View Full Version : JSF and A400M at risk?
Modern Elmo
15th Mar 2010, 03:46
Whoops. sorry.
I meant to post only Table 2, without most of the extra boilerplate.
JP...all to do with hunch-shouldered ursine look from front quarter angle...a current test-pilot on the team does a passable imitation. :ok:
Bill Sweetman has another go at JSF on Ares: Kitten Hunting. (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%3aafe29c0d-4756-4485-9d94-a27d5a70293f&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)
Of interest is the link to the Danish article in the comments area. Anyone around who speaks Danish and can provide a translation? : "Defense drops JSF, supports Super Hornet" (http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Penge/2010/03/15/112521.htm)
---------------------------------------------------
Sweetman/Ares obviously saw the same comment and went digging:
Denmark Bails From JSF - Report (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%3aed128b0f-74e2-4a36-be32-184ca2060ce4&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)
Denmark's defense ministry is ready to recommend designating the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet as its next fighter, in place of the delayed and more expensive F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, according to a report on Danish radio.
According to the report, the Danish decision has been in the works for some months and currently awaits an auditor's review before being forwarded to the full government and to parliament. The Gripen NG has also been ruled out - not a big surprise to Saab, which has scaled back its campaign in Denmark.
Uncertainty about the country's choice of the JSF has risen in recent months, in the context of the program's own difficulties and a recent series of major government procurements gone awry: EH101 Merlin helicopters which were sold back to the UK, Sagen Sperwer UAVs deactivated and sold to Canada, and the much delayed IC4 high-speed train project.
Denmark is also likely to delay both its decision and the delivery date for new fighters, which are expected to enter service in 2017-18. Delays to JSF and the Pentagon's continued consideration of a further multi-year Super Hornet buy mean that the Boeing fighter is more likely to stay in production until then, and extend its retirement date.
SSSETOWTF
16th Mar 2010, 00:55
Here's a question then:
Mr Sweetman's job is to sell magazines, and nothing sells magazines and newspapers like a headline-grabbing story of bad news (regardless of the accuracy of the 'facts' quoted, and some of Mr Sweetman's 'facts' have been quite wrong in the very recent past, and his last article shows a beautiful economy with the truth when it suits him). The current fashion is for relatively un-informed journos and academics, bloggers etc (who postulate on defense matters while never having to actually consider putting their life at risk to test their theories) to bad mouth the F-35. It's the cool thing to do. Some of these journos & bloggers, who probably haven't ever picked up an MCDP, have decided that they should be more authoritative on USMC doctrine than professional warfighters who've studied and refined amphibious warfare for their entire careers.
Lockheed's job is to sell airplanes, so they've got a strong interest in avoiding the bad news and focusing on the good.
Military personnel and politicians responsible for making huge budgetary decisions have a strong interest in buying the best possible equipment to fulfill their perceived requirements, at the best possible price. The overwhelming majority of this group of people who have been briefed at the appropriate level are ardent supporters of the airplane.
So who would you listen to - the informed buyer who's done his research, the salesman, or the journo who's trying to sell his paper / blogger trying to sound as if he knows what he's talking about?
Regards,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly
Squirrel 41
16th Mar 2010, 07:30
SSSETOWTF,
Touche - but the point is that the military types are also blinded to the cost (and in the UK let's look at the Nimrod MRA4, T45, Astute for starters where the numbers of platforms get cut and cut again - driving the unit cost through the ceiling), meaning that they're not always right.
So I'd prefer to listen to the CBO and the GAO.
What's your answer to the discussion earlier in this thread that Dave-B is unnecessary for the USMC as their CONOPS makes no sense? I presume that the RN (assuming that CVF goes ahead) would prefer Dave-C with Cats'n'Traps anyway.
(And no, Harrier-Bows at airshows should not be a KUR.....sorry)
S41
LowObservable
16th Mar 2010, 14:39
SSSETOWTF
This appears to be the second time around that you've vented about Sweetman's lies and inaccuracies without actually deploying relevant facts of your own.
It's clearly frustrating to be involved in a program that is moving as slowly and with as much difficulty as JSF, but I would suggest that maybe some counseling would be a better idea than engaging in personal attacks.
SSSETOWTF
17th Mar 2010, 03:29
LO,
Chap, it was hardly a vent. Mr Sweetman had been quoted again as a great authority. I re-made the point that I don't subscribe to that point of view, based on my personal knowledge (because my office is an awful lot closer to the flightline than his). But no, I'm afraid it would be totally inappropriate for me to deploy my facts on a website - if you want facts may I suggest you contact the JSF Program Office who I'm sure will be happy to help you (and Mr Sweetman to get his story straight).
I'm afraid I struggle to see what on earth you're on about with the 'personal attacks' comment? Could you help me out? Rest assured though, I don't need counseling - the frustrations of reading some of the nonsense written about the program are vastly out-weighed by the fun I have every day.
S41,
A comprehensive answer to your question would take an awful lot of space, and LO would probably accuse me of ranting again, but the CONOPS make a lot of sense to the people that have to use them. If you're planning on taking over an existing bare-base ashore and pushing your aircraft forward, you have many more options available to you if you can work off unimproved 3000-6000ft strips without arresting gear, as opposed to needing 10000ft and a cable at both ends. If you're working off a 'small' deck LHA/D, the ship has a shallower draft than a CVN and can get that much closer to the beach. In both cases you don't need the long legs of a -C, and you need the lift fan of the -B. I'm quite sure the USMC have done their math, put a lot of pins in a map of all the short runways in the world and come to the conclusion that the -B fits their requirements nicely. The airplane may cost a little more, but you save quite a bit of cash not having to train for cats & traps (ie needing a training aircraft and all that deck time), not having to recruit & pay & pension dozens of deck crew on each boat to man the cats and steam generators etc. Similarly the USN requirement for the -C (and its longer range) is based on the fact that it will need those legs to fly some of its missions from the CVOAs.
You bring up a very good point though, the inability of the -B to bow at airshows, and to taxi with the canopy open are major design flaws, but I guess we'll have to live with them.
Regards,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly
Navy Times: NavAir admiral tapped to run JSF program
A three-star Navy admiral has been nominated to take over the troubled Joint Strike Fighter program, the Pentagon announced Tuesday.
Vice Adm. David Venlet, who runs Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, Md., was nominated to lead the joint program office that is developing the F-35 Lightning II, the most expensive procurement program in Pentagon history.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates fired the previous program manager, Marine Maj. Gen. David Heinz, in February.
Venlet, a former F-14 Tomcat pilot, has engineering degrees from the Naval Academy and the Naval Postgraduate School. He is also former test pilot at the Naval Air Test Center in Maryland......
NutLoose
17th Mar 2010, 10:08
Carter Confirms JSF Unit Price Nearly Doubled | AVIATION WEEK (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=aerospacedaily&id=news/asd/2010/03/12/01.xml&headline=Carter%20Confirms%20JSF%20Unit%20Price%20Nearly%20D oubled)
Blurb:
Carter Confirms JSF Unit Price Nearly Doubled
The average per unit cost of the Lockheed Martin Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) has substantially increased, from $50 million to up to $95 million, Pentagon acquisition chief Ashton Carter told senators March 11 on Capitol Hill.
In today’s dollars, the per unit cost is estimated to be $112 million per unit.
The first development estimate was made in 2001 in Fiscal 2002 dollars when Lockheed received its contract for development, which is now estimated at $50 billion. Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, asked whether Lockheed Martin knowingly “bought into” the program by proposing an unrealistically low price during the competition with Boeing and later recouping the money through repeated cost overruns. This is a “pattern that would match that,” Carter said during the hearing in reply.
The average per unit cost incorporates the entire price of the program, including development, procurement and fielding.This massive overrun means the U.S. Air Force will notify Congress “within days” of the program’s “critical” breach of cost overrun limits included in the Nunn-McCurdy statute (Aerospace DAILY, March 3). This will trigger a mandatory review of alternatives for the program.
The figures presume a purchase of 2,443 aircraft by the U.S. Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.
Also, as a result of the 13-month development delay, the Air Force has again reassessed its initial operational capability (IOC) date for the F-35, which is now expected in 2016. Only last week officials said it would be 2015. However, Carter’s March 3 JSF acquisition decision memorandum updates the closure of operational testing to be in April 2016, prompting the Air Force’s new date. The Navy also plans to declare IOC in 2016. The Marine Corps still says it will reach IOC in 2012 with JSF.
Factors contributing to the cost increase include a weight-reduction initiative in 2006 for the short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing version for the Marine Corps, delayed development schedule, increased labor and overhead rates, degradation of airframe commonality, reduced production quantities, increases in commodity prices (particularly titanium) and major subcontractor cost growth, Carter says.
It appears, however, that the Pentagon is eager to move forward with the program. Air Force Secretary Michael Donley said last week that no viable alternatives exist for the single-engine, stealthy F-35.
