F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

[Double Zero]

If the oncoming defence cuts do bin the F-35 ( and having seen a few details, I think it IS worth the high price, thing is can we afford it, full stop ), people are talking about F-18's or Rafales...

Am I the only one here who thinks it blindingly obvious to go for the Harrier II+ ?

I know the production line is closed, so aircraft and spares would have to be secondhand from the U.S.

Unless the Americans sulked over not buying the F-35, it would be in their interests to keep the UK a serious asset.

It has AMRAAM with a BVR capablity to defend the fleet, the' big engine' and shares huge commonality with the GR9's of the RAF.

Also no modification to the CVF's would be required; even though the carriers are being built so as to make conversion to 'cat'n trap' relatively easy, no-one can tell me it's that easy or cheap, I've always thought that a feature to make them easy to sell to other navies.

Remember Thatcher was keen to sell HMS Invicible, which as things turned out proved rather handy to the RN !

I know the radar isn't as good as the FA2's Blue Vixen, but AMRAAMS can partly look after themselves, and it's a very potent deterrent.

If the axe should fall on the F-35, how about Harrier II+ ?

[getsometimein]

So... lets make our latest and greatest CAS/CAP aircraft something that is out of date and second hand?

We're better off with a J10 or something... Personally though, i'd buy either F18's, or the new F15

[Easy Street]

Harrier II+ doesn't get nearly high or fast enough to be a serious air defence platform. Supersonic above FL400 is where you want to be for BVR combat.

[Buster Hyman]

Remember Thatcher was keen to sell HMS Invicible, which as things turned out proved rather handy to the RN !
Lucky the Oz Govt. let you keep it eh? ;);) And that was the end of any carrier aspirations for the RAN...:(

[Double Zero]

I've been on AMRAAM trials with Sea Harriers, and it proved rather good; as for launch velocity and altitude, I would think it compares pretty well with the wonder-jobs, read the figures.

Remember which aircraft - even a GR1 - won the transatlantic race against a Phantom, and the old but true story that a fully loaded Harrier is very nearly as fast as a 'clean' one, unlike most combat jets.

With AMRAAM & helmet sighted ASRAAM, upward firing chaff & flare etc, it would be a very brave or foolish enemy pilot to approach the fleet...

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

latest and greatest CAS/CAP aircraft something that is out of date and second hand


That didn't stop us getting the Buccaneer, did it?

[4Greens]

UAV's can and will do most of these jobs.

[taxydual]

Quote Harrier II+ doesn't get nearly high or fast enough to be a serious air defence platform. Supersonic above FL400 is where you want to be for BVR combat.

Who the hell ,in the future, do you think is going to be at that height to fight?

[Wrathmonk]

00

If the oncoming defence cuts do bin the F-35

what makes you think there is going to be a replacement? They will be cut because we are broke! Save much more money cutting a capability altogether (not that I support that view) than just buying a cheaper one!

[Pure Pursuit]

I believe that Easy Street was reffering to the fact that being as high and as fast as you can get your platform affords AMRAAM longer legs. Get high, get fast and shoot first...

If your target is bimbling around subsonic at FL300, that's his bad luck!

With regard to F35, I suspect the RN would be secretly relieved to get the Super Bug if the JSF is binned. The French jet is simply a rush job Typhoon and should not be considered IMHO. Super Bug would give the fleet a very respectable platform for the carriers.

Not the capability of the F35 but is certainly a huge step forward from the FA2.

[Fortissimo]

Double Zero

I don't think your air race argument stacks up, and certainly doesn't add any weight to the case for AMRAAM - the reason the Harrier won was because the race involved the crews being in the city centres and the ac could be landed close to the start/finish points (hence the iconic shots of the GR1 at St Pancras station). The limitation for both GR1 and F4 on the oceanic stage was the AAR. The F4 beat the Harrier by a wide margin in terms of speed, combat radius, altitude and payload. And I don't think the F4 would be a suitable replacement either!

[BEagle]

Who the hell, in the future, do you think is going to be at that height to fight?

No-one can say with any certainty. But the narrow-minded sandaholic attitude which thinks the RAF exists only to operate helicopters in support of the army fighting stone age peasants thousands of miles from the UK MUST be challenged.

The short-sightedness of such an attitude would be highly dangerous to future defence of the realm.

[Double Zero]

I threw in the transatlantic race just to see the reaction from the Phantom fans !

I'm suggesting this scenario as we simply cannot go on as we are re.Fleet defence.

We all know the CVF's will be lucky to get through the Tory cuts looming, and though one compliments the other and good money has already been spent, it will be very lucky if the F-35 survives as well, especially with a Prime Minister who seems to agree with the Americans that WWII began on December 7th 1941 !

If we do manage to hang on to the carriers, I can't think of a better solution than Harrier II+, which mixes rather well with Joint Force Harrier.

To send them into harm's way without something carrying AMRAAM would be criminal; and as Beagle says, we have no way of knowing who we might end up fighting, we don't need carriers & a decent Fleet Air Arm right now, but we may well, almost certainly will, in future; why else do we have Trident ?!

[NutLoose]

Rumour has it on other forums that the Thunder City Airworthy Lightnings may be coming onto the market :p

[Easy Street]

Taxydual
I believe that Easy Street was reffering to the fact that being as high and as fast as you can get your platform affords AMRAAM longer legs. Get high, get fast and shoot first...


Absolutely. I am stunned at the lack of understanding that some display on here! Modern MRAAMs gain quantum leaps in performance with increased launch altitude, irrespective of the altitude of the target.

And it's not just a question of air-to-air "biggest stick" jousting, either. To defeat incoming anti-ship raids against the carrier group, the air defenders need to be as fast as possible (to reach the attackers before they get into missile range) and and high as possible (to be able to launch their AMRAAM / Meteor / whatever at the maximum range). Harrier II+ is an air-to-ground platform with an "aggressive self-defence" AMRAAM capability, whereas F/A-18 E/F are fully-fledged multi-role platforms.

Another huge advantage of choosing a CV-type aircraft (F35C or F/A 18) would be that you could embark US Navy air wings for training purposes at times when the UK air wings were otherwise occupied. Limiting ourselves to STOVL would restrict visitor options to the USMC or the other Harrier operators.

[Double Zero]

Easy Street,

That's spiffing; but do you really think this government is going to spend MORE on the carriers to equip them for a new type ?!

I photographed a 2+ with 6 AMRAAMS on BOL rails ( yes I know about bring-back, & fuel for that matter); seemed a bit more than a mud-mover with self defence...

[taxydual]

I fully appreciate the 'wow' factor in owning F35's. However, the bottom line is WE CANNOT AFFORD THEM. I wish we could, but reality has got to kick in.

To build massively expensive floating assets (carriers) and then purchase massively expensive aerial assets (F35's) to defend the massively expensive floating assets is madness.

We have to face facts, The UK can no longer be a major player on the World Stage. WE CANNOT AFFORD IT.

Look about you, smell the coffee.

We are currently in a conflict in which:
a. We don't have enough Helo capacity
b. We don't have enough AT capacity.
c. We don't have enough AFV capacity

We don't have the 'basics' because WE CANNOT AFFORD THEM.

So, I ask again

'Who the hell, in the future, do you think is going to be at that height to fight?'

because we won't be there because WE CANNOT AFFORD IT.

[glad rag]

Not forgetting amongst all the blethering that F-18 with cat/trap ALSO enables Hawkeye so your (successful) engagement envelope (ie CVA survives)widens even further**.

COME ON GUYS IT'S A NO BRAINER!

** No disrespect to FAA aew thingy crews but lets not have another altitude limited survellance system when this

YouTube - "BrahMos" Russian -Indian Supersonic Cruise Missle (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWYpe4izU0g)

starts finding its way to the bad guys.

Perhaps taxydual has the answer after all.

[Roland Pulfrew]

We have to face facts, The UK can no longer be a major player on the World Stage. WE CANNOT AFFORD IT.


I would contest that. We CAN afford to, it's just our politicians CHOOSE not to. Any nation that can spend £110 BILLION (that is over 2 1/2 times the Defence budget) on the bureaucracy that is the NHS can afford to be a world class player.

The NHS has become the UK's Sacred Cow - no political party dare challenge it for fear of loosing votes. ALL other Govt departments lose out because of the NHS (and International Aid) being ring fenced. What we cannot afford is the NHS. A 10% saving on the NHS budget would go a long way to solving the shortfall in Defence, and a 20% saving would probably fix it.

[Lonewolf_50]

If our French friends can operate the E-2, and do, I think NATO (and as well the EU and WEU formations that operate when a NATO consensus isn't available) would be very well off with another CV operating AEW platform of such quality.

If our friends on the other side of the pond will operate a CV again, there is a lot of sweetness and light that will result.

Here's hoping. Whether it is F-35 or F-18 or something else that flies from the deck isn't as important as having a floating airfield ... unless you are dead certain the NATO/EU E-3 AWACS and future variants will meet all needs.

To build massively expensive floating assets (carriers) and then purchase massively expensive aerial assets (F35's) to defend the massively expensive floating assets is madness.
Since that isn't what the (expensive) aerial assets are for, would you care to try that thought again? :confused: Put another way, you don't use F-35's to hunt mines nor submarines. ;)

[aw ditor]

RP.

Spot on!

AD.

[taxydual]

RP

Totally agree. Very sensible idea.

But it'll never happen.

[Double Zero]

Roland,

A fan of BUPA are we ? So sod the rest it appears...

My mother is in a famous hospital at the moment, which would be tricky if everything was private; I agree this country can afford decent defence, but take out the true waste of bankers & politicians, not the health service.

We could be knee-deep in JSF's, Type 45 destroyers, Astute sub's and F-22's for the money THEY waste !

[Roland Pulfrew]

00

Not a fan in the sense that I have, or pay for access to a private medical scheme. Would I like to be? Yes, but that is different argument. I do have relatives in a number of other nations where the health service is better at providing a service, faster, to a higher standard, in a cleaner environment and without spending such a vast amount of money.

I honestly believe that we need to look at how the NHS is run, managed, paid for and yes I do think one of the options is that you should pay for any treatment first but then you are reimbursed for LEGITIMATE operations/treatment. It would cut out the ineligible, the malingerers and time-wasters and it works very well in a number of European nations. I just think that £110 billion per year is more than this nation can afford and, therefore, we have to think differently.

Hope your mum makes a swift recovery though.

[Double Zero]

Roland P,

Thanks for that.

I agree there's waste in the NHS; for example each hospital bed seems like it was designed by Brunel on drugs !

However if there's a place to chop it would seem to be the admin', it sure as hell isn't those 'at the coalface'.

It's a twisted society when footballer prats are paid mega-bucks a week, and nurses get a pittance...

Back to aeroplanes, I agree that the attractive thing about going for 'cat n' trap' is it would also allow the use of Hawkeyes, but in the current financial climate I can't see any increased cost on the carriers being approved by shiny-seated polticians.

A long time ago a televised 'Gringold Report' reckoned the Sea King AEW was pushing our luck, but unless we go for something like the V-22 ( which aint' gonna happen ) we seem stuck with just upgrading it.

The F-35 is a wonderful bit of kit ( they've probably on purpose let slip a few slightly mind boggling details which I would have thought secret ) - but it's a matter of budget.

I think there might be a slim chance for Harrier II+ as it would have commonality with JFH ( if that survives ! ) and see to immediate needs, but there's no way in hell we'd ever get F-18E etc, better if spending serious money to proceed with F-35B; but that's worth several politicians & bankers' pay.

[DocBoy]

I do have relatives in a number of other nations where the health service is better at providing a service, faster, to a higher standard, in a cleaner environment and without spending such a vast amount of money.


Sorry gotta bite on this one.
Won't don't spend a vast sum of money on health care in this country. We actually spend less than the majority of other European nations (around $(US)2700 per head per annum).
Thats a lot less than France, Germany, Denmark, Australia, Canada and even Iceland. And a HUGE wedge less than the states. The only reason so much is made of it is because nearly all of it comes from Taxation rather than top-up payments or private insurance so everyone sees it.
Yet we have, IMHO, a very good but rather overworked system. It can be a bit slower than elsewhere at times, but I can assure you not by much, an in that I include the rubbish service peddled by the private sector in the UK. And although some of the hospitals are showing their age, everyone in this country has access to high quality health care free at the point of delivery regardless of means.

Don't believe everything you read the the Daily ******* Mail and their ilk.:mad:
There are far riper targets for cuts than the NHS (although a few less managers and the removal of some of Mr Brown's over regulation would be nice!).
So far as my amateur view goes, I really can't see how anyone outside the US can afford the F35, the figures are eye-watering.

[Question_Answer]

Double Zero,

You have already pointed out that the production line is long since closed, thus second-hand would be required. How much usable life is likely to be in any airframes (and engines etc.) that the USMC would be prepared to hand over (their older ones?) once they get their shiny new F-35s? Surely not that much? However it might be enough to keep us going for a few years until the price of a F-35 comes down into our affordable budget. Personal view is that if 60,000 tonnes of diplomacy is what the UK wants, I think that buying into UCAV operations is the longer term solution, so anything else (F-35, F-18, others) should be considered a stop gap until then.

QA

[Double Zero]

Q-A,

I've seen Harrier II+ in build, and reckon even with acoustic vibration they have a long life !

Quite a lot beefier than GR9 etc.

There are also monitoring systens such as EUMS, and I'm quite sure RR would provide support with zero-lifed engines.

I am out of the loop now, the only UAV's I dealt with were Jindeviks, but I get the feeling there's a generation or two of Naval Pilots to go before we put our lives and country entirely in the hands of machines.

[flipflopman RB199]

I've seen Harrier II+ in build, and reckon even with acoustic vibration they have a long life !

Quite a lot beefier than GR9 etc.

There are also monitoring systens such as EUMS, and I'm quite sure RR would provide support with zero-lifed engines.

The Harriers are all tired aircraft now sadly, and are quite a way down the path of fatigue enhancing structural upgrade. Having worked with both types and had full access to the build drawings for both, I can assure you that the HarrierII+ does not have a 'quite a lot beefier' airframe and with the Frame 29 and 19 structural enhancement mods carried out, the GR9 is arguably stronger in many ways. The GR9 and T12 fleet are also now modified so that the majority of airframes now have the FMCS (Fatigue Monitoring and Computing System) monitoring systems fitted to the aircraft.

As anyone who will have seen full power ground runs of a Harrier on Tie-Down, they shake and rattle theirselves to pieces, and this manifests itself with structural issues in the aft end and tail areas, and there is only so long you can realistically and cost effectively keep 'patching this up' Unfortunately, the II+ suffers from the exact same problems as any other Harrier in this and other regards and is itself now a tired fleet.

My own opinion of course, but should we find ourselves in the market for an F35 alternative, I personally cannot see the logic or argument for purchasing a fleet of tired aircraft which are frankly ill suited to the task, versus a fully fledged, and comparatively modern genuine multi-role aircraft, such as the F/A-18?


Flipflopman

[Question_Answer]

If there is good life to be had, then it sounds like an idea worth the MOD to assess in a bit more detail along with F-18 - no harm in keeping options open.

Regarding UCAV operations, agreed for sometime to come there will be human in the loop whilst fully autonomous technology and doctrine matures (to solve ROE and other key contraints). However one could argue that in the BVR scenario you describe with an AMRAAM, the AAM is already a form of UCAV that once launched has its own guidance and decision making (countermeasure or real aircraft) to deliver the effect. What difference (in BVR situation) if the launch platform is actually a UCAV, the operator just happens to be sitting with a cup of coffee in his hand in a secure location miles from the action... just a thought...

QA

[Double Zero]

Flipflop,

I'm familiar with frame 29 etc, ( don't play with systems in certain conditions as breaking '29 is unpopular ) and trained first as a fitter; the II+ is very markedly stronger than a GR9, reinforced particularly for aft fuselage acoustic vibration; I've walked on the things while being built and photographed every inch; I was not a PR photographer, more an assistant to fitters and designers.

I've also been to many an engine run on GR5's and FRS1-2's, I agree it's like seeing an angry T-Rex chained down !

With a proper refit and TLC applied, there's no reason why the aircraft should appear tired, and I'd be surprised if the airframe gets anywhere near life cycles, it's the engine one has to refurbish, which is taken care of by EUMS.

Doc boy, I completely agree !

[flipflopman RB199]

00,

With respect, I think you underestimate the differences between the GR5 (ZD serials) and the factory built GR7 to GR9 (ZG serials) and this would partly explain your views on the II+ being "markedly stronger"

The GR5 in its early incarnation, was indeed a little 'underengineered' as it were, and problems with vibration and the associated cracking of structural components did begin to occur and had to be dealt with. By the time the ZG serial GR7's were under construction there was a handle on this (possibly including your own photographic evidence!) and as a result of this the ZG serial GR7's were structurally slightly different in many areas, along with the subsequent attempts to beef it up. This becomes more evident with a quick look at the differing part numbers of structural components in the early ZD batch aircraft to the later ZG batch aircraft, with the ZG serial former GR7's sharing a much higher degree of commonality with the II+ than the ZD serial former GR5's, the early ones of which rarely sharing commonality between theirselves!! :p

However, regardless of these facts, the Harrier - in all forms - is unfortunately now a tired aircraft, and all are suffering from the same forms of fatigue, especially around the rear end. You would perhaps be surprised to discover the extent to which this is true, and whilst not insurmountable, the aircraft will soon be reaching the stage where it is no longer cost effective.

I could go on, however, I get the sneaking suspicion that London Eye Hospital has just had its stock of glass eyes bored to sleep!! :E:ok:


Flipflopman

[Double Zero]

FLIPFOPMAN,

Your experience is a lot more recent than mine, though I did photograph the early GR7's, and Wittering were kind enough to invite self and Father ( Dad was no.1 crew chief on Dunsfold Trials Harriers ) last year.

I kow acoustic vibration is a major snag - it reduced the under-fuselage pylons for AMRAAM on the then FRS2 to 'warshot only' ( yes bring-back was associated too ).

When Dunsfold Instrumentation Dept. Put microhones etc in dummy missiles on those pylons, they had to look twice to believe the figures recorded !

However I still believe there's plenty of life in the aircraft, and it's difficult to think of an alternative; as I say the F-35 is potentially wonderful, though the price is a bit of a stopper, as is the point that it apparently can't operate from normal decks or concrete, which one would have thought the point of a VSTOL combat aircraft.

That may be anti-Lockheed propagada though.

In the meantime, any alternative other than Harrier looks like shooting oneself in the foot mega-bucks !

[Double Zero]

FLIPFOPMAN,

Your experience is a lot more recent than mine, though I did photograph the early GR7's, and Wittering were kind enough to invite self and Father ( Dad was no.1 crew chief on Dunsfold Trials Harriers ) last year.

The point is, are the II+ as tired ? some people say there are spare examples in the desert, while others say they're all being used.

I kow acoustic vibration is a major snag - it reduced the under-fuselage pylons for AMRAAM on the then FRS2 to 'warshot only' ( yes bring-back was associated too ).

When Dunsfold Instrumentation Dept. Put microhones etc in dummy missiles on those pylons, they had to look twice to believe the figures recorded !

However I still believe there's plenty of life in the aircraft, and it's difficult to think of an alternative; as I say the F-35 is potentially wonderful, though the price is a bit of a stopper, as is the point that it apparently can't operate from normal decks or concrete, which one would have thought the point of a VSTOL combat aircraft.

That may be anti-Lockheed propagada though.

In the meantime, any alternative other than Harrier looks like shooting oneself in the foot mega-bucks !

[Whippersnapper]

I'm not in the services any more, so have only the public information to base my opinions on, but surely the B model is a white elephant? It is hugely complex (read fragile and unreliable) and vulnerable to combat damage (could it land conventionally on the carriers if its STOVL systems were damaged?), while having a pitifully small payload and range, while the C model seems to do away with all of those issues and should be much cheaper and more likely to work. Since the Elizabeth Class carriers will have the voids for the catapult and arrestor equipment, surely the B model should be ditched?

As for a complete alternative if the whole project is canned, could EFA Typhoon be marinised like Dasault did with the Rafale? That would support British jobs and keep more of the expenditure within the British economy, so should be politically acceptable, if feasible.

[SASless]

Hang on a Mo'....did someone suggest the vast preponderance of pointy nosed aircraft on floating bird farms were there to protect the bird farm?

If they did....give the man a Gold Star....send him to the front of the class!

Our guy Lehman and the Six Hundred Ship Navy proved that to be a fact.

As there is a shortage of CV's (the steel kind) at the moment....would not keeping the focus on land based pointy nosed things make more sense?

SVTOL pointy nosed things have some very big shortcomings....and unless doing Blue Water Navy ops....would not land based aircraft be far more bang for the buck....er Quid?

