F-35 Cancelled, then what ? [Archive] - Page 23

FoxtrotAlpha18

25th Dec 2014, 20:44

The Australian government had a fighter program going in 2001, headed for a competition, but in 2002 (after the PM had been in Washington) announced that the future fighter would be the F-35.

There was never any instruction that AIR 6000 should be a competition, ever! Much like the UK's FOAS, at that time it was established as a study of future fighter and strike options to replace both the F/A-18A/B and the F-111C/G, for which the F-35 was determined to be the best.

The guy who was supposed to be leading the Dassault campaign landed in Melbourne hours after the announcement, with a phone message recalling him to France.

Have you independently verified this urban myth with Dassault, or are you just regurgitating a Chinese whispers-like story which has been re-told and embellished at every opportunity?

Since then, successive Oz governments have simply refused to re-evaluate the decision, backed up by phony foundations, a complaisant local media and a platoon of online fankiddies.

In fact, there have only been two successive governments since then, and one (Labor) of these did a comprehensive study soon after being elected in 07/08 and found the decision to be a sound one.

Phony foundations...care to nominate any and back that up with proof? And Complaisant? Did you mean complacent or compliant? Either way, these are both massive calls which I suggest you are unqualified to make based on the drip feed of clippings you see or get sent from APA.

And the "platoon of fankiddies"...oh dear, I would suggest many of them established themselves online specifically to counter the likes of you and your 'platoon of basement dwellers' who continually insinuate that all pro-F-35 fankiddies or media cannot possibly hold such views unless they are receiving funding from Lockheed or elsewhere.

MODS - if Noritake can get banned for arguing a rather silly aircraft A vs aircraft B point quite respectfully and succinctly but without substantiating his claims, how is it that B..., I mean LO is allowed to continue to make apparently biased, often spurious and sometimes just plain incorrect claims about a far more important subject matter with a far less respectful tone, and yet remain on these pages...?

glad rag

26th Dec 2014, 12:38

Be careful what you wish for mate!

gr.

LowObservable

26th Dec 2014, 12:39

Labour in 2007-08 might have carried out some kind of reconsideration, but as you know very well it would have been based on the ludicrously bad information coming out of the JSFPO and LockMart at the time, including a schedule that was at least three years ahead of reality.

By the way, I don't "insinuate". If I point out that anyone is getting contractor money it is because they are getting it.

jindabyne

26th Dec 2014, 12:42

FA18

Sorry to disappoint, but LO is broadly correct on all counts. And in anticipation, yes, I was closely involved.

glad rag

26th Dec 2014, 12:56

I, for the record, am vehemently against the UK's purchase of F35B for reasons of cost, operational ability and aircrew survival [as has been dramatically demonstrated this week]

BUT I can and do listen to the coherent arguments put forwards by those who support the program.
There are some bang on members who's contributions both for and against make this an important and current hot topic.
Calling for those who disagree with a particular point to be banned shows the desperation of some F35 supporters as, hopefully, this program publicly continues into the train crash that it already is.

as always

best regards

gr.

NITRO104

26th Dec 2014, 14:32

ludicrously bad information coming out of the JSFPO and LockMart
Indeed.
I got no horse in this race, but it's just that stuff coming out of the JPO is so amateurish and outright wrong, one can't help but notice.

PPRuNe Pop

26th Dec 2014, 15:00

Guys! This thread is getting enough complaints to mods to warrant some action. This thread is not much more than a pissing contest, which is causing disgruntled comments and it is time for it to stop. There are 277 pages full of comment and it is obvious that some are irritated they are not winning their argument while others are getting miffed that they are not winning theirs. This a debate and nothing more, so debate.

Now suggestions I have received ask for people to be banned - it doesn't work like. Mods ban when a ban is necessary and not when a poster wants it.

What needs to happen here is simple. The posters who think they are right can think it all they want - and vice versa. Unless PPRuNe rules are broken the thread will go on.

If some do not like what is being said then leave. The reverse is the same, the last alternative is that the thread is closed. Argument for everyone is over!

Its up to you then wouldn't you say?

Turbine D

26th Dec 2014, 19:39

Difficult to know what to believe, but for sure, excessive time to market, ever higher costs and unresolved technical issues do not paint a rosy picture going forward…

The + Story
?A God?s Eye View Of The Battlefield:? Gen. Hostage On The F-35 « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary (http://breakingdefense.com/2014/06/a-gods-eye-view-of-the-battlefield-gen-hostage-on-the-f-35/5/)

The - Story
Newest U.S. Stealth Fighter ?10 Years Behind? Older Jets - The Daily Beast (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/26/newest-u-s-stealth-fighter-10-years-behind-older-jets.html)

MSOCS

26th Dec 2014, 22:04

“At no point is F-35 fragged to have VDL [video down-link] unless it carries a targeting pod and the F-35 EOTS does not have and will not get an IR [infrared] marker,” the first F-35 official said. “It won’t fit in the space available.”

This isn't true at all.

“Thus lies the problem in the U.S. military industrial complex. They purposefully build products that require mass amounts of money to ‘upgrade’ when in fact, they could have planned ahead and built an easily upgradable ship / aircraft / radio / weapon system.”

My considered view is that this isn't exactly true either. One of F-35's greatest strengths over legacy platforms is its relative ease of upgrade and overall growth potential. Platforms such as F/A-18, F-16 and F-15 have only a limited stay of execution in the technology game and will be victims of time and obsolescence. Eventually it will become more costly to try and patch vital capabilities onto old fighters. Agile, integrated, non-federated, fused tech is the future. Now network it and pass it around for the best SA possible. That's where it's at and 5th Gen are HD-Ready in that regard. Sure, all future upgrades will cost the US and her partners money and yes, a fair amount too I'd wager. However, I also tend to resolve that by considering it to be not too dissimilar from every legacy aircraft we've had to upgrade in the past.

Anyway, I genuinely appreciate the debate this forum brings.

Hempy

27th Dec 2014, 02:00

The fact of the matter is that there is only one 5th Generation jet available to western countries. The advantages 5th Generation jets have over 4th (and 4.5) Generation jets are published. If you don't get on board, in ten years you will lose.

The over-runs/issues/flaws? That's the rort factor coming into play. This is Capitalism.

They will sort it all out, eventually. It'll be at a rediculous cost, but it'll get done.

berzerker

27th Dec 2014, 02:06

They chopped nimrod so why not the f-35?
Which is more capable? Easy answer Nimrod

berzerker

27th Dec 2014, 02:11

It's a pile of crap but we like throwing money at ****e, tsr2 last good airframe we produced. Bloody labour government

Rhino power

27th Dec 2014, 10:40

If you don't get on board, in ten years you will lose.

Utter rubbish...

They will sort it all out, eventually. It'll be at a rediculous cost, but it'll get done.

And that's a pi$$ poor reason for continuing to blindly throw vast quantities of your/our defence budget at it, especially at the expense of other desperately needed platforms/capabilities!

-RP

Hempy

27th Dec 2014, 12:07

Utter rubbish...

Care to justify that statement or is it just your 'opinion'?

The Difference Between 4th and 5th Gen EW | Intercepts | Defense News (http://intercepts.defensenews.com/2014/10/the-difference-between-4th-and-5th-gen-ew/)

LowObservable

27th Dec 2014, 12:22

MSOCS - A Rover-type capability is supposedly a candidate for 4A/4B, but so far that list has not been finalized, as far as I know. Not sure about IR marker. However, it has been argued in this thread (and is missing from the latest Majumdar story) that any day video, including HDTV, is not possible.

As for upgrade costs: the concern has to be that the F-35 will resemble its cousin, the F-22, which has incurred annual R&D-alone bills that are the thick end of $1 billion since it entered service for rather modest capability upgrades and a lot of obsolescence fixes.

The idea that the F-35 will be easier to upgrade than older aircraft remains unproven. On the upside, the F-35 has more modern computers and is Ada-free. On the downside, any new apertures will have to be specially designed and the aircraft is limited in space, surface real estate, and cooling.

Hempy - The DN piece is interesting. However, it's notable that when a USAF guy talks "4th" vs. "5th" he's talking "USAF 4th". That is, F-15s with the rather decrepit, way-pre-DRFM TEWS, F-16s still stuck with RWR and no active ECM other than pods, no IRST anywhere, no intraflight datalink and 1980s glass cockpits. So, yes, F-22/35 are another order of capability. But USAF-4th isn't Rafale, Typhoon or Gripen, even today.

Rhino power

27th Dec 2014, 13:07

Care to justify that statement or is it just your 'opinion'?

I don't have to justify it because it is of course just my 'opinion', much like anyone else who posts on this thread has an 'opinion', you included...

It's my opinion based on what information is freely available, and whilst I admit that is somewhat limiting, to suggest that unless you're operating the F-35 10 years from now, means your air force is effectively useless (there's a nice oxymoron for you!), I still maintain it's utter rubbish!

I think LO sums it up quite neatly in the last sentence of post #5531...

-RP

MSOCS

27th Dec 2014, 15:37

LO, the upgrades are indeed coming and the list is very mature. I'm not sure where the issue has arisen on integrating a more modern EOTS with CCD. Power and cooling. Yep, agree, always a problem. Solutions inbound, both hardware and software. I know that sounds like it's "no problem" but it's not how I mean it - all of these things are head scratches for LM and the subbies to work through, not around.

I don't agree with the suggestion that F-22 and F-35 upgrade costs will be apples-apples; that remains undisclosed. That said, for F-22 the US(AF), as sole user, bore the pain of the upgrade cycle. The collegiate nature of the JSF Program spreads that cost proportionately. Those buying a much lower total number of jets than the USA will get integrated, voted-for, capability upgrades that simply could not be achieved elsewhere with their contribution. Now add in the notion of some extremely attractive tech being brought to the table from many nations and suddenly the through-life development of F-35 starts to shape.

Rhino - though everyone is entitled to an opinion without justification, an opinion without reasoning or evidence could be nothing more than a sweeping generalisation. I think Hempy was after some reasoning.

Bigbux

27th Dec 2014, 16:50

I've heard that the fewer numbers of F-35 that the RAF will receive will mean greater quantities of cheese sandwiches available for the Eng shifties.

Progress, surely?

Rhino power

27th Dec 2014, 17:30

though everyone is entitled to an opinion without justification, an opinion without reasoning or evidence could be nothing more than a sweeping generalisation. I think Hempy was after some reasoning.

A fair point, MSOCS, which is why I referenced what LO had noted in his last sentence of post #5531, that sentence pretty much summed up my reasoning... :ok:

-RP

Yang Shum Wei

28th Dec 2014, 00:04

A most interesting thread.

Looking back over the series of posts it seems while some (like LO) have known all along, most (with some notable exceptions) have now realised the F-35 JSF program is not all it has been cracked up to be.

In fact, one could be forgiven for concluding it epitomises all that is wrong in the West.

Yet again, another fine example of what happens with the absence of integrity; failure to apply logic, reason and common sense; and, the difference between "believing" and "knowing".

Hempy

28th Dec 2014, 03:27

Fiction

The F-35’s ambitious capability suite – precision attack, air-to-air combat, and information/surveillance/reconnaissance – will result in a compromised platform that will never be any good.

FACT

Starting with the Six-Day War of 1967, for more than 40 years, advanced Western air forces have demonstrated a level of superiority perhaps unequalled by any form of combat power in the history of warfare. In the Six-Day War, the Yom Kippur War (1973), the Falklands War (1982), Operation Desert Storm (Iraq 1991), Operation Deliberate Force (Former Republic of Yugoslavia 1995), Operation Allied Force (FRY 1999), Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan 2001), and Operation Iraqi Freedom (2003), advanced air forces have utterly dominated their opponents.

Those operations were primarily planned and fought by the USAF, the Israeli Air Force, and the RAF, arguably the three best air forces in the world. It is noteworthy that each of these air forces is likely to become a major user of the F-35, using it to replace many of the platforms that have underwritten their extraordinary war fighting successes of the past four decades. It is also significant that Israel – not an original partner in the JSF project – has now indicated its intention to join, based on data emerging from the aircraft’s test and development program. Other air forces either involved in the program or expressing a strong interest include: Italy, the Netherlands, Canada, Australia, Denmark, Norway, Turkey, Singapore, South Korea and Japan.

If the most successful air forces in the history of air warfare believe that, on the best available evidence, the F-35 is likely to provide the best solution for their future combat needs, then their judgment warrants respect.

Fiction

The F-35 will be outclassed by other fighters in air-to-air combat.

FACT

There are two air-to-air domains to consider here: Beyond Visual Range, and Within Visual Range.

Authoritative American simulations have indicated that BVR engagements will dominate future air-to-air combat (as indeed they have since 1991). The estimate is that 93% of all engagements will occur at BVR and transitional distances, that is, at ranges greater than about 14 kilometres; while only 7% will occur WVR, that is, inside 14 kilometres.

Based on the best information publicly available, the only aircraft superior to the F-35 in the Beyond Visual Range domain will be the F-22. In other words, the F-35 will be better than every fighter – Russian, European, Asian, and American - except the F-22. And since it is improbable in the extreme that Australian F-35s would ever have to challenge American F-22s in combat, any thought of competition between the two is of academic interest only.

The key determinants of BVR dominance as reflected in the F-35 and F-22 are as follows:

• Both are described by the US Services as having ‘all aspect Very Low Observability’. VLO has to be built in from the ground up and cannot be added to fourth-generation aircraft.

• Both have enhanced situational awareness compared to fourth-generation aircraft, with the F-35 being the more advanced because of its extensive array of electro-optical sensors and data fusion capabilities.

• Both have advanced networking capabilities, including inter-flight data links that permit the transfer of high fidelity information between aircraft in a formation, allowing them to operate as a fully-integrated team.