Carter told senators that he had been proceeding with management of JSF since November as if it had already been in a Nunn-McCurdy breach. Measures taken to shore up the program include an extra $2.8 billion added to development, substantially lower production ramp up (which takes place in parallel with flight testing) and the addition of more flight test assets and software testing facilities. The senior program officer, Marine Corps Maj. Gen. David Heinz, also was dismissed, and his position was elevated to a three-star level
LowObservable
17th Mar 2010, 11:17
SSSETEOWF
Describing someone as a liar is generally considered a personal attack, and indeed a professional one. But since Bill Sweetman hasn't sent for lawyers, guns and money to track you down, he must be above it.
At a basic level, the CONOPS based on a 3000-6000 foot runway makes a certain kind of sense. It's also the basis for things like C-17s, in that there are lot of runways around the world that can't handle US fast jets.
However, having been in a lot of meetings when pre-JSF ideas were being hashed around, I can make a couple of observations. One was that the runway length goal was under 2000 feet - I remember one Marine guy saying "if there isn't 1500 feet of straight road in the country I question why we should be there."
Another was that (as happens all too often) the runway quality was usually overlooked. I don't have access to the JSF KPPs in detail, but I don't remember that issue coming up publicly in that context. A 3000-foot strip in Filthistan is not likely to be made of ICAO-spec, 747-proof concrete. Yes, you can reduce the point loads with a short landing, but you've also got a somewhat larger area that may need reinforcing.
At sea: You gain 10 feet of draft relative to a CVN, and perhaps a ship guy (paging Mr Boffin to the thread, please) could tell us how big of a deal that is. You gain on the swings of less training but lose on the roundabouts of maintenance, with a lot of mechanical bits - and if that was the goal I'd take the B-model billions and spend them on CV autoland.
Indeed, when the CONOPS starts to involve 3000-foot strips, 800-foot, 50000-ton ships and SRVLs, and your primary mission is CAS, you do wonder why you need an F-22-priced supersonic stealth jet capable of vertical landing, or whether a rebooted A2D-1 Skyshark would do the job.
Modern Elmo
17th Mar 2010, 13:47
What do "very small" and "significant" mean? In VL mode the main engine on the F-35B is producing some 15,700 pounds of thrust, while a Harrier's aft nozzles deliver about 12,000 pounds of thrust. (The fore-aft split is roughly equal.)
Lockheed claims a bigger number for vertical thrust (which should be larger than maximum dry thrust in level flight -- that's the benefit of the lift fan):
Hover–Pit Ground Tests Validate Propulsion System and Aircraft Response
FORT WORTH, Texas, April 23rd, 2009 --
The first F-35B short takeoff/vertical landing stealth fighter operates in vertical-landing mode on a special "hover pit" at Lockheed Martin in Fort Worth, Texas, during an April test.
...
The F-35B Lightning II short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) variant has demonstrated during testing that it produces excess vertical thrust – more than required to carry out its missions. The tests, conducted on a specially instrumented “hover pit,” also validated the performance of aircraft software, controls, thermal management, STOVL-system hardware and other systems.
“The performance level measured was absolutely exceptional,” said J.D. McFarlan, Lockheed Martin F-35 Air Vehicle lead. “We demonstrated 41,100 pounds of vertical thrust against our requirement of 40,550 pounds.This means we will deliver excellent margin for the vertical landing and short takeoff performance we’ve committed to our STOVL customers,” ...
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/press_releases/2009/090423ae_f-35-hover-pit-ground-tests.html
But the F135's overall pressure ratio is almost twice as high, which would point to a much higher jet velocity (which LockMart doesn't mention), the JSF nozzle is much closer to the ground, and the Harrier has two nozzles, several feet apart.
You need to clarify "overall pressure ratio." The lift fan's output is much cooler and at lower dynamic pressure than the exhaust from the aft nozzle. Yes. the F135 engine has a much larger expansion ratio than older engines such as the Harrier's.
Indeed, when the CONOPS starts to involve 3000-foot strips, 800-foot, 50000-ton ships and SRVLs, and your primary mission is CAS
Don't agree that the F-35B will be CAS only. See for example Table 2 above:
"Day 95 Withstand attacks by low-flying aircraft and missiles."
LowObservable
17th Mar 2010, 15:20
More accurate to say, perhaps, that the aft nozzle is running about 15,700 pounds. The remainder of the total 40000-some comes out of the roll ducts and the lift fan. The core is the hot bit and it loses some thrust (velocity) to drive the fan - overall the main engine is pushing out 19400 lbst in V mode versus 28000 in military level flight mode.
So in V mode the aft nozzle is almost a turbojet, but with a high OPR (that is, from the inlet to the exhaust). Now, that OPR may be reduced in V mode by the energy extracted on the turbine to drive the fan, which in effect slows the exhaust down.
The construction document cited on the Ares blog comes to one conclusion about this, Lockheed Martin another.
As for CONOPS - the principal Marine air mission has always been CAS. The Marines spent a lot of money on an AMRAAM capability for the AV-8B (and made them a lot heavier) but I don't know how much they even train in that regime today. And the Marine sea-based air wing lacks tanker, SEAD, EW and AEW&C support for taking on any serious air defenses or for supporting deep strike, and doesn't have the assets needed to defend the fleet while conducting offensive ops.
Modern Elmo
17th Mar 2010, 19:56
The Marines spent a lot of money on an AMRAAM capability for the AV-8B (and made them a lot heavier) but I don't know how much they even train in that regime today.
If an AV8-B never shot anything down with an AIM-120, so what?
The F-35B is supposed to be a supersonic, multi-role fighter which can do things Harriers never could do. If you're interested in selling or buying more F-35B's, CAS-only for the F-35B is a counter-productive line of talk.
And the Marine sea-based air wing lacks tanker, SEAD, EW and AEW&C support for taking on any serious air defenses or for supporting deep strike, and doesn't have the assets needed to defend the fleet while conducting offensive ops.
But none of those deficiencies totally preclude an America-class ship from operating in the escort carrier role.
For that matter, the Navy's CVN aviation lacks sufficient tanker, and AEW&C suppoort. The Air Force is and will be providing more and more of those services for Naval air, whether the Navy Dept.'s tactical aircraft have lift fans or tail hooks.
The USMC is still a subset of the US Navy, right?
mick2088
17th Mar 2010, 22:37
F-35B in first hover.
YouTube - STOVL F-35B JSF first hover - March 17 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7BUuCeLPSg&feature=player_embedded)
dmanton300
18th Mar 2010, 16:35
"The Marines spent a lot of money on an AMRAAM capability for the AV-8B"
No, they didn't. They studied it and announced that it was going to be done. And Italy signed for the AV-8B+ on the back of the announced intention. Then the marines decided against the AIM-120 integration, and it never happened. So Italy never received the capability either. The AV-8B+ is perfectly capable of carrying an AMRAAM (pics of Italian and, I think, Spanish ones with inert rounds aren't that rare) but it's never been integrated and so can't be used. The Marines do no AIM-120 training for the AV-8B+ because they don't use it on that aircraft.
SSSETOWTF
19th Mar 2010, 01:45
LO,
If you or Mr S have taken offense that's too bad. I'm afraid I sit in flight briefs almost every day where one of the first things mentioned is the flight number for that airframe. So I know his facts are inaccurate. Maybe that's why my front porch isn't clogged with lawyers.
I get the impression that a lot of people are missing the point of the F-35. To my mind the reason so many countries and Services want the airplane isn't really for the stealth, or the basing flexibility. Those are very nice-to-haves most days of the week (admittedly they're essential for some such as a SEAD day). The thing that F-35 brings to any/every role that you chose to operate it in though is the sensor suite and the information & awareness it gives the pilot.
I'm sure there are many CAS pilots out there who'd leap at the chance to take a Skyraider in low over Nacho Grande again, into flak so thick you can walk on it. Or an A-10. If we're doing that, I'd fancy my chances in a good old WWII Hawker Typhoon with a load of rockets myself (with sharks' teeth painted on the front of course). But CAS has evolved somewhat and the platform with the best sensors is king (which is why the mighty AV-8Bs were so popular in OIF - because of their Litening II). F-35 has an unparalleled suite of sensors built in, so I reckon it's going to be a pretty popular CAS airplane - it will have a true (i.e. not exaggerated, like many of the current claims are) day/night/through-the-weather capability to prosecute tactical targets.
Good points about the Filthistan runway. Of course the -B will be able to operate off very short strips and bits of road, which is a fine capability to have up your sleeve. But when you come to set up a FARP for real, it's much easier if there are some facilities, even poor quality ones, already in place - taxiways, an ATC tower, some hangars (even ones with holes in them), buildings to live and work in, water supply, power etc. If the runway is really poor, it'll still be a good base to throw your AM2 matting down on, which will save you a lot of work. Which is why I mentioned the 3-6000ft airfields.
