievergaderingen/live_debatten_commissiezalen/player.jsp?zaal=N) 005&title=Wttewaal van Stoetwegenzaal&analoog=Encoder06_Wittewaal_Extern350k&adsl=E ncoder06_Wittewaal_Extern500k

If you want to see you'll have to select connection type first Hang on? If that was LM the castigation would be running amok. Personally I'd rather look at whats happening in Brazil, India, Oman and the UAE with respect to the Dassault offer, Brazil and India probably being the most interesting as those have technology transfer and indigenous production (Dassault appear to be saying that they won't be prime contractor/integrator for the non French built Rafales).

Ultimately I think Bogdan is the most important figure here as it's what he has to say regarding the F35 that is the most important as he already has a track record in the US of righting troublesome aircraft development programs and he's in charge of ensuring the US government get a working airplane.

[Courtney Mil]

Moomin, yes how the Dassault bids play out in Brazil and UAE in particular, not so much India or Oman as I don't think they're seen as potential customers for F-35 yet - and it's current and potential customers that are likely to affect the price we eventually pay.

As for the no stated unit price thing, I doubt any of the three could offer any kind of price guarantee in this instance for a number of reasons; model, support contracts and numbers being the first that spring to my mind, so I wouldn't read too much into that just now.

I was going to say think of it like walking into a car salesroom, but realised that would be completely wrong. With the car, you can usually end up paying less than the first quoted price. With the aircraft, you can pretty much guarantee the cost will only go up - no matter which manufacturer you're talking to.

[eaglemmoomin]

Moomin, yes how the Dassault bids play out in Brazil and UAE in particular, not so much India or Oman as I don't think they're seen as potential customers for F-35 yet - and it's current and potential customers that are likely to affect the price we eventually pay.

As for the no stated unit price thing, I doubt any of the three could offer any kind of price guarantee in this instance for a number of reasons; model, support contracts and numbers being the first that spring to my mind, so I wouldn't read too much into that just now.

I was going to say think of it like walking into a car salesroom, but realised that would be completely wrong. With the car, you can usually end up paying less than the first quoted price. With the aircraft, you can pretty much guarantee the cost will only go up - no matter which manufacturer you're talking to.

Oh I agree CM, my personal opinion is that any modern fighter aircraft development is an expensive business cost wise as soon as the teeny tiny wafer of requirements raises it's head, lets face it the F35 is very ambitious and has imho gone from being a 'cheap' F16 replacement to being a multi-role 'everyplane' and the oft repeated mantra of it's price is that you have to buy a lot of them to maintain the price. It's like the T45's which should have been 500m/600m for 12 off but ended up over a billion each for 6.



I don't think there's any such thing as an OTS buy for a military fast jet

[Courtney Mil]

I think you have hit the nail on the head regarding the ambitious role growth of F-35. I can see why they have done it, but the sort of discussion the Netherlands are having now may be the result. It's certainly not a cheap F-16 replacement anymore and the bad timing of the recession won't be good for sales to small Euro countries.

[LowObservable]

The F-35 requirements have not been tightened - indeed if you call cost and schedule requirements, they've been relaxed.

The problem was always that they set out to do everything for a sub-F-16 LCC. Unfortunately there are no chapters entitled "Bibbedy-Bobbedy-:mad:ing-Boo" in either the works of Adam Smith or Theodore von Karman.

EM - You can't offer a price until someone writes a requirement that you can meet. As far as I know the Cloggies have never done this. So to that extent Dassault is being honest. They also apparently said this week that they would only play if the ground-rules were open.

This is sensible in view of the Noggies' action in 2008, when they pretended to have a competition, and than made up lots of growth factors on Saab's fixed-price offer while accepting LockMart's moonsh... I mean, optimistic predictions like Holy Writ.

[eaglemmoomin]

LO I was talking about technical requirements as in system requirements for the avionics, sensors, engine, software, maintenance facilities, simulators and the base line KPPs I'm sure you realised that.

[SpazSinbad]

F-35 Ops Cost Exceeds F-16 By 10% 18 Apr 2013 Amy Butler

F-35 Ops Cost Exceeds F-16 By 10% (http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a6345dff9-c4c4-4298-b842-a4c806bdbc38)

"The long and sometimes contentious wait for a cost-per-flying-hour for the new F-35 is over.

The single-engine F-35A is expected to cost about 10 percent more to operate than the F-16 it is intended to replace for the U.S. Air Force and other international military services, according to U.S. government officials.

USAF Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, program executive officer overseeing the F-35 program, told Dutch lawmakers that the cost-per-flying-hour for the F-35A, which The Netherlands intends to buy, is $24,000, according to an Air Force spokeswoman. He [Bogdan] provided the data to Dutch legislators, including a “side-by-side comparison of flying hour costs between the F-16 and the F-35,” she says.

She says Bogdan characterized the figures as “preliminary.”...

...The Air Force has worked for months to refine this cost-per-flying-hour figure. In January, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh said his staff and Lockheed Martin were trying to reconcile two different numbers for a cost per flying hour.

The company's view of ownership cost is lower than that of the service. "It was characterized in a different way, a different format," Welsh said. Of interest to Welsh and other customers is an "apples to apples" comparison to the F-16 and A-10 that F-35 will replace.

Company officials had argued the cost of some subsystems, such as the electro-optical target system, or information technology systems used to support the aircraft, should not be included in the F-35 lifecycle estimate because they are not calculated in the price of operating legacy aircraft."

[Rhino power]

The news just keeps getting better and better for the Joint Shyte Fighter don't it? :ugh:

-RP

[Mk 1]

Well 10% is by far and away better than some of the estimates I've seen thrown about (double etc).

[Just This Once...]

That is true but when you get to the point of deleting bits of kit from the cost-per-hour estimates then the customers are going to get nervous. It was these very same bits of kit that made the aircraft competitive and to adjust in this way smacks of spin. I'm sure if I deleted all the features the F-16 has over the Hawk from the costs-per-hour I could make it look pretty cheap too.

It is unwise to split-out the cost of the EOTS just because podded systems are costed separately on 'legacy' jets. Removing, repairing, modifying or upgrading a pod is relatively easy and does not necessarily ground a legacy aircraft; as an embedded and integrated system upgrading EOTS will not be as easy. If, as seems likely, the USMC add a pod in addition to the EOTS then the costs for both will have to be shown on balance sheet somewhere.

[ORAC]

Company officials had argued the cost of some subsystems, such as the electro-optical target system, or information technology systems used to support the aircraft, should not be included in the F-35 lifecycle estimate because they are not calculated in the price of operating legacy aircraft." such as a satellite system to enable the F-35 to datalink with the ground or other aircraft types?*

*MADL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multifunction_Advanced_Data_Link) is a stealthy intra-formation Ku band system using 6 directional conformal aerials. External link is by means of a conformal top surface satellite system - now planned for Block 4+. The satellite system will not be cheap, especially in higher latitudes where a constellation will be required, which is one of the issues giving Canada and Norway kittens.

[BEagle]

And how many of the $1M F-35 bone domes will the Netherlands need? I'm sure that Gripen pilots don't need such ridiculously expensive devices to get the best out of their superb little jets.

Gripen, Rafale and Super Hornet are all compatible with European tankers, whereas F-35A needs a boom tanker, of which Europe has but few - apart from the 2 KDC-10s of the RNAF. No doubt the 'Lockheed Liars' could quote a price for fitting a probe though - then double it.