• Both use the same air-to-air missiles. The F-22 will carry more AIM-9s than the F-35, but the F-35’s will be a later (i.e., better) version.

Within Visual Range, the F-35 will enjoy significant advantages through its exceptional situational awareness systems and advanced radar (both of which will be better than the F-22’s), and its advanced missiles and high off-bore sight aiming system (which allows a pilot to fire his missiles without having to manoeuvre to advantage).

Special mention should be made of the F-35’s distributed aperture system, which uses multiple infrared sensors to generate a full spherical image and allows the pilot to ‘look’ through the airframe via a helmet mounted display. While the sensor’s manufacturer, Northrop Grumman, may be overstating the case by claiming that it will make manoeuvrability ‘irrelevant’, the technology is a potential game changer. When the F-35 enters service it will be the only fighter in the world with such a system.

Simulations indicate that the F-35 will have a kill/loss ratio of around 8:1 against every competitor other than the F-22. By any standards that is a historically high figure. Furthermore, given the F- 35’s superior BVR capabilities, pilots almost invariably should have the option of breaking off a pending engagement should they assess that the odds are against them.

Conclusions about the F-35 as an air superiority system based on assessments of platform manoeuvrability, acceleration and maximum speeds, are ill-founded. Instead of focusing on such secondary issues, political and defence decision-makers would be better off contemplating why the most successful air forces in the history of air warfare are planning to make the F-35 the centrepiece of their operations for the first half of the 21st century.

http://www.williamsfoundation.org.au/sites/default/files/FvsFiction%20Final%2024Mar1.pdf

Willard Whyte

28th Dec 2014, 08:50

Isn't the 'F'-35 supposed to be the RAF's bomb truck (as well as the RN's 'MRCA')?

Anyhoo, much criticism of the '35 stems from the compromises and delays caused by the 'B - and their knock-on effect on the 'A and 'C.

PhilipG

28th Dec 2014, 10:08

In a large air force, aka USAF, that may be able to afford a large number of F35s, I could possibly see an 8:1 ratio with some of the F35s slick and others carrying external stores.

I am slightly at a loss as to how a pair of F35s doing an intercept against say 16 4th or higher generation fighters will achieve a ratio of 8:1, AFAIK all the F35s can only carry 2 AA missiles internally, so the initial fight BVR is won by the slick F35s then only if they are A's will they have a gun for self protection.

If the pair of F35s in the intercept are carrying external stores then surely they will be visible to the attacking fighters, so will be at risk of BVR attack.

Or have I missed a trick?

Rhino power

28th Dec 2014, 10:12

Nice link, Hempy. LM couldn't have written a better sales pitch themselves... :D

-RP

Radix

28th Dec 2014, 11:10

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

dctyke

28th Dec 2014, 11:20

Bigbux, one cannot have 1st generation sandwiches when fixing a 5th generation ac.

Willard Whyte

28th Dec 2014, 11:42

Instead of focusing on such secondary issues, political and defence decision-makers would be better off contemplating why the most successful air forces in the history of air warfare are planning to make the F-35 the centrepiece of their operations for the first half of the 21st century.

Answer: They bet the farm on the '35. There's no other '5th' generation fighter on the (Western) table.

Can't see G6 entering service before 2030 either, given the length of time the '22 & '35 took from 'prototype' (YF-22/X-35) flight to in service, both around 14 years.

Turbine D

28th Dec 2014, 14:38

Now in support of Hempy's article regarding the superiority of the F-35 in the three services role, I offer this:
George Standridge, VP of Business Development of Lockheed Martin predicted in 2006 that the F-35 will be four times more effective than legacy fighters in air-to-air combat, eight times more effective in air-to-ground combat, and three times more effective in reconnaissance and suppression of air defenses – while having better range and requiring less logistics support and having around the same procurement costs (if development costs are ignored) as legacy fighters. The design goals call for the F-35 to be the premier strike aircraft through 2040 and to be second only to the F-22 Raptor in air superiority.
However, George failed to mention that all three services will have F-35s designed in one way or another to accommodate this feature whether it is present or not:
http://i1166.photobucket.com/albums/q609/DaveK72/800px-Engine_of_F-35_zps99aa3a28.jpg (http://s1166.photobucket.com/user/DaveK72/media/800px-Engine_of_F-35_zps99aa3a28.jpg.html)
Therefore, to conclude that the USAF or USN versions will be as capable as LM projects is highly questionable, IMHO. The US Marine version won the contest as to having the least compromised aircraft. What makes me wonder about the F-35 and the Marines is this article written by a former Marine:

With EF21, Marines Struggle to Remain Relevant (http://cimsec.org/ef21-marines-struggle-remain-relevant/13916)

So, how close does the F-35 come to the F-22 capability? Here is the F-22 capability as a starting point:
http://i1166.photobucket.com/albums/q609/DaveK72/F22_Raptor_info_zpsdc8af84f.jpeg (http://s1166.photobucket.com/user/DaveK72/media/F22_Raptor_info_zpsdc8af84f.jpeg.html)

Woff1965

28th Dec 2014, 15:11

I am a civilian, I also have a strong interest in defence matters and lurk in here so I have some idea of what is really going on, as opposed to the junk fed to me by journo's or politicians. I don't post much as I can't contribute to the debates as I often lack sufficient knowledge to do so.

So I hope no one will jump all over me but speaking as someone who is going to be paying for the F35B in UK service and will be relying on it to protect the nation (and my tender skin) I just have to say I am completely unimpressed by this overpriced abortion. Reading Hempy's post gives me an itchy feeling between my shoulder blades and an overwhelming urge to say bull****. If the F35 is so capable, why is the USN so keen to increase their F18G fleet, Australia buying 12 Growlers of their own and the USMC snatching every ex-USN EA6B as they become available to support the F35 in service.

No one has ever built a AAM which is 100% guaranteed to hit, so I am pretty sure AMRAAM isn't it nor ASRAAM or AIM9X. It is quite possible that even if a pair of fully loaded F35's came up against 16 PAK FA they are going to use all that wonderful data fusion to get a superb 3D view of being out turned and shredded.

I will be very happy to be wrong on this.

melmothtw

28th Dec 2014, 16:17

I have some idea of what is really going on, as opposed to the junk fed to me by journo's...

Why, thank you kindly sir ;-)

Courtney Mil

28th Dec 2014, 17:38

Ooh, Mel. That's you told. I guess he really meant the Daily Mail. :ok:

LowObservable

28th Dec 2014, 19:27

PG - The Block 3F and later F-35 is supposed to have four internal AMRAAMs (although I have to say I have yet to see a photo of even a fit check).

It's therefore possible to construct a scenario where four F-35s against 16 adversaries destroy eight of them without assuming silly high Pks. However, this almost has to assume that Red is unaware of anything untoward until the Amraams go active.

However, it does not take any classified information to understand that the real world will diverge from this ideal, if and when the adversaries have more warning of the attack and the ability to respond with evasion, EW and expendables.

Also, it is common sense that the always challenging issue of detecting/tracking/IDing without being detected oneself (LPI/LPD) has been made more difficult as adversaries have reduced their signature and improved (massively) their active and passive EW.

Finally, you really don't want to be in a situation when you have exhausted all your weapons without either killing all the adversaries or expending their (larger) magazines, particularly when the remaining :mad:-off adversaries are faster than you.

melmothtw

28th Dec 2014, 20:23

If he meant the Daily Fail Court, then that's alright then ;-)

PhilipG

28th Dec 2014, 21:53

Thanks for that LO, if and when 3F is released, with the ability to carry possibly 4 internal AMRAAMs surely the best the F35 could hope to achieve is 4:1, leaving a basically defenceless plane, still quite a way from 8:1.

Woff1965

29th Dec 2014, 01:44

I was talking about the sort of journalist who sees doing celebrity puff pieces as a promotion rather than an excursion to hell. I was not talking about the kind who try to get things right.

GreenKnight121

29th Dec 2014, 01:55

Some intellectual dishonesty going on here.

Since when did an 8:1 kill-loss ratio mean only "1 F-35 must kill 8 enemy aircraft in one mission, and be simultaneously killed by the last"?

A flight of 4 F-35s facing 4 enemy aircraft on each of 2 missions, shooting down all 8 (1 per F-35 per mission) and losing only 1 in return creates that 8:1 ratio - as LO noted.

As does 8 vs 24, with 8 enemy being shot down to 1 loss - and any of a number of other scenarios that result in an overall ratio of 8 enemy aircraft shot down by F-35s to 1 F-35 sot down by enemy aircraft.

The F-15 has an actual real-world kill-loss ratio of >100:0, after all.

glad rag

29th Dec 2014, 11:34

LowObservable

29th Dec 2014, 11:58

GK - Correct, but it underscores the larger point. U.S. fighters since the 1980s have enjoyed both superior weapons/sensors and better performance than their adversaries. The latter translates into engagement control: against any adversary other than the Su-27, any modern Western fighter has been able to disengage at will and (as you point out) to return tomorrow to continue campaign-level attrition. (The MiG-29 has speed, agility and acceleration but lacks the fuel to extend an engagement.) Will the F-35 retain that advantage against the Su-35, J-10 or J-11?

Radix

29th Dec 2014, 12:30

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

Snafu351

29th Dec 2014, 13:30

Hempy, Thank you for this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5hV8W4EzXRU

I'm utterly depressed by the performance of the chaps answering the questions.

The level of assumption and apparent complancy is akin to the worst fanboys.

Alongside that the lack of answers to questions and sheer lack of knowledge is painful.

The whole performance screams protecting little empires rather than seeking the best solution.

If i were a member of the Australian armed forces i'd struggle to face being lead by that crowd.

Lonewolf_50

29th Dec 2014, 15:23

LO:
Thanks for the comments on the Aus journey to F-35.

Kill ratios and predictions by VP's of LM ... projections made that may someday be put to the test at which point one will know the real number.

F-18G. Woff, I may be wrong, but the USN discovered in the past 10-15 years that airborne EWM/EW/ECM capability is a high demand mission both during a "big fight" and during COIN and other "smaller" fights. I suspect that the original numbers authorized were less than the service asked for, and that later plus ups included three considerations:
1. Getting what was originally asked for
2. Congressional pressure to keep production up for a constituency
3. Revision of requirements in light of the EA-6B usage and demand from 2001-2014 in various ops.

That's a guess, of course, informed by modest experience (at best) in operations and acquisition/programming/politics and the interface thereof.

Maus92

29th Dec 2014, 23:03

Re: this link posted in #5537
http://www.williamsfoundation.org.au...l%2024Mar1.pdf

Go to the homepage of the Williams Foundation, and look at the scroll at the bottom of the page. Just about every contractor involved with the F-35 program is represented (presumably donors/sponsors)
Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, BAE, Konigsberg....

It's like the Australian version of Second Line of Defense, Breaking Defense, etc. In other words, paid speech.

LowObservable

30th Dec 2014, 01:50

LW - I believe one factor in the push for more EA-18s is the demonstration that you can use three Growlers with TTNT datalink and TDOA (time difference of arrival) to locate emitters very quickly and with targeting-grade accuracy. This makes you want to put three EAs up where otherwise you might have used two. Hence, more aircraft on ship.

Mr C Hinecap

30th Dec 2014, 02:01

A couple more articles relevant to this discussion

The Pentagon's $1.5 Trillion Mistake - The Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/video/index/384088/the-pentagons-15-trillion-mistake/)

The Tragedy of the American Military - The Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/12/the-tragedy-of-the-american-military/383516/)

FoxtrotAlpha18

30th Dec 2014, 19:09

Even that most parochial of F-35 critics would tell you the "$1.5 trillion" meme is incorrect and has been proven several times to be so, right LO?

Once you see that headline, it's really not worth reading of watching any further...

LowObservable

30th Dec 2014, 22:11

I don't use the trillion-dollar numbers myself - it's the astronomical CPFH that forms part of it that is scary - but, for the record, the first person to call JSF a trillion-dollar program was Micky Blackwell of LockMart in 1996.

FoxtrotAlpha18

31st Dec 2014, 07:02

Perhaps not, but nor do you correct others when they use it. Instead you seem happy to let them go through to the keeper because it conveniently suits your biased arguments.

Heathrow Harry

31st Dec 2014, 09:35

so tell us FA18 how much WILL it cost???

No-one seems to know - which is half the probelm

Snafu351

31st Dec 2014, 09:41

HH,
Just be quite and don't challenge or ask any awkward questions or point out the utter failure of the project to date.
That's not allowed.
As long as it is in service one day it doesn't matter how much it cost or how long it took to be operationally useful, anybody who understands the truth knows that.
If you don't know that then you are not part of the need to know so how dare you have the bare faced cheek to point out little unimportant things like the soaring (out of control?) costs for a completely non-operational platform. (Still non-operational several years after it's intended in service date. Of course the opposition will have been doing nothing in that time, they are all good sports.)

Radix

31st Dec 2014, 11:12

..........

glad rag

31st Dec 2014, 11:33

You know this "sensor fusion" thing, so that a number of F35 can combine their sensor data for the unrivalled "big picture",

How does that work when they are meant to be stealthy and non emitting??????

Almost as laughable as rear reference signals for AAM's. :hmm:

Well actually not. :ugh:

Turbine D

31st Dec 2014, 13:26

Year 2019 and beyond should be big for the F-35…

New U.S. Stealth Jet Can?t Fire Its Gun Until 2019 - The Daily Beast (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/31/new-u-s-stealth-jet-can-t-fire-its-gun-until-2019.html?via=mobile&source=email)

Relative to the $1.5 Trillion number: Excerpts from a WSJ article written by USN Vice-Admiral, Norbert R. Ryan, Jr.
In 2013 alone, the Government Accountability Office reported that the Pentagon’s top 85 major defense-acquisition programs experienced overruns of nearly $411 billion. Reporter Andrew Tilghman of the Military Times observed that this amount in itself is almost enough to cover the entire cost of sequestration for the Defense Department.