Regards,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly
Second Airbus Military A400M runs all four engines (http://www.defpro.com/news/details/13883/) 19:25 GMT, March 18, 2010
The second Airbus Military A400M, known as MSN2, has run all four of its Europrop International (EPI) TP400 turboprop engines in a series of trials after being handed over for flight test.
The aircraft is expected to taxi for the first time shortly and to make its maiden flight from Seville, Spain in a few weeks, joining MSN1 in the sky.
MSN2 will remain based at Seville during the flight-test campaign.
A video of the engine-run can be seen at Video Gallery (http://www.airbusmilitary.com/Multimedia/VideoGallery.aspx)
hulahoop7
19th Mar 2010, 14:29
I wonder why they opened the bomb doors for the F35 hover but not the SRVL?
LowObservable
20th Mar 2010, 13:18
Dmanton - Oh dear, they are even more FUBARed than I thought. So they equipped their own fleet and those of their allies with a 500-pound paperweight. Marvellous, bloody marvellous.
LowObservable
20th Mar 2010, 13:29
SSSETOWTF
Absolutely correct about the direction of CAS in terms of avionics and sensors - and if you look at the Super Hornet it's heading fast in that direction and will cost much less than an F-35B: $80 m versus $125 m (minimal) for acquisition, and $17k/hour versus $31k/hour in operations.
Really doing CAS through-the-weather? That's going to be a bomb-on-coordinate operation, possibly with ground designated laser terminal guidance. Moving targets through the weather? Really tough but the Rhino will get there before the F-35B in my opinion.
And I have my doubts as to whether stealth and supersonic speed (which together account for the F-22-like price tag for the B) are of any more applicability for CAS than the Mod 1 Fireguard, Chocolate.
LO
Really doing CAS through-the-weather? That's going to be a bomb-on-coordinate operation, possibly with ground designated laser terminal guidance.
You're wrong, so wrong. We've moved on
Modern Elmo
20th Mar 2010, 16:19
You gain on the swings of less training but lose on the roundabouts of maintenance, with a lot of mechanical bits
"Swings and roundabouts" is English English, LO. It's not an American idiom.
GreenKnight121
21st Mar 2010, 07:57
Dmanton - Oh dear, they are even more FUBARed than I thought. So they equipped their own fleet and those of their allies with a 500-pound paperweight. Marvellous, bloody marvellous.
You know, if you actually learned something, you might make sense.
The APG-65 is much, much more than the "AMRAAM-only" radar you seem to think it is!
In A-A mode, its look-down/shoot-down capabilities are great for finding targets against surface clutter (both water & land), allowing the pilot to find enemy aircraft & set the aircraft up for a better AIM-9 shot. It also features complete search track and automatic acquisition modes such as high pulse repetition frequency (PRF) velocity search, high/medium PRF range-while-search, single target track, and a track-while-scan mode that tracks 10 targets simultaneously and displays eight targets.
This increases air-air capability of the "-B+" even if AMRAAM isn't carried.
Then there are the A-G modes... which are the main reason the USMC wanted to install them...
For air-to-surface operations, the medium-range synthetic aperture radar provides Doppler beam sharpened sector and patch mapping, "real beam" ground mapping modes, as well as fixed and moving ground target track, air-to-surface ranging, terrain avoidance, and precision velocity update functions, and the radar features a sea surface search mode with clutter suppression.
This last especially gives the Italians & Spanish a much better ASuW capability than previously.
Note that all these features ARE active & used in the radar-equipped Harrier IIs... so it is hardly the dead weight you so ignorantly label it.
Using the APG-65 also saved a lot of money over installing new radars (or developing a special version of an existing radar)... they were used systems that had been removed from the USN/USMC F/A-18A/Cs during their upgrade to the APG-73.
Navy Times: Critics: Time to bail on Navy JSF (http://www.navytimes.com/news/2010/03/navy_hornet_jsf_032110w/)
Is it the beginning of the end for the Navy’s F-35C?
A steady string of bad news for the Joint Strike Fighter program — which includes the Navy’s carrier variant — has some observers suggesting the service abandon its plans to purchase more than 300 of the fifth-generation jets to fill out the future fighter fleet.
The alternative: Continue buying F/A-18E/F Super Hornets from Boeing that have been on carrier decks for almost a decade.
“I think the Navy needs to walk away from the F-35C based on affordability concerns and continue with the Super Hornet,” said one congressional aide who spoke on condition of anonymity because the matter is still being intensely debated on Capitol Hill.
Navy support for the F-35C suffered in mid-March, when Navy Secretary Ray Mabus said the service is open to buying more Super Hornets. The Navy had planned to stop buying Super Hornets in 2013 with the intention of replenishing the fighter fleet with JSFs starting in 2014.
PPRuNeUser0211
22nd Mar 2010, 13:40
Anybody want to bet on whether the "congressional aide who spoke on condition of anonymity" works for a congressman who has a Boeing plant in his area?
glad rag
22nd Mar 2010, 13:56
In A-A mode, its look-down/shoot-down capabilities are great for finding targets against surface clutter (both water & land), allowing the pilot to find enemy aircraft & set the aircraft up for a better AIM-9 shot. It also features complete search track and automatic acquisition modes such as high pulse repetition frequency (PRF) velocity search, high/medium PRF range-while-search, single target track, and a track-while-scan mode that tracks 10 targets simultaneously and displays eight targets.
This increases air-air capability of the "-B+" even if AMRAAM isn't carried.
Then there are the A-G modes... which are the main reason the USMC wanted to install them...
For air-to-surface operations, the medium-range synthetic aperture radar provides Doppler beam sharpened sector and patch mapping, "real beam" ground mapping modes, as well as fixed and moving ground target track, air-to-surface ranging, terrain avoidance, and precision velocity update functions, and the radar features a sea surface search mode with clutter suppression.
Kinda knocks the fabled and ludicrously expensive stealth qualities into a top hat when it lights up though.
There must be more targeting methods available, perhaps like the Typhoon.
Kinda knocks the fabled and ludicrously expensive stealth qualities into a top hat when it lights up though. Errr, the discussion was concerning the AV-8B+.
The size of the intakes on any mark of Harrier, with the large fan blades inside, give them a radar signature about the size of the side of a barn. :}
LowObservable
22nd Mar 2010, 23:44
GK - Awesome radar. Replaced in F/A-18C/D starting almost 20 years ago. Is it really that good?
Forward Observer: Kill The F-35? (http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0310/032210cdam2.htm)
A fully certified expert on warplanes and their weapons who has filled top Pentagon jobs in both Democratic and Republican administrations would order the Air Force and Navy to modernize their shrinking and aging air arms with F-16 fighter bombers and F-18 Es and Fs, respectively, rather than spend additional millions on trying to fix the trouble-plagued F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
But Thomas Christie, whose last Pentagon job was director of weapons testing and evaluation for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, told me in recommending cancellation of the F-35 that "it's not going to happen" even though it should.
The kind of politics that wastes taxpayers' dollars will win out, Christie predicted in a voice of resignation, if not disgust. He said government leaders will keep the F-35 JSF alive no matter how sick it gets so they will have something to show for all the money they spent on it......
AWST (Ares): JSF - The GAO Weighs In (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%3a767c1026-a08d-4eb1-ad35-8e1e3b168ec0&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)
The good news for the JSF program in the March 20 Government Accountability Office report (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10382.pdf)– combined with the other numbers released in March – is that the program is no longer at risk of failure.
The bad news is that it has already failed.
The strategic goal of JSF was to repeal Augustine’s Law XVI and enable the customers to replace existing fleets approximately one-for-one, while increasing the capability of each aircraft.
The path to this goal was to use commonality to reach high production quantities, supporting high production rates and thereby containing procurement costs. At the same time, new technology was intended to reduce operating costs. The core doctrine was "cost as an independent variable" and the key function of the four-year X-plane program was to define a joint set of requirements that could be met at a low, fixed cost.
It’s now clear that the strategic goal is out of reach. Even if today’s base-2010 average procurement unit costs ($106+ million for the F-35A and $127+ million for the B/C) are attained, the customers cannot afford planned production rates. Current USAF fighter funding – comprising, today, R&D and LRIP for the F-35 – will support 48 jets per year instead of the 80 required to recapitalize the force. Operational costs are predicted to exceed those of earlier fighters, in some cases by large margins.
There will also be a spiral effect as the lower rates result in higher unit costs, and this has not yet been modelled. Its severity will also depend on factors yet to be quantified, such as how international partners respond to the cost increases.
So the plan has failed - as did the previous plan to replace air combat fleets en masse with stealth aircraft, started in the mid-1980s...........
Yes, I realise it´s not an astounding achievement, but for those who are following it here´s the latest video. (http://www.a400m.com/Multimedia/VideoGallery.aspx)
Jig Peter
23rd Mar 2010, 17:36
:( For some reason, thie video won't load - nice try, but summat's askew !
