F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

[Maus92]

USMC F-35Bs are only going to VL 10% of the time, or so they say ATM. This is mostly to save money on wear and tear on the aircraft's doors and swiveling parts, and to a lesser extent on fuel. They can also "save" money on fuel by cutting its predicted future cost assumptions by 10%....

Note: I had posted based on memory, and I had the savings parameters reversed...

[WhiteOvies]

When they're ashore I'm sure that's accurate.

Harriers don't (didn't, if in UK) land vertically all the time either. No doubt the USMC looked at their stats from Cherry Point and Yuma to come up with that figure. A short take-off and landing still uses the lift fan though, it's not just for VL.

[Just This Once...]

I'm not sure I understand the argument that not doing a VL saves fuel. The fuel flow during a VL is a lot lower than typical tactical cruise speeds and the time spent in this mode is pretty small.

[LowObservable]

To be correct, I think the Marine 10 per cent STOVL thing has more to do with O&S costs than fuel burn. The lift system is expensive (the B costs $13 million more than the A, URF in 2012 dollars, average across production) and cycles twice per STOVL operation, and some parts (the clutch for instance) have life limits shorter than the engine overhaul cycle.

[Lowe Flieger]

Am I right in thinking that there has yet to be a definitive statement on what the cause of the engine fire was....

Found this news item from a Hartford newspaper which suggests the root cause has not been isolated yet, but P&W expect to announce a fix by the end of October. The USMC's IOC will not be adversely affected by the problem, apparently.

I'm sure someone will post if they have seen or know anything different.

LF


Pratt & Whitney Says F-35 Will Be Combat Ready In July - Hartford Courant (http://www.courant.com/business/hc-f-35-pratt-whitney-engine-fix-20140925-story.html)

[Maus92]

Reuters published an interview yesterday with NAVAIR's RADM Harrah, excerpted below:

"“We’re going as fast as we can possibly go to ensure that we
get that done quickly, but not so fast that we mess up some
critical aspect of this,” Darrah said in an interview on
Wednesday.

“It’s just a matter of ensuring that we do the right thing,”
he said. “This is an engine that needs to perform properly
throughout its entire life cycle.”

Darrah said he had never seen the underlying technical issue
- which involved excessive rubbing of two parts in the F135
engine that led to chemical changes in their composition – but
remained confident that it could ultimately be resolved.""

Note the part about the technical issue [chemical changes in the blade due to excess heating] never being experienced before.

"Darrah, who previously held leadership roles on the F-35
program and the Boeing F/A-18 program, said any new aircraft
engine faced technical challenges, but this incident was
different given the scale of the program – which will be used by
three U.S. military services – and the huge size of the motor,
the most powerful U.S. fighter engine ever built.

He said the companies and military officials involved had
worked closely together to tackle the engine issue. “This is an
all-hands-on-deck effort.”"

"Joe DellaVedova, spokesman for the F-35 program office, had
no immediate comment on when the analysis of the root cause of
the incident, and the proposed solution, would be completed, but
said officials were getting closer.

“We’re nearing the end of that process,” DellaVedova said."

U.S. Navy underscores need for 'lasting fix' for F-35 engine issue | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/09/lockheed-fighter-engine-idUSL2N0S41NW20141009?feedType=RSS&feedName=everything&virtualBrandChannel=11563)

Darrah's tone makes the problem with the F135 appear more serious than originally reported - and downplayed - by Pentagon acquisition, program, and contractor leadership - certainly not an "one-off" incident. Officials were predicting a root cause to be determined by the end of September... and that timeframe was later than initially predicted after the accident.

The investigation is beginning to be uncomfortably long in duration....

[NITRO104]

...the root cause has not been isolated yet, but P&W expect to announce a fix by the end of October.
Sounds like a broad spectrum antibiotics treatment vs. a specific illness.
Engine doctors forgot Hippocratic Oath?

[Hempy]

Is there any truth to the persistant and repetitive rumour that the F135 has critical design flaws? The silence is deafening tbh.

[Courtney Mil]

I think this could be classed as a serious design flaw.

[Fat Magpie]

F35 cockpit

https://twitter.com/CustodioRubens/status/520649306035216384/photo/1

[LowObservable]

No photos of AF-27 have been released either. "John Hurt in Alien", is one description.

[Hempy]

Courtney. I appreciate the issue is serious, but I use 'critical' in its literal sense. Rumour is that its back to the drawing board...the original one! If true, this whole program becomes the biggest white elephant in military history.

LO. No, and the 'silence' there is deafening too. The only comment I've read came from Bogdan..."it was quite a blaze"..

[CoffmanStarter]

Time to wheel out the PR Machine ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIysfTA3XDo

[lmgaylard]

This looks like the F-35A 'mock-up' which does the PR rounds.
Thank you for the link.

[Heathrow Harry]

"remained confident that it could ultimately be resolved.""

doesn't ultimately = very , very expensively in this usage???

[LowObservable]

In the case of the F100, "ultimately" meant "after four years and umpteen failed fixes, with an F110-shaped shotgun to their heads."

[Two's in]

The 2 "solutions" to the F-135 problem are to (a), bed in the abradable seals i.e. in a tightly controlled operating environment - which implies operating limitations until bedded in, and (b), pre-cutting wear channels in the abradable seals - which seems to negate the entire point of an abradable seal. The root cause still lies in determining if the core shaft flex (due to inertial and gyroscopic forces) will cause a reoccurence of the friction and excessive heat during "normal" operations and manoevers.

Just how much material can you remove during weight saving measures and still maintain the required rigidity of the design? I'm sure someone at PW is pondering that question. The way to get it out of spotlight and get to IOC would of course be to impose a restricted operating regime that avoids the engine problem all together but creates an artifically benign operating environment. I'm sure no-one would even consider that.

[John Farley]

Good points Two's in

In the early days of the Harrier/Pegasus combination we had fan rubs following very high pitch rate manoeuvres. The pitch rates (and so gyroscopic forces) involved were way beyond the envelope then used for designing engines and were achieved during low speed combat manoeuvres made possible by using the reaction controls. The engine men sorted it as a normal part of the aircraft/engine development programme.

The other similar development issue was that the USMC used the nozzle lever at high IAS to destroy the enemies aiming solution. This raised much higher stresses in the nozzle actuation system than was expected as they had only been designed for up to 250kt IAS.

Easy – tell them not to do it said the designers.

Rubbish said the company pilots because if it helps pilots to achieve their task pilots will do it (whatever it is). So we strengthened things to allow them to go to reverse thrust at reasonably high speeds and made the actuator stall at about 40deg nozzle at silly speeds. After this initial nozzle deflection killed the speed a tad the actuator unstalled and the nozzles went all the way.

So I wonder if the rub that caused the fire resulted from a manoeuvre inside or outside the engine design spec and so will the accountants I guess.

As for the manoeuvre itself, if it turns out that the aerodynamics can hand out more than was expected that will be very good news for operators in the longer term. However in the end the engine men will have to tolerate what the airframe can do.

[Courtney Mil]

Very big engine. G(z) airframe and mass items limits already reduced. Production already going ahead whilst testing still has a long way to go. Carrying known faults. Customers over a barrel. Project Office with too much to lose and defensive of the project. Customers with shrinking budgets vs increasing unit and support costs. Over-reliance on narrow-band stealth. Range, payload and performance compromises to achieve STORVL capability. Uncertainty about ioc dates and capabilities.

Well, the list could go on, but as someone that really wanted this to work, I'm seeing this program in a very dark place. I don't doubt the amazing technological advances et al, but this not looking good. Too big to fail? Yes. Concurrent design/testing/building has too many people locked in.

The obvious lack of openness and updates on the engine failure is seriously turning me off this programme. Yes, I've seen all the parallels with other plants.

Right now I think we'll eventually end up with a platform that does stuff, but I think we're in danger of not having a great one. And not many of them. Disappointing, worrying and uncertain times.

Sorry guys, I'm very worried now.

EDIT. No, John Farley, the operators may have to tolerate what the engine can stand. But I admire your glass half full approach.

[Wander00]

I do hope I am proved wrong, but I have a feeling in my water it will all end in tears, and squillions of £, $, €, will have been expended for no useful result. Then what..................

[RetiredF4]

There is no backup plan?
Then the title of the threat gets interesting.

[Turbine D]

Original quote by CM: I think this could be classed as a serious design flaw.
It is. It is not a matter of cutting seals deeper, wider or breaking the engine seals in at the expense of minimizing the flight envelope. It is a basic architectural problem with the engine and one that is not easily solved as I have said before. The problem is known as out of round instability. If a seal is subjected to a rub over an arc, the resulting heating will have a tendency to make the seal member go out of round. So the basic support structure of the seal must be stiff enough in circumferential bending to restrict the out of roundness to a very small value. If it is not capable of doing this, then the rub will get worse to the point where the seals become unstable and usually result in a thermal runaway failure. Sound familiar? Corrections involve adding weight at one or more locations to increase stiffness, something I am sure the customer will resist or not like. What to do, what to do…

Right now I think we'll eventually end up with a platform that does stuff, but I think we're in danger of not having a great one.
The whole idea of the F110 engine was to give the customer (the pilot) an engine which he/she could then fly the aircraft to the limits and not the engine to some constraining limits. I think there was success in this endeavor.

[Lowe Flieger]

..So I wonder if the rub that caused the fire resulted from a manoeuvre inside or outside the engine design spec and so will the accountants I guess...

According to a 16 September article in The Washington Post, Air Force Lt. Gen. Bogdan was quoted as commenting: "..the F-35 had been through a series of maneuvers that were aggressive but all within the plane’s capability"

“That’s why we’re worried, if it were outside the envelope we’d say just don’t fly there but it was inside the envelope, so that’s why we have to fix it.”

LF

[t43562]

FWIW (not very much) in the software industry people have this kind of problem all the time. A developer can't offer sensible, achievable features because they wouldn't get the contract. So they have to be bull****ters to make a sale.

There's some finite time or amount of money available so there has to be some invented "reason" or other for ignoring experience about how long things take or how much they cost. In software the current "reason for ignoring experience" is agile development which, sort of ironically, is about how to cut features to fit time and budget. Nobody actually does it properly because their contract specifications would not be met. Contracts are written at the beginning of a project when everyone knows the least about how feasible each feature is.

Ultimately it's all an excuse for coping with human problems of trying to decide what you want before you understand all the problems fully and not being prepared to pay a reasonable price for a reasonable outcome. To get the money, magic must be promised.

[Hempy]

t43562, surely you aren't suggesting the Contractors invovled in the F-35 program made promises to meet customer targets that they knew were improbable at best, are you? :=

There are already inunerable Contract Variation Proposals to sort through, irrespective of the engine issue. I see this all ending up in a court room tbh.

[Courtney Mil]

I take those points about promising "magic", but I do think P&W thought they could (hopefully still can) do it. It wouldn't have been good for them or anyone else if things were otherwise. That, of course, doesn't make the issue any less grave. As t43562 says, this will doubless be a significant redesign, which could involve some effect on the whole platform.

It was always a 'big ask' (sorry, I don't like that expression either), but that's how boundariesare pushed. One of the consequences of this concurrent development is that so many aspects of this program are now stalled.

There is no plan B, so this had better work. I always understood and was disappointed by the spec of this thing. My hopes for the final product are not high anymore.

[John Farley]

I am not so pessimistic as some here for two reasons.

Firstly the likely length of the programme (in my view 60 years starting in 2000) and secondly the fact that the operators (all of them) have so much to learn about how to use the gradually emerging operational systems (surely more capable and complex than with any other new single seat aircraft) that to have a restricted manoeuvre envelope (even for a few years) while the engine is sorted is actually not a problem so far as the guys in the crew rooms are concerned.

I do realise that the politics, the finances, the sales and the PR aspects will have their own very serious issues about all this (and doubtless other engineering problems that could well appear later!) but I would still love to be in an F-35 crew room while it is all gradually sorted, because I would have plenty of super stuff to do.

[Courtney Mil]

Depends on the restrictions, John. In the air-to-air (defensive or offensive) performance (speed, manoeuvre, altitude, etc.) is vital. We've already seen significant reductions in some of these; more could seriously degrade effectiveness and survivability.

I'd love to feel as up-beat and confident about it as you clearly do. Yes, there will be lots of toys to play with, but the toys aren't much use if the performance is further limited.

[Maus92]

LowObservable wrote:
"No photos of AF-27 have been released either. "John Hurt in Alien", is one description."

It's a wonder why some intrepid reporter hasn't filed a FOIA request....

[Hempy]

They'll be fine as long as no bogeys penetrate the AMRAAM/Meteor* screen...

[PhilipG]

I would be confident that the F35 would be up for a 60 year life cycle if the main structure and propulsion units of the project were up to it.

Yes it can be argued that Moore's Law about the power of computers gives the F35 wonderful opportunities to do fantastic things in the next decades.

The ability to do these wonderful things in future decades requires that the stress problems in the B version and serious engine problems in all the versions and as yet uncertified software all get sorted out rather quickly.

I sadly rather doubt that the present apparent problems will be sorted out in time for the USMC to declare IOC in May 2015, what this means for the Royal Navy's aircraft carriers is of course a completely other matter.

[t43562]

I don't want to suggest that engineers/software developers knowingly mis-sell things to customers. It's sort of true and sort of not.

Organisations have all sorts of people in them with differing knowledge and attitudes and motivations. Engineers in one discipline may have faint understanding of the issues facing those in some other group but quit often they don't really get it. People who aren't actually doing the work generally have no idea - always relying on summaries from the do-ers.

In all new work (or just new to the people doing it) optimism/realism plays a role. You ask someone "can you do this" and they look at it and say "sure". If we had no optimism we'd never tackle anything new. People with experience also have caveats and qualifications but they are complicated - e.g. "we should be able do do something like this but it's not been done quite this way before so you can't be totally sure that there will be no problems." Imagine now that there are hundreds of people giving estimates and judgements that form the overall picture.

The management, who are often the people who found they were not good at technical things, are not equipped to sum all of this up into a final summary of probabilities and risk. Plus they are under pressure to assume the best rather than the worst so that they can make a favourable offer.

Even at a low level, managers are under pressure to present a good picture to their bosses and so on up the chain.

[Courtney Mil]

T43562' "It's sort of true and sort of not." Good point, well made.

Hempy, stopping the bad guys penetrating the AMRAAM screen requires energy manoeuvrability. Performance restrictions do not help. And that's one of my biggest concerns about this platform, especially if they impose further limitations on performance. I'm not talking about post-BVR here, just the long range stuff.

[Courtney Mil]

Ooh, a thought that occurred during a sunny lunchtime aperitif. I think it's time for Sharkey to write one of his "papers" explaining how the FAA is deliberately screwing over the RAF by insisting on this over-priced, under-performing platform, just so the Navy can have some fixed-wing assets on their carriers. D'you think he will?