Gripen or Rafale would suit the RNAF admirably - and end reliance on the US!

[SpazSinbad]

'ORAC' your link does not mention satellite at all but this: "Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL) is a future data waveform to provide secure data-linking technology between stealth aircraft. It began as a method to coordinate between F-35 aircraft (the Joint Strike Fighter), but HQ Air Combat Command wants to expand the capabiltiy to coordinate future USAF strike forces of all AF stealth aircraft, including the B-2, F-22, and unmanned systems. MADL is expected to provide needed throughput, latency, frequency-hopping and anti-jamming capability with phased Array Antenna Assemblies (AAAs) that send and receive tightly directed radio signals.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multifunction_Advanced_Data_Link#cite_note-1) MADL uses the Ku band (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_band).[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multifunction_Advanced_Data_Link#cite_note-2)"

Note 1 link no work and here is a bit from lengthy explaino for Note 2 from above:

"...Originally, stealth data links were an integral part of the F-35 mission system, restricting data communications within F-35 formations, or between F-35 and specialized communication-gateway platforms. The Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL), developed by Harris specifically for the F-35, provides a low-observable link that enables communications within F-35 formations and with MADL-equipped command-and-control elements. MADL uses six antennas providing spherical coverage around the aircraft. It use a Ku narrowband waveform employed in a “daisy chain” scheme—the first aircraft sends the directional signal to a second aircraft, then to a third aircraft, and so on...."

[ORAC]

Canadian F-35 Satellite issues/ plans (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/story/2011/10/25/north-arctic-f-35-satellite.html) and Norway's (http://theforeigner.no/pages/news/communications-trouble-for-norway-f-35s/).

[SpazSinbad]

Norwegian link says: "...The F-35 has the same communications capabilities as today’s F-16s.”

“Norway continually assesses the F-35’s technology planned for F-35 integrations. We are also considering alternative options to secure communications over longer distances. This can be varying forms of satellite-based communications, or indeed other types. It is still too early to say anything about the final solution. Initially, it will on the same level as today’s, and improved gradually.”"

IF the Canuks are not buying the F-35 does this comm problem devolve to successor aircraft? Link is from 2011 BTW.

[LowObservable]

Spaz - First of all, I think you follow this stuff closely enough to know very well that the idea of MADL for F-22, B-2 and anything else (including plans to plug MADL into the wider world via an airborne gateway) was trashcanned a couple of years ago.

As for satcoms, the Canadians use this:

http://www.drs.com/Products/Training/PDF/FaceII.pdf

It would presumably be possible to put it on an F-35 pylon, but it renders the aircraft non-stealthy. It is also available in internal form:

http://www.drs.com/Products/Training/PDF/FaceIII.pdf

Under contract for JAS 39E - see small print under the pic.

As ORAC noted, this is a constellation (Iridium) system so it works anywhere, whereas geostationary satellites are more problematic with higher latitudes because the antenna needs near-hemispheric coverage. Raise problem and cost by an order of magnitude or three for stealth compatibility.

JTO - I don't think anyone has told the Dutch about the potential need for a separate pod (with HDTV, Rover and a wider field of regard).

[JSFfan]

MADL however, is not “mature” enough to install on the Raptor without incurring too much risk, said Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz.
“We should let the F-35 development effort mature before tacking it onto the F-22, this was a cost and a risk calculation on our part,” the four-star told the House Appropriations defense subcommittee today.

the f-35 gets SATCOM in block 3/4 doesn't it?

[Courtney Mil]

Once again, thank you for posting stuff we've already read and been discussing all day. What point are you trying to make?

[JSFfan]

I didn't see my point posted and LO must have missed it too "First of all, I think you follow this stuff closely enough to know very well that the idea of MADL for F-22, B-2 and anything else (including plans to plug MADL into the wider world via an airborne gateway) was trashcanned a couple of years ago"

I saw that LO and canada's talk was about f-35 now and not when it gets it's SATCOM which I think is in block 3/4, again a point that I didn't see posted

[Courtney Mil]

To bring you up to speed with the discussion as I doubt you'll read or take any notice. Block 4. 2020 earliest. Insufficient satellite coverage at high latitudes.

Back to the debate. I did see in one of the links a statement about providing two satellites to give coverage in the high arctic. Er, how would you do that? It would be useful if you could make a satellite stay up in the arctic.

[JSFfan]

I think it's also that Canada are currently using a satphone connection which is narrow band and the f-35 SATCOM will be a wideband capability.

[LowObservable]

CM - One high-latitude coverage trick is a satellite in "Molniya" orbit - highly elliptical with apogee over the poles. Invented by the Sovs.

[SpazSinbad]

VIDEO: Jump jet simulator smoothes out landings
18 April 2013 | England (http://www.bfbs.com/news/regions/england) UK (http://www.bfbs.com/news/regions/uk) By Tim Cooper (http://www.bfbs.com/news/people/tim-cooper.html)

Jump jet simulator smoothes out landings | British Forces News (http://www.bfbs.com/news/england/jump-jet-simulator-smoothes-out-landings-63336.html)

Download VIDEO: (11.7Mb)
http://www.bfbs.com/news/sites/ssvc.com.bfbs.news/files/video/news_articles/fnweb_bae_test_pilot.mp4

"A unique computer simulator is helping to integrate the latest generation of aircraft carrier with its aircraft, the F35 Lightning II. Engineers are using high tech software to see what it will be like to land the fighter jet on the ship. The work is helping to iron out problems before they arise and save millions of pounds.
Interviewees:
Peter Wilson, BAE Systems
Dr Steve Hodge, BAE Systems Modelling and simulation
Lt Commander Chris Gotke, Air Ship Integration specialist"
_______________

Clip from above video showing an SRVL Touchdown and Approach View ONLY: SRVL Touchdown CVF Simulation

SRVL Touchdown CVF Simulation - YouTube (http://youtu.be/R5FZGHs-ZvY)

[Engines]

Spaz,

Very informative post- thank you. Good to see FAA pilots leading the effort to get the most out of the aircraft from the ship, and get two complex systems working properly together. That's the essence of the naval aviation challenge.

Best Regards as ever to those actually doing the hard stuff on the F-35, and doing it well

Engines

[eaglemmoomin]

That is true but when you get to the point of deleting bits of kit from the cost-per-hour estimates then the customers are going to get nervous. It was these very same bits of kit that made the aircraft competitive and to adjust in this way smacks of spin. I'm sure if I deleted all the features the F-16 has over the Hawk from the costs-per-hour I could make it look pretty cheap too.

It is unwise to split-out the cost of the EOTS just because podded systems are costed separately on 'legacy' jets. Removing, repairing, modifying or upgrading a pod is relatively easy and does not necessarily ground a legacy aircraft; as an embedded and integrated system upgrading EOTS will not be as easy. If, as seems likely, the USMC add a pod in addition to the EOTS then the costs for both will have to be shown on balance sheet somewhere. I'm not sure if that pod is confirmed and I thought that was for EW use. I think it's Terma that makes the 'stealthish' gun pod and that I believe that they are modifying it to be multi mission capable. All that said if the Israeli additional EW kit is shared with other variants depending on a) what it is and b) what it does then maybe that desire lessens.