Meanwhile, Grizzly 1 seems to be in hibernation, like the bears that live in the mountains ... It being now officialy Spring (or "printemps" as one says), perhaps they will all soon be about their business, in the air and on the still snow-covered slopes ...
24 March OK now - sounds good - specially as the "RTO" starts ... Now for seeing it fly ... :ok:
Fokkerwokker
23rd Mar 2010, 17:50
Video loads fine here.
It really is quite a handsome chap!
Oh lord it's growing on me!!
:}
GreenKnight121
24th Mar 2010, 06:15
GK - Awesome radar. Replaced in F/A-18C/D starting almost 20 years ago. Is it really that good?
Sigh.
It was installed in the AV-8B+ that same "nearly 20 years ago"!!!
It was removed because the Hornets, as a Fighter/Attack plane, needed the best radar it could have... meaning upgrade to APG-73, to provide better A-A functions.
The Harrier II, as an Attack plane, didn't need that improved A-A system... and when you actually remember that the plain AV-8Bs (both standard & "night" versions) had NO effective A-G radar (relying instead on primarily optical aiming/ranging systems), then the answer is YES.
It really IS "that good"!
Even being as "old" as it was, and being replaced in the supersonic F/A planes by an improved system, it was a massive improvement in capability for the Harrier II!!
Is it "that good" now?
Compared to "no multi-mode A-A/A-G radar", yes, it still is very good.
However, neither it, nor the aircraft, are good compared to newer aircraft & radar systems... thus the F-35B. :=
Lyneham Lad
29th Mar 2010, 19:46
Just spotted this on Aviation Week (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:c294834e-0920-4c91-a795-d7601dca14a1&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)
29 March 2010
The U.K. decision to cut its A400M procurement from 25 units to 22 leaves plenty of room for other buyers to cut their numbers.
When EADS and the partner nations agreed to the outlines for a new contract - to deal with the billion euros in cost overruns - industry said partners could cut the planned buy of 180 units by 10 aircraft without pricing being affected. The U.K. decision to take three of those cuts leaves margin for others to do the same.
Has this been announced elsewhere? Haven't seen it mentioned in the UK media.
Royalistflyer
30th Mar 2010, 07:04
It seems to me that the Americans could opt to cut the STOL version of the JSF .... which would mean our version ..... and the new carriers don't have catapults ...
Hill Gets JSF Nunn-McCurdy (http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/03/29/hill-gets-jsf-nunn-mccurdy/)
The Pentagon has officially notified Congress of the Joint Strike Fighter’s breach of legal cost growth limits, requiring a top-to-bottom review of the program.
The Senate and House armed services committees were told of the Nunn-McCurdy breach on Friday. Details were extremely scant. As the letter from Air Force Secretary Mike Donley said, they will provide details in the latest Selected Acquisition Report (SAR), due out “on or about April 2.” DoD thus complied with Ash Carter’s pledge that Congress would receive notification on or before or around April 1. Of course, this probably means they avoid the wonderful prospect of the JSF price increase getting lots of publicity on April Fool’s Day.
What does Congress think of the formal notification? Not much, if the two-word comment by one congressional aide is any indication: “Very unrequit(e)ing.”..........
Germany Weighs ‘Slight’ Reduction in A400M Orders (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601100&sid=ahhurVnqZhag)
March 30 (Bloomberg) -- Germany may make a “slight” cut in its order of 60 A400M military transporters and take delivery of the planes without their ability to perform automated low- flight maneuvers, a defense ministry official said.
The seven partner nations that ordered the plane agreed with European Aeronautic, Defence & Space Co. to cut their combined order by as many as 10 planes from a total of 180. The U.K. defense ministry said yesterday that it will cut its order of 25 planes to as few as 22. France intends to stick with its order for 50 planes, French defense ministry spokesman Laurent Teisseire said today by telephone.
France expects to get its first A400M in 2013 and receive 35 by 2020, with the remaining 15 coming by 2024, Teisseire said. Germany will get its first A400M in 2014, with the U.K., the third-largest customer, getting the first one in 2015. Spain, Belgium, Luxembourg and Turkey, will follow.
AWST (Ares): F-35 vs. F-16 Range - The Ghastly Truth (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%3a193f1ee3-bac2-4a8d-b0b0-c42c84351a6a&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)
Jig Peter
2nd Apr 2010, 16:48
Nice to see the A400M aviating gently and fairly (could even have been very) slowly at around 10,000 (ish) feet about 1800 local time today Friday 02/03 in nicely still air - last seen heading in the general direction of the Med. coast. Looks and sounds good.
(Surely not off an a quick Easter seaside week-end ... ) :ok::ok:
On an earlier sighting I noticed that from ground level and say 5° angle-off astern at a few miles' distance, there's a possible "spottery" confusion with a 146 - T-tail, high wing with four bumps underneath ... No possible confusion from any other angle, though - that T-tail's too high ...
Happy Easter to all ...
Cost estimate for F-35 to soar, Pentagon says (http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/04/06/2094443/cost-estimate-for-f-35-to-soar.html)
Defense Department officials have told Congress that the already ballooning costs of the F-35 joint strike fighter are likely to soar much higher when new estimates are completed in the summer.
In the Selected Acquisition Report for the F-35, a detailed document sent to Congress on Thursday, the Pentagon said it expects that cost studies now under way will produce estimates dramatically higher than those used in recent months to prepare the 2011 defense budget request.
Based on figures in the document, the average cost of one F-35 -- $62 million when the program was launched in 2002 -- could rise to $115.5 million, not counting inflation, by the time all 2,457 planes that the U.S. plans to buy are built. Including inflation, the government now expects each F-35 to cost an average of $133.6 million. But even that figure could swell to more than $150 million when revised estimates are completed in June.
The report was obtained by the online news service InsideDefense.com, which reported it in a story posted on its Web site Wednesday. The Star-Telegram obtained its own copy of the report.
It shows that Pentagon officials now estimate that the average cost of one F-35 has risen 57 percent before accounting for inflation. It predicts that the next round of estimates could show an increase of up to 87 percent, again before inflation...........
Guzlin Adnams
7th Apr 2010, 14:33
Now then, about that third wing of Typhoons Minister.......
MSN2 airborne from Seville.
Jig Peter
8th Apr 2010, 16:35
Thanks for the good news, Algy - keep 'em coming, specially as the JSF front's getting cloudier and cloudier Stateside ... :ok:
Whoever wins the UK general election, I hope they'll stick to the agreement not to make more than "minor cuts" (if any) in their orders .
mole man
8th Apr 2010, 18:07
When will MSN 4 start Flying????????
Mole Man:ok:
AWST: Dutch Wait To Clarify JSF Stance (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=aerospacedaily&id=news/asd/2010/04/08/02.xml&headline=Dutch%20Wait%20To%20Clarify%20JSF%20Stance)
LONDON — The way forward for the Netherlands on the specific structure of its F-35 Joint Strike Fighter involvement is not expected to crystallize until midyear.
With a caretaker government operating in the country and the Pentagon in the midst of restructuring the F-35 program, Dutch Defense State Secretary Jack de Vries signaled to lawmakers that a number of issues will remain in flux for several months. Chief among those is determining the actual average procurement unit cost and the life-cycle costs projected for the F-35.
De Vries told legislators to expect an update around June, when new figures will emerge as the U.S. completes its update on the projected average procurement unit cost linked to the Nunn-McCurdy recertification process. That review is now underway and could result in a higher unit cost estimate than the $93 million to $112 million unit price (in 2010 dollars) used in the planning baseline in the Pentagon’s April 1 selected acquisition reports.
The new program plan also could affect when the Netherlands starts buying production F-35s. An initial program schedule called for those purchases to begin slowly in 2012, with the first two of 85 eventual units to be put on contract.
Also up in the air is the Dutch plan to buy two Initial Operational Test & Evaluation (IOT&E) aircraft. The first already has been ordered and is due for delivery next year. Given the political situation in the Netherlands, the Dutch government is holding off on buying the second IOT&E asset.
De Vries also confirmed to lawmakers that there is an option for the Netherlands to dispose of the first IOT&E aircraft already ordered, although that would come at a still-undetermined cost.
MSN3 end of first half of the year, MSN4 around the turn of the year. Further details of yesterday's flight here. (http://www.a400m.com/PressRelease/tabid/112/ArticleId/38/Second-Airbus-Military-A400M-completes-maiden-flight-38.aspx)
BEagle
9th Apr 2010, 14:34
Good news indeed!
There'll soon be more Grizzlies* flying in Europe than Italian KC-767Is...:hmm:
*Conversation with genial EADS North America chap at ARSAG:
EADS: "I'm getting some A400M kids' toys made up based on a rhino. This thing looks like a rhino - it's mean and it's tough!"