[Heathrow Harry]

F4 wrote

"There is no backup plan?
Then the title of the threat gets interesting"

Given the performance of our Lords & masters over the Scottish referendum I am willing to be serious money that there is no backup plan whatsoever

the policos think process is probably:-

1. It may be alright on the night

2. all military stuff drifts to the right

3. It delays actually having to order it in large ££££££££

4. We'll probably be out of office when the brown stuff hits the fan and we can use it to attack the other parties

5. We can always claim we can get EVEN more cheaper helicopters on board without all those nasty, expensive American jets

6. Blame the Yanks and dig up Skybolt, the N bomb debacle in '45 etc etc

[Lowe Flieger]

A report from Defense News. It states that a root cause of the June engine failure has been identified and a deal has been struck for the modification, as well as costings for LRIP 7:


Pentagon, Pratt Cut Deal for F-35 Engines, Modifications | Defense News | defensenews.com (http://www.defensenews.com/article/20141015/DEFREG02/310150036/Pentagon-Pratt-Cut-Deal-F-35-Engines-Modifications)

It isn't clear to me from this article how (if) P&W are shouldering some of the cost. It's possible the funding they are to receive includes an offset for their contribution but I can't see that the report actually says that.

LF

[hawkeye]

We give £20 billion a year to the EU and £12 billion in Overseas Aid. £32 billion a year would pay for Rolls Royce defence. £20 billion would be enough.

[Maus92]

The "root cause" that the program office and P&W stated in their joint press release is nothing more than what they previously stated, which was that a blade(s) rubbed, they overheated, and eventually shattered - with fragments penetrating the fuel tank and causing a fire. They have NOT officially stated what caused the rubbing in the first place, so it seems to me that the "root cause" has not been determined, or at least released as public information. As far as P&W paying for the fix (or more likely mitigation) seems doable, considering that each F135 in the latest contract costs ~$18.8M each, plus another $7.3M each for sustainment. Of course the lawyer in me would also be asking for damages, specifically the cost of replacing a $120M airframe.

[Archimedes]

Ooh, a thought that occurred during a sunny lunchtime aperitif. I think it's time for Sharkey to write one of his "papers" explaining how the FAA is deliberately screwing over the RAF by insisting on this over-priced, under-performing platform, just so the Navy can have some fixed-wing assets on their carriers. D'you think he will?


CM - Sharkey's argument (into which he enlisted the late Admiral Woodward in a bid to add credibility to his writings) is that the RAF is screwing over the RN by insisting on having STOVL F-35s rather than the F-35C...

To avoid detracting from the subject of this thread, I'll not go into the detail behind it, but in essence Sharkey is of the view that if the F-35C had been purchased, getting rid of the RAF [a clear necessity in Sharkey's World] would be terribly simple, which is why the light blue fought for the F-35B and managed, yet again, to con the government... So you may be waiting some time.

[Courtney Mil]

Still signing contracts for the next batch even with no fix for THE engine. My God, the contractors have everyone over a barrel with this concurrent development bollocks. How could we ever have signed up to this?

[Courtney Mil]

Archimedes, nice rant, but you clearly don't understand sarcasm. Sorry if I misled you. Think of it this way, it would be unthinkable for the bearded tw@t to write such a paper. It would quite the opposite of his position. Could I really expect such irony?

[Darren_P]

Everybody relax about the engine issue. Lockheed Martin are coming to the rescue....

Compact fusion reactors (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/15/us-lockheed-fusion-idUSKCN0I41EM20141015)

[Courtney Mil]

could be ready for use in a decade.

Quicker than waiting to P&W to fix the F135?

[LowObservable]

If their fusion reactor works as well as the F135, it's probably a good time to dump any property you might own in Palmdale, 20 miles around it and 1000 miles downwind.

[Courtney Mil]

Is this a new idea? I took an interest in a program like this a while ago...

A real nuclear bomber (http://www.projectoceanvision.com/vox-06.htm#Tu-119)

[rh200]

One wonders if theres a real break though. Considering the implications if true, and the size of the company and tie in connections with the government, you would expect they would have no shortage of backers. The amount of money that could be expected to be gained from cornering the market is huge.

Mind you if its not wind or sun I suppose Barrys not interested. I think its the usual press release to get some interest and investment along lines of some pet research.

[Archimedes]

Archimedes, nice rant, but you clearly don't understand sarcasm. Sorry if I misled you. Think of it this way, it would be unthinkable for the bearded tw@t to write such a paper. It would quite the opposite of his position. Could I really expect such irony?

Ah. I was being ironic about your irony (I thought it was irony rather than sarcasm). Perhaps I was a little too dead-pan.

I do understand sarcasm, as several generations of Staff College students (some of whom are PPruners) who have read my Loose Minutes on their work can testify... ;)

[Courtney Mil]

Fusion? Really. We've been promised this for decades. And it was always a decade away. We can't even build huge great fusion reactors for power generation yet. Well, if you're willing to put more energy in than you get out, maybe. Or use fusion as a secondary reaction in a weapon.

Looking forward to the Fusion Refueling Point in the local gas station.

[Courtney Mil]

Archimedes,

I did wonder after I posted. Sorry.

[Archimedes]

Oh, no apology required, CM.

My comment was based upon my admiration at the way you'd crafted a scenario which is the exact opposite of his actual views.

[Courtney Mil]

Thank you. :ok:

[Hempy]

If their fusion reactor works as well as the F135, it's probably a good time to dump any property you might own in Palmdale, 20 miles around it and 1000 miles downwind.

Oh how I laughed!! Bravo :D

[gr4techie]

I was looking at protective cases for the iPhone 6, earlier.

One case had a sticker saying "made to military spec" or "military stds".

That isn't a good thing.

Will the case be trillions over my budget, 7 years late and arrive with flaws?

[Courtney Mil]

Yes, all the above, but it will be safe in the bottom of an active volcanoes filled with sulphuric acid. All the qualities you may never need.

[Snafu351]

A question if i may.
Please excuse my simplistic view.

Why do the Marines need a STOVL, supersonic, stealth platform to perform ground support missions?
STOVL on it's own, yes i can see that.
Supersonic and stealth together, yes good utility.
All three together? In what situation could STOVL, stealth and supersonic all be of utility?
Please note i am are talking of the US Marines and their doctrine here. The RN or other small niche operators are not relevant.

If you can use STOVL to be close to the front line the chances that the opposition have kit that makes stealth and supersonic capability necessary are low to zero. So why do you need them?

If you need stealth and supersonic capability the likelyhood is the opposition have kit that makes STOVL capability pointless, so why is it needed?

If you need to perform missions that require stealth and supersonic capability due to the oppositions capability a CVN is going to be there so those missions can be undertaken by the aircraft on the CVN.

QED: The aircraft on the LHA/LHD do not need to be STOVL, stealth and supersonic.

Am i over simplfying this and if so would it be too much to ask for a reasoned explanation?

[sandiego89]

A question if i may.
Please excuse my simplistic view.

Why do the Marines need a STOVL, supersonic, stealth platform to perform ground support missions?
STOVL on it's own, yes i can see that.
Supersonic and stealth together, yes good utility.
All three together? In what situation could STOVL, stealth and supersonic all be of utility?
Please note i am are talking of the US Marines and their doctrine here. The RN or other small niche operators are not relevant.

If you can use STOVL to be close to the front line the chances that the opposition have kit that makes stealth and supersonic capability necessary are low to zero. So why do you need them?

If you need stealth and supersonic capability the likelyhood is the opposition have kit that makes STOVL capability pointless, so why is it needed?

If you need to perform missions that require stealth and supersonic capability due to the oppositions capability a CVN is going to be there so those missions can be undertaken by the aircraft on the CVN.

QED: The aircraft on the LHA/LHD do not need to be STOVL, stealth and supersonic.

Am i over simplfying this and if so would it be too much to ask for a reasoned explanation?

Beacuse they desired one airframe to do it all. "First day of war" when supersonic & stealth is needed- kick the door down. Then after air superiority is achieved you can revert to normal mud moving and close support the MAG is designed for. V/STOL desired at all times so you can operate from LHA/LHD and forward strips- does not require carriers or land bases.

The USMC wanted to be relevant in all aspects of a peer or near-peer conflict, and eventually replace the F-18 and AV-8B.

[LowObservable]

To be accurate, what the Marines originally wanted was a Harrier replacement that could take care of itself against a low-grade air threat, with teen-series-like agility and acceleration and the Mach that fell out of that performance. That was basically the RN requirement as well.

However, the Marines were then told that they could have all that and stealth and that it would cost them less, because the same airplane would be adapted as an F-16 replacement for the Air Force, which would pay for the development and provide the bulk of production orders.

Then big Navy was roped in, because funding this project meant that big Navy's own stealth project had to be cancelled.

But it was still going to be cheap because "salagadoola mechika boola bibbedy bobbedy :mad:ing boo", aka "cost as an independent variable".

[Snafu351]

Desiring one airframe to do it all doesn't sound like a particularly rigourous or assessment based approach to defining requirements.
Neither does it expalin why the Marines needed or need to be relevant in all aspects of a peer to peer conflict.
Using that logic ultimately arrives at there being no need for an army or air force as the Marines can fulfil those roles.

[Heathrow Harry]

that IS the marines view..........

TBH they have to try and keep up with the others - if they don't their relevance lapses and they will gradually wither away (not before time from a lot of people's view)

[LowObservable]

And when that original requirement was written, the Marines expected to be pinning down a few Soviet units in Norway, on the grounds that the aforementioned Commies would then be absent from the Fulda Gap. ASTOVL was, in that scenario, the follow-on to AV-8B Plus/AIM-120 combo.

[Lonewolf_50]

SNAFU, the Goldwater Nichols Act, and a lot of other "Joint/Purple" rules written into law by Congress defy the kind of clear analytical requirements crafting that can be done under the assumptions embedded in your questions.
Welcom to the actual world, where all is not rational.

The aforementioned rules were written with an eye toward:
Interoperability
Cost saving
and
"make sure enough districts get a contract so that we all get re-elected."

The cost saving goal, as you can see, has been a myth since about 1984 (86?) when Goldwater Nichols was written, and not just on this program.
Yet the rules remain.

Before I get all wound up, I'll stop.

[ORAC]

AW&ST: Australia Mulls F-35Bs For Its New Assault Ships (http://awin.aviationweek.com/ArticlesStory.aspx?id=4a8b94d5-eb7f-4aac-8408-a1417bbfd80d)

BAE Systems has handed over the first of Australia’s two new assault ships as the government considers whether to equip the vessels with a squadron of Lockheed Martin F‑35B Lightnings.

The move would reintroduce fixed-wing combat aircraft to Australian naval service after a gap of more than 30 years. However, it lacks backing from the three armed services and looks difficult to justify, even as the government shows a willingness to boost the defense forces with more Boeing C-17 airlifters and Airbus KC-30 tankers.

The first of the new flat-topped assault ships will be commissioned into the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) this year as HMAS Canberra. The second ship, the future HMAS Adelaide, is due to run contractor sea trials in the second quarter of next year ahead of delivery in the third quarter, says prime contractor BAE Systems........

Prime Minister Tony Abbott has told the defense department to consider F-35Bs, says an adviser to the government on defense policy. Indeed, Abbott appears to have personally proposed the idea ahead of the publication of a defense white paper next year. Japan is facing a similar decision as it proceeds with plans for at least one air-capable assault ship (AW&ST Aug. 19, p. 32).

“Matters of this kind will be considered in the context of the 2015 Defense White Paper,” says the defense department, declining to elaborate on its considerations. Defense Minister David Johnston said in May that the order was a possibility. Australia is considering establishing two F-35B squadrons, says analyst Ben Schreer of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, adding that probably 18-24 aircraft would be needed. Including modifications to the ships, the cost would exceed AUS$5 billion ($4.4 billion).

Neither the RAN, Australian Army nor, least of all, Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) is publicly supporting the idea. For the RAAF, the purchase could put an end to its long-term hopes of acquiring 28 F-35As to add to 72 already approved..........

[LowObservable]

That idea makes less sense than a gumtree full of shickered koalas.

[Bastardeux]

Interesting opinion on the matter in the Times, this morning.

Anyone else question the IOC by 2018 actually being reality?

Joint Stuck Fighter | The Times (http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/leaders/article4250848.ece)

[BEagle]

Bastardeux, unfortunately your link is largely blocked by the Dirty Digger's paywall......:mad:

[Heathrow Harry]

If you can't convince the Murdoch Press..................... (mind they didn't mention that the B version was needed for the UK Carriers)

I see the F-35 as the easiest target for cost cutting in summer 2015 whoever is in power

[Lonewolf_50]

Harry:
This thread on "F-35 Cancelled, then what?" started about four and a half years ago. `
It still isn't cancelled.

Perspective:
in about the same amount of time, the UK went from outrage that Poland had been invaded, through the Blitz, Victory at El Alemain, and were working their up the boot of Italy (and on the other side of the world, back on the offensive against the Japanese in the CBI theatre) .

Numerous versions of Spits, Hurricaines, and other aircraft had been produced since then. P-51 was becoming the better version of itself as well.

Aircraft acquisition and certification, as well as IOC, has sure come a cropper in the modern age. :ugh:

[A2QFI]

It may not be cancelled but it isn't in service anywhere either SFAIK

[RAFEngO74to09]

A2QFI,

The F-35B has been in service with USMC VMFA-121 at MCAS Yuma for almost 2 years !

https://www.f35.com/media/videos-detail/first-f-35b-delivery-to-mcas-yuma

VMFA-121 expects to declare IOC in July 2015.

https://marinecorpsconceptsandprograms.com/programs/aviation/joint-strike-fighter-jsf

[LowObservable]

Yes - about that....

Pentagon Acquisition Chief Doubts UMSC?s July F-35 IOC Target | Defense content from Aviation Week (http://aviationweek.com/defense/pentagon-acquisition-chief-doubts-umsc-s-july-f-35-ioc-target)

[Courtney Mil]

RAFEngO74to09,

"In service"? Three years before likely IOC? And all that PR bollocks by McCain and the heads of LM? Even by this thread's standards, this has got to be a new low.

Some wonderful lines in the first vid:

Yet another milestone

The very best fighter in the world today

Very committed to our customer and to out international partners around the world

...to deliver these airplanes on schedule and on budget

Well we should all believe that old tripe. And great news regarding the unit cost from The Telegraph yesterday:

Lockheed Martin would not give details of the cost of each aircraft until the contract is finalised

Let's hope the UK signs up to that deal!

[Lonewolf_50]

RAFEngo:

The acid test will be when the USMC actually deploys a det, or a squadron, of F-35B's. I am not sure they are ready to do that yet.

We'll see how things go in the coming year.

[Courtney Mil]

Indeed, LoneWolf.

[GreenKnight121]

From the Avweek article:
Marine IOC includes the first squadron, VMFA-121, with 10-16 F-35Bs and enough trained pilots and maintenance officials to deploy for war.

The first F-35B unit is slated for its initial deployment in 2017 to Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni, Japan.

[LowObservable]

Lots of things are scheduled to happen in F-35-land. Doesn't mean they happen on time.

[TBM-Legend]

Even the so-called mighty Typhoon has taken three phases to get up to full speed over many, many years...and still not all weapons are qualified:hmm:

[PhilipG]

I think it is true to say that the development of both the Typhoon and Rafale for that matter, has been delayed many times due to political or financial reasons. The F35 project, as one of the, if not the highest priority Pentagon projects, that has basically had money thrown at it.
I feel that comparing the development programs only makes the F35 more out on a limb.

[Turbine D]

Excerpts from an article in the WSJ:

Oct. 29, 2014 8:09 p.m. ET
The Air Force says the U.S. bombing campaign against Islamic extremists is exacerbating its shortage of plane-maintenance experts—a gap that is rekindling tensions with Congress about how to manage the nation’s combat aircraft.

