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

a1bill

8th Feb 2016, 22:20

$12.4B for 72 jets with support and infrastructure = welcome to the acquisition cost, the flyaway is but a part of this.

*with the hit our dollar has taken, that 12B is more like 15B now

what we see as current risk
http://search.defence.gov.au/search?q=cache:2e1gOsq68ckJ:www.defence.gov.au/budget/15-16/2015-16_defence_paes_complete.rtf+f-35&site=Everything&proxystylesheet=default_frontend&client=default_frontend&ie=UTF-8&access=p&oe=UTF-8
Both of Australia’s F-35 pilots have qualified and continue to operate at the International Pilot Training Centre, Luke Air Force Base Arizona. The long lead items and support for next eight F-35A aircraft have been contracted. The construction of facilities at RAAF Base Williamtown, New South Wales has continued on schedule. The sustainment model, including training for Australian based support continues to be developed.
•
The risk profile of the project remains largely unchanged:

• Agreement by the US to fund the next two years of production to enable planned ramp up in production represents a reduction in aircraft cost risk for Australia.
• Stand up and delivery of an effective and timely F-35 Australian based training has emerged as a risk.
• The JSF air system continues to mature at a slow and steady pace. The Autonomic Logistic Information System (ALIS) and reprogramming capabilities remain major risks.
• The timely delivery of key infrastructure at RAAF Base Williamtown and RAAF Base Tindal, Northern Territory, remain a high risk. The potential for the RAAF Base Williamtown ground water contamination issue to impact facilities delivery being an emerging risk which is being managed.

The variance can be primarily attributed to delays in finalising contracts and the variable receipt of invoices through the US Government contracting processes.

Courtney Mil

8th Feb 2016, 23:16

OK, A1Bill. So the cost is going up even more and there are a number of issues that have been identified as risks by Australia - risks don't tend to lower costs. We're getting even further from the $85M figure - unless you choose to ignore a whole bunch of stuff that is required, but makes the jet look too costly to sell to the taxpayer.

Thank you for your honesty. I am now more sceptical about the predicted cost than I was.

Turbine D

9th Feb 2016, 00:00

a1bill,

Thanks for sending the Australian audit office report, it was informative to me in that I didn't know certain things weren't being done in the most expensive US Defense program. I don't mean to be antagonistic, but more explanatory from what I read of the report. There is one key section that I will save for a separate post as I think it is the most important discussion item of the entire report, besides the learning curve chart in 5.68, Figure 5.3 .

It is a report, not an audit, it is a good historical document of what has happened, written from the viewpoint of the Australian participation in the F-35 program. At various points of the report, there is considerable emphasis of the fact that Australia isn't responsible for cost overruns, and substantial cost increases as the development program has progressed. This is evident starting at paragraph 30, 34 and 71. Luckily for Australia, the bad news of the program thus far has been avoided, escalating costs. It goes on to say there is "potential" for the program to continue with the revised (goalposts have moved) cost and program parameters, maybe.

It goes on to say in 5.50, Figure 5.0 that the program fell short of plan and management interventions failed to reduce the declining cost and schedule performance and couldn't guarantee that new technical problems wouldn't continue the downward trend. Overall, the effect has been to extend the time for start of Full-rate Production of the F-35 by 7 years, e.g., 2012 to 2019.

The learning curve chart depicted in 5.68, Figure 5.3, showing the latest "estimates", developed by the US DoD JPO for the F-35 Unit Reoccurring Flyaway costs are imaginary at best, based on what has taken place and the pseudo learning curve. If this is where you apparently believe the $85M cost will come from, it will not happen.

Learning curves are interesting in that profit and loss businesses use them extensively to determine where a breakeven point occurs for new products transitioning from development to full production. It is important that a learning curve is established with exceptional knowledge of the product development and cost makeup, how actual development is progressing and therefore the curve is drawn with real meaningful goals, e.g., on such and such a date the product will cost XXX$$$s. If you are above the line and can't get to the line by that date, then you have to redraw the curve extending the time and date to breakeven. Now the Government isn't a profit and loss business and doesn't have to explain much to their stockholders (Congress) who doesn't understand much about profit and loss businesses at all. So, there you have it, an assumed $85M price balloons to $130M in a heartbeat and will go higher with performance running above the curve line.

Turbine D

9th Feb 2016, 00:40

a1bill,

What I saved for last and most important is this:

5.60 The renewed emphasis on controlling costs includes a proactive approach to establishing cost and price data, based on fair dealing established by the Truth in Negotiations Act. The new approach, which has been termed Will‐Cost/Should‐Cost Management, aims to control and lower prices before they have been agreed on:

 Will‐Cost: decision‐makers and Congress use independent cost estimates—forecasts of what a program will cost based upon reasonable extrapolations from historical experience—to support budgeting and programming; and

 Should‐Cost: the manager of each major program is required to conduct a Should‐Cost analysis justifying each element of program cost and showing how it is improving year by year or meeting other relevant benchmarks and/or value.

5.61 The US Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics has announced that the JSF Program is implementing Will‐ Cost/Should‐Cost Management:

We will use this method, for example, to drive cost down in the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program, the Department’s largest program and the backbone of tactical air power for the U.S. and many other countries in the future. This aircraft’s ICE [independent cost estimate] (Will Cost) average unit price grew from $50 million Average Unit Procurement Cost (APUC) when the program began (in 2002 dollars, when the program was baselined) to $92 million in the most recent ICE. Accordingly, the JSF Program had a Nunn‐McCurdy breach last year and had to be restructured by the Secretary of Defense. As a result of that restructuring, a Should Cost analysis is being done in association with the negotiation of the early lot production contracts. The Department is scrubbing costs with the aim of identifying unneeded cost and rewarding its elimination over time. The result should be a negotiated price substantially lower than the Will Cost ICE to which the Department has forecasted and budgeted. Secretary Gates indicated in his Efficiency Initiative that monies saved in this way could be retained by the Service that achieved the efficiency; in this case the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps could reallocate JSF funds to buy other capabilities.286
I am here to tell you this process dates back to the mid 1970s and it blows my mind that it hasn't been used in the F-35 Program. When we received our first desktop computers and learned how to use them, I asked one of my more computer literate staff members to put together a should cost computer program to develop costs for turbine blades and vanes, both simple solid and complex air-cooled ones that we had been doing by hand. We then used it two ways, first to show the design engineers the would cost of what they were designing and how they could reduce costs. Then we would use it as a basis to negotiate procurement costs with suppliers. No request for quotes left the purchasing department without having first received a should cost estimate. Subsequently, the program was expanded to include all castings, airfoils and structural alike. We had really big and expensive one piece structural castings. Other areas liked what we did and developed similar should cost programs. It then became very easy for the project department to roll up the costs for an entire engine and begin to develop the learning curve to determine the break-even point based on what the engines were proposed to be sold for.

