F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

[MSOCS]

LO,

The 3000ft strip length is the minimum to operate the C-130 for sustained FOB/FARP CONOPS istr. Previous comments saying STOVL can use much less are entirely accurate; load-dependent of course!

[SpazSinbad]

Thanks 'John Farley' for your knowledgeable input and for this quote: "...Since the ship was an obstacle, the top of which was in cloud, the landing pilots kept to port of the flare centreline and corrected to the landing spot once in the hover alongside the deck...." :}

[Stuffy]

John Farley,

Interesting input. Unfortunately, this forum won't hear you dropping a brick into a tin. To wake up the snoozers.

Are you endorsing the F-35B as a good option and probably the best one ?

How does the F-35B's slow handling compare to the Harrier? ( The ones we virtually gave to the USMC).

Could the F-35B fly up the side of a Swiss Mountain ?

[ORAC]

Last part of the Time series on the F-35. Not exactly on the fence about it.....

On Final Approach to Fighter Fiscal Sanity (http://nation.time.com/2013/06/07/on-final-approach-to-fighter-fiscal-sanity/)

.......It is not unreasonable to expect the cost of future F-35s to be about where they are today, averaging more than $200 million per aircraft. It is also reasonable to doubt that F-35 unit costs—for a complete, operable F-35 force—will decline significantly, especially to a point anywhere close to the amounts currently projected for 2018 and beyond, pegged by Bogdan at $85 million. The history of combat-aircraft acquisition warns us that F-35 unit costs will be much higher than are currently projected by the Pentagon and Lockheed-Martin, and will remain well above what can be characterized as affordable.

The data reported to the public and Congress on F-35 costs and production, from the Defense Department’s comptroller, do not conform to the data in other Pentagon reports. Even the number of F-35 units authorized to be produced, and the number to be delivered, are in dispute.

Without a complete and independent audit of the F-35 program, including any costs that may not now be a formal part of the program as reported in Selected Acquisition Reports, it is impossible to discern which F-35 cost reports, if any, are accurate, and precisely what F-35 costs are today and will be in the future. The Defense Department’s SAR, and its seeming wishful declaration of the F-35’s total program costs coming down, should be audited by an independent and competent party. That GAO’s latest report on the F-35 has sided so clearly with the new hopefulness of program advocates for the F-35 calls into serious question whether GAO, or rather its current management, should be the party to such an accounting.

American taxpayers, the U.S. military services, and foreign purchasers — all of whom have been promised F-35 aircraft for as little as $85 million each — are in for a rude awakening. When real F-35 purchase prices unfold in the future, they may be as much as they are today—averaging more than $200 million per aircraft. It remains inevitable that as actual costs sink in, fewer aircraft will be purchased.

This toxic stew of the F-35’s high cost, abetted by concurrent production, lagging performance and continuing design problems, has put U.S. and allied air power into a dive. The dive will steepen so long as F-35 production at the currently-projected rates continues.

[glad rag]

JF, thanks, as always, for your considerations.

BUT, I'm trying to work out how your description of the Harriers [fairly] simplistic nozzle system translates across to the F35b somewhat "transformer" like vertical landing conclusion :confused:

all the best

gr

[John Farley]

Stuffy

No I am not endorsing the F-35B in particular just trying to explain why I think there are many piloting advantages to being able to hover before landing.

The F-35B is a fly by wire aircraft so the handing is whatever the pilots want. The GR9 standard Harrier had better handling than the GR1 but in no way can it be compared to the immaculate standard provided by fly by wire.

I don't see why you would you want to fly an F-35B up a mountain. 42 years ago PR exercises were appropriate to show VSTOL to a world that was not aware of what it offered.

glad rag

In order to give the customer what he asked for (supersonics, stealth and a VL in one aircraft) the F-35B configuration is the best available. But it necessarily requires considerable complexity. Whether this leads to unreliability on the front line remains to be seen. Given modern engineering standards it may not- but clearly it could. Compared to the Harrier the complex systems necessary in the B clearly provide a different order of headache when it comes to combat damage. However the Harrier did not have any defensive aids untill well into its career - unlike the F-35B. As to handling at low speed (or any speed for that matter) the F-35B's handling will never be in doubt and removes at a stroke the Harrier selection, training and currency issues.

[Courtney Mil]

John F,

Thank you very much for your well written and well argued posts. I think you have put a lot of issues back into perspective and I hope other regulars here will take the time to read and consider what you have said. Again, thank you. You put a lot of effort into that and your experience shines through.

[Finnpog]

Thank you John F. Top posts and very informative.

[John Farley]

Thank you chaps for your kind words.

I have a confession to make. I wrote that 39 years ago (apart from the mention of the F-35B) but having read it again I saw no reason to change a word.

BTW it was not well received in 1984 by my employer whose centre of gravity had by then moved to Warton.

[JSFfan]

Thanks John, quality posts like yours, Engines and several others on different subjects is the reason I've been coming to Pprune for years as just a reader.

[Stuffy]

John Farley,
Have you seen the price of mountain chair lifts in Switzerland? Not even my Swiss relatives can get me a discount.

I wondered whether the F35B could copy the Harrier publicity stunt ?

Were you present at the 40 Hunter formation at Buochs for the Swiss AF Hunter farewell?

Battle damage and maintenance, has been my first thought about the F35B.

Any thoughts about the Boeing VSTOL that lost to the F35?

[GreenKnight121]

Any thoughts about the Boeing VSTOL that lost to the F35?

The one with a lower payload margin for a vertical landing?

The one with the need to change wing-form from a modified delta in its "X" version to a conventional wing/tail surface layout for the developmental version (and thus much greater risk of even more delays and cost increases than the Lockheed version has seen)?

Yes, the lift-nozzle scheme was a bit simpler... but its not like the lift-fan in the F-35B has shown reliability issues (once they got the doors sorted anyway).

The one with a MUCH greater vulnerability to FOD, thanks to that ground-scraping maw?

[John Farley]

Stuffy

The X32B used the Harrier/Pegasus concept of pure jet lift. The X35B used the shaft driven fan. They both used the same basic engine.

The better propulsive efficiency of any fan versus a pure jet meant that the same powerplant in the 35 was going to produce about a 25% increase in hover thrust compared to the 32. While the 35 had to carry extra weight in order to use the fan this did not anywhere near cancel out such a huge advantage. Additionally the 32 system for keeping the hot exhaust away from the intake when hovering close to the ground was weak compared to the solution with the 35 which proved to be excellent.

The 32 had much going for it in respect of being able to vector all installed thrust in combat and of course in reduced mechanical complexity but this was not in the end sufficient to compensate for the performance and recirculation issues.

Forget Switzerland please it is not relevant to the discussion going on here.

[Lonewolf_50]

John: Thank you.

Stuffy: why?

ORAC: thanks for the trip down memory lane in re F-111. I suppose that it's problems helped make the Tomcat a great success. Silver linings to the cloud. The EF-111 turned out to be a fine strike package EW adjunct.

[GreenKnight121]

The EF-111 turned out to be a fine strike package EW adjunct.

Using the EW package from the EA-6B the USN handed to the USAF.

[SpazSinbad]

First F-35A In-Flight Missile Launch

"Published on Jun 10, 2013
An F-35A conventional takeoff and landing aircraft completed the first in-flight missile launch of an AIM-120 over the Point Mugu Sea Test Range June 5, 2013. It was the first launch where the F-35 and AIM-120 demonstrated a successful launch-to-eject communications sequence and fired the rocket motor after launch -- paving the way for targeted launches."

First F-35A In-Flight Missile Launch - YouTube

[t43562]

I wondered: new aircraft do push technical boundaries outwards so am I right to assume that even if they get cancelled, the next plane that was designed would almost inevitably benefit from a lot of things developed for or learned on the first one?

An engine, for example, could be the core of many planes. The software which is supposed to be so complex and powerful can presumably be used again too. The radar can be used in a helicopter and so on. In other words the billions spent on research aren't totally wasted.

So what I was wondering is, do the governments involved buy intellectual property rights to the technology that they are getting? Does it all belong to Lockheed (or whoever developed that subsystem) totally at the end?

[SpazSinbad]

This info (or similar?) has been posted earlier on this forum probably. A good illustration of F-35 tech going to 'fish heads' (and they like it). :}

Silent Watch EO/DAS (http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/SilentWatchEODAS/Pages/default.aspx)

[Lonewolf_50]

GreenKnight, USAF liked it because it was faster.

Funny old thing, when EF-111 was put to bed, USAF had to fly Prowlers. Heh, not fast enough, but they seemed to work OK ... :ok:

[Lonewolf_50]

So what I was wondering is, do the governments involved buy intellectual property rights to the technology that they are getting? Does it all belong to Lockheed (or whoever developed that subsystem) totally at the end?
Answer is: it depends. In a lot of cases, however, US Gov't has rights to quite a bit of the kit it buys. But I found out that some "proprietary" issues do not get released.

Huh? Yeah, it was a surprise to me twenty odd years ago ... :ugh:

[Bevo]

Bottom line: if the government paid for the technology development they have unlimited rights. If the contractor paid for the technology the government has “limited” rights which means it cannot pass along the technology data to other contractors.

[ITman]

So the US government has lowered the performance again.. (Flight International)

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

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

Transonic buffet is more severe on the F-35C compared to the other variants due to its larger wing. "The program is making plans for investigating how to reduce the impact of transonic roll-off in the F-35C with the use of wing spoilers; however, detailed test plans are not complete," the report reads.

Meanwhile, the aircraft's crucial helmet-mounted display still has problems with jittery images and is not meeting specifications for night vision acuity. Additionally, a new problem called "green glow" has been discovered where light from the cockpit avionics displays leak into the helmet-mounted display and degrade visual acuity. However, the image latency is now within tolerances. "Latency of the projected imagery from the DAS [distributed aperture system] is currently down to 133 milliseconds, below the human factors derived maximum of 150 milliseconds, but still requires additional testing to verify adequacy," the report reads.

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

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

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

[SpazSinbad]

Six months late & already debated here AFAIK (14 Jan 2013):

Pentagon lowers F-35 performance bar (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/pentagon-lowers-f-35-performance-bar-381031/)

[Killface]

I would hope it is faster than a “supercar”. Other than that, I guess he is easily impressed.

-Bill Sweetman, Just How Super is the F/A-18E/F?, Interavia Business & Technology, April 1, 2000-

-The Navy and Boeing have intensified a propaganda campaign. Unfortunately, the campaign is likely to damage their credibility in the long term, because it focuses on a few basic statements which don’t mean anything like as much as the casual reader is meant to think.

For example: “The airplane meets all its key performance parameters.” This is true. In 1998 — as it became clear that the Super Hornet was slower, and less agile at transonic speeds than the C/D — the Navy issued an “administrative clarification” which declared that speed, acceleration and sustained turn rate were not, and had never been, Key Performance Parameters (KPP) for the Super Hornet. Apparently, some misguided people thought that those were important attributes for a fighter.-

-Bill Sweetman, Watch Your Six Maverick, Interavia Business & Technology, February 1, 2000-

-The Navy’s operational evaluation (Opeval) of the Super Hornet ended in November, and the report is expected late in February. It will probably find the Super Hornet to be operationally effective and suitable, because the impact of any other recommendation would be devastating, but the Navy will have to do some deft manoeuvring to avoid charges that the report is a whitewash.-

-Bill Sweetman, Super Hornet gathers speed, but critics keep pressure on, Interavia Business & Technology, March 1, 1999-

-The Pentagon has conceded that the MiG-29 and Su-27 can out-accelerate and out-turn all variants of the F/A-18 in most operating regimes, and that the E/F in turn cannot stay up with the older C/D through much of the envelope.

Navy data from early 1996 (published in a General Accounting Office report) showed that the new aircraft was expected to have a lower thrust-to-weight ratio than the late-production (Lot XIX) F/A-18C/D with the General Electric F404-GE-402 engine. Its maximum speed in a typical air-to-air configuration would be Mach 1.6, versus Mach 1.8 for the smaller aircraft. In the heart of the air-combat envelope, between 15,000 and 20,000 feet and at transonic speed, the Lot XIX aircraft would hold a specific excess power (Ps) of 300 ft/sec out to Mach 1.2, while its larger descendant could not hold the same Ps above Mach 1.0.-

Mind you, if the C flunks its carrier tests next year, all bets are off again, and I suspect that Boeing and the Navy's Rhino/Growler mafia are lighting candles in church and sacrificing goats to Cthulhu in hopes that it will do so.

really? why?

[SpazSinbad]

Ain't the internet grand - what a repository.... :}

Nelson stands by fighter jet decision 15 Mar 2007 Reporter: Mark Bannerman, Australian Broadcasting Corporation | TV Broadcast

7.30 Report - 15/03/2007: Nelson stands by fighter jet decision (http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2007/s1873007.htm)

"KERRY O'BRIEN: Welcome to the program. When the Government announced it would be spending $6 billion to buy 24 new fighter bombers [Super Hornets] last week, the defence establishment might have been expected to applaud. But, if there was applause, it was seriously muted. The criticism wasn't. The Defence Minister, Brendan Nelson, has come under sustained fire from a wide range of experts, including two former senior Air Force officers, who say the billions will be wasted on a poorly performed plane to fill a capability gap that isn't there. Now Mr Nelson is fighting back, saying it's a sound decision, for which he takes full responsibility. Mark Bannerman reports.

MARK BANNERMAN: It's sleek, it's fast. It's called the Super Hornet. And, if you believe the Government, it's the answer to our immediate strategic air needs.
BRENDAN NELSON, DEFENCE MINISTER: The Super Hornet, the Block 2, the most advanced version of it, is a very capable, very stealthy aircraft.
RICK MCCRARY, INTERNATIONAL PROGRAM DIRECTOR, BOEING: The Super Hornet Block 2 is a breakthrough aeroplane. Rugged long-life air frame, with great handling characteristics. It's been truly enhanced. It really makes it a next generation strike fighter.
MARK BANNERMAN: But it seems not everyone loves a Hornet.

AIR VICE-MARSHAL PETER CRISS (RET.): I am absolutely astounded that we're going to spend $6 billion of the taxpayers' money on an interim aircraft.
JOEL FITZGIBBON, OPPOSITION DEFENCE SPOKESMAN: The Super Hornet purchase is a $6 billion taxpayer funded election year fix. It's a patchup job.

MARK BANNERMAN: And it's not just the price that's stunned politicians and aviation experts, it is the plane itself.
PETER CRISS: I have trouble with the word 'super' and 'hornet', perhaps I would call it superdog or superbug, but certainly not a Super Hornet. The sting in the tail is not there.

MARK BANNERMAN: Peter Criss knows a thing or two about fighter planes and aircraft. He flew F 111s for longer than he cares to remember, and by the time he finished in the Air Force he was Air Commander Australia.
PETER CRISS: This thing will not survive in a fight now in our region - now, right now. Not another five years down the track, 10 years down the track. It is a dog...."

[ftrplt]

Pete Criss has no authority on the topic. No one who flies the SH gives any credence to his position, including the ex F111 guys. He is retired for a reason.

[orca]

Are you saying that if you know nothing about a particular programme, technology or aircraft (by which I mean having flown it, or developed it, and a couple of its contemporaries to arrive at an objective assessment of its capability) - that you really shouldn't express an opinion about it in public?

If only you'd laid that out 140 pages ago we could have saved a whole load of time!;)

[henra]

Are you saying that if you know nothing about a particular programme, technology or aircraft (by which I mean having flown it, or developed it, and a couple of its contemporaries to arrive at an objective assessment of its capability) - that you really shouldn't express an opinion about it in public?


No, everyone is entitled to make oneself look like a fool. Some simply take the opportunity to do so.

I attribute the mentioned statement exactly to this fact. Coupled with emotions related to the loss of a beloved bird.
Yes the SH isn't exactly the best sustained turn rate fighter in existance today. But coming from an F-111 this is ridiculous. The F-111 has some really good capabilities. Turning or A2A combat in any shape or form isn't one of them. At all.

On the other hand, with AESA, AIM120D, double JHMCS and AIM-9x I don't see any fighter aircraft in existance today which the SH really has to fear. It might not utterly dominate but it will absolutely be capable of holding its own against anything out there (bar an F-22).

[JSFfan]

As clown club is often quoted here. Is Pete Criss only credible when he baggs the f-35?

henra, I'm hearing the f-35 is snotting the f-22's capability in full system sims, perhaps one day you will use the f-35 as a benchmark too

[Lonewolf_50]

JSFFan, wait until they go out to Nellis and have a few 1 v 1 sorties, F-35 V F-22. That will answer questions a plenty.

[Courtney Mil]

Good God. The antis aren't here, the pros are, once again, trying to defend their pet by discrediting anything said against it and those of us on the middle ground are being crashed by the pros.

After a spell of quite useful debate here, we're back to the old stuff.

Spaz, you don't normally lower yourself to this, but I think you have this time.

JSFfan, back to some very unfortunate militant rubbish:

I'm hearing the f-35 is snotting the f-22's capability in full system sims, perhaps one day you will use the f-35 as a benchmark too

That is a completely crass remark. Where are you hearing that? In what role is that happening? What are you trying to prove by even saying it?

The F-22 is, arguably, THE top of the line air supremecy fighter of the day. That's what it is designed to do. In incorporates stealth (and other) technology that is not for sale - that's why the USA won't export it. That is also why some of that technology is not available to the F-35. Even less so for export.

The F-35's air-to-air capability is only really there as a self defence role - it is primarily a strike platform. Even to compare it to F-22 A.S., let alone claim that it's "sotting" the F-22 simply reminds us all of your blinkered and overstated understanding of the whole issue.

[Killface]

JSFFan, wait until they go out to Nellis and have a few 1 v 1 sorties, F-35 V F-22. That will answer questions a plenty.

yes, like the Eurofighters beating the F-22s, it will finally put an end to all the internet theory and bickering once and for all. :ok:

[JSFfan]

JSFFan, wait until they go out to Nellis and have a few 1 v 1 sorties, F-35 V F-22. That will answer questions a plenty. I'll give that to the f-22 BFM

CM, I'm hearing that on defensetalk, it's 'rumored' by someone with clearance that in full system campaign level sims, the f-35 is exceeding the f-22 within the system.
Given your quoting of clown club APA/Criss, I'm surprised you try and claim the middle ground "those of us on the middle ground"

[Just This Once...]

I'm hearing the f-35 is snotting the f-22's capability in full system sims, perhaps one day you will use the f-35 as a benchmark too

Courtney has highlighted how preposterous your claim is but I would like to question your honesty.

Or do you expect us to believe that an uncleared civilian with no connection to the programme would have such easy access to classified information?

Fantasy is one thing, honesty is another.

:=

[JSFfan]

I think you need to settle down a bit. Since when an I claiming anything for myself?
you may not like to hear that within the system, it's said that the f-35 is very good

[henra]

henra, I'm hearing the f-35 is snotting the f-22's capability in full system sims, perhaps one day you will use the f-35 as a benchmark too

For the sake of the future of USAF and many other Western Air Forces I truly and profoundly hope you're right.
That said, somehow I have really a hard time seeing that coming.

Aside from the kinematic shortcomings, which are here to stay with the F-35 and which will also impede BVR capabilities significantly, I see much trouble with Systems and Software at the Moment with the Helmet Sight being far from where it should be. How that translates to superior Performances in Sims remains a secret with those who are setting up these Sims.
And you know what, Sims are just that. Reality is where it counts...

[Wallah]

The problem with simulations is that they are just that. Given the immaturity of the JSF mission systems, which don't forget are the heart of the JSF's capability, at the moment they are just the best guess about what LM should deliver. Until the programme completes OT and delivers as war fighting platform a true judgement cannot be made.

Also, given that there is only one country that has a true F22 model, I highly doubt that anyone is leaking information. I suspect that the 'rumour' are nothing more than that.

[Courtney Mil]

JSFfan,

I've explained that to you before in post 2571 http://www.pprune.org/7864988-post2571.html (http://www.pprune.org/7864988-post2571.html). You are quite clearly making bold, unfounded statements again that you must know from past experience here will do you no good, will weaken your argument (such that it is) and will not be swallowed by those here with some military aviation knowledge.

[LowObservable]

Some funny "sources" being quoted here.

I don't think anyone would step out and call the Super Hornet the world's hottest fighter. However, the USN doesn't have a lot of choice, so the correct question is how it compares with the F-35C, particularly when one looks at the 2020 models of both.

The detail answers are quite interesting.

[Mach Two]

you may not like to hear that within the system, it's said that the f-35 is very good

You are not in the "system" so how would you know?

The f-35 cannot be classed as "very good" as it doesn't even exist in operational form yet. For the people flying it and testing at the moment, it has no operational capability so is simply a very nice aircraft to fly. Hopefully, one day, it will become "very good", but you are in no position to make such a claim today.

You've reverted to posting rubbish again. Leave it out.

[JSFfan]

I 'know' because people in the 'system' say so

why is it so hard to accept that the f-35 is exceeding the f-22 in system events?

Aside from the kinematic shortcomings, which are here to stay with the F-35 and which will also impede BVR capabilities significantly, I see much trouble with Systems and Software at the Moment with the Helmet Sight being far from where it should be. How that translates to superior Performances in Sims remains a secret with those who are setting up these Sims.
And you know what, Sims are just that. Reality is where it counts...

you seem to be kinematic platform centric, perhaps the f-35 isn't the shooter and is targeting the SM-6 for example or its sensor data is enabling another platform.. or other f-35's are using a passive f-35 as a shooter
obviously I don't have any details and accept it from those that do

[Courtney Mil]

LO, you make a good point. We know far more about ASH than we do the C. Some strange sources indeed. I think most here are in agreement.

[Courtney Mil]

why is it so hard to accept that the f-35 is exceeding the f-22 in system events?

For all the reasons that have just been pointed out to you in the previous dozen posts. F-35 was never designed to take on F-22. In air superiority terms they are in different leagues. As Wallah said, one has no modelling data available because it's not releasable, the other has no modelling data available because it hasn't got to the operational stage of development yet. Just design and engineering objectives - some of which have already been downgraded.

If you truly believe you 'know' anything about what is going on 'in the system' you are even more deluded than I thought.

perhaps the f-35 isn't the shooter and is targeting the SM-6 for example or its sensor data is enabling another platform.. or other f-35's are using a passive f-35 as a shooterNetworked third party targeting is nothing new to F-35.

you seem to be kinematic platform centric

You seem not to understand the importance of kinematics. It's not just BFM, as has been explained to you before.

obviously I don't have any details...

Clearly not.

...and accept it from those that do

I've never seen any evidence of that here, unless it suits you.

[JSFfan]

"F-35 was never designed to take on F-22."
who said it was

"I've never seen any evidence of that here, unless it suits you."
It has to resonate with other sources, someone saying they use to be a pilot so they know all about 5th gen counts for naught.
Especially when the pilots who transition to the f-22 say it's a different world to get their head around
don't the UK pilots say similar about their f-35 experience?

this also supports that the f-22 isn't/wasn't in the system enough
What is the Fifth Generation Aircraft All About? The View From The Cockpit | SLDInfo (http://www.sldinfo.com/discussing-fifth-generation-aircraft-with-the-usmc-pilot-of-the-f-22/)
The joint operational role for the Raptor is significant. I’d say 80% of our funded testing since I’ve been here in the last two years in some way, shape, or form involves integration; whether it’s integration with other airplanes like F-18s, F-15s and 16s, or integration with Aegis. Maritime Interdiction Integration is a key element of what we’re doing. Virtually all of our tests are about how to make the airplane value-added to the conventional fleet, and that’s pretty much all we’ve done recently.

People throw out those terms all the time, “the paradigm shift”, “a game changer”, “an evolutionary leap”, all those things, but it’s all true. It’s all accurate. And I can tell you from the perspective of a guy who has flown over 2,000 hours in a Hornet. I was a TOPGUN instructor. I was really at the top of my game. I was as competent as the Marine Corps could’ve taught me to be.
In spite of this background, it was a challenge and a major mental leap for me to go to the F-22. It takes time to turn the corner with 5th Gen thinking. But once you do, there’s no going back. Your SA and your ability increase dramatically. Truth be told, you’re always going to have limits in any legacy platform, for many reasons. There’s not a pilot in the Air Force that’s flying Raptors right now that will not tell you the exact same thing.