In light of past "Tri-Service" airplane projects.....is it not insane to repeat efforts hoping for different outcomes?

[Double Zero]

IF, and it's a big IF, the F-35B doesn't work out ( I had the privelige of working with Test Pilot Graham Tomlinson - G.T, and he wouldn't bother with a naff project, + this thing has heaps of money behind it ! ) there are some people who think a marinised Typhoon would do the trick.

A, This makes a Harrier II+ look very easy,

B, We all know how great the Spitfire was, but the Seafire markedly less so; my Father was there at the Salerno landings ( that's more like crash landings - ask him ! ).

Naval, carrier aircraft have to be designed for the job - and as I would bet my left wotsit that we won't have any more money - like cat n'trap - spent on the carriers, things like F-18's, old or new aren't going to happen; hence my suggestion of Harrier II+.

[Double Zero]

I notice the 'Daily Mail' ( :mad: ) today , Thursday 26-8-10, reckons the Sea Harrier first flew in 1960, and we're now going to lease them from the U.S. !

This would come as a bit of a surprise to Bill Bedford who first tentatively hovered the P1127 XP831 in late 1960, and John Farley who flew the first Sea Harrier XZ450 on August 21st 1978 !

I thought the image of a bunch of monkeys given typewriters was just an allusion...

[grandfer]

I think you'll find "00" , today is Wednesday August the 25th.:ok::ok:

[Double Zero]

Quite right, so much for my ***** atomic radio watch - don't stroll beneath my window for a few of your earth minutes !

[NURSE]

Same argument used by RAF/JFH to scrap sea Harrier.
Can the RAF provide air Defence to the Fleet anywhere in the world?
FAA should have goten 50% of the HarrierII fleet upgraded to II+ using systems recovered from Sea Harrier as part of the JFH deal.

[grandfer]

Don't worry there's still a few SHARS down at Culdrose left , lovingly pampered with the SAH + a few T-birds also . They look in such good nick that all they need is filling with some Go-juice & they'll be back in the air .
Also "00" if you are still in "tomorrow" mode , any chance of the Lottery numbers or some racing results ?:ok::O

[Double Zero]

If I can predict the lottery numbers, you'll be able to spot my house by the swinging door and tyre tracks...But if you give me a few million £ I'll tell you your fortune !

The argument that the RAF could cover things was always spurious, to put it kindly.

I'm not too sure about transferring kit from FA2 to II+, but if the Blue Vixen could have been installed ( I think a larger radome would be required, a la FA2, along with a lot of other systems; the cooling setup was quite something ) that would have been a good move, but the work and cost of developing a whole new aircraft.

Throughout it's short history the RAF has always tried to snuff out the Fleet Air Arm; which in turn has come to the fore when most needed.

I'm not a member of either, I just read history...

[NURSE]

I agree with some of the comments on the NHS. As someone who now works there even I can see were huge savings could be made. Compairing the service to Private healthcare is actually not comparing like with like. Private HC companies pick and choose their patients carefully creaming of the easy and simple stuff leaving the complicated stuff to the NHS. Most Private hospitals have No ICU capibility and when needed they dump the patient by blue light ambulance on the NHS to treat at the cost of the NHS. Also you find many patients who are operated on in Private hospitals are admitted to the NHS when they get complications and post op infections again the NHS picks up the tab. Private hospitals also don't have to sort out the very complicated social problems that patients present with in the NHS that delay some discharges for months. I work in a surgical area and we even now are filling with bed blockers from elderley and medical directorates because there isn't the social care available from local councils and families have at times very unrealistic expectations of what we can provide. Now as our surgical beds become blocked we can't admit waiting list patients into them so we have to pay for Private sector to carry out some of our work or be fined for failling to meet targets.
The government said that it would look at reducing the ammount of paperwork NHS staff have to fill in infact we've had at least 1 new form to complete for each patient introduced every month since the Con/Dem colition was elected.
Frontline services aren't safe either we've lost a care of the elderley ward (Hence the reason we're already getting bed blockers) staff redeployed to stop having to recruit nurses and budget redeployed to preserve "Jobs". IE to keep admin staff employed. The recruitment freeze has stopped Nurse,Physio,OT,Pharmacist recruitment but still plenty of jobs for secretaries, managers assistants to managers and directors. But being a Foundation trust the department of health has a limited say in how we're run (BTW all trusts are going to be foundation trusts in future)
The new reforms will make existing problems worse. What needs to happen is a complete review or royal comission on the NHS but as has correctly been said no government has the political guts to do this and add social care into it as well.
OK not fully related to the thread but until all across government service certain realities are faced we won't have any money to invest on defence and sorting out the imbalance in our forces.

[ORAC]

Ares: SAC Hammers Gates on JSF (http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/09/16/sac-hammers-gates-on-jsf/)

The Joint Strike Fighter program has more than $6.5 billion in unspent money — “more than the budgets of many entire federal agencies” — and the first two production planes are a year late and the costs keep climbing, problems that the Senate Appropriations Committee says are symptomatic of Pentagon management problems. The committee cited “the lack of proper control in the defense budget process” and urged the Gates’ Pentagon “to regain control over its budget.”

How frustrated is the Senate panel with the management of the F-35? They say they considered scrapping all JSF funding for the year. All. Only the country’s “urgent need” for new fighters stayed the committee’s hand, the report says. Exercising restraint, the panel thinks 10 of the 42 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft requested by the Pentagon should be cut. That works out to $1.5 billion.

Finally, the SAC sent a clear signal to General Electric and Rolls Royce — and to the Obama administration — that the battle over the F136 engine for the F-35 is not over: “The incongruence of the insistence on canceling the second engine program which is a near model program and which most analysts expect would curtail long-term costs of the entire JSF program with equal insistence on the need to fully fund the JSF program is hard to rationalize,” the defense subcommittee report says.

[cokecan]

does anyone know if the RR F-136 engine is part of the much heraled 'offsets' that apparently make any UK buy F-35's cheaper (in the whole, given tax revenues to HM Treasury) than the price that say, Canada or Norway might buy the same airframe at?

so if that nice Mr Obama - who's been such a success - gets to cull the 'spare engine', will the (somewhat theoretical) sums the MOD has done so far over JSF have to be re-done?

[Double Zero]

I was thinking of a truly cash-strapped UK military; by the time you introduce a new type such as F-18 or F-15 ( so with the 15 that's 2 new types if we're to have a FAA) and catapults etc, the F-35 might look like a bargain !

[Postman Plod]

Where has the F15 come from??

[Double Zero]

The F-15 was mentioned on the 'Future Carrier' thread, presumably as a vote for the 'cover the fleet from the land' theory; which would of course mean yet another new type for the Navy if we were keeping the FAA.

Personally I think the 'easy-fit' cat n' trap facility on the new carriers is solely to make them easier to sell, and the only time the Royal Navy will get to see them is when they go past on delivery...

If we should get to keep them, it's hard to imagine getting F-35 as well, hence my suggestion of Harrier 2+.

I am aware of AMRAAM launch velocity and acoustic vibration issues, but unless we spend really serious money, can't see a better option.

[ORAC]

Presentation by Lt Gen David Deptula (http://www.af.mil/information/bios/bio.asp?bioID=5213) (retired), to an Air Force Association conference in Maryland last week.

wE4G_BxlyOk

[Double Zero]

Orac,

A sobering presentation.

I would think 99% of the people on this forum, self included, feel we need more Astutes, Type 45's, CVF & F-35, but until it's too late I can't see the politicians agreeing.

As always it's a case of "I'm only likely to be here for 5 years, it probably won't happen on my watch so I'll fill the coffers and give my chums tax relief instead"...

[Jabba_TG12]

Very interesting presentation.

[Willard Whyte]

No, they can't and they won't.

No, they might and they might.

[mick2088]

Reading up on the F136 debate, I found this recent letter from Liam Fox to Senator Carl Levin that is the strongest indication that the UK will not axe the F-35 from its future procurement plans in SSDR. Moreover, it gives UK position on the F136.

http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/supporting/2010/letter.F136.092310.pdf

[A A Gruntpuddock]

As a civilian, I don't really see why we need the F35. After all, in a recent Telegraph article an expert (journalist) said that

"But cutting back on the Typhoon would, I believe, be counter-productive. The aircraft has been modified to give it a highly effective ground attack capability, as well as its traditional interceptor role. It is so fast that it could comfortably escape from any enemy missile fired at it ..."

What else do you need? :)

[engineer(retard)]

"What else do you need?"

A well informed journalist.

regards

retard

[glad rag]

"What else do you need?"


The same versions the yanks are having, with all the "goody goody" bits actually fitted, would be nice considering the price.

[Squirrel 41]

RANT MODE: ON

"What else do you need?"

Well, a spell-checker in the SoSfD's office, or some proper proof reading would be nice! What kind of impression does mick2088's link convey in bullet (c) which says,

"This is not an industrial based issue. The UK has content in both
engines. Whilst there are obviously industrial interests at stake for the UK,
given the involvement of Rolls-Royce as a junior partner to GE, by far the
greater proportion of work, even for Roll-Royce, will be carried out in the US."

Roll-Royce? What the f:mad:ck is "Roll-Royce"? Do cuts in Main Building extend to a 10% cut in characters to be used in letters to one of the most powerful defence personalities in Washington DC? :ugh:

Pretty pi$$ poor, people...... :sad: And yes, at this level, this kind of $hit does matter....

S41

RANT MODE: OFF

[Squirrel 41]

A A Gruntpuddock asked

As a civilian, I don't really see why we need the F35.

Well, given that the Torygraph journalist writing drivel such as

"It is so fast that it could comfortably escape from any enemy missile fired at it " seems to be either:

(a) volunteering to play chicken with an SA-20 / SA-21 in some live fire tests,
(b) uninformed to a reasonably terrifying level or
(c) Lewis Page in disguise*

I can understand why you'd be confused over purchasing a jet that will probably end up costing about £100m a copy and is likely to come in tiny numbers as a result.

The essential point is that if the UK wants to be able to have a survivable man/woman-in-the-loop conventional precision deep-strike / ISTAR capability in the 2020s against the proliferation of modern SAMs and advanced AAMs supported by an integrated air defence system, then stealth is probably essential.

In essence, this is the policy question: if we don't want to do first-night-of-the-war manned heavy lifting with the USAF/USN and other allies, then we needn't buy the JSF; we could procure a late 4th gen bomb truck to replace GR4s when we finally accept that they are beyond economic repair - which could be mid-2020s. The USAF has publicly accepted that it will be using a combination of stealth and non-stealth platforms for years to come (e.g. upgraded F-15Cs and F-15Es) and the USN has spent lots of cash on F-18E/F/G, so there will be a continuing role for 4th gen platforms, but not against the hardest targets with unattrited air defences on day one.

So in essence, the JSF question is actually all about national ambition - much like the rest of the difficult questions in SDSR.

S41

*On reflection, (c) is probably covered by (b)

[ORAC]

Ares: Norway Delays JSF Purchase (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a2ff5cb01-b36c-4a65-8da3-0a6dcf7edd5f&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)

Ignoring a stern warning from Joint Strike Fighter program leaders this summer, Norwegian defense minister Grete Faremo announced earlier today that Norway would delay its acquisition of the F-35A to take account of delays in the systems development and demonstration (SDD) program announced in March.

Norway now plans to acquire no more than four aircraft for delivery in 2016 (contract year 2014), for training purposes, but main-force deliveries will not start until 2018. Previous plans called for 20 deliveries in 2016-17.

Faremo says that the most important issue is to make sure that the F-35 is fully operational before it replaces the F-16 and implies that Norway wants to buy more aircraft at multi-year-production prices. Norway is changing its schedule, she says, to "ensure operational maturity and optimum cost of production on the Norwegian aircraft." (Under previous plans, Norway would be byuing most of its aircraft from low-rate initial production batches.)

The minister also notes that the re-scheduled SDD program "should [put] more emphasis on risk management, cost control, staffing of critical positions, test plans and monitoring by the vendor", and adds that all additional costs due to the delay will be absorbed by the US.

This is probably not what JSF program leaders have been looking for, given Lockheed Martin executive vice-president Tom Burbage's warnings at Farnborough that backsliding partners would incur higher prices: Norway appears to have concluded that the opposite is the case.

Of other early JSF customers, Denmark has deferred its decision and the Netherlands has officially confirmed that cost increases are likely to have a "considerable" effect on its program. In the FY2011-2015 order years - LRIP batches 4 through 8 - well over one-third of JSFs are destined for non-US customers, and program managers have repeatedly said that disruptions to the ramp-up will cause unit cost targets to move out of reach.

[ORAC]

Software problem doesn't sound like it will cause much of a delay. Depending on the nature of the problem with the hinge - and whether it needs a redesign - this could cause another major delay to the F-35B......

F-35s Grounded for Software, Hinge Fixes (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4826943&c=AME&s=SEA)

Flight testing of all F-35 Joint Strike Fighter variants has been temporarily suspended until software that controls functioning of the engine's three fuel boost pumps is modified, the Pentagon said Oct. 1.

In addition, short takeoff/vertical landing-mode flight testing operations have been prohibited for the F-35B variant after post-flight inspections revealed an issue with the auxiliary inlet door hinge on test aircraft BF-1, said Lockheed Martin spokesman John Kent.

The auxiliary inlet doors, located immediately aft of the lift fan, open to feed additional air to the engine during short takeoffs, vertical landings, hovers and slow-speed flight, Kent said.

The software problem that grounded all three jet variants and led to incorrect sequencing was discovered during laboratory testing, Pentagon spokeswoman Cheryl Irwin said. Left uncorrected, she said, "This could have possibly triggered a shutdown on the three boost pumps, which could potentially cause an engine stall."

Irwin said that such a simultaneous shutdown would be highly unlikely but that "prudence dictated a suspension of operations, temporarily, until the fuel boost pump signal timing was corrected."

Irwin said that update of the software that controls the functioning of the three boost pumps has been developed and that Lockheed engineers plan to complete functional and safety tests prior to installation in the test aircraft. Kent said the update, developed in partnership with fuel system software developer BAE Systems, will be delivered this weekend.

Flight testing will resume Oct. 5, Irwin said.

Kent said F-35B STOVL-mode flights will resume after the root cause has been identified and corrected.......

[LowObservable]

Also, so far they have not identified the problem with the hinge, so it's time for diagnosis, redesign or requalify and possibly fabricate and retrofit, which could all take a while.

It's not as if it was obvious, or anything like that, that designing a jet with a whole bunch of doors exposed to rapid airflow, noise and vibration, that have to close to tight tolerances after take-off, and are all flight-critical on landing, might be a challenge.

So much for rigs, modeling and simulation, and tests being purely validation.

[NorthernKestrel]

It's not as if it was obvious, or anything like that, that designing a jet with a whole bunch of doors exposed to rapid airflow, noise and vibration, that have to close to tight tolerances after take-off, and are all flight-critical on landing, might be a challenge.

Hmm - not good. Wasn't that what a famous VTOL test pilot (and forum poster here) said they might have trouble with....???

[ORAC]

Defense News: DoD Decertifies Lockheed's F-35 Progress Tracker (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4849291&c=AIR&s=TOP)

The Pentagon suspended its certification of Lockheed's system for tracking the progress on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and the F-16 Fighting Falcon programs today, underscoring DoD's tough talk about running weapon buys as efficiently as possible.

The department is withdrawing its certification of the company's Earned Value Management System (EVMS) at its Fort Worth, Texas, facility to ensure Lockheed "devotes the needed attention" to revamp its system, which measures progress on the programs, according to a Oct. 5 Pentagon statement. An "internal discussion on what path to now take is ongoing within the department with regard to Lockheed's EVMS," Pentagon spokeswoman Cheryl Irwin said.

Lockheed officials acknowledged that the Pentagon's full review of the restructured F-35 program could change its schedule and cause a corresponding slip in the recertification of its EVMS, according to an Oct. 4 company statement.

The "technical baseline review of the F-35 program … may affect the content and timing of the new F-35 baseline and thus the EVMS re-audit," reads the company statement. The government will determine the schedule of the re-audit." The company's EVMS combines measurements of scope, schedule and cost in a single system to give an "early warning of performance problems," the Lockheed statement reads........

[ORAC]

Evening Standard: David Cameron ‘rules out slash and burn defence cuts’ (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23886028-david-cameron-rules-out-slash-and-burn-defence-cuts.do)

......Plans to use vertical take-off aircraft on the carriers have been abandoned, however, and cheaper jets that take off and land by using a catapult and wire will be used instead......

[Not_a_boffin]

Please God, let that be the case. Goodbye RVL, hello unworried sleep.....

[JFZ90]

If true, this could be a waste of $13M....

Lockheed gets funds for UK F-35 landing modification (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/10/08/348294/lockheed-gets-funds-for-uk-f-35-landing-modification.html)

...perhaps a last ditch attempt by USN/Lockheed to influence UK decisions?

[LowObservable]

NaB...

It did occur to me the other day that SRVL has another fun aspect: How long does it take to kill the thrust on that lift system, and how long (consequently) are you gliding along the deck like a hovercraft?

I would guess that you could slam all your IGVs closed as soon as you had weight on wheels, but that might send a powerful shock through the engine. And it's going to take a few seconds for everything to stop spinning and pumping air.

[Willard Whyte]

F-35 canx? Anything with carrier capability and a working AESA radar should be considered as a replacement.

That narrows the options somewhat.

[ORAC]

British Shift to F-35C: A Blow to the Beleaguered Joint Strike Fighter 'B' Model (http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2010/10/british-shift-to-f-35c-a-blow-to-the-beleaguered-joint-strike-fighter-b-model.html)


The UK government has decided to shift its Royal Navy purchases of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) from the F-35B short take-off and vertical model (STOVL) to the F-35C carrier version, according to news reports. UK Prime Minister David Cameron said the F-35C is “more capable, less expensive and longer-range.”

The decision may have grave implications for the F-35B, which is the version of the JSF most troubled by technical problems and cost growth. The Brits’ decision means only the U.S. Marine Corps and the Italians plan on using the B model.

Fewer overall purchases of F-35Bs may increase the per unit price, weakening the case for the F-35B. According to a troubling August Armed Forces Journal article by Lt. Cmdr. Perry Solomon (http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2010/08/4679496/), “As the first airframe in full-scale production, the F-35B will experience the greatest fluctuation in price if quantities later in the production run are changed.” Solomon also notes that the “F-35B is four years behind schedule, and the per-unit acquisition cost has exceeded $120 million — almost triple the amount envisioned by the Joint Initial Requirements Document for the Joint Strike Fighter.”

Solomon explores some of the myriad problems associated with the F-35B in context of fiscal and international political pressures on the overall JSF program and concludes that “Marine Corps aviation is in danger of collapsing under the weight of its ‘inside the Beltway’ leadership.”

With problems with the F-35B and pressure from the U.S. Navy mounting, the U.S. Marine Corps leadership has recently signaled that it could be open to buying some F-35Cs in lieu of an all-F-35B force.

“So we have these two competing things, and we hold both dear, so what does that mean in context of JSF?” Lt. Gen. George Trautman, deputy commandant for aviation, told Inside the Navy on October 7. “What it means is we need to get the C [carrier] variant flying, we need to get it on the carrier, see what problems it has, what issues it has. Then we need to get the B [STOVL] flying, we need to get it on an L-class [amphibious ship] to see what issues it has, what problems it has, and then we need to get the B variant onto the carrier to see what technical issues occur and what it means for the operation of a carrier.”

[Trim Stab]

I doubt we will ever even get the F35C.

I suspect that the carrier(s) will be delivered well after their announced date. They are being built because it is cheaper to go ahead with them than cancel them - so I can't see HMG putting a lot of pressure on the constructor once the inevitable cost overruns and delays start to build up. Indeed, HMG might well prefer to string out the construction process for as long as possible in order to secure construction jobs.

By the time they are delivered, we will have been without any FW naval aircraft for a very long time - and unless there is an unexpected UOR I can't see HMG itching to rebuild the capacity.

My guess is that we are building the world's biggest and most expensive helicopter carrier.

[LowObservable]

As noted on another thread: For the time being the UK plan has to say F-35B, because the official US plan is that there will be no other CV jet in production after 2015, and the Super Hornet starts to retire in 2030.

However, in many ways the UK, RN and Marine JSF plans were propping one another up. The Marines were pointing to the UK and saying "We can't bin the B and leave the UK with two big grey cruise liners" and the USN thought that as long as it was paying for the B it had to go along with the C.

Now, it is becoming legitimate and almost respectable to start asking that old dodgy question - "Why does the Navy's army need its own air force?" - and if the answer is "it's a nice idea but it adds only xx per cent to the capability of a joint force" then Marine TacAir goes, and if that happens the Navy will scrap the C in a picosecond.