So I can't express how surprised and disappointed I was to learn that this process, 37 years later, hasn't been used on the most sophisticated and expensive aircraft program ever undertaken by the US DoD, the F-35 program. It is no wonder the program has run amok from a cost point of view which always is a contributor to technical snafus... Just amazing, can you see why my point of view tend to be negative relative to the program and its management?

a1bill

9th Feb 2016, 10:17

CM and Td, I don't play silly games fudging numbers and misrepresenting facts. Unlike some, when I'm wrong I acknowledge it. There is plenty of blame in the program to go around the gov, pentagon, JPO and LM in the procurement. But it's the same with nearly every program in the US, some are even worse off. Also none of the eurocanards had an easy run either.

the cost in US$ for aus is 11.4b for the 72 or US$158m
when the 22 gripen for the swiss was 3.1 billion Swiss francs or US$140m
UPDATE 1-Sweden to buy 40-60 next generation Saab Gripen jets | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/sweden-defense-idUSL6E8JP1XO20120825)

I hope you don't mind if I don't get into a doom and gloom hand wringing exercise, because I still see the f-35 as 'cheap' for what you get.

ORAC

9th Feb 2016, 10:23

Looks like the F-18 line isn't going to close any time soon......

U.S. Navy F-35 Boost Partly Offsets Last Year’s Cuts (http://aviationweek.com/defense/us-navy-f-35-boost-partly-offsets-last-year-s-cuts)

The U.S. Navy will increase its planned future orders of the Lockheed Martin F-35C Joint Strike Fighter in the fiscal 2017 defense budget to be released Tuesday, as directed by Defense Secretary Ash Carter in a December memo to the service.
However, the increases only partially offset cuts that were made in the 2016 budget and do not take effect until 2019 and later years, according to internal Navy documents obtained by Aviation Week.

The service also will plan to buy two more F/A-18E/F Super Hornets with fiscal 2017 overseas contingency operations money and another 14 in later budget years.

However, internal documents once again discuss a “shortfall” in strike fighters because of late deliveries of F-35Cs and higher-than-planned utilization of F/A-18s. Even with an F/A-18E/F service life extension program, with installations expected to begin in 2024, the Navy projects a shortfall of 193 Super Hornets in 2026 and suggests that the service will need more of the Boeing fighters: “Far-term (2020-2035) inventory is predominantly affected by new aircraft procurement, F/A-18E/F and F-35,” the document states.

Under the 2017 budget plan, the Navy’s total F-35C buys between fiscal 2015 and fiscal 2021 will total 74 aircraft – more than the 64 planned last year but still fewer than the 78 envisioned in 2015. The Navy does not make a squadron-size buy (12 airplanes) until 2019, with deliveries in 2021.......

PhilipG

9th Feb 2016, 10:36

The shortage of strike fighters due to the late arrival of the F35C into USN squadrons, is obviously a problem, how is the fleet going to cope with the late arrival of the F35C to replace the USMC Hornets that are part of carrier air wings? The cost of keeping the legacy Hornets airworthy must be getting quite a budgetary problem for the USMC, as well as being a logistics complication.

I am assuming that the numbers of F35Cs quoted for the USN by ORAC exclude the USMCs F35Cs?

I also assume that the IOC for the F35C will be declared by both the USN and USMC for the same variant, the USMC will not say try to go IOC with 3i software on their F35Cs whilst the Navy waits for 3F?

ORAC

9th Feb 2016, 10:51

Timeline for the 4 USMC F-35C sqns can be seen here (https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=13&ved=0ahUKEwjfwMHFzerKAhWG1xQKHQh_AC8QFghkMAw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.f-16.net%2Fforum%2Fdownload%2Ffile.php%3Fid%3D19920&usg=AFQjCNHBIxsx_P-l2Tu3ttd0cD9n86_lAw&bvm=bv.113943665,d.d24), nothing about software build - but I can't see it being different to the USN.

LowObservable

9th Feb 2016, 12:42

CM and Td, I don't play silly games fudging numbers and misrepresenting facts.

http://www.countingcats.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Oh-Wait-Youre-serious-Let-me-laugh-harder.jpg

As any fule kno, comparing costs across different nations' fighter deals is a tricky exercise because all kinds of ground rules may be different. Last time I looked, Switzerland and Australia were not the same country.

I'd merely suggest, at this point, that there are some illuminating comparisons out there - such as the Korean deal, the 30-year LCC estimates in Sweden and Norway (which are quite similar nations), and the Swiss LCC estimates.

a1bill

9th Feb 2016, 12:42

Naval Strike Fighters: Issues and Concerns Feb 4, 2016

os5V-72I2rg

LowObservable

9th Feb 2016, 12:50

ORAC - Yes, the facts are awkwardly at odds with the hyped "increase" story after Carter's memo, exactly as I called it nearly two months ago in response to a silly comment.

http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/424953-f-35-cancelled-then-what-411.html#post9215336

The fascinating question, of course, is "31 more than what"?

“To meet the expanding adversary fighter threat, we will procure 31 additional F-35C relative to the Navy POM submission (and 10 more than the PB-16 plan)".

So the answer is "31 more than a plan we haven't seen" which apparently contained a startling 21-jet cut relative to the PB16 (Presidential Budget, the one published at the beginning of the year).

Folks like Tourist need to start looking at things like this and figuring out who lives under a bridge and who does not.

LowObservable

9th Feb 2016, 12:53

a1b - Is that the hearing where Dog Davis bragged that his new $150m wonderjet is four times as effective as an airplane half its size that's based on a 57-year-old British X-plane?

Courtney Mil

9th Feb 2016, 14:48

A1B, $85M a copy would have been good value, assuming it performs as claimed. $158M is not "cheap", especially as we've yet to see the operational testing so we still don't know what we're going to get - only claims.

a1bill

9th Feb 2016, 17:27

CM, Our ~us$85m flyaway is also our ~us$158 procurement, they are both part of the same cost structure. The lifetime cost is probably $3-400m. My opinion is the f-35 is cheap fro what you get, when looking at what else is on the market. a lot of nations and airforces seem to see value in it too.