To keep U.S. planes flying over Syria and Iraq, Air Force officials said they have had to deploy hundreds of midlevel maintenance personnel to the overseas missions.

The development has forced officials to block a planned transfer of maintenance staff from other aircraft to the military’s newest plane, the F-35, officials said. That means a possible delay in the deployment of the new-generation fighter jet so older planes can keep flying at a high tempo.

The Air Force has said it intends to declare the F-35 operational in 2016. But the shortage of maintenance experts could push back that target by two years or more, officials say.

The Air Force had planned to move a squadron of older F-15s to the Air National Guard, freeing up 350 maintenance experts to join the F-35 program.

The Air Force also must now devote a larger portion of its maintenance force to the older A-10 “Warthog” fleet. Officials had planned to retire the A-10s and retrain experienced maintenance staff to work on the F-35s. But Congress blocked retirement of the A-10 last year, and both the House and Senate have readied measures requiring the Air Force to keep flying the A-10s.

[LowObservable]

The fact that the magic diagnostics/logistics system is not working can't help with the maintenance training pipeline, and may have as much to do with the delays as the retention of the A-10s - almost half of which are Guard/Reserve anyway.

[WillowRun 6-3]

I have to wonder, given the predominant political narrative in the mass media at least in the US - to the effect that military service and the Armed Forces generally are passe, past their points of relevance - when the turning point will arrive. Sooner or later the voting public has to awaken to the fact that if the US and similar, allied or mostly-allied countries, want to have the freedom and flexibility to keep our systems and overall way of life without undue burdens imposed by countries with diametrically different systems, we simply will have to devote more funds and people to national defense. So many degreed college grads without jobs...hmm, I wonder what the Armed Forces would do with a bunch of low-wage, needing-experience, reasonably well-prepared civilian cadres, available to free more highly trained and useful enlisted personnel for more technical roles and assignments? I know, before you pour invective and derision on this point of view, that no mechanism presently exists to require, or enable, such a civilian cadre to be pressed into service. But if there are staff shortages, and unemployed yet highly educated (even if such educations contain loads of useless crud) young people, what is so mysterious about getting from point A to point C?

[Courtney Mil]

Oh, Willow. You want some invective? Naaa! I think a lot of people are starting to think that way. I don't, but that's just me. Ultimately, the voting public should have what they want, whatever that may be. Ultimately, the voting public usually gets what our politicians want, whatever that may be.

There is a case for pulling up the draw bridge and only doing national defence, the polis seem to think they need to put themselves about a bit too.

[Typhoon93]

Turbine D, how long does it take for the US Air Force to make the individual weapon systems operational for the aircraft?

The RAF has had the Eurofighter now for around 10 years I believe, I saw it on its first display year in 2005 and fell in love with it - hence my username. Anyway, it wasn't until around 2010-11 that it took over from the Tornado F3 to protect UK airspace and it deployed to Libya for its first active deployment.... and it's still not even close to being as good as the old Tornado GR4 for ground attack roles. The aircraft still isn't fully operational (no Brimstone, no Storm Shadow and I don't think it has the Paveway IV yet) so if the USAF is anything like the RAF, how do they expect to have the F-35 operational by 2016, whether they have aircraft techies to hand or not?

[SpazSinbad]

Some recent noise about the old discussion on noise in this thread:

31 Oct -Noise testing on the F-35A and F-35B
"The F-35 Joint Program Office, in partnership with the Air Force Research Laboratory, conducted noise testing on the F-35A and F-35B in 2013, using production..."

http://www.jsf.mil/news/docs/20141031_F-35_Noise_Executive_Summary.pdf (324Kb)

[Turbine D]

Typhoon93:
My personal opinions:
IOC for the USAF version of the F-35 in 2016 is a pipe dream. Call it development in progress. The USAF brass are trying to find a way to present a delay of IOC to the US Congress to preserve both funding and aircraft levels that were predicated by the 2016 IOC date. Actually, they will be seeking additional funding for the F-35. Blaming the high usage of older aircraft leading to a shortage of mechanics is a clever way to disguise current problems and additional ones that will crop up as time goes on with the current F-35 and new ones to come. IOC declared before most systems (offense & defense) are in place and fully operational is risky business for the pilots in real combat situations should they occur. Think 2020 as the year that most systems function (some will not) on the USAF F-35s and that's not to say the entire aircraft functions at all as originally promised.

[Typhoon93]

Thanks TD.

[ORAC]

Aw&ST: New Strategy Would Cut F-35s, Boost Bombers and UAVs (http://aviationweek.com/defense/new-strategy-would-cut-f-35s-boost-bombers-and-uavs)

Today’s U.S. power-projection forces, and those currently planned for the future, will not be able to operate effectively or efficiently against anti-access/area-denial (A2AD) weapons and doctrine being developed by China and other adversaries, according to a new report by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) that details a new approach to defense strategy known as Third Offset.

Instead, the Pentagon should immediately refocus its development efforts on a global surveillance and strike (GSS) system based on long-range, very stealthy aircraft—including the Long-Range Strike Bomber (LRS-B) and a new family of unmanned combat air systems (UCAS)—and submarines. Tactical fighter, surface combatant and heavy land-force programs should be cut back, the report suggests, to pay the bills and rebalance the force.

The CSBA report carries far more weight than usual because it was drafted under the leadership of deputy defense secretary Robert Work (AW&ST March 31, p. 20) and his senior advisers, according to a source directly involved in its production. It is intended to launch a detailed discussion of a major change in national strategy, inside and outside the Pentagon. Author Robert Martinage, a former senior Pentagon official, “can neither confirm nor deny” the extent of Work’s involvement, he tells Aviation Week.

The CSBA paper details the roles of new and existing systems in the Third Offset strategy. It recommends a larger role for the Long-Range Strike Bomber, suggesting that the program could be “accelerated and expanded.” Along with the B-2 and another proposed new weapon, a boost-glide missile launched from submarines, it is the only system able to deal with hard and deeply buried targets in a medium- to high-threat environment. According to the paper, too, it has a stand-in airborne electronic attack capability and can perform high-volume precision strike missions............

Funding the new N-UCAS and MQ-X could call for “reduction in manned tactical aviation force structure” across all services and “scaled-back procurement of all F-35 variants—including possible cancellation of the F-35C, replaced with advanced Super Hornets and eventually N-UCAS.” In July 2011, during Work’s tenure as deputy Navy secretary, he directed the service to study alternatives to the F-35B/C.

The limits on the effectiveness of fighters—including the “semi-stealthy” F-35, so described to discriminate it from the wide-band, all-aspect stealth technology of the UAVs and LRS-B—include survivability and their dependence on tankers, which are vulnerable and difficult to protect. Martinage concurs with Aviation Week’s assessment of the Chengdu J-20 as an offensive counter-air fighter aimed at tankers and other air assets. “With an extended-range air-to-air missile the J-20 can push the tanker 800-900 mi. back. [U.S.] fighters can’t even make it to the beach.”...........

[Hempy]

So either the F-35 is redundant before it even becomes operational, or they are simply trying to honourably withdraw from the mess via policy change.

Run away! Run away!

[rh200]

Even entertaining the thought for a moment that the F35 is canceled, there are a couple of problems.

The current generation of manned fighters is limited, and there always needs to be the sad evolutionary factor of having something else being developed to keep and edge.

The unmanned fighter thought is a bit far away in my book, and there is always the have all your eggs in one basket scenario. Imagine developing a whole fleet of unmanned fighters, only for your enemy to have a way of disabling the remote control systems. Imagine if you didn't know about it until the most inconvenient time!

[SpazSinbad]

The USMC can always make use of your empty decks....

MARINE AVIATION PLAN 2015
LtGen Jon “Dog” Davis - Deputy Commandant for Aviation
"...DISTRIBUTED STOVL OPERATIONS

... - Scheduled aircraft maintenance conducted on sea base (LHA, LHD or a coalition carrier, such as the UK's Queen Elizabeth II) or at main base away from threat...."
https://marinecorpsconceptsandprograms.com/sites/default/files/files/2015%20Marine%20Aviation%20Plan.pdf (16.5Mb)

[Lonewolf_50]

Aw&ST: Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) ...........
At the risk of sounding like a Luddite and a raw contrarian, this pile of thinkers remind me of those silver bullet pinheads who were all agog over nuclear weapons as a way to reduce armed forces expenditures back in the 1950's.

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STVAM85y3i0&app=desktop


CF-03 is aboard!

[OTR1]

Cdr Tony Wilson at the wheel.

Nice work, folks. :D:ok:

[Not_a_boffin]

Shhhhh!

You'll upset people......

[SpazSinbad]

All the threes.... BZ!

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/1stArrestNIMITZ3wireF-35Ccf-03Forum.jpg~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/1stArrestNIMITZ3wireF-35Ccf-03Forum.jpg.html)

[SpazSinbad]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BOt0a_tGRg

[SpazSinbad]

On previous page there is a noisy story: http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/424953-f-35-cancelled-then-what-267.html#post8724438

Clarification on F-35 Noise 04 Nov 2014 AFA Mag'n
"F-35 Program Executive Officer Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan said an engine with the same decibel level of noise as another may be perceived as louder if the character of the noise has a higher or deeper pitched tone. During a press briefing on Oct. 30, Bogdan made an analogy to the F-4 Phantom (see F-35 Noise Good to Go). However, the F-35 engine noise study to which he referred did not compare the F-35’s sound to that of the F-4." Air Force Magazine (http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pages/2014/November%202014/November%2004%202014/Clarification-on-F-35-Noise.aspx)
&
ORIGINAL AFA story referenced above:

F-35 Noise “Good to Go” 31 Oct 2014 John A. Tirpak
"Studies of F-35 noise relative to legacy fighters will be released Friday, and will show that “on the ground, at full military power,” which is full power without afterburner, the F-35 is “actually quieter, by a little bit” than legacy aircraft such as the F-15, F/A-18, and F-16, F-35 Program Executive Officer Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan said Thursday. That means the F-35 is “good to go” for beddowns in the US, he said. This “real noise data” should dispel rumors that the F-35 will be much louder than its predecessors. Part of the reason is that the F-35 is “very sleek in its outer mold line, without a lot of drag,” Bogdan said. Using afterburner, however, the F-35 is considerably noisier than its predecessors, as it generates 43,000 pounds of thrust. Its noise will be on a par with the old F-4 Phantom, Bogdan reported. Although its character is different, the F-4 noise is deeper than that of the F-35, he said. The differences, however, may be hard to detect with the human ear, which cannot perceive differences of up to three decibels, he reported. The numbers were developed in 2013 and “validate” numbers developed in 2008 with an early, pre-production version of the F-35."
http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pages/2014/October%202014/October%2031%202014/F-35-Noise-“Good-to-Go”.aspx

[Courtney Mil]

Spaz, welcome back. Strangely abscent whilst there was no good news to peddle. Now you're over-doing it. I don't want you to strain yourself. I'm concerned about you.

Now, it would be easy to blow this deck landing into some huge celebration of of a wonderful achievement. Something done against all the odds. Not something it was designed to do and should have done a long time ago.

Celebrate, by all means - I do - but don't forget this is actually a recovery from another troubling failure, a delayed milestone, a late success. Fortunately, it is a success and I for one am pleased to see it. But let's not all get carried away with how wonderful it suddenly makes things. Slow progress now, please.

Sorry to interrupt your run of posts. I guess you have lost time to make up for.

Regards,

Courtney

[SpazSinbad]

Nothing personal - but - 'abscent' does not make the 'hart' grow fonder - fondeau perhaps. Weird how you get so personal CM but hypo-cry-cy is your forte.

[MSOCS]

Children, please....

[Typhoon93]

Is it just me, or did anybody else notice the irony in a 'stealth plane' being loud enough to be compared to a Phantom, while in full burner?

Unfortunately, I have never heard a Phantom, and I doubt I ever will, however I have heard that at full power, it hurt your ears even with ear protection. I don't know how true that is, but if it is true, then saying that it is a pretty loud aircraft is quite an understatement. So why is something so loud being implemented in to a stealth aircraft?

Also, how is the engine going to cope? How many maintenance hours will this engine need per flying hour (approximately)?

[Courtney Mil]

Nothing personal at all, Spaz. I simply want to keep the sudden spate of "ain't it so wonderful" posts in perspective. As I said, this is long-overdue recovery, not a marvellous achievement. But I'm still glad they finally fixed the hook. I hope they have.

[Courtney Mil]

Typhoon,

To be honest, I'm sure that noise output is that much of a stealth issue, although I take your point. It's been a long time since the Royal Observer Corps listened for aircraft.

Acoustic Radar. (http://www.douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/COMMS/ear/ear.htm)

The issue here is how much the MoD will have to pay for sound-proofing houses around its F-35 base(s) because of its noise footprint. That is why interested parties have been known to down-play certain noise footprints. Sadly, the report you may have seen does not fully address the criteria that inquiries setting "compensation boundaries" will wish to consider.

The F-4 was a noisy beast, but the F-3 in combat power was far more intrusive. Not immesdiately obvious from dBA graphs because of the way they are measured. In that case is was the higher frequencies in the noise from the F-3 that caused SOME of the problem.

It's not a simple issue. As ever.

[Typhoon93]

Thanks CM.

So, roughly how many Squadrons will be stood up for the F-35? How many more are due to be stood up for the E/Typhoon?

There has been lots of talk about the new Royal Navy carriers being capable of carrying 36 aircraft plus helicopters (I doubt there will be many helicopters?). Although with the enormous cost of each aircraft, and its maintenance, not to mention the cost to train personnel in their maintenance and operation, realistically, are we ever likely to see HMS Queen Elizabeth and her sister ship carrying 72 fast jets between them?

If this is the case, then how many other Squadrons would the RAF have for operating from airfields?

[sandiego89]

Typhoon93, final numbers for UK F-35B not fully decided. Original thoughts were about 130/113 in about 5 front line squadrons, plus training, spare and reserve aircraft.

14 ordered. Next term goal is 48 aircraft, the stated minimum to have 2 squadrons, a training element, test, maintenence, spares etc.

I think the final UK order will be above 48, but less than 120.

Load out between B's and helos on new carriers totally depends on the mission. For an air defense or just carrier strike mission you will have B heavy air wing (Kosovo). An Assault carrier mission, evacuation, ASW, etc helo heavy. Falklands II a mix. The scenario of both carriers with a full max load of B's is unlikely.

[Typhoon93]

Thanks SD89.