I thought the F16 is $22K per hourish from what I saw on F16.net and the F18 in the ball park of $23K to $24K so the JSF being in around that including all the additional kit seems decent to me. I'm pretty sure the LM figures that Gen Bogdan has refered to previously as being a 'problem' for him and not the USAF calculation were $21K to $22K ish.

[Courtney Mil]

Does it look like they found a use for the old twin dome combat sim there? Part of the infrastructure and projection looked somewhat familiar. It certainly looks a lot more pilot friendly to land than anything we've seen before.

A question for those in the know. How do gusty conditions affect the aircraft doing a RSVL? It looks like there's stopping room to spare, so is adding a few knots to the forward speed in those conditions a viable option? Looks to me like it should be.

Some familiar faces there. Good work, chaps.

[Courtney Mil]

As an aside, did they really need the sim to work out that parking the jets at an angle leaves more deck space? Probably the journo picking up on something he was told. BFBS has come a long way though.

[Just This Once...]

I'm not sure if that pod is confirmed and I thought that was for EW use.

We are talking about different things but the USMC hoped-for EO targeting pod is not funded yet but I have not heard of any intent to use the centreline station for it as it would preclude the gun.

Back in the day the IR-only EOTS looked good enough but the community has got very used to the latest generation of high definition colour TV pictures and features such as Rover capability. For the USMC the F-35 will be a CAS asset for the other 364 days so the lack of 'day color' remains a concern for them.

[Engines]

Courtney,

Perhaps I can help - I was working at LM when the first SRVL studies were done. They've been doing CVF work in the dome for around 8 years now, I think.

The F-35 is a very stable beast in powered lift. That is due to a number of factors, including quite high inertia (lots of mass), good amounts of control power, but most importantly a very advanced stability and control system.

What that adds up to is an aircraft that's resistant to gusts and, as the guys in the clip point out, very easy to fly compared to the Harrier. This is a point that most discussion of SRVLs overlooks - vastly better handling qualities and simple logic for approach and landing.

Brits have played a central role in the F-35 (especially BAE), taking on (and beating) some of the toughest challenges on the STOVL aircraft. This is another example of their achievements. They don't get enough credit for them, in my view.

Best Regards as ever to the future STOVL team

Engines

[eaglemmoomin]

CM
Probably not but it's an actual model that can be seen and manipulated. A picture being worth a thousand words and all that then add in all the statistical stuff I suspect that they could pull out of the backend to back up the conclusion and it's a lot easier to get people to buy into an idea with some half decent evidence.

[Courtney Mil]

Both good answers, thank you.

[eaglemmoomin]

Have a look at this, everytime I see Bogdan interviewed he comes off very well and normally corrects a few inaccuracies. All that said I bet that 85mill does not include the engine. He was quite careful about stating that there would be two 'not to exceed' price contracts per aircraft for the future unsigned production lots and those are I imagine the FRP costs not the existing LRIP aircraft contracts.

Leider JSF-project bezoekt Nederland - Video - Nieuwsuur.nl (http://nieuwsuur.nl/video/497318-leider-jsfproject-bezoekt-nederland.html)

[LowObservable]

EM - from what I saw on F16.net

And there's your problem right there, squire.

Also: JTO has a point - when you start trying to make things "fair" by deleting the cost of permanent pieces of the jet you introduce another set of distortions. In addition to JTO's points about EOTS having a bigger impact than the pod, you don't fly the Sniper every time you fly the jet.

And Bogdan has been loudly on record about operating costs having to be fixed, so for him to say that the delta is only 10 per cent is odd.

CPFH comparisons, sadly, are hard to do and easy to fiddle. Parts are relatively easy. Manhours not, because they depend on labour rates (which in the USG, for example, are high when fully costed) but also on training, But then there are practices like USAF depots that like to put brand-new parts on 30-year-old T56s... And then do you count fuel (Saab would like you to)?

[eaglemmoomin]

LO I don't operate an F16 I've never even sat in one. Unless the comparisons include the same items it's meanless. Can you do an A) to B) comparison for me then?

Or are you saying that Bogdan a USAF general in charge of running an undelivered procurement program is in LM's back pocket now? He's been fairly vocal about where he see's issues and areas where he is happy that things are under control. As of right now if he is willing to state to the Dutch parliament in a public forum while they are debating their future defence planning assumptions that the operating cost of an F35A is $23,900 per hour and thats 10% above the cost of operating an F16 from his perspective as the 'customer' programme director then thats the figure that is being used in all the planning assumptions.

The lower LM price that JSF fan keeps quoting is the one thats missing the additional kit. Bogdan's figure includes the maintenance of that additional kit hence as of right now that price seems reasonable given that each new generation of jet the running costs go up.

[JSFfan]

I agree the $24k doesn't sound right, Aussies costed it at $21k @ 200 hrs per year for 30 years.
USA has a higher SDD cost, is that included in cost per flight hour which may explain why the usaf is more, as costed by USAF and CAPE

NOTE.. it isn't a LM or JPO price

he did clarify that the $85ish mil was a then price and $75m in todays dollars and yes it includes an engine

Bogdan confirmed figures from Lockheed Martin that a device that Netherlands is possible to buy in 2020 will cost. Approximately $ 85 million. That's about 75 million dollars if you convert to this day, he added. "That is the maximum that I would pay for it. Aircraft" He expects the cost of the unit will go even further down.
(Google translate)

here is the interview
Leider JSF-project bezoekt Nederland - Video - Nieuwsuur.nl (http://nieuwsuur.nl/video/497318-leider-jsfproject-bezoekt-nederland.html)

[Courtney Mil]

I don't think I can remember a time when anyone came up with a true estimate of a future aircraft's operating costs. No point in getting too excited about it yet; there is a long way to go and way too many unforseen issues yet to come. With the best will in the world, today's estimates are always based on the current state of the project and/or what the forecastesters hope will convince the people with the purse strings to remain on side.

[peter we]

Costs are only remotely comparable within the same service, in the same country and at a specific point in time.

A relative difference eg +10% is about as specific as you can expect. Absolute dollar figures are not going to be comparable using the information given to the public domain.

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

I don't think I can remember a time when anyone came up with a true estimate of a future aircraft's operating costs. No point in getting too excited about it yet; there is a long way to go and way too many unforseen issues yet to come. With the best will in the world, today's estimates are always based on the current state of the project and/or what the forecastesters hope will convince the people with the purse strings to remain on side.

Yes! At last some intelligent commentary on this issue!

Just like every jet that has come before it and every jet that will come after it, the F-35 operating cost will be comparatively high at first as initial support contracts are let and corporate knowledge builds up. But as the second round of support contracts are tendered and as the fleet grows, it will come down the bathtub curve until the fleet size and level of experience is such that it will flatten out to an optimal level (with occasional bumps as new software loads or tech refreshes are added). It will then start coming up the other side of the bathtub as the jet ages and major components needs additional maintenance or refurbishment. No one can honestly predict with any certainty what numbers to assign besides these points on the curve...

This is probably as much the USG's and LM's fault as the general commentariat, but we're all so keen to compare the F-35 with the F-16 or F/A-18 (both of which, in Block 40/50 or late C/D & early E/F forms respectively are currently hitting their 'cheapest they'll ever be' points in their operating cost curves), that we're missing the point. 'Out of the box' the F-35 will be more capable than the F-16/FA-18/Harrier/insert 4th gen type here it is designed to replace, and inevitably, there will be an initial cost imposition associated with such a capability leap.