LowObservable

9th Feb 2016, 19:35

45 F-35As out of the AF FYDP today.

Turbine D

9th Feb 2016, 22:20

Following up on LO's post:
US Air Force Defers 45 F-35As Over Next Five Years

By Lara Seligman, Defense News 5:47 p.m. EST February 9, 2016

WASHINGTON – The Air Force is deferring 45 F-35As from its budget request over the next five years, essentially stretching out the program’s planned production ramp over the next decade.

The Air Force is absorbing the biggest F-35 cut of the three services that will operate Lockheed Martin’s fifth-generation fighter jet, but the Pentagon’s overall buy will also drop across the five-year defense plan, comptroller Mike McCord told reporters Tuesday. The announcement comes as the Pentagon was preparing to drastically ramp up production of the aircraft over the next decade.

The reduction to 404 total Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps F-35s over the next five years is not expected to produce a significant change in the unit cost, McCord said. However, it is not clear the Pentagon will be able to get back to the planned production rate, he said.

“We are trying to get it back up to where we want it to be across the FYDP," McCord said, referring to the Future Years Defense Program. "But it’s just a lot of money too, and it’s unclear that we will be able to get this program back to the ramps that we had hoped for previously."

Air Force Deputy Assistant Secretary for Budget Maj. Gen. James F. Martin Jr. and Air Force Deputy for Budget Carolyn M. Gleason conduct a briefing about the FY2017 budget Tuesday afternoon at the Pentagon. (Photo: Mike Morones/staff)

The Air Force’s official budget documents reflect a significantly slower buildup of F-35A production than previously planned. As first reported by Defense News, the Air Force deferred five F-35As this year, requesting just 43 in its fiscal 2017 budget submission, down from a planned 48. The Air Force had planned to jump to 60 F-35As a year starting in FY18, but the FY17 funding profile shows the service will not get to the 60-per-year rate until FY21. The Air Force will buy 43 aircraft in FY17; 44 in FY18; and 48 in both FY19 and FY20 before the buy jumps to 60 in FY21, according to the documents.

The delayed F-35A ramp to the ultimate goal of 1,763 aircraft is one of the “tough choices” the Air Force was forced to make in this year's budget negotiations, according to the documents. The service is partially funding Block 4 software upgrades for the jet, as well as research and development of nuclear weapons capability.

Although the Air Force cut alone is not hugely significant in the context of the thousands of aircraft the Pentagon intends to buy over the next decade, the near-term Air Force reduction could impact the unit price of the plane. Some analysts believe the deferral could have a domino effect on the program, potentially spooking international partners.

Doug Birkey, executive director of the Mitchell Institute, cautioned that the Pentagon must be extremely careful when playing with the F-35 numbers.

“The second you start bringing down numbers or you delay things, the price goes up, and so it’s a risk factor,” Birkey said, adding that the move “puts blood in the water.”

“I really do think it will implode if they mess up the numbers too much,” he added.

Still, the Pentagon cuts over the FYDP do necessarily indicate bad news for the overall program. Lockheed Martin can move customers around within its planned production time line, according to Capital Alpha’s Byron Callan. As the Air Force drops F-35As, international partners could fill in those slots, he pointed out in a Feb. 7 report.

Overall, the Air Force is requesting $166.9 billion in FY17, a slight uptick from the $167.9 billion requested in FY16. Included in that topline is $46.9 billion for operations and maintenance, $22.4 billion for procurement, $19.6 billion for research, development, technology and evaluation, and $12.3 billion for overseas contingency operations.

As Defense News previously reported, the Air Force’s FY17 budget request fully funds the Long Range Strike Bomber and the 15-aircraft KC-46 tanker buy. The request additionally includes commitment to moving forward with the Joint Surveillance and Target Attack Radar System recapitalization effort, the Combat Rescue Helicopter, the T-X advanced trainer replacement, and the recapitalization of Air Force One. JSTARS is expected to reach initial operational capability by 2024, according to the budget documents.

The budget submission also maintains a commitment to the Long-Range Standoff Weapon, which will replace the Air-Launched Cruise Missile and is ultimately planned to arm LRSB.

Aside from F-35 delays, the Air Force is also slowing procurement of Lockheed Martin’s C-130J Super Hercules transport aircraft, which will eventually replace the aging C-130Hs. The Air Force cut three C-130Js from its FY17 budget request, a drop to 11 overall: three C-130Js (including one through the OCO budget), three HC-130Js and six MC-130Js. However, the Air Force is holding onto its legacy EC-130 Compass Call aircraft, a key component of the fleet’s electronic attack capability. Meanwhile, the service requested funding to recapitalize the Compass Call fleet by moving the plane’s electronics onto new business jet bodies.

In another expected move, the Air Force is deferring retirement of the A-10 Warthog until 2022, and funding additional contract maintainers. The service will replace the attack plane with F-35s on a squadron-by-squadron basis to ensure commanders have sufficient aircraft to confront the threat. In the meantime, the Air Force has launched a program to upgrade the A-10 to keep it flying well into the next decade, releasing a draft statement of work on Feb. 2 for updated wings.

In modernization, the Air Force’s budget request includes multiple offensive and defensive upgrades of legacy F-16 and F-15 aircraft to ensure capability and survivability in the out years, according to an Air Force spokeswoman. The FY17 budget funds F-15 C/D upgrades, which include a new Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar capability and a new Infra-Red Search and Track system, which will extend the F-15 C/D capability into the mid-2040s. Meanwhile, legacy F-16s will be equipped with a new AESA radar, as well as new electronic warfare equipment and software upgrades.

The stealthy F-22 Raptors will also receive combat capability upgrades to remain viable in contested airspace and stay ahead of acceleration threats.

The service is committed to restocking munitions expended in the fight against the Islamic State group in Iraq and Syria, requesting funds for additional Joint Direct Attack Munitions, AGM-114 Hellfires, and Small Diameter Bombs through OCO, according to the budget documents.

In intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR), the Air Force is sticking to its plan to divest the Lockheed Martin U-2 spy plane in FY19, according to a spokeswoman. Meanwhile, the Air Force will work to upgrade Northrop Grumman’s unmanned RQ-4 Global Hawk with a new sensor and payload adapter to ensure it can complete the ISR mission when the U-2 is retired.