[cokecan]

LO, while i don't disagree for a second that the USMC's 'B' buy is now in doubt, i don't believe for a second that the USN is going to ****-can the billions its spent on developing 'C' just so that it can go back to the drawing board and spend more billions to develop an aircraft that looks like JSF, is bound to be even more expensive, and gets into service 10 years later.

as well as being 10 - 15 years behind the USAF in the 'first day of war' business...

[LowObservable]

CC - It's not the billions spent developing the C so far. It's the remaining billions on completing and testing the mission systems so that they do some of what the Super Hornet already does, and the billions more that's represented by the difference between the price of 260 Supers and the price of 260 F-35Cs...

Not to mention the comforting feeling of being able to fly 500-600 miles from the carrier with one engine... In a jet that weighs 5,000 pounds more than a Super, with the same thrust... When the Super community is pretty comfortable taking on all comers with the help of Growlers and Harm/AARGM...

[cokecan]

LO, while i can see that being an attractive option for the next decade - SH and its weapons and support being cheap(er) than JSF and able to do what JSF does within the current and projected AD capabilities of its potential adversaries - but do the USN really believe that SH is a platform that can take them to 2040 or so?

no disputing that the USN like SH and think JSF is an awful lot of extra cash for not an awful lot more current combat capability - but amazed that they think SH is still going to be cutting edge in 30 years... (and thinking that if they're right, why the fcuk aren't we ditching JSF and opting for SH!).

[GeeRam]

I doubt we will ever even get the F35C.

I suspect that the carrier(s) will be delivered well after their announced date. They are being built because it is cheaper to go ahead with them than cancel them - so I can't see HMG putting a lot of pressure on the constructor once the inevitable cost overruns and delays start to build up. Indeed, HMG might well prefer to string out the construction process for as long as possible in order to secure construction jobs.

By the time they are delivered, we will have been without any FW naval aircraft for a very long time - and unless there is an unexpected UOR I can't see HMG itching to rebuild the capacity.

My guess is that we are building the world's biggest and most expensive helicopter carrier.

Sadly..... I have an ominous feeling that F-35C won't ever get ordered either, for the same reasons.
I think the cat n trap decision is to make the 2nd carrier more saleable straight after it's finished.... and thus as you say, we'll end up with a large helo carrier....maybe...unless they find a buyer for that as well.

[LowObservable]

I don't think that the Super would be the only Navy platform out to 2040. If F-35C goes, there will be something else, and better because it's not a derivative of the Marine STOVL design.

[Not_a_boffin]

I doubt the USN can afford another trip down the A12 route..........

If you look at what a USN CAG can do now, compared to (say) 15 years ago, it's a much reduced beast.

No real long endurance interceptor / OCA asset
No real high payload all-weather strike aircraft
No ASuW / ASW patrol capability
No sigint/land surveillance capability
No organic tanker (with anything like a credible offload capacity)

Yes, the CAG is down to 3-4 types compared to 7-8, but not as a planned or even desired event. Yes, the advent of PGM does to some degree reduce the need for higher payload (although note the Bone & Strike Eagle play well at CAS because of their payload). But overall, it's a lighter-punching more fragile beast.

Most of that force contraction can be laid at the vast amount of money spunked at the A12, without a viable plan B. We can also bemoan the fact that Dave is now an uber-expensive superweapon compared to the original SSF concept.

Nevertheless, lose Dave C and the USN has nothing to bring to the party on the first day vs double-digit SAM and a half-decent IADS.

The Rhino is not a viable plan B for the USN........

[LowObservable]

The problem is that the Navy is not seeing a lot of upside to Dave-C. Not the most wonderful LO vehicle, and not a superweapon compared to SSF - just more expensive.

The fact is that at some point we have to figure out how to manage programs or we go out of business. Until then we might as well upgrade what we have, because it seems to be the only thing anyone ever manages to get right.

[ORAC]

Mainstream US media report signals JSF implosion (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2010/11/02/mainstream-us-media-signals-jsf-implosion/)

For those that cling to the view that all is well with the Joint Strike Fighter, or JSF F-35 project this story of the hour on Bloomberg* (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-01/pentagon-said-to-see-higher-f-35-costs-delays-up-to-three-years.html)may loosen your grip on fantasy.

This is a straight up and down leak to a mainstream news resource that, logically, can be explained as a considered strategy to break the news and desensitize the public and political consequences of project failure well in advance of the major shocks.

It’s where you put a story for those that don’t decipher Aviation Week or read Bill Sweetman on its Ares blog, or Air Power Australia, and who are still being fed crap by journals that trade soft coverage for advertising........

*Pentagon May See Higher F-35 Costs, Delays Up to Three Years (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-01/pentagon-said-to-see-higher-f-35-costs-delays-up-to-three-years.html)

Pentagon’s Favorite Jet Delayed as Costs Rise Yet Again (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/11/pentagons-favorite-jet-delayed-as-costs-rise-yet-again/)

[John Farley]

For those that cling to the view that all is well with the Joint Strike Fighter, or JSF F-35 project

Not quite sure why you think there are people like that.

Of course all versions are very late and will cost much more than first estimated because it is being developed in the real world and I cannot think of any major and leading edge defence project that has not been afflicted in the same way over the last half century.

However, in my view, to go from this to talk of cancellation shows either a bias or a lack of understanding of this programme. What do you feel is the alternative to sorting it and using it for 40 years or so?

[ORAC]

Hi John.

Firstly I should the text is not mine, it is the opening of the linked article, which alerted me to the others which is why I used it.

The question of whether the F-35 is essential is a moot point. The performance is only equivalent to that of the F-16, and the value of it's stealth performance against recent radars and SAW is increasingly questioned. The avionics and sensors are leading edge, but can be added to older platforms.

There are many in the USN who would be happy to stick with the FA-18 for many years until a suitable 2 engined replacement could be obtained. The price of the F-35 against the F-18 means far fewer can be bought, bringing into question the number of carriers.

Similarily, there are those in the USAF who would prefer to buy more F-15Es and reopen the F-22 line for AD aircraft.

The only force wedded to the F-35 are the USMC - but their Concept of Ops may be changing so that operating from the main USN carriers may be the logical way ahead, in which case commonality of aircraft seems sensible.

So, no, whilst the F-35 may be desirable, and perhaps now even politically uncancellable, the case that is essential is not indisputable, and as Sweetman et al demonstrate, is not undisputed.

[John Farley]

Ta for that.

There are always people/vested interests who want to extend the status quo for x years but of course if we stuck with that then we would finish up with little that could consider taking on the latest Russian/Chinese projects.

Time will tell!

John

[ORAC]

Since I mentioned Sweetman, do you think he's being sarcastic?....

A Shocking And Unexpected Development (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a012ea639-6144-4d5f-89fb-b97c13cf1179&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)

And concerning my statement about the USN being worried about the cost/numbers, also in Ares today (and eerily echoing the statement from General Houghton (http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/11/01/drones-to-influence-u-k-f-35c-buy/) about drones shaping the UK F-35C buy) was the following:

Navy Facing "a New Fiscal Reality" (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a81c54a31-c35d-48b6-a408-0de3dc19b58f&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)

In the wake of Secretary of Defense Gates calling for Pentagon bean counters to find $100 billion in savings over the next five years, the services are scrambling to cut costs where they can. The process won’t be easy says Adm. Jonathan Greenert, vice chief of Naval Operations, who told the Center for Strategic and International Studies yesterday that upcoming budgets are going to introduce “a new fiscal reality for most of our [officers] and most of our senior executive service. They’ve gone fifteen years on supplemental appropriations. We’ve been on them since at least ’95 … and we have really not had a lot of folks really need to be accountable for the fiscal performance out there because there’s always been a supplemental around the corner.”

Greenert didn’t single out any underperforming programs by name, but stressed that the Navy was going to have little patience for programs that are “just not going to get there.” He did say that the service sees multiyear procurement deals for programs as one of many ways to reduce costs, along with a greater focus on fixed-price contracts.

One surprise came while the Admiral was talking about Naval aviation. He described the UCAS—the Navy’s still-under-development unmanned carrier aircraft system, as “our future air wing” and complained that “the cost to put an aircraft in the air for one hour is currently untenable. We have to look at that.”.........

[ORAC]

Deficit Commission: Cancel Marine Corps Version of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and Several Other Weapons (http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2010/11/deficit-commission-cancel-marine-corps-version-of-the-f-35-joint-strike-fighter-and-several-other-we.html)

The co-chairmen of the bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform issued today a series of draft proposals to cut government spending. In the defense arena, they took a bold stand on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, particularly the Marine Corps's F-35B variant. Their recommendations might be a shock to Lockheed Martin and some within the Defense Department.

These are, however, just proposals and do not have the force of law whatsoever. It will be up to the Congress and the executive branch in terms of how to proceed, if at all. How much the White House-created Commission decides to advocate for specific proposals is an open question as well. That said, these proposals could potentially have some intellectual and political force given they come a week after elections swept into power a wave of lawmakers who campaigned on cutting government spending.

Also, "it remains to be seen how much of the co-chairmen's plan makes it into a final set of commission recommendations due December 1," according to Defense News.

Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles, the co-chairmen, wrote in their list of "Illustrative Savings":

Cancel the Marine Corps version of the F-35. This option would cancel the Marine Corps version of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter because of its technical problems, cost overruns, schedule delays, and the adoption by the services of joint combat support in current wartime operations. This would save $3.9 billion in FY2015 and $17.6 billion for FY2012 - FY2015. At a total cost of $41 billion, DOD plans to buy 311 F-35Bs for the Marine Corps to replace the Marine Corps AV-8B. In its recent defense review, the United Kingdom decided to cancel its buy of the Marine Corps version of the JSF. Further, the sophisticated capabilities of the JSF may be less relevant in current scenarios. Under Secretary of the Navy Robert Workman observed that greater use of guided missiles and mortar could end the forward operations that would be performed by the Marine Corps JSF because of vulnerability. Also, because the Marine Corps version of the JSF has been responsible for most of the technical, cost, and schedule problems, cancelling it could accelerate delivery of the Air Force (F- 35A) and Navy (F-35C) versions.

They also proposed:

Substitute F-16 and F/A-18Es for half of the Air Force and Navy’s planned buys of F-35 fighter aircraft. With a planned total buy of 2,443 aircraft, the F-35 or Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is the Defense Department’s largest weapon procurement program. This option would buy half as many as the 369 planned for the Air Force and the 311 for the Navy, purchasing instead the current generation fighter aircraft, the Air Force F-16 aircraft at one-third of the cost and the Navy F/A- 18E/F at two-thirds of the cost of the F-35. The unit cost of F-35 aircraft is estimated at about $133 million compared to $40 million for an F-16 and $80 million for an F-18E. The rationale for this change would be that DOD does not need an entire fleet with the stealthy capabilities of the JSF, and could rely instead on upgraded F-16 and F/A-18E aircraft for half of their fleet, a “high-low” mix. This is estimated to save $2.3 billion in FY2015, and a total of $9.5 billion for FY2011-FY2015. The option might also allow the services to upgrade their tactical air fleets sooner in case the F-35 is delayed because of additional technical problems, since the F-16 and F-18E lines are currently open. In 2009, CBO described a similar option that would have cancelled the F-35 program altogether.

[ORAC]

Ares: Spin Recovery (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a072b6900-d162-455d-83dd-f44186eddbc1&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)

JSF spin machine goes berserk, an F-22-shaped cloud on the horizon, and a judge admits he was wrong. ... Read More »

[Ian Corrigible]

U.S. Navy testing back-up alternative for F-35 from latest Nimitz-class carrier (http://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=94158)

http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/webphoto/web_101115-N-3885H-265.jpg

:E

I/C

[ORAC]

Sorry, that's it. The F-35B is history, the USF wants to restart production of the F-22 in place of the F-35A and Navy prefers the F-18E/F/G on price to the F-35C to be able to man their carriers.

With the price going through the roof as they cancel, no overseas customers will want to take up their options anyway.


Major F-35B Component Cracks In Fatigue Test (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a7d1f2ccf-6f75-4c62-a78c-d57c7a6537e6&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)

The aft bulkhead of the F-35B BH-1 fatigue-test specimen has developed cracks after 1,500 hours of durability testing, Ares has learned. This is less than one-tenth of the planned fatigue test program, which is designed to prove an 8,000-hour airframe life with a safety factor of two. The bulkhead design was modified in the course of the jet's weight-saving redesign in 2004-05, switching from forged titanium - proven on the F-22 - to a new aluminum forging process developed by Alcoa.

According to Lockheed Martin,"the cracks were discovered during a special inspection when a test engineer discovered an anomaly." The company says that flight-test aircraft have been inspected and found crack-free and that flight testing has not been affected.

Engineers are still investigating the failure and it is not yet known whether the cracks reflect a design fault, a test problem (for example, a condition on the rig that does not reproduce design conditions) or a faulty part. If the bulkhead design is found to be at fault, it will be a serious setback for the F-35B program, potentially imposing flight restrictions on aircraft already in the pipeline or requiring expensive changes on the assembly line.

Six F-35Bs are included in the LRIP-2 contract, now in the mate or final assembly stage, and nine in the 17-aircraft LRIP-3 batch - which are intended to support initial Marine Corps training and operations. If a redesign is necessary it could also delay deliveries of LRIP-4 aircraft.

Bulkheads are a major structural component of the F-35, carrying the major spanwise bending loads on the aircraft. They are produced from forgings weighing thousands of pounds, which are machined into the final shape. They are among the longest lead-time items in the airframe, being built into mid-body sections produced by Northrop Grumman.

The F-35A and F-35C bulkheads are still made of titanium, as are similar bulkheads on the F-22.

[BEagle]

What do you feel is the alternative to sorting it and using it for 40 years or so?

1. Cancel F-35A and continue with more/improved F-22 and developed F-16?
2. Cancel F-35B. Does the USMC really need a stealth jet?
3. Cancel F-35C and continue with F-18E/F/G......?

Canada to receive CF-18E/F/G?
UK to receive F-18E/F/G Sea Hornet?

Someone do the sums, but if the UK cnx'd its F-35C plans, could the RN's planned aircraftless carriers be equipped with the Sea Hornet when the ships actually enter service (or whatever the boat people's expression is) rather than 6-10 years later? Could the UK then afford 2 carrier Sea Hornet groups?

[ORAC]

more/improved F-22 Lockheed Martin eyes common architecture for F-35, F-22 (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/11/01/349062/lockheed-martin-eyes-common-architecture-for-f-35-f-22.html) :cool:

[draken55]

Like the United Kingdom, the USA may have to face up to a choice of what they can afford. Given the procurement process in the US, I would be surprised if the F-35 programme is cancelled unless technical problems add more to current delays. The F-35B appears most at risk for this reason especially as the USMC is the one remaining large buyer.

If futher problems are now emerging, the USAF and Navy may have to buy more of what is available whilst production lines are open for current types. If they do that, up will go the unit cost of the F-35 as it's bound to reduce demand for it in both the A and C Models. It would then be down to the real improvement in capability the F-35 can actually deliver to justify the greater costs of buying it.

Given this possibilty, what if the UK opted to buy the Super Hornet at a much lower price and in greater numbers than would then be possible for an F-35C only buy.

I am pretty tired of all our inter service nonsense. The carriers are being built and will need aircraft in sufficient numbers. Super Hornet seems to fit the bill and if we follow the RAAF approach, it would also beef up our Electronic Warfare options and add to the UK's air to air refuelling capability.

Any real issues with a mix of Typhoon, Super Hornet, UAV's and TLAM for the future say 2015-2030?

[Madbob]

Early fatigue crack found ......:uhoh::uhoh::uhoh:

Maybe there is a case for having mixed fleets after all, avoids having all of one's eggs in the same basket. Remember the days of A4's, F4's, A6's, F14's in service at the same time. Or UK equivalents of Harriers, Buccs, Tooms and Jags........

MB


The fatigue crack turned up in the aluminum-alloy bulkhead (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a7d1f2ccf-6f75-4c62-a78c-d57c7a6537e6&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest) after just 1,500 hours of testing. The F-35 airframe is designed to last at least 8,000 hours and the intent of the testing was to push it to twice that figure.
How serious a problem the bulkhead crack is remains to be seen. It came in an F-35B model, in which the titanium bulkheads were swapped for aluminum to save weight. If it turns out to be a manufacturing error, that's one set of problems. If it's a design error, that's another.
There are already four F-35B flight test planes flying at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, with another built and ready to follow fairly soon. Based on a previously scheduled walking tour of the Lockheed Martin assembly line this morning, at least five more B-models are in some stages of the final assembly process and another four or five have to fairly far along.
The timing of the discovery isn't good. The Pentagon for weeks has been trying to decide how to proceed with the F-35 program which continues to fall farther behind schedule and over budget, in large part due to problems with the F-35B. It has been widely reported that the Navy made have made another attempt to convince Defense Secretary Gates to drop the Marines short-takeoff-vertical-landing model (http://blogs.star-telegram.com/sky_talk/2010/11/marines-fighting-to-keep-f-35b.html).
A Defense Acquisition Board will be held Monday to advise and rule on the DoD's plans for continuing with the F-35 program.


Read more: http://blogs.star-telegram.com/sky_talk/2010/11/cracked-f-35-missing-f-22.html#ixzz15jS19lJB (http://blogs.star-telegram.com/sky_talk/2010/11/cracked-f-35-missing-f-22.html#ixzz15jS19lJB)

[Willard Whyte]

Since when did the F/A-18E/F become known as a 'Sea' Hornet?!

[glad rag]

draken55 is on the money. The FAA desperately need aircraft to fly off the carriers if only to remain a viable operational asset.

The sensible choice would be F-18 as it ticks all the operational boxes needed to retain "currency" and will keep the FAA in F/J business.

If deemed necessary, buy the bloody JSF once all the faults have been ironed out in the future, let someone else do the hard graft for once.

my little 10p's worth.

and i didn't mention twin engines ONCE

[Double Zero]

What do you feel is the alternative to sorting it and using it for 40 years or so?

Well John, I started this thread to generate exactly that discussion, and it seems to have worked !

Actually I would much prefer to see the F-35, including the 'B', succeed, with a view to their very advanced capabilities - those advocating 4th generation aircraft, and / or nailing on the F-35's systems, don't seem to have studied just what the aircraft has to offer or realise what's involved.

The snags with the 'B' re.heat pads etc sound a bit worrying though, but I can't imagine the temperatures & velocities have come as a sudden surprise to designers...

Plus there's the money already spent & experience gained - but I maybe have a more jaundiced view of politicians.

On second thoughts, in view of recent developments it would be impossible to have too low a regard for politicians, there used to a handy guillotine or wall with a gun opposite to deal with letting down one's country...

[twochai]

Canada to receive CF-18E/F/G?
UK to receive F-18E/F/G Sea Hornet?

As a Canadian taxpayer, I support this strategy completely.

The CF-18E/F/G would be totally adequate for Canadian purposes as there is no prospect that Canada would need the stealth capability of the F-35. The Super Hornet would do probably 95%+ of the job asked of the F-35 at one third the cost.

If my numbers are right, based on the $135 million a copy price for the most recent F-18E's bought by the USN, we could probably buy 100+ CF-18E's and come out with big savings in acquisition costs and much, much cheaper life cycle costs.

This business of technology for technology's sake has got to stop - we (the world) cannot afford it!

[ORAC]

Remind me again about how the SDSR stated we were cancelling the F-35B and switching to the F-35C. Looks like left hand and right hand aren't talking again....

Lockheed Gets U.S., U.K. Contract for Lot IV F-35s (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=5078474&c=AME&s=AIR)

Defense giant Lockheed Martin Corp. has received a contract worth $3.48 billion to manufacture 31 F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft for the U.S. and U.K. militaries, the Pentagon announced Nov. 19.

The contract for the Lot IV aircraft will cover the production and delivery of 16 short take-off, vertical-landing (STOVL) F-35B Lightning aircraft for the Marine Corps, four F-35C carrier variants for the Navy, 10 F-35A conventional landing jets for the Air Force and one STOVL aircraft for the British Royal Navy, according to the announcement.

The aircraft would be delivered by March 2013 by Lockheed. The total value of the low rate initial product aircraft is $3.9 billion.

The contract award comes as the Pentagon begins a review of the F-35 program, which has been hit by program delays and cost overruns.

Company officials remained optimistic.

"We are focused on getting fifth generation fighter capability into the hands of U.S. and allied pilots as quickly and as cost-effectively as possible," Larry Lawson, Lockheed Martin executive vice president and F-35 program general manager, said in a statement.

[ICBM]

Hmm, yes that is interesting.