If you want cheap to maintain fighters (and thus to just maintain parity with other current types) then by all means buy more or refurb F-16s/FA-18s/F-15s/Gripens etc....and then in 15 years time you'll be going through this same process again and thinking, "If only we hadn't spent all that money on an interim type/refurb, and instead bought new F-35s!"

[JSFfan]

There is an unfouded perception that legacy jets are 'cheap'

F-35A CPFH 10% more than F-16|F-35|Forum :: F-16.net (http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-23789-start-15-sid-37ff0ae6dd8ba4b6c54b1a135660d550.html)
Cost per flying hour as general Bogdan mentioned in the Netherlands, house of parliament, is actually lower than $24,000 per flying hour, $23,900 per flying hour.
The general either compared cost per flying either with US F16 C/D’s (200-240 flying hours?).
As well he mentioned a expected price of a F35A in 2020.

Flying cost per hour of a Dutch and Belgium F16MLU is €20,000 = $ 26,230 per flying hour (180 flying hours)
Till 2015, cost per flying hour of a Dutch F16MLU will stay the same.
After 2015, every year a raise of €10 million per year, till 2020. After 2020 a steep raise till 2027.

Compared: in case a possible cost per flying hour of a F35A
F35: $23,900

o F16 C/D: $21,500
o F16 MLU: €20,000 = $26,230 / 180 flying hours (till 2015)
o Gripen E: CHF24,242 = $26,111.52 / 180 flying hours

Foreign comparisons, more expensive per flying hour (percentage)
- F16 MLU: $2,330 > + 9.74% (till 2015)
- Gripen E: $2,211,52 > + 9.25%

Note figures:
- F35A: US circumstances and calculation
- F16C/D: US circumstances and calculation
- F16 MLU: Dutch & Belgium circumstances and calculations
- Gripen E: Swiss circumstances and calculation by the Swiss

* Based on rates: april 20, 2013



@ EM
EM - from what I saw on F16.net
LO-And there's your problem right there, squire.

don't worry LO says the same about the SLD interviews with the pilots and planners, infact anyone who knows what's going on..there are a few die hards on the forums and press..though it seems avweek have decided to change paths and have dropped the Sweetman style rubbish they were posting

[Finningley Boy]

I personally think that the future Defence plans of the United Kingdom are increasingly unclear. Putting the distant possibility of Scottish independence aside, there is still the question of the far more likely event of a Labour Victory at the polls in 2015. I this happens I don't care how middle of the road people think red ed will be, regardless of the coffers, he will undo the military from behind as usual. Defence capability will be seen as surplus if not actively engaged on some sort of mission like counter-insurgency or in support of a rebel faction somewhere or other.

It is from that moment that the future of the F35 programme, at whatever stage it will be, will come under a realistic threat of cancellation. Only I don't think we'll get a Healey alternative this time.

FB

[Heathrow Harry]

good point - can't see Dave winning the election and I'm sure Millband is already preparing a really nice set of offers for the Liberals - cut the F35 & Trident - buy some more destroyers, helicopters to operate off the carriers and Typhoons ("British jobs!!") and still cash left over

[LowObservable]

HH - An interesting scenario, particularly since BAE/RR would retain their workshare (US- and UK-domiciled) in JSF.

FA-18 - The trouble with "no one can honestly predict" is that if you run an AF you have to try, in order to engage in rational planning. It is not impossible but the answers will vary from nation to nation, and it does require integrity and non-fantasy predictions. For instance, if the annnual R&D bill for F-35 upgrades is even half that of the F-22, and if we get quickly to a 1000-jet fleet, then each jet still carries a $500K/year assessment - $2-$2.5K per flight hour right there before you pay for individual mods. And those are mature and optimistic numbers.

And with this many a/c on order, this many hours flown and 12 years into the program, to say that we can't predict operating cost is damning.

[Courtney Mil]

FA18, I love the bathtub graph.

Worrying thoughts about future governments, though.

[Rhino power]

Looks like the Joint ****e Fighter has avoided having its head put on the financial chopping block, for now... Obama's budget plan appears to spare F-35 and V-22 programs | Business | Dallas Business... (http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/04/20/4790150/obamas-budget-plan-appears-to.html?storylink=addthis#.UXN0j0IL1pI.email)

-RP

[eaglemmoomin]

They've built over a 120 of the things so far and large amounts of American industry jobs depend on it. The Americans are not us they attempt to protect their indigenous technology industries. It is way beyond unlikely that they would ever cancel it, they will just slow procurement or buy less during the development phase which still has another two odd years to go and buy in the production phase.



Plus ok I'll bite, why is it the JSF actually '****e' can you actually define it in a way that doesn't make you look like you've thrown the toys out of the pram because we haven't bought something else please? It's like reading JSFfan's missives only in reverse.

[Courtney Mil]

It's like reading JSFfan's missives only in reverse.

I love it, Moomin. :D:D:D It seems we have both ends of the spectrum, then.

[Rhino power]

Plus ok I'll bite, why is it the JSF actually '****e' can you actually define it in a way that doesn't make you look like you've thrown the toys out of the pram because we haven't bought something else please? It's like reading JSFfan's missives only in reverse.

As Courtney intimated, just providing a little balance, I know its not really ****e, well not completely... And, if and when it lives up to whatever promises LM are saying it will this week, i'll gladly refer to it as the Joint Splendid Fighter! ;)

-RP

P.S. (off topic, sorry) how do you get the name of the original poster to appear in the top left corner of quote boxes?

[SpazSinbad]

CF-35 Lightning II Brief 15 April 2013: http://t.co/c8cKsXKJst (PDF 2.3Mb)

http://f-35.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/CF-35-Lightning-II.pdf (same link)

"...Greater than 700 nm mission radius in both air-to-air and air-to-surface low observable combat configurations..."
__________________

Possible reason for range change....

PARLIAMENTARY JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE 20 MARCH 2012
Department of Defence annual report 2010-11 (Public)

House of Representatives Committees ? Parliament of Australia (http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House_of_Representatives_Committees?url=/jfadt/defenceannualreport_2010_2011/hearings.htm)

“...Senator FAWCETT: I have one last question, if I can. Speaking of the key performance indicators, obviously for the overall program they are cost, schedule and performance. In cost and schedule we have seen a number of changes and rebaselining to allow for things that have happened. In terms of the KPIs against your original ops requirement document — you do not have to disclose which ones have not been met — but at this point in time have all of the original essential requirements from the ORD been met?

Mr Burbage: We have 16 key performance parameters on this airplane. Half are logistics and sustainment-related, half are aeroperformance-related and one or two are in classified areas. We have an oversight body called the Joint Requirements Oversight Council, the JROC, that looks at those requirements every year and makes decisions on them — 'Are we going to meet them, are we not going to meet them? If we are not going to meet them, what is the impact of that?' We have one this year which was the range of the Air Force airplane which had a specific set of ground rules associated with how that range is calculated which is not similar to either of the other two airplanes. The airplane flies a large part of its mission at a non-optimised altitude in the original calculation. The JROC agreed to change the ground rules to fly that airplane as the other two were flown and, when that happened, the airplane had excess margin to the range requirement. For any performance-related requirements, we artificially penalise the engine by five per cent fuel flow and two per cent thrust. Those margins are given back as we mature the design and get more and more solid on exactly what it is going to do. They are there for conservative estimation up front. We have not taken back any of those margins yet so, when those margins are taken back, the airplane will continue to be well in excess of its basic requirement. The airplane is meeting all of the other requirements today.