The Ford-class aircraft carrier has seen cost overruns of $2 billion. The price tag of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter has topped out at $1.5 trillion and is now $160 billion over budget. Raiding military health-care plans for $2.6 billion in savings over six years suggests that Congress is looking in the wrong places to rein in spending.

Insisting, as some observers in and out of the military do, that weapons systems must be immune to cutbacks inevitably means that the money must be taken out of personnel. That’s akin to forcing soldiers to pay for their own bullets.

The new congressional leadership should remember that nothing is more important to America’s national security than protecting the one weapon system that has never failed—the men and women of the uniformed services.

Mr. Ryan, a retired U.S. Navy vice admiral, is president of the Military Officers Association of America.

sandiego89

31st Dec 2014, 15:33

(Real life) Kill ratios are grossly misrepresentative of the quality of a jet as a real adversary has never been found. A well-trained, numerically equal, adversary. Not to say they are bad jets.

What is the Top Gun school / Red Flag etc. kill ratio of the F-15 for example? Probably classified and a lot lower.

I get what you are saying, but IMO real life kill ratios matter quite a bit. Those reflect the wars that have been fought in the last 40+ years. Do they reflect true peer on peer conflict with the best from the first world? No, but they reflect reality. The days of the king sending out his best knight to deul the other kings best knight have passed some time ago.

The real world scores of the F-15, F-16 and Sea Harrier are impressive by ANY measure and are important to the debate. They might not be peer on peer data, but are the best we have for real data. Yes exercises data helps too, but we can not miss the data we have from real conflicts.

We have learned tons of lessons from ground, sea and air conflict since 1945. By your reasoning they should not count because they were not against a peer foe?

These posts tend to focus to focus on weapon vs. weapon (F-35 vs PAK etc), but a better focus is on doctrine, support and the whole picture. We may (hopefully) never know how gen 5 planes fight each other in a real peer war. My money is still that the best "system" will have the edge. If that is the F-35 supported by tankers, AWACS, jammers, and the best training and support you can buy, it will be pretty good. US doctrine is not based on a "fair" knife fight.

Engines

31st Dec 2014, 16:19

Glad,

Perhaps I can help here a little on F-35 systems operation. The following information uses open sources, by the way.

The F-35 'data fusion' (or 'sensor fusion' if you prefer) across platforms is supported by the MADL system (Multifunction Advanced Data Link), which is installed on the platform in a number of locations so as to provide full spherical coverage.

This is a steered beam system, which uses differential GPS to allow pairs of aircraft to establish a beam link. Yes, the jets are transmitting, but the system is designed for Low Probability of Intercept (LPI), like modern radar altimeters and other RF systems.

There's some information out there, understandably restricted at this stage.

Hope this helps,

Best regards

Engines

glad rag

31st Dec 2014, 17:12

Thanks Engines, I think I can safely say we all appreciate your continuing inputs to this discussion. ;)

From your description I would imagine ## some low powered microwave link ## perhaps ? laser :hmm: atmospherics could hinder even more unless power was ramped right up....:hmm:

Anyway, I'm quite into SAT TV, No not ***, I have a steerable dish [from 50 ish east to 40 west] and I once calculated, in a moment of total nerd-ism I admit, the distance [at the sat end] moving my dish 0.1 degree, it worked out at about 135 miles give or take [quite] a bit depending on sat elevation as from my location.

Even so I was able to have only a slight loss of signal quality at the receiver. Now, obviously, the scale of distances are magnitudes less, yes, but I remain unconvinced that these signals are intercept proof, not least the fact that the GPS differential calculation signal must start and end "somewhere" for the receiver/transmitter aircraft subsystem to point the datalink in the correct 4 dimensional position in the first place. YES?

Or perhaps not.

glad rag

31st Dec 2014, 17:17

I get what you are saying, but IMO real life kill ratios matter quite a bit. Those reflect the wars that have been fought in the last 40+ years. Do they reflect true peer on peer conflict with the best from the first world? No, but they reflect reality. The days of the king sending out his best knight to deul the other kings best knight have passed some time ago.

The real world scores of the F-15, F-16 and Sea Harrier are impressive by ANY measure and are important to the debate. They might not be peer on peer data, but are the best we have for real data. Yes exercises data helps too, but we can not miss the data we have from real conflicts.

We have learned tons of lessons from ground, sea and air conflict since 1945. By your reasoning they should not count because they were not against a peer foe?

These posts tend to focus to focus on weapon vs. weapon (F-35 vs PAK etc), but a better focus is on doctrine, support and the whole picture. We may (hopefully) never know how gen 5 planes fight each other in a real peer war. My money is still that the best "system" will have the edge. If that is the F-35 supported by tankers, AWACS, jammers, and the best training and support you can buy, it will be pretty good. US doctrine is not based on a "fair" knife fight.

In my, somewhat limited experience, the technological edge only lasts until a suitable tactic, of whatever type, evolves......

busdriver02

31st Dec 2014, 17:44

I remain unconvinced that these signals are intercept proof,
Nothing is intercept proof, hence low probability. That said, there's more than just directionality to reduce the probability of intercept/exploitation.

LowObservable

31st Dec 2014, 18:44

MADL appears to work more or less. The first problem is that it can't talk to anything else. I've also heard a concern that its operating waveband has been assigned to satellite HDTV. This may be rumor, but after the B-2 radar fiasco (its bandwidth also got assigned to commercial satellites, with the result that a B-2 in the wrong place at the wrong time could zap an on-orbit transponder) it is not entirely unbelievable.

Also - nothing new about the gun being unavailable until Block 3F. However, if the stealth and sensor fusion are anything like as good as they claim, any pilot is going to need a lot more luck and prowess getting out of a guns duel with a Su-35 than he demonstrated getting into it.

busdriver02

31st Dec 2014, 19:14

According to Wiki it's in the Ku band. I imagine F-35 will be running Link-16 in passive most of the time, so at least they'll be able to receive info from the supporting heavies. Barring jamming, burn through, LOS, body masking and all that; same goes for GPS/INS.

Engines

1st Jan 2015, 09:52

Glad,

Thanks for the thanks. To pick up on your follow on questions...

The MADL antennae are hexagonal arrays that use electronic beam steering. There are at least five located on the airframe (two are easily visible on the aft ends of the fairings at the base of each fin). The MADL systems establish the link using the GPS co-ordinates that are shared between the aircraft, and you are correct - the differential calculation using the two (moving) end points is then used to keep the beams lined up. It's certainly an RF system.

The system is designed to support F-35 operations at relatively close ranges (less than 20km) with high data rates. I can't say much more because I don't know much more. I do know that the system works, and is an important element of F-35 operational assumptions.

Yes, F-35 also uses Link 16.

Hope this helps,

Best Regards

Engines

Heathrow Harry

1st Jan 2015, 17:53

Snafu -

Your servant, kneeling, cringingly craves your forgiveness - I realise you are correct and that a mere mortal such as I, am totally unfit to understand the metaphysics of f-35 pricing

A "price" in this case is a tautological construct meaning "a vast number that cannot be computed" ie similar to infinity +1.

I understand that that some of those "in the know" have stated that to NAME a price is to immediatley remove the possibilty that that number will ever occur in reality as naming it brings it into the current Universe.

In fact we should be thinking of "Hawking Pricing" where an infinity of prices, all very large, exist outside our space-time-dollar continuim

I have taken out my brain and put in ice box to cool down

Pontius Navigator

1st Jan 2015, 19:18

I think the F35, like the Typhoon before it are perfect projects.

We didn't need the Typhoon 15 years ago and we don't need the F35 now.

What we do need is the latest jet just before we have a real need. Properly you need a crystal ball, but while the existing kit works and can beat the existing as threat then nothing is lost through system slippage.

Heathrow Harry

2nd Jan 2015, 14:18

unfortunatltey the logical end to that argument is a point I've made before - when did the RAF last shoot down an enemy fighter???

I suspect it 1945 - the other kills were on attachment to the US, Australia, the Fleet Air Arm (shudder!!) etc etc

Sooo in theory we really never needed any of that kit in retrospect

Even in my most painful posts I find that just a leetle too far...............

Pontius Navigator

2nd Jan 2015, 15:21

HH, true to a point except our aim is defence and deterrence. Provided the kit we have today offers sufficient capability to deter then we don't need better kit today.

Where we need to use the kit, provided we have sufficient numbers of the right capability today then we don't need new kit until tomorrow.

I am not advocating no F35 just don't need it until we have a requirement, like equipping a carrier or replacing the GR4.

Heathrow Harry

4th Jan 2015, 11:16

100% agreement

wehave to have SOMETHING, SOMETIME but this is a classic case of doing what our American friends suggest when we could well do with a few more squadrons of Typhoons

PhilipG

4th Jan 2015, 15:44

The Typhoon may well have been a solution if it had not been decided to build to VSTOL Aircraft Carriers, or indeed two aircraft carriers.

It can be argued that if the French had remained in the consortium and had agreement had been made to have a carrier capable what is now Typhoon, vis Rafale M, things would be rather different.

Thelma Viaduct

4th Jan 2015, 16:26

Should have gone with the latest F/A-18 version, paid for catapults with the saving. Donate the F/A-18s to the RAF in 10 years to play with (ala Buccaneer) then buy a mature risk reduced stealthy aircraft force mix of F-35/Stealthy UCAV for the up to speed carrier force. Maybe keep a few F/A-18s for standoff jamming, refueling duties, bomb truck duties etc

Not exactly rocket science is it.

Bigbux

4th Jan 2015, 19:12

dctyke

Bigbux, one cannot have 1st generation sandwiches when fixing a 5th generation ac.

The problem with 5th gen sandwiches is that they are difficult to find.:)

busdriver02

5th Jan 2015, 03:00

Gents the question you need to ask yourselves: are you interested in being a partner in western force projection to counter modern anti-air systems in support of coalition operations? If the answer is yes, the F-35 is probably the way to go.

If all you're interested in is defending your own airspace and providing CAS in semi-permissive environments, the F-35 is massive overkill.

glad rag

5th Jan 2015, 10:40

are you interested in being a partner in western force projection

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/01/08/article-1108894-01C370A8000004B0-53_468x362.jpg

Emm, NO!

Finnpog

5th Jan 2015, 17:41

Yo! Blair!

High five :E

Willard Whyte

5th Jan 2015, 17:56

Any more laughable than Obama referring to 'call me Dave' as "bro"?

Lonewolf_50

5th Jan 2015, 18:33

If all you're interested in is defending your own airspace and providing CAS in semi-permissive environments, the F-35 is massive overkill. I think this point needs repeating. The fighters are hardly the only CAS/airborne fires resource in the year 2014, and 20 years from now that won't have changed. As more smart munitions are made available to other platforms, how often to you think they'll call in the Lightning for CAS? It isn't the only show in town.
The CAS via P-47 strafing has gotten some upgrades. While wish the A-10 would stay around for longer, the F-35 will be a capable -- even if NOT OPTIMAL -- CAS asset. Its original name was Joint STRIKE Fighter. That mission it will serve well if it ever actually goes IOC. :p

The NATO & allied nations who signed up for the F-35 program a decade and more ago made the presumption (as we in the US did) that any significant military operation we'll do in the future will be with allies. That is a political assumption that becomes a fact for planning, and if we look at how the last 15 years of real ops have played out, it is the political fact of major military operations and thus was a valid and necessary planning assumption well made.

This aircraft isn't just about what mission it does. It's been immersed in politics, at home and abroad, since before the fly off and is part of keeping the defense industrial base warm. If you don't keep the DIB warm, it dies, now that we have gotten a lot of tech generations away from beating plowshares into swords.

The Joint/Politicsl/Congressional premise of JSF was that one size fits all, with "mods" for tailored needs, and heaps of savings via "commonality" on the logistics and support side. I suspect similar belief was embedded in the political decisions in other nations as future forecasting and planning went on. I found out back in the 90's that after the much trumpeted "parts commonality" spiel about the SH-60 Seahawks and the UH-60 Blackhawk, the actual parts commonality between then was less than 40%. Food for thought as one considers the "parts commonality" of F-35A, B, C, and export versions.

Crystal balls are generally murky. The F-35 case illustrates beautifully.

When you commit to a serious warplane program, you commit to multiple decades of ops, support, and of course the upgrade cycle that take your bird through two or three decades of service. At least, that's what the last 40 years of conventional wisdom has taught the acquisition communities.

Is that conventional wisdom right or wrong?
Your opinions are all over the map on that, I suspect, but I'd like to hear them.

Aside:

I read Fallow's piece. (I get Atlantic in print version each month). The cover story (and his core sales line) is misleading. Defining victory is a political line. The military function and its core competency is use of force to accomplish a subordinate objective to the larger political objective. Calling the Iraq War a "loss" and blaming it on the armed forces is bizarre.

Saddam was removed, as desired, and Iraq was changed. A long list of political decisions led to the mess it became, and remains, but Fallows uses the standard scape goating short hand. No surprise. That a variety of operational messes were also made in trying to polish the turd is hardly surprising. When the Sec Def ignores the Chief of Staff of the Army, Shinseki, in terms of "Sir, if you want to do this, it takes this to achieve it" and tries to do it on the cheap .... you get what you pay for.

I was more intrigued with his commentary that quoted Admiral Mullen's cogent observations, and James Webb's similar concerns: the unintended irony of what has happened to the vision of the American Military reformers (POst Viet Nam, "all volunteer force."