[Rhino power]

Quite why so many of the more knowledgeable and balanced contributors to this thread continue to respond to JSFfan's "...a bloke said down the pub, so it must be true!" line of reasoning amazes me! :=

-RP

[JSFfan]

Lieutenant-Colonel Berke:Changing the way you physically move is one thing, but changing the way you mentally think is very difficult to do and it takes time. When the concepts just don’t apply anymore and you’ve leveraged those concepts for 15 years, it’s not an easy thing. This will be a challenge for all pilots transitioning to the JSF because it’s going to force them to think differently than they ever thought before. But doing so is crucial to the shift in air operations. Once the mindset shift occurs, the true capability will be understood.
As I said before, once that happens the results are exponential. In just a few years, we’re going to have STOVL JSF operating from forward bases. Aside from all the operational and strategic implications, the tactical significance is huge. A single F-35B pilot will have more SA than anyone flying a Marine aircraft ever has. And he’s going to be directly connected to the entire supported force.
When you consider the fused cockpit of a JSF, you begin to understand just why all those descriptors are really accurate. It’s an evolutionary leap. It’s a paradigm shift. It’s a game changer!

[LowObservable]

Changing the way you physically move is one thing, but changing the way you mentally think is very difficult to do and it takes time.

In the case of JSF advocates, a very :mad:ing long time indeed.

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

...I'm hearing the f-35 is snotting the f-22's capability in full system sims...

So, tell me, where would a self-confessed know-nothing like you hear such things?

Never mind..I shot this off without reading the rest of the thread...back to your basement JSFfanboy!

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

In the case of JSF advocates, a very http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/censored.gifing long time indeed.

Hello? Black pot, meet blacker kettle!

LO, you're as much a part of this problem as JSFfanboy is, just at the opposite end of the spectrum! You're as bad as each other.:mad:

Somewhere in the middle ground is the truth...:rolleyes:

[JSFfan]

So is it OK that I take on what someone with clearance says, that is also supported by 80% of the f-22 budget being for intergration?

[NITRO104]

but changing the way you mentally think is very difficult
One would imagine so, since it's rather difficult to think non-mentally.:D

So is it OK that I take on what someone with clearance saysPeople with clearances don't talk. This is why they got clearances in the first place.
I suppose you're one of those guys who believe the brothel employee when she tells you, you're her very special and only customer.

It’s an evolutionary leap. It’s a paradigm shift. It’s a game changer!......it's

http://happyminutes.blog.com/files/2012/06/chuck-norris.jpg

:}

[JSFfan]

People with clearances don't talk. This is why they got clearances in the first place.
So you don't think Lieutenant-Colonel Berke has clearance?

[Killface]

In the case of JSF advocates, a very ing long time indeed.

Like all those crazy air forces all over the world that are convinced its worth having? with even more signing on despite the issues?

The JSF seems to confound its critics from Bill Sweetman to Airpower Australia with its refusal to die, and win more orders in the meantime. Just like that terrible super hornet we were hearing about a little over ten years ago. whether bill wants to admit it or not, there are more advocates now than we he was suspended a few years back. It has to be frustrating.

I don't think anyone would step out and call the Super Hornet the world's hottest fighter. However, the USN doesn't have a lot of choice, so the correct question is how it compares with the F-35C, particularly when one looks at the 2020 models of both.

The way Bill Sweetman made it sound, the navy as an institution lied and changed the rules to get it, and it useless as an actual fighter. (which sounds familiar actually) So they did have a choice, and chose to stick with the aircraft he disagreed with, as you point out they don't seem to have any regrets, it seems they can't get enough of it in fact.

[JSFfan]

Didn't you know? sweetman did a 180 on the SH, now it's a great plane and USN should cancel the f-35 and buy more of them.
When you have no credibility and are reduced to being a shock-jock blogger, it's an easy step :ok:
I guess he has trouble writing on AW now, as a lot of his time is taken up with writing thank you notes to Boeing.

[ORAC]

Lightning II Strikes Twice More (http://nation.time.com/2013/06/10/lightening-ii-strikes-twice-more/)

[Killface]

That story is by the same fellow who's brilliant rebuttal to Loren Thompson was photoshopping a mask on him, and linking to an aviation week editorial.

The Loren Ranger | TIME.com (http://nation.time.com/2013/02/20/the-loren-ranger/)

:D

[Courtney Mil]

JSFfan,

You've very neatly side-stepped the questions around your statement...

I'm hearing the f-35 is snotting the f-22's capability in full system sims

...by simply posting quotes about how great the F-35 is. It had better turn out to be good, frankly. Your statement there is a massive assertion that needs backing-up or withdrawing. So, I invite you qualify that statement. I restate my questions:

Where are you hearing that?

In what role is that happening?

What are you trying to prove by even saying it?

I would like to add:

What simulation is this based upon?

and

Using what metrics?

When you answer, perhapse you might keep these in mind - no need to respond to them, just the questions above:

Courtney has highlighted how preposterous your claim is but I would like to question your honesty.

Or do you expect us to believe that an uncleared civilian with no connection to the programme would have such easy access to
classified information?

The problem with simulations is that they are just that. Given the immaturity of the JSF mission systems, which don't forget are the heart of the JSF's capability, at the moment they are just the best guess about what LM should deliver. Until the programme completes OT and delivers as war fighting platform a true judgement cannot be made.

Also, given that there is only one country that has a true F22 model, I highly doubt that anyone is leaking information. I suspect that the 'rumour' are nothing more than that.

The f-35 cannot be classed as "very good" as it doesn't even exist in operational form yet. For the people flying it and testing at the moment, it has no operational capability so is simply a very nice aircraft to fly. Hopefully, one day, it will become "very good", but you are in no position to make such a claim today.

[Mach Two]

JSFfanatic, yes, please do address CMil's questions. I'd also like you to tell us at whom your statement "It has to resonate with other sources, someone saying they use to be a pilot so they know all about 5th gen counts for naught" was directed?

When you get into year 12 at school, perhaps you could see if you can get extra English lessons. Your meaning is often lost in the translation.

[Heathrow Harry]

he IS based in Australia...............

[LowObservable]

FA-18 - You have tumbled into a logical trap that some very smart people have set for you. The truth may be somewhere in the middle ground, but that is not invariably the case. If you try to "split the difference" you concede the argument to the side willing to tell the biggest porkies.

As for which journalist thinks what about which aircraft and what they used to think, does that matter as much as people who appear to be serious practitioners of air power here, and who have doubts about the JSF hype? Personally, I don't think so.

In any case, if you have a functioning brain, times change and situations change. We all recall a time when a Block 1 SH didn't look very exciting... but that was also when a full-capability, $40-some-million, costs-less-to-operate-than-an-F-16 JSF was going to be on the AF ramp in 2011 and on CVs in 2012, and the C was promised to weigh slightly less than it actually does, if by "slightly" you mean 5,000 pounds, empty.

And to quote a very bright Navy guy, when the SH was revealing itself to be a bit of a dragmaster: "The baby's ugly. But it's our baby and we will make the best of it." Which they did.

Also, if your concern about your in-production aircraft is speed and range, does it make more sense to (a) give that aircraft more thrust and fuel or (b) replace it with something two tons heavier that has less thrust?

[Lonewolf_50]

LO, I'll go with choice a) and reach back into time to recall how long it took the F-14 to get the better engines ... :mad:

And to quote a very bright Navy guy, when the SH was revealing itself to be a bit of a dragmaster: "The baby's ugly. But it's our baby and we will make the best of it." Which they did
I seem to recall a great hullaballoo in acquisition circles when the mods to the C/D that led to E/F were called so extensive that it was wrong to retain the same TMS for the new aircraft. (i.e. it 'wasn't an F-18 anymore' ...)

I also seem to recall that the Hornet's short legs in the early versions were one of the factors in the need to develop E/F. Memory a bit shady there, however. I do recall that people running the fighter ops in the Med (from a cruiser), who were used to the Turkey and its legs, had a hell of a time when an air wing of all Hornets showed up on the Coral Sea. (CV-43) Deck cycle time ... anyway, that's old news, and the Navy has adapted pretty well to the new bird.

[MSOCS]

Quite why so many of the more knowledgeable and balanced contributors to this thread continue to respond to JSFfan's "...a bloke said down the pub, so it must be true!" line of reasoning amazes me! :=


That is both a true statement and an unquantifiable one at the same time. Yes, within the realms of what is appropriate and 'allowed' on a public forum, many who visit these pages would like a balanced view from those who really do know their stuff wrt F-35. The problem is it's not easy to prove your credentials.

For what its worth, this thread has become a child's playground conversation now with a 'my dad's better than your dad' tone; Boeing-lovers and LM-lovers locked in eternal battle over the chat forums while those who know and care about the next generation of aircraft are out there designing, building, testing and improving.

Hats off to them and keep up the good work!

[JSFfan]

Where are you hearing that?
read my posts, I state in in there and also quoted a f-22 pilot

In what role is that happening?
in a system sim, the person said that the f-35 was exceeding the f-22 within the system

What are you trying to prove by even saying it?
one poster said "which the SH really has to fear. It might not utterly dominate but it will absolutely be capable of holding its own against anything out there (bar an F-22)"

and I replyed "I'm hearing the f-35 is snotting the f-22's capability in full system sims, perhaps one day you will use the f-35 as a benchmark too "

and I posted a f-22 pilot saying amongst other things, that 80% of the budget is spent intergrating the f-22 into the system

What simulation is this based upon?
don't know, the person didn't say

Using what metrics?
don't know the person didn't say

[NITRO104]

So you don't think Lieutenant-Colonel Berke has clearance?
Anyone in any program with access to anything, sings the same (OPSEC's) tune.

What simulation is this based upon?
don't know, the person didn't sayUsing what metrics?
don't know the person didn't saySo why bother us with that, then?

[JSFfan]

"That story is by the same fellow who's brilliant rebuttal to Loren Thompson was photoshopping a mask on him, and linking to an aviation week editorial. "
You have to admire the man, he quotes Wheeler, Axe and a piece by Sweetman that he didn't put his name on. An omission or does he realise that his name is coloured now?

[Killface]

As for which journalist thinks what about which aircraft and what they used to think, does that matter as much as people who appear to be serious practitioners of air power here, and who have doubts about the JSF hype? Personally, I don't think so.

In any case, if you have a functioning brain, times change and situations change. We all recall a time when a Block 1 SH didn't look very exciting... but that was also when a full-capability, $40-some-million, costs-less-to-operate-than-an-F-16 JSF was going to be on the AF ramp in 2011 and on CVs in 2012, and the C was promised to weigh slightly less than it actually does, if by "slightly" you mean 5,000 pounds, empty.

And to quote a very bright Navy guy, when the SH was revealing itself to be a bit of a dragmaster: "The baby's ugly. But it's our baby and we will make the best of it." Which they did.

Also, if your concern about your in-production aircraft is speed and range, does it make more sense to (a) give that aircraft more thrust and fuel or (b) replace it with something two tons heavier that has less thrust?

So without putting words into your mouth, are you trying to say that an aircraft can be unimpressive in development and initial service, and within just a few years it can become quite good despite the vitriol heaped on it by aviation journos?

[Heathrow Harry]

unfortunately journos set the tone for much of the debate - and the few politicians that can read only read newspapers

Think of the Arrow, the TSR-2 & the F104G to see what can happen................

[LowObservable]

HH - Some interesting historical examples. However, I don't think that the Arrow or the TSR.2 were targeted by journos so much as by politicians. Mary Goldring at the Eknockemist might have taken a swing at the TSR.2 now and again but she was mainly (and rightly) concerned about Concorde.
TSR.2 was a lovely aircraft in many ways, too, but from the best accounts I have read, it was going to be murder to develop, build and maintain. See TSR2 with Hindsight here:

RAF Historical Society Journals | Collections | Research | RAF Museum (http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/research/default/raf-historical-society-journals.aspx)

As for the F-104G, it was rather unfairly pilloried. Not because it didn't crash a lot, but because there were other aircraft as bad or worse. However, because of the jolly old Official Secrets Act, nobody knew that.

[Killface]

unfortunately journos set the tone for much of the debate

Very true. I don't expect bill sweetman to admit he was wrong on the super hornet or anything really, (perish the thought!) but it sure hasn't turned out to be the stubborn navy's disaster he was trying to paint, and that he now advocates. at the very least he might concede that the navy changed the rules and downgraded the requirements, in development and got a good aircraft despite it.

sweetman can be just as doggedly determined and stubborn as the mouth breathing JSF fanboys, which i think was F/A-18s point. both sides seem to have a "so what!? hey look at this dubious 'fact' i found, and see how silly you are!!" attitude. to me sweetman jumped the shark when he pimped APA in one of his articles. :sad:

[Courtney Mil]

Where are you hearing that?
read my posts, I state in in there and also quoted a F-22 pilot

I read your posts. So you read it on a forum as a rumour or someone's throw away remark and then quoted it here as if you had been told a fact.

In what role is that happening?
In a system sim, the person said that the F-35 was exceeding the F-22 within the system

Please explain what that means. What is a system sim and what does "the F-35 was exceeding the F-22 within the system" mean?

What are you trying to prove by even saying it?
one poster said "which the SH really has to fear. It might not utterly dominate but it will absolutely be capable of holding its own against anything out there (bar an F-22)"

and I replyed "I'm hearing the F-35 is snotting the F-22's capability in full system sims, perhaps one day you will use the f-35 as a benchmark too "

and I posted a F-22 pilot saying amongst other things, that 80% of the budget is spent integrating the F-22 into the system

Am I right in thinking that it's your way of saying that F-22 is better than F-18, F-35 is better than F-22, therefore F-35 is better than F-18? This still falls a long way short of the truth as you have based your premise on some fictitious simulation about which you can tell us nothing apart from their official finding that "the f-35 is snotting the F-22".

What simulation is this based upon?
don't know, the person didn't say

Great credibility to you and your statement.

Using what metrics?
don't know the person didn't say

Therefore the statement itself is totally meaningless and unsubstantiated.

So you just heard a comment and decided it was worth trying to pass off here, did you? A credibility low point, perhaps? I've been looking at your source on Defencetalk. For someone that claims to be able to decide whom is worth listening to and whom is not, I reckon you may not be as smart as you think. Do you really think that anyone that has clearances in a program with so many classified aspects would post a piece of information in the public domain giving out information about the F-35, even less the F-22? Would they even state in public that they held such clearances?

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

...sweetman can be just as doggedly determined and stubborn as the mouth breathing JSF fanboys, which i think was F/A-18s point.

Thank you. Said much more succinctly than I could ever have done! :ok:

The harshest critics of the program seem to jump from one issue to the next...performance, cost, delays, compromise, noise, O&S... Each time the program (belatedly) addresses one of these, they just switch to another! It's just a non stop, "Ok, but what about..."-a-thon!

Oh, and be careful about drawing any kind of link between Bill Sweetman and anyone else who may or may not appear on this fourm...you may end up with a rather rude private message pointing to some obscure PPRuNe rule/clause accompanied by threats of being barred! :ooh: :suspect:

[WhiteOvies]

Meanwhile, away from the bickering, a brief interview with someone who actually knows what he's talking aboutYouTube (http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=oxDXrnZX-XQ&sns=fb&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DoxDXrnZX-XQ%26sns%3Dfb)

Feel free to discuss his credentials but here we have an RAF test pilot who flies the Development Test F-35B and C for a living. All thanks to advice from John Farley..:ok:..

[JSFfan]

As I said to henra, "perhaps one day you will use the f-35 as a benchmark too"
I wouldn't use the f-22 as the benchmark of an intergrated system platform
ParlInfo - Parliamentary Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade : 16/03/2012 : Department of Defence annual report 2010-11 (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=COMMITTEES;id=committees%2Fcommjnt%2F2dbe833f-6e45-4a8a-b615-8745dd6f148e%2F0001;query=Id%3A%22committees%2Fcommjnt%2F2db e833f-6e45-4a8a-b615-8745dd6f148e%2F0000%22)
Air Vice Marshal Osley :.... If we play to the F35's strengths, and it has a lot of strengths of stealth, good sensors and exceptional situation awareness. For instance, the situational awareness is linked to the capacity of the software. It has roughly three times the software of the F22. That gives you an indication of its capability. It has a datalink capability that is exceptional for talking to not only other F35s but the rest of the system out there. If you have the right weapons on board, and they will need to be upgraded, if you have good training, good tactics and good supporting capabilities, the F35 will prevail.
...
And so the strength of the joint strike fighter—and I use this as an example—is that it has the ability to have up to 650 parameters by which it will identify a potential threat out there. Other aircraft, such as the F22 have about a third of that and fourth-generation aircraft have perhaps half a dozen. So if you are in an F18 or in some of the other Soviet aircraft you only have a very limited understanding of what the threat is and being able to identify it at a distance. If we are able to do as we plan with the F35, and that is to have good access to the software and to be able to program it appropriately with mission data, it will have the ability to identify hostile aircraft at quite a considerable distance. Then decisions will be made within the formation, it will play to its strengths and it will defeat it, but not by going within visual range.

[Courtney Mil]

JSFfan,

Pleased to see you have dropped the comparison from the front of your benchmarking remark. You should have been a politician; just quote the lines from documents that suit your case. Whilst a bit old now, your link to the Parliamentary Joint Committee from last March was an interesting read - it took a while to get down to the F-35 bit. I thought Osley's rebuttal of the Airpower Australia and RepSim findings was well handled.

To maintain some balance here, it's only right to point out what Osley's words were that you omitted from your quote, otherwise you may give the impression that, as Program Manager New Aircraft Capability, Osley's analysis of the platform is all glowing. For example, perhaps better to quote the entire paragraph (including the bit you represented by "..."):

I will take the detailed questions there on the sensors on notice. What I would like to say is that the simulation that has been done was actually done using highly trained fighter pilots, acting as Red Air, using to the best of their knowledge, the best capability they could to defeat the F35. The point I would like to make here is that if you use the F35 and play to its strengths, not its weaknesses, you can prevail in air combat. Winning in air combat late in this decade and into the 2020s is not going to be easy. I am not saying that the F35 will answer all our prayers. If you use the F35 incorrectly and do not play to its strengths, you will probably lose. But the same could be said for the F18 and the F16. If we play to the F35's strengths, and it has a lot of strengths of stealth, good sensors and exceptional situation awareness. For instance, the situational awareness is linked to the capacity of the software. It has roughly three times the software of the F22. That gives you an indication of its capability. It has a datalink capability that is exceptional for talking to not only other F35s but the rest of the system out there. If you have the right weapons on board, and they will need to be upgraded, if you have good training, good tactics and good supporting capabilities, the F35 will prevail.

The difference may seem small if you choose to read it that way, but it is important with any program to maintain the intended meaning of people's words when using them to support your case.

[JSFfan]

Please, I'm but a shadow of your part quoting ability,
"I'm hearing the F-35 is snotting the F-22's capability in full system sims, perhaps one day you will use the f-35 as a benchmark too "

The link was provided to read the whole page if desired, not just what I highlighted. Do I need to show you how to paste the first couple of words in 'find' on the page to find what I indicted by .... as a part quote? Click edit on the bar and select 'find'

If I further condense it, what you may have noticed was

"....the situational awareness is linked to the capacity of the software. It has roughly three times the software of the F22. That gives you an indication of its capability.... it has the ability to have up to 650 parameters by which it will identify a potential threat out there. Other aircraft, such as the F22 have about a third of that and fourth-generation aircraft have perhaps half a dozen..."

[PhilipG]

JSFFan There is a saying in the computer world GIGO (Garbage in Garbage Out), I am not saying that the F35 is no good, it is unproven, as I understand it, the latest software has minimal war fighting capacity, the computer infrastructure needs to be upgraded for the normally accepted IOC standard software to work when it has been developed. There remains a large amount of testing still to do to sign off the F35 of any variety, it thus confuses me as to how anyone can develop a realistic simulator for the F35 and then make pronouncements on how much better than another platform it is.
Quite possibly if the F35 performed as it was initially promised to when a mature platform that had met all of the KPIs in its development, there might be some validity in your comments.
As I understand it the F35C simulator does things that the real plane does not do, such as catch a wire when landing on a carrier. The simulator software will need to be changed every upgrade to the F35 to reflect the actuality of the plane's performance. Sadly LM does not yet seem to be able to change the performance of the LRIP planes to get back on track to the initially promised performance parameters.
I assume that in sim land the F35 helmet works?
Regarding your comments about Situational Awareness, in theory there is nothing to stop the sensor suite from the F35 being incorporated in a 4th generation fuselage.

[LowObservable]

The "F-35 rules" scenario outlined by the Ozzies has been discussed.

Good news: It's feasible.

However, given the numbers it has to be heavily dependent on first-look/shot/kill for the F-35. I have seen this kind of scenario presented in F-22 sims.

This leads to an observation and a question.

First, the scenario is dependent on educated guesswork and analysis, just like the sims that Osley and the rest are trying to debunk.

Second, if the F-35 is that good why does the USAF think it needs the F-22?

Hate to waste time on recap, but we have been over this.

[Killface]

Second, if the F-35 is that good why does the USAF think it needs the F-22?

"We need 700 of them to beat the Soviets over the fulda gap of course. I'm sorry senator, can an aide bring me the newer talking points please? let's see here 1980's, 1990's, oh here we are 2000's. Sorry about that-- 'we need the F-22 to fight the next generation of russian/chinese mega fighters' does that answer your question? I almost accidentally read the 1990s version about fighting the serbs and resurgent iraqis. ha!sorry about that, sir"

We also took into consideration the capabilities of the newest manned combat aircraft program, the stealth F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The F-35 is 10 to 15 years newer than the F-22, carries a much larger suite of weapons, and is superior in a number of areas – most importantly, air-to-ground missions such as destroying sophisticated enemy air defenses. It is a versatile aircraft, less than half the total cost of the F-22, and can be produced in quantity with all the advantages produced by economies of scale – some 500 will be bought over the next five years, more than 2,400 over the life of the program. And we already have eight foreign development partners. It has had development problems to be sure, as has every advanced military aircraft ever fielded. But if properly supported, the F-35 will be the backbone of America’s tactical aviation fleet for decades to come if – and it is a big if – money is not drained away to spend on other aircraft that our military leadership considers of lower priority or excess to our needs.
Having said that, the F-22 is clearly a capability we do need – a niche, silver-bullet solution for one or two potential scenarios – specifically the defeat of a highly advanced enemy fighter fleet. The F-22, to be blunt, does not make much sense anyplace else in the spectrum of conflict. Nonetheless, supporters of the F-22 lately have promoted its use for an ever expanding list of potential missions. These range from protecting the homeland from seaborne cruise missiles to, as one retired general recommended on TV, using F-22s to go after Somali pirates who in many cases are teenagers with AK-47s – a job we already know is better done at much less cost by three Navy SEALs. These are examples of how far-fetched some of the arguments have become for a program that has cost $65 billion – and counting – to produce 187 aircraft, not to mention the thousands of uniformed Air Force positions that were sacrificed to help pay for it.
In light of all these factors, and with the support of the Air Force leadership, I concluded that 183 – the program of record since 2005, plus four more added in the FY 09 supplemental – was a sufficient number of F-22s and recommended as such to the president.
The reaction from parts of Washington has been predictable for many of the reasons I described before. The most substantive criticism is that completing the F-22 program means we are risking the future of U.S. air supremacy. To assess this risk, it is worth looking at real-world potential threat and assessing the capabilities that other countries have now or in the pipeline.
Consider that by 2020, the United States is projected to have nearly 2,500 manned combat aircraft of all kinds. Of those, nearly 1,100 will be the most advanced fifth generation F-35s and F-22s. China, by contrast, is projected to have no fifth generation aircraft by 2020. And by 2025, the gap only widens. The U.S. will have approximately 1,700 of the most advanced fifth generation fighters versus a handful of comparable aircraft for the Chinese. Nonetheless, some portray this scenario as a dire threat to America's national security.


Defense.gov Speech: (http://www.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1369)

I think its because the Air Force has liked to maintain a hi/lo mix for decades though. or that General Mosely was willing to sacrifice large swaths of the USAF to get a fighter pilot crown jewel. I guess it depends on who you ask, really. why does the USAF need the F-22? is it to kick butt in the air, or is it the same "solution looking for a problem" that the F-35 has been called? I remember in the early 2000's that the F-22 was getting the same criticisms leveled against it that the F-35 is nowadays. especially since it was a "cold war" anachronism. lets not pretend the F-35 is the only airplane who's "need" can also be explained by bureaucratic inertia. The USAF "needs" the F-22 like the USMC "needs" the F-35B everyone is so wild about. if the F-35 is "too big to fail" the F-22 was serious sunk cost mentality and "too expensive to mothball" there is plenty of politics with the F-22, just like the F-35. the phrase "corporate welfare" and "Military-industrial complex" were thrown around a lot at the time.