The Air Force’s FY17 budget request also continues the service’s commitment to space superiority, including re-phasing the GPS space vehicle procurement from FY17 to FY18. The service has realigned the anticipated savings from the GPS III competition strategy to fund the Next Generation Operational Control System (OCX).

More Stories

LowObservable

9th Feb 2016, 23:10

Everything is proceeding as I have foreseen...

There is a metric :mad:ton of money in the new budget, in FY2017 and out-years, flowing into F-16 and F-15. Meanwhile, the USAF is having to hire contract maintenance crews for active units, so they can throw more people at the task of keeping the unreliable, maintenance-hungry JSFs sorta-flying, even though not a one will be combat-capable before 2019...

By the way...

"But it’s just a lot of money too, and it’s unclear that we will be able to get this program back to the ramps that we had hoped for previously."

Not getting on the ramps = wave goodbye to all the price promises.

And I seem to remember one of our number whingeing on and on and on about a report in November that ACC would cut JSF to pay for F-15/F-16 force improvements. Did he ever write that letter and sign his mom's real name to it, I wonder?

a1bill

9th Feb 2016, 23:30

try and stay with the facts. the air force and marines are combat capable with block 2b/3i now and this year for usaf, the usn with block 3f.

I don't recall you saying about korea, japan and israel filling the slots that the usaf are deferring.

LowObservable

9th Feb 2016, 23:44

Try harder.

Read the DOT&E and the stinging rebuttal from the JPO... What, there isn't one?

And whatever do you mean by "the USN with Block 3F"? How many squadrons do you think USN will ever have with 3F? (Show your work my little possum!)

The Korean, Japanese and Israeli orders have already been counted in. Please cite sources about how they're ready to order more.

a1bill

9th Feb 2016, 23:59

AFAIK, one or more squadrons is classed as IOC
the numbers seem to change with the wind, but isn't the usn getting more f-35 and the usaf 5 less a year for 5 years?

you may not be aware but sweetman wrote this 2 days ago. "Under the 2017 budget plan, the Navy’s total F-35C buys between fiscal 2015 and fiscal 2021 will total 74 aircraft – more than the 64 planned last year but still fewer than the 78 envisioned in 2015."

the gap fillers are the existing orders from those non-partner nations, aren't they? they weren't on the planned procurement list from before.

Maus92

10th Feb 2016, 00:56

The Navy requires Block 3F jets, thus Navy IOC is late 2018, the threshold date is February 2019. The Navy is getting some of its F-35Cs back after they were cut last year, like ten over the next five years. Meanwhile, the USAF is deferring 45 F-35As for the next five years. Net loss for the JSF for the cycle.

Bastardeux

10th Feb 2016, 07:05

The price or technological shortfalls aren't going to be the demise of this programme; the two winners of the New Hampshire primary on the other hand?...Trump has suggested he'll 'fire' it, and despises the military industrial complex. Sanders will inevitably raid the defence budget for his socialist programmes. They're by far the biggest threat to it.

LowObservable

10th Feb 2016, 10:53

Bernie loves the F-35. They make the gun up there and the ANG is well up in the queue to get the jet. The PRV (People's Republic of Vermont) can't run on leaves and ice-cream alone.

Not to mention that it's a vast, bloated government program that employs squillions of people and goes nowhere. Socialists like that kind of thing.

PS - The nonpartners were the gapfillers when the previous partner schedule (in the PSFD MoU) blew itself to fairy dust in 2010-12. There are no gapfillers for Canada, the 90 UK aircraft that have been kicked into the dim distance, the Italian and Dutch number cuts, or Denmark should they jump ship, or Turkey if it doesn't take 100 jets in short order.

a1bill

10th Feb 2016, 11:47

who knows what 2026 brings, but usa is buying 404 over the next 5 years. There are numbers for partner and non partner lrip buys that are ordered. I haven't counted the numbers, but they would be significant. I find your hope of doom and gloom quite funny. it's also silly counting canada out, they are retiring their hornet 2025 so they need their 60 odd before then. my guess is 2018 with 2021 first build.

this is the previously posted numbers on the net, someone will revise them. but israel and japan are boosting by 7-8 a year and korea still to come online.

LRIP 7 (35 Total) - 29 U.S. / 6 International
United States
o 19 F-35A CTOL for the U.S. Air Force
o 6 F-35B STOVL for the U.S. Marine Corps
o 4 F-35C CV for the U.S. Navy
International
o 3 F-35A CTOL for Italy
o 2 F-35A CTOL for Norway
o 1 F-35B STOVL for the UK
LRIP 8 (43 Total) - 29 U.S. / 14 International (4 UK, 2 Norway, 2 Italy, 4 Japan, 2 Israel)
United States
o 19 F-35A CTOL for the USAF
o 6 F-35B for the U.S. Marine Corps
o 4 F-35C for the U.S. Navy
International
o 4 F-35B STOV for UK
o 2 F-35A CTOL for Norway
o 2 F-35A CTOL for Italy
o 4 F-35A CTOL for Japan
o 2 F-35A CTOL for Israel
LRIP-9
41 F-35As combine for the US Air Force (26),
Israel (seven),
Norway (six)
Japan (two).
Twelve F-35Bs are being manufactured for the US Marine Corps (six)
British Royal Navy (six),
US Navy will receive two carrier-variant F-35Cs.

Tourist

10th Feb 2016, 13:10

British Royal Navy (six),

There is only one Royal Navy a1bill. The "British" is redundant....;)

Turbine D

10th Feb 2016, 13:26

Not to mention that it's a vast, bloated government program that employs squillions of people and goes nowhere. Socialists like that kind of thing.

Not to mention how quiet it is during TOs & landings, just ask the NH Governor & NH National Guard General who went to Elgin AFB to hear for themselves, then passing the word on to Bernie, noise isn't a problem.;)
http://i1166.photobucket.com/albums/q609/DaveK72/shumlinwing3_zps7eqgudjs.jpg (http://s1166.photobucket.com/user/DaveK72/media/shumlinwing3_zps7eqgudjs.jpg.html)

but usa is buying 404 over the next 5 years.
Nothing like counting your chickens before the eggs hatch. The cost curve (learning curve) is being redrawn to reflect the loss of 45. Unless L-M gives hefty sales discounts, prices go up...

glad rag

10th Feb 2016, 13:41

The "british" navy "getting" F35?

Are they?