Senator FAWCETT: So have those requirements like schedule & cost been rebaselined, or are they are still the original ORD?

Mr Burbage: Schedule and cost are not KPPs. I thought you were talking about performance.

Senator FAWCETT: No, I recognise that. You have rebaselined schedule and cost as you have gone along. What I am asking is have the KPIs been rebaselined & does the statement you just made apply to today's KPIs or does it also apply to the original ones?

Mr Burbage: To the original set. Today, all the KPPs are green because that ground rule was changed to be common across all three airplanes on the range. But we have not taken back the margins that are being withheld to make sure those performance predictions are conservative. We are not going to have degraded engines. We basically measure our performance characteristics with a highly-degraded engine capability. Our actual flight test information coming back from the engine is better than nominal. These calculations are not done using actual airplane test data. They are done using an artificial penalty that gets paid back as the design matures....”

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

...how do you get the name of the original poster to appear in the top left corner of quote boxes?

You type in square open bracket, i.e. "[", then "quote=Rhino Power", without the quote marks of course, then close square bracket "]".

The name must be correctly spelled and capped otherwise it wont take.

[ITman]

I see that the Australians are going for some more F-18's, just awaiting for US approval's....

[JSFfan]

we have approval, just waiting till we decide/announce how many..the 12 growlers is a given and more than likely another 12 18f's to make 36 18f's which also include the original 12 18f's wired for growler.

what/how many we keep of them is decided post 2025

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

Don't put money on the extra Super Hornets...an LOR was submitted ONLY so we could move quickly if it becomes necessary to buy more rather than have to THEN go through the convoluted approval process. :cool:

It's a long way from a done deal... :suspect:

[Trackmaster]

I strongly suspect it is a deal that has already been done and will be announced before the planned Federal election on September 14.
"Look at us....we are serious about defence. And here's an extra Air Warfare Destroyer as well, that'll keep the shipyards busy. And here's an order for a couple of hundred Australian designed and built Hawkei light armoured vehicles, to be built in a marginal government seat"
:rolleyes:

[Romulus]

Don't put money on the extra Super Hornets...an LOR was submitted ONLY so we could move quickly if it becomes necessary to buy more rather than have to THEN go through the convoluted approval process.

It's a long way from a done deal...

To see how the Govt views the likelihood of delivery check the budget papers for the civil upgrade works associated with getting Williamtown and Tindal (and the FOBs like Scherger) up to spec for the JSF.

No money allocated this financial year, project apparently on hold. Will be interesting to see what comes out in the new Budget.

[LowObservable]

Spaz - "The airplane flies a large part of its mission at a non-optimised altitude"

Now, why would such a restriction have been imposed in the first place? My bet is operational considerations - sensor range, standoff, detectability, whatever - which have now been traded away to avert a KPP fail. Any other credible suggestions?

The Canada presentation should earn its author - Joe Isuzu, I suspect - a proper wigging from the SEC about the lack of a "forward-looking statements" disclaimer. 235 aircraft on order? Er, no, they are counting Lot 8, and Lots 6 and 7 have not been definitized yet.

Lockheed hopes to firm up F-35 Lot 6 & 7 contracts before mid-year (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/lockheed-hopes-to-firm-up-f-35-lot-6-7-contracts-before-mid-year-381477/)

The effectiveness claims on P4? 8:1 in surveillance? Under what assumptions? Versus an Eagle with a bigger radar, similar ESM and a LOROP pod? Without that sort of detail they are meaningless at best.

The production chart on page 7 - they could accommodate another 60 deliveries in 2016? Really? They expect to deliver how many aircraft before Block 3F IOC?

And as for industrial participation, when you're reduced to putting "External Lighting Printed Circuit Board" on your big-impact picture of Canada's contribution to the jet, you are digging pretty deep.

[Courtney Mil]

LO, well said. I was about to make the same point. We don't always fly our aircraft to the manufacturers' desired parameters, but rather to satisfy tactical and operational requirements. The one that sprang to my mind was radar look angle, but the others are equally likely. Why do you suppose they would be persuaded to change that?

a specific set of ground rules associated with how that range is calculated which is not similar to either of the other two airplanes

That did not happen by accident - it was done for a good reason, quite likely CONOPS. Perhaps the Canadians are happy with different figures.

Just started reading the transcript from the Australian Parliament. Bloody Hell! Those guys aren't pulling their punches, are they?

The Joint Strike Fighter is now more expensive than the larger and over three times more capable F22A Raptor. The unresolved and unresolvable engineering problems in the program will see further cost growth for as long as this broken program continues.

I look forward to reading the rest of that one, thanks for posting, Spaz. Very interesting.

[Not_a_boffin]

Those guys aren't pulling their punches, are they?

Quote:
The Joint Strike Fighter is now more expensive than the larger and over three times more capable F22A Raptor. The unresolved and unresolvable engineering problems in the program will see further cost growth for as long as this broken program continues.


"Those guys" in question being the unquestionably impartial Dr Kopp and his mates, who do not appear to have an axe to grind in any way shape or form...the ultimate antithesis to "JSFFan" if you like.

[Courtney Mil]

I noticed, NaB. Quite remarkable.

[JSFfan]

spaz. cm and lo, the altitude change is not in the 150nm ingress/egress

dear old apa clown club
House of Representatives Committees ? Parliament of Australia (http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House_of_Representatives_Committees?url=jfadt/defenceannualreport_2010_2011/hearings.htm)
Airpower Australia and RepSim claim that the F35 will not be competitive in 2020. Airpower Australia's criticisms mainly centre around F35's aerodynamic performance and stealth capabilities. These are inconsistent with years of detailed analysis that has been undertaken by Defence, the JSF program office, Lockheed Martin, the US services and the eight other partner nations. While aircraft developments such as the Russian PAK-FA or the Chinese J20, as argued by Airpower Australia, show that threats we could potentially face are becoming increasingly sophisticated, there is nothing new regarding development of these aircraft to change Defence's assessment. I think that the Airpower Australia and RepSim analysis is basically flawed through incorrect assumptions and a lack of knowledge of the classified F-35 performance information.

The JSF program accomplishments to date, towards entering operational service, include that the F35 continues to be assessed to be able to penetrate a modern, integrated air defence system. When the classified capabilities are taken into account, we have had Australian pilots flying high-fidelity simulators and they have been very impressed with the combat capabilities of the aircraft. These pilots include fighter combat instructors from RAAF Base Williamtown and ex-commanding officers of fighter squadrons within Australia

[Courtney Mil]

LO,

I'm interested in your link: Lockheed hopes to firm up F-35 Lot 6 & 7 contracts before mid-year (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/lockheed-hopes-to-firm-up-f-35-lot-6-7-contracts-before-mid-year-381477/). They keep saying "We had an opportunity to spend time with our customer" and "Those efficiencies could translate into savings for the US government".

Is that because of the context they were talking in or should I be worried about LM's regard for their partners in this?