[Finningley Boy]

F-35 Noise “Good to Go” 31 Oct 2014 John A. Tirpak

Quote:
"Studies of F-35 noise relative to legacy fighters will be released Friday, and will show that “on the ground, at full military power,” which is full power without afterburner, the F-35 is “actually quieter, by a little bit” than legacy aircraft such as the F-15, F/A-18, and F-16, F-35 Program Executive Officer Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan said Thursday. That means the F-35 is “good to go” for beddowns in the US, he said. This “real noise data” should dispel rumors that the F-35 will be much louder than its predecessors. Part of the reason is that the F-35 is “very sleek in its outer mold line, without a lot of drag,” Bogdan said. Using afterburner, however, the F-35 is considerably noisier than its predecessors, as it generates 43,000 pounds of thrust. Its noise will be on a par with the old F-4 Phantom, Bogdan reported. Although its character is different, the F-4 noise is deeper than that of the F-35, he said. The differences, however, may be hard to detect with the human ear, which cannot perceive differences of up to three decibels, he reported. The numbers were developed in 2013 and “validate” numbers developed in 2008 with an early, pre-production version of the F-35."
Surely all the above mean quit mean comparisons. I'd have thought there might be significant difference in recorded data between the decibal output of an F-16 and an F-15 in dry power? Also, when comparing the F-35 to an F-4 in reheat, would it make much difference between the Spey engined and J79 engined variety? As I recall the former produced a rather more deep low frequency register while the latter had a more screachy roar like the Lightning, Sea Vixen, Hunter etc. I can't quite recall, but I understand the Javelin's Sapphires had quite a noticeable noise output.:8
FB:)

[melmothtw]

14 ordered

Not quite. 4 ordered (test/training), another 4 operational jets 'agreed in principle'. Once that 'agreed' deal is signed, that leaves a further 10 from the first batch (Main Gate 4) to be ordered to give you your 14 figure.

First 48 'committed to', of which first 4 have been agreed (see above). Final numbers to be revealved at SDSR15, with final bulk order in 2017 (Main Gate 5).


I think the final UK order will be above 48, but less than 120.

Agreed, though I think it might be split A/B buy rather than solely B.

[tucumseh]

however I have heard that at full power, it hurt your ears even with ear protection.

Noisy, but nothing compared to boss after wiring nose wheel steering pot the wrong way round. :uhoh:

[Typhoon93]

I think it might be split A/B buy rather than solely B

I think it's just the B variant. The RAF has made no mention on their website of purchasing either of the CTOL variants that I can see. I may be wrong.

[melmothtw]

I meant 'think' in the context of conversations I have had with government officials, programme officials, and serving military who are connected in some way shape or form with the programme. That, and the knowledge of the different variants that I have garnered during visits to the production facility in Texas and to the various military establishments that will house them in the US, rather than 'think' in the context of no knowledge and a cursory glance at the RAF's website.

[orca]

But actually you'd go for the C because it goes further and has a probe.

[melmothtw]

C does have a probe, but not much on the A in terms of range. Although it carries more fuel, it is bigger, heavier, and draggier to the extent that it only has about a 10 n mile radius of operation advantage over the A.

Canada looked at the option of using land-based Cs instead of the As (again, on the premise that its increased range was safer for Arctic ops), and ultimately decided against it.

Also, MoD officials have publicly briefed on a potential A/B mix.

With more and more aircraft types being bought without probes (C17, RC135, maybe P8) perhaps the F35A might be the tipping point for the MOD getting some booms on the Voyagers.

[orca]

MoD have only briefed an A/ B mix because the A is the 'Air Force jet'. It's a common theme. The Canadians also tried to put a probe on the A and were priced out it. If you think back to SDSR the C also managed to cancel DPOC because it fulfilled a range criterion that the A didn't. Not that SDSR should be held up as a totally sound bit of staff work.

[melmothtw]

The F-35A is indeed 'the air force jet', and it would be the RAF that would operate them. The C offers very little advantage over the A for land-based ops. Again, in terms of range the difference in radius-of-operations is about 10 n miles. The C is also less agile and more expensive.

I think the obstacles facing a B/C mix are as much political are they are performance based though. Having already decided once that we are going to buy it only to then go and change our minds, I can't see how the government (of whichever persuasion)/MoD can go back and reverse the decision they already reversed.

Still, it's all conjecture, which is why I qualified my initial post with "think" rather than "know". The point I was making to T93 was that there was some basis to my thought.

[orca]

I agree mate, we would look monumentally daft if it turned out we wanted a land based C. Then again, we look pretty daft already and for me it's the correct choice.

Still, good fun to punt the idea around between obviously well informed folk!

[Finningley Boy]

I've never heard a concise reason yet why the British Government went for through-deck carriers and the F-35B from the start. There has always been a suggestion that the R.A.F. were worried that angle deck carriers would be capable of carrying a wider range of types and therefore actively tried to influence favour toward the limiting B and through-deck, lest the attraction of plonking all fixed wing high performance aircraft on the carrier fleet took hold. I find this taking service rivalry too far, but it's a theory advanced by some!?:confused:

FB:)

[GreenKnight121]

Unlike many, I was paying attention back on 2000-2002, and the RAF was pushing for the STOVL variant as a Harrier replacement, for short-range CAS and damaged/improvised runway operations. The RN was also looking specifically for a Sea Harrier replacement, and had planned for ~30,000 ton carriers in the late 1990s - basically larger Invincibles.

This was at a time when a separate aircraft/system was envisioned to replace Tornado, so long range and/or heavy payload were not part of the calculation that led to selection of the F-35B on 30 September 2002. Additionally, it was only in 2002 that the RN formally declared that the size of the carriers had grown to >50,000 tons - not to immediately enable larger or catapult-launched aircraft, but to allow sufficient internal volume for more stores, future growth (see below), and to allow dual use as an LPH (thus having room for troops and their equipment/supplies). The size was also driven by the more efficient operations (including a higher sortie rate) the larger flight deck would enable.

The RN had only this to say about catapults:
The carriers, expected to remain in service for 50 years, will be convertible to CATOBAR operations for the generation of aircraft after the F-35 JCA.In other words, sometime after ~30 years of operation.


So:
1. Both services were looking for a direct Harrier/Sea Harrier replacement only.
2. The carriers were originally planned around STOVL operations, with a slow shift to allowing the possibility of future catapult operations only appearing late in the day - the RN had NOT been looking for a US-style attack carrier at all!

[Finningley Boy]

Greenknight121,

Of course, and I did know and understand all that at the time. However, damn my feeble memory, it has become cluttered with all the intervening nonsense about the F-35 becoming the one and only for everything and certain interested parties advancing the light blue conspiracy. Have to say, however, and I do understand that it was meant to be a cheap viable option, but nobody could have imagined it would turn out to be as expensive as it is, nor that it would become relied upon to replace everything except Transport and SAR.

FB:)

[tucumseh]

GK

The carriers were originally planned around STOVL operations, with a slow shift to allowing the possibility of future catapult operations only appearing late in the day - the RN had NOT been looking for a US-style attack carrier at all!

In MoD it is often difficult to pin down the decision making process. But I know that in April 2003 an ex-Carrier IPT chap came to work for us and he argued until blue in the face that converting to catapults was a "Nil Cost Modification". And this is what the IPT costings assumed. When asked if this was a nett cost (i.e. the cost would be offset by ditching lesser requirements, like aircraft) he said no. So, certainly at that time and for some period before, catapults was an option, but a poorly costed or understood one.

Let's be kind and say there was a variable degree of competence and experience. In December 2000 a similar level of derangement was evident when the IPT was recruiting for their FOAEW team (Sea King AEW Mk7 replacement). They didn't even grant any of the Mk7 team an interview for any post because AEW/Mk7 programme experience was "irrelevant to FOAEW". And you wonder why FOAEW and MASC didn't happen, and they're reinventing the wheel on Crowsnest?

[LowObservable]

GK - I just said much the same thing in an adjacent thread.

http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/550589-f35-c-first-deck-landing-2.html#post8729015

However, you add an important bit of context in that in 2000-02 the RAF still hoped for something else beyond Tornado, and nobody knew how to spell UCAV outside the US.

And to repeat a point I have made a few times on the question of F-35C for the RAF: Much of the F-35C's extra fuel comes from ditching the internal gun and its feed system, rather than from bigger wings. The greater span should improve aero efficiency subsonic but it is also 5500 lb heavier empty than the A. The RAF's best bet would be a no-gun F-35A with a probe, but when it costs $246 million for a brake chute one can only imagine...

[Not_a_boffin]

1. Both services were looking for a direct Harrier/Sea Harrier replacement only.
2. The carriers were originally planned around STOVL operations, with a slow shift to allowing the possibility of future catapult operations only appearing late in the day - the RN had NOT been looking for a US-style attack carrier at all!


This rather confuses the issue of ship size with operating mode and role which is not entirely valid.

It actually went something like this.

Back in the mid-90s the RN was having to think seriously about what capability to replace the CVS with - primarily because the ships would be 30 years old by the end of the noughties. That led to a wide variety of operational analysis studies that ranged from "Do nothing" (ie let the ships and SHAR retire without replacement), through an analogous "replacement in terms of capability" (a CVS-ish CAG and ship), all the way up to a 40 aircraft ship (heavy fixed-wing, light on rotary).

In parallel, the old Director Naval Architecture Future Projects team ( a couple of naval constructors) developed some concept designs based on these OA options, from a 15a/c pure STOVL ship up to a 40a/c CTOL carrier. There were variations on the theme - commercial standard build, two vs three, STOVL vs CTOL, but these were primarily about cost and availability rather than output capability. These were presented at a RINA conference in 1997 and formed the basis of the cost submission for ST(S) 7069.

What the OA demonstrated was that CVS-sized ships did not bring much to the party in the scenarios looked at - most of which involved medium regional conflicts, as opposed to NATO vs Warpac (which was by then defunct). ie Their cost-benefit was marginal. However, if you had 40 cabs aboard you gained a step change in capability and the cost benefit equation was much more valuable. The ship studies showed that if you were sensible about your maintenance requirements and your shipboard systems, you could get the same availability from two big ships as you would for three small ships for broadly the same overall price. The bigger ship also carried less risk in terms of growth in the (as yet undefined) STOVL cab.

That was the basis of the ST(S) submission - two big capable ships of 40000 te that could do Fleet Air Defence, Maritime Strike, Local Air Superiority over a landing area, Land strike etc, plus host a dipper squadron and what was FOAEW/MASC, now Crowsnest. Definitely more than a CVS replacement.

The aircraft that was to fulfill this capability was the Future Carrier-Borne Aircraft (FCBA), for which the various studies assumed a number of options, from the Stovl StrikeFighter (SSF) - which eventually became F35, through a navalised EF2000 operating in STOBAR mode, to an F/A18E/F. ISTR there was even a Harrier SuperVariant as well. THere was a parallel RAF requirement for Future Offensive Air System (FOAS), which was the Tornado replacement.

The operating assumption for the ship was STOVL - the basis for which was essentially a mixture of familiarity, perceived risk in catapult options (we'd got rid of steam, we weren't having a nuclear ship and EMALS back then was veiwed as very high risk) and also a nod to the RAF need to replace its three squadrons of Harriers. I can't actually remember that being an explicit requirement for FCBA, although that did develop in later years (primarily post formation of Joint Force Harrier), when FBCA became FJCA (J being "joint").

Right at the back end of the 90s, after submission of ST(S) 7069 (for the ship), MoD began to look at the options for the FCBA aircraft in more detail, with development of more detailed scenarios, with associated sortie generation requirements and flying programmes. They also wanted to know whether a CTOL ship was invariably going to be bigger (and therefore assumed more expensive) than a STOVL (or STOBAR) ship so they could better cost the overall programme.

At this point, people started to look at deck operation seriously, including getting NAWC in America to do some flightdeck designs, where it became clear that if we wanted to generate lots of sorties, but not have the deck swarming with badgers, chockheads, bombheads and grapes that we couldn't afford, the deck was going to have to get bigger. The 1997 concept designs had been just that - concepts for ROM costing purposes, nothing more, with limited consideration of how the ships would actually work in practice. The next cycle of designs by MoD, BAES and Thales identified that for the bigger ships, 40000 tonnes wasn't going to cut it and you were going to end up significantly north of 50000te even for a STOVL ship. Once you got there, the cost difference between a CTOL and STOVL ship starts getting marginal, although you obviously need to buy the cats and arrester systems. STOBAR was in the same ballpark as STOVL, but generated much less sorties because that mode demands the worst of both worlds in terms of launch and recovery areas, which knocks your safe parking area (crucial for sortie gen) right down. Never mind the comedy attempts to make EF2000 able to see the meatball on a sensible glideslope......

Not long after that, people started to realise that the STOVL aircraft was technically pretty risky and that a hedge against failure was required. This led directly to what was known as the Hybrid design - essentially a large ship, big enough to host two cats and an arrested recovery area, or a STOVL runway, without drastic modification to the overall design. What that last sentence means is that there would obviously need to be internal arrangement changes for the cat troughs and arrester gear engine room primarily on 2 deck and that the flightdeck strength needed to be designed against the CTOL recovery requirement (irrespective of how she was completed), but you would not have to change the overall dimensions or configuration of the ship. This basic philosophy is what both BAES and Thales submitted their final designs against in 2002 or so prior to the downselect of the Thales design, but appointment of BAES as the prime.

Unfortunately, no-one had updated the Long Term Costings against these larger ships - they were still assumed (by MoD Centre) to be the original ST(S) 7069 cost - which was an unpleasant (but entirely predictable) surprise when the ACA submitted their first project price for the ships and it was £600M over the assumed budget. This led directly to the whole two-year Design Alpha, through Delta exercise where MoD tried to get the cost to match the budget and eventually settled on the current Delta design, which was capable of being completed as either STOVL or CTOL, but - and this is crucial to understand - only if the decision was made at a relatively early stage in build and only if the necessary detailed design work to take the catapults and arrester gear had been completed in time to inform the build. This latter activity was never contracted until the SDSR2010 decision AIUI, by which point, the first ship steelwork was halfway done and the second ship would have had to have been delayed (incurring huge TOBA costs) before design work completed.

Both ships remain convertible if required in future, but it won't be cheap - although it might be cheaper than previously postulated, once the TOBA implications are removed. For example, the electrical generation and distribution software apparently inlcudes modes to account for EMALS loads and EARS inputs.

Tuc's ex IPT bloke was right back in 2003 in that (cost of the cats and arrester themselves excluded) the difference between the operating modes would not have resulted in a new design or a larger ship - ie cost-neutral. However - as ever - that statement needed to be put in context.

Apologies for the essay, but a long way of saying that STOVL does not necessarily preclude the capability of an "attack carrier" in terms of Tacair, although obviously the ASAC/AEW element is a little trickier.

[Heathrow Harry]

Boffin - many thanks -

that is a very clear and coherent summary of just how we've finished up where we are...............

usual mix of over-optimism, lack of joined up thinking and no one person in charge

[Courtney Mil]

How well does the A model hook work?

[Engines]

NAB,

Excellent post.

What yours and also Tuc's post illustrate was the lack of detailed, instinctive, understanding within the MoD of the way aircraft carrier design drivers relate to each other. In particular, there was little appreciation of how crowded aircraft carriers are, and how much they really cost to alter after they are built.

The phrase going round in about 97 to 2001 was: 'air is free and steel is cheap' - inferring that bigger ships would have lots of free space and any conversions would be 'easy'. The CVF PT were told at the time that this was hoop, but as Tuc so rightly points out, there was plenty of hubris flying around at that stage.

Easy to criticise, as it was years since the UK had last designed a ship of this size - but lack of knowledge was not shown as a risk on the registers I saw. Neither were defective cost models. And there were ways of mitigating these risks.

This then led to the SDSR 2010 nonsense of deciding to go for cats and traps without getting the costings in place.

Now we are where we are, best regards as ever, to those getting the ships and the aircraft ready.