They tried to make a better Army, and one that could not be used and abused the way it was in Viet Nam. Sadly, it has happened again. It just doesn't piss people off via the Draft ...

Fallows bitches in the piece about a lack of "reforms" when there was a major "reform" episode begun in 2005-2006 as Patraeus came back and worked with joint services on improved COIN doctrine.
Fallows of course only tells half of the story. He's got an axe to grind. Likewise, he overlooks a variety of things being done to structurally change the armed forces that get in the way of "reforms" since none of that happens in isolation.

The result of the past 40, years, as he sees it, is that we have an Army (armed force) further alienated from the people whom it serves, less representative of whom it serves ... which was one of the issues they were wrestling with Post Viet Nam.

A sad irony, and quite possibly true, in terms of who serves and who is familiar with what it's all about. Maybe you Can't Have It All, and that if you will have one, the forces we have are a better fit.
The result is a tool more easily used and abused by our politicians with less pushback from the public. <=== That is true for both parties, and is the core issue that needs fixing. But that's a political fix, not a military fix. Fallows however blames the military services. (Yes, he's a good writer, but I also think he's a true :mad:).

How does this aside tie into the F-35 program? The acquisition system tries to make its large programs watertight, by getting as many districts of as many Congressional areas involved as is practical. Fallows covers this well enough.

And then the military gets blamed.

Gee, who set this whole game up, rigged that way? Congress. Fallows once again rails against the "military industrial complex" but the most culpable group in that whole show gets left out of that old warning by Ike: Congress. Cpmgress is in bed with them all, and both. Ike's little warning was to both houses of Congress, and Congress has demonstrated for fifty years that it ignores Presidents whenever possible. All that is left is a sound byte that is dishonestly parroted by people with an axe to grind.

As PJ O'Rourke once referred to our government, it is a Parliament of Whores. The F-35 is the next bastard child of standard political fcuking around.
It won't be the last.
And it won't be cancelled.

glad rag

5th Jan 2015, 21:45

No it wont be cancelled, but the yanks [see I'm being nice to you tonight] may find that they have a less than optimal co-al-li-tio-n of compliant countries in the VERY near future....:ok:

Lonewolf_50

6th Jan 2015, 12:38

glad rag:
Nowhere did I present coalition as compliant. You did that. ;) My experiences with real life coalition operations is that herding cats seems simple in comparison. The political fact remains (see the Libya deal for a superb recent example): we (the West) will generally go at it in groups (of varying composition) for a variety of reasons, and will continue to do so for a while. A few can of course manage unilateral ops, and many can manage that as well in smaller ops.

PS: thanks for being so nice. :ok:

PhilipG

6th Jan 2015, 13:54

I cannot see the F35 being 100% cancelled, what I do not understand though is how the Pentagon thinks that it is going to afford to run thousands of F35s, there is sequestration going on and the USAF is / was hoping to retire early fleets of aircraft that the F35 was meant to replace on a one for one basis, vis A10.

We have seen that the sizes of future air forces in Partner countries has reduced dramatically due to reductions in available resources in these nations, not helped by late IOC and over target acquisition price and higher than expected running costs, this is resulting in lowering of the total build for the F35 allegedly.

Can anyone explain why the Pentagon is still so gung ho about the F35? Or is the plan changing to: -

A) We will eventually get the plane sort of working declare IOC, get plaudits etc:ok:

B) Then like the F22 and B2 decide that we cannot afford nearly as many as we thought that we wanted so will only procure say 25-40% of the number that we initially said that we wanted.:ugh:

Move along nothing to see here, what was that 6th generation project.....:)

Lonewolf_50

6th Jan 2015, 14:13

Can anyone explain why the Pentagon is still so gung ho about the F35?
I have two ideas:
A. It's the only show in town.
B. Sunk costs.

glad rag

6th Jan 2015, 14:27

Willard Whyte

6th Jan 2015, 14:36

I hope they have something (G6) flying at KXTA, else they'll struggle to get it introduced by ~2030.

PhilipG

6th Jan 2015, 15:43

Lone Wolf
Yes I see your

I have two ideas:

A. It's the only show in town.

B. Sunk costs.

As I recall these arguments were made for the B2 and the F22 as the only show in town and that the USAF could not possibly exist without 132 B2s however 21 were eventually procured and for the F22 the initial plan was 750 and 187 operational planes have been procured.

My point was, is it not likely that the Pentagon, under political pressure, will like it did with the B2 and F22 decide that it possibly does not need and cannot afford quite so many F35s?

Rhino power

6th Jan 2015, 16:04

The B-2 and the F-22 were ordered/procured at a time when the USAF still had a lot of A-10's, B-1's, B-52's, F-15A/C/E's and F-16's, so a cut in order numbers of the F-22 may not have been that difficult to sell. However, the F-15/16 are getting tired (F-15E excepted), the B-52 is positively geriatric (although it'll probably outlive all of them!) and the B-1 has been problematic since introduction. Given that the F-22 will eventually assume sole responsibility for the F-15C's job, with the F-15A now gone from the inventory, and the F-35 is meant to eventually replace the A-10/F-16 and eventually the F-15E (for a combined fleet of around 1400+ jets), I don't think a buy of a couple of hundred F-35's is going to cut it. They will have to be bought in significant numbers, whether they will reach the numbers actually wanted remains to be seen...

-RP

Lonewolf_50

6th Jan 2015, 18:05

Philip, my crystal ball is murky.
The tri service requirement and the fact that the buy has already shrunk from the original (the number of air wings that were projected 15 years ago as this program got up and running is larger than the number of air wings now ... ) argues to me that the production run will most likely be the number being bandied about now ... plus or minus a few. If longer delays mean that more foreign orders tank, that's a separate but equally important issue on the economics of the program, writ large.

tdracer

6th Jan 2015, 18:17

Roughly 10 years ago, I voiced the opinion that the USAF should cancel the F-22 and go full out on the F-35.
Boy did I get that wrong - with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, the F-35A isn't coming out to be meaningfully less expensive to build than the F-22 and yet is less capable. I think the USAF would have been better served to punt on the F-35A and put all it's money into more F-22s, leaving the nightmare of sorting out the F-35B/C to the Navy :ugh:.
Unfortunately Rhino is probably correct - the option of additional F-22s has passed, and the F-35 has turned into the only game in town.
The F-35 has truly become 'too big to fail' (or at least too big to be allowed to fail).:mad:

Fox3WheresMyBanana

6th Jan 2015, 18:19

Sunk Costs considerations are demonstrably stupid. By even considering them, politicians are showing they are stupid, but hope they can spin it to an electorate they consider even more stupid.

I do not think the original decision to go with F35 was wrong, but the World has changed.

Pontius Navigator

6th Jan 2015, 18:22

Surely cost benefit analysis has been ignored.

F35 against an advanced foe could be a game changer. Risking the same platform against a Toyota pickup is a nonsense, but necessary if that is the only weapon in the armoury.

If you have lots of other toys then you have a choice.

I was employed on an operation where the bottom line was we were not to risk loss of even one aircraft. No such stipulation was laid down for the other aircraft.

LowObservable

6th Jan 2015, 20:47

A few years back, AF chief Norton Schwartz remarked (IIRC) that the AF was "all in" on the F-35. This can mean "fully supportive" but it can mean committed in the pig-and-hen sense. In gambling terms, you've already mortgaged the house and maxed your credit cards. The USAF has no other options that stop an already old fighter force from continuing to age.

If the service wants to have 1800 tactical aircraft in the inventory and wants to work with a nominal lifetime of 30 years it has to buy 60 aircraft a year, but so far has bought 187 F-22s and 103 F-35s in the past 20 years - so it is 910 aircraft, or 15 years' production, in the hole. If it was to stop buying F-35s or fail to reach the 60/year replacement rate, the hole will keep getting bigger.

The question is what must be sacrificed to feed the F-35. The A-10 is at the top of the list, but the abandonment of F-16 modernization has to mean that those aircraft (with primitive EW and 1980s-tech mech-scan radars) have a limited effective life. F-15 upgrades are the next place to look for money: will the EPAWSS EW upgrade get funded?

And before the F-35 production program for the AF is anywhere near half done, the F-22 will be at mid-life.

Courtney Mil

6th Jan 2015, 21:18

LO, EPAWSS is still seen as a "must have" for the C Model, largely because there are only so many f-22s and nothing around to take on its Air-to-Air duties. TEWS is labelled "obsolete" and F-35 is too far away - debatable if it would do Air Dominance anyway. There are some concerns about funding it for the E, though.

Bit of a hole there, for sure. :ok:

Lonewolf_50

6th Jan 2015, 21:57

As I noted many pages back, it is a worthwhile bet that F-35 is the last manned fighter program we'll ever have. What they are doing with the unmanned strike vehicles is likely to keep expanding, even at the expense of other systems.

LO: F-16 upgrades have been going on since the 1980's. What F-16 modernization program were you referring to? (Crap, are they already past block 60?) Will look that up ... OK, I am guessing you refer to the new radar?

Rhino power

6th Jan 2015, 23:02

I assume LO is referring to the CAPES programme? Which has been kicked into the long grass...

-RP

glad rag

6th Jan 2015, 23:08

Lockheed, BAE In $10 Billion F-16 Dogfight | Farnborough 2014 content from Aviation Week (http://aviationweek.com/farnborough-2014/lockheed-bae-10-billion-f-16-dogfight)

Lonewolf_50

7th Jan 2015, 12:50

OK, thanks. SLEP becomes more important as F-35 slides right. The "CAPES-lite" avionics upgrade has to take shape if it is to exist in a finished form. Thanks, Glad.
(PS: Just finished a fast read of Viper ops by Dan Hampton.
Viper Pilot: A Memoir of Air Combat
Some interesting stuff in there on F-16's as Wild Weasel ... which role I don't think JSF will ever be assigned ... )

LowObservable

7th Jan 2015, 16:54

Yes, Capes - the basic development work continues, for Taiwan and (probably) Singapore, as well as others. But procurement is gone from the U.S. budget.

We'll see about EPAWSS. The likely suspects are offering very different approaches and so far there isn't a clear cost estimate. Rewiring 35-year-old aircraft can be entertaining.

chopper2004

8th Jan 2015, 08:53

Thought I was having a bad dream, for a moment when I read this

RAF Mildenhall to close amid other Europe consolidations - Europe - Stripes (http://www.stripes.com/news/europe/raf-mildenhall-to-close-amid-other-europe-consolidations-1.322825)

The only consolation is F-35 to LN by 2020 if all goes well, or not

Cheers

turboshaft

19th Jan 2015, 11:35

More detail on exactly which F-35 systems PLA Unit 61398 has compromised, somewhat ironically coming from stolen NSA reports:

China stole plans for a new fighter plane, spy documents have revealed
(http://www.smh.com.au/national/china-stole-plans-for-a-new-fighter-plane-spy-documents-have-revealed-20150118-12sp1o.html)
The leaked document shows that stolen design information included details of the JSF's radar systems which are used to identify and track targets; detailed engine schematics; methods for cooling exhaust gases; and "aft deck heating contour maps".

In June 2013 US Defense Department acquisitions chief Frank Kendall told a US Senate hearing that he was "reasonably confident" classified information related to the development of the F-35 was now well protected. It is understood the main data breach took place at the prime contractor Lockheed Martin in 2007.

A 2012 Aviation Week (http://bit.ly/1EhiAGF) report on the hacking claimed that
before the intrusions were discovered nearly three years ago, Chinese hackers actually sat in on what were supposed to have been secure, online program-progress conferences, the officials say.

The full extent of the connection is still being assessed, but there is consensus that escalating costs, reduced annual purchases and production stretch-outs are a reflection to some degree of the need for redesign of critical equipment. Examples include specialized communications and antenna arrays for stealth aircraft, as well as significant rewriting of software to protect systems vulnerable to hacking.

LowObservable

19th Jan 2015, 13:15

The actual report is less specific about the F-35 - the aft deck, for example, refers to the B-2. (In that case, the best intel lesson, which the Chinese could have picked up from open sources, would be "Don't design anything that looks like that in the first place".)

Rhino power

21st Jan 2015, 11:41

Makes for pretty grim reading...

https://beta.m.box.com/shared_item/https%3A%2F%2Fapp.box.com%2Fs%2Fsqtjg17r3kwedzluok4xtmd195kt cjxg

-RP

LowObservable

21st Jan 2015, 12:53

Schedule sort-of held, but a lot of testing ditched. And I hope that some combat effectiveness or at least useful learning is derived from the Marines' early IOC with Block 2B, because that's clearly a major focus on software that is not applicable to the definitive service-standard aircraft.

Vzlet

21st Jan 2015, 12:55

Thanks, Rhino. Lurking amidst the issues is this amusing one:

"The Lockheed Martin-developed F-35 ejection seat dolly failed Critical Design Review. The F-35 ejection seat has a higher center of gravity than legacy seats due to supports for the helmet-mounted display, and in the shipboard environment needs to be securely tied down in case of rolling motion from high sea states."

John Farley

21st Jan 2015, 16:55

Rhino power

Thank you for an excellent document.

I am in awe of a development programme that has come up with so many problems - several very serious indeed - without losing a single aeroplane. That is the way to develop a jet that during the last three decades of its life will truly be the one to beat.