Perhaps it's for roughly the same reason that the first CVF will be a STOVL carrier; i.e contract and materiel already being worked on. Lockheed Martin are already in the process of building 2 STOVL jets for the UK in the LRIP 3 run so it was probably too late to switch to a F35C on this contract given our announcement to change variant only 4 weeks ago. UK needs these jets for operational testing and I imagine F35Bs will still meet the bill for mission systems testing vice being needed for STOVL-unique which is now moot for UK.

I would bet our next order is for an F35C just like the next order for HMS Prince of Wales will be for Cats and Traps.

Just my opinion.

[Lonewolf_50]

This may sound nuts, but if the problem is the Aluminum bulkhead, the F-35 already has the Titanium bulkhead figured out. As I'm not in the middle of this program, no idea why the swap ... unless the cost of Ti made one of three models prohibitive? (That just makes no sense, to me)

What is it about Ti that is less attractive than Al for the structure? :confused: I am having trouble accepting that it's a weight issue alone.

Color me confused.

[BEagle]

Aluminium is about 55% the density of Titanium; given that the bulkhead is a pretty hefty item, I would expect the weight saving to be considerable...

[Lonewolf_50]

OK, I was looking at corrosion in maritime environment, and somewhat str to wt, but put on that footing of Max Gross Weight, and weight issues that VSTOL have to deal with, makes sense. Thanks.

[engineer(retard)]

I would not be surprised if cost is another driver, not only to buy but to machine. If the stress calcs say its ok to use ally of course.

[Trim Stab]

However, in my view, to go from this to talk of cancellation shows either a bias or a lack of understanding of this programme. What do you feel is the alternative to sorting it and using it for 40 years or so?


What are the French planning for the next 40 years or so?

I suspect, given that we have just signed a 50 year strategic defence agreement with France, our own nebulous, short-term, opportunistic defence planning is being rapidly re-aligned with the clear, long-term, strategic defence planning of France.

[Willard Whyte]

Aluminium is about 55% the density of Titanium; given that the bulkhead is a pretty hefty item, I would expect the weight saving to be considerable...

On the other hand Ti is about twice as strong as Al, so one only needs circa half the amount...

[Modern Elmo]

... The performance is only equivalent to that of the F-16 ..

Wrong, simply wrong,.

... and the value of it's stealth performance against recent radars and SAW is increasingly questioned. ...

"Is increasingly questioned" by anonymous amateurs on the Iternet and by Av. Week scribblers who don't know anything technical to write about in any depth. Stealth skeptics --> citoyens of countries with no stealthy aircraft. ( Bill Sweetman -- a Brit expat? )

...

Similarily, there are those in the USAF who would prefer to buy more F-15Es and reopen the F-22 line for AD aircraft.

No, you don't understand. The F-35 is to the F-22 as the F-16 is to the F-15. The two single-engine aircraft are designed to have higher wing loading and therefore better performance at lower altitudes than their twin-engined team mates. In some respects, F-22's are not as good as F-35A's at lower altitudes.

This is a basic point that the Karlo Kopp Klaque and tail number spotters posting on the Internet don't grasp.

Air Force magazine says the USAF would like to re-open the F-22 line? There's a back issue of Air Force mag that sez the Air Force would like to re-open the B-2 final assembly plant at Palmdale! Hasn't happened yet.

The only force wedded to the F-35 are the USMC

Wrong again, the Air Force is very loyally wedded to the F-35A.

[ORAC]

DODBuzz: Venlet Likes JSF Second Engine (http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/11/23/venlet-supports-jsf-second-engine/)

Ever since Defense Secretary Robert Gates canned the head of the JSF program, Marine Maj. Gen. David Heinz, Capitol Hill aides have hinted that substantial support remained within the Air Force for a second engine for the Joint Strike Fighter. Now we have proof.

A November 19 letter signed by leaders of the House Armed Services Committee cites testimony by Adm. David Venelet, program executive officer for the JSF program. The letter was sent to Rep. Norm Dicks, chair of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee and asked him to include funding for the F136 in whatever spending measure the House might pass to fund the government once current appropriations run out on Dec. 3.

The letter, first reported by my colleague Jason Sherman at Inside Defense (http://insidedefense.com/), says: “As you are well aware from testimony to the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, Secretary Gates’ most senior military advisory and acquisition official on the F-35 program, [Vice] Admiral David Venlet, has stated that he believes in competition in the F-35 engine program.”

It is signed by outgoing HASC chairman, Rep. Ike Skelton, his replacement, Rep. Buck McKeon and four other senior HASC members.

What I find most interesting about this is how Gates will react, especially given the fact that F-35 costs have continued to rise on Venlet’s watch. Many people believe Heinz was fired by Gates largely because of his support for the second engine, although Gates cited rising program costs when he made his Feb. 1 announcement.

Here’s what Gates said when he fired Heinz: “One cannot absorb the additional costs in this program and the delays without people being held accountable.” Nothing has yet leaked out about yesterday’s Defense Acquisition Board on the F-35 but all indications are that program costs continue to rise and schedules continue to slip, none of which should be very surprising in this phase of a program like the F-35. Do we follow the logic of Gates’ February comments at the time and conclude he will fire Venlet, one of the most senior military leaders to lead a weapons program? Will Gates order Venlet to shut up or to change his publicly stated position?

Finally, let us all congratulate lawmakers and their aides on keeping this letter so quiet for so long. They may well have wanted to keep it quiet for as long as Gates remains in office. General Electric and Rolls Royce, makers of the F136, remain remarkably silent.

[LowObservable]

Modern Elmo -

Bloviation and attacks are not a very good substitute for facts.

"F-16 and F/A-18 class" flight performance are the basis for the JSF KPPs in those areas. Two of the F-35 variants are 7 g aircraft, wing loading and T/W are no advance on the Viper and Hornet, top speed is M=1.6, acceleration KPPs are unspectacular - why is it wrong to say so?

Eurofighter has made a logical case that while stealth is valuable, it also costs - in weight, complexity and money. The F/A-18 community advertises a doctrine of balanced survivability, including observables, reduced vulnerability, situational awareness and jamming. They are competitors, but you might want to challenge the basis of the argument rather than simply dismiss all criticism as unqualified.

There are clearly reasons in very recent history for the AF's official, public statements to reflect the SecDef's current line. And are you implying that the Air Force speaks as one on all issues? I would call that viewpoint naive at best.

[ORAC]

Joint Strike Fighter Delayed? Not a Big Deal for the U.S. Navy (http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=258)

[ORAC]

Dutch parliament shocked as cost of F-35 fighter rises to $120 million (http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2010/eu_military1218_12_08.asp)

LONDON — The cost of the Joint Strike Fighter now exceeds $120 million.

A leading partner of the U.S.-led JSF program has determined that the F-35 fighter-jet would cost at least $121 million per unit. The Netherlands said this marked an increase of 20 percent over the last year.

"This estimate includes the average price of the three versions of the F-35 over the entire production period, and estimated U.S. investments including ground equipment, simulators and includes initial spare parts," the Dutch Defense Ministry said.

In a Dec. 2 statement, the Dutch ministry issued a rare non-U.S. estimate of the aircraft's rising costs. JSF prime contractor Lockheed Martin has insisted that the F-35 would not cost more than $100 million.......

On Dec. 2, Dutch Defense Minister Hans Hillen told parliament that the sharp rise in JSF costs reflected development and production delays. Hillen also cited the rise in costs of raw material, equipment and salaries, which were expected to further increase.

Several parliamentary factions have demanded that the Netherlands, which plans to procure 85 aircraft, withdraw from JSF. The Labor Party urged the government to purchase an existing aircraft to help control procurement costs.

"As assumed last September, the adjusted estimate of the investment for the F-16 replacement project is significantly higher than the current project budget," Hillen said.

Italy Shuffles JSF STOVL Schedule, Mulls Cut In Numbers (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=5187994&c=EUR&s=AIR)

Italy may reconsider its planned order of STOVL Joint Strike Fighters for its Air Force and has scrapped a plan to take delivery of the STOVL variant before the conventional JSF, a senior government official has said. The doubts over the Air Force's purchase STOVL JSFs and the decision to push back planned delivery of the aircraft were prompted by the UK pull out from the program, fears over costs and doubts raised over the aircraft's future in the U.S., said defense undersecretary Guido Crosetto.

"We may yet decide not to order the STOVL JSF for the Air Force, and instead order only conventional JSFs," Crosetto said. "We are discussing it right now."

The Air Force has envisaged buying 40 STOVL JSFs to replace its AMX fighter bombers, alongside 69 conventional JSFs to replace its Tornado aircraft. Currently. the Air Force retains the STOVL variant as a firm requirement, suggesting one alternative scenario could be a reduction in the STOVL order by the Air Force, as opposed to an outright cut.

The Italian navy is meanwhile seeking to buy 22 STOVL aircraft to replace the AV8s due to fly from its new carrier the Cavour.

"The UK decision and the rumors from America do not leave us indifferent," said Crosetto, who has represented the Italian government on talks over Italian JSF work share and the construction of a final assembly line for the aircraft in Italy. "Italy wanted the STOVL for both Navy and Air Force. The first thing we need to do is look closely at those we wanted for the Air Force, mainly because it costs 30 percent more and it is difficult to be the only one left sustaining it while other countries are making reductions and even the Americans are reconsidering it."

"For the navy and for the Cavour it is essential. For it to be of use, the Cavour needs STOVL aircraft. But I believe the Marines will need it, so at the end of the day the aircraft will probably be built," he said. "However, the concern is that if fewer are built, the costs will rise and we are now asking the Americans for details."

Crosetto said that in order to accommodate hold-ups of the STOVL program in the US and give time for the discussions about the type in Italy, the Italian government is scrapping a plan to request its first four deliveries in STOVL format in 2014, and will ask for conventional aircraft instead. "The first four aircraft we will take delivery of will be conventional JSFs, and we will see how the STOVL program advances," he said. "We have had informal contacts with the Americans about taking the conventional aircraft first."

Italy's original delivery plan envisioned an initial delivery of four STOVL aircraft in the Low Rate Initial Production 6 stage in 2014, with further deliveries of STOVL aircraft in 2015, 2016 and beyond. The first conventional JSF deliveries were envisaged in 2017. Switching those deliveries to 2014 means bringing forward the delivery of Italy's first conventional aircraft by three years.

An Italian defense source said that studies were now being made to reschedule the first STOVL deliveries. "But we need to see how discussions on the program proceed in the U.S.," he said.

[glad rag]

A leading partner of the U.S.-led JSF program has determined that the F-35 fighter-jet would cost at least $121 million per unit. The Netherlands said this marked an increase of 20 percent over the last year.

Well, well,well.

How many stations have to close, how many (more) ships have to be scrapped, how many people (purple) are to be flung on the dung heap to justifythe purchase of this (ludicrously expensive accident waiting to happen) airframe?

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

the Cavour needs STOVL aircraft

Do they fancy getting some Harriers instead? Newly upgraded, combat proven, available right now...

[ORAC]

Hmmm. tell me again about the corrosive environment at sea and aircraft having to be designed to withstand it...... :ouch::ouch:

Ares: Rust and Stealth - GAO on F-22 vs F-35 (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a5d5351e5-8a5f-4073-9428-c3129cabdf6a&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)

Costly corrosion problems on the F-22 caused by stealth materials and coatings have been addressed on the F-35, but risks remain, concludes a report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11171r.pdf).

The GAO's presentation to Congress on its review of the DoD's corrosion evaluation report on the F-22 and F-35, completed at the end of September, says:

"Corrosion of the aluminum skin panels on the F-22 was first observed in spring 2005, less than 6 months after the Air Force first introduced the aircraft to a severe environment. By October 2007, a total of 534 instances of corrosion were documented, and corrosion in the substructure was becoming prevalent. For corrosion damage identified to date, the government is paying $228 million to make F-22 corrosion-related repairs and retrofits through 2016."

Lessons learned have been applied, the GAO saying:

"The F-35 program is mitigating corrosion risk associated with conductive gap filler and paint by using a gap filler that is less galvanically dissimilar from aluminum, an alternative to the conductive paint, a design with fewer seams that require gap filler, and more representative verification and qualification testing. Many of the F-22’s corrosion problems were linked to problems with gap filler materials and paint. The F-35 drainage design is significantly improved with more, adequately sized drain holes. Drain holes in the F-22 were found to be too small to enable good water drainage."

But remaining risks identified include:

"Environmental and occupational health concerns drove the initial use of a nonchromated primer on the F-22 that did not provide corrosion protection, and the program later switched to a chromated primer. The F-35 has also chosen to use a nonchromated primer that has never been tested on an aircraft in a corrosive operating environment.

- No operational-level test for corrosion was conducted on the F-22 prior to initial operating capability, and none are currently planned for the F-35.

- The length of the F-22 full-scale climatic test was cut in half, and the program office for the F-35 is currently considering reducing its full-scale climatic test."

And the GAO cautions:

"The corrosion study concluded that, if the F-22 program had accomplished testing earlier in the program, many of the corrosion problems could have been addressed at greatly reduced cost and the associated readiness issues avoided. If the F-35 conducts tests that are planned and conducted properly and in full, these tests could reveal many corrosion-susceptible areas on the aircraft."

On the issue of why corrosion was allowed to become a problem, the Congressional watchdog says:

"...neither aircraft had a corrosion prevention user requirement that would drive CPC [corrosion prevention and control] as a design requirement. Further, the program offices for both aircraft only required “corrosion resistance” within the system specifications, a poorly defined and nonspecific term that is difficult to ensure incorporation into aircraft components and to verify.

And on why the F-35 should be different, it says:

"While not necessarily due to lessons learned from the F-22 program, the study identifies several important differences between the programs. For example, the F-35 program:

- has several technical performance metrics, such as sortie generation rate, that are indirectly driving actions to improve supportability, while the F-22 program did not;

- has a more robust corrosion design largely due to inclusion of more stringent Navy corrosion qualification tests;

- has a longer service life requirement (30 years vs. 20 years fo rthe F-22); and

- has a Corrosion Prevention Advisory Board where corrosion issues are discussed in detail and both the contractor and the government display a willingnessto address these issues."

[LeCrazyFrog]

Carrier strike capability

On a military aspect, if you want to have proper strike capability you have to go cats and traps (not ot mention AEW). Although history can provide with a few counter-examples (one..?) it is as simple as that.
On a power projection/diplomatic aspect, if you check the navies that have traditional carriers, if you check which way are going the countries seeking to have that capacity, you'll reach the same answer.

F-35

1- The whole program is pretty bonkers :
- financially : adding billions every couple of months for whatever good reason Lockheed puts up. And govts are slowly realising they are not willing to put up with it. IMHO I will not put a penny on the fact of seeing any operationnal F-35 launching from the deck of a carrier ever...
- technologically : it surely is the 8th wonder, no doubt about it (or is there...I seem to recall the F-22 was already supposed to be the 8th wonder...). However who needs this kind of technology? Surely you always want to stay ahead of the rest (especially for our friends from across the pond), but as someone put it in this thread what we are lacking today is more kalashnikov-style aircraft, able to operate with limited support from distant fobs... Surely we need to be ready for the old-fashioned BVR stuff, however again IMHO pouring all those billions in an aircraft which is going to be outdated by UAV technology during its lifetime, no matter how hard it is to accept it by the jet jockeys..., seems to be quite irresponsible.
- the b****y thing will not be operationnal (if ever) before loooong loong time. It is already late in many respects and checking recent history (Merlins, Rafales, NH90, Typhoon) ALL recent programs have been late by MANY years

2- Where do we go from here?

After all the above, the sensible solution seems to go for :
- F-18 : pretty good capabilities, pretty cheap (at least compared to the F-35), can last until 2030 (and probably beyond as is usual) plus you get to keep the "special relationship"...:ok:
- Rafale: same good capabilities, can last till 2040 and beyond, goes in the current strategic mood, you just need to get used to the garlic...
- forget about "navalising" Typhoon. It doesn't work (Jaguar...). Btw Rafale was designed as a naval aircraft and then adapted for the Air Force.

Dead simple isn't it...?? :ugh:

Enjoy xmas

[draken55]

"After all the above, the sensible solution seems to go for :
- F-18 : pretty good capabilities, pretty cheap (at least compared to the F-35), can last until 2030 (and probably beyond as is usual)"

Aircrew trained/training on the type on US Navy exchange postings. Super Hornet can be wired for EW (as requested by the RAAF) and can also be configured for AAR in addition to the strike and air defence roles. We would obtain cost savings if bought off the shelf along with the US Navy's continuing orders from Boeing. It's available as either a one or two seater depending on the customers requirements.

The issue is not cost but that a buy brings no benefit to UK industry. So to handle this delicate political issue, why not seek offsets like some bare airframes from Boeing to then fit, if practical, at least some of the electronics paid for but now being left over from MR4A?

But the F-35 is next generation and has first day of war capability I hear you say?

Now where did I put those pills:zzz:

[Finningley Boy]

What the hell does first day of war capability mean exactly? Sounds like more jargon to me meaning simply "very good"? What kind of aeroplane will we require for the second and third days then??:confused:

FB:)

[Squirrel 41]

FB,

What kind of aeroplane will we require for the second and third days then??

One good enough to survive Day One's IADS unless you're prepared to wait for Uncle Sam to go in there and clear out a double-digit threat for you.

S41

[kiwibrit]

What is it about Ti that is less attractive than Al for the structure? http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/confused.gif I am having trouble accepting that it's a weight issue alone.

Maybe because Aluminium is generally easier to work than Titanium - and much cheaper.

[acbus1]

The fundamental issue here is that the UK 'Government' has apparently abandoned any further attempt to produce its own military aircraft at sensible cost. European collaboration (Tornado, Eurofighter) has been proven to be inflexible and no less costly than going it alone, surprise, surprise. American collaboration ditto, perhaps even moreso, given the phenominal cost (albeit providing phenominal capabilities) of current USA design philosophies.

Yet another UK manufacturing industry heading for oblivion, in the same sad fashion as home-produced motor cars, motorcycles, commercial aircraft, trains, ships, etc etc etc. Yet another nail in the coffin encasing the corpse of the UK economy. Its all downhill from here.

[glad rag]

One good enough to survive Day One's IADS unless you're prepared to wait for Uncle Sam to go in there and clear out a double-digit threat for you.

S41

Sounds like the economic route....:cool:

[Squirrel 41]

Glad Rag,

That's the point. We could have got BAe to bang out Gripens for us and accepted that we were not going to try and keep up with the USAF in stealth but continue to provide a legacy PGM bomb truck and escort platform at lower cost or in greater numbers for the same cost. The downside was that we couldn't reasonably take on a modern IADS alone and it would've been less "prestigious".

The flip side of this is that we have a tiny front line who's scale is too small to provide any serious flexibility.

S41

[LowObservable]

Taking out the double digits is a UCAV mission if ever I saw one.

Not to say that we can guarantee to do it, today, but if you look at what Neuron is planning for its capstone test, it's not hard to see what they're thinking about for a target.

[ORAC]

More calls for partial or full cancellation of the JSF (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3aedb16d1f-1516-4d3e-a36b-05bbd2ff2bf9&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)

Killer Drones converge on California (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/12/killer-drones-converge-on-california-ready-to-take-off/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+WiredDangerRoom+%28Blog+-+Danger+Room%29&utm_content=Google+Reader)

[Double Zero]

Jeez,

When I started this thread it was for little more than 'what if' conjecture; look what's happened since then...

No-one will ever accuse me of being a gifted mathematician, but surely so much money - and R & D effort - has gone into the F-35,( alright the 'B' may have a slight question mark, personally I think will prove very useful in time ) - the CTOL variants especially would seem a lot too good right now to turn down at this stage ?

The snag of course is if by U.S. standards pitifully low numbers are ordered, making unit price frightening; I would have thought this has already happened to the F-22, are there really enough for a serious war ?

Another thing strikes me; a UK 'advisor' would presumably choose to keep Tornado over Harrier, if there are going to be NO decks to operate from, I understand the POW will not have cat'n trap ?

Making POW a hell of an expensive helicopter carrier and not much point at all now the UK F-35B is gone. I know it's already been said she'll go once the QE is around, but why wait, with no STOVL aircraft of any kind available ?

If that's correct, my original thoughts when the build contract was placed may prove correct, the 'easy to fit cat n'trap facility' is to make her more attractive to foreign buyers, the only look the RN will get will be as she goes past on delivery.

I hope the F-35 survives, but I have grave doubts the UK will get any, unless we somehow get a government in the meantime.

[ORAC]

No-one will ever accuse me of being a gifted mathematician, but surely so much money - and R & D effort - has gone into the F-35,( alright the 'B' may have a slight question mark, personally I think will prove very us......to turn down at this stage ? McDonnell Douglas A-12 Avenger II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_A-12_Avenger_II) :cool::cool:

.......The aircraft suffered numerous problems throughout its development, especially with the materials, and when the projected cost of each aircraft ballooned to an estimated US$165 million, the project was canceled by then-Secretary of Defense, Dick Cheney, in January 1991......