Engines

[Not_a_boffin]

Harry

that is a very clear and coherent summary of just how we've finished up where we are...............

usual mix of over-optimism, lack of joined up thinking and no one person in charge

That almost suggests that where we've ended up is a very bad place. I think I'd balance that with the observations that :

1. We're paying more for the ships than we should have done. However, that is primarily a consequence of endless delays in placing the order and subsequent b8ggering about, which were almost entirely driven by an argument (largely from one quarter) that the ships were much bigger than CVS and therefore too big and too expensive, whereas the actualite is that CVS sized ships would still have been very expensive, but would have had no risk hedge against STOVL failure and would not have delivered much in capability terms.

2. While many burble on about "only 12 jets" - that tends to be wilfully missing the point that the ships can economically operate many more, as well as a variety of r/w, without any sort of extra work. There are no show-stopping technical reasons why that CAG/TAG cannot be enhanced. It is merely a question of finding money over the length of a 50 year programme.

Engines, thanks

The phrase going round in about 97 to 2001 was: 'air is free and steel is cheap' - inferring that bigger ships would have lots of free space and any conversions would be 'easy'. The CVF PT were told at the time that this was hoop, but as Tuc so rightly points out, there was plenty of hubris flying around at that stage.


I would add only that it was (and remains) entirely the correct decision to build them as they are (particularly the size). I know what the through-life margins are in the ships and for once we are not going to be struggling halfway through. I think it's fair to say that the "conversion" debate at the time was all about what would happen if the FAA/RAF decided STOVL was a non-runner or had it been cancelled, prior to build start and after the detail design had been done, rather than a mid-life conversion. In that sense they were correct - costs should have been relatively marginal, compared to any other alternative. As ever, timing is (and was in the case of the 2010 decision) everything, compounded by a dearth of really technically competent ship design expertise in the MoD in the very recent past.

[Hempy]

What the OA The ship studies showed that if you were sensible about your maintenance requirements and your shipboard systems...

It amazes me how studies continue to assume this nonsense. It's why everything always goes over budget!! :ugh: :ouch:

[Not_a_boffin]

That actually refers to the docking regime (LR class upkeep and so forth) rather than provision of spares, which I suspect is where you're coming from.

[Hempy]

More broadly, the notion of sensible being seriously factored into anything pertinent to military procurement.

[Not_a_boffin]

Gotcha.;)

Wanna buy another Air Warfare Destroyer?

[Heathrow Harry]

Boffin - I presume you've read Nick Childs "Britains Future navy"?

He reckons that the carriers will be mainly used as all round task force ships

We actually have some decent ships now but not enough of them - a few more '45's and Astutes woul be useful and perhaps a few Absalon types for general service would give us a useful sized and flexible naval force

[Not_a_boffin]

He's reflecting the entirely reasonable Carrier Enabled Power Projection (CEPP) concept, which isn't actually rocket science, but just states explicitly what large carriers are capable of.

What people tend to forget (possibly because of the old commando carrier conversion heritage) is that CEPP doesn't preclude use as a "strike" carrier either.

Important point being, you can use a big deck carrier in both roles, but not an LPH/LHA type.

[tucumseh]

NAB

Unfortunately, no-one had updated the Long Term Costings against these larger ships

Nail on head. DGA(N) HQ (the Navy's aircraft people, but who had a Ships and Bases section) stopped doing this in 1988 as a result of the Hallifax savings. This created the Aircraft Support Executive (sans ship section) whose role became one of "monitoring" instead of "managing". Thereafter, MoD(PE) became responsible by default for accurately stating and costing all requirements; and taking the hit when they got the former, and therefore the latter, wrong.

To take the Mk7 as an example again, and very similar to the carrier, well in to the production phase the RN still expected it to be a mere minor transmitter power upgrade, as per the original endorsement. (The Tx design was finished in 1990, but then shelved as other programmes took priority). Their planning assumed whole fleet conversion over a single week-end at Culdrose. It actually took 3 years, during which time a dual fleet was operated. The problem (from a procurer's viewpoint) was, and remains, Requirements capture and articulation. You can't accurately cost and contract a programme if the Customer flatly refuses to support you. When that HQ shut down in early 1988, it took many years - perhaps 10 - for the RN to replace the Requirements Manager posts, and even then few were trained. Certainly none of the aircraft/equipment ones. And none did the old LTC job. And still don't.

[Not_a_boffin]

And none did the old LTC job. And still don't.

Agreed, but perhaps more importantly, no-one in MoD is capable of constructing a "should-cost" estimate in sufficient meaningful detail to force certain companies to justify their programme costs, let alone allow MoD to manage their risks.

The biggest single Achilles heel of the whole process.

[longer ron]

That almost suggests that where we've ended up is a very bad place. I think I'd balance that with the observations that :

It does more than suggest a very bad place - there is no 'plan B' (and no chance of any plan B) and still with an extremely risky aircraft project !
And it still has not done a skijump !

Painted into a corner or what ??

[tucumseh]

Agreed, but perhaps more importantly, no-one in MoD is capable of constructing a "should-cost" estimate in sufficient meaningful detail to force certain companies to justify their programme costs, let alone allow MoD to manage their risks.

This was the job of the HQ posts I mentioned prior to early 88. Requirements were broken down in to Programme Element Costings (PECs, which speaks for itself), and the incumbent (for example, a single civilian HPTO was responsible for ALL RN avionics) worked closely with the MoD(PE) project Directorates (the technical project managers) to produce what all agreed were accurate as possible estimates. You may have got the estimate wrong, but you rarely omitted a whole programme element; which is common place today.

That HPTO post was the boss of the Requirement Managers - 4 of whom managed all RN avionics. (Today it is no longer a centralised function, so there are scores with a finger in the pie, but none who have an overview or detailed knowledge). I use that as an example as I held such a post in the mid-80s. Then you got promoted to the most junior grade in MoD(PE). THAT's the problem nowadays! Very senior people in DE&S don't know any of this, so although they may appreciate there is a problem, none understand the solution is to implement mandated regulations. (Which were never actually cancelled. They just did away with the posts and they naturally fell in to disuse). Still got my copy!

[Engines]

Tuc,

I can confirm everything you said in your last post - and improbably, it's even worse now.

On a recent project I was involved with, there was NO detailed independent 'should cost' estimate. The PM started with a figure that was dreamed up between the two star and the (sole) supplier. No full cost model was prepared (despite being offered by contractors) because that was said to be 'the contractor's job'. The contractor then refused to provide a full cost breakdown, and was backed up by the PM and the TL because , we were told, 'we can trust them'.

CAAS were also cut back, and are still being rebuilt by KPMG. Their ability to cary out any decent cost investigation was hindered by a lack of requirements and any decent technical description of the modification being proposed.

And it gets better - the 'modern' way is apparently to get the contractor to write their own Systems Requirements Document (SRD). Of course, any document coming out of this process is absolutely, completely, fully, risk free 'up front' - which results in a document that doesn't even line up with the original URD. Our RM (a really decent and hard working guy) was in a constant state of despair. You are absolutely right - lack of proper requirements capture and articulation is the biggest challenge DE&S faces.

Best regards to all those trying to do the right thing

Engines

[ORAC]

China's Anti-Stealth Radar Comes to Fruition (http://www.defensenews.com/article/20141122/DEFREG03/311220016/China-s-Anti-Stealth-Radar-Comes-Fruition)

China Touts Anti-stealth Radar (http://www.defensenews.com/article/20141004/DEFREG03/310040023/China-Touts-Anti-stealth-Radar)

[Courtney Mil]

Doesn't come as any surprise, it was discussed here a long time ago. I guess the question is, who will they sell it to? I think I know the likely answer.

Russia has a long list of VHF and L Band systems too. The ECM vs ECCM war continues.

[Just This Once...]

When it comes to the F-35 it is probably the first time the ECCM has arrived on the market before the ECM.

The countermeasure cycle is usually drawn with the arrows going clockwise….

[Romulus]

I built an ECCCCM system in my back yard.

Or so I claim...

[Finningley Boy]

I built an ECCCCM system in my back yard.



So you've managed to find a way of countering the counter to the counter to the original counter measure of the enemy radar system.

That Sir is tremendous, keep up the good work, because you never know with the Bad Guys, they'll as likely come up with a counter to it?!:E

FB:)

[Finningley Boy]

Hang on,

Yeah but No but,

If you've invented a ECCCCM, and the original intent was to counter an enemy radar system, then you've just countered our counter to their counter to our original counter. Blast it all man!:ouch:

FB:)

PS I think?

[Willard Whyte]

'Tis only a matter of time before an ECCCCCM appears then.

[Heathrow Harry]

About 150 pages ago i think I mentioned that the F-35 program delays have probably caused the Russians to spend zillions wayyyyyy before they needed to............

Now its the Chinese......

[Lima Juliet]

Don't forget that F35's stealthy characteristics are designed to counter I-band fighter RADARs. So the Chinese can build all the bi-static and low frequency RADARs that they like, the F35 will still get the first volley of air to air shots away before their fighters have even seen them! After the first shots are fired the cat is kind of out of the bag for stealth anyway.

LJ :ok:

[Courtney Mil]

Unfortunately, Leon, that doesn't help against SAMs using VHF 3D radar targeting. And those radars sit well below the frequency coverage of HARM and AlARM (S or L band). Also, fighters can be controlled by VHF radar units and, as we know, use IRST and longer range IR guided versions of AA10 or 12. Better go on a cloudy day. No not so good after all.

[glad rag]

Yeah courts but the airframe has both class leading acceleration and manoeuvrability so will be able to avoid being engaged kinematicly as well as using stealf once it has evaded the initial engagement...:}

[Lima Juliet]

CM

Yes, but stealth is but one club in a very large golf bag of capabilities for F35 to operate in a hostile air environment. I agree to all of your points, but each of them have counters and as always "when there's a will, there's a way" to work through them.

LJ

[Courtney Mil]

golf bats aside, I think this does show the significance of Orac's post.

[rh200]

bout 150 pages ago i think I mentioned that the F-35 program delays have probably caused the Russians to spend zillions wayyyyyy before they needed to............

Now its the Chinese......

Hmm, I smell a conspiracy here:p. Could it be the F35 is just an expensive front, just so there's a shadow aircraft being developed with different characteristics without the scrutiny.

Kill two birds with one stone, make them waste money and get a fighter that they don't have counter measures for. Sorry I will go back to watching X files:E.

[Finningley Boy]

Joking aside it really does look like those involved at any level with the F-35 programme have been left (the Americans and us as well) up a Gum Tree. The entire rationale behind the F-35 has long been dismissed, in terms of economy, and in our own case, role, intended use and what it was to replace. None of what was planned has panned out as planned. The original aim for a cost effective replacement for existing airframes has gone way by the board, ironically becoming hideously espensive and growing.

As someone posted in response to a question of mine earlier, its no longer, in respect of U.K. requirements, simply required to replace the Sea Harrier/Harrier. Its much fewer and much more costly numbers, are to replace the afore mentioned SHAR/HAR and the Tornado GR4. In this regard, we've stuck ourselves with the runt of the litter, all for the sake of VSTOL. Meanwhile, it has become, reportedly, the most expensive commercial project of all time. We're only going to get 48, at least that many albeit, which we know of, rather than the 138 originally planned just as a Harrier replacement, and the cost has spiralled as extraordinarily as the number of faults which keep getting sniped at by the media.

FB:)

[Courtney Mil]

To pick up on FB's comment about the media sniping at F-35's faults, I wonder if this program has been handled well.

Having started a media campaign to fanfare program successes, we have ended up with a massive PR engagement that has also put all the failures and faults squarely in the public gaze. The good news is expected by the public in a modern program (I'm talking expectations, not reality, OK?), but so many failures have never really been made so obvious before.

This grand engagement with open media has done two things:

Backfired in that it has aired more dirty laundry than anyone expected to see,

Offered a LOT of free intel to its potential future opponents - yes I know classified stuff is controlled, but it all adds up.

Was it sensible to go so public?

P.S. Ooh look... ...http://threepercenternation.com/2014/11/chinas-new-fighter-jet-looks-alarmingly-like/

[SpazSinbad]

Another dribble of the drab then:

Britain confirms first four of 14 F-35 jet orders; batch to be delivered in 2016 - Europe News & Top Stories - The Straits Times (http://www.straitstimes.com/news/world/europe/story/britain-confirms-first-four-14-f-35-jet-orders-batch-be-delivered-2016-20141)

[Finningley Boy]

CM,

It does seem to have been something of a media hobby since the report of ADV Tornados flying around with concrete lumps in the nose, no amount of reassurance that all from the 19th airframe onwards would have a functioning radar while the first 18 would be retrofitted. Particularly our own popular press love to latch onto any released data which may suggest any encountered hiccup along the road of development, often resulting in needlessly perilous stories. Mind you, long before the Foxhunter/Blue Circle issue, there was sufficient concern among the more rarified levels of command that UK air defence would be better served with a mixed fighter force consisting of F-15s, F-16s or F-14s with a smaller number of ADVs. Each of the American options was discounted on either cost (F-15 and F-14) or ineffectiveness for long range AD patrols (F-16). Their concerns at the time I don't recall getting into the public domain, but they were actively seeking an alternative, at least in part.

FB:)

[sandiego89]

Was it sensible to go so public?

I think it is. This is the first mainstream combat jet to be developed almost entirely in the new social media market, and folks were craving for any information as it was a highly visible program. The program was and is a juicy target as being the most expensive program ever, prone to overruns as just about every program has been, and has some questionable design characterics/compromises (3 distinct missions in one airframe). Folks in the media, blogs and forums such as this were going to talk about it no matter how much or how little the program officials or manufactures released.

Better to be somewhat pro-active, than just reactive. Yes some of it is PR hype, but it seems to have been done on a slow build. Perhaps deliberate. Perhaps better to temper expectations.

The defence departments seem to be much more savy about getting press releases, video etc out pretty quickly- and even then we punters are not even happy with the shots they provide as they "must be hiding something".

In the USA I think something was learned from the MV-22 program, which seemed much more problematic, and much more reactive, with one bad news story after another. This led to false hype, overpromisses, coverups, faked numbers, and other problems. The F-22 also seemed to have more hype.

It is perhaps noteworthy that there has not been a crash or spectacular casualty that would surely generate headline news. Over 100 built and hours building at an ever increasing rate, with perhaps one write-off (the A with the engine fire). While the overall effectivesness and cost, and even the program its self are bigger stories; perhaps the failure to fly at the UK shows post fire seems to be the largest specific PR ding to date- perhaps even larger than the fire itself.

[Turbine D]

Courtney,
To pick up on FB's comment about the media sniping at F-35's faults, I wonder if this program has been handled well.
IMHO, it hasn't.

To begin with, any product, be it a washing machine, a golf club or an advance fighter is dependent on the shortest time to market to gain the maximum technological edge. The longer the time to market, the less the technological edge to the point where no edge exists at all. 13 years from go to not being in the market yet seems to place the F-35's technological edge on the very edge of viability, a few more years and it will be gone. The lapses in security at LM aided the competition in more ways than one. Then the wishes of the customer and the promises of the producer verses the reality of the day lead to the less than optimal situations currently being experienced.

The amount of technical information being flung around about the F-35, before it is even operational and in service, is unquestionably the most of any US defense program in history. Between the US DoD and LM, not only are the capabilities openly discussed, but the shortcomings as well, even identifying how the capability goal posts have been moved to fit reality.

The media outpouring by LM & US DoD is nothing more than their fear reaction to combat the possibility the overall program could be reduced in size and scope from the original dream.