(by my reckoning there are 15 more years before it enters the last three decades of its service life. Which today makes it half way through its development programme)

t43562

21st Jan 2015, 18:19

Haven't they lost one? I mean is it repairable?

jindabyne

21st Jan 2015, 19:03

John

You, Ned and I once had a chat at F'Boro, where two of us asserted that the aircraft was an ugly and unachievably specified (in all respects, not merely technical) platform. Plus ca change mon ami! But that was in drink, unlike now :ok:

Willard Whyte

21st Jan 2015, 22:11

F-35 reminds me of Cronenberg's 'The Fly'

http://www.blastr.com/sites/blastr/files/styles/blog_post_media/public/images/TheFly100311.jpg?itok=6uqoS49h

sandiego89

22nd Jan 2015, 19:08

Haven't they lost one? I mean is it repairable?

I believe the A (AF-27) with the engine/ground fire looks like a write off and won't fly again. Perhaps it may have some utility as a ground instructional role or in static testing.

I think Mr. Farley was referring to "lost" as in a smoking hole in the ground.

I do agree that with over a 100 built, in 3 distinct versions, doing concurrant R&D, training regular squadron crews as they gear up for IOC, weapons test, training partner nation crews, envelope expansion, shipboard trials, STOVL, etc- it has had an impressive safety record.

Undoubtedly the press will be all over the first crash when it comes, que "flawed $200M fighter crashes, narrowly missing day care center....."

Lonewolf_50

22nd Jan 2015, 20:32

... narrowly missing day care center....."So they'll also kvetch about how the weapons accuracy is abysmal ... :E

busdriver02

22nd Jan 2015, 21:34

John Farley, thanks for another perspective on the doom and gloom about the F-35. I hadn't really thought about it in that light. Glass half full vs half empty I guess.

Based on talking to a friend in the program, it will eventually be a very good aircraft but it won't be a game changer on day one of IOC. Helps to think about F-16A capes versus blk60 capes several decades later.

John Farley

23rd Jan 2015, 15:17

busdriver02

Thanks. Yes as I suggested in my post I believe it will take 15 years from now before it is fully sorted and becomes a game changer (or the one to beat).

In my book any types IOC is just the start of another phase in that type's development programme.

Maus92

24th Jan 2015, 00:50

15 years from now the Navy will have a new fighter on its decks, probably sooner.

Heathrow Harry

24th Jan 2015, 09:09

which Navy?

Ours will be down to the Astute class SSN's and the 6 Type 45's..............

LowObservable

24th Jan 2015, 13:13

Maus92 - Good observation. The longer it drags on, the more it is likely to end up like the F-111: by the time that it's fixed, the U.S. customer will be on to the next shiny object. This process is likely to kick into higher gear once the bomber contract is issued (they're aiming for the summer). The variable-cycle engine is the key technology - and putting it in the short, stout F-35 airframe would be like putting a turboprop in a P-47.

And this applies even if nobody in the next 5 years or so comes up with a l@ser that weighs about a ton and puts out enough energy to zorch an incoming missile, 30-45 seconds out, with a dwell time and fire rate that allows you to kill one target every 5 sec or so, and that can squeeze off 10-15 shots between <5 min recharges. If that happens all bets are off because the whole problem of tracking and leading the target goes away.

Where this could be super-seriously painful for the partners is in the upgrade budget. I don't see any sign that the R&D for upgrades will be any less than the thick-end-of-$1bn annual average for very slow improvements to the F-22. Which means that even when there are 1000 F-35s in the fleet, each operator gets the Make General Repairs to All Your Houses card once a year, to the tune of $1m per jet, just for R&D.

Lyneham Lad

27th Jan 2015, 14:27

ANALYSIS: Hurdles ahead as Lockheed works to meet full-rate F-35 production (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/analysis-hurdles-ahead-as-lockheed-works-to-meet-full-rate-f-35-407970/?cmpid=NLC|FGFG|FGFIN-2015-0127-GLOB&sfid=70120000000taAh)

From Flight Global. A long, quite detailed and interesting article, mainly about the issues Lockheed face in ramping up production from the current three per month to the seventeen per month target for full rate production in 2019.

Willard Whyte

27th Jan 2015, 15:31

...would be like putting a turboprop in a P-47.

...or a 'P-51'...

http://www.generalequipment.info/ENFORCER%20PA-48-A1.jpg

KPax

28th Jan 2015, 13:05

I have just seen pictures of the F35 operating at Red Flag this month, would be interested to know how it is fairing.

Turbine D

28th Jan 2015, 17:18

Moving on…..

The US DoD must have recently reviewed past history (F-111) that they somehow didn't review soon enough and recently decided separately designed fighters for the Navy and the Air Force does make sense, e.g., experiences with the F-14, F-18 and F-15, F-16.:ok:

Pentagon To Boost F-35 Orders, Develop New Fighters LMT BA - Investors.com (http://news.investors.com/012815-736703-orders-for-f35-to-rise-but-is-a-new-plane-ahead.htm?ven=yahoocp&src=aurlled&ven=yahoo)

longer ron

28th Jan 2015, 17:28

The US DoD must have recently reviewed past history (F-111) that they somehow didn't review soon enough and recently decided separately designed fighters for the Navy and the Air Force does make sense

No 5hit...who would have thought it :)

LowObservable

28th Jan 2015, 18:31

Lonewolf_50

28th Jan 2015, 19:59

The Defense Department will also seek $1.2 billion for the development of a new long-range bomber — another contract that's expected to be hotly contested — Maybe that one will be unmanned. I do not believe that another bomber ever needs to be built. There are a variety of ways to deliver munitions. Manned bomber strikes me as an anachronism ... 'fighting the last war' mentality.
as well as $821 million procurement of MQ-9 Reaper drones, according to Politico. One of the few procurement decisions that makes sense to me.

At some point, will the US DoD look at what they need out of aircraft and airborne platforms and question the paradigm that a person needs to be in it?
The unmanned carrier aircraft is a step in that direction as part of the force mix. Maybe I am wrong, and the key is the mix : some manned, some unmanned. (That is what the USN's LAMPS community is evolving into).

From the linked article, what appears to be happening is that an engine is what the follow on strike/fighter aircraft is to be built around.

Not sure if that's what's going on, but that's how it reads to me.

Confusing, to be sure.

rh200

28th Jan 2015, 22:40

Maybe I am wrong, and the key is the mix : some manned, some unmanned. (That is what the USN's LAMPS community is evolving into).

That would be the logical safe approach. The possibility of your enemy being able to exploit an unknown weakness and bring your whole force down in one foul swoop would be to high.

Turbine D

28th Jan 2015, 22:51

From the linked article, what appears to be happening is that an engine is what the follow on strike/fighter aircraft is to be built around.

Design and development has been going on for sometime on a new class of jet engines for the sixth generation of fighter aircraft. The article below describes the emerging engine technology as best as any in the public domain.

Next Generation Engine Work Points to Future U.S. Fighter Designs - USNI News (http://news.usni.org/2014/06/23/next-generation-engine-work-points-future-u-s-fighter-designs)

FoxtrotAlpha18

29th Jan 2015, 00:52

I have just seen pictures of the F35 operating at Red Flag this month, would be interested to know how it is fairing.

No, you've seen pictures of OT and a WA tailed F-35s operating at Nellis alongside Red Flag, but these aircraft are not fragged to take part in the exercise.

BenThere

29th Jan 2015, 01:30

I do not believe that another bomber ever needs to be built.

Maybe not, but in GW1, Afghanistan 2001 , Kosovo, and GW11, resistance on the ground was broken by B-52 cluster bombing, not precision weapons.

Those B-52s will not last forever, and a platform capable of delivering high tonnages of devastating hell on ground enemy formations will always be a needed and key arrow in the quiver.

Whether the B-52 replacement will be manned or not is a good argument. I have no problem with totally automated, robotic warfare, so long as we remain at the leading edge of technology. Sadly, I think our advantage there has been neglected in favor of income equality.

GreenKnight121

29th Jan 2015, 01:47

Yep. Speaking of new shiny objects...

U.S. military budget to start funding post-F-35 'X-plane' : Business (http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/u-s-military-budget-to-start-funding-post-f-/article_97a28568-f015-57e1-8d11-1660f628a532.html)

Consider that the program of record still has the USAF buying 80 F-35As in 2037.

Two things that are completely unrelated - but then you knew that.

These new fighters are to replace the F-15C, F-22, F-15E, and F/A-18E/Fs - aircraft the F-35 was never intended to replace - but you knew that also.

So why do you keep trying to claim that starting the process of replacing aircraft the F-35 was never intended to replace is somehow proof that the F-35 is a failure?

Obsessed much?

LowObservable

29th Jan 2015, 01:52

Budgets tend to make all sorts of things related.

Courtney Mil

29th Jan 2015, 10:51

...for example, when a certain fast jet project, back in the 80s and 90s was eating the Defence Budget, all sorts of other, "unrelated" projects found their funding evaporating. Who'd have thought there was any relationship between Eurofighter and, say, the Army's new radio? All things are connected in this field.

MSOCS

29th Jan 2015, 10:57

Budgets tend to make all sorts of things related.

As do Journalists.

glad rag

29th Jan 2015, 11:02

LowObservable

29th Jan 2015, 11:33

Maybe more detail is needed.

If an SC6G (so-called sixth gen) fighter is to be produced in quantity for the USAF in parallel with the F-35, starting round 2030, the USAF will at that time be acquiring, each year, 80 F-35As, 8-10 LRSBs, xx SC6Gs, along with tankers and T-Xs. By the way, the replacement of the ALCM (LRSO) and Minuteman III (GBSD) will also be in full swing. I think that is called "fiscally challenging".

Also, for those who think SC6G is a replacement for F-15s: the planned replacement for the F-15 is the F-35. The USAF still nominally has a 1900-fighter goal, which nominally is covered by 1763 F-35s and 140-ish F-22s.

And if the SC6G is to follow the F-35 into production (well after 2035) it is ridiculously early in the game to be funding prototypes.

It may be worth remembering, too, that until the mid-2000s the F-35 was not expected to displace any of the 339 F-22s.

Radix

29th Jan 2015, 15:33

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

ORAC

31st Jan 2015, 09:38

Navy push to rename Dave as "Sea Lightning". (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/defence/11380717/Should-the-Navys-new-jet-be-called-F-35B-or-Sea-Lightning.html)

If it's to be flown by both services it don't see the point, except a political inter-service one. Not a a good way to start.....

Finnpog

31st Jan 2015, 09:59

In exactly the same way that the Phantom, Buccaneer, Wessex, Whirlwind and Gannet all had "Sea" prefixed to their service names - I can see the tradition. :ugh:

However, using the SHar abbreviation, could the Sea Lightning become the SLig or even with a tweak the "SLug" in service.

On a personal level, I am not dead against the 'Sea' bit if they were FAA assets - but IIRC they are going to be RAF creatures, operated jointly, and will use the best of JFH learnt doctrine to deliver effect.

NB: and I am not taking the P... with the last bit, because the Harrier force in Afghanistan, and prior to that, was doing a good job.

longer ron

31st Jan 2015, 10:01

I would have thought 'Sea Slug' was more fitting :)

edit ... snap LOL

Willard Whyte

31st Jan 2015, 10:17

Also, for those who think SC6G is a replacement for F-15s: the planned replacement for the F-15 is the F-35. The USAF still nominally has a 1900-fighter goal, which nominally is covered by 1763 F-35s and 140-ish F-22s.

And if the SC6G is to follow the F-35 into production (well after 2035) it is ridiculously early in the game to be funding prototypes.

'6G' is intended to replace the '22 in USAF service, and the '18E/F in USN service. YF-22 (and YF-23) first flew in 1990, it took 15 years from that milestone to being officially accepted into service. X-35 (and X-32) first flew in the latter half of 2000, after the contract was signed in 1996. So, I'd think 2015 is exactly the time the US needs to start funding 6G prototypes - if not a few years too late. Even a 'crash' program is going to see any G6 fighter struggle to enter service in ~2030, even if unencumbered by any notion of USAF/USN commonality.

I wouldn't argue with the fiscally challenging nature of replacing multiple platforms though.

Haraka

31st Jan 2015, 11:55

In exactly the same way that the Phantom, Buccaneer, Wessex, Whirlwind and Gannet all had "Sea" prefixed to their service names - I can see the tradition.
Well actually Finnpog old chap, I don't think that you can.
The "Sea" prefix was for aircraft adopted for RN use from an original land based ( usually RAF ) type or specification:
Hence: Sea Balliol, Sea Fury, Sea Gladiator, Sea Harrier, Sea Hornet, Sea Hurricane, Sea Mosquito, Sea Vampire , Sea Venom, Sea Prince,Sea Devon, Sea Heron and even Sea Typhoon ( although this came to nought), Sea Otter, Sea Hawk and Sea Vixen also originated with the Air Staff/Ministry. Seafire ( originally Sea Spitfire) and Seafang were close cousins to this philosophy.

LowObservable

31st Jan 2015, 12:12

This would have been a Sea Lightning...

http://www.gengriz.co.uk/whatif_files/P1260019.jpg

Otherwise it should no more be Sea Lightning than the F-4K was the Sea Phantom. The prefix "Sea" in this context has a long history, indicating the kludging of a land-based design into a naval aircraft with greater or lesser success.

WW - According to the great book of SAR the Navy would have money to start buying a future fighter in 2030 once the F-35B/C fleet is done, and as Super Hs start to reach retirement age. Nobody has set a retirement age for the F-22 as yet but as there are only 140-some combat-capable airframes, that in itself is not a big requirement.

Just This Once...

31st Jan 2015, 12:44

Given the original design goals for sea use we should probably call the other compromised version the Land Lightning.

melmothtw

31st Jan 2015, 13:51

Don't recall the RAF operating the Land King helicopter.

Heathrow Harry

31st Jan 2015, 14:23

:):):)

goof shot melmoth................

Biggus

31st Jan 2015, 14:36

But then the RN (especially the Marines) never drove around in "Sea Rovers"!