[Rhino power]

[quote=FoxtrotAlpha18]You type in square open bracket, i.e. "[", then "quote=Rhino Power", without the quote marks of course, then close square bracket "]".

That seems to have cracked it, thanks fa18!

-RP

[Courtney Mil]

Reading more of the APH transcripts. Very interesting, that they slipped stuff about JSF, not in the JSF section, but under strategic reform program. Could have easily missed it. Anyone tell me who Dr Jensen is?

[JSFfan]

confirming orders for lrip6,7,8 ...more planes=less cost, when turkey shifted 2 the remainder went up $1m each

Jesnsen is an opposition parliamentarian who uses apa for his talking points

[Courtney Mil]

That seems to have cracked it

In fact, you can now refer to the person you're quoting as anything you want.

[LowObservable]

"These are inconsistent with years of detailed analysis that has been undertaken by Defence, the JSF program office, Lockheed Martin, the US services and the eight other partner nations."

The cost and schedule of the development program are also "inconsistent" with the promises made and accepted by these august, well-informed and doubtless honest institutions; whereas the outsider critics turned out to be correct in saying (from 2007-08 onwards) that the costs were fantasy and that the schedule was infeasible.

Moreover, the JSFPO, the Joe Isuzus in industry and the officials defending the program used the same fallacy (argument from authority) to assert that the people (from APA to Navair and the Pentagon's Joint Estimating Team) who were criticizing the schedule were wrong, because only the anointed understood that the program could not be assessed against "legacy" metrics.

Argument from authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority)

There are three levels of risk with the JSF program: programmatic (which is now a fact, rather than risk, and the only question is how bad the final delays and overruns will be); operational; and strategic. The critics have won on the first and the verdict is still out on the second and third.

[LowObservable]

CM - Of course they could get a better range in Canada because the upper air temperatures are low and you can get to your cruise altitude more quickly and efficiently.

As for the negotiations: The partners don't matter. Their price will be whatever the US pays.

[Courtney Mil]

Good point. Or the Canadians might have different CONOPS. Although not from what I've seen so you must be right.

The partners don't matter. Their price will be whatever the US pays.

Promise?

[henra]

P.S. (off topic, sorry) how do you get the name of the original poster to appear in the top left corner of quote boxes?

Or you go the easy way and press the "Reply", remove the &noquote=1 from the URL.
Then you can remove any part of text between the [ quote ] and [ /quote ]

[SpazSinbad]

For 'Courtney Mil' Dr. Jensen Official Bio: Dr Dennis Jensen MP ? Parliament of Australia (http://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Members/Parliamentarian?MPID=DYN)

[eaglemmoomin]

Hold on he got his degree from Monash....which coincidently is where Carlo Kopp is a research fellow.....

From wiki He is a climate change denier and has supported a climate chage book written by a former CEO of a mining corporation and he's managed to get into a public spat with an aboriginal woman regarding colonialism......

Sounds like a nicely balanced individual, probably fits right in with APA.

[LowObservable]

EM - Very funny, but between this and citing the Fankiddy Playspace as a source, you're not helping your credibility at all.

The "coincidence" of Kopp and Jensen both passing through Monash might be explained by the fact that it has 62,000 students.

I don't want to drag this off-topic but if anyone actually wants to read Jensen's Wackypedia and follow the links, it's a different story.

Must try harder.

[Courtney Mil]

I don't often comment on other nations' politicians, but this Jensen guy sounds a bit colourful. From what I've read there, a pro-Nazi, Liberal, anti-Einstein, scientist that can't understand the greenhouse effect, spits on native Australians, self-proclaimed defence analyst that keeps failing preselection for his seat in Parliament. Have I got that wrong? So how does he get to serve on all those committees, etc. There must be more to it.

Sorry for the thread drift, but was interested to know where he was coming from.

[Courtney Mil]

Ah. Yes, LO. Following the links shows that there is more to it. The Wikipedia piece isn't very flattering, is it?

[eaglemmoomin]

EM - Very funny, but between this and citing the Fankiddy Playspace as a source, you're not helping your credibility at all.

The "coincidence" of Kopp and Jensen both passing through Monash might be explained by the fact that it has 62,000 students.

I don't want to drag this off-topic but if anyone actually wants to read Jensen's Wackypedia and follow the links, it's a different story.

Must try harder.
Errr so can you point out the bits in the links that explain that he isn't a climate change denier and he didn't have a public spat with an Australian voter about colonialism. LO pretty please? There appears to be no explanation of the source of the Lavosier groups funding the closest you can find is here

Inhofes List of Global Warming Deniers Includes Scientists Who Have Received Industry Money - The Daily Green (http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/inhofe-global-warming-deniers-industry-money-46011008)

but it's an odd coincidence that the book he helped get published was written by the ex CEO of a mining corporation.

I'm just saying he's displayed some odd behaviour and his own party have nipped his preselection twice before. The first time not long after being elected and he managed to take only a quarter of the vote not exactly a ringing endorsement. He seems to have an interesting history certainly.

Not sure what my creditability has to do with anything? Mr Jensen appears to have done all of those things off his own idiosyncratic bat with no help from me.

[Willard Whyte]

It's not often I'll even comment about going off topic - indeed, I'd happily instigate such behaviour most of the time - but straw-man tactics seldom help one's cause, from whichever side of the argument.

[LowObservable]

I don't use the term "denier" in that context. What I said was that if you check the links you find something more nuanced. If you're looking for people with issues in the Australian JSF debate, you don't have to look very far to find them.

[Courtney Mil]

I agree, LO. First, sorry to have taken the thread so far off subject, I suggest we drop the Dr Jensen thing now.

Second, my reaon for asking about him was purely to see if there was anything there that would make him biased against the F35. The Aboriginal, book and Climate Change issues, unfortnate as they may be, are not really relevant.

Finally, the Wiki piece and the links to other souces didn't always seem to be describing the same person.

[kbrockman]

Real cost cost per flying hour.
Another Installment of ... F-35 Cost Per Flying Hour (http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3Af5843809-1a12-42de-8d48-e4d13eac94d5)

The plot thickens on the F-35 cost-per-flying-hour discussion.

Pentagon acquisition chief Frank Kendall says the cost-per-flying-hour figure for the F-35A recently provided by the stealthy fighter’s program executive officer to The Netherlands is more aggressive than the official figure that will go next month to Congress.



USAF Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan told Dutch lawmakers that the flying hour cost for the F-35A would be about 10% higher than the F-16, a sharp reduction from earlier assessments.

“It is with a certain set of assumptions,” Kendall told reporters during a roundtable April 24 at the Pentagon, that Bogdan arrived at that figure. “I’m not sure we want to use that set of assumptions.”

The figure forthcoming to Congress next month, however, will be lower than that provided in last year’s selected acquisition report (SAR) to Capitol Hill, he says. That report cited the F-35A flying hour cost at $31.9 thousand versus $22.5 for the F-16 C/D.



Article goes on theorizing on lower total cost of ownership by using the new Flightsims more iso actual flying.
This offcourse is a bogus argument as this new simtech is potentially available for all platforms.

Let's be serious here, subsystems can be implemented just as easy on almost any older fighter, flightsim use only goes so far and the idea that you can achieve the same level of combat effectiveness vs less stealthy fighters remains to be seen and proven, AEW, AAR and all other support is just as much needed by the F35 generation as it is and was with the more conventional fighters.