[Courtney Mil]

Very interesting answers. Thank you. Food for thought.

TurbineD, I like your point about technological edge. I guess the increased efforts in V/UHF radars is a prime example.

Shame about LM's security.

[rh200]

To pick up on FB's comment about the media sniping at F-35's faults, I wonder if this program has been handled well.

To know if its been handled well you would have to have actual inside information of the program. Well is dependent on how good or bad things actually are.

To be honest, in todays society with all the means of media information transfer, and political ping ponging in regards to military purchasing, they don't have a choice but play the media game.

[ORAC]

AW&ST: Israeli Panel Rejects Proposed Increase Of F-35 (http://aviationweek.com/defense/israeli-panel-rejects-proposed-increase-f-35)

An Israeli cabinet panel has rejected a decision of the defense minister to procure an additional 31 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters and limited the procurement of Israel’s second batch of JSFs to only 13. It is unprecedented that the ministerial committee on defense procurement would reverse an air force requirement that was already approved by the defense minister, the former government and the National Security Council. The Israel air force, which currently has 19 F-35s on order under a $2.74 billion contract, will have to be satisfied with a total of 32 aircraft in the coming years, and will not be able to complete two full squadrons as planned.

Defense Minister Moshe "Bogie" Ya’alon, who had already concluded with the Pentagon the terms of a $4.4 billion contract for an additional 31 F-35s, is now asking the DOD to maintain the same terms for a smaller number of aircraft. The U.S. has agreed to grant Israel $2.4 billion in credit for the deal as well as to conduct offset procurement totaling $5.3 billion, under the expectation that Israel will acquire a total of 50 F-35s. The JSF procurement is financed through the $3.1 billion annual military aid that the U.S. provides to Israel. It is unclear, though, whether the U.S. will agree to provide Israel with the same terms for the smaller deal. "Minister Ya’alon will try to convince the Pentagon that this is a minor delay and that eventually Israel will procure the 50 aircraft," a senior defense source told Aviation Week.

Leading the surprising opposition to the F-35 deal was Minister for Intelligence Yuval Steinitz, who declared: "We are not rubber stamps for the [ministry of defense] and air force." In five different meetings of the panel on defense procurement dealing with the JSFs, Steinitz presented several articles published in Aviation Week from 2003 and 2008 raising doubts on the effectiveness of the F-35. "For maintaining stealthiness, this aircraft has compromised maneuverability, shorter operational range and significantly less payload capability," a senior Israeli official told Aviation Week. "We shouldn’t be buying so many of them when it is unclear whether the stealth is effective, or there is a countermeasure that would negate it. There are vast gaps in performance between the F-35 and fourth-generation fighters."

The IAF and defense ministry have rejected Steinitz’s claims as "old and irrelevant." But Steinitz went on, calling for acquiring only the 19 F-35s already ordered and buying more F-15s and F-16s. He was joined by Israeli Finance Minister Yair Lapid, who claimed that the F-35 procurement would consume the whole of the U.S. military aid and would lead Israel to increase defense expenditures. In response, the Israeli air force presented data that acquiring new F-16s or F-15s would cost even more than the F-35. That led the ministers to form a compromise resolution calling for the procurement of only 13 aircraft in addition to the first batch of 19.

Lockheed Martin has not received anything official on Israel’s next procurement. "It would be inappropriate to respond to a speculative story," spokesman Mike Rein says. "We stand ready to support Israel with whatever decision they make for a follow-on procurement of F-35s."

Israel’s first two F-35s are expected to be produced within the eighth batch of low-rate production aircraft and delivered in the second half of 2016. Deliveries of the first set of 19 JSFs is expected to be completed by 2018. Deliveries of the second batch of F-35s are expected to begin in 2019.

[Heathrow Harry]

"We're only going to get 48, at least that many albeit, which we know of, rather than the 138 originally planned"

Finningley - that's a very big assumption. It is quite possible we'll cancel the lot given the state of public finances

The next Govt could very well be a Lab/Lib/SNP coalition and the defence budget will take an enormous hit

[Finningley Boy]

HH,

I agree, that nightmare is quite feasible, but it would be extremely interesting. The only consolation prize for those in uniform, made redundant, would be the loads of money they'd get from such a socially concerned conglomeration in Parliament for signing on and sitting at home.

For as long as that would last of course!:E

FB:)

[Maus92]

The Israelis need ground combat vehicles now vs. a future, somewhat nebulous, stealth capability - hence the redirection of funds away from near-term purchases of F-35s. Plus, buying later means possible better terms, because as it stands today, F-35As are still very expensive aircraft to buy and maintain.

[Thelma Viaduct]

UK national debt is costing the taxpayer £1billion per week in interest only, the debt continues to grow to over £1.5trillion

That's a billion squid leaving the coffers per week without touching the sides.

Something will break soon.

[Heathrow Harry]

I guess the Isrealis are looking around thinking that none of their probable opponents are likely to have equipment that requires then to re-equip with an expensive, a relatively short- legged, possibly sort-of-stealthy strike aircraft in the next 10-15 years

they already are one of the worlds experts on drones and they have a bundle of F-15's

Who in the region has anything like that in any numbers? and when will they be able to upgrade?? It takes years to build up serious capability

Best to save the cash now TBN

[Just This Once...]

It's nice to see the aircraft carrying UK PWIV and ASRAAM.

http://defense-update.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/f35uk_attack_conf725RS19162_14P00683_25.jpg

:ok:

[glad rag]

Indeed.
"Leading the surprising opposition to the F-35 deal was Minister for Intelligence Yuval Steinitz, who declared: "We are not rubber stamps for the [ministry of defense] and air force." In five different meetings of the panel on defense procurement dealing with the JSFs, Steinitz presented several articles published in Aviation Week from 2003 and 2008 raising doubts on the effectiveness of the F-35. "For maintaining stealthiness, this aircraft has compromised maneuverability, shorter operational range and significantly less payload capability," a senior Israeli official told Aviation Week. "We shouldn’t be buying so many of them when it is unclear whether the stealth is effective, or there is a countermeasure that would negate it. There are vast gaps in performance between the F-35 and fourth-generation fighters."

[glad rag]

Awesomeness indeed....but we already have a proven bomb truck that does all this, better, faster and wait for it it's FREE.....

[sandiego89]

Awesomeness indeed....but we already have a proven bomb truck that does all this, better, faster and wait for it it's FREE.....

I get what you are after, and I will grant you faster, but it really depends on how you define "better" and "free".

If your bomb truck can not operate in certain high threat environments, or would have a unacceptable loss rate is it really "better"? If you are plinking targets in a low threat environment, then yes you are good to go with what we have already- heck we could do that with C-130 with the right targeting pod.

Yes, it may be "free" as it's already in your garage, but operating, maintaining and upgrading and aging airframe is hardly free- and it will not last forever.

[Courtney Mil]

Sandie,

Stealth is a double-edged sword. In an environment without V/UHF radar, yeah, it's an advantage. Head on, the RCS is impressively small. Other aspects are not so good. It doesn't make one invisible, only the Klingons can do that. The other edge is all about the compromises already mentioned.

The problem is that the compromises really come into play in those areas where the stealth isn't so good. And range and payload is compromised even where the stealth does work. And how fast can you run away?

By the time this comes into service, technology will have moved on even further. That will be the time when we can balance the advantages of stealth against the compromises necessary to make it happen.

[typerated]

I think we have inherited a similar situation to the late 1930s.
Replace the term 'stealth strike fighter' with the term 'turreted fighter' and you can see a few parallels between the F-35 and Boulton Paul Defiant. Of course the performance of these two aircraft is not quite up to their contemporaries but this is more than made up for by other features.
Knockers of the F-35 could well do to look back at history.
RAF Defiants battered the Luftwaffe in the early summer of 1940 :ok:


And that continued for pretty much most of the first week!

[Turbine D]

Typerated,
I agree.
Replace the term 'stealth strike fighter' with the term 'turreted fighter' and you can see a few parallels between the F-35 and Boulton Paul Defiant.
Knockers of the F-35 could well do to look back at history.
RAF Defiants battered the Luftwaffe in the early summer of 1940. And that continued for pretty much most of the first week!

There are potential parallels between the two, they are not good.

[LowObservable]

I don't know how anyone could expect anything other than what has happened.

In 1995 the Pentagon decided to bet the entire future of air power, for the US and its allies, on a single, fixed set of RCS numbers (magnitude, aspect and wavelength) and an aircraft that was in other respects no better than what it was replacing.

It will have taken 25 years by the time that solution is in service in significant numbers, and it will take 30-35 years before those aircraft are the majority of the fleet.

Surprise, surprise - adversaries use that time to react.

[sandiego89]

As a point of discussion, with all this talk of design compromises, becoming a white elephant, or the next Defiant- it is interesting to note there have been aircraft with some significant compromises that had long careers. "Gimmickry", design compromise and performance in some aspects less than the aircraft it is replacing (or contemporary designs) does not automatically equate to failure. Some have been game changers.

I offer:
The Harrier, first generation- A very compromised design, all revolving around the V/STOL requirement. Slow, poor visibility, poor load when compared to contemporaries. Had a long, successful career.

A-7 Corsair. Bucked the trend of 1960's faster is better. The SLUF served as a capable, under sung aircraft.

MRCA/Tornado. RAF was looking for a Vulcan and Buccaneer replacement. Did not have nearly the range or payload capability of either. Used the swing wing to meet requirements, which complicated the aircraft, and was/is seen as gimmickry by some. Has had a long career with some success. The "best" intruder ever? I'll leave that alone.

Phantom. Designed for fleet defense. Gimmickry all missile design as guns were considered obsolete. Compromised dog-fighter. Lack of guns was later proven wrong and the plane was adapted in later versions. Major upgrades and multiple versions and multiple roles. Successful by any measure. Perhaps the F-35 will mature like this?

Tornado IDS. Replacement for the Lightning and Phantom. Performance less than those (yes I understand it was not intended to be a dog fighter). Mid range career, of debatable success. Best interceptor ever? Probably not.

F-18F Super Hornet. Replacement for the F-14 in Fleet Defense. Less performance than the Tomcat in most aspects, but seems to be doing just fine. Granted less sexy.

F-104. Majorly compromised design, with high speed trumping all else. Had a long career, good orders (yes cries of bribery I know) and adopted to other roles. "Best" fighter? No. "Best" nuke delivery? No. "Best" maritime strike? No.

For every Defiant, Buffalo, XB-70, Cutlass, B-58 etc, there have been others with serious compromises in design and performance than have served just fine- I think it is way too early to profess the obsolescence of the F-35

[typerated]

SD89,

I think the point is about fighter capability/performance.

The F-35 will be the single platform in many airforces and is being sold on the premise that it will dominate in air-air for the next few decades.

The majority of aircraft you mention are fighter bombers with little or no air-air capability. Harrier, A-7 and Tornado. Yes the F-104 was a failed fighter and found a niche as a low level high speed fighter bomber.

The Super Hornet is underwhelming at air- air (partially like the F-35) it relies on a cutting edge sensors to give it advantage. I'm sure the USN would have loved something much better but ended up taking what they could. Like F-35 how capable the F-18F will look in a couple of decades will be interesting.

I'd argue that the F4 was the only aircraft on your list that was dominant at air-air when it entered service. I think the lack of gun and unsuitability for low-level subsonic turning fights is a bit of a red herring - it could outperform the Mig 21 and certainly enter and leave a fight at its own choosing.

I think the F4's performance excess (over it rivals and contemporaries) is largely the factor that has ensured it longevity as a fighter.

I can think of no other fighter that has been successful and did not have a performance margin over its rivals. Will the F-35 buck that trend?

[BEagle]

Courtney Mil wrote: Stealth is a double-edged sword. In an environment without V/UHF radar, yeah, it's an advantage. Head on, the RCS is impressively small. Other aspects are not so good. It doesn't make one invisible, only the Klingons can do that. The other edge is all about the compromises already mentioned.


Romulans surely?

From some geek website :8 (which I assure I only found a few minutes ago by Googling...):

Klingon cloaking device:
Similar to the Romulan cloaking device, the Klingons received this technology from the Romulans circa 2268, when the two civilizations shared a political alliance. The Klingons outfitted many ships, particularly their Bird-of-Prey type vessels with the devices.

In 2293 the Klingons tested an experimental Bird-of-Prey that could operate its weapons while cloaked. Captain Kirk of the U.S.S. Enterprise NCC-1701-A and his crew were able to improvise a method to track the ship, eliminating the tactical edge that the Klingon ship would have otherwise enjoyed in starship combat.


And if some foreign power improvises a similar method to defeat the stealth capability of the F-35, all that costly 'first day' development will have been worthless....:rolleyes:

[Finningley Boy]

Yes the F-104 was a failed fighter and found a niche as a low level high speed fighter bomber.

Are you sure you aren't being over generous describing the F-104 as having found a niche as a low level high speed fighter bomber? My recollections are that this was the very role which earned it a variety of less than reassuring nick names;

Widow Maker, Flying Coffin, German Jump Jet, etc and the old joke about how easy it was to make a start in the scrap metal business in West Germany, just rent a field and wait for a formation of F-104s to happen along.

I think it was quickly overshadowed in the high altitude interception role (puttng it in the same genre as the English Electric Lightning, J-35 Draken, F-102, F-106 etc) by later more reliable types such as the afore mentioned F-4, which was a much more versatile fighter.

FB:)

But again, I bow to the greater wisdom of others here abouts!

[Finningley Boy]

RAF's next-gen fighter passes key weapons test ahead of 2018 lift-off * | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2852256/Armed-ready-RAF-s-gen-fighter-passes-key-weapons-test-ahead-2018-lift-off.html)

Here's a hot off the press report from the Mail, I believe it is to be published in tomorrow's Mail on Sunday.

FB:)

[glad rag]

Would it be fair to ask why this trial has the weapons loaded to negate those oh so
expensivly developed stealth/internal weapon carriage systems?

I believe a previous poster used the term "turkey " well he may well be correct.

[Rhino power]

OK, so, Dave-B has carried the ASRAAM and PW-IV externally, does this mean that internal carriage clearance has already been done? Which is kinda the whole point of the F-35 concept...

-RP

Ah, glad rag kinda beat me too it!

[glad rag]

Sorry for the double posting there folks, but I also noticed the angles of the asraam on the outer station another compromise?

Or could we all be missing the real point off this P R release...

[Mach Two]

Sandiego, Tornado ADV was the replacement for Lightning and Phantom, not IDS.

Of the air-to-air types you listed, at least they were better than using Harrier (not Sea Harrier) or A4G as air defence.

[SpazSinbad]

Whingeing Pommie Crabs - what a bonus. This is the threat that caused the RAN to change from what was to become an all ASW HMAS Melbourne (youse can see the first USN A-4B deck landing onboard May 1965 elsewhere recently) to the mixed ASW S2sE/Gs & Wessex 31A/Bs eventually with Seakings and of course a second batch of A4Gs (second hand) at the expense of two Oberon class subs (which peeed off them submariners mightily indeed).
"“In the summer of 1961, twenty TU-16KS [Badgers] were sold to Indonesia.” [And later their Kennel missiles and whatnots and any recon shadowers]Any OzCRAB targets were always a bonus with four underwing AIM-9Bs [+ guns sadly though with only a fixed gunsight (depressible)] and perhaps a large or small centreline tank or nowt. What peeed me of mightily was scoring well with my only test as a sprog on VF-805 of the Thomson-Ferranti gyro gunsight [as used on some Tooms apparently] refused to be bought by bean counters in Canberra although recommended by all and sundry with the knowledge (AWI testing).