Haraka

31st Jan 2015, 15:44

Given the original design goals for sea use we should probably call the other compromised version the Land Lightning.
Sorry , you've lost me there..:)

But then the RN (especially the Marines) never drove around in "Sea Rovers"!
I can assure you that they tried it on !

LowObservable

31st Jan 2015, 17:07

F-35C Sea Lightning

F-35A Concrete Lightning

F-35B Dirt Lightning (or Smoking Concrete Lightning)

(As for the name Lightning, I recall posting the clip from To The Manor Born which explained that perfectly.)

Cows getting bigger

31st Jan 2015, 17:17

I still prefer Dave. :hmm:

ORAC

6th Feb 2015, 10:05

F-35Cs Cut Back As U.S. Navy Invests In Standoff Weapons (http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35cs-cut-back-us-navy-invests-standoff-weapons)

The U.S. Navy has reduced its planned buys of the Lockheed Martin F-35C Joint Strike Fighter by almost one-third over the fiscal 2016-2020 Future Years Defense Program (FYDP), while committing almost $800 million to new standoff weapon developments and canceling the only missile program that was primarily dedicated to the F-35C. All the new developments are part of the fiscal 2016 presidential budget proposal and constitute the first move by a U.S. service to slow down its JSF procurements.

This year’s budget buys four F-35Cs, including two added late in 2014 by the lame-duck Congress. The Navy now plans to buy another four aircraft each in FY2016 and 2017. The rate ramps up slowly in the final three years of the FYDP, peaking at 12 aircraft in FY2020 and buying 38 F-35Cs in the plan period. The FYDP includes 83 F-35Bs for the Marine Corps, unchanged from earlier years.

Under 2015 plans the Navy would have bought 54 F-35Cs in the FY16-20, with F-35C production reaching 20 per year in 2020. 19. The JSF Program Office states that “the Navy’s commitment to the program remains strong” and that it expects the Navy’s cutbacks to be offset by international JSF procurements.”.......... :rolleyes:

The Navy’s budget priorities reflect the views of Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert. In June 2012, shortly after he was appointed as CNO, Greenert published an article in the Naval Institute’s Proceedings magazine that downplayed the importance of advanced platforms, including stealth aircraft, in favor of “payloads” including standoff weapons. Speaking to a Navy technology conference in Washington on Feb. 4, Greenert reemphasized these points, saying that any future fighter will likely "not be so super-fast because you can't outrun missiles, and not so super-stealthy because you can't be invisible. Stealth may be overrated," he said. "If you move fast through the air...that puts out heat and you are going to be detected."

teeteringhead

6th Feb 2015, 10:23

And why Sea Prince and not Sea Pembroke; for was that not what it was??

Alternatively, should the Pemmie have been a "Land Prince"??

CoffmanStarter

6th Feb 2015, 12:19

Teeters ...

Royal Navy executive transport 'Admiral's Barge' ... Percival Sea Prince C2 for the use of ;)

Lowe Flieger

6th Feb 2015, 18:41

ORAC: The U.S. Navy has reduced its planned buys of the Lockheed Martin F-35C Joint Strike Fighter by almost one-third over the fiscal 2016-2020 Future Years Defense Program......

You could almost be forgiven for thinking the USN is taking F35Cs under duress rather than of choice... which I think is exactly what is happening. A year or so ago they took an option on another 50-odd (or about that, I can't remember the exact number) SuperHornets. This was quickly withdrawn as the notice had apparently been 'issued in error'. With a less urgent need to recapitalise its fixed wing fast jet fleet and Greenert clearly not a fan, and with development both sluggish and expensive, they appear more attracted to UCLASS to supplement/replace their Superbug fleet as it ages. But they will have to support the USMC's F35Cs and I guess the combined USN/USMC order is necessary to justify the aircraft in the first place. I can't recall that there are currently any other takers for this version.

LF

Turbine D

6th Feb 2015, 22:22

You could almost be forgiven for thinking the USN is taking F35Cs under duress rather than of choice... which I think is exactly what is happening.

Déjà vu relative to the USAF/USN F-111 program in the 1960s. The USN decided the F-111 wasn't the carrier fighter for their mission based on design shortcomings. Then the search (design), for the one that was, began (the F-14).

Now, the USAF will be left with trying to figure out how the F-35A actually fits into their overall mission, given the shortcomings identified so far, same as what happened with the F-111. The USAF F-35A replacement aircraft will follow the USN's replacement aircraft for the F-35C.

History repeats itself…

GreenKnight121

7th Feb 2015, 05:42

Either people can't read or they are just living in their own world. :rolleyes:

The article never says the USN is reducing their total buy, much less giving up on the aircraft. It simply says that, instead of getting 54 F-35Cs by 2020, the USN wants to get 38 by 2020. So they reduce the LRIP a little.

No mention is made of reducing buys after 2020, when full-rate production is to begin.

However, this is enough to trigger the "OH MY G@D THE SKY IS FALLING AND THE F-35C IS DOOMED FOREVER" brigade to hare off in full cry.

:ugh:

PhilipG

7th Feb 2015, 07:29

With the USN deferring its purchase of F35Cs does this mean that the US Marines will have the first deployable squadron of them for a CVN?

ORAC

7th Feb 2015, 08:30

The worry, GK, is if this is the start of the "Cost Death Spiral" (http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/03/15/us-usa-fighter-f35-insight-idUSBRE92E10R20130315). The vain hope is that, "The JSF Program Office..... expects the Navy’s cutbacks to be offset by international JSF procurements.” In fact, the international customers are also deferring their orders awaiting the mirage of price reductions as production ramps up - and always the cost creeps up..

LM can always hope more money will be provided, but the USN is cutting orders to meet their budget and topping up with weapons, and the USAF have stated clearly that they are going to follow the same policy (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/no-more-money-to-cover-f-35-delays-says-usaf-369838/).

The question now isn't cancellation per se, but what reduced number will be built.....

LowObservable

7th Feb 2015, 11:27

GK - There is as yet no mention of whether the Navy wants to buy 20 F-35Cs (FRP) in 2021. That was supposed (as of last year) to happen in 2020. By the way, the 12 F-35Cs in 2020 will cost $144m each versus $81m for each of the last batch of 26 F/A-18s. That's rather more than inflation.

In the 2020s at full rate the U.S. F-35 program will cost (if the budget trends for FY19-20 are correct) >$14 billion per year, including c. $700m just for upgrade R&D.

The full-rate unit procurement cost for the F-35B is $147m, incidentally, and don't forget that the partners will also be billed for upgrade R&D at upwards of $2m per aircraft per year. (That number may come down as more jets join the fleet.)

Also - since partner contributions boost that Block upgrade R&D above the $700m U.S. figure - it's interesting to note that two years' work on a five-year Block 4A/B program (to add some new weapons to the F-35 and fix a few issues here and there) is roughly equivalent to the entire JAS 39E R&D bill.

Just This Once...

7th Feb 2015, 12:06

"The JSF Program Office..... expects the Navy’s cutbacks to be offset by international JSF procurements.” In fact, the international customers are also deferring their orders awaiting the mirage of price reductions as production ramps up - and always the cost creeps up..

One of things that makes me uncomfortable about this program is the JSF Program Office. The JSF PO is full of JSF customers who rather than holding LM to account actually participate in the corporate message.

How we ended up in the position of the customer providing the excuses for the manufacturer whilst paying the increasing bills is beyond me. The UK has a number of serving officers and crown servants at the JSF PO and it is unclear to me how the lawful customer and supplier relationship is maintained. At best it is far from normal business practice, at worst it starts to look a little like corruption.

Of course, it could be the case that all the international military officers working at the JSF PO genuinely believe that they will buy all their notional numbers, that all their fellow nations will do likewise and that the likely additional international sales are so assured that they are not risking any taxpayer's money.

LowObservable

7th Feb 2015, 12:57

Word, JTO.

The program has a way of capturing the people whose job it is to represent the customer. Some have gone on to work for the contractor, but the single biggest factor is a culture oriented towards success - or rather, success in the eyes of those who will be appointing you to your next job. And since you're going to move on long before it's finished, the temptation is to declare that everything is fine and bank on things not totally going to poo until you're safely out of range.

Now add to that the frog-in-boiling-water factor: it was easy to love JSF in 2002 when it was cheaper and better than anything else and all the alternatives looked wobbly. (And it was so cheap that it was't going to threaten any other acquisition program.) By the time most of the bad news surfaced in 2011 it was too late for many customers to look at alternatives.

The funniest bit in the JPO's response to the AvWeek story:

The JSF Program Office states that “the Navy’s commitment to the program remains strong”

I keep looking for the org chart where the CNO reports to the JPO public affairs guy, but try as I might I cannot find it.

Hempy

7th Feb 2015, 13:55

The reason the 'customer' (read government) is singing LM's mantra is that to not do so would in effect be admitting to HIS 'shareholders' (read taxpayers) that some of his decision making has also been somewhat, shall we say, imprudent.

Heathrow Harry

7th Feb 2015, 15:12

ORAC is correct - this is classic death by a thousand cuts

We (or the Americans or anyone else) start a programme saying we'll buy X units - the cost goes up and the timeline runs on and it becomes "up to X units"

Then we slow down orders, and ever so gradually the commitment fades away and the unit cost goes up

all you then need is for the opposition or the media to focus on the unit cost and the pressure to cut hard becomes impossible to avoid

Lowe Flieger

7th Feb 2015, 19:27

GK121: ....this is enough to trigger the "OH MY G@D THE SKY IS FALLING AND THE F-35C IS DOOMED FOREVER" brigade to hare off in full cry.

'F35C is doomed' certainly wasn't what I intended to say, and having checked my post I don't think that is what I said. The USN and USMC are going to get and operate F35Cs. But I still don't read the USN as being cheerleaders for the aircraft. They appear to be taking it more because they have to and not because they want to. If it were not to prove its worth and something more to the Navy's liking is on the horizon come the mid 2020's it might yet not take the full compliment. Of course I am drawing conclusions from afar and may be mistaken, and they want it badly. Certainly not how it looks from here though.

I most certainly don't want any part of the F35 programme to fail as it is going to be a significant component of our and many of our allies' fast jet fleets for years to come. Failure is not an option as far as I can see and given how far it has already battled against a strong tide, the programme's leaders think that too. It's very much in the interests of all operators that it evolves into an excellent system in each of its forms.

LF

Turbine D

7th Feb 2015, 22:01

Original Quote by: GK121 Either people can't read or they are just living in their own world.

I think people need to read with a wider vision. As you probably know, the US Navy has a new CNO, Jonathan Greenert. He is a bright personable guy, rising up through the ranks with a submarine background. Shortly after assuming his new position, he receives this letter from the Chairman of the House Armed Services Seapower and Projection Forces subcommittee.
Document: July Letter from Rep. Randy Forbes to CNO Adm. Jonathan Greenert On 'Deficit of Strategic Thinking' - USNI News (http://news.usni.org/2014/10/01/document-july-letter-rep-randy-forbes-cno-adm-jonathan-greenert-deficit-strategic-thinking)
This letter is followed up by another public statement by Representative Ford reenforcing his letter. Now put yourself in Jonathan Greenert's shoes. Are you going to develop a Pacific seapower strategy, staffing your new G.R.Ford class aircraft carrier that cost $12-16 Billion along with 10 others, that are currently operational, with an aircraft that may not be capable either offensively or defensively in its intended mission? How will that meet the needed strategy to meet the Chinese threat in the Far East?

A 30% reduction in the quantity of any purchase is significant, just as a 30% reduction in pay or pension would be.

glad rag

7th Feb 2015, 22:58

It's very much in the interests of all operators that it evolves

well you have to ask why we have to pay for an aircraft that has to "evolve" into a useful [sic] platform....:mad:

SARF

7th Feb 2015, 23:42

It seems to me that a dedicated naval jet plane... And a dedicated air defence plane. And a dedicated ground attack plane would have been an easier solution.. With pilots specialised in each.

Willard Whyte

8th Feb 2015, 08:49

Too late for Dave, but that seems to be the way 6G is heading, or at least as a recommendation.

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_briefs/RB9700/RR9759/RAND_RB9759.pdf

Key findings:
• Joint aircraft programs have not historically saved overall life-cycle cost.
• The difficulty of reconciling diverse service requirements in a common design or design family is a major factor in historical joint aircraft cost outcomes.
• The JSF is exhibiting trends similar to prior joint aircraft programs.
• Historical analysis suggests that joint aircraft programs have coincided with contraction in the industrial base and thus a decline in potential future industry competition and increased strategic and operational risk.
• Unless the participating services have identical, stable requirements, DoD should avoid future joint fighter and other complex joint aircraft programs.

I would suggest a future where all three manufacturers, Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin and Boeing, all design, develop, build and sell different aircraft to be one where capability is maximised as well as reducing costs. There may well be some commonality in certain systems and structure technology (software/systems integration/engines/self-healing/stealth - for example), but each airframe optimised for role and basing requirements. I.E.: Naval F/A (twin engine - carrier optimised), and both heavy (twin engine) and light (single engine, extreme agility) land-based F/A aircraft. So yes, essentially G6 eqivalents of the -18, -15/-22, and -16/-35A.

orca

8th Feb 2015, 15:23

Turbine D,

Thank you for posting that, it's a very interesting read. However, whilst I agree entirely with the author's thrust it is a very verbose way of saying:

'We need a strategy that tells us what we actually want a Navy for (ends), how we are going to do it (ways) and what that's going to cost (means)."

It may or may not be that a 5th gen fighter can play a part, but the chap's got a point - have carriers and aircraft for a reason, but don't let that reason be that we have carriers and aircraft.

Turbine D

8th Feb 2015, 22:00

Orca,

Politicians have a way of being verbose. Your simple explanation hits the nail on the head!