:ugh:

Turbine D

10th Feb 2016, 13:47

Trump has suggested he'll 'fire' it, and despises the military industrial complex.

http://i1166.photobucket.com/albums/q609/DaveK72/1497184576585219910_zpsfm6q8eum.jpg (http://s1166.photobucket.com/user/DaveK72/media/1497184576585219910_zpsfm6q8eum.jpg.html)

Trump said: “When they say that this cannot perform as well as the planes we already have, what are [we] doing, and spending so much more money?” He continued, “I do hear that it’s not very good... I’m hearing that our existing planes are better. And one of the pilots came out of the plane, one of the test pilots, and said this isn’t as good as what we already have.” Trump concluded by saying this:

“Test pilots are amazing people. They know better than anybody... They’re saying it doesn’t perform as well as our existing equipment, which is much less expensive. So when I hear that, immediately I say we have to do something, because you know, they’re spending billions. This is a plane. There’s never been anything like it in terms of cost.”
If Trump keeps singing this tune, the Washington DC Congressional F-35 supporters and DoD will start feeling the heat. Not everyone is as educated about the F-35 Program as the PPRuNe folks are...

MSOCS

10th Feb 2016, 15:42

Trump! Don't make me laugh. Many a prospective (and current) President's promise has been deferred, bluffed and broken to their electorate after getting into office and seeing how the government actually works. He's a figurehead and one voice amongst many. Sure he has a final say but I'll bet the farm that Trump's been given partial (and certainly not impartial) advice, because it fits with the general media malaise of hating this jet. That malaise is difficult to counter at the REL ALL level but I have conceded many times - and it is my opinion - that the cost issues are an embarrassment to the US acquisition side of the house. There was a time when I believed it to be out of control but my opinion is those dark days are behind. We are now, of course, where we are. We either pay an almost double cost per aircraft over original predictions or walk away. The latter now doesn't, and will never, make sense. The time to do that was 10 years ago. Anyway...

Once Trump's been shown the wider puzzle and how F-35 pieces fit into it, both domestically and internationally, he won't be so quick to 'Fire!' F-35. Again, that's my opinion. He patently hasn't been given the facts. He's just saying this stuff to pander to the masses of confused and disaffected 'Jane and John Q. Taxpayers' alike. Good for him! He's saying what many want to hear to get what he wants, but many don't know why F-35 is important. Not just for the USA but the potential coalition as a whole. Let's not forget that Trump is a shrewd and ruthless businessman.

Corbyn says he'll get rid of Trident if elected PM. In a similar fashion, he won't. He can't even convince his own party of the benefit to do so.

I hope Bloomberg enters and rescues this farce soon.

KenV

10th Feb 2016, 15:55

Ken, Israel's IAI has been given a contract to provide L-M more than 800 sets of outer-wings for the F-35As.I'm aware of that.

The deal is an offset agreement by the US DoD enticing Israel to buy F-35s and it worked.I'm aware of that too. In any event IAF seems to be very enthusiastic about their F-35's. I personally doubt IAF's enthusiasm is only because they have Israeli made outer wings. You're welcome to disagree. And on a related note, IAF and the Israeli defense ministry has expended a LOT of political capital to get DoD and LM to agree to allow IAF to make changes that they've not allowed to anyone else, including their UK partner that enjoys a "special relationship" with the US.

I don't believe there are "special" outer-wings for the F-35Is.It depends on how one interprets the statement that the EW equipment unique to the F-35I "will use specific apertures... in the lower fuselage and leading edge of the F-35I." Are the "specific apertures" unique to the F-35I, or is it just the equipment that uses those "specific apertures" unique to the F-35I? I don't know. But usually, to get any kind of decent performance, the antenna/aperture needs to be specifically tuned/designed for the EW equipment that will use it. Generic antennas may work OK for comm equipment who's frequencies and waveforms are known, well defined, and seldom change, but EW equipment is usually a very different matter. But who knows? Maybe the ELBIT folks can perform some kind of engineering hocus pocus and use generic antennas for their very unique EW equipment.

MSOCS

10th Feb 2016, 16:11

The Israeli government aren't buying F-35 because they get to build some wings for the F-35A! That's like saying I need this particular type of gun because ..... you'll etch my name on it for a discount?!!

Ask why the gun is different, why you need the gun and what you intend to shoot with it if pressed. The gun seamlessly talks to a lot of other guns too? That could be interesting..... You'll buy them for me as well? Awesome.

I'm sure if the US were willing to sell an F/A-22 derivative to Israel they wouldn't be in the F-35 Program. That goes for a lot of other countries, like Japan.

Turbine D

10th Feb 2016, 18:03

MSOCS,
The Israeli government aren't buying F-35 because they get to build some wings for the F-35A! That's like saying I need this particular type of gun because ..... you'll etch my name on it for a discount?!!
How about if you got the gun for free, name etched on as well? Read on:

August 15/2010: Defense Minister Ehud Barak announces formal approval for purchasing the American F-35A. Reports indicate that Israel will buy 20 jets for about $2.75 billion, and add that the deal is a “closed package” with few to no Israeli modifications. The aircraft would be delivered from 2015-2017. If Israel chooses to buy more F-35s from later production blocks, they may have more Israeli systems.

Defense Ministry Director-General Udi Shani reportedly said that one of the considerations in approving the deal was an American offer of $4 billion in industrial offset contracts to Israeli defense industries. Their exact composition will be part of negotiations and future agreements with Lockheed Martin, who already has good relations with Israeli defense firms in a number of spheres. The entire deal will be funded by American military aid dollars, and still needs the Israeli cabinet’s approval before a contract can be signed and announced. Wings are in the $4B offset agreement. The UK should get such a deal!;)

LowObservable

10th Feb 2016, 22:45

"Seamlessly talks to everything else"?

Really, MSOCS. It may do it in exactly the same way as anything else does, if the security maniacs will let you, via L16. Otherwise it talks to other F-35s.

a1bill

10th Feb 2016, 23:25

putting the FUD aside, perhaps they may upgrade the coms on the the 4th gen? there is also com nodes that can act, if needed.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com.au/us/news/features/2014/f35-new-era-of-international-cooperation.html

glad rag

11th Feb 2016, 02:54

a1 could you (again) clarify your RN to get F35 statement from that listing of "yours"..

msocs Trump for the win!

a1bill

11th Feb 2016, 07:02

LowObservable : The Korean, Japanese and Israeli orders have already been counted in. Please cite sources about how they're ready to order more.
PS - The nonpartners were the gapfillers when the previous partner schedule (in the PSFD MoU) blew itself to fairy dust in 2010-12. There are no gapfillers for Canada, the 90 UK aircraft that have been kicked into the dim distance, the Italian and Dutch number cuts, or Denmark should they jump ship, or Turkey if it doesn't take 100 jets in short order.

at one hour mark, it answers your FUD
http://www.appropriations.senate.gov/hearings/defense-subcommittee-hearing-on-fy17-air-force-budget-request

Courtney Mil

11th Feb 2016, 08:44

From a1b's link:

"the F-35 is an evolution in air superiority."