Having some four RN FAA AWIs transfer to the RAN in the early 1970s with their experience on Vixens, Phantoms and Buccaneers was a real bonus with all our own AWIs trained at Lossiemouth until the mid 1970s (then they were trained in house at NAS Nowra).

HMAS Melbourne being such a small carrier the A4G was the only aircraft available at the time to be able to operate from such as small deck. True. Not even the TA4G could operate from it (not enough flight deck length to lift off the nose before going over the end during a touch and go or bolter - big problem at night).

According to the recent RN FAA Taranto Night video elsewhere I know youse CRABS have trouble with TOO MUCH INFORMATION so I'll spare ye and just say that the RAN FAA copied the conops of the early to mid 1960 VSF Skyhawk squadrons aboard USN ASW carriers of that era:
http://www.ebdir.net/vsf1/boom_powell_part_1.html & http://www.ebdir.net/vsf1/boom_powell_part_2.html

RN FAA Taranto Fillum: http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/551628-raf-public-information-broadcast-taranto-night.html#post8751157
&
USN A-4B demo vid HMAS Melbourne May 1965: http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/551946-us-squadrons-may-use-uk-carrier-operations-2.html#post8762001

[Hempy]

Cheers for the ancient history lesson..

So, how are the engine 'issues' traveling? Anyone?

[PhilipG]

Thinking of the engine problems, does anyone know if any complete aircraft are being rolled out of Fort Worth?

[Heathrow Harry]

HMAS "Melbourne" - the last warship built to use the ram..............


Maybe the Chinese wanted her for "scrap" so they could study that particular aspect of modern naval warfare......................

[Mach Two]

Indonesia's Badgers were all grounded in 1969. Didn't leave much for the A4Gs to do. 4 first-generation AIM9s and no AI radar - please don't come at night or in bad weather.

[LowObservable]

Spaz - You are supporting the points being made here.

A lot of compromised or special-purpose aircraft succeeded in niche missions. The RAN A-4 and Sea Harrier FRS1 could reduce or eliminate the adversary's ability to shadow the fleet with impunity from any point outside SAM range. Likewise, the Bucc was an excellent bomber, as was the A-7 (and I have heard the F-35 compared to both).

Indeed, if the F-35 had been designed as a specialty aircraft - a follow-on to the F-117/A-6 with the ability to hit moving targets, some in-weather capability, and the situational awareness and weapons to self-defend and survive in daylight - it would have been cheaper, better and more efficient. You can even sell me the F-35A/C in those roles today, although they are horribly compromised by STOVL.

But that's not how the program was planned or sold. The idea was to replace every fighter in the Western world, providing US industry with a lucrative monopoly and establishing effective US control over every allied AF. In the process, it was claimed that the JSF would be better at everything than everything else (except F-22 in air-to-air) and cost less too.

Not only have those claims proven to be hyped, but the strategic weakness inherent in any single point solution has been exploited by potential adversaries and their armorers.

[Courtney Mil]

Rhino,

As things stand, ASRAAM will be cleared for the outboard wing pylons only. Internal carriage would mean only lock after launch. Maybe later...

Glad Rag,

Yes, the rakish angle is interesting. Although I note the photos show ASRAAM whilst the video clip looks more like AIM9X.

[SpazSinbad]

'Mach Two' that is probably why the A4Gs went on (with twice the VF-805 numbers onboard some times [4 to 8]) to expand their role and include a buddy tanker on deck sometimes - waiting for the call (not possible with only four onboard earlier).


'Heathrow Harry' this is the second time you have fun of the death of some 150 RAN & USN sailors combined - even when determined that MELBOURNE was not responsible for either collision. 'HH' be ashamed - very ashamed.

[glad rag]

156 souls lost in two collisions, no doubt there others outboard as well due to the nature of the beast..

Not a happy ship methinks.

[Rhino power]

CM, thanks for the clarification.

-RP

[Mr.Noritake]

HMAS Melbourne has done far, far more for the PLAN than it ever did for the RAN.

As will, it its own way, the F 35...

[Mr.Noritake]

I'd argue that the F4... could outperform the Mig 21 and certainly enter and leave a fight at its own choosing.

There speaks a man who has never had the benefit of been trained by instructors who faced, and comprehensively beat, the F 4 in combat.

[Mach Two]

Spaz,

Well at least A4G had the right equipment to be a tanker, more than can be said for its "air defense" role.

To be fair to HH, I did not think he was implying anything about the tragic loss of life. More a reference to number of collisions that one ship was involved in.

[John Farley]

I'd argue that the F4... could outperform the Mig 21 and certainly enter and leave a fight at its own choosing.

The Red Eagles had a different view.

[Ian Corrigible]

Less of an issue at Marham, though deployments would still be a concern:

Luke AFB changes refueling truck color, mitigates F-35 shutdowns (http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/555558/luke-afb-changes-refueling-truck-color-mitigates-f-35-shutdowns.aspx) (via Alert 5)

I/C

[Heathrow Harry]

"To be fair to HH, I did not think he was implying anything about the tragic loss of life. More a reference to number of collisions that one ship was involved in."

Correct

[tdracer]

China doesn't sound too worried about the F-35

BEIJING, Dec 9 (Reuters) - China's new stealth fighter could certainly "take down" its opponent in the sky, the president of China's top aircraft maker said on Tuesday, referring to its U.S.-made counterpart.Lin Zuoming, president of Aviation Industry Corp of China (Avic), which developed the J-31 stealth fighter, made the remarks in an interview on state broadcaster China Central Television (CCTV).
"When it takes to the sky, it can definitely take it down," he said, in a reference to the U.S.-made F-35. "That's a certainty."
Lin also emphasised the company's desire to compete with the United States in new markets, particularly countries the U.S. will not sell military equipment to as well as countries that cannot afford the pricier F-35.
"The next-generation air forces that are unable to buy the F-35 have no way to build themselves up. We don't believe the situation should be that way," he said.
"This world should be balanced," Lin added. "Good things shouldn't all be pushed to one party."
China unveiled the highly anticipated twin-engine fighter jet at an air show last month, a show of muscle during a visit to the country by U.S. President Barack Obama.
Stealth aircraft are key to China developing the ability to carry out both offensive and defensive operations, the Pentagon said in a report about developments in China's military.
The J-31 is China's second domestically produced stealth fighter jet.

[Lonewolf_50]

"This world should be balanced," Lin added. "Good things shouldn't
all be pushed to one party."
Did he say this with a straight face? :rolleyes:

[ricardian]

Another problem for the F-35 (http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-f-35-cant-run-on-warm-gas-from-a-fuel-truck-that-sa-1668120726)

[Courtney Mil]

It's OK, Ricardian, they've painted a bowser white to keep the fuel cooler.

[CoffmanStarter]

But they forgot the obligatory Yellow Band :E

[Courtney Mil]

OMG yes, Coff. So I guess it won't work without that. Shall we tell them?

[Finningley Boy]

Video: F-35 fighter jet has yet another problem - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/defence/11285535/F-35-fighter-jet-has-yet-another-problem.html)

I understand that all such developments have teething problems, which can be quite run of the mill. But is this all getting rather beyond the pale.

FB:)

[ricardian]

Courtney Mil said It's OK, Ricardian, they've painted a bowser white to keep the fuel cooler.

Why not tow a refrigation unit behind the bowser and circulate the fuel through it?

[Willard Whyte]

Why not tow a refrigation unit behind the bowser and circulate the fuel through it?

Presumably white paint, even mil-spec solar-reflective stuff, is cheaper and more reliable than a portable cooler.

Perhaps cheaper still to strip the paint off and leave it as bare metal. Or cover it in 'tin' foil.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

http://bulkresources.biz/bulk_trailer_leasing/images/trailer.jpg

I suggest they use bowsers based on food grade trailers. They are insulated also.

[glad rag]

I maybe wrong here okay, but isn't the fuel used to cool the avionics?

[GreenKnight121]

The Tale Of The F-35 And Hot Jet Fuel « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary (http://breakingdefense.com/2014/12/the-tale-of-the-f-35-and-hot-jet-fuel/)

The Tale Of The F-35 And Hot Jet Fuel 10 Dec 2014 By Colin Clark
"...“This is not an F-35 issue; there are no special restrictions on the F-35 related to fuel temperature. The F-35 uses the same fuel as other military aircraft. It can fly under the same temperature conditions as any other advanced military aircraft,” said Joe DellaVedova, program spokesman, in an email yesterday evening.

The folks at Luke say they are testing the new paint jobs to avoid problems, according to the AETC story: “‘It ensures the F-35 is able to meet its sortie requirements,’ said Chief Master Sgt. Ralph Resch, 56th LRS fuels manager. ‘We are taking proactive measures to mitigate any possible aircraft shutdowns due to high fuel temperatures in the future.'”

“Painting fuel trucks to reduce fuel temperature and improve aircraft performance will benefit legacy aircraft as well as F-35. There is no fuel temperature upper limitation on F-35 operations that would prevent sorties, and no sorties have been cancelled as a result of fuel temperature,” Kyra Hawn, deputy spokesman at the JPO, said in an email this morning. “Daily F-35 operations at Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, and Luke Air Force Base have been unaffected by hot environment or fuel temperature.”

The plane is now undergoing climate tests: heat, cold, rain, snow, ice etc. A lab test imposing temperatures in excess of 130 degrees was just completed “and the aircraft performed exceptionally well based on preliminary information collected,” Hawn wrote. Full climate results will be ready in the spring of 2015."

[GreenKnight121]

First F-35 Assembled In Italy To Roll Out Early Next Year | Defense content from Aviation Week (http://aviationweek.com/defense/first-f-35-assembled-italy-roll-out-early-next-year?NL=AW-05&Issue=AW-05_20141210_AW-05_1&YM_RID=%60email%60&YM_MID=%60mmid%60&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_2_b&elq=~~eloqua..type--emailfield..syntax--recipientid~~&elqCampaignId=~~eloqua..type--campaign..campaignid--0..fieldname--id~~)

First F-35 Assembled In Italy To Roll Out Early Next Year Dec 10, 2014 Amy Butler (http://aviationweek.com/author/abutler) | Aerospace Daily & Defense Report

Officials in Italy are preparing for the rollout of their first F-35A (http://awin.aviationweek.com/ProgramProfileDetails.aspx?pgId=613&pgName=Lockheed+Martin+F-35+JSF) from the final assembly and checkout (FACO) facility at Cameri Air Base in northern Italy early next year.

That first aircraft is slated to roll off the line by March 2015.
Italy invested about $1 billion in building the facility amid political infighting about the status of purchases for the fighter; it began operations last year. Cameri is the site of Italy’s hub for long-running Eurofighter Typhoon (http://awin.aviationweek.com/ProgramProfileDetails.aspx?pgId=668&pgName=Eurofighter+Typhoon) and Tornado work.

The military leadership there had hoped to assemble at least 250 fighters at the FACO, including Italy’s original plan for 131 fighters in addition to the Netherlands’ original plan for 85.

Though the final numbers are up in the air, Italy designed the FACO with significant work growth in mind. Rome is likely a top contender as the Pentagon (http://awin.aviationweek.com/OrganizationProfiles.aspx?orgId=29172) assesses options for a heavy airframe repair in Europe; an announcement on the final selection is expected early next year.

Italy opted to forgo the “moving” production line originally envisioned for Lockheed Martin (http://awin.aviationweek.com/OrganizationProfiles.aspx?orgId=27191)’s Fort Worth facility. Rome has, however, installed 11 workstations suited for final assembly work, including four for the electronic mating and assembly system (EMAS) customized for F-35 work. These are the same EMASs used in Fort Worth. But at least five workstations were designed for maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) tasks there, and some can be reconfigured should more MRO work be needed.

Italy’s design was aggressive by nature. Defense officials estimate there is $18.6 billion in economic opportunity for local business associated with MRO work, Lt. Gen. Domenico Esposito, who heads the Italian air force (http://awin.aviationweek.com/OrganizationProfiles.aspx?orgId=27787)’s procurements, told Aviation Week last year.

Meanwhile, work on constructing Japan’s FACO in Nagoya continues; construction began in May. The first major subcomponents are slated to be loaded into Japan’s electronic mate and assembly tooling – the same tooling used for assembly at Lockheed Martin’s final assembly plant in Fort Worth – in December 2015.

The first four of Japan’s 42 F-35s will come from the Forth Worth plant. The first Japanese assembled F-35A is slated to roll off the line in Nagoya in fall 2017, with delivery for operations in 2018.

[LowObservable]

I'm sure that the Luke public affairs staff won't find any hot-fuel issues to write about in their new assignment:

Peterson Air Force Base - 821st Air Base Group (http://www.peterson.af.mil/units/821stairbase/index.asp)

[LowObservable]

So if the temperature of loaded fuel is not a special issue for the F-35, and the USAF has been loading fuel from green tankers in very hot climates quite routinely for the last 25 years ago, why did the Luke people even think that there was a problem? What did they see, or experience, that they thought was an issue? Did they make the whole thing up so they could wrap a press release around it?

BD also misses the fact that this is not a new issue:

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09303.pdf (p.26)

It was supposedly solved with a new fuel pump in LRIP 3.

Anyway - anyone want to bet that further enquiries to Luke PA will be referred directly to Mr Vo-De-o-Do in JSFPO?

[t43562]

Could there be any stealth related uses for fuel as a heat sink? I imagine nobody would tell me if there was anyhow so I don't expect an answer....:-)

Imagining for a moment that it was possible then I suppose this would make it desirable to have fuel as cool as possible and thus provide the longest possible period of "protection". e.g. a brief "cool off" at just the right moment combined with flares - could one use that to escape a missile more reliably?

I know, nonsense.

[Courtney Mil]

We've been using fuel as a heat sink for decades. You could overheat the F3 on the ground if you tried. This story may not be such a big deal. Permanent shelters for the bowsers may be the answer. Too early to jump to conclusions. Maybe.

[Finnpog]

http://http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/canada-rates-f-35a-rivals-equal-on-most-missions-407025/

Interesting little article suggesting that Canada's evaluation of F-35A against Super Hornet, Rafale and Typhoon saw no overall notable victor over a range of missions out to 2030.

Another potential customer seeking a Plan B?

[Hempy]

A lab test imposing temperatures in excess of 130 degrees was just completed “and the aircraft performed exceptionally well..."

The aircraft 'performed exceptionally well'....in a laboratory test?

I'm ok with accurate propaganda to let the taxpayer know that the money is being spent well....if the team has completed deck landing trials etc well then absolutely be proud and let the world know. But I get nervous when they start looking for positive news to fill the pages and they have to resort to something like 'lab tests'.

"F-35 Meets Another Milestone

The F-35 program has met another milestone on its way to operational acceptance today when a spokesman announced another series of tests had been successfully 'signed off'.

The tests, conducted at various AFB over an 8 month timeframe, were conducted to determine the optimum nose-wheel tyre pressurisation.