Lonewolf_50

9th Feb 2015, 18:14

It seems to me that a dedicated naval jet plane... And a dedicated air defence plane. And a dedicated ground attack plane would have been an easier solution.. With pilots specialised in each.
Since the US Congress disagrees with you (and it is from them that the initial requirement for a Joint Procurement came) that line of argument you espouse is only about fifteen years in the coffin, and still moldering. ;) One of things that makes me uncomfortable about this program is the JSF Program Office. I had similar complaints about the T-6 program office over a decade ago, while still in the Navy. Further comments :mad: and to be fair, the folks in the Office tried to do their job as they saw it. Where you sit can determine what you see.

Biggus

9th Feb 2015, 18:48

I see there's an ex-RAF 2* with exposure to JSF who left and immediately joined Lockheed Martin.

Wasn't there some rule about not leaving the RAF and going straight into an area you had previous exposure to? I believe this came up on Pprune when a previous CAS left and joined BAE straight away, but I'm working from memory.

jindabyne

9th Feb 2015, 19:14

Biggus,

It happened quite often. So what? (not being derogatory)

rh200

9th Feb 2015, 19:25

And a dedicated ground attack plane would have been an easier solution.. With pilots specialised in each.

Most likely correct, but are the easiest options always the best option? Too may variables in changing world over a long period of time.

Biggus

9th Feb 2015, 19:30

I was just seeking clarification of the situation, and whether any such rule (which presumably isn't legally enforceable?) exists.

Ivan Rogov

9th Feb 2015, 20:18

J913. Acceptance of Business Appointments after leaving the Services. Sponsor: ACOS Pers Pol (RAF)
(1) The principles governing the acceptance of business appointments by officers of the Crown Services after leaving the Services are laid down in Command Paper 5517, an extract from which is reproduced in Appendix 17.
(2) Before accepting, within two years of leaving the Service, an offer of employment of a consultancy with a defence contractor or foreign government all officers must obtain the approval of the Ministry of Defence. An officer at or above the rank of Rear Admiral, Major General or Air Vice-Marshal must obtain approval to take up any paid employment, whether or not with a defence contractor or foreign government.
(3) This procedure is necessary to ensure that when an officer accepts outside employment there should be no cause for suspicion of impropriety. In particular the procedure is designed to allay public concern that the advice and decisions of an officer in Crown Service might have been influenced by the hope or expectation of future employment with a particular firm or organisation and to avoid the risk that such employers might be gaining an unfair advantage over competitors by employing an officer who has had access to commercial, technical or other information which those competitors could legitimately regard as their trade secrets. Most applications will be approved without condition, but waiting periods or other conditions may be imposed on those applications where there has been a close link between the applicant (when serving in the Armed Forces) and the proposed employer, or that company's competitors.
(4) Applications should be made on MoD Form BA42 which can be found in the Defence Intranet Library under Government Jobs as Business Appointment Form. Full details of contacts are shown on the form and queries should be addressed to, DGCP-HR Ops Industrial Relations, Main Building, Level 6 Zone N, Whitehall London, SW1A 2HB. It is essential that no appointments are accepted until formal approval has been obtained.

QR(RAF) 13-42 AL30/Jun 12
UNCONTROLLED WHEN PRINTED

Edit - Didn't someone call foul on the original SARH contract due to a recent RAF recruit on one of the teams (rightly or wrongly)?

Had a couple of JSF briefs by RAF personnel (admittedly not in the last few years) and they all came across as LM sales pitches with no impartiality, objectivity or honesty, it's a shame this program concentrated on politics rather than performance/capability/cost to secure it's future.

The US strategy of technological advantage (therefore it's Allies) is coming to an end in the near future, i.e: Pay more and get better tech V's Pay less and get more is becoming, Pay more and get the same or worse tech.

The battlespace is changing, look how quick Iraq was able to source aircraft and conduct Operations last year. Most nations won't need to own a 5th Gen aircraft as they could rent from RS or CH in the next 10 years within a week or two, especially for hard currency!

LowObservable

10th Feb 2015, 13:45

Most applications will be approved without condition, but waiting periods or other conditions may be imposed on those applications where there has been a close link between the applicant (when serving in the Armed Forces) and the proposed employer, or that company's competitors.

That rule has fewer teeth than a rather elderly anteater.

HaveQuick2

10th Feb 2015, 17:19

RAF and FAA look to be progressing at least, with British F-35s now operating out of 3 different airfields, Eglin, Edwards and Beaufort.

Lyneham Lad

10th Feb 2015, 17:30

Flight Global:-
RAF's 17 Sqn assumes control of F-35 test and evaluation (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/raf39s-17-sqn-assumes-control-of-f-35-test-and-evaluation-408880/)

The Royal Air Force’s 17 Sqn has assumed control of the test and evaluation of the UK’s first Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II, marking the start of independent operational testing by the UK of its future Joint Strike Fighter.

The aircraft – dubbed BK-1 – is based at Edwards AFB, California, where 17 Sqn has now begun to test and evaluate without the assistance of US forces that have until now supported the test campaign for the UK’s aircraft.

Both RAF and Royal Navy personnel make up the squadron, which will work to ensure that the aircraft is interoperable with the UK’s regulations and its other assets – including the RN’s new aircraft carriers – ahead of initial operational capability clearance for the aircraft, which is earmarked for 2018. The UK has a current requirement for 138 of the B-model short take-off and vertical landing version of the type, and the UK is the first of eight international partners to begin operational testing, the Ministry of Defence says.

Click on the link for the rest of the article and photos.

Turbine D

10th Feb 2015, 17:52

I thought you all might be interested to see what the next jet engine might look like for the generation of fighter aircraft beyond the F-35, whatever generation the F-35 is.

There is lots of words in green throughout the verbiage to click on that gives more details of the various technologies that are becoming mature. Be sure to click on the ADVENT engine just below the rendering of the engine…

Amazing New Material Could Revolutionize Jet... - GE Reports (http://www.gereports.com/post/110549411475/amazing-new-material-could-revolutionize-jet)

ORAC

10th Feb 2015, 17:52

Any more word on the "fix" for the F135 engine? You know, the one that planned to be in place last December?

RAFEngO74to09

10th Feb 2015, 18:11

More about RAF 17(R) Sqn and the F-35B here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9srIxkngyA

http://www.raf.mod.uk/news/archive/lightning-strikes-100-year-old-squadron-10022015

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-f-35-lightning-ii-testing-begins-in-the-us

airsound

10th Feb 2015, 20:08

defence-aerospace.com republishes all the press releases about 17(R) Sqn in full - from MoD, RAF and RN
UK F-35 Lightning II Testing Begins In the US (http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/160898/raf-begins-uk-operational-testing-of-f_35-fighter.html)

But it rather sniffily adds an editorial comment that might be aptAlthough it is called “operational testing,” the work planned for the RAF’s 17 Squadron in California will be severely limited by the fact that no F-35 built to date has demonstrated any operational capabilities to test.airsound

Courtney Mil

10th Feb 2015, 21:04

Good question, Orac. And how can you begin testing an aircraft with limitations in place due to the engine issue? Great to have received their first jet, but you can't do meaningful operational testing if you can't employ the aircraft fully.

Bigbux

10th Feb 2015, 21:20

I was just seeking clarification of the situation, and whether any such rule (which presumably isn't legally enforceable?) exists.

The problem with having a senior stakeholder, who makes key decisions on military programmes based partially on personal benefit, is that objectivity is lost. This will often result in poor value and reduced capability being delivered. It is therefore important, for the taxpayer, that the MoD takes its obligations seriously and enforces restrictive covenants where it is proper to do so.

Where there is an active procurement in progress, it is potentially unlawful for the Authority or bidder to allow circumstances that skew competition unfairly. So when it transpires that one bidder has just recruited a member of the Authority's evaluation team, the other bidders have grounds to challenge the process. This causes delay, expense and loss of reputation.

Agency Theory, or the age old question of for whose benefit is the organisation run for? (shareholder, customer or senior manager) has always been a problem in the military - as it is in other industries. However, my personal opinion is that we should not be too draconian - retaining knowledge and capability within the UK defence sphere is also very important. Going all communist about it might not serve us well.

Turbine D

10th Feb 2015, 21:27

ORAC & CM,

Bogdan hedged his December bet: Bogdan: F-35 Engine Fix May be Ready by Year’s End

You can dig the seal trench deeper and make it wider, but that isn't the root cause of the problem. IMHO, and I've said this before, the engine is flexing the fix becomes complicated to stop it from flexing. It gets into the basic structure of the engine, even the mounting system. For sure, the final solution will not be a lighter engine, but maybe one that can be run throughout the flight envelope without concern. But when? Big question. It takes time…

airsound

12th Feb 2015, 16:33

defence-aerospace.com now draws our attention to what the British House of Commons has just (6 Feb) been provided with. It's a 24-page 'note' on the UK's F-35. You can download it from the defence-aerospace article. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/160977/house-of-commons-updates-report-on-f_35-program.html)

I don't think it tells us much that we didn't already know - but at least our Members of Parliament can now be more knowledgeable if they want to be.....

It does include a brief section on 'Concerns about the F-35', so it's not all LM puffery.

enjoy

airsound

rh200

12th Feb 2015, 19:13

I don't think it tells us much that we didn't already know - but at least our Members of Parliament can now be more knowledgeable if they want to be....

It had better have lots of big color pictures.

Turbine D

13th Feb 2015, 00:46

It had better have lots of big color pictures.

Nope, no pictures, just lots of words…:eek:

O-P

13th Feb 2015, 01:18

Courtney,

While I agree with your point, you can do 'some operational testing' without a fully spammed jet.

You could, if a 3G limit exists, test the High Alpha weapon release, IMC formation keeping, RADAR and links...etc,etc.

I'm not detracting from your point, just pointing out that one, or in this case many, limitations may require an operational test schedule 'reshuffle'.

O-P

rh200

13th Feb 2015, 02:54

Nope, no pictures, just lots of words…

Not much use to the pollies then:p

Heathrow Harry

17th Feb 2015, 10:27

This weeks Flight has a special on Australia

They say

"..... RAAF Williamstown will see.....a 610 m (2000ft) runway extension to 3050m (10,000ft) to support the F-35A in service....."

I never realised it was replacing the B-47 as well as everything else.......

Maybe we should base ours at Fairford or LHR....

ORAC

17th Feb 2015, 11:09

While I agree with your point, you can do 'some operational testing' without a fully spammed jet. This is the F-35B, right?

AW&ST - 4th Feb: JSF Program drops test phase to protect schedule (http://aviationweek.com/defense/jsf-program-ditches-tests-protect-schedule)

A major operational test series planned for the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter has been abandoned in an attempt to protect the schedule for delivering a fully operational aircraft, according to the just-released fiscal 2014 report on the program from the Pentagon’s Director of Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E).

Also, the Block 2B version of the fighter’s software, at the time of a review at mid-year, contained 151 mission-critical deficiencies, some of which may not be corrected until the final Block 3F is completed.

The Operational Utility Evaluation (OUE) of the Block 2B configuration – the Block 2B is the basis for the Marine Corps’ plan to declare initial operational capability with the F-35B later this year – was removed from the schedule in April 2014 on DOT&E’s recommendation. The critical schedule item was the time needed to bring enough aircraft to a representative Block 2B configuration to support the OUE, which would have delayed the start of the evaluation into late 2016. This in turn threatened to delay the development of Block 3F software.

Rather than carrying out a full OUE, "limited assessments" of Block 2B capability will be carried out using F-35A operational test aircraft at Edwards AFB, California.

Developmental testing of the Block 2B software is expected to be complete next month, earlier than the DOT&E predicted in last year’s report (May to November 2015). Most of the improvement came from a decision by the program office to consolidate test points from earlier blocks into 2B testing, eliminating a net 840 test points, equivalent to four months of testing.

The critical risk to Marine IOC identified in the new report is the availability of "mission data load" software, which works in conjunction with software permanently loaded in the aircraft system and contains information to operate sensors – for example, the data needed to identify hostile radars. The operational requirement is for these to be generated in a government facility, the U.S. Reprogramming Lab (USRL), but some equipment for the USRL was held by Lockheed Martin three years past its due delivery date. On baseline plans, the first two mission data loads will not be available until November, but the report refers to a plan to "truncate" development and carry out limited flight tests, creating "significant operational risk to fielded units."

DOT&E also notes that an apparent improvement in a major reliability metric — "mean flight hours between failure – design controllable" — up to late summer 2014 may be due to changes in reporting. More failures were reported as "induced," or due to maintenance actions, and fewer to "inherent" design problems. Also, once a redesigned version of a failure-prone part is introduced into the fleet but before 100% of the fleet has been retrofitted, the program stops counting failures of the previous version, improving the system’s on-paper reliability even though failures are occurring.

One of the F-35’s distinctive features, the Distributed Aperture System, is still problematical, the report says, continuing "to exhibit high false-alarm rates and false target tracks, and poor stability performance, even in later versions of software."

Lockheed Martin and the JSF Program Office had not responded to the report by midday on Jan. 20.

LowObservable

17th Feb 2015, 12:31

No worries, HH - You're getting the B model, which can use very short runways. You just need to resurface the runway every two or three sorties...

That's interesting about Williamtown, given that the base is at sea level and that the local climate is mild by Australian standards.

Willard Whyte

17th Feb 2015, 13:20

I suspect the 'B will be the first STOVL aircraft to need several '000 feet of runway to get airborne at MTOW.

Heathrow Harry

17th Feb 2015, 14:53

JATO Bottles are the answer.....................