A 70,000lbs fighter with a big 43,000lbs thrust engine is never going to be as cheap to operate as a fighter which wheighs much less.
I suspect the 31.9 vs 22 (45%) number is even very optimistic, it could very well be considerably more from the moment this thing is IOC and its shortcommings and other structural problems come to surface once it is being put through the paces of everyday operational use.
Lord knows the F16 had its fair share of problems at its conception, there are few examples of new fighters that operated without their fair share of glitches , further adding to the cost of sustaing this weapon.

edit, not to have to start a new message;
Also, what's happening on the software front;
SRN News : Pentagon sees some risk of delay in F-35 software (http://srnnews.townhall.com/news/sci-tech/2013/04/24/pentagon-sees-some-risk-of-delay-in-f35-software-n1577647)
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program on Wednesday said there was "some risk" that software being developed by Lockheed Martin Corp for the Air Force version of the new fighter plane would be delayed beyond late 2017

[SpazSinbad]

Nice 'howler' in the Amy Butler story on F-35A CPFH story:

Another Installment of ... F-35 Cost Per Flying Hour (http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3Af5843809-1a12-42de-8d48-e4d13eac94d5)

"...The figure forthcoming to Congress next month, however, will be lower than that provided in last year’s selected acquisition report (SAR) to Capitol Hill, he says. That report cited the F-35A flying hour cost at $31.9 million versus $22.5 for the F-16 C/D...."

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

Very unlike Ms Butler, she's usually spot on! Perhaps a sub-editor's error...

[Easy Street]

kbrockman,

The acceptable live:synthetic training ratio for F35 is likely to be different to that for non-stealth platforms, even assuming equal levels of sophistication in the simulations. The reason I say that is that the flight profiles of a stealth platform are more benign (and hence more amenable to practice in the simulator), whereas non-stealth platforms are more reliant on things like low flying and evasive manoeuvres, which are harder to replicate in simulation and need to be trained 'live' to help build the required physical responses.

An extreme example would be the B-2, in which I daresay a typical "night one" mission could be practiced in the sim with high levels of realism and little or no need for live training. Clearly, F-35 pilots will need live flying to practice things like air combat manoeuvring, with its associated 'g' forces, but the importance of such training in the CONOPS will be lower for the F-35 than for platforms such as F/A-18 or F-15. Hence my postulation that less 'live' flying will be needed for the F-35.

Furthermore, it is always possible that stringent peacetime limitations might be imposed on the use of various F-35 capabilities, which will render 'live' flying less valuable than simulation in some key areas.

[SpazSinbad]

WRITTEN TESTIMONY FOR THE SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES UNITED STATES SENATE

http://www.armed-services.senate.gov/statemnt/2013/04%20April/Bogdan_04-24-13.pdf (180Kb)

WITNESS STATEMENT OF: Lt General Christopher C. Bogdan Program Executive Officer F-35

[LowObservable]

ES - That's an interesting notion, but you may also find as you try to follow that route that there is a floor level in flying hours below which you may not go. True, the F-35 (like other modern fighters) is relatively simple to operate thanks to "carefree handling" or envelope protection, and subsystem automation.

However, it also has a complex sensor suite and has to flight-plan according to stealth considerations, and it is intended to cover a broad swath of missions from CAS to air defense. You can practice those in a simulator - but, ultimately, don't you risk a disconnect between the actual flying experience and the sim?

I heard a long presentation late last year about experience with the F-22 (after about six years of operations) and there was no mention of being able to reduce hours.

[kbrockman]

I was under the impression that the new hook was already tested in ground trials?
According to your link, this is not the case yet (not that I think this will be a very big problem).
A Critical Design Review was completed in February 2013 on a redesigned arresting hook system and modeling and simulation involving the redesigned hook showed a marked improvement in performance. Ground test of this newly redesigned hook is scheduled at Lakehurst, NJ in
8
the 4th Quarter of 2013, followed by aircraft carrier qualifications in 3rd Quarter of 2014.
Also this got me worried a little ,thinking about the chevy vs ferrari comment made before !
My biggest concern in development is software. I am moderately confident that the program will successfully release the Block 2B and 3I capability by 2015and 2016, respectively. However, I see more risk to the delivery of Block 3F, our full warfighting, capability by
6
2017.

The HMDS was also supposed to work by now, but apparently still needs a fair amount of attention.
Additional work still needs to be done to ensure that the program has a night vision camera that is effective for operations as our testing indicated that the current night vision camera is unsuitable for operational use. As risk reduction, the program continues to fund development of a night vision goggle-based alternative helmet solution. The goggle-based helmet development will continue until we see demonstrated improvement in all of the risk areas of the original helmet and until the government has secured a price agreement with the prime contractor showing significant cost reduction in the original helmet.

The rest of the comments made by Gen Bogdan where already known, I remain sceptical how the 0/100 overrun cost is going to turn out once they start producing this thing in high volumes.
I somehow doubt that LM will agree, on a continuing base, to produce F35's at a loss making or close to 0 percent profit margin for the next 3 decades.
The comment made by the General concerning cost of sustainment sounds earily much like an early waiver for future surprises on this front.
F-35 Sustainment costs remain a concern across the Department and to me personally. While the F-35 Joint Program Office and the Services continued to make progress in 2012 toward reducing sustainment estimates, there is much more work to be done in this area, and it is one of my highest priorities.

Also

kbrockman,

The acceptable live:synthetic training ratio for F35 is likely to be different to that for non-stealth platforms, even assuming equal levels of sophistication in the simulations. The reason I say that is that the flight profiles of a stealth platform are more benign (and hence more amenable to practice in the simulator), whereas non-stealth platforms are more reliant on things like low flying and evasive manoeuvres, which are harder to replicate in simulation and need to be trained 'live' to help build the required physical responses.

An extreme example would be the B-2, in which I daresay a typical "night one" mission could be practiced in the sim with high levels of realism and little or no need for live training. Clearly, F-35 pilots will need live flying to practice things like air combat manoeuvring, with its associated 'g' forces, but the importance of such training in the CONOPS will be lower for the F-35 than for platforms such as F/A-18 or F-15. Hence my postulation that less 'live' flying will be needed for the F-35.

First, the F35 is by no means an all aspect VLO bomber like the B2.
Second, the bulk of its missions will be almost identical to the ones the F15/16/18,A10 and HARRIER force are doing today, I seriously doubt that training syllabus will be that much different on that front.
I'll go even further and make a fair guess that the added feature of stealth will further complicate training as it will require an all new training philosophy further increasing needed training time and costs.
I seem to remember the Clingendael institute and some NAVY Admirals making comments on this issue, they pretty much all said that most of the smaller nations would find it hard (financially) to achieve operational use of the Stealth feature, further negating the need for the F35.
We would all be better served by investing more in standoff weapons technology, advanced robotized stealthy cruise type missiles and armed drones.

If the 2 F117 incidents above former Yugoslavia proved 1 thing it is that complacency while doing a stealth mission ultimately leads to catatstrophy, stealth can be an added level of protection but only if you put in the extra training hours for it and subsequently use it in the field on a consistent base.
The F22 and B2 on the other hand are living prove that stealth certainly adds to the cost of maintenance in a big manner, there is absolutley no base to believe that F35 will be any different.