After the cancellation of the A-12, the Navy elected to buy the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, which replaced the A-7, the A-6, and the F-14.....

[Double Zero]

Oh, I don't know; I expect the TSR2 would have just about got the bugs out about now...

Thing is, surely cancelling at this stage would be something of a blow ( ! ) to industry, and there's the worry of 'other' advanced projects stealing a march; I freely admit I've been following the 'B', so don't know much of how the CTOL's are doing.

[LowObservable]

DZ - We are at the "Houston, we have a problem" stage with F-35.

One immediate issue is that, for not well explained reasons, the program is slipping in flight test, aircraft delivery and (according to the SecDef's flack) software development, all of which are later than anyone thought they were in March. Somewhere along the line, people haven't been telling the boss about the problems.

Another is cost. If the jet does not come down the learning curve as planned, a lot of international partners will watch their affordable force decline through the 30-40 aircraft mark. The USAF won't be able to afford 80 jets a year. Where do costs and numbers settle out?

A lot of money has been spent, true - but much more remains to be spent, in production and operations and support. The B is going to be very costly to maintain, with a lower engine life and lots of hot moving parts - but if we take that out where does it leave us? What's the operational penalty of an F-35A and F-35C that are variants of the STOVL aircraft (they would be very different if there were no B, with two engines, longer and leaner)? The comparison of the C, for example, with a Super Rhino is not the slam-dunk affair that the Fort Worth PowerPoint Rangers would have you believe.

Just my 38 trillion cents worth...

[ORAC]

The JSF was seen as the last manned bomber as UAVs would form the next generation.

The JSF needs F-18 Growler EW support to penetrate double digit defences, and both need AAR and other support. UAVs will be able to operate in that environment without risking crew, and with expected 48-72 hour endurance.

The problem for the JSF is that it's slipped so far to the right than UAVs able to perform those roles will be available around the same time it's now planned to enter service.

There's a case for a limited JSF buy, to ensure a fallback option if the UAVs prove to problems, probably around the size of the F-22 force.

But I think the majority of the purchase will be scrapped and replaced by the X-45/47 etc.

[Squirrel 41]

ORAC / LO / DZ

A most interesting discussion. As LO so memorably puts it:

Just my 38 trillion cents worth...

Quite!

The case for Dave-A seems clear to me; there are lots of F-16s that will need replacing over the next 15 years, and when the USAF decided to go down an "As Stealthy As Possible" (ASAP?!) policy in the early 90s, it seems to have been decided that the High/Low mix of F-15 / F-16 would be replicated in F-22 / Future Stealthy Attack Jet that became JAST and then JSF. The rationale for an ASAP force seems to be a(n extremely expensive) combination of the USAF determination to maintain "Air Dominance" and also to be able to take on modern IADS beyond S-400 / S-500 without unacceptable casualties. (For the record, good luck with that.)

But once the USAF decided on JSF and not F-16 Block 60/70/80 or whatever, then the die was cast - something the other side of 1,500 Dave-As are required. For the allied F-16 / F-18 (and in Turkey and Japan, F-4 operators) without the domestic capability or willingness to design their own, then JSF became the only game in town - so I expect 250 - 500 export orders, dependent on price, and these will be largely Dave-A.

For the USN, Dave-C seems at once more and less important. It is vital if the USN want to play as equals with the USAF ASAP concept off the CVs, but if F-18G Growler works as advertised, then there is a credible fallback in a F-18E/F/G airwing out to 2030 or so - because not every (indeed, hopefully very few) states of concern will be mounting S-400 / S-500 led IADS, and therefore a legacy Gen 4+ fleet still has a credible role to play. For allied nations in the cat-n-trap game, the same choices apply.

For the UK, this means Dave-C if we want the QE-class airwing to go beyond 2030 - it would be a pretty average return on investment to have to bin the jets after 10 years or so (and no, because it would be a crap decision doesn't necessarily mean that the MoD will make it - it merely increases the change of them making it! :ugh:) But the UK is probably unique in this - I can't think of another western ally planning on CTOL CVs without an indigenous CV design.

But the rationale for Dave-B has never stacked up for me - the ConOps of Dave-B in USMC service seem barmy - "we need a stealthy platform to go ashore with a MEU / MAGTAF when the USN can't be arsed to send a CVBG". Really? So unlikely as to be untrue - and madly expensive into the mix. I know that the Italians, Armada Espana and the Israelis may be upset, but with fiscal pressures the way they are, there's just no basis for continuing with Dave-B.

And yes, F-136 is critical in making sure that the F-135 programme stays on track - the 1980s Great Engine War was the best possible advert for competitive selection as both F100 and F110 programmes consistently upped their games.

S41

[Not_a_boffin]

But the UK is probably unique in this - I can't think of another western ally planning on CTOL CVs without an indigenous CV design.

Given that there are probably only two or three nations (four if you count the PRC Flanker knock-offs) on the planet actually producing naval fixed-wing aircraft and no nations producing STOVL carriers (not LHAs) with indigenous aircraft, that's probably not a particularly unique situation, now or in future........

[ORAC]

I know that a number of our antipodean cousins don't have any time for Dr Kopp, but I post this link as a point of discussion of the survivability of the F-35B/C in the pacific basin if the USN ever had to tangle with the PLAAF around Taiwan during the next 30 years.

What China's New J-20 Stealth Fighter Means for the F-35 JSF and F/A-18E/F Super Hornet (http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-311210-1.html)

.......Over the past few days, images have emerged of the new Chinese Stealth Fighter, the J-XX or the J-20. On the 29th January 2010, the Russians first flew the PAK-FA, and the Su-35S, which first flew on 28th February 2008, is expected to achieve IOC in early 2011. Meanwhile, back at the US fighter-farm, the JSF which first flew on 15th December 2006, has experienced continuing difficulties with the STOVL version and is likely to enter a substantial re-design programme in 2011, adding more years and even greater costs to the already frequently-extended development phase.

By the time the F-35 makes IOC (if it ever does) it will be, to use that well-known technical term, ‘toast’.

Even if an extensive redesign produces an aircraft that meets the March 2000 Joint Operational Requirements Document (JORD), the “Su-35S, PAK-FA, J-20 world” of 2015-2020 will be much different than the “Su-27S, MiG-29 world” that existed when the JORD was first released. Most astonishingly, when gross cost overruns forced a review of the program, the JORD specifications were not updated to encompass the 2015 - 2025 air combat environment. Instead, during the ensuing process that followed the Nunn-McCurdy Breach, the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) re-verified and re-validated the F-35 JSF Operational Requirements Document of March 13, 2000, as representing a capability “essential to the national security” (refer JROCM 078-10 dated May 20, 2010). And people wonder why some refer to the Nunn McCurdy process as the “codification of silliness, if not mendacity and misfeasance”?

And if the F-35 is ‘toast’ that makes the F/A-18E/F ‘cinders’ – this 1985 ‘old wine in a new bottle’ aircraft has some fancy new electronics, but none that will save it from destruction in combat. Like the distracted car driver, the crews of the F-35 and the F/A-18E/F can be fully informed by watching the dancing digital displays, but they cannot avoid the inevitable crash...........

[John Farley]

A point that does not get much (enough?) airing in these sort of debates is the effect of numbers.

Five modern wonders having expended their weapons (with 100% kills) could still be quite poorly placed if there were 20 more of these oldies still in the area.

[Double Zero]

John,

I take it that's why people are keen on things like F-18 & 16's, spiffing as long as there ARE large numbers of well equipped versions of those !

I do think the F-22 was produced in too low a number, which looks like being repeated with the F-35; a spectacular example of this sort of thing being the UK Type 45 Destroyer ( seems like a cruiser to me but still, the 'Through Deck Cruisers' looked remarkably like Aircraft Carriers! ) - 12 ordered, cut to 6 delivered at twice the price.

I rather doubt we could actually have got 12 for the same price, but I really hope someone without an agenda actually bothered to find out...

[Finningley Boy]

Perhaps someone might start an F35 fund?! You know, like they had thins like Spitfire funds back in the Second World War. For example, ppruners could get together with people on Fighter Control and UKAR in order to co-ordinate a fund raising campaign in order to buy a F35. That way the R.A.F./R.N. would be sure of getting at least one!:)

Furthermore, we could have the right to have personalized messages carried on the airframe or something.:ok:

FB:)

[Double Zero]

" it would bring a tear to anyone's eye at airshows, guv ! "

Maybe it could team up with a resurrected TSR2, 'The Accountancy Pair'...

[fallmonk]

Is there not room for what they did with the Boeing/Sikorsky RAH-66 Comanche, scrub it but take what they developled for it and put on currant platforms???
Am I not right saying a lot off the R&D that was done ended up on the Apache etc ! So could some off the F35 systems not end up on the legacy F18's etc ??

[ORAC]

Cure for the aux inlet door hinge problem. Let's hope that the result isn't lift-fan door hinge problems! The additional load on the fully open door as speed increases must be substantial.

Hmmm, sideslip issues on a VTOL jet in the hover, how unexpected...... :ugh:

Ares: Lockheed Sneaks Another F-35 Under the Wire (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3abdae67c5-2acb-4356-b2b0-786ad46ecbb2&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)

.........To achieve clearance for ship trails, the F-35B must complete 40 vertical landings in a range of conditions. The program has only done 10 since March 2010, seven of which count towards the total required. STOVL-mode testing was suspended in September, when premature wear on auxiliary-inlet door hinges was discovered. Vertical landings are expected to resume in January.

http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/6/0/d683e315-dbba-430c-a0e6-06638f1867a2.Large.jpg
Auxiliary doors are aft of the lift-fan door (here open to 65deg)

Hinge wear has been traced to higher-than-predicted airloads on the auxiliary doors. Components have been redesigned, but the main fix is to change the operation of the large lift-fan door forward of the auxiliary-inlet doors. Flight tests have shown that, when the lift-fan door is fully open, loads on the auxiliary doors are reduced.

Originally, the lift-fan door was scheduled to open to 65deg below 120kt in semi-jet-borne flight, and to 35deg above that airspeed. Now the door will stay fully open to 165kt to reduce the loads on the auxiliary-inlet doors. Lockheed's JD McFarlan, who is now in change of the test program, says the change does not significantly impact short take-off performance.

Investigation of the hinge-wear problem also revealed a lot of variation of the loads on the auxiliary doors caused by aircraft sideslip, so McFarlan says the flight-control software has been adjusted to tailor the slideslip characteristics in semi-jet-borne flight.........

[glad rag]

Good news, now they can get back to the rolling vertical landing trials..

[John Farley]

Hmmm, sideslip issues on a VTOL jet in the hover, how unexpected....

I know it is a new year but we must not let that be an excuse to drop our standards.

I can think of no VSTOL aircraft that has a sideslip problem in the hover - but plenty that do during transition.

Airspeed dear boy - it is what brings aerodynamics into the act.

[longer ron]

Originally, the lift-fan door was scheduled to open to 65deg below 120kt in semi-jet-borne flight, and to 35deg above that airspeed. Now the door will stay fully open to 165kt to reduce the loads on the auxiliary-inlet doors. Lockheed's JD McFarlan, who is now in change of the test program, says the change does not significantly impact short take-off performance.

Yeah right !!

Closely followed by problems with the lift fan door and associated mounting/hinge/actuator structure :ok:

[Squirrel 41]

Boeing 747 and Airbus A380 Aircraft News from Flightglobal (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/01/06/351600/us-military-unveils-possible-f-35b-redesign-in-sweeping-budget.html)

Looks like it's going to be tough on Dave-B now.

S41

[Harley Quinn]

DZ the article is clear which customer is purchasing which model.

[Double Zero]

Harley Quin - quite right, need glasses !

[moggiee]

All this stuff about fans, doors and hinges makes it clear once again - the only truly successful design for VSTOL is the Harrier style vectored nozzle system. The unnecessary complication of lift fans has always (ultimately) proved to be a poor second.

Scrap F35B and save us all some money.

[Navaleye]

Although the production line is closed, if the USMC and others want to stay in the VSTOL business, the its not impossible to reopen it. Seems like common sense to me. The F35B is overkill for the USMC, likewise the Italians and Spanish. I suspect this will be explored. AV-8B Harrier II++ anyone? :ok:

[Double Zero]

AV-8B Harrier II++ anyone?

Is there an echo in here ?!

Talking of lift fans and history, might be time to dust off and modernise some of the P-1216 ideas.

I recall one or two very sexy looking proposals, using a 3-post twin boom layout, big ( reheated ? ) aft nozzle a la F-35, and variable shutters for forward lift thrust instead of draggy front nozzles.

Even forward swept wings were considered, 'all' that would need adding to the mix is stealth - or is it worth the cost; financial, R&D time and performance ?

http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee132/gvtol/P1216project.jpg?t=1294394182

[Navaleye]

or an opportunity for BWoS to dust off the P1154? I know JF has reservations about the "Fire Breathing Monster" but at the time, the manufacturer had confidence in it. It only got killed because the navy really wanted the Phantom.

[Squirrel 41]

Navaleye wrote

or an opportunity for BWoS to dust off the P1154?

I'm not sure why it would be necessary - the point about warmed up AV-8B++ is that it is a firmly subsonic attack platform, albeit with a radar and limited AMRAAM capability. In other words, exactly what is required within the MAGTAF / MEU mission set and ConOps of supporting an opposed landing when the air threat is not great enough to warrant the dispatch of CVN. Let's not get started again on the logic of the ConOps.

I know JF has reservations about the "Fire Breathing Monster"

Ah the BS100! I know practically nothing about this beastie. Was it simply an enlarged Pegasus with hot front nozzles - ie, still based on an Orpheus core? Or was it a fresh design optimised for supersonic VSTOL operations?

S41

[Double Zero]

Think the BS100 was a lot bigger, and most definitely a hot front, which of course runs straight into some of the snags of the F-35B by a different route, + hot gas re-ingestion in a big way.

I mentioned this to an RN Engineering Officer who somehow contacted me asking 'if PCB had ever been thought of'.

When I described this he was amazed, and on relaying it reported back that even his instructors had never heard of it - depressing !

http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee132/gvtol/PCBinGantryGunston.jpg?t=1294413893

http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee132/gvtol/BS100inrigGunstonbook.jpg?t=1294413991

Photo's from 'Harrier' by Bill Gunston.

[Squirrel 41]

Another BS100 picture here: Bristol Siddeley BS100 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BS100)

S41

[iRaven]

http://www.airlinebuzz.com/chickenworks/Artwork/P1216A_UKRAF87_3.jpg

Is it me or does the front end look familiar?

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4122/4932459421_e1195d9603.jpg

Maybe parts of the design weren't wasted after all...

[Double Zero]

Errr, well it's got a pointy end and a chin intake, but I have a sneaking feeling that'd been come up with at some stage previously; I'll leave it to others to judge whether, if that was in any way an input to the Europhoon, a waste or not...

Nice artwork though, not seen that one before !

[Heathrow Harry]

The P1154 HAD to be supersonic because that's what senior officers in the RAF & FAA wanted - not something dragging along at M 0.95 - hell, you might as well have reordered Hunters!! And we didn't jointhe services to fly old kit

You see the same attitudes in the USAF these days - it has to go fast, very fast even tho ' all dog fights are subsonic...........

[TEEEJ]

The profile art is great, but even the artist admits....

I've taken a few artistic licenses here and there that result in this illustration deviating in the details from what the P.1216 might have actually looked like, but the essential elements are there.

Other P.1216 fantasy profiles are at the following.

'Flights of Fantasy: What if the P.1216 went into production?'

FLIGHTS OF FANTASY: What if the P.1216 went into production? (http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,308.0.html)

TJ

[ORAC]

Ares: Why The F-35B Is In Trouble (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a90d01128-ff7f-4d64-9f22-ac75779e6fc5&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)

[Willard Whyte]

Even forward swept wings were considered

Indeed, British Aerospace had a mock up in their Kingston factory in the mid 80s. Got a quick peek at that one, a mate's dad worked there and took us on an all too brief tour.

[John Farley]

Don't wish to be rude to my elder and better but I worked there at the time and while we had models of a forward swept wing design the mock-up you saw was probably the 1216 which did not have forward sweep.

[Squirrel 41]

And more on the problems for Dave-B...

Boeing 747 and Airbus A380 Aircraft News from Flightglobal (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/01/12/351768/new-design-changes-raises-pressure-on-future-of-f-35b.html)

S41

[411A]

More on the F35...

F-35 looking more like white elephant - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110113/pl_afp/usmilitaryaerospacef35_20110113153609)

Looks like this turkey of an airplane is even too expensive and trouble-prone for the US DoD.

Should be scrapped, poste haste.

And, for those that think I am personally hard on the RAF...the USAF can't get it right either.
In any cost/benefit analysis...the F35 is a dog and a half.:sad::*

[Not_a_boffin]

While not wishing to condone high-spending programmes across the board, this has to be seen in context of $65Bn prog cost for less than 200 F22 - vs $350Bn for 2500 F35. And lets not do the B2!

What has Tiffy cost for 650 ish airframes?

It's not necessarily Dave that's the problem - the procurement system is a challenge all it's own.....

[Squirrel 41]

I'm sure that the US DoD will make JSF as a programme work eventually; indeed the USAF doesn't have much of an alternative, so Dave-A is going to be made to work, even though it will serve in much smaller numbers than the existing F-16 fleets. I'm also confident that the USN will also get Dave-C to work, not least because bureaucratically the USN is not going to want to surrender the LO game exclusively to the USAF.

Dave-B is, however, dead jet walking as far as I can see. Too expensive, too complicated, but most importantly, the ConOps and the mission set makes no sense at all.

S41

[ORAC]

Ares: More F-35B Delays, Software Schedule At Risk (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a0941e5b4-a3c7-4406-85f8-151f2ef34d6b&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)

The F-35B short take-off, vertical landing variant of the Joint Strike Fighter may not complete flight sciences testing and shipboard integration until late 2016, even if current efforts to resolve design problems are successful, according to the latest report from the Pentagon's Director of Operational Test & Evaluation, Dr Michael Gilmore. The report has not been officially released as yet but a copy was made available to Ares. Update: DOT&E report. (http://www.aviationweek.com/media/pdf/Check6/2010%20F-35%20AR.pdf)

Until the past few weeks, Marine and other officials continued to insist that the previously planned initial operational capability date for the F-35B, in late 2012, could be met. The new report also says that the often-promised benchmark of 12 flights per aircraft per month, for all F-35 variants, cannot be attained without reliability and maintainability improvements.

The DOT&E also reports that the latest date for the completion of development testing on the F-35A and F-35C, in early 2016, will not be met unless Block 2 and 3 software is delivered on time and other "critical" problems, including issues with the JSF's helmet-mounted display system, are resolved. But the mission systems flight test schedule "still contains significant uncertainty", the report says. Rather than the rapid software development schedule originally planned, the DOT&E report now says that "the F-35 mission systems software development and test is tending towards familiar historical patterns of extended development, discovery in flight test, and deferrals to later increments."

The report draws heavily on the just completed, unpublished technical baseline review (TBR) conducted by new program executive officer VAdm Dave Venlet. The DOT&E notes that the TBR found that feasible flight rates were even lower than earlier independent reviews (such as that carried out by the Joint Estimating Team) and that more testing would be necessary. Flight testing so far has revealed problems with handling in the transonic and medium angle-of-attack regimes, and a problem with screech - destructive high-frequency combustion instability in the F135 afterburner - which is preventing the aircraft from achieving maximum power.

The potentially huge delays to the STOVL program are the result of design changes needed to resolve problems already discovered, including the "major" fatigue crack discovered in a bulkhead late last year. These changes are needed in order to lift operating limitations and make the aircraft more reliable, so that flight testing can be moved forward. As a result, the report says, STOVL flight sciences and ship integration could lag behind the rest of the development test program by as much as a year. For all variants, earlier plans to achieve flight test goals by raising the sortie rate to 10-12 flights per month per aircraft "are not achievable", the report says, until reliability and maintainability are improved.

Mission system software is the biggest problem. Currently, the only software for which a test program has been approved is Block 0.5 - but the Block 0.5 effort has failed, since the program office has deemed it unsuitable for training. The Block 1 test program plan has been completed and is now being reviewed, and the Block 2 plan is in the initial draft stage, as part of a comprehensive replanning effort. "Completion by early 2016 is possible provided further delays in delivery of Block 2 and Block 3 software are not incurred, and the program can overcome the helmet mounted display problem before Block 2 flight test must begin," the report says.