I'm not saying that the F-22 isn't a superb fighter, at an astronomical cost, that only poisons its pilots occasionally, I am talking about the F-22 as a system and its own political fights for survival and what some call "dubious value", others call "essential for the future" There are a great many, that much like sweetman and the F-35, thought it should be cancelled outright and its systems and lessons should be incorporated into a new fighter, rather than doggedly sticking with the F-22 "no matter the cost".

sorry if the original question was meant to be a rhetorical silver bullet.

[ORAC]

It has a datalink capability that is exceptional for talking to not only other F35s but the rest of the system out there. Really? I thought the lack of a link compatible with the rest of the system was why they were suddenly applying such effort to developing a gateway platform.

[Bevo]

I think its because the Air Force has liked to maintain a hi/lo mix for decades though. or that General Mosely was willing to sacrifice large swaths of the USAF to get a fighter pilot crown jewel.

I find it interesting that both Gen Mosley and Secretary Wynne were willing to “fall on their swords” for the F-22.

The immediate reason for the requested resignations of Gen. T. Michael "Buzz" Moseley, the Air Force chief of staff, and Air Force Secretary Michael W. Wynne was a report on the accidental shipment of nuclear triggers to Taiwan. However, the dismissals came amid a long-brewing dispute between Gates and the Air Force leadership.

Gates has been critical of Air Force officials' calls to build more F-22 fighter jets, an advanced but expensive plane. He also has been frustrated over what he sees as insufficient deployment of unmanned aerial vehicles over Iraq and Afghanistan.
LINK (http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jun/06/nation/na-airforce6)


Originally Posted by Killface. I'm not saying that the F-22 isn't a superb fighter, at an astronomical cost, that only poisons its pilots occasionally, The original procurement of the F-22 was to be 750 aircraft. The final procurement is 137. The current F-35 program assumes procurement of 2,443 aircraft. I submit that if the F-35 number is cut by the same 75% the overall cost will be much higher than the F-22 program.

And who builds the OBOGS for the F-35 .... Honewyell
Honeywell Aerospace in the UK produce and supply Air Management and Life Support Systems for civil and military aircraft. It has vast experience and capability in Life Support, from a background of traditional, high pressure, stored gaseous and liquid oxygen to today’s On Board Oxygen Generation Systems (OBOGS). The consolidation of experience on the B-1B, B-2, F-22 and Eurofighter aircraft, and other state-of-the-art systems made it capable of being readily tailored to many different single/twin seat and multicrew aircraft and, ultimately, selection for the F-35. LINK (http://www.jsf.org.uk/JSF-UK-Industry-Team/Honeywell.aspx)

Originally Posted by Killface. I am talking about the F-22 as a system and its own political fights for survival and what some call "dubious value", others call "essential for the future" There are a great many, that much like sweetman and the F-35, thought it should be cancelled outright and its systems and lessons should be incorporated into a new fighter, rather than doggedly sticking with the F-22 "no matter the cost".
There is no doubt that if we are only to fight “wars” such as Iraq and Afghanistan then we should mothball all the F-22s and cancel the F-35 program. However if, as is presented in the video below, there is a possibility we might just encounter an advisory with more capable weapons systems, then the F-22’s air-to-air capability will be critical.

See CAPT Fanell’s comments starting at 0:21:00
Panel: Chinese Navy: Operational Challenge or Potential Partner? - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=nLrO1GI8ZIY&list=PLWX4R7nG6a8moZ0bIUtkBBIqaOkbr85zb)

[Killface]

The original procurement of the F-22 was to be 750 aircraft

yes in 1990.,before the USSR dissolved. the number was rounded down to around 400 post fall BTW. if the F-35 is only procured in 30 percent of what is required that damns the air force and the marines, and the even the navy to a big extent.

find it interesting that both Gen Mosley and Secretary Wynne were willing to “fall on their swords” for the F-22.

did you take a look at all the programs that were cut and aircraft retired to free up funds for the F-22 under those two? and how secretary of defense made sure to pick someone not from fighters to head the air force and the subsequent curtailment of the aircraft? Edit: just be clear, i'm not talking about why they were fired. I'm talking about what was sacrificed on the F-22 alter under them before the B-52 incident. It was not a coincidence that the general that replaced Mosely was no fan of the F-22.

However if, as is presented in the video below, there is a possibility we might just encounter an advisory with more capable weapons systems, then the F-22’s air-to-air capability will be critical.

it sure will be! as will the F-35 in that case. I think there is a need for the F-22, I just don't feel we need more than we have. its a niche aircraft that can't be exported, and is only fielded by one service. its superb but its at such cost that its damn near unfeasible.

[peter we]

Is any potential adversary likely to get even 10% of the projected number of F-35 aircraft?

Quantity has a quality of its own (to quote Stalin). Its a quality that seems to be overlooked.

[henra]

Is any potential adversary likely to get even 10% of the projected number of F-35 aircraft?

Quantity has a quality of its own (to quote Stalin). Its a quality that seems to be overlooked.

For the USAF it is pretty safe to assume they will not be overwhelmed by any other Air Force in the World for the foreseeable future. They probably wouldn't even with their legacy jets given their sheer number and their nifty miscellaneous Support Air Assets.

For Air Forces who spend all the money they have available for flying assets in order to acquire 20 or 30 of these Jets the situation might be different. Especially if they have to sacrifice other essential assets (AEW, SEAD, EW) in order to afford this not exactly cheap Jet.

[JSFfan]

PhilipG, I agree GIGO, it depends if everyone is using garbage or DoD know what they are doing in sims and it's limitations, I lean towards the latter.

[orca]

I tend to agree with your last statement JSFfan. I think this is a very polar argument. I think the pro-JSF camp has flaws in its arguments namely:

1. The latest frontline jets, and in particular the Super Hornet (called Rhino by the crews round these parts, not SH (Support Helo) or Super Bug (errr, OK)), seem to have reduced their RCS without anyone noticing and as a result the layman (of whom there appear to be quite a few) seem to draw the 'LO' line below Gen 5. This is total rubbish of course.

2. The layman is still convinced that technology such as data fusion, IRST, AESA, NCTR, Link, Very High Off Boresight Cueing, HMS, 9X are still to come in Gen 5. They aren't, they're here now and work well. Incidentally two of those aren't available to the current Gen 5 super hero....which you can see through open source.

The anti-JSF camp has one flaw in its argument and it is simply this:

1. What we have always considered 'first day of the war' has now (good example Syria getting some pretty fearsome systems) become 'every day of the war'. I will badly misquote Hugh Bicheno from his (excellent) book on the Falklands War. <<Something is never better than nothing in warfare>>. You just have to decide whether or not you agree. Is there any point paying a single penny for an aircraft that cannot exist inside an enemy IADS? If you want to spend billions on a system like Typhoon but be secure in the knowledge that it can't play until all the double digit SAMs have gone - well, what capability have you actually bought?

And that for me is the key to this argument. We talk too much of cracks in this spar or heat on this surface, we anchor far too much on anachronistic arguments about speed and turn rates. We need to look at the capability this thing brings. For obvious reasons we don't get a full read out of what that is. As a Gen 4.5 practitioner and part time colleague of Gen 5 warriors I cannot wait. What they bring to the fight is awesome. For me it brings what has become the entry level capability.

I (without expecting everyone/ anyone to agree) think it's worth the money, we're getting a good Maritime Striker here.

[LowObservable]

Orca,

Good points (and in fact there are some F-35 critics who would agree with you completely).

There are few entirely non-stealthy aircraft being built today and the number is reducing. All air forces will field stealth, one way or another.

The question is whether the way to go is to try to build one system that does everything - CAS, deep-strike, air combat - inside an F-22-level stealthy wrapper, and then try to replace your entire air force with it.

If the current plan holds, the US will by 2030 have spent 35 years trying to do that, and will be less than half-way to that goal. The price for the USAF will be that the rest of its fighters will average more than 40 years old and that it will have to forgo most other re-equipment efforts.

So the question is: what is the best way to build stealth into your air force?

[Milo Minderbinder]

"So the question is: what is the best way to build stealth into your air force? "

Make it unrequired
Use large numbers of cheap attack missiles / disposable UAVs that can overwhelm the defence by the numbers used.

[JSFfan]

I tend to agree with your last statement JSFfan. I think this is a very polar argument. I think the pro-JSF camp has flaws in its arguments namely:

1. The latest frontline jets, and in particular the Super Hornet (called Rhino by the crews round these parts, not SH (Support Helo) or Super Bug (errr, OK)), seem to have reduced their RCS without anyone noticing and as a result the layman (of whom there appear to be quite a few) seem to draw the 'LO' line below Gen 5. This is total rubbish of course.

2. The layman is still convinced that technology such as data fusion, IRST, AESA, NCTR, Link, Very High Off Boresight Cueing, HMS, 9X are still to come in Gen 5. They aren't, they're here now and work well. Incidentally two of those aren't available to the current Gen 5 super hero....which you can see through open source.

:eek: You must be new to this thread...no one agrees with me about anything.
With it's 'go to war kit' fitted, I've 'heard' it's said here, that the RCS of the Super Hornet blk 2 is surprisingly small. As a pleb, I would only add that LO seems an enabler for what happens under the skin.

The anti-JSF camp has one flaw in its argument and it is simply this:

1. What we have always considered 'first day of the war' has now (good example Syria getting some pretty fearsome systems) become 'every day of the war'. I will badly misquote Hugh Bicheno from his (excellent) book on the Falklands War. <<Something is never better than nothing in warfare>>. You just have to decide whether or not you agree. Is there any point paying a single penny for an aircraft that cannot exist inside an enemy IADS? If you want to spend billions on a system like Typhoon but be secure in the knowledge that it can't play until all the double digit SAMs have gone - well, what capability have you actually bought?

And that for me is the key to this argument. We talk too much of cracks in this spar or heat on this surface, we anchor far too much on anachronistic arguments about speed and turn rates. We need to look at the capability this thing brings. For obvious reasons we don't get a full read out of what that is. As a Gen 4.5 practitioner and part time colleague of Gen 5 warriors I cannot wait. What they bring to the fight is awesome. For me it brings what has become the entry level capability.

I (without expecting everyone/ anyone to agree) think it's worth the money, we're getting a good Maritime Striker here.Those like yourself that are in the loop, do speak very highly about the f-35

[SpazSinbad]

Turning on lights for night ops 14 Jun 2013
"NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND, PATUXENT RIVER, Md. -- Dan Bischoff, Visual Landing Aids in-service engineering team lead for air-capable and amphibious assault aviation ships, installs pencil line and deck edge outline lights Tuesday in preparation for F-35B Joint Strike Fighter short takeoff night operations at the Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md., AM2 Mat vertical takeoff and landing pad.
The Aircraft Launch and Recovery Equipment Program Office (PMA-251) VLA team at Patuxent River installed the two Next-Generation Visual Landing Aids for upcoming nighttime carrier landing practices. The systems provide pilots with rotation-line lighting cues for the simulated flight deck."
Turning on lights for night ops | NAVAIR - U.S. Navy Naval Air Systems Command - Navy and Marine Corps Aviation Research, Development, Acquisition, Test and Evaluation (http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.NAVAIRNewsStory&id=5389)
&
http://www.navair.navy.mil/img/uploads/NGVLA_1.jpg

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/th_NGVLA_1.jpg (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/NGVLA_1.jpg.html) http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/th_CVFlandingAidsAGI2013.gif (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/CVFlandingAidsAGI2013.gif.html) http://www.agiltd.co.uk/visual_landing_aids/pdfs/Visual-Landing-Aids.pdf (1.7Mb)

[SpazSinbad]

Rolls-Royce reaches key LiftSystem delivery milestones for F-35B 17 Jun 2013
"...Rolls-Royce is also supporting the US Marine Corps in preparation for upcoming sea trials with the F-35B aircraft, as well as the process moving toward Initial Operational Capability in 2015....

...The unique 3BSM is a swivelling exhaust capable of redirecting the rear thrust from the horizontal to the vertical position, tilting downward 95 degrees in only 2.5 seconds....

...Lockheed Martin has delivered 26 F-35Bs and the fleet has surpassed 3,000 flight hours, with approximately 750 short takeoffs and more than 400 vertical landings using the Rolls-Royce LiftSystem®.

In May 2013, an F-35B test aircraft completed the first vertical takeoff in programme history."
Rolls-Royce reaches key LiftSystem delivery milestones for F-35B (http://www.asdnews.com/news-49601/Rolls-Royce_reaches_key_LiftSystem_delivery_milestones_for_F-35B.htm)

[NutLoose]

The RAF have a contingency plan in force and testing is under way at a secret Wiltshire base that will both satisfy the Ex Harrier pilots and F-35 doubters

Flying bike Jan tleskac - YouTube


:O

[SpazSinbad]

'NutLoose' I won't watch your video above if you do not watch this one. :}

Paris Air Show 2013: Sukhoi Su-35S
"Published on Jun 16, 2013
Sukhoi's Su-35S made its debut at the 2013 Paris air show and with exceptional maneuverability, the fighter is set to be the star of the show."

Paris Air Show 2013: Sukhoi Su-35S - YouTube

[Killface]

........................Ha :D

[JSFfan]

“Turbo” Tomassetti Reflects on the Future of the F-35

http://vimeo.com/68632129

[Eclectic]

Surely the argument for the Sukhoi SU-35S is less than that for a Eurocanard with thrust vectoring and updated avionics.

If/when the F35 is cancelled or fails to deliver we would be forced to cat and trap our carrier. Folding wing updated Typhoons would be nice but would involve the MoD and BAe. Which makes Rafael or Superhornet a better option. But would we buy a major off the shelf French weapon system?

The F18 was first introduced in 1983. Although it has evolved it is still largely a 30 year old platform. The SU-27 is a similar age. Typhoon is a full two decades more modern.

[orca]

And that sort of ill informed comparison is exactly my point (well, one of them)...the Super Hornet is continually tarred with the brush of being something old that has been upgraded - not true in the slightest. The difference between Rhino and Hornet is staggering, and isn't limited to size and some square intakes.

We don't, by way of fair comparison, take the EAP as the original Typhoon now do we?

[LowObservable]

In some ways the Su-35 is like the JAS 39E - the outside looks the same but the inside is very different. It would be interesting to know how many original Su-27 parts are in there, and my guess would be "not very many".

But if you have a good design and your fighter requirements don't call for higher speeds, greater range and payload, or anything that would drive you to a new platform, why not?

Obviously if you want stealth, you change the platform. But as we're seeing it's difficult. Just how difficult, we are seeing as we speak, as DOT&E Gilmore prepares to unload on the JSF before the Senate. :ok:

[t43562]

It's interesting to note the argument about "people with baggage" who need to "learn and accept the new technology." I have seen that argument used often to silence critics of new software which turns out to be a steaming heap of manure in the end anyhow. The implication is also usually made that new users will not have this baggage and will therefore accept the substandard product as being "good". This is like religions trying to brainwash children.

I have been on both sides of the issue and I'm well aware of how people who don't use something themselves every day think they know all about what it should be and how people that do are perhaps not aware of what new things are possible. My conclusion is that critical thinking and experimentation are required all the time and that when you cease to use evidence and cease to mistrust unproven claims and resort to any sort of social pressure it's a sign that your product is crap.

[MSOCS]

We don't, by way of fair comparison, take the EAP as the original Typhoon now do we?

But you could in that particular example....it hasn't really improved!

[Killface]

JAS 39E - the outside looks the same but the inside is very different.

I have yet to see a production JAS-39E, the F was canceled and the Sea Gripen is a wet dream, so I guess I will take your word for it.


how many original Su-27 parts are in there, and my guess would be "not very many".

Whatever they put in there now has added thousands of pounds, I know that much.

[MSOCS]

The Sea Gripen is as much of a wet dream as a 'Sea Typhoon' and many underestimate the re-design and cost required on the current platform to make it a carrier platform. Furthermore, neither would be ready to replace F-35B or C on the QEC ships.

The only real options that are out there are SH and Rafale if you want to minimise the sticker shock of losing F-35 at this stage.

Folding wing updated Typhoons would be nice but would involve the MoD and BAe. Which makes Rafael or Superhornet a better option. But would we buy a major off the shelf French weapon system?

Yes, this Government would entertain buying a French OTS weapon system! They declared as much in SDSR 10.

[orca]

I think we would have to involve the MoD at some point.

[MSOCS]

thereby removing any possibility of reaching an agreement!

[JSFfan]

In some ways the Su-35 is like the JAS 39E - the outside looks the same but the inside is very different. It would be interesting to know how many original Su-27 parts are in there, and my guess would be "not very many".

But if you have a good design and your fighter requirements don't call for higher speeds, greater range and payload, or anything that would drive you to a new platform, why not?

Obviously if you want stealth, you change the platform. But as we're seeing it's difficult. Just how difficult, we are seeing as we speak, as DOT&E Gilmore prepares to unload on the JSF before the Senate.
LO, I wouldn't take too much notice of that clown sweetman's ideas, even though it's amusing for some
Stealth completely obsolete according to Bill|F-35|Forum :: F-16.net (http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-24148.html)

I'm pretty sure the PAK-FA indicates russia is wanting more and driving them to a new platform

[SpazSinbad]

Some items of 'obvious' interest to me are excerpted below from - plenty more in the 107Kb PDF at URL...

DR. J. MICHAEL GILMORE, DIRECTOR, OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE; BEFORE THE SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEFENSE 19 Jun 2013
"...The program has also dedicated 42 flights to investigating deficiencies in the helmet mounted display system. Seven aircraft from all three variants flew test missions from October 2012 through May 2013 to investigate jitter in the helmet mounted display system, night vision camera acuity, latency in the Distributed Aperture System projection, and light leakage onto the helmet display under low-light conditions. Although some progress has been achieved, results of these tests have been mixed according to comments from the test pilots. Testing could not be completed within the full operational flight envelope evaluating mission-related tasks, as the full combat flight envelope has not been released. Filters for reducing the effects of jitter have been helpful, but have introduced instability, or “swimming,” of the projected symbology. Night vision acuity was assessed as not acceptable with the current night vision camera, but may be improved with the ISIE-11 camera under consideration by the program. Latency with the Distributed Aperture System projection has improved from earlier versions of software, but has not yet been tested in operationally representative scenarios. Light leakage onto the helmet display may be addressed with fine-tuning adjustments of the symbology brightness - a process pilots will have to accomplish as ambient and background levels of light change. Although not an objective of the dedicated testing, alignment and “double vision” problems have also been identified by pilots and were noted in my report earlier this year on the F-35A Ready for Training Operational Utility Evaluation (OUE). Whether the progress achieved in resolving the problems discussed immediately above has been adequate will likely not be known with confidence until the Block 2B operational evaluation is conducted in 2015...."
_____________________________

"...Ship Integration
The program plans to conduct the second set of ship trials with two F-35B test aircraft in August 2013. Test objectives for this deployment include conducting night operations, carrying stores, evaluating the carrier landing system, and expanding the take-off and vertical landing envelope for varying wind-over-deck conditions and for a broader range of aircraft weight and center of gravity conditions. Flying qualities with an updated version of control software, based on data taken during the first deployment, will be assessed. Two SDD test aircraft will be operated by program test pilots during the test. Minimal changes to USS Wasp are anticipated, as this will be the second deployment to the ship. Some restrictions to the electromagnetic environment on the ship may be necessary as a result of the electromagnetic environmental effects testing on the aircraft. The logistics support environment will not be representative of fleet operations; rather, it will be similar to that used in the first ship trials in 2011 that employed workarounds to reach back to land-based systems and personnel as necessary to sustain operations.

The test center also plans to train additional test pilots to be qualified in STOVL operations for the deployment, and for conducting land-based work-up maneuvers...."
_____________________________

"...The program intends to conduct the first set of carrier-based ship trials with two F-35C test aircraft in the summer of 2014. The prerequisite activity with the aircraft leading up to the sea-borne trials is extensive. The new arresting hook system – which has yet to start the planned verification, structural, or durability testing – will have to be installed on both aircraft, and shore-based roll-in testing and hook engagement testing completed with one aircraft, which will compose approximately six months of testing. An improved nose landing gear drag brace, required for catapult launches, will also be a part of the pre-deployment set of modifications. Both aircraft will need to undergo electromagnetic environmental effects testing prior to deployment. For the carrier, the Department of the Navy is working integration issues that will need to be resolved prior to the first operational deployment, but will not necessarily be solved prior to the first set of ship trials. Examples of integration issues include storage of the lithium-ion batteries on the carrier, resupplying engines while underway, and integration of the autonomic logistics information system. Some initial noise and thermal effects testing have been completed at land-based test facilities, and will be a part of the test activity during the first ship trial period. Modifications of the jet blast deflector system on the carrier may be necessary prior to the ship-borne trials to ensure adequate cooling of the deflector during JSF operations...."
http://elpdefensenews.********.com.au/2013/06/senate-testimony-f-35-development-needs.html PDF download 107Kb
OR
Eric Palmer blog: Senate testimony--F-35 development needs more money-time (http://tinyurl.com/l3mqfub)

[LowObservable]

It seems we are witnessing what "too big to fail" means.

It means that instead of making the painful admission that the contractor signed up to do something that they could not, and that the customer failed to control the deviation of reality from the promise, DoD will spend any amount and sacrifice any capability to drag the program over a hastily repainted finish line.

[kbrockman]

Cost of F35 can come down 50%, the way of achieving this might be a bit
controversial according to this testimony before the Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee.
F-35 Rollout: Halving the Procurement Could Save $5B | Brookings Institution (http://www.brookings.edu/research/testimony/2013/06/19-f35-rollout-procurement-defense-ohanlon?rssid=fiscal+policy&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BrookingsRSS%2Ftopics%2Ffiscalpolicy+%2 8Brookings+Topics+-+Fiscal+Policy%29)
Editor's Note: In testimony before the Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, Michael O'Hanlon gave recommendations for alternatives to the planned F-35 roll out. A supporter of the program, O'Hanlon believes the planned buy of 2,500 planes could be cut in half, saving at least $5 billion annually in production costs.
...
n other words, while I am a supporter of the program, I am also a critic about the scale of the planned procurement. Even as drones have become much more effective, even as precision-guided ordnance has become devastatingly accurate, and even as real-time surveillance and information grids have evolved rapidly, plans for modernizing manned combat systems have remained essentially at previous quantitative levels.

All together, the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps still plan to buy nearly 2,500 F-35 combat jets at a total acquisition price of more than $300 billion in constant 2013 dollars. Production is just beginning at low rates, with the big ramp-up expected in the next few years. The Pentagon will spend about $15 billion annually on the plane starting in mid-decade. Three-fourths of the projected funds are yet to be spent. The Pentagon’s independent cost assessment office believes the average unit procurement price could be 15 to 20 percent higher than official estimates, exceeding $115 million per plane in 2013 dollars. And once purchased, the same office estimates that the F-35 will also cost one-third more to operate in real terms than planes like the F-16 and F-18 that it is replacing.

.....

It is important to acknowledge some strengths of the F-35, though, and to challenge some common criticisms. Some have opposed the Marine Corps variant of the plane (the F-35B), with its extra engine as needed for short or vertical take offs and landings. But in fact, that variant has value for an era in which airfields are increasingly vulnerable to precision ordnance of the types that countries such as Iran and China are fielding. The United States needs enough F-35Bs to be able to populate bases nearest potential combat zones, such as the Gulf states (for scenarios involving Iran) and Okinawa (in regard to China). As Marine Corps Commandant General James Amos has noted, there are ten times as many 3,000 foot runways in the world adequate for such short-takeoff jets as there are 8,0000 foot runways suitable for conventional aircraft—and the Marines can lay down an expeditionary 3,000 foot runway in a matter of days in other places.[3]

An alternative concept for F-35 production could be as follows:

Purchase a total of 1,250 instead of 2,500.
Leave the Marine Corps plan largely as is, scaling back only by 10 to 20 percent to account more fully for the proven capacity of unmanned aerial vehicles to carry out some missions previously handled by manned aircraft.
Cancel the Navy variant (the F-35C), with its relatively limited range compared with likely needs—buying more F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets in the meantime while committing more firmly to development of a longer-range unmanned carrier-capable attack aircraft. [4] The X-47B unmanned system, which completed demonstration tests on a carrier in 2012, is scheduled to conduct flight operations from an aircraft carrier in 2013, so this capability is progressing.[5]
Reduce Air Force numbers, currently expected to exceed 1,700 F-35 planes, by almost half.