[Courtney Mil]

Same experience here, LO. In the early days of JSF there was a lot of talk about transfer of flying hours to the sim. The studies at the time suggested a minimum 'live-fly' which didn't give the numbers that the bean counters were hoping for - that 'floor' was nowhere near as low as they expected even with a massively hi-fi simulator (and extensive use of linked sims for package training). The other big hurdle was the cost of the sims and the fact that they could only demonstrate the capability to offer around 4 slots a day (with servicing and turnround).

[LowObservable]

I think we should head over to the Army board and tell them that we're going to do all our CAS training in the sim from now on. I am sure that the reaction will be overwhelmingly positive.

[Courtney Mil]

Written evidence to the Commons Select Committee - Prepared 23rd April 2013.

In the fixed wing air power section by DefenceSynergia...

With the introduction of the QE class of aircraft carrier the subject of UK fixed wing air power is no longer a matter just for the RAF. Indeed, the MoD decision to buy 48 of the F35B Lightning II short take-off and rolling landing (STORAL) version must be factored into the overall picture and UK air power doctrine (the two Fast Jet policy) revisited. The RAF operational requirement (OR) is for a medium range (1500 – 1800 nm) Tornado GR4 replacement which frankly none of the F35 variants (not least the F35B) can meet. Further, the NSS calls for 12 F35B to be routinely embarked upon a carrier with the ability to surge to 36 in an emergency. With a fleet of only 48 F35B and the necessary establishment of an operational conversion and trials unit (OCTU) it is unlikely that more than 40 aircraft will ever be available for operations, of which, some 25% will be unavailable for maintenance reasons, making the DPA requirement to surge to 36 a 'pipe dream'. Whether the RAF has a role in flying the F35B alongside the Fleet Air Arm (FAA) is academic. To meet the NSS ommitment and to achieve combat ready (CR) status whilst maintaining flying currency the majority of F35B, crews and maintainers will have to be dedicated to FAA carrier operations. This leaves the RAF with a single FJ (Typhoon) and no medium range Tornado GR4 replacement.

...and in the summary...

However, in the current financial climate realism must also play its part. Therefore, the defence budget as set must be used in the most cost effective way to achieve best 'bang for buck' which will require far more attention to professional programme and project management. For example: why pay in excess of £6bn for the failing F35B when perfectly suitable operational alternatives – French Rafael or US F/A-18E/F Super Hornet – are available now at a third of the cost? Why must MoD persist with its OR restrictive two Fast Jet fleet policy? Why do MoD continue to believe that the Army Reserves, despite all the commercial difficulties for employers, should be used outside their traditional general mobilisation role?

The submission is quite well written, but doesn't contain that much evidence. I would imagine we'll see ore papers submitted in due course.

[Not_a_boffin]

Unfortunately the contributors are somewhat lacking in credibility, to put it mildly. They appear to be under the impression that each QEC is more expensive in total than a Nimitz among other glaring howlers when you read into them. Even correctly identifying the name of a French carrier aircraft appears to be beyond them...

However compared to the other written contributors to the inquiry (four - all of which can be summarised as stop spending on defence, give the bunce to DfID) they are an oasis of reason....

[Courtney Mil]

Indeed, yes. I like the idea of their suggestion that we buy Rafale instead and then, presumably, we'd eventually work out that we'd need to borrow France's carrier to operate them from.

[Not_a_boffin]

Oh dear me no, it's worse than that.

Apparently, there is an "Internal Combustion Catapult System" or some such, that is a vastly cheaper alternative to EMALS. Which would allow QEC to be converted to CTOL configuration for the price of a bag of chips. Only the incompetent MOD are ignoring it on the basis that the USN (and by implication everyone else) is ignoring it too.....

They've written a letter to the Chancellor you know.....

[JSFfan]

Fun Fact...I can see you are having trouble with the idea of simming the f-35..it gets worse...even whilst the f-35 is on training flights, it will still be simmed networked

[Courtney Mil]

Wind your neck in JSFfan. I am not having trouble with anything to do with simulation and it doesn't look like LO is either. We were discussing the supportable transfer of live flying hours and the minimum live flying for pilot training. Surely pilot training isn't another of your sudden areas of expertise?! :eek:

[Turbine D]

This link was on my opening internet screen this morning as fed by the AP. Whether accurate or not, it gives a flavor as to the F-35 program which the general public being exposed to in the US presently.

The U.S.'s Stealth Fighter Is Too Heavy and Slow, So the Pentagon Made Its Performance Tests Easier | Motherboard (http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/the-pentagons-new-trillion-dollar-jet-is-a-garbage-can)

[JSFfan]

you should use your computer more, that story is 2 mths old

[Wrathmonk]

JSFfan

you should use your computer more

And there are a few around here who think you should use your computer less;):E:p:ok:

[LowObservable]

WM - Ooh you are awful. :D:D:D:D:D

[Biggus]

....but I like you!! :D:D













To finish the quote (if you have to ask, you're too young!!)

[Courtney Mil]

you should use your computer more, that story is 2 mths old

...and it is, therefore, completely discredited, right? It's a story about PERCEPTIONS, not anything that you need to worry about in your endless quest to ensure that the Holy Lightning's reputation is anything other than perfectly polished and faultless, young shaver.

You clearly failed to read my previous to you. No surprises there. Your fanbase here just keeps on growing.

[Easy Street]

I think we should head over to the Army board and tell them that we're going to do all our CAS training in the sim from now on. I am sure that the reaction will be overwhelmingly positive.I can confidently predict a future "car crash" on this particular subject unless some better ways of doing business are found before the ground attack fleet gets much smaller....


Training a FAC for one operational tour and then using him for something completely different thereafter - unsupportable, end of. New FAC career structure urgently needed. RAF Regiment missed a trick, I fear, by focussing on force protection instead of carving a niche for themselves as the air-land interface a la USAF JTACs and TACPs.
Insisting that FACs make a certain number of 'hot' controls to qualify or stay current - unsupportable in a world where practice bombs are history and live bombing can only be carried out on certain enormous rocks from very restrictive parameters. And there's not enough strafe training in this world to keep all the FACs current (besides, talk-ons to range strafe targets are hardly realistic training for anyone).
Insisting that FACs make controls with real aircraft when the vast majority of FJ CAS is conducted from medium level, and hence the aircraft is never even seen - waste of time. The majority of such training could be conducted using a pilot talking into a ground radio whilst looking at an aerial photograph of the area being described by the JTAC.
The only aspect of medium-level CAS that really needs a proper aircraft to support FAC training is targeting pod downlink work, and you could do this from a civilian contract aircraft for a pittance, instead of using flying hours on a 5th-gen fighter.

So yes, someone needs to talk to the Army (and ideally NATO as well, to get the FAC STANAG changed) before the whole system collapses on its arse. Getting synthetic training fully accredited for FAC training would be a decent solution.

[Courtney Mil]

Easy Street,

Your input there is very timely. The balance between synthetic and live training is exactly the point I was making (and LO). There remains a massive difference between simulation and live - nothing (necessarily) to do with the quality of the simulation. At the end of the day, synthetic training gives an excellent foundation for students (and current crews/air trafficers/fighter controllers/FACs/etc) but there comes a point when live is required. I know it works well for the airlines, but I would hope the first time a pilot flies a live mission isn't in combat. Same for the FAC. And that was the point we were making. If you try to do too much in the sim, you also deny others the live training.