So it IS an air superiority fighter. Won't be needing F-22 anymore then.

Not_a_boffin

11th Feb 2016, 08:56

Is it time to rename this thread? Something along the lines of "My dad's bigger than your dad?"

Leave this thread to revel in debates best summarised as

"F35 is an uber-ship. Anyone who says different is a puff - and I have the latest (or recycled) JPO press releases to back it up"

vs

"F35 is a catastrophe. Anyone who says otherwise is a kiddy-fiddler - and I have the latest (or recycled) critical article/report to back it up"

Rhino power

11th Feb 2016, 09:02

ORAC

11th Feb 2016, 09:15

More on the money now being poured into the F-18 pot instead of the F-35 pot.....

U.S. Navy Budget Underscores Need To Extend F-18 Use (http://aviationweek.com/defense/us-navy-budget-underscores-need-extend-f-18-use)

THE PENTAGON – With F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) delays and continued expanded reliance on F-18 aircraft, the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps are working hard to make the legacy Hornets last much longer than they were meant to, budget documents show.

“Until the F-35B/C aircraft are available in required numbers, the Navy plans to mitigate the inventory challenge with service life extension of the legacy F/A-18A-D airframes to 8,000-10,000 hours (over original design of 6,000 hours),” the Navy notes in documentation supporting the fiscal 2017 budget request submitted this week...............

The services contend, “Continued investment in the Service Life Extension Program (SLEP), the High Flight Hour (HFH) inspection program, and Air Systems Support (i.e. Program Related Engineering and Program Related Logistics) is crucial to our flight hour extension strategy. In order to maintain warfighting relevancy in a changing threat environment, we will continue to procure and install advanced systems such as Digital Communication System Radios, Joint Helmet-Mounted Cueing Systems (JHMCS) and the Night Vision Cueing and Display (NVCD), High Order Language Mission Computers, ALR-67v3, ALQ-214v5, Multi-Function Information Distribution System-Joint Tactical Radio System (MIDS-JTRS), APG-73 radar enhancements, Advanced Targeting Forward looking Infrared (ATFLIR) upgrades, and LITENING targeting pods for the Marine Corps on selected F/A-18A-D aircraft.”...................

t43562

11th Feb 2016, 09:38

"F35 is an uber-ship. Anyone who says different is a puff - and I have the latest (or recycled) JPO press releases to back it up"

vs

"F35 is a catastrophe. Anyone who says otherwise is a kiddy-fiddler - and I have the latest (or recycled) critical article/report to back it up" What should the conclusion be then? Perhaps both? e.g. could one say that it's a financial disaster but we're going to stick with it until it reaches the point of being useful and then it will have its good points?

PhilipG

11th Feb 2016, 11:04

With the delay in the F35C's appearance in the fleet, the decision to SLEP and upgrade a large part of the electronics in the legacy Hornets cannot be a cheap option, particularly if it is only giving a life increase of some 2,000 hours.

Soon I would have thought that the costs would be getting somewhere near the costs of a new Rhino, particularly when you look at the logistical and other support benefits of only having one major airframe on a carrier and a Naval Air Station.

I suppose the USMC would not want to transition from Hornet to Rhino then to F35C.

Turbine D

11th Feb 2016, 14:12

at one hour mark, it answers your FUD
Ah, yes, that answers everything. Good snapshot of how things work. The Senator is more worried about keeping his local AFB going into the future by campaigning for some number of F-35s being based there. And the Secretary of the Air Force is accommodating his concern by smoothing over the latest bump in the road, e.g., deferring 45 F-35s that will not have any impact on costs, or maybe not. What you are seeing is the Washington politics at work that contributed immensely to the ever increasing costly F-35 program. Keep in mind, if the grass was a foot tall emerging from the cracks in the main runway at the Senator's local AFB due to nonuse, he would still be campaigning to keep it alive. The whole deal is to get reelected...

a1bill

11th Feb 2016, 15:15

nutloose, that would have been a good caption pic. While reading the brief he got to the part that said ............

TD. The system is the best gov that money can buy and an honest polly is one who's bought stays bought. But it did answer the gap filler question.

Turbine D

11th Feb 2016, 16:38

But it did answer the gap filler question.
Except for the math that supports "All will be OK".

As reenforcement from the F-35 JPO, General Bogdan said, "The move to trim orders for the USAF wouldn't harm the effort to cut the average cost of the main model (assumed to be model A) to between $80M and $85M by 2019, when adjusted by inflation". Bowden expects (as you do) the overseas deals to fill the gap left by reduced USAF purchases and forecasts total domestic and international sales of 873 between now and 2021, 20 fewer than forecasted in 2015. However, these numbers include as many as 60 from Canada where the competition has been reopened by the Liberal government. They best hot foot it up to Canada to keep the anticipated F-35s from morphing into a different aircraft. Keep in mind the video was only a Senate sub-committee, not the full Senate Armed Services Committee.

As a side note, the Pentagon plans to invest $100M during the next year on cost cutting efforts, building on the $170M spent by Lockeed-Martin and BAE Systems PLC during the last three years. Question: As a result of this three year effort, did the cost of an F-35A go down or up? Was it really cost reduction oriented or problem solving money?

a1bill

11th Feb 2016, 23:06

TD, the more they build per year the cheaper it is, but they need to replace 6 tails a year, I copy/pasted the lot 8/9 that japan and israel have got more than 6 tails a year. canada are retiring the hornets in 2025, so they could get some in the mix. korea will also start.