The TBR found that the previous program plans had not allowed enough time for re-fly and regression testing (tests to make sure that new or modified software has not affected previously tested functions), according to the DOT&E. Earlier plans had also not formally included flight testing to demonstrate the integration of software and sensors before going into tests to verify capability - the assumption had been that integration on the CATBird flying laboratory would allow that phase to be bypassed or minimized.

[moggiee]

Perhaps it would be cheaper to build the USMC some proper carriers and then give them Dave-C to play with?

PS: may I take this opportunity to reiterate my previous comments about lift fans? No-one has ever made them work properly.

[BEagle]

USAF: Bin F-35A and acquire more F-22. Perhaps an updated F-22B model with some F-35 avionics?
Export customers: Bin F-35 and acquire F-18E/F/G.
USMC: Bin F-35B, revise CONOPS and assess F-18E/F/G. Or lose all your fast jets to the USN.
USN: Bin F-35C and acquire more F-18E/F/G.

F-35 was originally billed as an 'affordable' lightweight fighter to supersede the hugely successful F-16. It has indeed evolved into an unaffordable turkey - you cannot argue with 411A over this as he's 100% correct in my opinion.

[John Farley]

may I take this opportunity to reiterate my previous comments about lift fans? No-one has ever made them work properly

Not quite sure what you are getting at here. Do you mean aerodynamically, mechanically or perhaps installation wise?

When the X-35B first hovered the CTP of the day was kind enough to call me with the news. I asked how much thrust did you lose out of the rear nozzle with the fan engaged - 6000lb he said. How much thrust did you get out of the fan? 16000lb he replied. The additional 10000lb (approx 25% of the hover weight) was not of course something for nothing but merely indicated the higher propulsive efficiency of a fan compared to a pure jet. But that is just physics. The other advantage of the B configuration is the way the 'cold' fan efflux hitting the ground during a VL stops the hot exhaust from the rear nozzle penetrating forward towards the intakes. (see any IR pics of the event to appreciate that)

The simpler Boeing configuration using the same basic powerplant suffered from less hover thrust and increased risk of recirculation.

Having said all that I personally cannot see the military case for supersonics in a tactical aeroplane - but that is a different topic.

In conclusion the B clearly has lots of problems but I am not sure the fan is central to them.

[kiwi grey]

Beagle said USAF: Bin F-35A and acquire more F-22. Perhaps an updated F-22B model with some F-35 avionics?
Probably, but the F-35 is supposed to replace the F-16 as part of the High/Low mix, the F-22 was / is the F-15 replacement.

Given that the USAF won't allow (for all the wrong "Pilots'R'Us" reasons as well as genuine technical ones) UCAVs to take over the strike & interceptor roles, what does they USAF buy for the lower portion of their force mix:
* F-15 Silent Eagles?
* F-16 Block xx?
* What?

As for the other services & nations, I think Beagle's right

[ORAC]

The Defense News article on the latest Pentagon report mainly covers the same ground as reported elsewhere. However, it does open the can of worms regarding the OBIGGS system.

Considering all the rest of the original protection/suppression was stripped out to save weight, this must be a critical path item to fix.

Report Reveals Undisclosed F-35 Problems (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=5484169&c=AME&s=AIR)

.............The report also calls for the aircraft's On-Board Inert Gas Generations System, which generates inert gases to prevent oxygen building up inside the fuel tanks, to be redesigned.

"The OBIGGS system fails to inert the fuel tank ullage spaces throughout the combat flight envelopes evaluated," the report says.

The report recommends program officials redesign the OBIGGS system "to ensure that the fuel tank ullage volume oxygen concentrations are maintained below levels that sustain fire and/or explosion throughout the combat flight envelopes."...........

[LowObservable]

Sure and I thought that Mr O'Biggs was the feller with the fire extinguisher, begorrah

[ORAC]

Canada has no way to refuel new jets in air (http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Canada+refuel+jets/4194194/story.html) :hmm::hmm:

Military must pay for modifications or buy new fleet of tankers

The Canadian military does not have the ability to conduct aerial refuelling of the F-35 fighter jet it wants to purchase and is now looking at ways to get around that problem.

Options range from paying for modifications to the stealth jets to purchasing a new fleet of tanker aircraft that can gas up the high-tech fighters in mid-air. That option could cost several hundred million dollars, depending on how many new tankers are needed.

In addition, because the F-35 would not be able to safely land on runways in Canada's north because those are too short for the fighter, the Defence Department is looking at having manufacturer Lockheed Martin install a "drag" chute on the plane. That parachute would deploy when the aircraft lands, slowing the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter down. But some pilots have said that high winds affecting such runways could make using a drag chute tricky or even dangerous.........

The government spent $126 million on modifying some of its current fleet of Polaris transport aircraft to handle mid-air-refuelling of CF-18 fighters. The first of the two modified planes was declared operational in 2009. But the system on the Polaris cannot refuel the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter model the Harper government has said it will purchase.

The Defence Department listed air-to-air refuelling as a mandatory capability for any new fighter aircraft Canada purchases, prompting some aerospace industry executives to privately question why this critical feature was ignored for the F-35 purchase. The refuelling is needed if the jets are going to cover long distances. The Defence Department stated in an e-mail that it "is studying options for F-35 air-to-air refuelling capability. The analysis is at an early stage and we will inform Canadians as soon as details become available."

But in an interview with the Citizen last summer, Tom Burbage, a senior Lockheed Martin official said he didn't think the refuelling issue would be a problem. He said the F-35 aircraft design could handle different types of refuelling systems, including those used by the Canadian Forces aerial tankers. Canada wants to purchase the same type of F-35 being ordered by the U.S. air force. However, the F-35 being built for the U.S. navy carries the equipment needed to be refuelled by tankers such as the ones operated by the Canadian Forces. "The airplane design can accommodate both refuelling systems," explained Burbage. "Canada has asked us to look at putting the navy refuelling system in the airplane and the air force refuelling system is already in it."

It is unclear what the cost of installing such a system would be. But sources say there are concerns that option could run into problems.

Another option to be considered would be purchasing new refuelling tankers. Military officers argue that by 2020 the Polaris aircraft might need to be replaced any ways.............

[BEagle]

As first discussed on PPRuNe last year:

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/421448-cf-35-a.html

:hmm:

[GeeRam]

What is it that seemingly removed all evidence of simple logic from mil procurement these days :ugh:

[LowObservable]

The bay that houses the probe on the B/C is AFAIK empty on the A, so making the CF-35 into a refuelling hermaphrodite should not be a major mechanical problem.

The only issue would be clearing the envelope for the boom on the A - the aero differences from the B are not huge, but there are some, and it also goes to higher weights than the B.

And if that was the biggest problem for the F-35, everyone would be happy...

[Finnpog]

Flight Global is running a couple of stories which you cold take to mean that the market place for amphibious CATOBAR FW is getting busier.

Super Hornet... AERO INDIA: VIDEO - Boeing reveals advanced Super Hornet options (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/02/09/352926/aero-india-video-boeing-reveals-advanced-super-hornet-options.html)

Typhoon...
AERO INDIA: Eurofighter reveals offer to produce navalised Typhoon (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/02/09/352925/aero-india-eurofighter-reveals-offer-to-produce-navalised.html)

According to the press, India might also be considering the E2-D for seaborne AEW. Foreign aid...don't you just love it.:confused:

[Brain Potter]

..making the CF-35 into a refuelling hermaphrodite should not be a major mechanical problem.

So if a 4-ship of dual system CF-35s is fragged against a boom/hose capable KC-30, which will be the refuelling system of choice - singletons on the boom or two-by-two on the hoses?

I've heard that the F-35A fuel pipes are identical to the B/C, which negates the better transfer rate capability the boom and gives advantage to the simultaneous refuelling ability of probe-and-drogue.

[glad rag]

"These include a new, stronger landing gear, a modified arrestor hook and thrust-vectoring control nozzles for its two Eurojet EJ200 turbofan engines. The latter would enable the fighter to approach the vessel at a reduced speed without restricting pilot vision by requiring an increased angle of attack."

Scrummy, lets do a job lot with the Indians then..........................:D

[ORAC]

Ares: In-flight Failure Halts F-35 Flight Tests (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a433985ca-f77d-48db-86bf-81b9eecc11dc&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter flight testing has been halted following a dual generator failure and oil leak in flight on Wednesday, March 9. The affected aircraft, F-35A test jet AF-4 at Edwards AFB, returned to base safely, says Lockheed Martin.

The company's statement says: "As a routine safety precaution, the Joint Program Office (JPO) has temporarily suspended F-35 flight operations until a team of JPO and LM technical experts determines the root cause of the generator failure and oil leak."

This is first acknowledged significant in-flight failure since test flight 19 in May 2007, when electrical arcing in the F-35's 270V power-by-wire flight control system knocked out power to the right horizontal stabilizer. Aircraft AA-1 recovered and landed safely.

[camacho]

From flightglobal :

The US Marine Corps has agreed to buy the carrier variant of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter in addition to the short take-off and vertical landing version.
Gen James Amos, USMC commandant, confirms delays and uncertainties associated with the F-35B STOVL variant have forced a change to the acquisition plan.
"When we set the requirement in for STOVL aircraft our hope was we would be able to, some day, fly some of those aircraft off [large-deck] aircraft carriers," Amos said, testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee on 8 March. "That's yet to be seen whether that would be possible so in the meantime it would seem prudent that we should buy some number of C variants even early on so we can begin to transition our force there."
The US Navy and USMC planned to buy a combination of 680 F-35Bs and Cs, with about 460 of the former and 220 of the latter. However, the services are re-evaluating the procurement split between the two variants, Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus told the Senate committee.
"We are undergoing a TacAir [tactical aircraft] integration look across the navy and Marine Corps to see what the proper mix is of Cs for the navy and Marine Corps," Mabus said.
The TacAir integration study "will make sure that we continue that integration and make sure marines continue to fly off carriers in strike fighters as well as in vertical take-off and landing aircraft", he said.
At the same time, USMC remains committed and enthusiastic about the STOVL variant despite the testing delays and performance challenges that prompted Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to impose a two-year probation on the F-35B.
Amos praises Gates' decision to add more funding in the development budget for the F-35B, which will help solve the structural, propulsion and reliability shortfalls identified in testing last year. "Things are lined up right now for success," Amos says.
"It's my hope we can get off probation well before two years. My intent is to, some time this spring, [provide Gates with] a set of metrics that he might consider as the threshold for getting the airplane off probation and getting it back into the regular mode of production," he adds.

[Double Zero]

As previously mentioned, the F-35 has come a very long way from the 'cheap, affordable F-16 low part of the High /low philosophy'

I realise technology has to be a continuing research subject, but in the meantime unless one is planning for World War 3, VSTOL flight has suffered hugely and all the world was looking for was an updated HarrierII ?!

[ORAC]

AW&ST: JSF Cost Predictions Rattle Foreign Customers (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/awst/2011/03/21/AW_03_21_2011_p27-297530.xml&channel=defense)


Customers for Lockheed-Martin’s stealthy F-35 Joint Strike Fighter—among them Canada, Israel, Britain and Australia—are shifting their mood from anxiety to paranoia over increasingly unpredictable costs.

Foreign analysts now expect JSF prices to significantly exceed even the latest Pentagon estimate, putting government officials in fiscal and political jeopardy as they try to craft a rational purchase plan for the fifth-generation warplane.

Adding new concern was congressional testimony by Lt. Gen. Mark Shackleford, military deputy to the assistant secretary of the Air Force for acquisitons, who says that ”we currently expect up to a two-year delay” in fielding the first operational unit, which shifts the date to 2018. The delay is being triggered by the most recent program restructuring.

A new report by Canada’s Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates that total program costs for the country’s 65 aircraft will be U.S. $29 billion which means a total program (through-life) unit price tag of about $450 million per aircraft in Fiscal 2009 dollars.........

[LowObservable]

DZ - If you'd asked the RN and Marines way, way back in the 1980s, they would have been happy with a sort of STOVL Gripen, or a Harrier plus decent air-to-air and minus the accident rate.

What nobody could ever figure out was how to do this technologically and economically for a 300-400-jet program.

At this point someone said "Let's merge this with the F-16 and F-18 replacement, create the universal $35 million stealth fighter and take over the world!"

What could possibly go wrong?

[Flap62]

LO, accepting your point about lack of A-A, could you please explain and substansiate your point about accident rate?

[Double Zero]

sort of STOVL Gripen,

low observable, how does that work then ?!I appreciate the spirit of what you're saying, but as regards air-to-air stuff the Sea Harrier had AMRAAM and even the GR7/9 had AIM9L or others...

[LowObservable]

I did not mean to upset anyone. Writing in a bit of a hurry.

The mishap rate on Harriers is known, and I believe has remained high for its largest user.

Not that it is a bad design, but it was designed for its era and a mission. Hence lots of work on VAAC to automate the powered-lift mode.

As for air-to-air, most Harriers have not been very good at it. (Again, design/mission trades). The FA2 had a remarkably good weapon system, but still does not match contemporaries in speed and agility.

By STOVL Gripen, I meant that payload and range for the STOVL did not have to be outstanding - but that simplicity would have been desirable.

[Double Zero]

LO,

I appreciate what you're saying ( though the phrase 'troll' springs to mind ! ) but the Harrier is / was rather good at A/A, and the accident rate - while 1 crash is a tragedy let alone more ) was better than the type's contemporaries ? -

I was a simple berk vagueley involved in flight testing of various Harrier variants, there are people on this site much better quailified to comment.

[Justanopinion]

UKDS 2007 - Chapter 4 - Aircraft Air Accidents, Casualties and Flying Hours (http://www.dasa.mod.uk/modintranet/UKDS/UKDS2007/c4/table404.html)

[Willard Whyte]

Wonder what they are as a proportion of their respective fleets.

[Justanopinion]

UKDS 2007 - Chapter 3 - Formations, Vessels, Aircraft and Vehicles of the Armed Forces (http://www.dasa.mod.uk/modintranet/UKDS/UKDS2007/c3/table309.html)

UKDS 2007 - Chapter 3 - Formations, Vessels, Aircraft and Vehicles of the Armed Forces (http://www.dasa.mod.uk/modintranet/UKDS/UKDS2007/c3/table310.html)

UKDS 2007 - Chapter 4 - Aircraft Air Accidents, Casualties and Flying Hours (http://www.dasa.mod.uk/modintranet/UKDS/UKDS2007/c4/table405.html)

UKDS 2010 - Chapter 4 - Formations, Vessels, Aircraft and Vehicles of the Armed Forces (http://www.dasa.mod.uk/modintranet/UKDS/UKDS2010/c4/table409.php)

UKDS 2010 - Chapter 4 - Formations, Vessels, Aircraft and Vehicles of the Armed Forces (http://www.dasa.mod.uk/modintranet/UKDS/UKDS2010/c4/table410.php)

As requested - :ok:

[Willard Whyte]

Ahh, the age old instructors trick, trying to make me do stuff myself.

I tried that once and got told to **** off by my stude. Happy days. (And yes, they got a good mark for that cat question).

[LowObservable]

Correct me if this is wrong, but I believe that figures showed that 62 out of 140-some first-generation Harriers delivered to the RAF were lost, and the Marines lost 42 of 110 AV-8As - and in the mid-80s, this was the experience. The AV-8B/GR5 was only just entering service.

Also: The Pulitzer Prizes | Far From Battlefield, Marines Lose One-Third of Harrier Fleet (http://www.pulitzer.org/archives/6722)

[Double Zero]

Re Harrier losses, I believe it has been commented that the early Harrier 1 accident rate - particularly in the case of the U.S.Marines - was due to pilots being trained on helicopters ' because the thing hovers, doesn't it ?!' rather than fast jets, which might have proved handy.

This is just an observation from a non-pilot, but it's interesting the Harrier and Jaguar ( and to an extent the Tornado ) were originally prototypes or 'design hangovers' for grander things, ie the P1154 and TSR2, both of which seem in hindsight to have stood excellent chances of being lemons !

It could be said the Harrier worked out rather better than the 'exercise in drag, on losing one Adour the other will get you to the scene of the accident', rarely exported, Jag'...

As for earlier designs working out well compared to more ambitious creations, I get the strong feeling there would have been a Harrier 2++, if people had known how the F-35B development was going to go !

[ORAC]

And the cost continues to go up....

Ares: A Billion Here, A Billion There (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a6119fd6a-d07a-4b56-85a9-acb6c841bc36&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)

Credit where it is due for Steve Trimble's reporting of overruns -- now estimated at $1.15 billion (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/07/15/359508/f-35-lrip-overrun-value-raised-to-1.15b.html), or $40 million per aircraft -- on the first three low-rate inital production (LRIP) batches of Joint Strike Fighters.

A billion here, a billion there, you might say, but these disclosures, while not unexpected, are very important.

Since March 2010 -- after SecDef Robert Gates fired program director Maj Gen David Heinz, and a Senate hearing disclosed new cost estimates for the fighter, Lockheed Martin and its supporters have been arguing that the Pentagon's estimates are too high.

Their principal weapon in this fight has been a chart showing, purportedly, that "actual" JSF costs have consistently been lower than government estimates.

http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/14/3/ae535d82-d456-45b5-a3c3-eb725048adcd.Large.jpg

But as I reported last May, the "actuals" weren't actuals: (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?%20%20plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPag%20%20e=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%%20%203Ab2c55873-f236-4887-889e-311f590ae4a0)

And the LRIP contracts with Lockheed Martin are only part of the answer. They don't include the engine - responsible for a large part of the CAPE increase - and none is fixed-price and none has been completed. (The LRIP-1 jets are due to be signed over in September, the LRIP-2 contract is 65 per cent complete and the LRIP-3 has 70 per cent left to go.)

It was already clear by then that the LRIP jets were late and getting later. Even in September 2009, the first two LRIPs were promised in mid-2010 (and, of course, the September 2010 date went by the board and the LRIPs are only now starting to be delivered. And delays mean overruns, both because the jets accrue overhead just sitting on the ramp, and because they reflect the fact that they are taking more work hours, and more redesigned parts, to complete.

Warnings were sounding inside the program. In March 2010 we cited Bob Cox's report on manufacturing (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?%20%20plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8%20%20-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-%20%2001329aef79a7Post%3a94c52fc2-e98a-42ad-8e0e-%20%20f18efe120da7&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDes), based on Defense Contract Management Agency reports:

They portray a manufacturing disaster, with tasks running months behind schedule and suppliers unable to meet deadlines because they were not given final designs in time. To get airplanes in the air, parts were removed from airframes further back on the production line - which in turn have to be repaired in the same time-consuming out-of-sequence manner. And the delays are already rippling into low rate initial production, with the first two deliveries slipped into the last quarter.

And so, today, we're looking at actual costs that are much more closely aligned with the estimates produced by the Pentagon's Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation office.

Next question: Why did Lockheed Martin bosses compare contract numbers with CAPE's estimates of actual costs, when they already knew the the early LRIP jets would cost far more than the contract value?

Small wonder that even mild-mannered Sen John McCain is showing signs of impatience. Meanwhile, The Economist has started to go negative on the program... (http://www.economist.com/node/18958367)
---------------------------------------------------------------

DefenseNews: Senators Question Move to Shift Funds to JSF (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=7099888&c=AME&s=AIR)

The top two senators from the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee are threatening to oppose the Pentagon's request to shift $264 million from other areas of the defense budget to cover cost overruns in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program.

"Based on the current information submitted to the Senate, I intend to oppose the Department's 'reprogramming request' to transfer $264 million for unacceptable cost overruns on the F-35 program," Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said in a statement.

In a July 14 letter to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, McCain and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., said they need more information before they approve the request. They even want to know how much it would cost to terminate the F-35 program right now.

In addition to the $264 million, the Defense Department has told the Senate panel it needs to find an additional $496 million to pay for the remainder of the cost overruns on the first three lots of production aircraft, the letter said. "The Committee is concerned about three quarters of a billion dollars in increases in these three contracts since last year," the senators wrote.

The proposal to shift funds to the F-35 program was part of a $5 billion reprogramming request signed June 30 by Pentagon Comptroller Robert Hale and sent to Congress for approval.

For starters, McCain and Levin want to know whether the government is legally bound to pay for these cost overruns. If they do not approve the reprogramming request, they want to know what the consequences will be. The senators also want know if there are any alternatives to reprogramming for covering these costs. "How does the Department intend to prevent excessive overruns in the future and how will the Department ensure that taxpayers will not have to pay for them?" McCain and Levin wrote.

Their letter is not the first sign that the Senate panel is fed up with the growing costs associated with the Pentagon's most expensive weapon system. The 2012 defense authorization bill passed by the Senate committee in June included language that would require prime contractor Lockheed Martin to absorb 100 percent of the cost overruns for the next buy of F-35 aircraft.