Of the 800 planes that the Air Force was counting on, but would not get under this approach, the difference can be made up in the following ways. First, cut back 200 planes by eliminating two tactical fighter wings. Second, view the 200 large combat-capable unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) currently owned by the Air Force, together with the 300 or more on the way, as viable replacements for some manned fighter planes. The Air Force is buying the equivalent of five wings of large UAVs; perhaps it could transform two manned combat wings into unmanned combat aircraft wings as a result.[6] For the remaining planes, employ further purchases of F-16 jets and refurbishments of existing F-16s to make up the difference as needed.[7]

This approach will produce net savings of some $60 billion in Air Force aircraft purchase costs. The F-16 option is still available since the production line is currently making aircraft for Morocco and Oman among others, but it may not remain open for more than a couple years, so this option could have to be exercised fairly promptly to make economic sense.[8] Additional savings in the Marine Corps and Navy will add up to another $20 billion to $25 billion.

Average annual savings from this alternative approach to F-35 production might be $5 billion. Over time up to another $2 billion a year or so in savings would be achievable in operating accounts from the sum total of all these changes in tactical aircraft. These savings will not kick in right away, since it is important to get the F-35 production line working efficiently to keep unit costs in check. More of the savings will accrue in the 2020s.

[kbrockman]

This was an interesting quote indeed.....
DR. J. MICHAEL GILMORE, DIRECTOR, OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE; BEFORE THE SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEFENSE 19 Jun 2013

"...The program has also dedicated 42 flights to investigating deficiencies in the helmet mounted display system. Seven aircraft from all three variants flew test missions from October 2012 through May 2013 to investigate jitter in the helmet mounted display system, night vision camera acuity, latency in the Distributed Aperture System projection, and light leakage onto the helmet display under low-light conditions. Although some progress has been achieved, results of these tests have been mixed according to comments from the test pilots. Testing could not be completed within the full operational flight envelope evaluating mission-related tasks, as the full combat flight envelope has not been released. Filters for reducing the effects of jitter have been helpful, but have introduced instability, or “swimming,” of the projected symbology. Night vision acuity was assessed as not acceptable with the current night vision camera, but may be improved with the ISIE-11 camera under consideration by the program. Latency with the Distributed Aperture System projection has improved from earlier versions of software, but has not yet been tested in operationally representative scenarios. Light leakage onto the helmet display may be addressed with fine-tuning adjustments of the symbology brightness - a process pilots will have to accomplish as ambient and background levels of light change. Although not an objective of the dedicated testing, alignment and “double vision” problems have also been identified by pilots and were noted in my report earlier this year on the F-35A Ready for Training Operational Utility Evaluation (OUE). Whether the progress achieved in resolving the problems discussed immediately above has been adequate will likely not be known with confidence until the Block 2B operational evaluation is conducted in 2015...."
_____________________________

....but he also said some other very interesting things,...
F35 program may be unaffordable, auditor says | The Center for Public Integrity (http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/06/20/12870/f35-program-may-be-unaffordable-auditor-says)
the Pentagon’s chief weapons tester, warned that the fighter’s costs are climbing – not shrinking as they typically do once production begins -- as officials scramble to fix problems cropping up during flight tests of planes already delivered by the manufacturer, Lockheed Martin Corp. The “most challenging portions” of the testing have not yet begun, he said.

“We haven’t actually tested any combat capability,” Gilmore told senators, adding that there may not be enough time or money for full testing of these crucial capabilities in 2018, as scheduled.

Gilmore warned that F-35 may suffer further delays due to the budget sequester. “Reduced funding for test resources and infrastructure while the F-35 is under development . . . will likely add to the pressure to either extend [the design and development phase] or accept reductions in capability,” he said.

He blamed the high cost of making design and production changes on “concurrency,” the practice of buying planes even as they are undergoing testing. “Production in this program started before there was any flight testing at all, which was unprecedented in the history of aircraft development programs,” Gilmore said. “That’s about as concurrent as you can get – that’s pretty much 100 percent concurrency. Obviously that’s a bad thing.

“We need to have more rigorous developmental testing. We need to let that testing proceed before we make production decisions,” he added.

....and finally to support LowObservable's assessment.
Durbin asked “if any alternative is being considered for a less costly fighter.” He was told the country could not afford to start from scratch.

“I don’t believe we have any alternative but to make the program work,” Gilmore said.

[JSFfan]

The partners already know there is a high probability that there is going to be a 3f slip, that's why the f-35a is going IOC in block 3i.

[John Farley]

Some have opposed the Marine Corps variant of the plane (the F-35B), with its extra engine as needed for short or vertical take offs and landings

Nuff said really.

[kbrockman]

Some have opposed the Marine Corps variant of the plane (the F-35B), with its extra engine as needed for short or vertical take offs and landings
Nuff said really.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting your comment but I don't think they where
criticizing the B-version, if anything they where actually endorsing it
But in fact, that variant has value for an era in which airfields are increasingly vulnerable to precision ordnance of the types that countries such as Iran and China are fielding. The United States needs enough F-35Bs to be able to populate bases nearest potential combat zones, such as the Gulf states (for scenarios involving Iran) and Okinawa (in regard to China). As Marine Corps Commandant General James Amos has noted, there are ten times as many 3,000 foot runways in the world adequate for such short-takeoff jets as there are 8,0000 foot runways suitable for conventional aircraft—and the Marines can lay down an expeditionary 3,000 foot runway in a matter of days in other places.
and
Leave the Marine Corps plan largely as is,

Which seems like they have a rather favourable view of the B as opposed to what they propose should have to happen with the C and a substantial reduction for the USAF's A.

Also this is a think-tank interviewed by the senate committee, only one of the possible solutions that could be used to manage total program costs.
the reason I posted it is just to show that, like with the F117-B2 and F22, it still is very much a possibility that we will never see the preset volumes produced, not for the US DOD, and most of its customers.
Slashing the totals produced by 50% (maybe even more) is far from impossible.

[JSFfan]

no, he means your first linked story was rubbish, look at the citations and dates, let alone he thinks the f-35b has 2 engines
Michael O'Hanlon submission wanted the f-35c canceled and buy all shornets, he and boeing think that, no one important to the programme does

[kbrockman]

no, he means your first linked story was rubbish, look at the citations and dates, let alone he thinks the f-35b has 2 engines

The "rubbish story" is actually a report about the senate hearings yesterday june 19th 2013, somehow that seems rather current to me.
Also you're being daft with your 2 engines comment, anybody with half a brain clearly understand the comments as it relates to the F35B which does have the vertical lift turbine which they define as a second engine.
It might be a somewhat poetic and broad interpretation of the definition engine but I hardly think that all involved don't know exactly what was meant here.

[JSFfan]

perhaps if you read the story again, look at the bottom of the page, 2011 and 2012 links
F-35 Rollout: Halving the Procurement Could Save $5B | Brookings Institution (http://www.brookings.edu/research/testimony/2013/06/19-f35-rollout-procurement-defense-ohanlon?rssid=fiscal+policy&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BrookingsRSS%2Ftopics%2Ffiscalpolicy+%2 8Brookings+Topics+-+Fiscal+Policy%29)

and he can't do maths, it was going up 50% from his quoted link
Exclusive: U.S. sees lifetime cost of F-35 fighter at $1.45 trillion | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/29/us-lockheed-fighter-idUSBRE82S03L20120329)

[kbrockman]

perhaps if you read the story again, look at the bottom of the page, 2011 and 2012 links
F-35 Rollout: Halving the Procurement Could Save $5B | Brookings Institution

So Hanlon wasn't testifying yesterday?
Strange, the senate certainly seemed to be under the impression they where talking to him.

[Killface]

It seems we are witnessing what "too big to fail" means.

It means that instead of making the painful admission that the contractor signed up to do something that they could not, and that the customer failed to control the deviation of reality from the promise, DoD will spend any amount and sacrifice any capability to drag the program over a hastily repainted finish line.



So its like the Super Hornet that Bill Sweetman trashed:

-Bill Sweetman, Just How Super is the F/A-18E/F?, Interavia Business & Technology, April 1, 2000-

-The Navy and Boeing have intensified a propaganda campaign. Unfortunately, the campaign is likely to damage their credibility in the long term, because it focuses on a few basic statements which don't mean anything like as much as the casual reader is meant to think.

For example: "The airplane meets all its key performance parameters." This is true. In 1998 -- as it became clear that the Super Hornet was slower, and less agile at transonic speeds than the C/D -- the Navy issued an "administrative clarification" which declared that speed, acceleration and sustained turn rate were not, and had never been, Key Performance Parameters (KPP) for the Super Hornet. Apparently, some misguided people thought that those were important attributes for a fighter.-

-Bill Sweetman, Watch Your Six Maverick, Interavia Business & Technology, February 1, 2000-

-The Navy's operational evaluation (Opeval) of the Super Hornet ended in November, and the report is expected late in February. It will probably find the Super Hornet to be operationally effective and suitable, because the impact of any other recommendation would be devastating, but the Navy will have to do some deft manoeuvring to avoid charges that the report is a whitewash.-

-Bill Sweetman, Super Hornet gathers speed, but critics keep pressure on, Interavia Business & Technology, March 1, 1999-

-The Pentagon has conceded that the MiG-29 and Su-27 can out-accelerate and out-turn all variants of the F/A-18 in most operating regimes, and that the E/F in turn cannot stay up with the older C/D through much of the envelope.

Navy data from early 1996 (published in a General Accounting Office report) showed that the new aircraft was expected to have a lower thrust-to-weight ratio than the late-production (Lot XIX) F/A-18C/D with the General Electric F404-GE-402 engine. Its maximum speed in a typical air-to-air configuration would be Mach 1.6, versus Mach 1.8 for the smaller aircraft. In the heart of the air-combat envelope, between 15,000 and 20,000 feet and at transonic speed, the Lot XIX aircraft would hold a specific excess power (Ps) of 300 ft/sec out to Mach 1.2, while its larger descendant could not hold the same Ps above Mach 1.0.-


and now advocates:

Rhino's Revenge (Super Hornet upgrades) (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2709000/posts)

and the navy loves.

[JSFfan]

"-The Pentagon has conceded that the MiG-29 and Su-27 can out-accelerate and out-turn all variants of the F/A-18 in most operating regimes, and that the E/F in turn cannot stay up with the older C/D through much of the envelope
,,,Its maximum speed in a typical air-to-air configuration would be Mach 1.6, versus Mach 1.8 for the smaller aircraft. In the heart of the air-combat envelope, between 15,000 and 20,000 feet and at transonic speed, the Lot XIX aircraft would hold a specific excess power (Ps) of 300 ft/sec out to Mach 1.2, while its larger descendant could not hold the same Ps above Mach 1.0.- ."
seems like it doesn't go fast enough either, no wonder the kids didn't like it

kbrockman
"So Hanlon wasn't testifying yesterday?"
he was and it sounds like US is like Aus, any fool can write a submission and ask to appear,,,but the page you linked had old story links from years ago that he used to support his stuff
\let me see if I can help you a bit...instead of posting rubbish links, in the link spaz put up, pick up on the buffet/ transonic roll off and how there is no software fix and they haven't said they are going to redesign to fix it, it's been around for a few years and still not a good outcome...at least that is real

[glad rag]

"So Hanlon wasn't testifying yesterday?"
->>>he was<<<_

:suspect: you really need to sort yourself out young man. :suspect:

[Killface]

It means that instead of making the painful admission that the contractor signed up to do something that they could not, and that the customer failed to control the deviation of reality from the promise,

Or that the customer asked the impossible by demanding a 3 service aircraft that could hover and land on a super aircraft carrier. Pretty sure the JSF was not a Lockheed Idea, it was a "customer" (read the US DoD, Us government) dream. boeing and lockheed could easily accuse the customer of not so much failing "to control deviations of reality from the promise," but of failing to control the extremely difficult requirements in the first place. and not making the painful admission that they asked too much of one aircraft. Either way suits your argument, its just a matter of perspective

[JSFfan]

glad rag (http://www.pprune.org/members/185079-glad-rag) what are you on about?
Hanlon is a journalist who made a submission with oral,I did actually read it because I quoted his opinion.
my second post pointed out his submission is based on 2011/2012 quotes, one of which is another journalist, as per the citations he submitted in his submission, which were numbered 1-9 and tabled
kbrockman, who didn't look at the submission properly, though that the 2011/12 reference meant that I didn't think he gave it..this is far from the case.

it was a rubbish submission, cut it anyway you want to and wasn't worth posting and I initially just let it go without comment, I came in to tell kbrockman, what I thought John meant

[SpazSinbad]

Back on page 62 of this thread 'Bushranger 71' expressed interest in the OV-10 Bronco: http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/424953-f-35-cancelled-then-what-62.html#post7731503

Here is some news 13 Jun 2013:

Combat Dragon II Demonstrates OV-10G+ Bronco Capabilities | Defense Media Network (http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/combat-dragon-ii-demonstrates-ov-10g-bronco-capabilities/)

[kbrockman]

JSFfan,

A sincere question/remark, a lot of the time I find it hard to understand what you exactly mean.
Please bear with me,I am not a native English-speaker therefore I probably don't get some of the expressions you use sometimes.
Hanlon is a journalist who made a submission with oral,I did actually read it because I quoted his opinion.
What does this bold part exactly mean??

also...

my second post pointed out his submission is based on 2011/2012 quotes, one of which is another journalist, as per the citations he submitted in his submission, which would have been tabled

The first bolded part is a bit of a mistery.
In the second bold part I wonder what it means when you say "tabled".

kbrockman, who didn't look at the submission properly, though that the 2011/12 reference meant that I didn't think he gave it..this is far from the case.


Actually I saw the senate subcommittee on a live-feed, all 2 hours of it.
Also ,again, I don't know what you try to say here, sorry.

I came in to tell kbrockman, what I thought John meant

that's very helpful, thank you, however I don't think Mr Farley needs anyone to speak for him, if he wants to comment on what I said he is free to do so.
I was only trying to point out to him that there was no specific negative remark about the F35B in the article, on the contrary, they where very positive about the B-version's usefulness.

Again, probably down to my inadequate knowledge of the English language, I didn't understand the context of his "nuff said" remark.

I hope I cleared things up a bit, sometimes it is difficult to fully understand the finer points of what native English speakers try to say on this board.

[Killface]

Back on page 62 of this thread 'Bushranger 71' expressed interest in the OV-10 Bronco: http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...ml#post7731503

Here is some news 13 Jun 2013:

Combat Dragon II Demonstrates OV-10G+ Bronco Capabilities | Defense Media Network

They(they being the jarheads) have been talking about bringing the Bronco back since they retired it. pre 9/11 it was with the idea that it could escort Ospreys that would outrun the Cobras and Hueys, post 9/11 it was COIN.

[kbrockman]

OV-10G+ Bronco News
Back on page 62 of this thread 'Bushranger 71' expressed interest in the OV-10 Bronco: F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

Here is some news 13 Jun 2013:

Combat Dragon II Demonstrates OV-10G+ Bronco Capabilities | Defense Media Network

Interesting , thx for posting that.
I know that the Luftwaffe was looking to revive/update the BRONCO for a COIN/FAC role a couple of years ago, I don't know what became of this plan, probably got canned due to the ever shrinking budgetary means.

Come to think of it, something like this updated OV10 could have been very useful in a non contested airspace like the French operated in over MALI.

[JSFfan]

when someone of the general public wants to 'comment' on the subject of the committee..[or in this case a journalist with a book to flog]

they first write a submission which is sent to the committee and can request to appear before the committee.

the committee always agree and they go to a committee meeting at an appointed time, this is usually for an hour, but can be less

when they attend the meeting they go through their prior written submission orally 'called testimony' and table it meaning they give a copy again to the committee and then take any questions from the committee

this is how they work here, the US would have similar if you want to look it up
House of Representatives Committees ? Parliament of Australia (http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House_of_Representatives_Committees?url=documnts/howsub.htm)

from your link, these are his 9 citations he used to support his submission
Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee
Testimony | June 19, 2013
F-35 Rollout: Halving the Procurement Could Save $5B Annually

By: Michael E. O'Hanlon (http://www.brookings.edu/experts/ohanlonm)


Editor's Note: In testimony before the Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, Michael O'Hanlon gave recommendations for alternatives to the planned F-35 roll out. A supporter of the program, O'Hanlon believes the planned buy of 2,500 planes could be cut in half, saving at least $5 billion annually in production costs.

Additional Resources



http://www.brookings.edu/%7E/media/press/books/2013/healingthewoundedgiant/healingthewoundedgiantb.jpg (http://www.brookings.edu/research/books/2013/healing-the-wounded-giant) Book
Healing the Wounded Giant (http://www.brookings.edu/research/books/2013/healing-the-wounded-giant)
2013


Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the important and impressive Lightning II aircraft. The bottom line of my testimony is that I favor purchasing roughly half the number of jets now scheduled to be acquired by the Department of Defense over the next two decades.[1]
In other words, while I am a supporter of the program, I am also a critic about the scale of the planned procurement. Even as drones have become much more effective, even as precision-guided ordnance has become devastatingly accurate, and even as real-time surveillance and information grids have evolved rapidly, plans for modernizing manned combat systems have remained essentially at previous quantitative levels.
All together, the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps still plan to buy nearly 2,500 F-35 combat jets at a total acquisition price of more than $300 billion in constant 2013 dollars. Production is just beginning at low rates, with the big ramp-up expected in the next few years. The Pentagon will spend about $15 billion annually on the plane starting in mid-decade. Three-fourths of the projected funds are yet to be spent. The Pentagon’s independent cost assessment office believes the average unit procurement price could be 15 to 20 percent higher than official estimates, exceeding $115 million per plane in 2013 dollars. And once purchased, the same office estimates that the F-35 will also cost one-third more to operate in real terms than planes like the F-16 and F-18 that it is replacing.[2]
It is important to acknowledge some strengths of the F-35, though, and to challenge some common criticisms. Some have opposed the Marine Corps variant of the plane (the F-35B), with its extra engine as needed for short or vertical take offs and landings. But in fact, that variant has value for an era in which airfields are increasingly vulnerable to precision ordnance of the types that countries such as Iran and China are fielding. The United States needs enough F-35Bs to be able to populate bases nearest potential combat zones, such as the Gulf states (for scenarios involving Iran) and Okinawa (in regard to China). As Marine Corps Commandant General James Amos has noted, there are ten times as many 3,000 foot runways in the world adequate for such short-takeoff jets as there are 8,0000 foot runways suitable for conventional aircraft—and the Marines can lay down an expeditionary 3,000 foot runway in a matter of days in other places.[3]
An alternative concept for F-35 production could be as follows:


Purchase a total of 1,250 instead of 2,500.
Leave the Marine Corps plan largely as is, scaling back only by 10 to 20 percent to account more fully for the proven capacity of unmanned aerial vehicles to carry out some missions previously handled by manned aircraft.
Cancel the Navy variant (the F-35C), with its relatively limited range compared with likely needs—buying more F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets in the meantime while committing more firmly to development of a longer-range unmanned carrier-capable attack aircraft. [4] The X-47B unmanned system, which completed demonstration tests on a carrier in 2012, is scheduled to conduct flight operations from an aircraft carrier in 2013, so this capability is progressing.[5]
Reduce Air Force numbers, currently expected to exceed 1,700 F-35 planes, by almost half.

Of the 800 planes that the Air Force was counting on, but would not get under this approach, the difference can be made up in the following ways. First, cut back 200 planes by eliminating two tactical fighter wings. Second, view the 200 large combat-capable unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) currently owned by the Air Force, together with the 300 or more on the way, as viable replacements for some manned fighter planes. The Air Force is buying the equivalent of five wings of large UAVs; perhaps it could transform two manned combat wings into unmanned combat aircraft wings as a result.[6] For the remaining planes, employ further purchases of F-16 jets and refurbishments of existing F-16s to make up the difference as needed.[7]
This approach will produce net savings of some $60 billion in Air Force aircraft purchase costs. The F-16 option is still available since the production line is currently making aircraft for Morocco and Oman among others, but it may not remain open for more than a couple years, so this option could have to be exercised fairly promptly to make economic sense.[8] Additional savings in the Marine Corps and Navy will add up to another $20 billion to $25 billion.
Average annual savings from this alternative approach to F-35 production might be $5 billion. Over time up to another $2 billion a year or so in savings would be achievable in operating accounts from the sum total of all these changes in tactical aircraft. These savings will not kick in right away, since it is important to get the F-35 production line working efficiently to keep unit costs in check. More of the savings will accrue in the 2020s.
It should also be remembered that a fair amount of risk is inherent in this alternative plan, since entirely canceling the F-35C Navy version of the plane will leave the Navy with less stealthy aircraft over the next decade. This is probably a tolerable risk but is not a trivial one.[9] In an era of fiscal austerity and defense budget cuts, we need to take calculated risks in defense planning as a nation—not reckless risks, but calculated and reasonable ones. I believe that halving the size of the planned overall F-35 buy follows that philosophy properly and prudently.

[1] This testimony is drawn largely from my recent Brookings book, Healing the Wounded Giant: Maintaining Military Preeminence While Cutting the Defense Budget.


[2]Statement of Christine H. Fox, director of cost assessment and program evaluation, Department of Defense, before the Senate Armed Services Committee, May 19, 2011 (www.armed-services.senate.gov/e_witnesslist.cfm?id=5213); (http://www.armed-services.senate.gov/e_witnesslist.cfm?id=5213);) and Andrea Shalal-Ela, “Exclusive: U.S. Sees Lifetime Cost of F-35 Fighter at $1.45 Trillion,” Reuters, March 29, 2012 (Exclusive: U.S. sees lifetime cost of F-35 fighter at $1.45 trillion | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/29/us-lockheed-fighter-idUSBRE82S03L20120329)).


[3]See Statement of General James F. Amos before the House Armed Services Committee on the 2011 Posture of the United States Marine Corps, March 1, 2011, p. 13 (http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=6e6d479e-0bea-41a1-8f3d-44b3147640fe).


[4]See Captain Henry J. Hendicks and Lt. Col. J. Noel Williams, “Twilight of the $UPERfluous Carrier,” Proceedings (U.S. Naval Institute, May 2011) (Twilight of the $UPERfluous Carrier | U.S. Naval Institute (http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2011-05/twilight-uperfluous-carrier)).


[5]Northrop Grumman,”X-47B UCAS,” (Washington: 2013) (www.as.northropgrumman.com/products/nucasx47b/index.html (http://www.as.northropgrumman.com/products/nucasx47b/index.html)). An additional virtue of unmanned systems is the ability to conduct training for pilots less expensively.


[6]See U.S. Air Force, Fact Sheet on MQ-9 Reaper, January 2012 (Factsheets : MQ-9 Reaper (http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=6405);) and Congressional Budget Office, Policy Options for Unmanned Aircraft Systems (Washington: June 2011), pp. ix–x (www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12163/06-08-uas.pdf (http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12163/06-08-uas.pdf)).


[7]These are ongoing; see Bill Carey, “F-35 Delay Forces $3 Billion Upgrade Request for U.S. Air Force F-16s” AINOnline, November 4, 2011 (F-35 Delay Forces $3 Billion Upgrade Request for U.S. Air Force F-16s | Aviation International News (http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ain-defense-perspective/2011-11-04/f-35-delay-forces-3-billion-upgrade-request-us-air-force-f-16s)).


[8]Leithen Francis, “Mission Impossible,” Aviation Week and Space Technology, August 15, 2011, p. 27.


[9]The chief of naval operations, while not abandoning support for the F-35C, has nonetheless voiced some doubts about the central role of stealth in future force planning. See Admiral Jonathan W. Greenert, “Payloads over Platforms: Charting a New Course,” Proceedings, vol. 138, no. 7 (U.S. Naval Institute, July 2012) (Payloads over Platforms: Charting a New Course | U.S. Naval Institute (http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2012-07/payloads-over-platforms-charting-new-course)).

[Stuffy]

The Sukhoi display at Paris 2013

Paris Air Show 2013: Sukhoi Su-35S - YouTube

[SpazSinbad]

Same Video posted earlier on Page 143 of this thread: http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/424953-f-35-cancelled-then-what-143.html#post7898217

[SpazSinbad]

F-35 – ‘cautiously optimistic’ at the tipping point for programme 20 Jun 2013
"F-35 – turned a corner? (Lockheed Martin)
“We’re not declaring victory just yet” said Lockheed Martin’s VP Steve O’Bryan of the new “cautiously optimistic” (as described by Pentagon procurement chief) outlook that infuses the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter project. However it was clear in a presentation to the aviation media at Le Bourget that things were now starting to go in the troubled fighters direction – the good news said O’Bryan meant the programme was at ‘a tipping point’. With 65 F-35s now flying, flight testing is ramping up quickly, with 50% of all flight tests done in the past 12 months.

In addition, both the US Government and the GAO had confirmed that concurrency was starting to pay off – and the flyaway cost (including engines) was dropping. In 2020 the US Government estimates that a F-35 will cost some $85m each or less than half of the 2009 initial examples cost. Adjusted to today’s dollars the 2020 price would be $75m each.