Self: "Make that a grizzly. The crew have nicknamed it 'The Grizzly'"
EADS: "You sure about that?"
Self: "Positive - in fact it's their call-sign"
EADS: "Well that's (a big) number of dollars I've gone and wasted"
Self: "Just make the rhino the first one and add a grizzly next year"
EADS: "Hell, yes - my product range just expanded!"
Self: "Just don't forget my 10% of sales!"
Squirrel 41
12th Apr 2010, 21:01
More from the good men and women from the Centre for Defense Information about the skyrocketing cost of "Dave" - upwards of $155m a copy or so - about £100m a throw. Can't see 138 let alone 150 of them at anything like that price.
friendly printed version:Still More F-35 Cost Growth to Come (http://www.cdi.org/friendlyversion/printversion.cfm?documentID=4599&from_page=../program/document.cfm)
S41
Finningley Boy
13th Apr 2010, 16:30
Check out the UKIP manifesto Defence Policy, they want to buy another 50 on top of the original order!:ok:
FB
glad rag
13th Apr 2010, 17:51
Interesting that some would see that as a "good" thing....:ugh:
Squirrel 41
13th Apr 2010, 18:20
Right, but in the unlikely event that UKIP form the next government, I suspect that their numbers - based, apparently on the "true cost of £120bn" of our EU membership (see Downloadable resources - UK Independence Party (http://www.ukip.org/content/features/1498-downloadable-resources), Foreword) . Err, right.
And UKIP claim (deeply implausibly) that they can get us out of the EU without losing our trading rights with the rest of the EU. Like who? And before someone says "look at the EEA - Norway and Switzerland", the truth about the EEA is that they have the same or similar legislation to the EU imposed without their voice being heard in the framing of it.
So those 200+ JSFs are actually quite sensible in comparison to the rest of their positions....
S41
And UKIP claim (deeply implausibly) that they can get us out of the EU without losing our trading rights with the rest of the EU. Like who? We have a trade deficit with the EU. They sell more to us than we sell to them Who's going to start a trade war on their side? :hmm:
Docs Say F-35B Too Hot, Noisy (http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/04/14/docs-say-f-35b-too-hot-noisy/#axzz0l9blCP7T)
When the Marine Corps commandant says equipment he is buying for his people works and is safe, we listen. So when Gen. James Conway told us the vertical takeoff version of the Joint Strike Fighter was not too hot to damage carriers or amphibious ships and was not too loud to harm crews or communities, we listened. So did some folks on Capitol Hill and they questioned whether the Marine leadership was singing too sweet a song.
Testing documents obtained by DoD Buzz, said by congressional sources to be the most recent available, raise serious questions about the effects of heat and noise from the F-35B on pilots and ships’ crews, on ship decks and on critical flight equipment.
For example, an operational assessment of the JSF says that heat from the STOVL version may result in “severe F-35 operating restrictions and or costly facility upgrades, repairs or both.” The OT-IID report says “thermal management” will “increase the number of sorties required to prepare an operational unit for deployment during summer months” at most American bases. Overall, it rates basing as red: “unlikely to meet criteria — significant shortfall.”
Another document, a briefing chart rating the plane’s systems, rates as “red” flight operations noise “below deck and island structure” and “on the flight.” Direct exhaust “deck personnel burns” are rated red, as is “personnel blow down” and “off-gassing.” On top of that, the non-skid coating is rated red, as is the impact of the plane’s power systems on “spotting” and the plane’s outwash “on spotting of adjacent aircraft.”
A congressional aide was biting in his reaction to Conway’s assurances that the plane was marginally hotter than the AV-8B Harrier and about as loud as existing planes.
“AV-8B and F-35B temperatures might be the same, but so far they haven’t shown anyone their data; plus, you have to look at it from the perspective of total kinetic energy of the engine thrust. AV-8B has a thrust rating of 23,000lbs, whereas an F-35B thrust rating is 41,000lbs. He’s comparing a cigar torch lighter to a blow torch. Additionally, he’s got other thermal issues he needs to worry about as well, like overheating avionics and cockpit temperatures,” the aide said.
The testing report says that “continued cycling” of the engine for carrier takeoff raises “serious issues” because a pilot’s backup oxygen supply is depleted when the integrated power package (IPP) is disengaged to give the plane more thrust. Cutting off the IPP also means there is “potential that overheating of the radar and avionics may result.” On top of all that, temperatures inside the cockpit on the ground and in low altitude, high-speed fly “will be high,” more than 90 degrees even during a day when the mercury hits 59 degrees outside. That could “hamper pilot performance” during such missions.
The congressional aide then went on to noise. “As for the noise issue, the concern is not in the aircraft flying pattern, the noise concern is for those onboard ship, both above and below deck that are going to have issues. If none of this is a concern, why is the risk matrix still red after developmental testing mitigations are removed?” the aide asked.
We showed the documents to Winslow Wheeler, a top defense analyst at Washington’s Center for Defense Information. “The documentation makes extremely clear that the Navy and Marine Corps know they have a problem on their hands. But they don’t know the dimension of the problem and they don’t know how to address it. But the problem is very clear,” he said.
The congressional staff who spoke said they were concerned that the Marines are unwilling to address what could be fundamental problems for the fifth-generation STOVL plane and, one said, “are purposely disingenuous in their misrepresentation of facts.”
LowObservable
16th Apr 2010, 12:57
"Purposely disingenuous in their misrepresentation of facts.”
This, O Best Beloved, is how Bi-Coloured Python Rock-Snakes always talk. "The Marines are telling porkies" is a good translation.
About That Austere-Base Thing... (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3A27103ee8-d867-4e32-a619-92297fa29cf3)
mole man
21st Apr 2010, 16:35
Any Loadmasters working on the A400M, please PM me as require info please.
Mole Man:ok:
AW&ST (Ares):
JSF - Talking Real Money (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%3ab2c55873-f236-4887-889e-311f590ae4a0&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)
F-35: Change at the Top (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%3aa85fa602-dd0b-4b71-997d-c715941c0b72&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)
AWST (Ares): Super-Er Hornets? (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%3aa2d7142d-9fc4-4071-a8bd-7371ec37016f&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)
Boeing and its teammates are getting bolder in talking about improvements to the Super Hornet and Growler - a development which coincides with debate over the cost and schedule of the Joint Strike Fighter.
At this week's Navy League show in Washington DC, Boeing unveiled an early concept mock-up of a big-screen cockpit for the Super Hornet, aimed at export customers. It looks rather like the JSF cockpit, except that Boeing plans to use one-piece screens rather than two fused panels. Also, rather than eliminating the head-up display completely, Boeing would fit the front cockpit with a new, smaller HUD, with an optical system that would not interfere with the big screen.
http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/7/9/175bf04f-d0ef-44bb-8995-ceb7f20204e1.Large.jpg
General Electric, announcing the delivery of the 1000th F414 engine for the Super Hornet/Growler program, reaffirmed this week that it's working on two improved versions of the engine: the enhanced durability engine (EDE), with a new core and lower fuel consumption, and the enhanced performance engine (EPE), which adds a new fan for a 20 per cent thrust boost and "is targeted for potential international customers."
Boeing is also teamed with ITT Defense on the Navy's Next Generation Jammer program. In an interview at Navy League, representatives of the Boeing/ITT team made it clear that thy are focused on delivering improvements to the Growler - and that approaches which push NGJ towards early integration with the F-35 are, in their view, a much higher risk.
Another issue concerns the Hornet's armament. Although Boeing showed a very generic mockup of the future Joint Dual Role Air Dominance Missile (JDRADM) at Navy League, it may not represent the next step beyond the new Raytheon AIM-120D AMRAAM for the fighter. Boeing has made some quiet approaches to MBDA concerning integration of the ramjet-powered Meteor AAM on the F/A-18E/F - again, with international customers in mind. Meteor is expected to offer better kinematic performance than even the AIM-120D (which is believed to use the same motor as the current C7) and the D is a long way from being exportable.
Well somebody was obviously upset enough to pull a few strings. If LM thinks this helps their case, it doesn't. :ouch:
Flight Global: Aviation Week suspends Bill Sweetman from F-35 story (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2010/05/aviation-week-suspends-bill-sw.html)
[Update: Bill Sweetman's Facebook post, which I quoted below, is the reason he's temporarily barred from the F-35 beat, Aviation Week tells Danger Room (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/05/aviation-week-grounds-top-critic-of-lockheed-jet/?utm_source=co2hog). The plot thickens. It makes you wonder if one of his 91 Facebook friends tattled on him.]
Bill Sweetman notified me this morning that he has been temporarily ordered off the F-35 story by Aviation Week management.
Aviation Week editor Tony Velocci initially told me "no comment", but added: "It was supposed to be an internal personnel matter but I'm really sorry to hear that he's spreading it around."
Sweetman is the editor of Defense Technology International, a monthly magazine published by the Aviation Week Group.