For the LRIP Lot 11 award, Lockheed Martin is to acquire long-lead items for 80 F-35A aircraft (28 for the US Air Force [USAF]; 6 for the Royal Norwegian Air Force [RoNAF]; 4 for the Turkish Air Force [TuAF]; 8 for the Royal Netherlands Air Force [RNLAF]; 8 for the Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF]; 10 for the Israeli Air force [IAF]; 6 for the Japan Air Self-Defense Force [JASDF]; and 10 for the Republic of Korea Air Force [RoKAF]); 7 F-35B aircraft (6 for the US Marine Corps [USMC]; and 1 for the UK Royal Air Force [RAF]/Royal Navy [RN]); and 4 F-35C aircraft for the US Navy (USN).

personally I think it's time the naysayers packed their tents and move to the F/FX programs,
http://breakingdefense.com/2016/02/bogdan-predicts-f-35s-for-less-than-80m-engines-included/
February 11, 2016
Now, Program Executive Officer Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan says the most common model of the plane, the F-35A, will hit $80 million to $85 million by 2019 and he expects the price will go lower, especially when it hits multi-year procurement in a few years. That price is in then-year dollars, and it includes an engine.

He estimated the next two lots, LRIPs 9 and 10, will come in at just about and then below $100 million a plane. The deal, which had been expected months ago, had hit what Bogdan admitted was an “impasse.” The problem? “I’m not rushing into a bad deal, ” he said, adding that he wasn’t “going to let time pressure me into doing a bad deal for taxpayers.” Total value of the two lots should be around $15 billion.

LowObservable

12th Feb 2016, 02:55

So in Breaking Defense's book - it's hard to say whether that piece is reporting or an op-ed - skeptics "howl" and the F/A-18 is "ostensibly" cheaper.

This must be a new definition of "ostensibly", where the word means "as demonstrated conclusively in government budget documents, despite efforts of shills and trolls to apply new math to the issue". (And that compares a CV airplane to the F-35A model - ask the Navy if the Super H costs as much as an F-35C.)

F-35 pricing in the real world is a fascinating issue, mainly because the aircraft being produced now are all covered by a remarkable number of contracts, which only rises as the aircraft are fixed and reworked.

As for the foreign sales in LRIP 11, two comments. First they have to sell the 41 export jets in LRIP 10. And they didn't, in LRIP 9, sell all of the 23 aircraft they planned on, which was why Congress had to step in and plus-up in December.

Another comment on the BD piece: It does seem to reflect the attitude that it's "only" software. In 2016 that doesn't fly.

a1bill

12th Feb 2016, 03:40

LO, I hope you save some for the f/fx that I'm sure you will bag too.

the Shornet was a piece of poop in 2005. Sweetman went to great lengths to bag it. Now he thinks it's gods gift to aviation, the naysayers are funny.

you mean the USAF can cut them from their budget and congress can add them back later from 'other' money. you'd almost think it was a plan :)

Snafu351

12th Feb 2016, 10:37

Do you ever have anything substantive to contribute a1bill?
Your "opinion" is very well known. Repeating it and taking pops at people doesn't enhance it.
(For those who are going to complain about this post potentially being "off topic" perhaps they would like to address the complete lack of anything beyond repetition and sniping that a1bill contributes first, off topic much? Doing that will absolutely ensure no further "off topic" posts from the likes of me.)

Just This Once...

12th Feb 2016, 10:53

Again, I love the optimism. The new US plan is to buy less now because they are expensive but getting the international customers to purchase the ones they didn't in previous years, plus all the ones they hope they will buy in the next few years too. As a result of this largesse by the other nations the unit price will fall and the US can then purchase many more at the new lower price. Oh and this tactic will be announced ahead of time just so the other customers remember to bring their chequebooks.

Where do I sign?

a1bill

12th Feb 2016, 10:59

there was concern that the 6 tails dropped will result in a price rise. I posted the that the FMS more than replace the cut.
at one hour mark,
http://www.appropriations.senate.gov/hearings/defense-subcommittee-hearing-on-fy17-air-force-budget-request

I also posted just above that the price is still on track for $80-85m and even less when the MYbuy is done.

LO was kind enough to point out that congress have shown their support by adding tails above what was ordered.

I also reminded LO how the Shornet was called a dog and is now the embodiment of aviation design. I wonder why Boeing didn't put it forward as it's FX design that it lost to the f-35?

Mach Two

12th Feb 2016, 11:18

Snafu,

I agree. It is becoming very tiresome and repetitive. I'm not sure what is gained by continuously talking everything up, I suspect it may have the opposite effect of that desired.

LowObservable

12th Feb 2016, 11:29

Better account of Bogdan's media event here:

F-35 Chief Lays Out Biggest Development Risks (http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/strike/2016/02/10/f-35-chief-lays-out-biggest-development-risks/80202432/)

Note that the mission data files - the SW that "can go to the lookup tables in the MDF and say, ‘aha, that’s a MiG-31,’” - are indeed different for US and non-US aircraft. That will make interoperability all kinds of interesting.

a1bill

12th Feb 2016, 11:50

The same risks that I posted from the RAAF
PORTFOLIO ADDITIONAL (http://search.defence.gov.au/search?q=cache:2e1gOsq68ckJ:www.defence.gov.au/budget/15-16/2015-16_defence_paes_complete.rtf+f-35&site=Everything&proxystylesheet=default_frontend&client=default_frontend&ie=UTF-8&access=p&oe=UTF-8)
• The JSF air system continues to mature at a slow and steady pace. The Autonomic Logistic Information System (ALIS) and reprogramming capabilities remain major risks.

could there be a slip in the block 3f? maybe, time will tell.

Mach Two

12th Feb 2016, 12:08

LO,

The other quote by CB that really caught my attention was,

The JPO is seeing this choking effect, where the plane’s systems shut down and need to be rebooted, about once every four flight hours with both 3i and 3F software, Bogdan said. The goal is to get to one event every eight or nine flight hours, which is in line with legacy airplanes, he said.So, which of the "plane's" systems are shutting down every four hours, how long to reboot, what is the occupant left with while this is happening and which "legacy platforms" suffer this type of "shut down" every eight to nine hours?

Back to the logies' problem, ALIS? ALIS? Who the :mad: is ALIS?

Turbine D

12th Feb 2016, 12:53

a1bill,

Arizona Republican John McCain, chairman of the Senate Armed Services committee, blasted the block buy strategy, telling CNN that it "leaves taxpayers on the hook for expensive changes to fix problems discovered late in production. And it's one of the reasons that the F-35 is a shining example of how not to conduct a major acquisition program."
The F-35 program is more than $200B over budget from what was advertised as well as being terribly late to the party. The US DoD have admitted they still don't know how it will fare in combat because that hasn't been assessed, yet.