However, O’Bryan was frank in admitting that challenges still persist – especially in the software. The F-35 computer software has around 8.6 million lines of code (in comparison an F-22 has around 2 million). While 88% of the code is now flying, the remaining 12% is the most difficult part, explained O’Bryan as it integrates existing simpler functions and capabilities together into a whole."
Paris Air Show 2013 - Day 2 | News | The Royal Aeronautical Society (http://media.aerosociety.com/aerospace-insight/2013/06/20/paris-air-show-day-3/8298/)

[SpazSinbad]

In case youse wondered about the video at top of this page or elsewhere - here is the news...

Sukhoi Test Pilot Explains ‘Supermaneuverability’ 24 Jun 2013 Bill Sweetman

Sukhoi Test Pilot Explains ?Supermaneuverability? (http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_06_24_2013_p33-589854.xml)

[SpazSinbad]

Back on page 113 of this thread there was a 'hook sparkly' discussion which sparked over to page 114. http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/424953-f-35-cancelled-then-what-114.html#post7833081 I'm hooked to find this nice daylight Super Hornet Sparkling HookUp from 'The HOOK' Magazine: http://www.tailhook.net/PDF/Hook_Magazines/7.Fall2012.pdf (22Mb)

Click for Bigga Pic: http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/th_SuperHornetSparksDL7Fall2012HOOK.jpg (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/SuperHornetSparksDL7Fall2012HOOK.jpg.html) Port Tyre looks like it is under stress also...

[orca]

Golly, into the one wire with sparks prior to it to boot! Still, a wire is a wire and given that he has the tanker pod on....maybe he was the last one down and really wanted to make it stick!

The sparks at night always look great - sadly they're always accompanied by some hammer on the platform shouting 'Bolter, Bolter, Bolter!' as if the chap in the cockpit can't work out why he hasn't stopped.;)

[SpazSinbad]

No need to bolter here boyo. Early on we see what looks to me like the beginning of a creepy, creeping landing with later a more conventional faster RVL with dust flying. YMMV. I guess this new F-35B chap is lying? :}

Test Pilot Tuesday Episode 28
"Published on May 7, 2013
Dan Levin, a test pilot whose flight experience is primarily with the F-16, talks about his first time flying the F-35B in short takeoff/vertical landing mode."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFUAFJGH0t0&feature=player_embedded

[Eclectic]

Sorry about the C&P, but when looking up Typhoon thrust vectoring I came across this:

Eurofighter Typhoon « Defense Issues (http://defenseissues.wordpress.com/tag/eurofighter-typhoon/)

F-35

F-35 is a radar LO strike aircraft, made obvious by its fat shape, bad rearward cockpit visibility, high wing loading and low thrust-to-weight ratio. Its aerodynamics also mean that it has less vortex lift and less body lift avaliable when turning, excaberating the problem and giving it far worse lift-to-drag and lift-to-weight ratios than those of Typhoon.

Its internal weapons carriage does give it some drag reduction, which is easily offset by increased weight, complexity and reduced payload. Weapons payload in aerodynamically clean air-to-air configuration is identical, with both fighters having 4 BVRAAMs, but Typhoon’s conformal carriage provides it with faster response time as F-35 has to open doors to fire missiles. Similar situation is with guns: whereas F-35s GAU-22/A has a higher rate of fire, 3 300 rounds per minute when compared to 1 700 for BK-27, weight “thrown” by both guns is 7,4 kg per second for BK-27 and 10,12 kg for GAU-22/A. But while BK-27 reaches full rate of fire within 0,05 seconds, GAU-22/A reaches it 0,4 seconds. Thus even assuming that F-35 pilot opened gun doors beforehand, BK-27 would have fired 13 rounds weighting 3,38 kg in first half of second, compared to 16 rounds weighting 3,44 kg for GAU-22/A. If pilot did not open gun doors, then GAU-22/A will only start firing in 0,5 seconds, and reach full rate of fire in 0,9 seconds.

Where air-to-air is concerned, Typhoon also has advantage in sensors department; while F-35s IRST is only optimized for ground targets, Typhoon’s PIRATE’s position and wavelengths are optimised for air-to-air combat. F-35 itself has huge IR signature thanks to its fat shape and a powerful engine which has 7% more thrust than Typhoon’s two engines combined, yet has almost no IR reduction measures.

[Killface]

Is that a joke?

[Heathrow Harry]

the main advantage is that the Typhoon is available, proven and in service

None of which can be said about the F-35 and (as the title of the thread says) may never be in service

[Eclectic]

Navalised Typhoon: http://www.eurofighter.com/fileadmin/web_data/Content_Images/news_pics/Naval_Typhoon_cutaway.pdf

Doesn't need cat and trap. Ski jump will work at maximum weight.

It is UKIP policy!!!: UKIP: 'UK must build naval Typhoon' - Defence Management (http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=18574)

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

[Killface]

the main advantage is that the Typhoon is available, proven and in service

:= Not the Naval Version, which is not available proven or in service at all. don't forget that the Typhoon had plenty of trials and tribulations getting into service itself.

may never be in service

its technically in service with the american marines who have 7 of them so far, and IIRC IOC has been announced for 2015 and 2016. As LO pointed out its too big to fail. even the UK has an F-35 or 2 already.

Its going to be in service, it just a matter of what numbers. whether you love or loath this aircraft the window for cancellation has passed. as spazinbad pointed out they are starting to get a solid feel for the cost, which is far more affordable than canceling and starting anew. they aren't going to quit 2 years from the finish line with the price firming up, after investing the kind of time and money they have already with the promise of a monopoly ahead.

We can debate about whether it is worth it or not until the cows come home, but its not going to canceled. I'm amazed that point still has to be clarified still.

And no one has shown any interest in a navalized typhoon. even if they did, the UK can only convert one aircraft carrier to conventional ops, and at greater expense (remember why they went back to the B from the F-35C?). as long as the F-35 is the cheaper alternative (and compared to a typhoon it is) JSF is not going anywhere:

UKIP estimates suggest it would cost £1.4bn to develop a naval typhoon, with unit costs of around £80m.

In a statement the party said that the development costs would be similar to the cost of converting the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers to use the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) to be used with the F-35C. A naval Typhoon would take off from a 'ski jump' deck.

So 2.8 billion pounds in development and carrier conversion alone? then 80 million per aircraft? how many aircraft would you even buy for one carrier at that cost? never going to happen.

Doesn't need cat and trap

in the brochure you show, under "landing performance" it says Carrier needs to be fitted with a standard arrestor wire
system :confused:

[SpazSinbad]

Reference hook issues on this thread: http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/424953-f-35-cancelled-then-what-123.html#post7849998

Unmanned, Virtually Unlimited Jeff Rhodes 6 April 2011
"...UCAS-D
The X-47B, the test vehicle for the US Navy’s Unmanned Combat Air System Demonstration, or UCAS-D, program, made its first flight from Edwards AFB, California, on 4 February 2011. UCAS-D is the Navy’s effort to design, develop, and integrate an autonomous, fighter-sized, high subsonic UAS on an aircraft carrier.

Skunk Works is a teammate-subcontractor to Northrop Grumman on the X-47B. The vehicle, which has folding wings, has a wingspan of sixty-two feet and a length of thirty-eight feet. It is stealthy in design, although to reduce cost and complexity for the demonstration program, many parts are not made of stealth materials. The Skunk Works workshare includes development and fabrication of the arresting hook, control surfaces, and edges, including the engine inlet lip. Skunk Works technicians will maintain these components during flight test and carrier operations. The arresting hook system was particularly challenging because it was a clean-sheet design concept. Design of the control surfaces and edges capitalized on Skunk Works expertise and experience....
Code One Magazine: Unmanned, Virtually Unlimited (http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=70)

[Bastardeux]

the window for cancellation has passed.

In its entirety, yes. I don't think anyone is suggesting it will be cancelled out right; but there is a very real threat of the B & C getting cancelled and the A being significantly reduced in number, regardless of whether the marines already have seven in service. Do you honestly think the programme will be unaffected if the sequester is simply replaced by the same level of normal budget cuts??

[Killface]

In its entirety, yes. I don't think anyone is suggesting it will be cancelled out right; but there is a very real threat of the B & C getting cancelled


I'll concede there is a question mark on the C because of the tail hook issues, but the B is off probation and has no alternative, unless boeing creates a hovering hornet. It will also be built in larger numbers than the C. They could have canceled the B when it was having its issues back in 2009 2010. but they hung with it instead.

and the A being significantly reduced in number, regardless of whether the marines already have seven in service. Do you honestly think the programme will be unaffected if the sequester is simply replaced by the same level of normal budget cuts??

It will be about what is prioritized and what isn't. for example getting the F-22 meant halving the b-52 fleet. I still think it will be affected but to the point where certain variants are getting the axe won't happen. plus its going to be in production for a long time, the economy may be improved in 2025, or the aircraft being in service and theoretically working as advertised might expand the desire for more. which is precisely what happened with the F-22. within ten years it went from "how much!?" to "how many more can we get?"

If the tail hook works its check mate for the f-35. I'm not trying to advocate one way or other or sell the F-35 as the second coming of jesus, all I am trying to show is how entrenched it is. I have been reading about how the jsf is on the verge of cancellation for years now. or certain variants therein, and its not happening. governments have invested billions and they are building more of every variant every year. Its getting bigger not smaller.

[Bastardeux]

They could have canceled the B when it was having its issues back in 2009 2010. but they hung with it instead.

They hung with it because the budget could tolerate it, but when $500 billion goes missing from your spending plans, something has to give and a hovering, supersonic, stealthy close air support aircraft quickly becomes the elephant in the room.

They're banking on the economy working fine just for their current spending plans to work...which are currently forcing $1 trillion of defense cuts over a decade, so unless there is another major war then I wouldn't count on more money becoming available.

within ten years it went from "how much!?" to "how many more can we get?"

You mean it went from "how much!?" to cancelled at less than half the number the air force said they wanted, even as late as 2007. At the inception of the programme, the total required was over 500!

[orca]

Bastardeux,

I understand where you're coming from - but I think you've missed a fundamental point. The people with the money to spend, who have never waivered from their intent want the supersonic, stealth aircraft capable of hovering.

Now I am sure that Air Forces the world over (some of them naval) will roll their eyes and point out the error of their ways - but who cares? If the USMC wants that capability and can foot the bill, who are we (well - not me incidentally, my opinion on the subject has changed a little over the last year or so) to deny them?

The added irony of course is that no-one in the USN appears to want the C, because they have a supersonic, twin engine beast with an amazing electronic fit that they quite like.

Lastly, yet another thread with some good old British humour about Typhoon, now multi role and at sea! Amazing, genuinely laughed so hard I could only just make out the screen.

(There's another thread where someone says the GR4 is multi role, give that one a go if you've got a corset on, lest your sides split!)

[LowObservable]

Unfortunately, of all the services, the USMC is the one that least "foots the bill", since most of its expensive kit is on the Navy procurement budget. For example, the Commandant doesn't have to choose among F-35Bs and ships, and the Marines are replacing CH-46s one-for-one with the far more costly V-22.

However, the Marines have learned well from pro-life groups, the NRA and teachers' unions: Single-issue lobbying is a powerful weapon.

[Bastardeux]

The people with the money to spend

That's my point, they no longer have the money to spend. The US federal government is currently (or was before the sequester kicked in) running up debt to the tune of $1 trillion a year. It's looking more and more likely that the sequestered cuts will simply be replaced with targeted cuts at which point the Air Force begins to make a very convincing argument that it needs a new 5th gen aircraft at the expense of the Navy's Army's Air Force.

The low hanging fruit for defense cuts has already been picked in the last budget deal...and they now need to double the savings.

The coming choice seems to be between all 3 variants being produced in far fewer numbers, or the A variant being the sole survivor in moderate numbers. Personally, I think the Air Force will win.

Of course, the corps always punches way above its weight on the hill.

[Killface]

That's my point, they no longer have the money to spend. The US federal government is currently (or was before the sequester kicked in) running up debt to the tune of $1 trillion a year. It's looking more and more likely that the sequestered cuts will simply be replaced with targeted cuts at which point the Air Force begins to make a very convincing argument that it needs a new 5th gen aircraft at the expense of the Navy's Army's Air Force.

The US Government is almost always in debt, and still spends 800 billion a year on defense. Its not that secluded, you can make quips about the navy's army's air force all you want, but air assets are routinely used jointly. for example you would never see the navy advocating more carriers over the air forces big wing KC tankers. everyone needs those and uses them. fewer aircraft for one service means fewer aircraft for the air war commander. Marines and navy assets also fight.


now conversely each service gets a budget so the air force can't ransack the maw-rines whenever they are short on funds. everyone gets their piece, and the fact that the marines are buying a jet that if they didn't recieve would drive the cost up for the air force aircraft ensures that all the services will use their individual funds for the greater good. if it was super hornets the air force wouldn't care, but since its a joint project they care. and depriving the marines of something only to increase their own costs , while having fewer tails for a future war overall does not compute. government funding is compartmentalized like that. some service get cut more than others (the Us army is taking the biggest hit, for example)

lobbying as noted plays a part too. the navy won't just stand by while its back up air force gets ransacked, just because the air force is given priority for some reason. When the Navy wants new aircraft carriers they don't get to walk in and start closing down air force bases, because its what the navy needs, and they are short of funds.

so long story short, budgets don't work that way.

The low hanging fruit for defense cuts has already been picked in the last budget deal...and they now need to double the savings.

don't forget there are other things they can't cut rather than airplanes. the marines have postponed amphibious APCs for example. with 800 billion a year spent there is plenty to cut and a lot of services will just cut other stuff depending on how much they want the jsf. there is plenty of low hanging fruit to pick still. I refuse to believe that in the span of one year the military suddenly got super effeicent and there is nothing left to cut. personnel are going to be the biggest cut anyway.

the jsf advocates can also point to the projected savings over the coming decades of operating a single type. which is a promise that has kept the jsf alive for quite some time now. "its not what it costs, its what it saves" will be the rallying cry.

The coming choice seems to be between all 3 variants being produced in far fewer numbers, or the A variant being the sole survivor in moderate numbers. Personally, I think the Air Force will win.

not really. for the reasons i have outlined above. the air force can't raid the navy or marines (which is another navy) bank. the navy may not like the f-35c but even the marines are buying some to help with the carriers. so for example thats 80 F-35cs the navy gets that they can back door thru the marines. if that money goes the odds of getting the same number of super hornets both through them and the marines (who won't want it, and will try to land base them like they do f-18Ds). at that point we are talking about paltry numbers of aircraft for the carriers, thus fewer carriers. the navy wont let that happen.

Of course, the corps always punches way above its weight on the hill.

yes. plus if the b and c get canceld what does the UK do? a tier one partner nation. does the us refund them their money with an apology or something? "Thanks for hanging on all these years, but the US air force wants theirs so only A's will be produced, sorry we waster your time and money" ??

if canceling the B and C death spirals the cost anyway, whats the point? how does it "save"? thats cutting the program to the tune of about 600 fewer aircraft. which drives the cost up further and will see the UK leaving the program? people already fear Canada and the US navy (possibly) leaving as creating a death spiral and thats only 65, and 260 aircraft respectively. what happens when 600 are cut? does it collapse the program? I'm betting yes, in which case the air force certainly doesn't get what they want, which was the point of shafting the the RN, USMC, and USN in the first place.

finally why is it assumed that the USAF will be given priority over all the services anway? What happens if the navy makes a compelling argument that as a fighter centric air wing they need more fighters, and the air force less? Its not like the air force is the only service that has and uses fighters, and the navy could make the case that carriers arrive faster, have EW assets thanks to growlers, and are rapid deployment, all the same arguments that keep carriers around as it is? What if the navy points out that its cheaper to equip them and the marines with super hornets than it is for the air force to equip itself with a smaller number F-35As that have become massively expensive after the cancellation of the B and C? :D what if the navy twists the knife by adding that the USAF could also use the super hornet, creating a fighter used by all 3 services? no service, not even the navys armys air force or whatever is going to lay down and let someone steal their toys (whether they need them or not)

from the air force perspective cutting the b and c makes their a cost more, so they won't cut them. why pay more in the interest of "saving?"

[Bastardeux]

Jesus, where do I begin.

Simply saying the government is always in debt and still spends 800 billion on defense verges on intentional ignorance. Yes governments borrow to keep liquidity in the public purse, but that is usually paid off in the very short term by their tax income. The simple fact of the matter is that the US is dealing with a colossal structural deficit and needs to save much more than even sequestration mandates.

each service gets a budget so the air force can't ransack the maw-rines whenever they are short on funds.

You're completely missing the point. The Air Force can't, but the politicians can. In the hypothetical (and highly possible) situation that a cut in order numbers for the F35 is demanded by the government, the Air Force would absolutely be in the position to campaign against the marine variant in favour of more As.

Budgets do work that way, budgets work only to deliver what is necessary in the eyes of the government, not to be shared equally between all 3 services for fairness.

You don't have to lecture me about the use of combined air assets as a tool to the chief of joint ops.

with 800 billion a year spent there is plenty to cut and a lot of services will just cut other stuff depending on how much they want the jsf. there is plenty of low hanging fruit to pick still. I refuse to believe that in the span of one year the military suddenly got super effeicent and there is nothing left to cut. personnel are going to be the biggest cut anyway.

This 800 billion you keep quoting is already $525 billion, without sequestration and the war funding, that will evaporate after Afghanistan, isn't included in the cost savings. So just what is this low hanging fruit still to pick?...if you think "efficiencies" are going to save you another $500 billion over the next 9 years, then you would have to be on glue or something.

Not really, for the reasons i have outlined above. the air force can't raid the navy or marines' (which is another navy) bank. the navy may not like the f-35c but even the marines are buying some to help with the carriers. so for example that's 80 F-35cs the navy gets that they can back door through the marines. if that money goes the odds of getting the same number of super hornets both through them and the marines (who won't want it, and will try to land base them like they do f-18Ds). at that point we are talking about paltry numbers of aircraft for the carriers, thus fewer carriers. the navy wont let that happen.

Well for a start, in all these budget cuts, the threat of losing one carrier strike group is also very real possibility anyway. How would opting for an in-service, cheaper alternative aircraft mean even fewer air frames???

if canceling the B and C death spirals the cost anyway, whats the point? how does it "save"? thats cutting the program to the tune of about 600 fewer aircraft. which drives the cost up further and will see the UK leaving the program? people already fear Canada and the US navy (possibly) leaving as creating a death spiral and thats only 65, and 260 aircraft respectively. what happens when 600 are cut? does it collapse the program? I'm betting yes, in which case the air force certainly doesn't get what they want, which was the point of shafting the the RN, USMC, and USN in the first place.

Obviously no-one involved wants any aircraft cancelled, but I can guarantee that aircraft numbers are going to fall significantly and any cut in numbers is going to increase the cost...but refining the programme to just one design would probably mitigate some of those extra costs. You speak as if you still believe 2400 is an achievable number for the US services, which to me seems quite blatantly not the case any more. I would go as far as to say I would be surprised if they achieve half that number.

Why does the Air Force get priority over the marines in the air warfare game? I think the answer is pretty self explanatory, especially as the navy don't want the F35.

why pay more in the interest of "saving?"

like they did with the F22, B2, F117 etc?

At this point I would like to reiterate that, in the eyes of the US treasury, it's all about gross savings, not marginal savings.

[SpazSinbad]

Lockheed Martin Corporation : Third F-35 for the UK Arrives at Eglin Air Force Base 26 Jun 2013
"FORT WORTH, Texas, June 26, 2013 - The third Lockheed Martin [LMT] F-35B Short Takeoff/Vertical Landing (STOVL) Lightning II for the United Kingdom arrived at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., yesterday where it will be used for pilot and maintainer training. U.S. Marine Corps Lt. Col. Roger Hardy piloted the aircraft known as BK-3 (ZM137) on its 90-minute ferry flight from the Lockheed Martin F-35 production facility at Naval Air Station Fort Worth Joint Reserve Base...."
Lockheed Martin Corporation : Third F-35 for the UK Arrives at Eglin Air Force Base | 4-Traders (http://www.4-traders.com/LOCKHEED-MARTIN-CORPORATI-13406/news/Lockheed-Martin-Corporation-Third-F-35-for-the-UK-Arrives-at-Eglin-Air-Force-Base-17051753/)

[Killface]

At this point I would like to reiterate that, in the eyes of the US treasury, it's all about gross savings, not marginal savings.

agreed, now how does your theory save exactly though?

Obviously no-one involved wants any aircraft cancelled, but I can guarantee that aircraft numbers are going to fall significantly and any cut in numbers is going to increase the cost...but refining the programme to just one design would probably mitigate some of those extra costs. You speak as if you still believe 2400 is an achievable number for the US services, which to me seems quite blatantly not the case any more. I would go as far as to say I would be surprised if they achieve half that number.

Why does the Air Force get priority over the marines in the air warfare game? I think the answer is pretty self explanatory, especially as the navy don't want the F35.

probably how?

I'm failing to see how the USAF urging for the cancellation of the B and C, which eliminates over 600 aircraft in the US alone, not even including variants international partners will need, and have already invested time an treasure in (like the UK). And that causes fewer F-35s of all types to be purchased overall, thus driving up the cost for other countries that will buy the F-35A like the dutch, norwegiens, Japanese, Australians, and Canadians, who are already having a hard time justifying the cost as it is.

It seems kind of knee jerk to me. and it doesn't make the aircraft cheaper for the air force. It deprives them of interservice, and international support. and the program would essentially collapse as the USAF decides it will destroy the program because only it is worthy of receiving them? your hypothesis is "the jsf will cost so much the only option to get more of them is to make them cost more, and then buy more of them" :confused:

Even if the navy doesn't like the F-35C they have publicly acknowledged that their participation helps the program and they will essentially take one for the team, like it or lump it. everyone knows that if they play the jsf game, they get more airplanes rather than going it alone and getting less. speaking of budgets and beggars not being choosers, the DoD doesn't really care about the navy's opinion. they are getting them, providing they can catch a wire

I'm all for saving money and getting a lot of airplanes, what you suggest does neither. so it doesn't help with the trillion dollar debt. if it saved money it might be worth considering, but you have not shown me how killing the b and c would decrease overall cost after increasing cost on the A variant. how does that lead to a net savings? or alternately, how does it lead to more F-35s purchased? you said:

The coming choice seems to be between all 3 variants being produced in far fewer numbers, or the A variant being the sole survivor in moderate numbers.

I would like to see how you conclude that the sole survivor scenario does in fact mean more JSFs overall, than say a 20 percent reduction for the USN (current plan 260) and USMC (current plan 420, total = 680 aircraft F-35B and C) which would be 544 aircraft at 80 percent of planned right now. how does the Air Force meet or exceed that number? can you explain to me how many more the USAF would get with "moderate" numbers? How does the USAF kill the F-35 B and C and get more JSFs than the two services combined would have gotten anyway albeit in fewer numbers? Why does the air force decide to pay more for aircraft it was going to purchase anyway? the JSF line is going to run for decades, why would the USAF push for the cancelation of the B and C now and spend the next 20-30 years trying to carry the load all by itself at a higher cost with no international help?

You might have a case if the USN or USMC could be persuaded into buying the F-35A, because it does simplify things, and doesn't take away 600 aircraft that drive up the cost for the few poor bastards who actually stay in the program (which would be no one, since there are alternatives). It would be your F-22, B-2 scenario all over again. which is why they wont do it. I would think the countries that have been involved in the program would have a problem with it as well. you end up with an F-22 the sequel. an overly expensive jet that only the USAF has.

If the option is 400 JSFs for the Air force or 2,000+ for all the US air arms, and all the partner countries then obviously option 2 will happen. its far more likely that all variants are built in fewer numbers, than one variant built in the fewest numbers. even a 33 percent reduction in all projected US JSFs is still over 1600 aircraft. even at that reduced number the B and C account for nearly 450 of that number. but you said "half that number" didn't you? so lets go with that. 340 B's and C's. vs about 850 F-35As for the USAF. so how can the USAF get to nearly 1200 aircraft or more in your scenario, when you are convinced they will only get 850 at the ideal projected price?
if canceling the B/C (850 F-35As) increases that F-35A cost even further, say 20 percent, we are looking at a total of 960 F-35As for the USAF. so how is that more? how is that saving?

If you have some kind of evidence that deliberately death spiraling the program to the point of cancelation would help, I would like to see it and would consider it. I am open to be convinced on this one. or how the cancellation of the B and C make the A cheaper, when the whole theory is saving through mass production.

so to sum it up:

How does canceling the B and C prevent increased costs on the A?