It's not clear what immediately precipitated the decision. But Sweetman is well-known as arguably one of the most outspoken -- and, it should be said, well-spoken -- critics of the F-35 program.
Lockheed Martin denies having any role in Sweetman's removal from the F-35 beat. "I can tell you Lockheed was not behind this," a spokesman says.
Sweetman recently visited Lockheed's F-35 factory in Fort Worth, Texas, along with Velocci and Aviation Week staff writer Amy Butler. On the eve of his visit, Sweetman on 26 April posted a typically droll comment on his private Facebook page:
"Gentlemen, your target for tonight is Fort Worth. Flacks are predicted to be numerous and persistent on the run-in and over the target, and bull**** is expected to be dense throughout the mission. Synchronize watches and good luck."
Full disclosure: Sweetman is a personal friend and former co-worker at Jane's. As a military technology journalist, I have great respect for his vast and detailed knowledge of weapon systems of all kinds.
But Sweetman himself would tell you he approaches F-35 coverage unlike other journalists. I see my role as simply to report the facts offered by both critics and supporters, allowing my readers to draw their own conclusions. Sweetman approaches F-35 coverage from the standpoint of an analyst who has empirically concluded the program is a flop. That position is always going to create a tension with his traditional role as journalist.
Update: Lockheed Martin has released a full statement:
"Lockheed Martin has not asked Aviation Week to take disciplinary action against Bill Sweetman nor have we asked that he be removed from reporting on the F-35 program or any other Lockheed Martin program. In fact on April 27 Bill and other members of the Aviation Week staff visited Lockheed Martin facilities in Fort Worth for briefings on the F-35 program. We have a longstanding professional relationship with the entire Aviation Week editorial staff, including Bill Sweetman, and we continue to work openly with them on all programs, including F-35."
Two U.S. House Armed Services Subcommittees Vote to Preserve JSF Engine Competition (http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/permalink/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20100513006831&newsLang=en)
WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The U.S. House Armed Services Seapower and Air-Land Forces subcommittees today each marked up the National Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 5136). Recognizing that the competition created by dual-sourced engines for the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) drives cost savings and reduces operational risk, both subcommittees voted to authorize $485 million in continued funding of the GE/Rolls-Royce F136 engine for the JSF.
“The committee has believed that competition in the F-35 engine program helps ensure against the operational risk of up to 95 percent of the entire U.S. tactical fighter fleet being grounded due to an engine problem,” said Air-Land Subcommittee Chairman Adam Smith (D-WA) at today’s markup.
This latest milestone follows a long tradition of bi-partisan Congressional support for the GE/RR F136 engine. Congress has funded the engine for 14 years in order to preserve competition on the largest weapons procurement program in history. Competing engines have been an integral component of the JSF program from its inception, and competitive behavior is proven to control costs: Government Accountability Office estimates have predicted that competition between the two F-35 engine makers could lead to long-term savings of up to 20 percent for the $100 billion engine program.
“Competition has been demonstrated to help limit cost growth in acquisition programs, including as the first alternate engine program did for the F-15, F-16 and F-14. And competition has also been demonstrated to motivate contractor responsiveness, technical innovation, and improve engine maintainability, reliability, and durability,” said Smith.
The F136 development program is more than 70 percent complete and scheduled for flight testing next year.
“Today, the competitive environment created by having dual-sourced engines for the Joint Strike Fighter is estimated to save $1 billion during the next five years, and $20 billion over the life of the program," said David Joyce, president and CEO of GE Aviation. “We are gratified that members of the subcommittees strongly recognize that competition is the best cost control mechanism for the largest defense program in U.S. history.”
AWST (Ares): Update on A400M Test Flights (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%3abcf2e924-8bca-4252-b4db-84b65079a975&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)
The first two A400Ms – MSN1 and MSN2 - have now flown 44 times for a total of 165 hours, reported chief test pilot Ed Strongman during a trade media briefing in Seville, southern Spain, yesterday.
Looking like an enthusiastic school-boy, Strongman remarked that “it's easier to fly this airplane than any of our other airplanes.” The flight test program is now moving ahead fast after being delayed a bit over the winter because of the extraordinarily bad weather in both Seville and Toulouse (in southern France). This affected in particular the propeller stress survey as the strain gauges on the propellers are not waterproof “so can't be done in cloud or rain,” he explained.
Strongman said there was “excellent news” from the stalling tests which had been undertaken with a rocket attached to the underbelly of the aircraft just in case they needed to boost the aircraft to regain lift to get out of a stall. They did not need it.
He said the aircraft banked beautifully to 120° although contractually the aircraft does not need to bank at more than 90°. “The aircraft performance and handling are very close to predictions and simulations,” he said noting that it has “outstanding handling characteristics throughout the flight envelope.”
Strongman is not the only pilot at the helm of this aircraft. “Every pilot who flies this has a smile on his face,” he remarked.
barit1
21st May 2010, 11:56
The GE-RR team is appealing for grassroot support (http://www.f136.com/) for the F136. :bored:
Ares: Dutch Vote to Cancel Order for F-35 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%3a126f6b53-45ed-4603-b333-56e5e9a80e20&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)
The Dutch parliament voted last night by 79 votes against 71 to cancel the order for the first F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and to end Dutch participation in the program's Initial Operational Test and Evaluation phase.
The vote on a motion proposed by the Labor Party was based on the fact that price estimates made by Lockheed Martin in response to the Netherlands' original Request for Information and the Supplemental Request for Information of 2008 are not reliable. However, Minister of Defense Eimert van Middelkoop said the vote was Labor Party “election rhetoric” prior to the June 9 general election and was quoted by Dutch News as saying that dropping out of the trials would still cost Dutch taxpayers €20 million, after having spent €800 million (some say more than €1 billion) to date.
The Netherlands has been run by a caretaker Labor/Christian Democrat government since the previous government lost a vote of confidence in February over the army's deployment in Afghanistan. Van Middelkoop said in a statement issued on May 20 that he was neither willing nor able to act on Parliament's vote as he believed the government's temporary status means it cannot take such irreversible decisions before the election.
But Labor MP Angelien Eijsink says it is irresponsible to continue with the JSF program. She cites delays, the Nunn-McCurdy cost breach, the 2-year delay of the IOT&E and poor progress in flight testing. She also mentioned that Parliament was still awaiting vital data on noise levels and said the industrial business case for JSF participation was no longer valid given the much lower than anticipated number of orders for the aircraft. Labor says it wants to continue Dutch participation in the System Development and Demonstration (SDD) phase but other parties want to end it.
The Royal Dutch Air Force currently operates 90 F-16s, 18 of which are scheduled to be sold to Chile towards the end of this year. Originally the Netherlands was planning to buy 85 F-35s.
If the decision is implemented it won't exactly be a surprise. Dutch politicians have been rumbling for months that the JSF is far too expensive and the Netherlands' participation in the program is now in the hands of the electorate. But given the general economic doom and gloom in Europe right now, chances are high that the Dutch will vote for a party that is not going to be spending for something that many do not see the need for.
If the Dutch do withdraw could this be the encouragement other wavering European participants need to pull the plug too?
Ares: F-35's Tough Summer Heats Up (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%3a84cf01cc-851b-4f87-bb47-cce1e458465f&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)
The Dutch parliament's vote to cancel the Netherlands' order for the first of two test F-35s, and not buy the second - which so far is just a vote, as a general election is due on June 9 - ends a tough week for the JSF program. As expected, the program's poor performance has brought down upon it the full scrutiny of Congress, the House Armed Services Committee voting to tie release of FY2011 funding to meeting test and production milestones - and funding the second engine.
The HASC's vote to limit procurement to 30 of the 43 requested aircraft until its conditions are met raises the spectre of the "death spiral" that ultimately drove F-22 production down to just 187 aircraft. According to defense secretary Robert Gates "the detailed proposals they have imposed on the overall JSF program would make it essentially unexecutable and impose unacceptable schedule and budget costs."
Those conditions are:
1 - limit obligation of FY11 funds for development and test to 75% until the DoD certifies all funds provided for development of the second engine have been obligated (the HASC added $485 million to fund the second engine in FY11)
2 - limit procurement funds to 30 aircraft unless:
- the second engine is fully funded (see above);
- all 12 flight-test aircraft have been delivered to their test locations (planned by the third quarter 2010);
- initial service release has been granted for the STOVL F135 engine (planned for the fourth quarter 2010;
- industrial facility and tooling capacity can support production of at least 42 aircraft in FY11;
- Block 1 mission-system software is released and in flight test (planned to fly first in the CATBird, at the end of May);
- the first two low-rate initial production F-35As have been accepted for delivery (planned by year-end);
- advanced procurement funds provided in FY09 and FY10 for the F136 second engine have been obligated;
- Lockheed Martin's earned-value management system has been certified as compliant;
- the first F-35C carrier variant has flown (planned for June) and the CTOL low-observable signature flight-test has been conducted and met or exceeded threshold requirements;
- the 394 test flights scheduled for 2010 have been completed, and 95% of the 3,772 test points accomplished;
- six F136s are available for testing and not less than 1,000 test hours have been completed.