It would also require the Pentagon to use a fixed-price contract for Lot 5, the buy currently being negotiated. Although the Pentagon is already using a fixed-price contract for Lot 4, it still shares the burden of any cost overruns with the contractor.

During the committee's markup of the bill, McCain put forward an even stricter amendment that would place the program on probation if costs rose by 10 percent. And, if costs continued to rise at that rate for more than a year, the program would be terminated.

The amendment never made it into the bill as the committee failed to pass it by a vote of 15-15. But McCain has promised to introduce it again when the full Senate debates the bill later this summer.

[Lonewolf_50]

How many delivered to date? :confused:
If program is already at Lot 5, program cancellation appears a curious course of action ... but how many are actually out there?
Looks like Opeval and RDT & E phases still in progress.
From: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/04/04/21686/
2011 Q1

The F-35As flew 82 times against a plan of 62 flights
F-35Bs flew 101 flights against a plan of 62 sorties. Performed 61 vertical landings last quarter.
F-35C carrier variant flew 16 of 18 planned flights
Two production model F-35As flew seven sorties.


30 F-35B planes in production under the LRIP 2 and 3 batches.
IOC of 2012 still not likely.

So, there was a May delivery of A model F-35 to the USAF, and up to now they've got two. OK. B model trundling along.

Some interesting comments on various web sites about FYDP wallet shrinkage for the next ten years. (Well, gee, who saw that coming? :ugh: )

[ORAC]

But, but, we're all getting the same spec.... aren't we? :hmm:

Defense News: Britain, U.S. Propose F-35 Fighter Exchange (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=7128837&c=AME&s=AIR)

The United Kingdom has proposed trading F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft with the United States, according to a Pentagon letter to the U.S. Congress. Under the proposal, the United States would give the United Kingdom one of its carrier variants (F-35C) of the F-35 in exchange for a short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) version, called the F-35B.

The trade, which the Pentagon describes as "mutually beneficial" and "cost neutral," requires a legislative amendment to the 2012 defense authorization bill. The Pentagon requested the amendment in a June 14 letter from Elizabeth King, assistant secretary of defense for legislative affairs, to Vice President Biden, in his role as president of the U.S. Senate.

The United Kingdom decided last year, as part of its Strategic Defense and Security Review, to stop buying the F-35B. Instead, the Royal Navy will only buy the F-35C, which is being designed for conventional takeoffs and landings on aircraft carriers. The cost-savings measure resulted in the U.K. having an extra F-35B on its hands. The United States, which is buying the F-35B for the U.S. Marine Corps and the F-35C for the U.S. Navy, was not scheduled to receive its F-35Bs until later. A third variant, the F-35A, is being developed for the U.S. Air Force.

Under the exchange, the United Kingdom would have to cover any costs required to upgrade its F-35B aircraft so that it would be identical to the version the U.S. had planned to buy, according to the letter.

The United Kingdom would also be responsible for any unique requirements it has for the F-35C.

Under the plan, United States would get an F-35B two years earlier. This means $10 million in additional operations and maintenance costs for the Marine Corps in 2013 and 2014. This would be due to increased flight hours, fuel, training costs, etc.........

[Graybeard]

I'm just glad we don't have an enemy worthy of such an expensive fighter.

GB

[ORAC]

JSF force grounded (again....).

The failure must have violent for all ground testing to be stopped as well.

With the F-22 fleet still grounded, there must be a bit of thumb sucking going on back in the Pentagon.

Ares: Stand Away From The JSF, Please (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a79764574-b061-4cde-bc03-45d58ef0bd1b&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)

[GreenKnight121]

But, but, we're all getting the same spec.... aren't we? http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/yeees.gif

Defense News: Britain, U.S. Propose F-35 Fighter Exchange (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=7128837&c=AME&s=AIR)

The United Kingdom has proposed trading F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft with the United States, according to a Pentagon letter to the U.S. Congress. Under the proposal, the United States would give the United Kingdom one of its carrier variants (F-35C) of the F-35 in exchange for a short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) version, called the F-35B.

The trade, which the Pentagon describes as "mutually beneficial" and "cost neutral," requires a legislative amendment to the 2012 defense authorization bill. The Pentagon requested the amendment in a June 14 letter from Elizabeth King, assistant secretary of defense for legislative affairs, to Vice President Biden, in his role as president of the U.S. Senate.

The United Kingdom decided last year, as part of its Strategic Defense and Security Review, to stop buying the F-35B. Instead, the Royal Navy will only buy the F-35C, which is being designed for conventional takeoffs and landings on aircraft carriers. The cost-savings measure resulted in the U.K. having an extra F-35B on its hands. The United States, which is buying the F-35B for the U.S. Marine Corps and the F-35C for the U.S. Navy, was not scheduled to receive its F-35Bs until later. A third variant, the F-35A, is being developed for the U.S. Air Force.

Under the exchange, the United Kingdom would have to cover any costs required to upgrade its F-35B aircraft so that it would be identical to the version the U.S. had planned to buy, according to the letter.

The United Kingdom would also be responsible for any unique requirements it has for the F-35C.

Under the plan, United States would get an F-35B two years earlier. This means $10 million in additional operations and maintenance costs for the Marine Corps in 2013 and 2014. This would be due to increased flight hours, fuel, training costs, etc.........


Note that the F-35B for the RN was a development model, for test & training only... and the swap has it going to the USMC as a production model, for operational service.

That is where the "upgrade" comes in... production-spec aircraft have different equipment and software packages from development aircraft.

[GreenKnight121]

The aircraft was AF-4... which has had more major system failures than any other development F-35... this is its 2nd, both involving the electrical system.

That's 2 of the 4 "major incidents" in the development phase... there was another electrical system failure on AA-1, and a software bug that grounded the whole fleet (you kinda need the fuel pump to keep working above 10,000 feet).

F-35 fleet grounded after electrical subsystem failure (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/08/03/360325/f-35-fleet-grounded-after-electrical-subsystem-failure.html)
The incident marks the third grounding order for the F-35 fleet since last October, and the second in five months involving the AF-4 test aircraft.
In this case, the Honeywell-built integrated power package (IPP) failed during a standard engine test following a maintenance check at 08:30 on 2 August, the JPO said.



The IPP is primarily used as both a starter for the engine and a back-up electrical system, supporting the two main generators. In March, the IPP proved its worth by activating after both generators shut-down with the AF-4 still in flight. The power generated by the IPP allowed the flight control system to keep operating until the pilot landed.



That incident also triggered a fleet-wide grounding in March until Lockheed fixed a flaw with a new generator system design introduced on AF-4. Some aircraft remained grounded for several weeks until the problem was fixed.


I wonder if the IPP was subtly damaged in the March incident.

[LowObservable]

I am waiting for AF-4 to be nicknamed "Christine", like one particularly troublesome F-117A...

[John Farley]

The object of any development programme is to sort out problems before the type enters service.

As such serious failures during the programme (especially when you still have the aircraft to study the failure) are pure engineer's gold. Only programme managers think otherwise.

[LowObservable]

Very true... but this also underscores the good sense of stretching out JSF development, versus some former program bosses who bet on no serious problems.

[ORAC]

And the death spiral begins.....

DoD Might Cut Jets from 5th F-35 Batch (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=7334803&c=AME&s=AIR)

The Pentagon might have to cut the number of F-35 Lightning II fighters it purchases in an upcoming buy to cover increased development costs in early model jets, unless Congress approves a $264 million funding transfer, according to U.S. Defense Department documents.This comes in response to threats by the top two senators from the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee who have opposed cuts to other areas of the defense budget to cover cost overruns in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program.
DoD asked Congress to approve the JSF money transfer in a 91-page, June 30 omnibus reprogramming. Congress has yet to OK the measure.

The cost overruns surround 31 of the single-engine jets purchased over the past five years, according to a Pentagon acquisition document. The aircraft were part of the first three low-rate initial production (LRIP) buys.

"If the reprogramming request is not approved, additional funding within the JSF program will be diverted to cover these costs," the document said.

The additional funds would cover development cost increases involving "both airframe and propulsion contracts," the reprogramming document said......
"Based on the current information submitted to the Senate, I intend to oppose the Department's 'reprogramming request' to transfer $264 million for unacceptable cost overruns on the F-35 program," Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said in a statement.

In addition to the $264 million, the Defense Department has told the Senate panel it needs to find an additional $496 million to pay for the remainder of the cost overruns on the first three lots of production aircraft, according to a July 14 letter to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta from McCain and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich.

[technophobe]

I was wondering if there have recently been announcements of changes to purchase numbers by those already committed to the F-35, in particular the UK and the Netherlands? I've tried a quick google on the subject but nothing came up. The reason for the interest is a rumour around work that some of the European nations were making drastic reductions in their proposed purchases. Can anyone point me at an up to date link to how many airframes countries are committed to and/or proposing to buy?

Thanks for the help...:ok:

[LowObservable]

Techno - It's by that dreadful bounder Sweetman, but it's worth a read:

Defense Technology International | Jun-11 | Express 3 | Zinio Digital Magazines (http://au.zinio.com/reader.jsp?issue=416173364&p=32)

The main updates to the story are (1) that the Noggies got up at Paris and said that they absolutely loved JSF, were totally committed &c, and you are going to pay for us to develop our new cruise missile and order it as well, aren't you? and (2) that the Australian defense minister made all sorts of worried noises on his last trip to Washington and muttered about having to buy another batch of Rhinos if the delays continued.

But it's all OK since flight testing is ahead of schedFLASHBANGWALLOP OMFG IT'S ON FIRE

[ORAC]

F-35 production freeze ... or new ice age? (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2011/09/f-35-production-freeze-or-new.html)

On 30 September 2008, or nearly three years ago, members of Florida's Okaloosa County economic development council received a rare treat. Major General Charles Davis, then-programme manager for the Lockheed Martin F-35, briefed the council's regularly scheduled roundtable sympoisum. Okaloosa County is the proud home of Eglin AFB, the F-35's centralised training centre, and Davis clearly hoped to impress the local business leaders. Slide 24 surely drew a few smiles in the room.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/assets_c/2011/09/F-35%20production%20profile-thumb-560x295-139919.jpg

That was then.

Today, the picture looks vastly different, and not for the better. The US Senate, meanwhile, looks set to make it even worse for the F-35's supporters.

One year ago, everything still seemed roughly on track. Negotiations over the fourth lot of low rate initial production (LRIP-4) dragged on for several months, but the Fiscal 2010 order for 32 aircraft in total was in line with Davis' briefing chart.

The 2011 order (LRIP-5), however, was coming apart. It was supposed to be a contract for 47 aircraft, but the Department of Defense already trimmed its request to Congress to 43 aircraft. When Congress finally approved the FY2011 budget seven months late in April, the final number was cut to 32. That froze F-35 production at the FY2010 level.

This year, the DoD didn't even try. The request sent to Congress in February asked for 32 aircraft in LRIP-6. In 2008, LRIP-6 was supposed to be an order for 118 F-35s, including 82 aircraft for the US services and 36 aircraft for the international partners. Foreign orders have not solidified yet, but the US order for 82 aircraft is out of the question. Anticipating a Senate move to free F-35 production, the DoD asked the Congress for only 32 F-35s in FY2012, a 50-aircraft cut from the 2008 production profile.

The Senate's appropriations subcommittee now wants to extend the 32-aircraft production plateau into LRIP-7. According to Davis' chart in 2008, the DoD planned to buy 90 F-35s in FY2013, with the partners chipping in for another 42 aircraft.

If the Senate's proposal sticks, F-35 production could be frozen at 32 aircraft for four years straight.

[Modern Elmo]

Envious foreigners may wish for the demise of the F-35, but their hopes are forlorn and futile:

Dicks Seeks Up to $524 Billion For Defense


Sep 16, 2011



By Jen DiMascio

The top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee will be pushing to spend up to $524 billion on defense in fiscal 2012 – more money on defense than his Senate counterparts are recommending.

...

As the appropriations bills head to a conference to resolve differences, a new round of battles is set to begin over top-line funding and individual programs, including Lockheed Martin’s Joint Strike Fighter and the Medium Extended Air Defense System (Meads).

The Senate Appropriations Committee took an ax to the F-35, cutting $695 million to slow production of the fifth-generation fighter while it is still undergoing testing. The fight is likely to take place when House and Senate leaders meet to resolve differences between their bills, which could take place late in this calendar year. The House provided $5.9 billion to produce 32 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft and $2.7 billion for F-35 development, a reduction of just $75.7 million from the president’s request.

(The Senate Appropriations Committee ax will probably turn out to be a small ax. --Elmo )

House appropriations leaders have been extremely supportive of the program, and that is not changing. Dicks says the House and Senate will need to compromise.

As for the JSF, Dicks, the former committee chairman, wants to see more than the Senate committee recommends. “As chairman, I had 42 planes in there out of 43,” Dicks tells Aviation Week, adding that testing has improved, the Marines “desperately” need it and the JSF offers stealth that the aircraft it is replacing do not have.

...

Dicks Seeks Up to $524 Billion For Defense | AVIATION WEEK (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/asd/2011/09/16/06.xml&channel=defense)

[LowObservable]

"Envious foreigners may wish for the demise of the F-35, but their hopes are forlorn and futile".

Jingoism < Fiscal reality

The probability of the program's "demise" is still small - but the probability that the program on paper today - all three versions reaching a combined production rate of 200+/year - will become concrete reality is also small.

The aircraft is more expensive than predicted, and budgets are tighter than predicted. Dicks can spout all he wants, but the only way to preserve the F-35 program of record is to ring-fence defense from the rest of the budget, and to ring-fence F-35 within it.

[ORAC]

RUSI briefing paper: Looking into the Black Hole - Is the UK Defence Budget Crisis Really Over? (http://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/RUSIBriefingPaperSept2011.pdf)

......The SDSR criticised the £20 billion carrier plan that it had inherited for two new carriers and around 150 JSFs as ‘crowding out other important investment in the Armed Forces’. But it has since committed itself to a further investment of around £1 billion in converting one of the two new carriers to operate in a catapult and arrestor gear configuration. No decision has yet been announced on how many JSFs, UAVs and/or helicopters will be purchased for deployment on the new carrier.

The government has confirmed that it now envisages routinely deploying only twelve JSF aircraft on the carrier for operations, compared to the original thirty-six. And the requirement for daily sortie generation has beenreduced from seventy-two to twenty.16 This suggests that the government could now be envisaging a total JSF buy of no more than fifty aircraft. But this could still mean procurement costs amounting to around £5 billion, in addition to more than £2 billion already spent or committed for the development and demonstration phases.17

Plans for initial deployment of the new Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier in 2020 suggest that the first tranche of JSF aircraft will have to enter service on, or around, the same date. It is far from clear, however, whether the MoD will be able to afford to buy as many as fifty aircraft by that date. Because the F-35 is not being produced domestically (like new submarines), or through a rigid collaborative structure (like Typhoon), the MoD has greater flexibility to vary the size and pace of procurement as unit costs, operational requirements and availability of funds alter. The projected sharp increase in deterrent production spending from 2021, together with the costs involved in bringing a new and sophisticated capability (the aircraft carrier) into service around the same time, could mean that there simply are not the funds to buy even the fifty or so JSF aircraft that at present seem realistic. A reduction in the number is especially likely if the price that the UK is asked to pay for the F-35C continues to rise........

[ORAC]

Joint Chiefs Chair Leaves F-35B Hanging (http://defense.aol.com/2011/10/13/dempsey-questions-affordability-of-jsf-variants/)

Washington: The new Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff put Capitol Hill on notice today, telling lawmakers that DoD may not be able to afford all three versions of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

In his first appearance before House Armed Services Committee as chairman, Gen. Martin Dempsey said that buying the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps versions of the fighter up and running may just be too expensive.

Dempsey's comments came after the four-star general was pressed by panel members on whether the Pentagon is committed to the Marine's vertical-lift version of the plane.

In response, Dempsey said he was fully dedicated to buying a "fifth-generation fighter," but he did not mention the JSF by name. However, he said buying all three variants would greatly increase pressure on an already stressed budget.......

More on Dempsey comments on F-35 (http://blogs.star-telegram.com/sky_talk/2011/10/more-on-dempsey-comments-on-f-35.html)

It's not getting a lot of attention in the national press, but defense and military publications are all over the comments made Thursday by Joint Chiefs Chairman Martin Dempsey that the Pentagon might not be able to afford three different versions of the F-35.

In The Hill, Heritage Foundation defense staff Mackenzie Eaglen predicted one of the program’s three fighter models likely will meet the budgetary ax (http://thehill.com/news-by-subject/defense-homeland-security/187411-joint-chiefs-chairman-raises-concerns-about-cost-of-three-f-35-models).

“Gen. Dempsey's tepid endorsement of the [F-35] today bodes very ill for the program's stability,” Eaglen wrote. “His warning that the three variants are unaffordable means the death of one variant is much more likely or the overall buy will be reduced in the 2013 budget — or both."

Military Times said Dempsey's remarks "opened the door for large cuts to the troubled F-35 fighter jet program (http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2011/10/ap-military-f35-martin-dempsey-comments-101311/).".................

[Lonewolf_50]

If they need to cut program costs, then the only version needed is the carrier based version. You don't need the VSTOL (oh, wait, only it can escort the Osprey????) and you don't need one that can't land on a carrier.

Joint <-- seems to have been forgotten.

You can fly a carrier based aircraft from any airstrip, but the "airfield only versions" don't make the carrier cut.

How hard is this to figure out for the "Oh So Smart" folks in DoD?

[Backwards PLT]

Lonewolf, I think you are right about only needing the C compared to the A, but I am not sure that your point about the B is as valid. Anytime the US are doing serious fighting requiring that sort of capability I think there would be a carrier around which would also generate more space for helos / Osprey.

The real problem there, of course, is the USMC reliance on the USN and their loss of control of fixed wing assets to some degree, which I suspect is their real issue.

I accept there may be niche cases where a VSTOL version would be useful, but given that it is far inferior in terms of payload, range, manoeuvre as well as being far more expensive we may be at the stage where even the US of A can't afford it.

[Not_a_boffin]

Which incidentally means that the Spanish & Italian navies had better start looking for plan B.........

[Just This Once...]

Thinking about the comments above about the F-35C can do the land bit as well as the sea bit I wonder what the USAF would think about the performance trade. They have always seemed to favour the higher performance of the 'A' rather then the increased range of the 'C'. Would the USAF accept an aircraft with a 7.5G limit, slower acceleration and requires an external gun?

[ORAC]

The majority of overseas sales are for the F-35A.

The F-35A has an internal gun, the F-35C has to carry a gun pod, it has some stealth but inevitably it with impact the stealth signature.

The increase in weight for undercarriage, wing etc for carrier ops impacts performance and load.

it's highly unlikely, therefore, the F-35A would be cancelled.

However, I wouldn't necessarily see the B lose out to the C in a political fight.

The USMC really want the B, as do the foreign naval customers who's carriers can't take the C - such as the Italians and - whisper it - possibly in the Japanese.

The USN are sucking their thumbs at the increased costs and, perhaps more importantly - the range against the future Chinese threat, which would mean putting the CVN in harms way.

There's a case being made to stick with the F/A-18E/F/G till the long range carrier UAVs being available, effectively making the F-18 the last fixed wing naval bomber.

So, if a model has to go - it may well be the F-35C.

Which would put the RN in a bit of a spot - except I notice in the Evening Standard today an article by Robert Fox (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23999174-take-this-chance-to-blow-away-the-defence-myths.do) which seems to suggest that (if it was as a result of an off the record brief) the worsening economical climate, and MOD budget problems, are putting the carriers and F-35C order at risk again.

[Foghorn Leghorn]

The B model will get cut if any of them have to go.

[LowObservable]

My learned friend Mr Boffin is right as usual, except Plan B is "Never get into this position again".

Gen Dempsey's comments, translated: the F-35B is no more. It has ceased to be. It has expired and gone to meet its maker. It is a stiff. Bereft of life, it rests in peace. It's kicked the bucket, it's shuffled off its mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisible. It is an ex-jump-jet.

Not sure, though, that anyone at the upper levels of Gormenghast-on-the-Potomac realizes that, as the B goes, so goes the C. I know people look at the C's range and go "maybe all we need is the C" but it is heavier than the A (empty) by the mass of a large SUV, it has an OEW similar to an F-15E (including the CFTs) with far less power, and the only reason its range does not inhale asinine gonads is that there is JP-5 in the space where the A packs the gun and ammo.

You think that the Super Hornet "International Roadmap" version is aimed only at Japan and Kuwait? Pull the Marine guards off the C and watch what happens next.