How/why do international partners stay in the program if the cost does increase?

how/why do partners that wanted the B and C stay in the program?

how does the price increase lead to the USAF being able to afford more than if the price was lower, and the burden more evenly spread?

how does higher cost mean more aircraft purchased, when you acknowledge there is less funding?

how does canceling the B and C lead to a net savings? and/or more aircraft?

how does the program not collapse, with the withdrawal of everyone except the USAF?

[Bastardeux]

probably how?

Because it is effectively 3 different aircraft now, all with different problems that are eating cash like you read about. 1 variant means only 1 spares line, 1 supply line etc. Though, I'm by no means suggesting it would cancel out the extra unit costs of an overall numbers cut.

It seems kind of knee jerk to me. and it doesn't make the aircraft cheaper for the air force. It deprives them of interservice, and international support. and the program would essentially collapse as the USAF decides it will destroy the program because only it is worthy of receiving them? your hypothesis is "the jsf will cost so much the only option to get more of them is to make them cost more, and then buy more of them"

Jesus wept. That's not what I'm saying at all!!!! Where on earth are you getting the idea that I'm suggesting a higher total is purchased!?

To make this chrystal clear for you. I'm saying it is highly likely the government is going to say overall numbers of all variants need to be cut. Even without defense cuts, the 2400 total wasn't going to happen. Therefore, let's imagine the US government decides that only 1200 can be afforded, leaving the Air Force sub 1000 F-35As. Given the choice of having an all Air Force, all F35A fleet of 1200 aircraft, at the expense of the marines stealth amphib capability ~ or ~ 3 seperate fleets totalling 1200 aircraft that leave the Air Force with far fewer aircraft than it is happy with, then the Air Force is obviously going to have a very strong argument in favour of canning the most expensive variant, which also happens to fill the least necessary role!

in any case, the A is considerably cheaper, so even if I was making the case that canning the B & C would free up more cash for As, the assumption that a greater number of As could be bought is also true, but that's not my argument, ffs.

[Killface]

Because it is effectively 3 different aircraft now,

It is? I thought they were fairly common?

all with different problems that are eating cash like you read about.

yes they are, but the billions have already been spent. there seems to be a need for these aircraft you aren't seeing.

1 variant means only 1 spares line, 1 supply line etc. Though, I'm by no means suggesting it would cancel out the extra unit costs of an overall numbers cut.

that is the whole goal of the program though, commonality. its replacing the prowler, the hornet, the harrier, and the viper. so the marines with no F-35B would just switch to the super hornet/growler? the navy would go all growler/super bug? is that the plan? I'm just trying to see the logic

Jesus wept. That's not what I'm saying at all!!!! Where on earth are you getting the idea that I'm suggesting a higher total is purchased!?

relax, you don't need to be rude. I probably got that impression when you said:

The coming choice seems to be between all 3 variants being produced in far fewer numbers, or the A variant being the sole survivor in moderate numbers.

Therefore, let's imagine the US government decides that only 1200 can be afforded, leaving the Air Force sub 1000 F-35As.

panic

Given the choice of having an all Air Force, all F35A fleet of 1200 aircraft, at the expense of the marines stealth amphib capability ~ or ~ 3 seperate fleets totalling 1200 aircraft that leave the Air Force with far fewer aircraft than it is happy with, then the Air Force is obviously going to have a very strong argument in favour of canning the most expensive variant, which also happens to fill the least necessary role!

The B or C (whichever one they picked this week) is necessary to the royal navy, even if you don't think so. its necessary to the marines, and yes even the navy. you are seeing this from a completely american perspective with the basis that if the USAF doesn't get its toys everyone else has to give theirs up. apparently the USAF being short of F-35s is a tragedy and everyone else being short of f-35s is a minor inconvenience.

you are experiencing the jsf blues. its a common affliction that happens when you discover that a tri service aircraft isn't what you want because it hurts the service you think is most important. the only cure is a time machine back to the mid 1990s, before someone thought the whole thing up. what you are advocating is a JSF that isn't a JSF. but a single fighter for air forces, with the navies of the world and marines buying other things. thus not a joint program. if you think the JSF is suddenly going to become a single service fighter in the interest of saving, you are far far too late.

by the time your "OMG we only have 1000!!" problem comes up the JSF will have probably been in service for 10 years. in which case I guess the USAF can try stealing the Bs and Cs for themselves. I'm sure they would love em. you may well be right someday, but too late to do anything about it.

[ORAC]

Marines' Sequester Bill: 8,000 Troops, Ground Vehicles, Combat Aircraft (http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?List=7c996cd7-cbb4-4018-baf8-8825eada7aa2&ID=1190&RootFolder=%2Fblog%2FLists%2FPosts)

To absorb its share of a $500 billion spending cut that will hit the Defense Department over the next decade, the Marine Corps would shed 8,000 troops and forgo purchases of new armored vehicles, trucks, tactical aircraft and helicopters.

The Marine Corps is prepared to shoulder its portion of the sequester, said Commandant Gen. James F. Amos........

The centerpiece of Marine combat forces is the infantry battalion. From a peak of 27, the Corps is down to 23. Amos would not specify how many more battalions could be eliminated as a result of sequester. But if 8,000 Marines have to go, “there will be battalions in there,” he said. Each battalion is made up of 800 to 1,000 Marines, and is supported by logistics, aviation and other specialized units.

Part of the 8,000-troop reduction would include fixed-wing aviation squadrons that currently fly F/A-18 fighters and Harrier vertical takeoff attack jets. Future F-35B squadrons would be affected, too, said Amos, as well as attack helicopter units that operate Cobra and Huey aircraft. Some V-22 Osprey cutbacks might also be in the mix............

[SpazSinbad]

New VL Pad (near YUMA, AZ?):
http://ece.drexel.edu/SeniorDesign/newProjects/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/2012-13-Capstone-Topics-Working-Listing.pdf (http://ece.drexel.edu/SeniorDesign/newProjects/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/2012-13-Capstone-Topics-Working-Listing.pdf) (4.2Mb)

Click Pic: http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/th_F-35B_EAF_VLpad.jpg (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/F-35B_EAF_VLpad.jpg.html) Earlier ref pads: http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/424953-f-35-cancelled-then-what-82.html#post7776413

[John Farley]

How about a guess that in 30 years time when an update is being done to the USAF A fleet they also buy some Bs but use the proven shaft horsepower off-take (around 29k) to drive a nice laser weapon mounted in the lift fan space?

[LowObservable]

JF - Nice idea... but if I really had an offensive-range laser weapon and not just a SAM/AAM zapper, then maneuvering finally is as irrelevant as Team JSF says it is. Also, I get best range from high altitude. Hmm, lots of power onboard, single-seat, big vertical bay for upper and lower apertures...

http://www.thexhunters.com/xpeditions/a-12_photo.jpg

[LowObservable]

KF -

The first thing that I thought I knew about the Joint Strike Fighter program was that it was a single program with three variants. Here’s what I want to tell you. It’s not. It’s three separate airplane programs that have common avionics and a common engine.

Quote from (a) Winslow Wheeler, (b) APA, (c) some guy named Bogdan?

[Bastardeux]

It is? I thought they were fairly common?

The last report I read was 50% between the A and B.

yes they are, but the billions have already been spent. there seems to be a need for these aircraft you aren't seeing.

And billions more will be spent. I know exactly what the need for the aircraft is, I just seriously doubt that the need will be justifiable in an era of austerity.

so the marines with no F-35B would just switch to the super hornet/growler? the navy would go all growler/super bug? is that the plan? I'm just trying to see the logic

In a word, yes.

relax, you don't need to be rude. I probably got that impression when you said:

Quote:
The coming choice seems to be between all 3 variants being produced in far fewer numbers, or the A variant being the sole survivor in moderate numbers.

As I've already explained, 1200 is a far smaller total than the overall 2400, but it is also 70% of the Air Force's 1700 or whetever they wanted. Therefore, the A would go from far smaller to moderate in order size if the other variants got canned.

apparently the USAF being short of F-35s is a tragedy and everyone else being short of f-35s is a minor inconvenience.

You've already admitted yourself that the Navy doesn't care for it, and I've already made the point that the marines' capability in an age of exponential cost rises and defense cuts, is the least justifiable.

you are experiencing the jsf blues. its a common affliction that happens when you discover that a tri service aircraft isn't what you want because it hurts the service you think is most important. the only cure is a time machine back to the mid 1990s, before someone thought the whole thing up. what you are advocating is a JSF that isn't a JSF. but a single fighter for air forces, with the navies of the world and marines buying other things. thus not a joint program. if you think the JSF is suddenly going to become a single service fighter in the interest of saving, you are far far too late.

That's not what I'm advocating, that's what I'm predicting. Having spent time in the MoD, I know how poisonous defense cuts can be for inter-service co-operation. I'm sorry, but the service who's job it is to deliver air power is always going to have the upper hand in keeping the most air power assets, that's just how it works.

[Killface]

The US is not the UK. they work differently.

marines' capability in an age of exponential cost rises and defense cuts, is the least justifiable.

The marines only take up 5 percent to the US DoD budget, and tend to get what they want,as LO pointed out. Does the Uk get the Rafale in your scenario, or do the americans sell your harriers back?

Therefore, the A would go from far smaller to moderate in order size if the other variants got canned.

assuming JSF survived of course. The whole program relies on everyone taking a hit, including international partners who would not stick around if the price went any higher.

also in your scenario, how many JSFs are made a year? is it as projected time wise but with only 50 percent every year? or are 100 percent built every year but the line only stays around half as long as predicted?

[ORAC]

so the marines with no F-35B would just switch to the super hornet/growler? the navy would go all growler/super bug? is that the plan? I'm just trying to see the logic The navy would switch to a mix of SH/Growler and X-47/UCAS-D.

How about a guess that in 30 years time when an update is being done to the USAF A fleet they also buy some Bs but use the proven shaft horsepower off-take (around 29k) to drive a nice laser weapon mounted in the lift fan space?"]How about a guess that in 30 years time when an update is being done to the USAF A fleet they also buy some Bs but use the proven shaft horsepower off-take (around 29k) to drive a nice laser weapon mounted in the lift fan space?

DLWS (http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Documents/2012/April%202012/0412lasers.pdf) is on the horizon JF, but the B-1 is getting it first.

[Bastardeux]

The marines only take up 5% of the budget on paper. The vast majority of their procurement comes out of the navy budget!...just because they only take up a small part of the budget doesn't negate that their air power capabilities are the least justifiable.

The UK would either get Rafale or the F18.

I would expect a mix of both not hitting the peak full rate production and ending the programme early. The problem is that there is going to be less money around in 15 years time than had been forecast 5 years ago; now that we are working on a new trend budget line (producing a $1 trillion dollar differential over 10 years), the only way of realistically reaching the total aspirational numbers are through massive increases in the defense budget through the early 2020s, which is extremely unlikely in any situation, but even more so given the federal government's $17 trillion worth of debt.

[Killface]

We can agree to disagree here. my point is simply this. you can't carve this program up without killing it. its all or none variant wise. because the navy and marines wont buy the A, if they don't buy the A the price skyrockets and the death spiral (or in the Uks case lack of the aircraft they want) makes everyone leave and buy other things.

and my second point is simply that I believe more JSFs will be produced overall, if the B/C variants are left in so that the Marines, Navy, italy, and UK buy the aircraft (along with other nations that might buy them in the future), thus keeping the price lower, with the lower price the USAF will get more in the long run, and international partners will stay in and also purchase the aircraft. so big picture more JSFs of all type to multiple countries even if the order is not in the original amount predicted.

I would rather have 1200 JSFs spread across 3 services with international partners having even more, than 900 in one american air arm. whether you think the marines or navy need their own air force or not is an argument for somewhere else, when the poo hits the fan you need jets for the big show whether they say "Marines" or "Navy" on the side is irrelevant and high end aircraft, like F-18s and A-6s before them, and especially prowlers, have been used in large strategic campaigns and not just to support the grunts. F-35s will be far more useful in the grand campaign than harriers ever were.

[Rhino power]

Nice recent video here of a VFA-101 F-35C being ferried to Eglin...

F-35C CF-6 Stealth US Navy Ferry & Arrival HD - YouTube

-RP

[ORAC]

Killface.

But it's already in the Death Spiral (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/21/us-lockheed-fighter-idUSBRE82K00T20120321).

There's no more money but an increasing back log in testing which needs funding; plus all the aircraft being delivered now will need modification for any later required changes. All that has to come out of the existing pot which will mean less available for new aircraft which will reduce the numbers, driving the price up.

The only things undecided are how many will eventually be bought and of which mix of types. But it will certainly be far below the present target.

[SpazSinbad]

Well worth a listen for 55 minutes with some video unfortunately interspersed but mostly just audio with a few pauses while video disconnects and then back to audio:

Register here first:

Webcasts (http://event.on24.com/r.htm?e=616902&s=1&k=3B8F35E8826FCBD3E07003501ED69EE8)

"Event Date: Thursday, June 27, 2013 at 9:00 AM AEST [already been broadcast live but still available to listen] Join us on Thursday, June 27 to hear what it’s like to the fly the world’s most advanced 5th Generation fighter from the people who know it best – the pilots. During the event, F-35 test pilots will discuss their experiences flying the F-35, including:

What it’s like to fly a 5th Generation Fighter
- The capabilities it will bring to Australia
- The benefits of stealth and enhanced interoperability

The F-35 Lightning II, with its cutting-edge capabilities, advanced technologies and enhanced interoperability with allies, will help ensure the security of Australia and the Asia-Pacific region for decades to come."

http://event.on24.com/r.htm?e=616902&s=1&k=3B8F35E8826FCBD3E07003501ED69EE8 (http://webmail.bigpond.com/webedge/do/redirect?url=http%253A%252F%252Fevent.on24.com%252Fr.htm%253 Fe%253D616902%2526s%253D1%2526k%253D3B8F35E8826FCBD3E0700350 1ED69EE8&hmac=16147db26e085567aa07e175b4db4190)

[glad rag]

a time machine back to the mid 1990s, before someone thought the whole thing up. what you are advocating is a JSF that isn't a JSF.

I think you have unwittingly hit the nail on the head there.

This aircraft is so far from what was originally sold to the customers it's a DISGRACE that it hasn't been canned long before now.

[glojo]

Hi Spaz,
I am in the corner that very much believes we are getting this aircraft, I might not agree with the choice but we are getting it.. However do we seriously believe that ANY pilot currently flying this amazing piece of technology is going to criticise it? Yes they might tactfully highlight certain issues but they will always take the party line and say the sun is shining in the middle of a monsoon.

I need to know how our carriers will be used, will they always rely on land based aircraft to act as tankers, land based aircraft to supply air early warning? Or will these carriers be able to operate without this type of support?

Will our F35B's carry external ordinance, fuel tanks, bombs, missiles etc when operating from our carriers and what about this controversial 'Close Air Support' Will it be having fifth generation aircraft flying at high altitude dropping intelligent ordinance close to friendly troops or will it be close air support where the aircraft gets down and dirty, letting the grunts on the ground see them attacking the nearby enemy, having the opposition both seeing and hearing the aircraft that is coming to the aid of the troops that might be in a tight corner? I would ask if this latter option is a non starter for such a modern, complex aircraft but I would like to hear the thoughts of others, especially the US Marines who believe that all pilots are first and foremost a 'grunt with a gun!'

why are the US Marines so adamant that they want the 'B'? We are now reading how any ship that carries this aircraft has to be adapted for that role, the aircraft will not be seen cross decking to ships that have not had this extra work and in this age of sequestration would there be huge and very significant savings if the US Marines purchased more fast jets but did away with their STOVL type fleet? More fast jets, more rotor wing aircraft but scrap the STOVL fleet and let the Navy pay the bill for sea based fast jets. I fully accept every word I read from orac the knowledgeable and I am very interested to hear why he is slowly coming round to the idea of having the 'B' as the aircraft of choice.

I do accept though that we are at where we are at and our only option is this aircraft but I am still far from convinced it is the right choice. All the latest advanced UAV, large drones, call them what you want will need a conventional carrier to operate them and by burying our head in the sand and simply saying we will convert our carriers at a later date just seems wrong... For years we appear to have taken this stance and for years we have been building these two ships knowing full well the 'B' is going to 'b' the last aircraft of its type and once retired, those two ships are redundant. I cite the embarrassing use of the Illustrious with her pretty ski slope and no snow!!! (sorry, aircraft) Yes it has been renamed as a helicopter carrier but how much deck space is wasted and when we have seen her she was carrying a minimal number of aircraft :(

Is having a very small number of very advanced, very expensive aircraft a better option that having excellent, more adaptable aircraft? Having the much cheaper option would give us so much more versatility and adaptability. I am told our Challenger tanks are an amazing piece of kit but because of the limited numbers they are not considered a threat!!! Is this what the world will think of our very own Air Force? Excellent aircraft but too few to be a threat?

PLEASE, please read this as me asking questions and not saying the F35B is the wrong aircraft. It may well be the best aircraft we will ever own, the best aircraft we have ever operated and might indeed be the best choice.

[Killface]

I need to know how our carriers will be used, will they always rely on land based aircraft to act as tankers, land based aircraft to supply air early warning? Or will these carriers be able to operate without this type of support?


How did the FAA do it with harriers? how would they do it with sea typhoons or hornets?

will it be close air support where the aircraft gets down and dirty, letting the grunts on the ground see them attacking the nearby enemy, having the opposition both seeing and hearing the aircraft that is coming to the aid of the troops that might be in a tight corner? I would ask if this latter option is a non starter for such a modern, complex aircraft but I would like to hear the thoughts of others, especially the US Marines who believe that all pilots are first and foremost a 'grunt with a gun!'

its better that the enemy not see or hear what hits them as it gives them a chance to shoot back or take actions that make the CAS less effective. Its not really about seeing or hearing the aircraft doing CAS but the effect. unless its a gun run CAS aircraft don't get "down and dirty" that much anymore.

why are the US Marines so adamant that they want the 'B'? We are now reading how any ship that carries this aircraft has to be adapted for that role, the aircraft will not be seen cross decking to ships that have not had this extra work and in this age of sequestration would there be huge and very significant savings if the US Marines purchased more fast jets but did away with their STOVL type fleet? More fast jets, more rotor wing aircraft but scrap the STOVL fleet and let the Navy pay the bill for sea based fast jets.

Does having the navy buy things produce a net savings in an age where funding is limited? or is it more expensive overall? it really depends when you are talking about cost. it needs to be remembered that all options are going to be "expensive" thats the nature of cutting edge military hardware, whether it is a Typhoon or Ford Class Carrier to carry additional marine aircraft.

I am going to take a strange position and say the F-35B is probably the cheapest solution for the UK because thats the one they are going with. the C has been proven to be more expensive to buy and convert the ships, so they went back to the B. the sea typhoon is the most expensive option, and hornets/rafales may still not make sense as they still have to pay to convert the ships. so comparing aircraft one for one ignores the big 1.4 billion pound elephant in the room for the UK.

so does it save on fixed wing aircraft cost while increasing cost in other areas?

Is having a very small number of very advanced, very expensive aircraft a better option that having excellent, more adaptable aircraft? Having the much cheaper option would give us so much more versatility and adaptability.

the F-35B would be more adaptable than the Typhoons, and yes cheaper to buy and operate as well. typhoons are very high end aircraft

[LowObservable]

Pentagon resident Gloomy Gus, is Dr Gilmore, but when it comes to the progress of JSF, betting on gloom has been proven to be the sound strategy:

More F-35 Delays Predicted (http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_07_01_2013_p23-592154.xml&p=1)

Full report here:

Hearings & Testimony (http://www.appropriations.senate.gov/ht-defense.cfm?method=hearings.view&id=216c4378-52ee-4eae-b54d-bb8ce6233dfa)

[ORAC]

:eek::eek:

............Earlier DOT&E reports have been critical of the F-35's ability to tolerate accidental or combat damage, and the new report follows that pattern. Gilmore observes that lightning-tolerance testing is yet to be completed and that even then, the fighter's airframe will have to be inspected after known lightning strikes—including skin penetration—because it does not use lightning-tolerant fasteners, Conventional fasteners were selected to save weight. Lockheed Martin says that inflight lightning protection has been approved and the critical design review is closed, with more tests due later this year. On the ground, the current plan is that ground crews will purge the fuel systems of parked aircraft with nitrogen, repeating this process as often as once every 24 hr.

Gilmore also notes that the prognostic and health monitoring system, currently, is unable to provide timely detection of combat damage to the F-35B lift-fan system, which “might fail catastrophically before the pilot can react” during transition to vertical landing. Lockheed Martin comments that “in the remote chance of a failure, the pilot would auto-eject.”

[glad rag]

On the ground, the current plan is that ground crews will purge the fuel systems of parked aircraft with nitrogen, repeating this process as often as once every 24 hr.

Nice one. :hmm:

[Lonewolf_50]

Lockheed Martin comments that “in the remote chance of a failure, the pilot would auto-eject.”
What's this? HAL ejects the pilot, rather than the pilot pulling the handle?

The quoted statement smells a bit of fish, does it not?

[LowObservable]

LW - Entirely correct, I'm afraid. The problem is that if one end or other of the lift system on the B decides to cease generating Newtons, the airplane emulates a Russian teenage gymnast and turns upside-down in 0.6 seconds.

Test Flying The Joint Strike Fighter (http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/hawkerassociation/hanewsletters/hanewsletter030nvu/testflyingjointstrikefighter.html)

I believe that the auto-eject is armed when the transition button is pressed and that it is activated by aircraft attitude and rate.

[ORAC]

Patent courtesy of the Russians and the Forger. (http://wrightsquawks.********.co.uk/2009/04/auto-ejection-seat.html?m=1)

Who also invented the RVL by the way. Look familiar?

UyhmrunQPA0

[SpazSinbad]

Wasp Passes Aviation Certification 02 Jul 2013 By Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class (SW/AW) J.C.J. Stokes, USS Wasp Public Affairs
"USS WASP, At Sea (NNS) -- Helicopters and AV-8B Harrier jets roared to life on the flight deck of the amphibious assault ship USS Wasp (LHD 1) June 24-27 as crew members went to work qualifying and passing the Afloat Training Group (ATG) Atlantic Aviation Certification (AVCERT) 1.4 Bravo....

...Day and night, AV-8B Harrier jets, MV-22B Ospreys, MH-60S Seahawk and CH-53E Super Stallion helicopters launched and landed on deck working with flight deck personnel and practicing night vision operations using aided and unaided methods.

"During night time flight quarters the flight deck crew and pilots use night vision goggles to safely land on the ship, and since the ship has to dim its lights to avoid blinding the pilots, this is the aided method," said Aviation Boatswain's Mate 1st Class Jesse Seagrave. "The unaided method is landing aircraft without night vision goggles. Performing both methods gets the flight deck crew and pilots comfortable with landing aircraft in any situation."

Sailors below decks worked hard before and during AVCERT including air traffic controllers who went to team trainers in preparation for the assessment and were instrumental in landing aircraft safely.

"Our job for this mission was to control the Harriers to perform different landing approaches aboard Wasp," said Air Traffic Controller 1st Class Nathaniel Alspaugh. "To make sure we were prepared for AVCERT we went to Pensacola, Fl., and the training we received allowed us to simulate controlling aircraft and perform landing approaches on the flight deck during day and night flight quarters. The majority of the Sailors in my division are new and the fact that they were able to complete this evolution with no problems is truly an amazing accomplishment and I am proud of them."

Wasp passed AVCERT with flying colors and is one step closer to Joint Strike Fighter Developmental Testing Phase II schedule to occur later this summer."
The United States Navy (via noodls) / Wasp Passes Aviation Certification (http://www.noodls.com/viewNoodl/19222933/the-united-states-navy/wasp-passes-aviation-certification)

[Bastardeux]

Pentagon Mulls Delay to Lockheed's F-35 Program - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323873904578573502455715108.html)

Richard Aboulafia, a defense analyst with the Teal Group, said delaying the F-35 from full production could cover about 30% of the reductions needed in the procurement budget under the mandatory spending reductions.

But analysts agreed short-term savings will come with long-term costs.

"You are going jeopardize the export market and that will keep costs high," said Mr. Aboulafia. "It is not a death spiral, but it is a pain spiral that could really damage the program."

[TomJoad]

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.

Wow:ugh: There was me thinking we had a defence capability to defend our way of life, of which the NHS is fairly central. We do not and should never have a defence capability to simply justify itself and maintain our so called position in the world. I think the comments re affordability are absolutely spot on. As difficult and unpalatable as it may be we need to be trimming back our aspirations. We had a good run, and a lot to be proud of, and we will go on to find another role for our talent.