ORAC

17th Feb 2015, 15:29

wDstVGAmI74

LowObservable

17th Feb 2015, 19:25

I always see that as the kind of STO that will be followed by this kind of VL...

http://www.rafjever.org/pictures-118/118sqnpic205.jpg

FoxtrotAlpha18

17th Feb 2015, 20:47

I never realised it was replacing the B-47 as well as everything else.......

Maybe we should base ours at Fairford or LHR....

The runway extension at Williamtown is designed to allow for displaced threshold landings and mil thrust take offs for noise mitigation. The area surrounding Williamtown's western fringe is becoming more urbanised.

sandiego89

17th Feb 2015, 23:03

Willard Whyte I suspect the 'B will be the first STOVL aircraft to need several '000 feet of runway to get airborne at MTOW.

I get your gist, but I was very impressed when I watched some B's doing STO's at Patuxeunt River (no idea what their weight was). No ski ramp. That lift fan has decidedly more ooompff that your household fan....

O-P

18th Feb 2015, 00:39

ORAC,

I believe the role of 17 Sqn is to do UK operational testing, isn't that why it's an OEU? As I said in my original post, there are tasks that can be completed without a full clearance.

I agree with you that the fiasco of the F-35s IOC has dropped everything behind schedule...was there a realistic one?

O-P

MSOCS

18th Feb 2015, 01:29

Willard,

I won't give accurate performance data, though it is unclassified, but let's just say it is an impressive distance at MTOW and very impressive at representative training weights.

At Sea Level, in the high 30's deg C, it is significantly less than 1500' at MTOW.

That's still wind (headwind always helps) on a level strip (again, a bit of down-slope always helps).

Willard Whyte

18th Feb 2015, 09:37

I wasn't trying to make a serious point.

MSOCS

18th Feb 2015, 13:18

I was.

Im sure there are plenty of other people who would appreciate a serious answer.

Heathrow Harry

18th Feb 2015, 16:43

Maybe the Aussies are preparing for the case where someone hits the runway in the middle - those Russian warships for example off Queensland ..............

John Farley

18th Feb 2015, 17:25

Im sure there are plenty of other people who would appreciate a serious answer.

True O King.

But this is PPRuNe amd children must play.

Willard Whyte

18th Feb 2015, 18:57

And the pompous must pronounce.

LowObservable

19th Feb 2015, 13:43

If it's unclass, can you point us to an open source?

AFAIK, no F-35B has flown at MTOW (61500 lb) yet - hard to get there without external 2k bombs or tanks. Is the <1500 ft normal or MTOW?

And let's not forget that there's a jet that is designed for 800 meters without all the added ironmongery. And operationally speaking, how much use is a 1500-foot runway capability if you have to bring in the fuel by C-130 because your biggest helicopter carries two sorties' worth for 110 miles?

We're not working out of a German cash-and-carry's car park any more...

glad rag

19th Feb 2015, 13:53

A couple of questions..

1. How many flying hours do the stealth coating[s] last until they need "renewing"?

2. Are these coatings required for training and non operational missions?

Rhino power

19th Feb 2015, 16:00

Lockheed outlines F-35 cost-cutting production changes - 2/19/2015 - Flight Global (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/lockheed-outlines-f-35-cost-cutting-production-changes-409221/)

-RP

Rhino power

19th Feb 2015, 16:02

1. How many flying hours do the stealth coating[s] last until they need "renewing"?

2. Are these coatings required for training and non operational missions?

What 'stealth coatings'? :confused:

-RP

FoxtrotAlpha18

19th Feb 2015, 22:06

And let's not forget that there's a jet that is designed for 800 meters without all the added ironmongery. And operationally speaking, how much use is a 1500-foot runway capability if you have to bring in the fuel by C-130 because your biggest helicopter carries two sorties' worth for 110 miles?

So how do you propose to get fuel to the other jet's 800 metre strip?

GreenKnight121

20th Feb 2015, 01:38

glad rag - there are no "stealth coatings" on the F-35, because they are a permanent part of the skin material of the aircraft.

This has been known, and discussed at PPRuNe, for a number of years.

Perhaps if you acquainted yourself with something other than blind anti-F-35 rants, you would have a better idea of such things.

Turbine D

20th Feb 2015, 02:23

GK121 & RP
glad rag - there are no "stealth coatings" on the F-35, because they are a permanent part of the skin material of the aircraft.

This has been known, and discussed at PPRuNe, for a number of years.

Perhaps if you acquainted yourself with something other than blind anti-F-35 rants, you would have a better idea of such things.

From the Flight Global article:
An example is simplifying the way Lockheed creates the diverterless supersonic inlet (DSI) bump inside the aircraft’s two engine intakes. They now are created using a 5h process that requires a robot to build up coats of paint like layers of a pearl.

A new approach involves a second robot that inserts an injection mould into the engine inlet and fills it with a precise amount of stealth coating and allows it to cure. The process does not have to be done in the paint barn and allows work on other parts of the fuselage because it does not produce paint fumes or spray.

Did you not read the article completely or is the article wrong? Just asking:confused:

glad rag

20th Feb 2015, 02:43

By including the projected cost savings in the final LRIP 8 contract, Lockheed assumes responsibility if the cost effectiveness of those production changes falls short. If a project is expected to save $10,000 per aircraft but yields only a $5,000 per-jet savings, Lockheed must honor the contract and sell each F-35 at a lower price, she says.

From the same flight global article, is this classed as an "inconvenient truth" as well? :confused: :confused:

FoxtrotAlpha18

20th Feb 2015, 03:17

Green Knight

You are partly correct - much of the F-35's structure is made of RAM

But on top of that there is also 'special' paint with additives, panel gap sealants and tapes, and other post-production RAM coatings that greatly enhance the VLO properties of the jet, and these are required to be attended to after most missions.

Biggus

20th Feb 2015, 07:29

I expect GK121's apology will be along shortly when america wakes up....

Rhino power

20th Feb 2015, 23:01

BBC News - £300m for RAF Marham fighter maintenance hub (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-31552824)

So, given that Turkey is also supposedly going to be a major F-35 maintenance hub, how will this work? Will the respective hubs have to bid for maintenance work among european operators of the F-35? Or will the work be divided equally between the hubs maybe?

-RP

LowObservable

21st Feb 2015, 05:46

The work will be divided according to strategic leverage. The Italians, for instance, have to be kept sweet because several dozen of their political parties favor big cutbacks to JSF.

However, the UK is out of a lot of the bidding because all its aircraft are Bs, which are different in many ways from A-models.

Rhino power

21st Feb 2015, 07:43

Thanks for the reply, LO.

-RP

Biggus

21st Feb 2015, 08:14

..... or maybe not!

glad rag

21st Feb 2015, 12:48

rh200

21st Feb 2015, 20:26

The whole thing is a complex convolution of commercial reality mixed with complex politics modulated by forward political projects.

The political situation in Europe is changing at the moment, that would have to be weighing heavily on any long term planning, not just in terms of the F35 and its support.

glad rag

26th Feb 2015, 13:50

https://www.f35.com/support

" The F-35 program needs your support. Write to your U.S. Senators and Congressmen to ask them to support full funding for the F-35 program. This activity is only available to supporters in the U.S."

:hmm:

Lonewolf_50

26th Feb 2015, 15:42

That's either a savvy 21st century marketing strategy, or a sign that someone is desperate.

Maus92

26th Feb 2015, 23:52

There's a new little issue with the Bravo - the bays cannot fit the specified number of SDB II without modification.... oops. The JSF JPO had not, until pressed by Inside Defense, previously disclosed the issue that they've "known about for some time." Love the transparency from the boys at the JPO. Kinda makes you wonder what else they haven't mentioned...

rh200

27th Feb 2015, 00:22

There was a news article on news.com.au the other day saying it was all peaches and cream with the program, relatively speaking. And the prognostic for the aircraft was good.

can't find the link now though.

Turbine D

27th Feb 2015, 00:40

That's either a savvy 21st century marketing strategy, or a sign that someone is desperate.
I thought I had seen it all in my working career, but I guess not. I think it is a desperate plea.:eek:

There was a news article on news.com.au the other day saying it was all peaches and cream with the program, relatively speaking. And the prognostic for the aircraft was good.can't find the link now though.
Could have been a dream?:confused:

rh200

27th Feb 2015, 02:16

Could have been a dream?

Nah, had a look at the Australian online today, which is where most of the article come from, said much the same thing.

Don't get me wrong, it wasn't saying it was gods gift to the west. Basically said, the Chinese hadn't got hold of anything of consequence, and even though there are a few hassles, their being sorted. It also stated that the cost reductions are coming along nicely.

Radix

27th Feb 2015, 17:38

..........

Courtney Mil

27th Feb 2015, 20:30

Goodness, we seem to be in a world of cynicism at the moment.

Maus92, interested in your statement there. Do you have links to that? This may well prove to be an issue so I'd love to read more.

CoffmanStarter

27th Feb 2015, 20:41

Courtney ...

I believe this is the article Maus92 is referring to ...

InsideDefense.com | Exclusive national security news from inside the Pentagon (http://insidedefense.com/share/167668)

Courtney Mil

27th Feb 2015, 20:53

As always, Coff, thank you.

Can anyone make sense of this bit?

According to DellaVedova, the JSF program has been aware of the issue for some time and expects to award Lockheed a contract later this year to complete the design changes. The F-35 is designed to carry eight precision-attack small diameter bombs internally

So if it's designed to carry them, why is anyone awarding a contract (meaning more more money) to allow it to do so? And who is paying for this really?

Rhino power

27th Feb 2015, 23:47

So if it's designed to carry them, why is anyone awarding a contract (meaning more more money) to allow it to do so? And who is paying for this really?

That's a good question, since it would seem LM is getting paid to fix the 'issue', rather than themselves having to fund it, and then amortising the cost over the production run of the jet?

-RP

ORAC

28th Feb 2015, 06:12

Because the Raytheon SDB-II (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/raytheon-wins-usas-gbu-53-small-diameter-bomb-competition-06510/) isn't the same dimension and design as that originally specified in the LM contract?

CoffmanStarter

28th Feb 2015, 09:04

Just a guess ... But it seems that the spec is for the F-35B to carry 4 of these Bombs. There is nothing in the ref texts to indicate that the physical size of the Stores Bay (although smaller than other variants) is at fault. My guess would be that LM can't get all 4 Bombs aboard without re-routing/re-designing the hydraulic line/bracket mentioned ... But as I said ... Just a guess ;)

As to cost ... If the original spec was for the Boeing SDB I then Raytheon who are now to provide the SDB II, need to fund the MOD's ?

ORAC

28th Feb 2015, 10:09

Nope USN funded (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/budget/fy2015/navy-peds/0604329n_5_pb_2015.pdf)...

Exhibit R-2A, RDT&E Project Justification: PB 2015 Navy
Date: March 2014

Appropriation/Budget Activity 1319/5
R-1 Program Element (Number/Name) PE 0604329N / Small Diameter Bomb (SDB)
Project (Number/Name): 3072 / Small Diameter Bomb (SDB)

B. Accomplishments/Planned Programs ($ in Millions, Article Quantities in Each)
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015

Continue support of EMD and integration of SDB II with F-35B and F-35C.

Continue support of SDB II prime contractor and government support of weapon development efforts. Begin specific F-35B and F-35C efforts with SDB II prime contractor which were delayed to FY15 to accommodate the JSF OFP change from Block 3 to Block 4..........

FY 2015 Plans:

Continue F-35 UAI OFP development and coding and support fit checks and testing with SDB II Weapon vendor. Begin F-35 bay modifications required for SDB II/JSF/JMM BRU integration. Full manning of JSF prime contractor team to support SDB II weapon development and integration......

D. Acquisition Strategy

The SDB Increment II acquisition strategy is to conduct a full and open competition to select up to two contractors to compete during a planned 42-month risk reduction phase prior to entering EMD. This competition began April 17, 2006 with the signature of contracts to the competing contractors: 1) Raytheon and 2) the team of Boeing and Lockheed Martin.

A Fixed Price Incentive Firm Target type contract for EMD, including Firm Fixed Price procurement options for Lots 1-3 was awarded to Raytheon August 9, 2010. Lots 4 & 5 are included in the contract, but are Not-To-Exceed options.

The Navy funding will support Navy-unique efforts for SDB Increment II, such as aircraft integration, ship suitability, studies and analysis, and program management and government in-house support. These efforts will be performed on several cost-type contracts or through cost reimbursable work requests to government activities and contractors.........

Selected Acquisition Report (SAR) - Small Diameter Bomb Increment II (SDB II) As of December 31, 2012 (http://www.dod.gov/pubs/foi/logistics_material_readiness/acq_bud_fin/SARs/2012-sars/13-F-0884_SARs_as_of_Dec_2012/Air_Force/SDB_II_December_2012_SAR.pdf)

........The SDB II program office has made considerable progress on the F-35 risk reduction effort to address the ongoing F-35 System Development and Demonstration program delays. The SDB II team successfully conducted F-35B and F-35C weapon’s bay fit checks utilizing production jets. The data collected during these fit checks will be used to finalize the modification of the F-35B weapon's bay. These efforts are on track and serve as a critical risk reduction event for both the SDB II and F-35 programs.

Program Background:

A $450.8 million Fixed Price Incentive Firm-type Engineering and Manufacturing Development contract was awarded to RMS, Tucson, Arizona on August 9, 2010. RMS will complete the design, development, weapon integration, and test for the joint interest SDB II program. F-15E integration is being accomplished by Boeing (St. Louis, Missouri) through the F-15 Development Systems Program Office using Air Force SDB II funding. The F-35B and F-35C aircraft integration contract will be awarded to Lockheed Martin (Fort Worth, Texas) by the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Joint Program Office using DoN SDB II funding......