"The Aircraft performed magnificently over a broad range of temperatures and tyre pressures" a member of the test team said. "The nose-wheel was subjected to lab tests simulating a temperature variation of up to 15 degrees and pressure fluctuations of up to 5 PSI. Simulated landings in a variety of landing configurations were successfully completed."

"This is a red-letter day for the F-35 Program." LTCOL Amanda Huginkiss, Test Team Coordinator said."

[LowObservable]

My understanding is that IR signature considerations make any direct air cooling, or heat exchangers venting overboard, problematic. The approach taken is to dump all heat into the fuel and thence into the primary exhaust, which is managed and mixed-flow in cruise. The heat either goes out as fuel is burned or goes through an HX in the inlet duct - that HX is fed through a small inlet above the right main inlet.

The heat sources include the cockpit and avionics ECS and the flight controls - AFAIK the aero loads on the controls are opposed by the electrohydraulic actuators, and that generates heat (whereas a pure hydraulic system is more thermally balanced). Correct me if I am wrong, Engines.

Under certain circumstances more heat is generated than can be got rid of and the fuel gets hot, and will eventually hit limits. (There was some work done on heat-tolerant fuels some years ago, but the F-35 has to use regular JP-5 or JP-8.) This could mean that you'd have to go into a less demanding part of the envelope to cool off, or retain some part of the fuel load.

Clearly though the heat capacity of the fuel is affected by how hot it is when you load it. Fuel chillers were used for early flight tests. The new fuel pump was more efficient (=added less heat to the gas) but apparently the Luke folks were seeing an issue, came up with a cheap mitigation and went public with it.

By the way, it would not necessarily mean cancelling sorties, so that's a potential misdirection. One obvious mitigation would be to launch with part fuel and then top off from a tanker that's been chilling at FL250 for a while.

[Courtney Mil]

Or just keep the bowsers in the shade. My understanding is this is a ground running issue. Plenty of cooling air in flight.

[LowObservable]

There is plenty of cooling air available in flight, but only one place it gets in - the scoop just above the RH inlet.

http://australianaviation.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/6673882647_7411c88712_z.jpg

That feeds a heat exchanger that exhausts its warm air into the inlet duct (or the fan duct).

Result, I believe, is that this is more than a ground-running issue. More here:

AFRL?s Invent Program Tackles Aircraft System Efficiency | AWIN content from Aviation Week (http://aviationweek.com/awin/afrl-s-invent-program-tackles-aircraft-system-efficiency)

And here:

https://www.ieeeusa.org/calendar/conferences/annualmeeting/2012/program/files/Friday/Track3/INVENT-Overview-Iden.pdf

[glad rag]

Sounds like the stat is either failed or wrong spec........

[Engines]

LO,

Happy to help.

Both IR and LO signature considerations make thermal management (TM) on modern aircraft more of a challenge. IR because you don't want hot exhausts showing up, and LO because scoops and vents can compromise RF signature. TM was identified as a major risk early on in the F-35 programme, and has been worked hard since.

F-35 has gained additional cooling scoops under the wings, and additional exhaust vents on the F-35B at least. Electric flight controls do add heat loads, hydraulic systems get rid of much waste heat through their fluid reservoirs, but at the cost of weight and space.

Your description of the way F-35 manages heat is close. It also uses liquid cooling circuits to manage the heat of certain systems. I can't give more details as it's been too long since I worked the TM issues. But broadly, you're on the button. You are quite correct in that AAR is a great way to get some cool fuel on board. Remember that the F-35 has a quite novel Integrated Power Pack (IPP) architecture that powers cooling functions instead of separate cooling systems as in legacy aircraft.

For Hempy - the 'lab test' they are referring to was very probably the whole aircraft 'environmental test' that has to be carried out in a specialist test facility, the 'lab' they were referring to. It will be backed up extensive test flying, but in this case, a lab test is a must.

Bottom line (as far as I remember) was that the aircraft systems were handling TM in all but a limited number of potential 'corners' of the envelope. The issues facing F-35 are pretty much the same as were faced by F-22 and B-2. As I remember, TM problems afflicted the AEW Nimrod, and affect a number of current aircraft out there now.

Hope this helps

Best Regards as ever to those crunching the numbers,

Engines

[LowObservable]

Forgot the wing scoops. Thanks!

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

Nah...thought better of it...

[sandiego89]

Perhaps we have another ingredient to add to the story? Espionage!

If we can add murder and a sex story- we have a complete saga for a television mini-series....

Chinese Engineer Facing Charges Of Stealing US Fighter F 35 Design Data

Chinese Engineer Facing Charges Of Stealing US Fighter F 35 Design Data - International Business Times (http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/575976/20141215/advanced-fighter-jet-f-35-chinese-national.htm)

[Rigga]

No mention of UK getting any Base Maintenance Facilities...at all! Could this mean that Marham will boil down to only doing large component changes for the 16 jets on the UK books? (or could Lakenheath do them all?)

Italy, Turkey will lead F-35 maintenance in Europe - 12/11/2014 - Flight Global (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/italy-turkey-will-lead-f-35-maintenance-in-europe-407030/)

[LowObservable]

Rigga - This was not surprising, given Italy's massive investment and Turkey's labour costs. After all, one of the program's aims is to eliminate non-US combat aircraft prime contractors and related capability.

As for the espionage - customs found documents in his luggage? Wot? Everyone knows that you travel clean and put the docs on Dropbox. It's in Top 25 Things Every Spy Knows on Buzzfeed.

[Lyneham Lad]

As just reported on Flight Global (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/dutch-f-35-orders-ready-to-take-off-407165/)

The Netherlands’ defence ministry has announced plans to order a first batch of eight operational Lockheed Martin F-35s, with the type to be delivered from 2019.

In an update published on 15 December, the defence ministry says it still plans to obtain a total of 37 F-35s, including five which will be employed as training assets. Initial operational capability with the Royal Netherlands Air Force is anticipated in 2021, with its planned full fleet to be available by 2024. The aircraft will be stationed at air bases in Leeuwarden and Volkel.

Lockheed has already delivered two conventional take-off and landing F-35As to the Netherlands in the USA, with the assets to be used during US-led initial operational test and evaluation of the Lightning II from 2015. According to its plan, the nation would receive eight aircraft per year between 2019 and 2022, with its final three examples to arrive in 2023.

The type’s introduction will coincide with a reduction in the nation's active fleet of Lockheed F-16s, from a current 61 examples to 45 in 2021 and 24 in 2023, before leaving use the following year.

Once at full strength, the Netherlands’ F-35 fleet will be sufficient for the nation to declare up to six of the type as available to support NATO operations, including two for quick reaction alert duties. Its investment in the type is expected to total €4.6 billion ($5.8 billion), the defence ministry says.

37 F-35s to replace 61 F-16s...

[Courtney Mil]

Of which four will be available to OOA ops.

[LowObservable]

The 85 JAS 39Es they were offered for the same money have to be looking good right now.

[WhiteOvies]

Just a thought but maybe Luke has pre-LRIP 3 jets that haven't had the modified fuel pump yet? White paint is cheap and there's nothing wrong with local personnel having bright ideas to help. it's just the US equivalent of a GEMS award. Any excuse to have an uninformed swipe at the jet though...


The 'Lab Test' would be the full climatic lab at Eglin with a production spec test jet from Pax River. It's a very special hangar sized facility; the internet has great pictures of what it can do with F-117 and F-22. I haven't seen any public pictures of an F-35 in there yet.


Given the visual similarities of the Chinese J-31 to the F-35 is anyone even slightly surprised to hear the Chinese have been spying? They have a C-17 alike too. Also the manufacturer isn't going to write a press release saying that they've built a good aircraft, but not quite as good as the competition are they? The Chinese Airshow footage of the J-31 shows a few unstealthy elements to the design that I'm sure will be exploited if required.


Rigga, there are plans for infrastructure at Marham, but until it's built there's not a lot of point making a big song and dance about it. The assembly line in Italy is using parts made in the UK so it's not like UK industry is missing out.

[Mr.Noritake]

Dear Mr Ovies,

Even a cursory knowledge of the J 31 vs the F 35 would suggest the similarities are only skin deep (or perhaps even not even that deep). There are two engines lurking in the J 31 for a start...

Thing is, current software design programs concerned with The Majik Of Stealth tend towards a certain similarity in terms of what a manned stealth aircraft looks like.

I'm not suggesting that elements of the J 31's design may not have been acquired through the normal industrial games present in our cruel and treacherous world, merely that the overall aim and direction of the Chinese program is quite different.

[WhiteOvies]

Absolutely, some would say that the Chinese have not been limited by trying to have one common design across 3 different aircraft. Without the STOVL requirement driving the design the J-31 can use a 2 engine set up perfectly well.


I'm sure many in the West would like to know how deep the similarities go, and I'm sure many in the East would like to dig deeper into Lockheed's vaults.


The similarities in design are played out across the emerging deep strike UAVs too, hence the X-47B, Neuron, Taranis and the Chinese one (forgotten the name).

[Mr.Noritake]

Quoted as 'Sharp Sword' by western media.

The Chinese seem to have a 'sword' thing going on with their combat drones, 'Dark Sword' floating around somewhere too. It's a little disappointing, they're usually much more creative with their names.

[WhiteOvies]

Of course, thanks. It probably sounds better in Mandarin anyway!


Why do we (in the UK) stick to weather related names? Obviously historical connections also play a factor (Typhoon and Lightning at least), I am not sure if this is the case in China also?


Thread drift warning....

[Courtney Mil]

Weather related names? Because they sound punchy, but maybe they'll follow the decline of our formerly excellent Air Force. Expect the BAES Storm, the Eurofighter Gale, the EADS Wind and the Joint-European Drizzle.

[Mr.Noritake]

Unfortunately the mainland Chinese use simplified Mandarin to name their aircraft, which is an affront to any educated person.

Unofficial names are usually much more colourful, referencing Chinese poetry or art.

Although not an air-breathing craft, 'Jade Rabbit' was an example of their creative use of a figure from Chinese mythology which was, at first, unofficial, but was eventually accepted as the formal name.

The Western repetition of aircraft names from the past does suggest that either a) your language is somewhat limited, or b) your imagination requires improvement, or c) you're hoping that the success of the original will instantly transfer itself onto the newest version.

[Willard Whyte]

Pretty sure I saw an advert for a 'Jade Rabbit' someplace. Don't think that was an air-breather either.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

The MoD A Bit Wet Towards The End Of The Week?

[jonw66]

What's unimaginative and limited language about "Dave":)

[GreenKnight121]

Han Dynasty poets call the rabbit on the Moon the "Jade Rabbit" (玉兔) or the "Gold Rabbit" (金兔), and these phrases were often used in place of the word for the Moon.

Yutu (Chinese: 玉兔; pinyin: Yùtù; literally: "Jade Rabbit") is an unmanned lunar rover that forms part of the Chinese Chang'e 3 mission to the Moon.

So there really has been a "Jade Rabbit" on the moon since 14 December 2013 - although it has been immobile since 25 January 2014 (42 days after landing) and its instruments continue degrading. However, despite having been designed for only a 3-month life-span, it is still able to communicate with Earth radio stations.


We now return you to your regularly-scheduled partisan bickering over the F-35.

[LowObservable]

That will be quite enough of that, Mr Whyte.

The visible influence of the F-35 design on the J-31 could be the result of sophisticated cyber-espionage. Or it could be the result of looking at public media briefings from 1996. Any real stolen secrets would not be apparent externally from a distance, and would most probably not be incorporated at all on the J-31 prototype. You might find some on the RCS model.

I'd be really surprised to see LRIP 1/2 jets at Luke.

[RAFEngO74to09]

The first 2 x F-35A for RAAF were delivered to Luke AFB, AZ on 18 Dec 14.

Arizona lawmakers tour state military bases - FOX 10 News | fox10phoenix.com (http://www.fox10phoenix.com/story/27664800/2014/12/18/arizona-lawmakers-tour-state-military-bases)

There will be 18 x F-35A at Luke AFB by 19 Dec 14. Training for Italy and Norway is expected to start in 2015. Currently, 144 x F-35A are due to be based at Luke AFB by 2024.

http://www.luke.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123434914

http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/12/raaf-f-35a-arrives-at-luke-afb/

[LowObservable]

Glendale Home Depot needs to stock up on white paint, then.

[Royalistflyer]

The War Nerd: More proof the US defense industry has nothing to do with defending America | PandoDaily (http://pando.com/2014/12/18/the-war-nerd-more-proof-the-us-defense-industry-has-nothing-to-do-with-defending-america/)

If the RAAF - or rather the Australian government had an ounce of sense, they'd be offering the USAF to take every last A10 off their hands. Its an aircraft that actually does the job. The F35 is going to be totally useless in the kind of war that we have been and will be fighting. Expecting the UK to see the uselessness of the F35 may be beyond hope, but the Australians have a chance of realising that the aircraft they need is something that can be used really effectively against ground targets.

[Lonewolf_50]

Royalist:
1. Do the RAAF have the tanking assets to deploy A-10's to where you need them to be?
2. How does the RAAF get ahold of the tech data, fixtures, tooling, and spares to keep an A-10 fleet alive and well?
3. Pursuant question 2, how big of an A-10 fleet do you envision as meeting RAAF needs? That answer to that informs how much overhead is represented in establishing the support structure to keep an old (albeit wonderful) aircraft flying into the future.
4. That the F-35 is very expensive, and not getting any cheaper, is not in dispute. What is in question is: what are options, what is to be done about it ... and how do you support and maintain your fleet of whatever for a few decades?

With the F-35, at least, I'd make a wager that spares and maintenance support will be more readily available. For a price, of course. :p

[Courtney Mil]

Spot on, Lonewolf. It's the only game in town for sustainability without buying from ex-Soviet scrap metal merchants, Sweden or France. Mind you...

[Lonewolf_50]

Courtney:
I guess there's a line of inquiry open to considering why the latest Grippen wasn't chosen for RAAF needs.
As I am not from Australia, and do not understand the nuances of their procurement challenges (with a much smaller budget than we have here in the USofA) it may have been a question that answered itself during the requirements definition phase.

Part of Australian strategic posture seems to mirror American strategic posture: we'll do any fighting in the future as part of a coalition or alliance. The advantage to having similar kit may be at the strategic level as well as at an operational level. F-35 in that regard fits a particular strategic need.
For a price, of course. :p

[sandiego89]

OK, on first blush I thought this must have been a typo saying the US Marines just took delivery of a "C" model. I was not aware that the C for the USMC was this far along. I thought the B was to be the main push by the USMC for years to come, and C only much later. I realize that this pre-dates squadron service by many years, but still caught me by surprise. Article indicates it is the first of 80 for the USMC.

USMC receives first F-35C - 12/23/2014 - Flight Global (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usmc-receives-first-f-35c-407407/)

Also notes first 2 Aussie deliveries- to Luke AFB for training.

[Radix]

.............

[Finnpog]

OK, on first blush I thought this must have been a typo saying the US Marines just took delivery of a "C" model. I was not aware that the C for the USMC was this far along. I thought the B was to be the main push by the USMC for years to come, and C only much later. I realize that this pre-dates squadron service by many years, but still caught me by surprise. Article indicates it is the first of 80 for the USMC.

USMC receives first F-35C - 12/23/2014 - Flight Global

Also notes first 2 Aussie deliveries- to Luke AFB for training.


Is this not part of the plan to upgrade some of their legacy F/A-18s to support the Fleet air-wings?