That's a lot of conditions, but they seem fair, if tough. Some of them are tied to Lockheed delivering on its promises to deliver flyable aircraft, others on the Pentagon spending money it hasn't asked for and doesn't want to spend. Gates, unsurprisingly, has vowed to ask President Obama to veto any FY11 budget that includes the second engine or "directs changes that seriously disrupt the JSF program".
And meanwhile, in a move that is sure to stoke debate over the F-35's capabilities, a US intelligence official told Congress on Thursday that China is expected to have a fifth-generation fighter by 2018, earlier than previous forecasts. Three more congressional committees still have to mark up the budget - then the differences have to be reconciled. The F-35's summer promises to be heated indeed.
Inside Defense: Pentagon Analysis: AF, Navy, Marine JSF Variants Only 25 Percent Common (http://insidedefense.com/secure/display.asp?docnum=5212010_may21c&f=)
May 21, 2010 -- A fundamental objective of the Pentagon's largest acquisition program -- to develop three “highly common” Joint Strike Fighter aircraft for the Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps -- may be slipping away, according to the Defense Department, which now estimates the three aircraft being developed by the F-35 program have as little as 25 percent in common.
Christine Fox, director of the Pentagon's office of cost assessment and program evaluation (CAPE), advised Congress of this assessment this month, relaying previously undisclosed findings of the Joint Estimating Team II that last year examined the totality of the JSF program, including the matter of commonality.
“Through this assessment, the JET II assesses airframe commonality of approximately 25 percent whereas the [F-35] Joint Program Office and [prime] contractor [Lockheed Martin] assessments are greater than 80 percent,” Fox told the House Armed Services Committee in written answers to questions for the record posed at a March 24 hearing. “This generates a significant cost difference between the two aircraft production cost estimates.”
Greater commonality across airframes is intended to save money by decreasing development times and facilitating economic order quantities. Higher commonality is assumed to translate into lower costs “through the application of learning curves,” Fox wrote lawmakers. The answers -- prepared in response to written questions by Rep. Gene Taylor (D-MS) about the commonality of JSF models -- were sent to Congress within the last week.
CAPE, which led the JET II assessment, is again examining the JSF program as part of the effort to recertify the program in the wake of a Nunn-McCurdy breach. The assessment will include “the review of actual contractor production cost data for the early [low-rate initial production] aircraft.” This will be the third time CAPE examines this issue; in 2008 the first Joint Estimating Team pegged JSF commonality at 25 percent, a finding that was not reported to Congress (DefenseAlert, July 27, 2009).
Fox cautions that data about aircraft commonality “is based on a limited number of aircraft delivered to date,” adding that the Defense Department does not expect to have a “better foundation of actuals for carrier-variant aircraft” for two to three years.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates in December ordered a restructuring of the JSF program in line with many of the recommendations of the JET II, calling for an additional 13 months and $2.8 billion for development as well as the paring of procurement plans by 122 aircraft through fiscal year 2015.
In April, the Pentagon provided Congress a Selected Acquisition Report for the F-35 program that revised total program cost from $298 billion to $328 billion, while cautioning that the total price could swell to as much as $388 billion this summer as part of the program restructuring.
A central explanation for the cost hike offered in the selected acquisition report is “less airframe commonality than originally envisioned.”
The report also noted the Air Force estimates that total program costs have increased by $8.3 billion and the Navy by $646 million to account for “wing manufacturing performance, change in subcontractor manufacturing plan, cost of purchased parts, and commonality update.”
From the Joint Strike Fighter program's 1996 inception, the goal of the program has restated annually in acquisition reports to Congress as -- to “develop and field an affordable, highly common family of next-generation strike aircraft for the United States Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and allies.”
In 2008, a Government Accountability Office report on the JSF program found that while “a degree of commonality has been achieved, expectations are now lower than they were at program start.” In addition, while mission systems across all three variants were expected to be similar, “commonality among airframes and vehicle systems has declined overall since the start of system development.”
The three JSF variants are the F-35A conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) version, designed to replace the F-16 and A-10; the F-35B short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft, set to replace the AV-8B and F/A-18A/C/D for the Marine Corps and the Sea Harrier and GR-7 for the United Kingdom Royal Navy and Royal Air Force; and the F-35C aircraft carrier suitable variant (CV), slated to complement the F/A-18E/F.
House Lawmakers: DOD Wants To Kill JSF Engine Competition, Sole Source $100B In Contracts (http://insidedefense.com/secure/defense_docnum.asp?f=defense_2002.ask&docnum=5242010_may24b)
May 24, 2010 -- The Defense Department wants to eliminate competition from the Pentagon's largest acquisition program and "earmark" $100 billion for a single defense contractor by canceling the F136 alternative engine program for the Joint Strike Fighter, which lawmakers are seeking to fund for a fourth consecutive year despite executive branch objections.
That is the thrust of a new “dear colleague” letter that four key lawmakers from the House Armed Services Committee are circulating to both counter what they term a “myth-fact” issue paper distributed by the Defense Department last week as well as to shore up support for $485 million in funding for the F136 engine in fiscal year 2011 the committee last week included in its bill............
Get It While It's Hot: Joint Strike Fighter Nunn-McCurdy Certification (http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2010/06/get-it-while-its-hot-joint-strike-fighter-nunnmccurdy-certification.html)
For all those defense wonks out there, here's a copy of the Joint Strike Fighter's (JSF) Nunn-McCurdy Certification (http://pogoarchives.org/m/ns/jsf/f35-nunn-mccurdy-certification-20100601.pdf).
A new independent analysis from the Pentagon has found that the total cost of the troubled JSF program has ballooned to $382 billion (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-06-01/lockheed-f-35-s-projected-cost-now-382-billion-up-65-percent.html). That estimate marks an increase of 65 percent over the projected cost when the program began in 2002, triggering a requirement—the Nunn-McCurdy Provision in the 1982 Defense Authorization Act—that the Pentagon certify to Congress that the program is vital to national security.
The certification is signed by the Pentagon's Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, Ashton Carter, and was sent to Congress yesterday to accompany the new analysis.
F135 vs F136
AWST (Ares): The Great Engine Misinformation War (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3A5035f2c6-e4dc-458c-914c-71cef9a275b2)
green granite
8th Jun 2010, 07:21
An interesting article on the trials and tribulations of the A400M
Special Report - The incredible saga of Europe's A400M
Special Report - The incredible saga of Europe's A400M - Yahoo! News UK (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20100608/tts-uk-air-a400m-ca02f96.html)
Jig Peter
8th Jun 2010, 14:44
The report on the A400 isn't just "interesting" - it's fascinating ... It will make the Eurosceptics howl with joy and regurgitate all their mantras yet again.
Nevertheless, seeing shots of the aircraft's manoeuvrability demonstrated at ILA Berlin will also impress spectatiors immensely, as well as those in UK who will see it later in the year at "the Tattoo" and Farnborough.
As a product, it seems to be a pilot's dream, and the RAF's transport and will crews will find something that they could hardly have dreamed of. The test equipment aboard represents about half its max. load and seeing it roll rapidly to angles unexpected of a staid airlifter shows that its tactical manoeuvrability will also be outstanding ...
As a product, it seems to promise well - as for the "management" set-up originally so misconceived, the less said the better - the Reuters report could have gone into more detail, but it summarises what some of us feared right from the start. Under Mr Enders' care, the programme has probably started going right, and seeing the A400M may well make people
feel it's going to be well worth the (very avoidable !) wait.
Why can't the pols keep their effin' 'ands orf ???
PS. On a cautionary note, I very much hope that the manoeuvrability being demonstrated in Berlin will NOT encourage less skilful pilots in the respective Air Forces to emulate Mr. Hasseline's behaviour with the A320 - Mr. Strongman has already said that the A400 is much more manoeuvrable than the A320.
Flight Safety officers - be very afraid !!!
AW&ST (Ares): VIDEO: F-35C Carrier Variant First Flight (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%3a7a2d9339-c8eb-46da-a27c-a3f620f10c26&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)
After a last-minute hitch with a wiring issue, the first F-35C carrier variant, aircraft CF-1, made its first flight from Fort Worth on June 6. At the controls for the 57min flight was Lockheed Martin test pilot Jeff Knowles.
http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/0/4/30add45c-14b9-4d4c-9495-62f55f4337a6.Large.jpg
Two more F-35C test aircraft are to fly this year, with a fourth to fly in 2012. The first three aircraft are scheduled to be delivered to the US Navy's NAS Patuxent River, Md., test center by year-end. The fourth F-35C was added as part of the JSF development program restructuring earlier this year.