[orca]

I don't think we need to trim back our aspirations old chap, I think we need to hack them to pieces. Delusions will have to do for now.

[Lonewolf_50]

LO, thanks for the answer, which means you fly with your hands in a "ready to eject" position (which might not be on the controls?) or you get increased flail damage on the way out because the aircraft's pitch rate is being busily corrected (in vain) by your monkey skill reflexes and you are out the top (IIRC, that's a 13 G acceleration with modern seats) in a poor ejection posture.

So it goes, I suppose it beats ending up like quite a few of the Harrier A guys who had those flip overs back in the early days of the AV-8 ... :{

Just wear that neck brace for a while ... that helmet is heavy, right? :p

[SpazSinbad]

Early HMDS Helmet stats in 2004 in this PDF have the weight at 3.5lbs:

http://www.safeeurope.co.uk/media/3429/simon_smith.pdf [1.3Mb] (page 4)

I'll look for more uptodate info.
_________________________

Ares: A Defense Technology Blog: F-35 VSI non-HUD HMD (http://aviationweek.typepad.com/ares/2007/04/f35_nonhud_hmd.html)

".. a four-pound weight budget?..." Bill Sweetman 12 Apr 2007
__________________________

The Aviationist » Farnborough 2012: This is the most advanced flight helmet, ever. The F-35's Helmet Mounted Display System (http://theaviationist.com/2012/07/10/fia12-hmds-genii/)

"...single [composite carbon fiber helmet] helmet that weighs less than 5 lb. including all components...."

http://theaviationist.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/mg_0085.jpg

http://theaviationist.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/mg_0085.jpg

[LowObservable]

LW - Just don't be looking down and over the side at your landing spot when something goes kaflooey, or you'll have a nasty crick in your neck.

[SpazSinbad]

Aaaahh the FUD merchants are back.... Fear Uncertainty Doubt. Good strategy. Notwithstanding all military flying particularly is dangerous - hence ejection seats required. Ask anyone who has ejected what they would rather be - dead or injured?

The auto-eject function is linked via the seat to the FCS Flight Control System according to Martin Baker info. Early on I read that the auto eject system had dial in sensitivity but cannot find that info now.
___________________

F-35 (http://www.martin-baker.com/products/Ejection-Seats/Mk--16-high-speed/US16E---JSF.aspx)
“Auto eject system Active on STOVL variant only
&
The seat incorporates an auto eject function for the F-35 STOVL aircraft to be used in the event of lift fan failure. The auto ejection system utilises a signal from the FCS to initiate ejection....”

F-35 (http://www.martin-baker.com/products/ejection-seats/mk16/f35)
"The US16E Ejection Seat provides an unprecedented balanced optimisation between key performance parameters such as safe terrain clearance limits, physiological loading limits, pilot boarding mass and anthropometric accommodation ranges to fully meet the F-35 Escape System requirements. The US16E will be common to all F-35 aircraft variants.

The US16E is the only Qualified Ejection Seat that meets the US Government defined Neck Injury Criteria (NIC) across the pilot accommodation range.

The US16E design is common to all F-35 aircraft variants."

[gr4techie]

“Auto eject system Active on STOVL variant only
&
The seat incorporates an auto eject function for the F-35 STOVL aircraft to be used in the event of lift fan failure. The auto ejection system utilises a signal from the FCS to initiate ejection....”

Thats all well and good, until the system develops an electrical snag and starts banging out pilots when it shouldn't. I could imagine it'll be quite a surprise! One second you are calmly flying along looking at some pretty clouds, the next second without any warning you are doing 13g through the canopy.

[Killface]

LW - Just don't be looking down and over the side at your landing spot when something goes kaflooey, or you'll have a nasty crick in your neck.

SpazSinbad, he knows, he is just trying to be inflammatory.

[LowObservable]

Spaz - Actually, a little FUD in this program would have been no bad thing. Might have kept us out of the current situation, with well over $50 billion down the tubes, 17 years of not working on alternatives or follow-ons, still five or six years (at least) away from the bare-minimum capability that the contractor promised, while nobody knows how far they are going to have to cut force numbers to compensate for operating costs.

A little FUD might have kept people from betting the farm on promises and projections and the magic of simulations and laboratories. Instead, what got us here was HAG - Hubris, Arrogance & Greed.

[Rhino power]

Very succinctly put LO! :ok:

-RP

[SpazSinbad]

Plenty of HAGs and FUDdyDuddies on this forum to keep LM on their toes.

[Killface]

Gilmore also notes that the prognostic and health monitoring system, currently, is unable to provide timely detection of combat damage to the F-35B lift-fan system, which “might fail catastrophically before the pilot can react” during transition to vertical landing. Lockheed Martin comments that “in the remote chance of a failure, the pilot would auto-eject.”

So the problem is a system, that can't detect "combat damage" right now, for an aircraft we are always being reminded is years away from a battlefield, for a liftfan which MIGHT fail "before the pilot can react," and yet if it did, there is an auto ejection system in place already? Whats wrong?

[ORAC]

It's an issue not previously revealed; there's no indication of when, or if, it will be corrected; of which software build it will be incorporated into; and of the cost of rectification.

It may be true that the auto-eject system would take the pilot clear, but if it happened over the deck it would still be incredibly dangerous. Would you like to be on deck when when an F-35B did a back flip 50ft up?

[Mach Two]

Your mistake here is the use of the word 'battle'. There are other ways that the lift fan (or any other component) could become damaged. If there's no ready fix for the inability to detect, probably best just to hope it never happens. After all, bits of birds or rubbish kicked up of the ground hardly ever get sucked into large fans.

[SpazSinbad]

'ORAC' said: "It may be true that the auto-eject system would take the pilot clear, but if it happened over the deck it would still be incredibly dangerous. Would you like to be on deck when when an F-35B did a back flip 50ft up?"

I would like to be nowhere near such an event - including ashore - but I take the point that deck crews are much nearer the action during landings (and they enjoy the view BTW). If such a catastrophic event occurs to an F-35B there is nothing that can be done about it - best the pilot ejects as indicated.

Usually deck crew is at minimal numbers in any danger zone, with the 'lollygaggers/goofer' (spectators) in 'vultures row' in a safer environment above the deck.

[LowObservable]

I don't think that anyone can sanely argue that a system with a failure mode that requires auto-eject is some great advance in flight safety.

Also, I can't think of many forms of combat (or other impact) damage that would go from undetectable to immediate departure with a routine mode switch. For instance, if the gear decides not to come down, you have time to cope with it.

This was raised as an issue with the pre-1995 alternative to the shaft-driven fan, Mac/GE's gas driven fan. How would you know that your gas ducting had been punctured until compressor-exit-temperature gas started blowing into the airframe?

[SpazSinbad]

'Low Observable' said: "I don't think that anyone can sanely argue that a system with a failure mode that requires auto-eject is some great advance in flight safety...."

I blame the Russians.

Quote from the previous page of this thread 'Low Observable' URL where Tomlinson describes his F-35B experiences thusly:

"...The F-35B fly-by-wire system gives angle-of-attack and sideslip control, and departure protection. Further pilot workload reduction is given by performance deficit protection, conversion speed window protection and FOD protection warning; and flight test has a watching brief on the requirement for possible tail strike protection during slow landings (currently not considered necessary). Pilot cognitive errors (of trying to control thrust with the throttle) have been mitigated in the design. In the unlikely event of the lift fan failing catastrophically the aircraft would pitch inverted in 0.6 seconds, and the pilot is protected by auto-ejection signalled by pitch rate and attitude (derived from the YAK 38 & 141 systems)...."
Test Flying The Joint Strike Fighter (http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/hawkerassociation/hanewsletters/hanewsletter030nvu/testflyingjointstrikefighter.html)

[LowObservable]

Same problem, same solution.

[SpazSinbad]

Then the auto eject function must be acceptable, or have been acceptable, to both countries.

[Mach Two]

Not just acceptable, necessary. Same issue in the development stage of Eurofighter. A flight control failure in a dynamically unstable aircraft (canards) could cause a catastophic departure leading to airframe destruction in well under a second and it was thought that auto eject might be required - early days, of course.

It's a bit gloomy to think that the fan failure resulting from battle (or any other) damage will occur over the deck rather than when the transition to fan lift is initiated. More likely that pilot survival will be the issue more than the aircraft crashing on the deck; the latter can happen with any carrier aircraft.

[Killface]

It may be true that the auto-eject system would take the pilot clear, but if it happened over the deck it would still be incredibly dangerous. Would you like to be on deck when when an F-35B did a back flip 50ft up?

I also wouldn't want to be on deck when a wire snaps or when an aircraft crashes by more conventional hook and wire methods (as they do on occasion) most dangerous 4 and 1/2 acres in the world on a CVN. naval aviation is inherently more dangerous and expensive and yet we retain naval aviation.

F18 Hornet Accident while landing on aircraft carrier - YouTube

I don't think that anyone can sanely argue that a system with a failure mode that requires auto-eject is some great advance in flight safety.

by this logic I don't think that anyone can sanely argue that an aircraft with a failure mode that requires ejection seats (a pyrotechnically activated rocket chair) is some great advance in flight safety.

all aircraft with ejection seats require manual ejection with a system failure, depending on the circumstances of course, or even within certain envelopes. for example, 100ft off the deck is no time to try and restart the engine, however 10,000 ft might be a different story.

the difference here is that it would be done automatically. Not surprisingly the closer the aircraft is to the ground the more the manual advocates ejection. a vast amount of simulator time is dedicated to training pilots when to eject and why and ingraining the habits so they can make a split second decision with their life on the line.

personally I like the idea of an aircraft that would auto eject you in circumstances where no human could possibly assess and react to the situation in the time it would take to save a life or more than one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNeD5i92Pck&list=PL7FF08BAEF7EED8B3

Most ejection seats are loaded with "automatic features" throughout, for example the deployment of the parachute being automatic in case of blackout, the automatic restraint of joints and limbs, or even the automatic deployment of the survival vests flotation devices.

so is the problem really the auto eject? or the fact that a system failure could result in the need for ejection at all? I need to know what I should be manufacturing my discontent toward.

I second what Mach 2 has said (he beat me to the punch on this one)

One of the local yahoos wanted to buy a retired OV-1, but the insurance company shot him down because the procedure for an engine out during take off according to the manual was "eject"

[SpazSinbad]

Having flown in old jet aircraft without zero zero ejection capability (Vampire, Sea Venom and Macchi MB326H) it was certainly of some 'comfort' to know the A4G Skyhawk rocket powered zero zero seat was available. For two A4G pilots aboard HMAS Melbourne the seat worked well during a cold cat and an arrestor wire failure resulting in successful ejections. Another pilot ejected OK not far from the ship still at deck height after the engine failed just after catapulting.

"IF IN DOUBT - PUNCH OUT" was burnt into our brains with "out of control below 10,000 feet - EJECT" another mantra. However this last one had many provisos - according to what 'out of control' meant at the time.

As the other posters state above, the auto eject function seems to me to be a good function in the circumstances described, with the STOVL function actuated some distance from the ship usually; BUT engine failure can occur anywhere at any time.

[GreenKnight121]

Modern ejection seats automatically steer the seat upward... even if the aircraft is inverted when the ejection occurs.

Is this a sign of bad design?

[SpazSinbad]

LCDR Kevin Finan exchange USN pilot had the successful ejection from A4G 888 after wire break during a normal arrest - HMAS Melbourne 23 May 1979

888 A-4G Pilot Ejects - Arrestor Wire Break HMAS Melbourne

888 A-4G Pilot Ejects - Arrestor Wire Break HMAS Melbourne - YouTube

A4G 875 Engine Failure After Catapult

LCDR Clive Blennerhassett CO VF-805 Ejects after engine failure off catapult HMAS Melbourne 02 Oct 1980

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4jq_GA7WSQ

A4G 885 Cold Catapult Ejection OK Compilation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Hj-RRBm6QA

[Mk 1]

yet we don't seem to be worried that a computer handles deployment of the airbags and other pyrotechnic safety devices (seat belt tighteners etc) automatically in our cars do we? Haven't heard many instances of airbags going off in any other circumstance than a severe impact in a car - why does the automatic deployment of a different sort of safety device (seat) worry others? It's not as though the pilot can respond quickly enough to save himself with a manual response.

[ORAC]

My worry wasn't about the seat, but the mind boggling fact that such a FS critical system wasn't built into the monitoring system from day 1.

If it's monitored and damage detected then there's time for a diversion (if in range) to a land base for a conventional landing; risk mitigation by reducing weight and anbRVL to a pre-warned deck with straps tight and SAR on standby or, at worst, a pre-planned ejection.

At the moment you have no warning or preparation and either an unpleasant shock during deployment or a failure at a critical stage in the hover.

How did that get through the system and when is due to be fixed?

[John Farley]

Which seats are those?

[ORAC]

ACES II: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACES_II) The minimal ejection altitude for ACES II seat in inverted flight is about 140 feet (43 m) above ground level at 150 KIAS. The seat performance is in accordance with MIL-S-9479 (http://www.everyspec.com/MIL-SPECS/MIL-SPECS-MIL-S/MIL-S-9479B--_42369/)

[LowObservable]

I'm not aware of any self-righting ejection seat such as GK describes. You'd need thrust vectoring. It was considered under CREST in the 80s, IIRC.

[Rhino power]

ORAC, if you eject inverted 140ft above the ground, no (current) seat in the world is going to save you, that includes the ACES II...

-RP

[eaglemmoomin]

Hold on. I'm missing what the issue is here this sounds like fairly typical stuff? I must admit to not having ploughed through several pages of various posters arguing though, so I should sort that out I guess.

From a snapshot view though any development like this has staged drops of various bits of capability/function. Ultimately it'll be the customer that agrees and signs off those drops. Any variances or non qualifications would also have to signed off. It's only an issue when it never happens or an alternative solution is not acheivable. BIT/CBIT and IBIT is one of those things that always seems to happen near the end anyway.

As for the whole 'oh noes my engine has gone' there's FOD up it, its really dangerous' I don't see how any naval jet aircraft is exempt from this sort of problem. Is this not a basic issue with trying to get an aircraft on a tiny strip of metal in the sea? Though on an aircraft carrier/LHA/LHD would'nt there be FOD checks etc. Or have I missed some additional bit of hysteria somewhere?

[eaglemmoomin]

Hi Spaz,
I am in the corner that very much believes we are getting this aircraft, I might not agree with the choice but we are getting it.. However do we seriously believe that ANY pilot currently flying this amazing piece of technology is going to criticise it? Yes they might tactfully highlight certain issues but they will always take the party line and say the sun is shining in the middle of a monsoon.

I need to know how our carriers will be used, will they always rely on land based aircraft to act as tankers, land based aircraft to supply air early warning? Or will these carriers be able to operate without this type of support?

Will our F35B's carry external ordinance, fuel tanks, bombs, missiles etc when operating from our carriers and what about this controversial 'Close Air Support' Will it be having fifth generation aircraft flying at high altitude dropping intelligent ordinance close to friendly troops or will it be close air support where the aircraft gets down and dirty, letting the grunts on the ground see them attacking the nearby enemy, having the opposition both seeing and hearing the aircraft that is coming to the aid of the troops that might be in a tight corner? I would ask if this latter option is a non starter for such a modern, complex aircraft but I would like to hear the thoughts of others, especially the US Marines who believe that all pilots are first and foremost a 'grunt with a gun!'

why are the US Marines so adamant that they want the 'B'? We are now reading how any ship that carries this aircraft has to be adapted for that role, the aircraft will not be seen cross decking to ships that have not had this extra work and in this age of sequestration would there be huge and very significant savings if the US Marines purchased more fast jets but did away with their STOVL type fleet? More fast jets, more rotor wing aircraft but scrap the STOVL fleet and let the Navy pay the bill for sea based fast jets. I fully accept every word I read from orac the knowledgeable and I am very interested to hear why he is slowly coming round to the idea of having the 'B' as the aircraft of choice.

I do accept though that we are at where we are at and our only option is this aircraft but I am still far from convinced it is the right choice. All the latest advanced UAV, large drones, call them what you want will need a conventional carrier to operate them and by burying our head in the sand and simply saying we will convert our carriers at a later date just seems wrong... For years we appear to have taken this stance and for years we have been building these two ships knowing full well the 'B' is going to 'b' the last aircraft of its type and once retired, those two ships are redundant. I cite the embarrassing use of the Illustrious with her pretty ski slope and no snow!!! (sorry, aircraft) Yes it has been renamed as a helicopter carrier but how much deck space is wasted and when we have seen her she was carrying a minimal number of aircraft http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/sowee.gif

Is having a very small number of very advanced, very expensive aircraft a better option that having excellent, more adaptable aircraft? Having the much cheaper option would give us so much more versatility and adaptability. I am told our Challenger tanks are an amazing piece of kit but because of the limited numbers they are not considered a threat!!! Is this what the world will think of our very own Air Force? Excellent aircraft but too few to be a threat?

PLEASE, please read this as me asking questions and not saying the F35B is the wrong aircraft. It may well be the best aircraft we will ever own, the best aircraft we have ever operated and might indeed be the best choice.

Combat UAV's are decades off being actually useful. Anyone that honestly thinks otherwise is fooling themselves. Personally I think it'll be a long road full of cock ups and issues. Getting a 'simple' surveillance UAV that stays up for a few hours and flys defined racetracks with it's sensors being preset reliably and consistently is still a massive technical effort and the UK, France, Europe isn't really quite there yet. So CUAVs nah, simple demonstrator maybe. Something that will actually be able to replace a Tornado, Typhoon, F35 and the simplest tasks they are asked to do in the next 20 to 25 years hmmmmmm.

[SpazSinbad]

On previous page of this thread 'eaglemmoomin' rooominated thusly: "...Though on an aircraft carrier/LHA/LHD would'nt there be FOD checks etc...."

Yessirreebobsir, the FOD walkdown is a feature of USN flat deck life as far as I can tell from Ozland. It is amazing what can be found when one looks - especially of the tiny variety of bits that end up on a flight deck or aircraft line ashore. Most USN docos about CVN life will show the FOD walkdown.

[Literground]

Its common knowledge that I am forty years or so distant from my service, but I know enough folk,(including my own son), that drone software and integration is a lot more advanced than most seem to think.

[SpazSinbad]

UK Will Try To Boost F-35B Landing Weight by Chris Pocock AIN Defense Perspective 05 July 2013
"Senior British military officials confirmed that the UK will conduct shipboard rolling vertical landing (SRVL) trials on the F-35B version of the Lockheed Martin Lightning II stealth combat jet. The SRVL technique would allow the aircraft to land at higher weights than is currently possible in the VTOL mode....

...The officials said they are satisfied that the F-35B could bring back the internal weapons load that is initially planned, comprising–in the UK case–two AMRAAM air-air missiles and two Paveway IV smart bombs weighing some 5,000 pounds. But, one added, when high temperature and/or low pressure conditions prevail–such as in the Gulf of Oman–it would be prudent to achieve another 2,000 to 4,000 pounds of bring-back weight, for either fuel or weapons, especially since the F-35 will be able to carry additional weapons on wing pylons, when stealth is not a requirement....

...the UK’s three T&E jets will embark on the new Queen Elizabeth II aircraft carrier for trials in the same year [2018]."
UK Will Try To Boost F-35B Landing Weight | Aviation International News (http://ainonline.com/aviation-news/ain-defense-perspective/2013-07-05/uk-will-try-boost-f-35b-landing-weight)

[glad rag]

So we[the UK] are right back at the ridiculous situation of dumping ££££££££'s worth of ordinance to match a land on weight IF the cab is in Non stealth mode.

How much does the lift fan set up weigh again??

:ugh:

[glojo]

Combat UAV's are decades off being actually useful. Anyone that honestly thinks otherwise is fooling themselves. Personally I think it'll be a long road full of cock ups and issues. Getting a 'simple' surveillance UAV that stays up for a few hours and flys defined racetracks with it's sensors being preset reliably and consistently is still a massive technical effort and the UK, France, Europe isn't really quite there yet. So CUAVs nah, simple demonstrator maybe. Something that will actually be able to replace a Tornado, Typhoon, F35 and the simplest tasks they are asked to do in the next 20 to 25 years hmmmmmm.

Hi,
I understand what you are saying and I agree these aircraft are a way off but they are possibly the next stage in carrier aircraft??

Link (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10058175/US-Navy-launches-first-X-47B-drone-from-aircraft-carrier.html)

They have already been launched the X-47B via catapult but from what I read they did have similar tail-hook issues which were comparable to the F-35C but hopefully this has now been resolved.

The sad thing is that we have NO capability to operate this type of aircraft and once the 'B' retires that is it.

[Milo Minderbinder]

by the time the 'B' retires, and probably for a good period before that, carrier aviation as you know it will be impossible due to the rise of precision guided ballistic munitions.
All you need is for the Iranians (or someone else) to really mass produce the stuff they already have designed and you can wave your capital ships goodbye......they'll need to stand so far off the target that you may as well use land-based assets.
of course......pulsed beam weapons or better point defence ABM systems may reduce the risk.......but if there are enough ballistic warheads they are always eventually going to overwhelm the defence.
Give it a few years and the new carriers are going to be nothing but floating garages, too insecure to be allowed within 2000 miles of an enemy coast, except maybe when on a ferry mission. Whats the combat radius of a "B"?

of course maybe they could be used for peacekeeping purposes, or situations such as the Sierra Leone action, but using a ship and aircraft of that expense for that is rather overkill. A converted cargo ship with a flight of armed Tucanos would be a better solution

[glojo]

by the time the 'B' retires, and probably for a good period before that, carrier aviation as you know it will be impossible due to the rise of precision guided ballistic munitions. An interesting statement and perhaps we should let our American allies know about that as they are building a number of the new class of carrier that will replace their Nimitz fleet.

If there is one thing that is a certainty, it is the fact that we have had no luck in predicting what will happen next week, next month, or next year. Having said that I very much doubt we will engage in any type of total war against any first world nation (touching wood as I type)

The conventional carrier is still an excellent weapon for projecting a nations power, but will it in twenty years or fifty years time? The USA is still going ahead with their latest class of carrier. Here in the UK we have lost this expertise and most folks only look at the carrier as an advanced airfield whereas the USA look at this unit as being their 'spokesperson' that lets folks know they mean business.

I totally accept we are having the B variant but if the RAF were asked what aircraft would they opt for if they had to only have one type of fast jet for both air and ground operations, what aircraft would they choose and why?

I am still baffled as to why the very first drawing for our carriers were not for conventional ships. It is ironic that retired First Sea Lord's are now complaining about this but when in a position to voice an opinion they allegedly ducked behind the parapets and kept quiet.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

If there is one thing that is a certainty, it is the fact that we have had no luck in predicting what will happen next week, next month, or next year. Having said that I very much doubt we will engage in any type of total war against any first world nation (touching wood as I type)

The trouble is second/third world nations frequently have powerful capabilities, including navies and air forces. Meanwhile, there may be another delay for F-35 (http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_07_01_2013_p23-592154.xml&p=1).

If only something had been done to reduce that capability gap and to prepare for future carrier operations. I tried to outline some thoughts on the Harrier thread (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/431997-decision-axe-harrier-bonkers.html#post6023131), but encountered a great deal of hostility and a refusal to look beyond the party line. Yet the issues are still unresolved.

Additional delays can only increase the risks - both in terms of capability gaps and the skills of carrier personnel.

Milo

You might note the development of anti ballistic missile systems. Will an enemy really be willing to expend a significant number of ballistic missiles against a single target?

[Milo Minderbinder]

"You might note the development of anti ballistic missile systems. "

Problem is the ship is never going to have enough ABM defences to cope with a massed attack. What would it take? Ten synchronised missiles to overwhelm the defence?

[orca]

I am with you, this ballistic missile threat is serious. The first thing we should do is ensure that our airfields can move, thereby making the targeteer's job infinitely harder.

We should also invest in some form of aircraft that doesn't need a long, thin bit of tarmac, easily identified on Google Earth to operate from.

Next we should invest in an aeroplane that can fight these real baddies but also all the other nations - the ones without this BM capability, but with systems I believe to be called SAMs. Some form of LO should crack it.

If only there were some way of combining the three. Hmmm.

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

Meanwhile, there may be another delay for F-35 (http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_07_01_2013_p23-592154.xml&p=1).

Who wrote that article? Oh, right...:hmm:

[LowObservable]

Because Gilmore's been wrong every time he's reported that the JSF test schedule is at risk, according to the documentary evidence that Mr Foxtrot Alpha will now present to us. :E

[eaglemmoomin]

Its common knowledge that I am forty years or so distant from my service, but I know enough folk,(including my own son), that drone software and integration is a lot more advanced than most seem to think.