[jwcook]

Its on probation while they try to find more "VOOM"?!?, many are saying this bird wouldn't "voom" if you put four million volts through it! and 'E's bleedin' demised!.

There is however a plan 'B' but its a bit of a slug.

[ORAC]

If the B goes, so does a lot of the UK content including the lift fan from RR.

Then the USAF is investigating at swapping out the MB seat for a US seat (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a0f45dd8e-78fd-4c0b-98b4-a5651cdf5324&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest); which I'll presume the other customers will also go to for cost/commonality.

You have to start wondering how much the UK will get back for the £Billion we put into the programme...... :hmm:

[LowObservable]

JWCook - I think that Gates' comments, when he announced the probation, were pretty clear. Hard to add VOOM without adding weight (which is anti-VOOM) or cost.

The B is also (almost certainly) the most expensive F-35 version to buy and operate and has the lowest performance. From a force-wide viewpoint, it is tied to ships that can't operate independently across the full spectrum of warfare (not enough combat aircraft, no tankers, AEW or EA) and that don't have the strategic mobility of a CSG.

Orac - I suspect that the UK's investment will yield structures work on whatever number of jets do get built, and some important lessons about the dysfunctional nature of US defense decision-making.

[ORAC]

Full article is quite lengthy - follow the link to read in full.

Ares (Bill Sweetman): JSF - What's Really Happening (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3abcb29d8f-6a85-40c5-8f1d-c84d20afe997&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)

When the Joint Strike Fighter team told Guy Norris about the jet's first run to its Mach 1.6 design speed, a couple of minor facts slipped their minds. Nobody remembered that the jet had landed (from either that sortie or another run to Mach 1.6) with "peeling and bubbling" of coatings on the horizontal tails and damage to engine thermal panels. Or that the entire test force was subsequently limited to Mach 1.0.

But selective amnesia is not even one of five "major consequence" problems that have already surfaced with the JSF and are disclosed by a top-level Pentagon review obtained by Ares. Those issues affect flight safety, the basic cockpit design, the carrier suitability of the F-35C and other aspects of the program have been identified, and no fixes have been demonstrated yet. Three more "major consequence" problems are "likely" to emerge during tests, including high buffet loads and airframe fatigue.

Update: POGO has the full report here (http://www.pogo.org/resources/national-security/f-35-jsf-concurrency-quick-look-review-20111129.html).

[glojo]

As the title suggests Click here (http://defensetech.org/2011/12/09/lockheed-gets-4-billion-for-30-f-35s/)

I dread to think how much we will have to eventually pay for our aircraft :uhoh:

[Brian Abraham]

Latest Congressional Research Service report on the program

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL30563.pdf

[John Farley]

The back end of every aircraft is manufactured in the UK.

So I think you will find that UK plc will get their aircraft free and make a profit.

[Courtney Mil]

Spain make the left wing and rear fuselage of the Typhoon, but you can be sure they don't get theirs for free and then make a profit! If every member country of a consortium made a profit on a programme, where does the money come from?

[glojo]

I personally feel we have two chances of making a profit from this aircraft and they are 'zero' and 'none'. I do hope I am talking tosh but I will not be holding my breath.

Tongue in cheek remark:
If we are building the rear part of this state of the art aircraft then are we responsible for this....

The arrester hook issue has been reported. In the first round of tests, the hook failed to catch the wire once. The QLR notes that tests of a minimal modification - a reprofiled hook with different damper settings - set for April "represent only the initial stages leading into full carrier suitability demonstrations."

Studies are already underway of changing the hook's location - the basic problem is that the designers put the hook closer behind the main landing gear than that of any current or recent Navy aircraft, even the tailless X-47B - but that will have "major, direct primary and secondary structural impacts".

[Courtney Mil]

Real hooks were built by Mac Air and Blackburn. Give the contract to people that know. Oh, hang on, they've gone. It just wouldn't seem right to get Boeing or BAES, would it? Oh, I see what's happened now. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[Engines]

Glo,

Fortunately, the UK made bit of the fuselage does not include the Arresting Hook System (AHS) or the supporting structure, which is massive with a big M.

The issue reported is serious but should be solvable with some clever engineering - but if the hook has to be moved aft that is going to be a very serious design change indeed.

The source of the issue is the well aft location of the main wheels - driven in part by the requirement for long weapon bays and also by the structural layout that hangs a number of big loads (aft spars, verticals, thrust mounts, main gears) on or around a big frame located well aft. In addition, with a single engined aircraft, there isn't much structure at the end of the fuselage to hang the hook system on, mostly just jetpipe. That moved the hook system forward. The repor`t contains a huge amount of interesting detail.

My bet is that they will try a hook point and damper redesign, and if that doesn't work, they could go for a more complex (but sadly heavier) translating or extending hook mechanism to get the point further aft. If that's not possible, it's a hook system move aft - potential nightmare.

This is a complex one to fix and test, as the time between the main wheels hitting the wires and the hook engaging them is not fixed and the dynamic behaviour of the wire is complex, depending whether you engage in mid span or off centre. You also have to do a number of traps on land and more importantly at sea on a pitching and heaving deck to really test it out.

Remember, this cat and trap stuff is complicated and difficult. The USN make it look easy. It ain't.

Best Regards as ever to all those actually doing the dangerous stuff on land or sea,

Engines

[glojo]

Hi Engines,
Thank you very much indeed for that comprehensive answer. My remarks responding to the comments of John Farley were very much tongue in cheek.

A very complex situation and as you rightly say a flight deck is not a static hunk of concrete. The UK ships are also smaller than there US counterparts which in turn means they may well be more prone to uppy, downy movements :)

I still have my fingers crossed that all these issues will be resolved but will I get arthritis in my joints before these aircraft become operational? ;)

[John Farley]

Not wishing to labour the point but Typhoon/Tornao/Jaguar comparisons are not really valid in this context. We are building a very large number of backends and only buying a small number of complete aircraft.

[sycamore]

Suggest they take plenty of nets.....

[Mach Two]

Didn't really think that one through, Courtney. Also, this programme has a very different organisation. Although there are some issues at the moment (that's what flight test is for), the programme so far hasn't been plagued with the Euro-political issues you had with Typhoon. I get the impression you weren't a great fan of that programme?

M2

[cazatou]

John Farley

I am afraid you are trying to convince people who never let facts get in the way of a strongly held opinion!!

[glojo]

Oh the tangled web we weave and I guess my remarks regarding profits or the lack thereof were very much tongue in cheek and I apologise for the confusion. When governments make defence overspends that exceed £100m then this money is being paid into the defence industry?? (Question).

I am sure it is a pure coincidence that we see ex government ministers, plus very senior retired flag officers going into this type of industry.

Admiral Sir John Slater, the former first sea lord, left the military in 1998 and became a director and senior adviser to Lockheed Martin UK. Is this the company that manufactures the F-35?? :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Michael Portillo, The secretary of state for defence from 1995 to 1997, became non-executive director of BAE Systems in 2002 before stepping down in 2006.

No doubt it was a pure coincidence that BAe commenced the manufacture of the F-35 in............ what year?? wait for it..........

Look here (http://www.baesystems.com/Newsroom/NewsReleases/autoGen_11153019438.html)

for the answer :ugh:;)

Yup a pure coincidence that the ex Secretary of State for Defence was a director on the board of BAe from 2002 until 2006 and it is just a coincidence that midway between that term the company started manufacturing significant parts of the F-35. His First class degree in History would no doubt be hugely beneficial when advising BAe regarding any technical issues they might face during any negotiations he may or may not have been involved in 'after leaving office!'

Then we have these paragons of virtue:

Someone who is NOT on my Christmas card list...
Lord Reid, secretary of state for defence from 2005 to 2006, said in 2008 that he had become group consultant to G4S, the security company that worked closely with the Ministry of Defence in Iraq.

Major-General Graham Binns left the military this year and is chief executive of Aegis Defence Services, a leading security company.

Sir Kevin Tebbit, permanent under secretary at the MoD, is chairman of Finmeccanica UK, owner of Westland helicopters.

David Gould, the former chief operating officer of the MoD's procurement division, is now chairman of Selex Systems, part of Finmeccanica.

These appointments are to me just plain wrong, government officials and senior officer should NOT be allowed to get ANY type of remuneration from any companies that they may have been involved with during their time either in government or serving the Crown. Folks who may be far more cynical than my good self might think they are exposing themselves to all types of allegations.

I am a nosey devil and am curious as to the contracts regarding the rear section and was wondering how it gets negotiated. Would I be correct to suggest the rear section of the 'B' model would be the most complex and therefore possibly the most expensive?

If the 'B' series gets cancelled or as has already happened, the numbers are greatly reduced. Would the contract be renegotiated, or is it a fixed price contract based on numbers?

Is the 'B' still on probation and has there been any literature on the tests carried out aboard the USS Wasp.

Responding to issues detailed in the technical review, on January 6, 2011, Secretary of Defense Gates announced a change in the F-35 testing
and production plan focused on the F-35B:

In short, two of the JSF variants, the Air Force version and the Navy’s carrier-based version, are proceeding satisfactorily.

By comparison, the Marine Corps’ short take-off and vertical-landing (STOVL) variant is experiencing significant testing problems. These issues may lead to a redesign of the aircraft’s structure and propulsion, changes that could add yet more weight and more cost to an aircraft that has little capacity to absorb more of either.

As a result, I am placing the STOVL variant on the equivalent of a two-year probation. If we cannot fix this variant during this time frame and get it back on track in terms of performance, cost and schedule, then I believe it should be canceled.

We will also move the development of the Marine variant to the back of the overall JSF production sequence.

Three major technical issues emerged for the F-35B.

The first was premature wear on hinges for the auxiliary inlet door feeding the F-35B’s lift fan, which caused the F-35B fleet to be grounded in September 2010. A technical fix was in place by January 2011.

Second, cracks were discovered in a bulkhead of an F-35B used for fatigue testing “after the airplane had been subjected to the equivalent of about 1,500 hours of flight time out of 16,000 hours planned.”

Prime contractor Lockheed Martin has redesigned the bulkhead, and “‘(o)ther locations of similar design are also being assessed,’ company spokesman John Kent said in an e-mailed statement Jan. 11.” The aluminum bulkhead is unique to the F-35B; “F-35A and F-35C bulkheads are still made of titanium, as are similar bulkheads on the F-22.” I have altered the font colour just to highlight this issue is only relevant to the 'B' model.

Third, the driveshaft, lift-fan clutch, and actuator for the F-35B’s roll-post nozzles will be redesigned following discovery that the driveshaft contracts and expands more than expected, and that the other components experience more heat than anticipated during flight operations.

Moving F-35B development, which had been scheduled to lead the program, to the back of the queue should reduce the impact of F-35B issues on the schedule for the A and C models, which are encountering fewer development challenges.

[jindabyne]

I am afraid you are trying to convince people who never let facts get in the way of a strongly held opinion!!

Ever thus, here :uhoh:

[rh200]

Looks like the Japs have gone for the F35, would have thought they need more than that though.

Japan picks F-35 as new fighter - reports | News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/japan-picks-f-35-as-new-fighter-reports/story-e6frfku0-1226226697466)

[ORAC]

AW&ST: F-35 Under Fire In Italy (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/asd/2012/01/09/08.xml&headline=F-35%20Under%20Fire%20In%20Italy)

ROME — The Italian government is ushering in a new round of defense cuts in which, for the first time, the fate of Rome’s participation in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program will be seriously threatened.

The newly launched defense review not only has sweeping implications for Italy’s defense ambitions but also rings in a further belt-tightening in Europe among countries that are just beginning to come to grips with the scale of their budget and debt problems.

In Italy, much of the work on the military review remains to be completed. Nevertheless, a sharp reduction in the number of F-35s Italy will buy is virtually certain, military officials say. At least a third of the 131 fighters slated for procurement will likely fall under the budget ax, with some minority parties arguing for an outright program termination.

Rome is one of the largest international buyers of the F-35 — after the U.K. drastically cut its procurement objective in its 2010 spending review. Italy plans to spend €13 billion ($16.7 billion) to buy and sustain both the F-35A conventional-takeoff-and-landing and the F-35B short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing versions, though it has not ordered any aircraft yet.

Other major procurement projects are also under scrutiny, but the F-35 has received the lion’s share of attention because of the size of the planned outlays.

Although Italy assessed its spending needs in 2010 in light of an era of fiscal austerity, the change late last year to a technocratic government, led by Mario Monti, specifically put in place to handle the country’s financial problems more aggressively, has put military spending back in the crosshairs. The government, although not elected, enjoys broad support in the parliament to carry out sweeping reforms.

Also potentially affecting the JSF debate is the fact that the government is very much focused on budget considerations rather than foreign policy ambitions. Cancelling the 22 navy F-35Bs would leave the service without fighters to put on its aircraft carrier after the AV-8B Harriers are retired. While that would crimp the ability to project forces, those considerations may not hold much sway with the Monti government. Such a move would likely cause the Italian air force also to drop plans to buy 40 F-35Bs and focus instead entirely on the F-35A.

On the other hand, working in the JSF’s favor is that even at reduced numbers, the F-35 procurement would allow Italy to capitalize on the €2.5 billion it spent or pledged to the development and construction of a JSF final assembly and check out (FACO) facility at Cameri air force base. Work on the FACO is progressing quickly to be ready by 2014 to meet original JSF production schedules.

[ORAC]

How the F-35 Nearly Doubled In Price (And Why You Didn’t Know) (http://battleland.blogs.time.com/2012/07/09/f-35-nearly-doubles-in-cost-but-you-dont-know-thanks-to-its-rubber-baseline/)

On June 14 — Flag Day, of all days — the Government Accountability Office released a new oversight report on the F-35: Joint Strike Fighter: DOD Actions Needed to Further Enhance Restructuring and Address Affordability Risks. As usual, it contained some important information on growing costs and other problems. Also as usual, the press covered the new report, albeit a bit sparsely.

Fresh bad news on the F-35 has apparently become so routine that the fundamental problems in the program are plowed right over. One gets the impression, especially from GAO’s own title to its report, that we should expect the bad news, make some minor adjustments, and then move on. But a deeper dive into the report offers more profound, and disturbing, bottom line. Notorious for burying its more important findings in the body of a report — I know; I worked there for nearly a decade – GAO understates its own results on acquisition cost growth in its one-page summary, which—sadly—is probably what most read to get what they think is the bottom line.

In that one-page summary, GAO states the F-35 program now projects “costs of $395.7 billion, an increase of $117.2 billion (42 percent) from the prior 2007 baseline.” The much more complete story is in this table from the report:

http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/gao-chart.png

The summary uses the wrong baseline. As F-35 observers know and as the table shows, the cost documentation of the F-35 program started in 2001, not 2007. There has been a lot more cost growth than the “$117.2 billion (42 percent)” stated.

Set in 2001, the total acquisition cost of the F-35 was to be $233.0 billion. Compare that to the current estimate of $395.7 billion: cost growth has been $162.7 billion, or 70%: a lot more than what GAO stated in its summary. However, the original $233 billion was supposed to buy 2,866 aircraft, not the 2,457 currently planned: making it $162 billion, or 70%, more for 409, or 14%, fewer aircraft. Adjusting for the shrinkage in the fleet, I calculate the cost growth for a fleet of 2,457 aircraft to be $190.8 billion, or 93%.

The cost of the program has almost doubled over the original baseline; it is not an increase of 42%. Now, you know why DOD loves the rubber baseline. Reset the baseline, and you can pretend a catastrophe is half its actual size.......

[Courtney Mil]

Good analysis, Orac. And it will only get worse. I guess the good thing about being involved with earlier programmes was that a high-percentage overrun only ment a few billion. This is gross. And at a time when we are finaincially strapped. So what now? Alternatives anyone?

[Milo Minderbinder]

Off the wall thought, but what are the chances of an "F-35B-lite"?
Using the powerplant and main structural assembly, but de-specified to remove the costliest of the stealth aspects, cutting back on the advanced systems.
For instance if you removed the stealth coatings, user cheaper structural materials and used an off-the-shelf radar?
It wouldn't have the same capability - but it may have a better availability, lower cost, could be in service quicker through needed less development and could be a stand-in (and learning curve enabling) interim stand-in

[Courtney Mil]

Ah, yes. But it sounds a bit like buying back our old Harriers.:hmm:

[Milo Minderbinder]

`Or we could reopen the Sea Harrier line and put the tin wing on them...

I reckon we'd still get them in service earlier than the F-35B, despite the need for new jigs and staff..

[glojo]

Okay I'll be the fall guy..

Axing the harriers was bonkers :ugh::ugh::mad:

[NutLoose]

We could build our own... Ohh but hang on, because we are buying this overpriced Spamcan we have all but destroyed the UK military industry and dispersed our design teams and skilled folks, so we are now left in the position we are in now.. Forced to buy American.

[pr00ne]

NutLoose,

Seeing as the UK still has the second largest Aerospace industry on the planet, that is a silly argument that you make.
BAE Systems design teams are the very folk designing the F-35, and have been since before the choice between the Boeing monstrosity and the F-35 was made, both in the US and the UK.
It's not a purely US affair, it is partly designed and built in the UK with a substantial BAES workshare in airframe and avionics, and a whole host of other UK companies also fully involved in the design, engineering and production of it.

[salad-dodger]

Seeing as the UK still has the second largest Aerospace industry on the planet, that is a silly argument that you make.
any chance of you quoting your source for that pr00ne, because to be honest, I find it unbelievable. Happy to be shown it's true if you can give a reference though.

S-D

[pr00ne]

Direct quote from the organisation that replaced the SBAC. At Farnborough this week.

[muppetofthenorth]

Happy to be shown it's true if you can give a reference though.Might only be wikipedia, but it is a cited statement: Aerospace industry in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerospace_industry_in_the_United_Kingdom)
First line: "The aerospace industry of the United Kingdom is the second- or third-largest national aerospace industry in the world, depending upon the method of measurement." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerospace_industry_in_the_United_Kingdom#cite_note-0)

We could build our own... Ohh but hang on, because we are buying this overpriced Spamcan we have all but destroyed the UK military industry and dispersed our design teams and skilled folks, so we are now left in the position we are in now.. Forced to buy American.

But doesn't everyone here bitch and moan endlessly when "British Waste of Space" and "Wastelands" make their own aircraft that are in many ways inferior to other products yet charge the UK Gov over the odds for them? And then those same people cry out that we should have bought the US-built aircraft first because they're much cheaper and more capable.

[Milo Minderbinder]

we may build parts
but we don't exactly design and assemble new aircraft do we?

[salad-dodger]

Direct quote from the organisation that replaced the SBAC. At Farnborough this week.
not much of a quote pr00ne?
from Wiki:
Current manned aircraft in which the British aerospace industry has a major role include the AgustaWestland AW101, AgustaWestland AW159, Airbus A320 family, Airbus A330, Airbus A340, Airbus A380, Airbus A400M, BAE Hawk, Boeing 767, Boeing 777, Boeing 787,[8] Bombardier CRJ700, Bombardier CSeries, Bombardier Learjet 85, Britten-Norman Defender, Britten-Norman Islander, Eurofighter Typhoon, Hawker 800, Lockheed Martin C-130J Super Hercules and Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II. Current unmanned aerial vehicles in which the British aerospace industry has a major role include the BAE Taranis, Barnard Microsystems InView Unmanned Aircraft System, QinetiQ Zephyr and Watchkeeper WK450.
So, we either make bits, or put together aircraft made by Italian, French, US or Canadian aircraft.

The aerospace industry undoubtedly employs lots of people in the UK. The chances of the UK building a competitive, indigenous, military or civil, fixed or rotary winged, aircraft anytime in the next 20 to 30 years are close to zero.

It pains me to say it, but I'd take the French aerospace industry over ours anytime.

S-D

[pr00ne]

So, you'd rather screw bits of Airbus airliners together that are made by other people rather than design and manufacture the really complex and sexy bits, like the wings, engines, fuel systems and the like. BAE were offered the S320 assembly line many years ago but turned it down as there was very little added value in merely assembling the things.


If you don't believe me about the SBAC quote, try this from their successor organisation;

The UK aerospace sector is a successful, vibrant, high value high technology engineering, manufacturing and service industry that generates good returns to all its stakeholders. With over £20 billion per annum in value added revenue and employing over 100,000 directly, and over 220,000 indirectly, the industry is one of the UK’s largest exporters adding around £2.8 billion annually to the UK balance of trade and involves around 2600 companies across all regions of the UK.

[Navaleye]

Well said. I agree 100% with Pr00ne. We have hung our hat on this and it will work. If its good enough for the USMC its good enough for us. Lets get behind it.

[Milo Minderbinder]

"and it will work"

Probably will, eventually. But thats not the issue.
The key questions are
When will it work?
When it does work will it still be relevant?
When it does work can we afford it?