The F-35C has a different, bulkier look compared to the two other versions. And it is the heaviest of the three variants, with a bigger wing, horizontal stabiliser and rudders to reduce approach speed for carrier landings. The wing folds, and gear is much beefier.
MbNYQUvx7Qc&feature=player_embedded
BEagle
8th Jun 2010, 17:04
Meanwhile, over on the other side of the pond, the A400M is putting on a very impressive display at ILA Berlin:
YouTube Player (http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid18065281001?bctid=90439754001)
More information at ILA: VIDEO & PICTURES- A400M to showcase performance range, as flight testing passes 250h mark (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/06/08/342881/ila-video.html)
(Did you spot the Me-262 replica?).
Cannonfodder
8th Jun 2010, 18:39
The C-17 is just as manoeuvrable and far more impressive. Airbus are guilty of total plagiarism!:ok:
Can a truckie explain to me the necessity for such manoeuvrability in A400M? Does it actually need it to come up to specification/ KUR and is there a cheaper or more readily available alternative?
Genuine question. I am assuming that the manoeuvrability is to be used in tesseral type manoeuvres, but surely other platfroms can manage those? Or could you just buy a better DAS?
BEagle
8th Jun 2010, 19:47
Later on, the aircraft will be flown past at 260kt, 40kt below its maximum, before its crew responds to a simulated terrain collision advisory warning. This will see it pulled up by around 40°, and after gaining height rolled out at a bank angle of up to 120°. Previously demonstrated during stall testing, this is 30° greater than the contractually required limit for the transport as set in its seven-nation launch order for 180 aircraft.
RTFM!
:rolleyes:
GreenKnight121
9th Jun 2010, 03:25
Can a truckie explain to me the necessity for such manoeuvrability in A400M? Does it actually need it to come up to specification/ KUR and is there a cheaper or more readily available alternative?
To generate excitement, so as to increase public support and generate sales.
hello1
9th Jun 2010, 17:38
I very much hope that the manoeuvrability being demonstrated in Berlin will NOT encourage less skilful pilots in the respective Air Forces
Why, don't the fly-by-wire protections work in the A400M like they do in other Airbus aircraft?
I have to admit that I don't care about the manoeuvrability of the aircraft - both C130 and C17 are capable of being manoeuvred outside the sensible limits of operation for an AT aircraft. What I really really wanted was the aircraft to be delivered ON TIME, NOT 4 YEARS LATE.:{
fltlt
10th Jun 2010, 16:28
A controversial design change to the Joint Strike Fighter made by the F-35 Joint Program Office, intended to reduce weight and save money, will render the $382 billion centerpiece of the U.S. military's tactical aviation fleet vulnerable to a "leading cause of combat aircraft loss" -- catastrophic engine damage caused by light anti-aircraft artillery, according to the Pentagon's top weapons tester.
New details about decisions to trim 11 pounds and $1.4 million from each aircraft by removing shutoff valves for engine coolant and hydraulic lines and five of six dry bay fire-suppression systems are spelled out in a set of previously unreported communications to Congress from a senior Marine Corps general and the Defense Department's chief weapons tester.
Lt. Gen. George Trautman, deputy commandant for aviation, and Michael Gilmore, director of operational test and evaluation (DOT&E), last month provided answers to written questions about the JSF design change posed by Rep. Gene Taylor (D-MS), chairman of the House Armed Services seapower and expeditionary forces subcommittee, following a March 24 hearing. “JSF live-fire ballistic testing has demonstrated that the JSF is vulnerable to threat-induced fires,” wrote Gilmore, who first raised concerns about these design changes in DOT&E's fiscal year 2009 annual report to Congress, delivered in January.
“DOT&E continues to recommend that these features be reinstated and does not view their removal as prudent,” the Defense Department's chief weapons tester wrote last month. “Historical combat data indicate that threat-induced fire is a leading cause (25 percent) of combat aircraft loss.”
Jig Peter
10th Jun 2010, 17:03
1) The A400's protections are similar to those on civil Airbuses, which are said to have ensured that the A320 so carelessly "demonstrated" at Habsheim at least crashed into the trees in a manner which saved most of the occupants' lives. But they couldn't prevent the accident itself. which was caused by an overconfident pilot making several basic airmanship errors (to say the least).
2) I'm sure that all of Airbus would have preferred not to have the delay in delivery of the A400M (see Yahoo report above), but after the trials and tribulations, the aircraft itself seems in good fettle.
3) Manoeuvres demonstrated at ILA Berlin (and coming soon to the RIAS Tattoo and Farnborought) are surely the sort of thing that the A400, in a tactical role, will be expected to perform ...
4) How long do you expect the RAF will have to wait beyond the JSF's "due date" ?
tucumseh
10th Jun 2010, 17:06
New details about decisions to trim 11 pounds and $1.4 million from each aircraft by removing shutoff valves for engine coolant and hydraulic lines and five of six dry bay fire-suppression systems are spelled out in a set of previously unreported communications to Congress from a senior Marine Corps general and the Defense Department's chief weapons tester.If accurate, this will be an interesting test of the new Military Aviation Authority's resolve, as they will surely red card the design as non-compliant with our regs - especially as (lack of) said systems featured heavily in both C130 and Nimrod cases.
StopStart
10th Jun 2010, 18:09
The "C130 case" had nothing to do with either coolant & hydraulic shut off valves or dry bay fire suppression. :hmm:
Trim Stab
10th Jun 2010, 18:22
What are the exterior noise levels like? I have head second-hand that it is very noisy.
It may not have been a design priority for current military use, but could it become an issue over the 20-30 year expected lifecycle of the aircraft?
BEagle
10th Jun 2010, 18:56
F-35 or Grizz, Trim Stab?
As far as I'm aware, the A400M isn't particularly noisy. Rumours about the F-35B's noise levels have been proven to be.....utter bolleaux.
tucumseh
10th Jun 2010, 19:02
StopStart
Agreed, but fire suppression, wherever and by whatever means, is in the same section of the regs. MoD ignored it.
Chugalug2
10th Jun 2010, 19:31
Tuc:
If accurate, this will be an interesting test of the new Military Aviation Authority's resolve, as they will surely red card the design as non-compliant with our regs
Er...wouldn't it be non-compliant with the US Regs also? Anyway, given that the RAF has issued RTS's to such non compliant aircraft previously I see no reason why the F-35 should be any different in that respect, I mean what's changed? Oh, the MAA! Ah, of course, independent of and yet part of the MOD! That'll be all right then won't it...won't it?
Trim Stab
10th Jun 2010, 19:35
F-35 or Grizz, Trim Stab?
As far as I'm aware, the A400M isn't particularly noisy. Rumours about the F-35B's noise levels have been proven to be.....utter bolleaux.
I was asking about the A400M primarily, since I had heard (from about 1000 miles away from Seville!) that it is a noisy beast. That is not necessarily an issue when population is generally behind the military as currently, but that might change over the next 30 years or so. Even in the US, there are local opposition groups around some noisy airbases. Just curious if A400 is noisy enough for it to potentially become a long-term issue, especially as civilian aircraft are obliged to become increasingly quieter.
Rengineer
11th Jun 2010, 09:11
TS, Equivocator:
That's right, the 400M is markedly quieter than e.g. the Transall. A bit more noisy maybe than the A380. The sound itself is kind funny, all chaotic and out-of-tune when idle on ground, but in flight it's just a loud buzz. A very big, dark bumble bee! ;)
(Or should that be the Airbus Tumbledore entry for the "name the A400M" thread?)
Jig Peter
11th Jun 2010, 13:46
Agreed, Equivocator, that 120° AOB + 40° nose-up is a bit OTT, though highly "cool", but Mr. Strongman did say it was a "demo terrain avoidance manoeuvre" (and also that his display would be "a bit different" from a standard Airbus flypast).
It's also notably quieter (subjectively) than the C-130s I see from time to time wending their way towards the Med at fairly low level.
After 15 great years with Airbus (nearly as much as my RAF time and as long as I've been retired), I'm very glad indeed to see that the "old spirit" is still around !
Look out for it at RIAT and Farnborough and judge for yourselves eh ? :cool::cool:
Jig Peter
18th Jun 2010, 14:02
Neat shot by Yannick Delamarre of two A400Ms over Toulouse on www.flightglobal.com (http://www.flightglobal.com) today (blogs) - after ILA "grandstanding" (what's wrong with standing grand ?), perhaps there'll be a synchro pair at RIAT/Farnborough ???
:ok::ok::ok:
On a more serious note, in these days of possible cuts, even after customers' agreements NOT to drop more than 10 from the agreed total, exposure to public admiration (as in Berlin) can only help to secure this badly-needed aircraft's future.
(Yes I do know the "Back Story", but the A400M is at last a "go-er", and showing (some) of its potential in the best possible way).
Note also that Lockheed is reported to have said recently that a combined A400M/C-130J fleet could make sense.