You can't fly them in civil airspace at all and use in military airspace is an evolving area. The MAA doesn't seem to know what to do about them. There's only sense and avoid studies going on at the moment.

Whats the persistence, redundancy and reliability of the datalinks like because I can't see us splashing on satellite based datalinks just because of coverage and cost implications and we'd also need ground control stations fitting out also. So we are either buggered for range or entirely dependent upon the US to even fly the darn things (what happens when US priorities supercede ours we'd be up the creek).

Having one take off do a circuit around the airbase and land in a controlled contractor test environment possible But thats a far cry from an operational environment.

All of the other stuff is miles off I think based upon the information in the public domain.

[SpazSinbad]

Of islands and moles 5 July 2013 | By David Downs
"...the huge aft island was lifted into place. Now the only significant structural units remaining to be installed are the extreme aft corners of the flight deck Sponsons SP11 and SP12.

Since it was shipped in March this year a lot of work has been done on the forward island to structurally consolidate it to the sponson structure below, to connect the gas turbine and diesel uptake and downtake trunking and to progress the system installation across the boundary. The island is at an advanced stage of outfit with the majority of the Mission System and other equipment already installed. The protective coverings on three of the windows in the observation bridge, one deck below the main bridge, have been replaced with perspex sheets so that the view forward and across the flight deck to port can be seen.

The design of the forward island and the open bridge wings and platforms provide a surprisingly good all round view considering the constraints of an aircraft carrier geometry. The view forward and to starboard is excellent with the bow of the ship being incongruously apparently a long way away to port.

There cannot be many ships where it is possible to see the bulbous bow from the bridge even when in dry dock. The view aft to the aircraft lifts is also excellent and across the wide expanse of flight deck.

Whereas the forward island is predominantly about navigating the ship, the aft island is all about flying control. The aft island has been built at BAE Systems yard at Scotstoun on the Clyde and in June was loaded out onto a barge and transported to Rosyth arriving under the iconic Forth Bridge on 21st June and shortly afterwards brought ashore. It was lifted into place on July 1, with a brief ceremony marking the occasion. Like the forward island, which was built at Portsmouth, the aft island is at a very high state of completion and on structural consolidation the Flyco compartment, which has been built as a module by TEX ATC ltd will be installed onto the seats on the port side of the island. This Flyco structure is arranged over two deck levels and includes huge windows giving unrivalled views across the flight deck and up the glide path where incoming aircraft will be approaching. It contains banks of consoles from which the Flying Control Officer and Landing Safety Officer will operate. The ergonomics of this compartment are vital to the efficient flying operations of the aircraft carrier and during the design phase a wooden full scale mock-up of the Flyco was manufactured at Portsmouth and used to carry out simulated operations to prove the design...."
Of islands and moles | Opinion | The Engineer (http://www.theengineer.co.uk/home/blog/guest-blog/of-islands-and-moles/1016649.article)

[Not_a_boffin]

And it isn't just QE that's coming on apace. This useful little link gives a feel for PoW as well. They're managing to install 10km of cabling per week in one of PoW lower blocks.

Programme update - Aircraft Carrier Alliance (http://www.aircraftcarrieralliance.co.uk/en/delivering-the-nations-flagships/programme-directors-blog/programme-directors-blog-2013.aspx)

Still some way off delivery, but impressive progress nonetheless.

[glad rag]

QF-16 drone arrives for testing, prepares warfighters for tomorrow's threats (http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123327445)

http://www.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/web/2012/11/121119-F-KA160-010.jpg

Be interesting to see "lightnin2" crew moral nosedive when a drone viper comes to play...

http://i291.photobucket.com/albums/ll288/MoJocvh/0104viper5_zps5c114724.jpg

[Killface]

Because Gilmore's been wrong every time he's reported that the JSF test schedule is at risk, according to the documentary evidence that Mr Foxtrot Alpha will now present to us.

I think his problem is with Sweetman's credibility which has also been at risk :cool:

[GreenKnight121]

QF-16 drone arrives for testing, prepares warfighters for tomorrow's threats (http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123327445)

Be interesting to see "lightnin2" crew moral nosedive when a drone viper comes to play...

Yes, that is an interesting demonstration of the difference in turning circle between an F-4 and an F-16.

What that has to do with the F-35 is purely in the imagination of the poster.

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

Because Gilmore's been wrong every time he's reported that the JSF test schedule is at risk, according to the documentary evidence that Mr Foxtrot Alpha will now present to us.

It wasn't Gilmore's credibility I was referring to... :hmm:

Anyway, have been asked to tone it down by my own mods, so will be reverting to a passive mode for a while. :suspect:

Play nice kids! :ok:

[Evalu8ter]

I'm sure John Boyd's spirit appreciates the turning circle photo....but the Viper drone should (I repeat, should...) never get close enough to the F35 for it to be an issue. Should, however, is not a principle of war.....

UAVs/RPAS/UCAV etc will all have an increasingly significant role to play in the future - if for no other reason than it's an industrial revenue stream.

Re the ballistic threat to CVs - the threat is not imagined. However, perhaps the development and deployment of DEWs over the next few decades will provide a significant degree of protection from swarm missile/UCAV attacks.

[glad rag]

What that has to do with the F-35

Just an rough illustration of predicted turn rates :)

[eaglemmoomin]

Just an rough illustration of predicted turn rates http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/smile.gif

Those F4 similar figures were for sustained turn rates not instantaneous and we don't know at what altitudes etc. Also thats for the current hand book yes? Not that I can find it but I seem to recall that those figures came out of flight test and evaluation? So I'd have though those are the current limits on the restricted flight envelope on pre production aircraft which have issues with prolonged heat damage at the rear of the plane yes?

[LowObservable]

Credibility, hmm?

Like putting up a chart with milestones that were mostly missed, some by double-digit months?

http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/8/10/98a1226d-d3f0-4c73-ba80-248023d84dcb.Full.jpg

Like asserting that "if you don't follow the defense business closely, then you can be excused for believing that the F-35 joint strike fighter is in trouble", weeks before the program office director gets the boot?

Lexington Institute (http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/four-reasons-for-confidence-in-the-f-35)

Or like announcing "Burbage also expressed increased confidence in the program, and acknowledged that most early challenges have been overcome" at a point where the new government managers were just beginning to realize that the program needed another 4-6 years?

Lockheed Martin · pr_aero_LockheedMartinF-35Centerp (http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2010/july/LockheedMartinF-35Centerp.html)

One of the culprits here went on to his next star, another is still a well remunerated LM consultant and the third retired with honors, and nobody on the program has ever explained why these public statements were so widely at odds with reality.

Credibility my :mad:.

[Killface]

One of the culprits here went on to his next star, another is still a well remunerated LM consultant and the third retired with honors, and nobody on the program has ever explained why these public statements were so widely at odds with reality.


Pointing out that "others lie too", doesn't help credibility I'm afraid. Its too bad Bill compromised himself so much or people might pay more attention when he does quote an analyst who actually knows what he is talking about, but unfortunately:

JSF News 2 - Stealth Questions Raised (http://www.aviationweek.com/blogs.aspx?plckblogid=blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckcontroller=blog&plckscript=blogscript&plckelementid=blogdest&plckblogpage=blogviewpost&plckpostid=blog%253a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7post%253a5319e403-6655-4008-ba4d-dbc3975384af)



They have already been launched the X-47B via catapult but from what I read they did have similar tail-hook issues which were comparable to the F-35C but hopefully this has now been resolved.

both aircraft used the same (poor) cross-deck pendant model.

The X-47B is only catching 10 percent of its wires on land, and in the first video released showing it trapping on the runway it was using its 3rd hook fix.

Dont ask for a link, I don't have one. I have a friend who works out there. I know if a bunch of reporters were asked to come and see the F-35C strut its stuff on a CVN, and it only did the cat and not the trap their alarm bells would be ringing. No one wants to get black balled though so they play along, and it avoids the F-35(C) level of criticism.

[LowObservable]

Dont ask for a link, I don't have one. I have a friend who works out there.

Suuuure you do

//pats KF on head

[Rulebreaker]

The last paragraph does it for me in the credibility stakes don't remember hearing those statements in the 00's it was Lockheeds way or the highway

Outgoing F-35 programme boss shares hard won lessons (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/outgoing-f-35-programme-boss-shares-hard-won-lessons-383932/)

"Somewhere along the way, we made an error in our parametric weight models," Burbage says "Turned out we were predicting the things that we knew about pretty well, the structural parts were pretty close, the small detail parts were pretty close. What wasn't predicted well by the model was stealth and internal weapons bays because the airplane that had those capabilities weren't part of the database."

[Killface]

Dont ask for a link, I don't have one. I have a friend who works out there.

Suuuure you do

//pats KF on head

Are you questioning whether I have friends or whether what I said is true? I welcome any correction to what I posted, if my friend was in error, I will gladly stand corrected, and inform him of his mistake. :ok:

[NITRO104]

Killface and the gang, is this a Bill Sweetman or F35 thread?
If you're that desperate for attention, may I suggest some online matchmaking service, leaving this thread to professional personnel?

Thx

[SpazSinbad]

Are youse Brits gonna have some fancy tail art?
http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/th_F-35BtailCherryPointJul2013pdf.jpg (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/F-35BtailCherryPointJul2013pdf.jpg.html)

DVIDS - Images - F-35 visits Cherry Point [Image 1 of 2] (http://www.dvidshub.net/image/968036/f-35-visits-cherry-point#.Udx2o_nIaTI)

[Courtney Mil]

Probably not, Spaz. I would expect the usual tail flash, tail letter and a squadron emblem of some sort. All in toned-down colours, of course. Nothing fancy, but it will be tasteful. The display jet, however, God only knows. That could well be quite horrid.

[busdriver02]

You guys are miss-applying Boyd. He advocated fast transients, so a sustained turn circle has no bearing. According to Boyd a fighter should be able to bleed energy as well as regain very rapidly.

[GreenKnight121]

For LO and so on...
US Navy solves X-47B tailhook problem in-house - IHS Jane's 360 (http://www.janes.com/article/23226/us-navy-solves-x-47b-tailhook-problem-in-house)
Richard Scott, London - IHS Jane's Navy International 09 September 2012

The US Navy (USN) has admitted another problem with a new aircraft tailhook design, this time affecting the Northrop Grumman X-47B Unmanned Combat Air System Aircraft Carrier Demonstration (UCAS-D) programme.
According to a release issued by Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) on 5 September, the service was forced to urgently task its Fleet Readiness Center South West (FRCSW) at Naval Air Station (NAS) North Island, California, to redesign and manufacture new hook points for the X-47B after arrestment roll-in tests revealed problems with the original design.


"In late spring, a team from Patuxent River, Maryland, called on FRCSW at NAS North Island to redesign the hook point for ... the X-47B UCAS-D", NAVAIR said. "When unsuccessful roll-in arrestment tests of the X-47B revealed the need for a modified hook point, the team needed to come up with a plan to make the modifications in order to perform arrested landings and catapult launches this fall [autumn]."


According to NAVAIR, the FRCSW signed a formal work order on 10 July, anticipating the manufacturing and shipping process would take up to one month. However, the engineering and manufacture of the hook points took slightly longer; for example, machining the first steel part took longer than expected, as a result of which the FRCSW invested in a more efficient machine to decrease cycle times.Navy Preps For X-47B Cats, Traps On Carrier (http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_12_10_2012_p35-524348.xml)
Navy Preps For X-47B Cats, Traps On Carrier
December 10, 2012
By Amy Butler, Graham Warwick

Northrop redesigned the X-47B tailhook because engineers had placed it too close to the landing gear. The distance didn't allow the landing cable to bounce and rest back on the ground so the tailhook could scoop under the cable and connect to it. The problem is similar to that experienced by Lockheed Martin with the F-35C tailhook. The redesign, executed in 45 days, has proven successful in three arrestment roll-in demonstrations, says Capt. Jamie Engdahl, Navy UCAS program manager.
Arrested landing trials are slated to start early next year.But this didn't fix the problem...
The day of the unmanned aircraft. - The DEW Line (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2013/05/the-day-of-the-unmanned-aircra.html)
By Dave Majumdar on May 15, 2013 12:02 AM

Meanwhile, the US Navy launched a Northrop Grumman X-47B from the USS George H W Bush earlier today--our very own Zach Rosenberg was there. The Navy got Flightglobal a slot on the helicopter even though they initially told us there was no room. The launch looks like it was quite successful--take a look below.

However, the X-47B did not carry out an arrested landing upon returning to Pax River. That could be because the unmanned jet was having difficulty making even that first trap it did the week before where the Navy showed off a video of the aircraft snagging a wire. Sources told the DEW Line, at the time of the earlier trap, the aircraft now had a 10 percent field boarding rate... So hopefully, this isn't an indication of a major problem. The X-47B guys have had to redesign their tail hook a number of times now due to the same inaccurate Navy-supplied wire dynamics model that was partly responsible for the F-35C's woes. So, in the first week of May 2013, some 5 months after the USN claimed to have "solved" the X-47B's tailhook problems, it still had only a 10% success rate!

Sounds like Killface's friend is correct.

[WhiteOvies]

KF & LO - there is a difference between an X jet and an F jet when it comes to measuring success for this sort of thing. F-35C is an in production (well LRIP) aircraft, X-47B is a flight sciences technology demonstrator.

Spaz, the tail flash reminds me of a certain 800 NAS, however the first 3 UK jets do not wear any Sqn markings.

CM - check out VFA 101's CAG bird for an example of a coloured version!

[JSFfan]

You guys are miss-applying Boyd. He advocated fast transients, so a sustained turn circle has no bearing. According to Boyd a fighter should be able to bleed energy as well as regain very rapidly.

Not to mention the OODA observe, orient, decide, and act, that the f-35 takes hands down

Some are taking a very narrow view of a 4th gen with limited fuel and weapon/pods and trying to make a story

[SpazSinbad]

VFA-101 at Eglin AFB F-35C tail logo CAGbird 'Grim Reaper'

Click thumbnail: http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/th_GrimReaperF-35CtailLogoVFA-101.gif (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/GrimReaperF-35CtailLogoVFA-101.gif.html) http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/th_GrimReapersF-35CtailZoom.jpg (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/GrimReapersF-35CtailZoom.jpg.html)

[SpazSinbad]

For 'GreenKnight121': (Possibly an inaccurate or misleading headline but WTF) :}

X-47B to trap on board USS George H.W. Bush Navy on July 10th, 2013
"The X-47B will make an arrested landing on board USS George H.W. Bush, off the coast of Virginia, on Jul. 10."
&
"...In May, Sailors aboard USS George H.W. Bush worked X-47B operations for the first time and the world watched as they catapulted the aircraft from the deck with ease.

Throughout the next few days, we saw X-47B complete nine perfect touch-and-go landings on the moving carrier deck....

...Final X-47B shore-based arrested landings at Patuxent River were successfully completed in late June. Carrier suitability engineers put the aircraft through a series of very demanding tests, including hard landings and high speed arrestments, proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that we were ready to land on a moving carrier deck. Both X-47B aircraft are now certified to conduct carrier flight operations, including catapults, arrested landings, flight deck taxi operations, maintenance and refueling...."
Unmanned X-47B Readies for Final Touchdown (http://navylive.dodlive.mil/2013/07/09/unmanned-x-47b-readies-for-final-touchdown/)

[Finnpog]

@SpazSinbad
They could certainly do something a little 800 NAS with that marking.
I think that an 809 NAS phoenix on the fin, even in toned down colours a la SHAR in 1982 would be striking.
Some black & white chequer-boarding and a trident, a mailed fist or a yellow lightning bolt with black and red fin flash would also be nice (if it could be reclaimed from the Hawk.

As much as I would hope to see a winged one on the fin or fuse, I do feel that 1(F) sits well on the Typhoon.

[LowObservable]

Good luck to the X-47B team... And a job done on schedule (horrors!) because it was a six-year award in 8/07.

US Navy Awards UCAS-D Contract To Northrop Grumman-Led X-47 Team (http://www.spacewar.com/reports/US_Navy_Awards_UCAS_D_Contract_To_Northrop_Grumman_Led_X_47_ Team_999.html)

And if anyone had predicted back then that it would trap before F-35C, they'd have been regarded as a lunatic.

[GreenKnight121]

Assuming that today's planned trap actually happens.

Still no word... either they haven't tried yet, or.... ;)


Apparently they claim to have gotten the problems fixed in the 1 1/2 months between the 1st-week-of-May "10% success" report and the "late June completion of successful tests".

We will see.

[LowObservable]

BFZ!

X-47B Completes First-Ever Carrier-Based Arrested Landing (http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=75298)

Either they made rapid progress or the 10-per-cent success rate was an exaggeration, like the report of Mark Twain's death. Not that anyone would have any reason to spread such misinformation around.

[In Tor Wot]

Considering the technical hurdles of flying a UCAV off the deck of a ship and back again, I think the tail-hook issue is small (but important) beer that will be resolved in due course.

Congratulations to the USN and Northrop for the work thus far:

X-47B UCAS – Aviation History Under Way (http://www.uasvision.com/2013/07/10/x-47b-ucas-aviation-history-under-way/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=be30fa2105-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_term=0_799756aeb7-be30fa2105-297532105)

QE2 and PoW are looking less relevant by the day.

[SpazSinbad]

X-47B Completes Carrier-based Arrested Landing (2)
"Published on Jul 10, 2013
The X-47B Unmanned Combat Air System (UCAS) demonstrator completed its first carrier-based arrested landing on board USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77) off the coast of Virginia July 10."

X-47B Completes First Carrier-based Arrested Landing (2) - YouTube

[Killface]

Not that anyone would have any reason to spread such misinformation around.

The Navy, DEWline and Dave Mujumdar? hmm.

I'm glad that it trapped but it doesn't mean its not still having issues. 10 percent seemed to be the number that everyone was saying.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Surely a system of systems approach involves worrying about the role played by carrier personnel (throughout the ship) as much as the aircrew?

I tried to point this out over on the Harrier thread (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/431997-decision-axe-harrier-bonkers.html#post6023131), and so have others on various threads - see the comments of Bismark, Not_a_boffin, orca, and Whiteovies.

Bismark (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/431997-decision-axe-harrier-bonkers.html#post6022717):

As I am sure has been said elsewhere, the aircraft and pilots just represent the front end of the carrier strike capability. The idiocy of the SDSR decision, which the PM is about to compound in the FR/UK Defence deal (FT Today), is that we risk losing the capability to operate jets off carriers. All of the expertise on the current CVSs will have gone (we are getting rid of the CVSs), the aircrew will have gone (either PVRd, redundant or moved to other aircraft types, the command experience will have gone (as will the met, ATC, FC, deck handlers, planners etc, etc).

Bismark (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/431997-decision-axe-harrier-bonkers-2.html#post6024550):

But what is missing in 2020 is the crews on the ships with any experience of aviation - from the CO downwards....I am sure the MAA will have something to say about that, indeed I wonder whether they are doing anything about it at the moment?

Not a boffin (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/431997-decision-axe-harrier-bonkers-4.html#post6029196):

I'd put a fair bit of money that the guys who've done exchange tours have not done time in CATCC, Wings / Little F (Air & mini-boss in USN), handlers office or the squadron engineering and logs posts.

While they may be adept at doing the mission plan, launch, mission, recovery thing, they are unlikely to have a great understanding of how to spot a deck, arrange aircraft for servicing vice maintenance, weapons prep and bombing up and how all the various departments both in the squadrons and on the ship work to deliver the sortie rate. People thinking just about aircrew and (to some degree) chockheads are missing the point - it's the corporate experience of how to put it all together that is about to be lost. Nor can that be maintained at HMS Siskin - that just gives the basics of handling, not the fine art of pulling it all together.

As SDSR says "we need a plan to regenerate the necessary skills"- all I can say is it had better be a f8cking good one, cunning eneough to do more than brush your teeth with!

WhiteOvies (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/517553-sharky-watch-live-6.html#post7909736):

The bigger issue is getting everyone else to be ready for a large, busy flight deck. At least there is a team of people looking into this issue and both deckcrew, aircrew and engineers are being appropriately positioned to give them some exposure to this dangerous environment prior to QEC.

orca (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/517553-sharky-watch-live-6.html#post7910075):

All we need to see is a signed document from CAS saying that he will embark his jets as soon as the CO indicates his ship is ready in all respects to conduct aviation.

The second sentence will indicate that he will disembark them only when the Air Management Organisation is fully up to speed, the Air Group is fulfilling ATO tasking, the Air Weapon supply team have produced weapons to surge capacity and these have been loaded on jets and dropped, the Yellow Coats can marshal, chain and chock a fourship in all weathers, whilst another fourship is taxying for take off. The jets will remain embarked until every Fighter Controller in the fleet has worked a fourship through Red Crown procedures and the JFACCHQ have established resilient comms for a week or two and Flyco have exercised being b#ggered about from dawn to dusk. Repeat all for night ops. When all this is crimped the TG in its entirety will take part in a COMAO based exercise of Neptune Warrior type scope and we'll call it good.

The third sentence will indicate that the jets will be back as soon as any of the above notice any degree of skill fade and the process will start again.

Back in early 2007, a Chockhead told me that post Sea Harrier, there were too few embarkations of fixed wing aircraft to retain skills. Later that year, I spent a little time aboard a CVS and learnt pretty much the same thing, and that the dangers of skill fade were real. In late 2009 I heard the FAA Command Warrant say that having more jets at sea, for longer periods, would be key to preparing for CVF/F-35.

Are we doing enough to prepare? Is sending eight Chockheads on exchange (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/431997-decision-axe-harrier-bonkers-92.html) enough?

This 1987 article is interesting: The Self-Designing High-Reliability Organization: Aircraft Carrier Flight Operations at Sea (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/docs/art7su98.htm)

Operations manuals are full of details of specific tasks at the micro level but rarely discuss integration into the whole. There are other written rules and procedures, from training manuals through standard operating procedures (SOPs), that describe and standardize the process of integration. None of them explain how to make the whole system operate smoothly, let alone at the level of performance that we have observed. It is in the real-world environment of workups and deployment, through the continual training and retraining of officers and crew, that the information needed for safe and efficient operation is developed, transmitted, and maintained. Without that continuity, and without sufficient operational time at sea, both effectiveness and safety would suffer.

Moreover, the organization is not stable over time. Every forty months or so there is an almost 100 percent turnover of crew, and all of the officers will have rotated through and gone on to other duty. Yet the ship remains functional at a high level. The Navy itself is, of course, the underlying structural determinant. Uniforms, ranks, rules and regulations, codes of conduct, and specialized languages provide a world of extensive codification of objects, events, situations, and appropriate conduct; members who deviate too far from the norm become "foreigners" within their own culture and soon find themselves outside the group, figuratively if not literally.

Behavioral and cultural norms, SOPs, and regulations are necessary, but they are far from sufficient to preserve operational structure and the character of the service. Our research team noted three mechanisms that act to maintain and transmit operational factors in the face of rapid turnover. First, and in some ways most important, is the pool of chief petty officers, many of whom have long service in their specialty and circulate around similar ships in the fleet. Second, many of the officers and some of the crew will have at some time served on other carriers, albeit in other jobs, and bring to the ship some of the shared experience of the entire force. Third, the process of continual rotation and replacement, even while on deployment, maintains a continuity that is broken only during a major refit. These mechanisms are realized by an uninterrupted process of on-board training and retraining that makes the ship one huge, continuing school for its officers and men.

When operational continuity is broken or nonexistent, the effects are observable and dramatic. One member of our research group had the opportunity to observe a new Nimitz-class aircraft carrier as she emerged from the yard and remarked at how many things had to be learned before she could even begin to commence serious air operations. Even for an older and more experienced ship coming out of an ordinary refit, the workup towards deployment is a long and arduous process. Many weeks are spent just qualifying the deck for taking and handling individual aircraft, and many more at gradually increasing densities to perfect aircraft handling as well as the coordination needed for tight launch and recovery sequences. With safety and reliability as fixed boundary conditions, every moment of precious operational time before deployment is devoted to improving capability and efficiency.

The importance of adequate workup time--for flight operations to be conducted safely at present levels of technical and operational complexity and at the tempo required for demonstrating effectiveness--cannot be overemphasized. During our research we followed one carrier in which the workup was shortened by "only" two weeks, for reasons of economy. As a result, the ship was forced to complete its training during the middle of a difficult and demanding mid-ocean exercise; this placed an enormous strain on all hands. While the crew succeeded--the referees adapted compensating evaluation procedures--risks to ship's personnel and equipment were visibly higher. Moreover, officers and crew were openly unhappy with their own performance, with an attendant and continuing impact on morale.