It is the American taxpayers footing the bill for the program miscues to this point, the international folks except for the UK have laid little money on the table, at least one none at all. Some Americans must not mind giving away part of their tax dollars to Lockheed-Martin to fix the numerous problems L-M were responsible for creating in the first place.

KenV

12th Feb 2016, 14:11

From a1b's link:
"the F-35 is an evolution in air superiority."
So it IS an air superiority fighter. Won't be needing F-22 anymore then. Courtney makes a good point. However, I'd like to make 2 points:

1. "An evolution in air superiority" is NOT the same thing as ""an evolution in air superiority fighters." The difference is subtle, but very significant. We need to be more cautious about what we read into such statements.

2. Calling the F-35 an air superiority fighter (which I don't believe the above statement did) and even using it as an air superiority fighter does not make it one. The Tornado and Thunderchief come to mind. Yes you can call them and even use them as air superiority fighters, but neither were real fighters, much less air superiority fighters. The F-35 was never designed as an air superiority fighter. It was designed as a self-escorting strike aircraft. It's optimized for the air-to-ground role, with a very good, (many say dominating) BVR air-to-air capability and a competent but not dominating close-in A2A capability.

ORAC

12th Feb 2016, 14:42

Evolution does not imply improvement, merely change. T-Rex evolved into the chicken....and the dodo.....

glad rag

12th Feb 2016, 17:26

KenV

12th Feb 2016, 18:26

Ken V sorry but I won't have YOU lecturing anyone about Tornado (F3);)
To recap it was an interceptorwhose role was to prevent Soviet bombers and missiles, many of which were capable of carrying nuclear warheads, from reaching the shores of the UK.
To do this it utilised an air intercept radar with air to air missiles as the primary weapons with a 27mm Mauser cannon as a weapon of last resort.
If you are really interested, try reading David Gledhill's book "Tornado F3 in focus".
It is quite interesting indeed looking at the aircraft as a complete weapons system. ..available for kindle etc from Amazon... We're in violent agreement. It was a great interceptor and a remarkable "complete weapons system," but never a real fighter and certainly not an air superiority fighter. The Ardvaark and Corsair II were equally remarkable in many ways. But neither were fighters, much less air superiority fighters. Interestingly, the A-4 was officially a fighter in a number of air forces. But was it really a fighter? It certainly was agile. Although some corners of its envelope were really scary ragged. It could depart in some nasty ways, which made it difficult to really fly it to its full capability.

Courtney Mil

12th Feb 2016, 19:10

That's the whole point, Ken. The F3 was never slated as a fighter, it was an interceptor. The difference being modern usage of the term "fighter" rather than the traditional means a distinction between an aircraft that does ground attack from one that does air to air. That said, we never referred to the F-3 as a fighter. But the key to air superiority is in its definition.

A dominance in the air power of one side's air forces over the other side's during a military campaign. It is defined in the NATO Glossary as "That degree of dominance in the air battle of one force over another that permits the conduct of operations by the former and its related land, sea, and air forces at a given time and place without prohibitive interference by the opposing force."

You don't have to be a fighter to achieve air superiority. We referred to our job in the F-3 as air defence.

The modern term "air superiority fighter" was coined as a means of describing the claimed effectiveness of an aircraft in achieving that state. When that wasn't enough to make your jet stand out from the crowd, even better terms were invented - "air supremacy" and "air dominance". All of which actually mean the same thing in military terms.

The A-4 was used as an air defence aircraft, but it wasn't really what it was designed for and it didn't have the kit or the punch to do it. Strangely the RAN used the G model for their air defence of the fleet armed with a couple of early AIM9s. I'm sure they thought it was the way forward.

switch_on_lofty

12th Feb 2016, 19:48

This was on the front page of the Pompey News today would expect national pickup over the weekend in some form. Adm West is getting fired up:
Britain?s new aircraft carriers could go to war ? without any jets - Portsmouth News (http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/defence/britain-s-new-aircraft-carriers-could-go-to-war-without-any-jets-1-7202333)

Ex-navy boss fears future flagships could be left vulnerable
THEY are Britain’s biggest warships ever built but now a former head of the Royal Navy has claimed the UK’s new £6bn aircraft carriers could go to war – without any fighter-bombers.
Speaking exclusively to The News, Admiral Lord Alan West said the new 65,000-tonnes Queen Elizabeth-class behemoths could deploy without any of its F-35B Lightning II jets.
It comes amid claims that RAF chiefs were in dispute with navy top brass over who would have ultimate control of the new state-of-the-art fighter jets for HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales – which will be based in Portsmouth – while on operations at sea.
Former First Sea Lord, Lord West, has made repeated calls on the Ministry of Defence (MoD) to clarify the situation – pleas which he says have not been answered sufficiently.
The Labour peer now fears Britain’s future flagships could be left vulnerable.
‘The prime minister and the government have decided, quite rightly, that we run both aircraft carriers together and that they are crucial to the strategic security of the nation,’ he said.
The prime minister would be furious if the carrier went to sea and did not have an air wing
Admiral Lord Alan West, former First Sea Lord
‘But to run them effectively, without embarking air wings with them, makes a mockery of all the investment into the new carriers. It’s a nonsense.’
The government announced in last year’s Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) that 138 F-35Bs would be bought, as part of a £178bn defence spending pledge for the next decade.
At least 24 of these are earmarked for the carriers, the first of which – HMS Queen Elizabeth, which is capable of carrying up to 40 aircraft – will arrive in Portsmouth next year.
However, Lord West claims the RAF sees the jets as assets ‘they can deploy from an air base’ and were reluctant to send them to carriers.
‘There is a struggle and tension at the moment because the RAF would like to have them (the jets) at an air base in East Anglia and not on an aircraft carrier,’ Lord West explained.
‘They don’t understand carrier operations at all. If you don’t embark an air wing you make them vulnerable.
‘It’s a huge error not to deploy a carrier without an air wing.’
He added: ‘I honestly don’t think the prime minister understands that this is what people at the MoD are trying to do.
‘He would be furious if the carrier went to sea and did not have an air wing.’
Retired Commander Graham Edmonds is the vice-chairman of campaign group UK National Defence Association, based in Portsmouth.
He said the problem stemmed from who would have command and control of the jets during overseas operations.
He argued short detachments by the RAF on ships ‘did not work’ and said this was a ‘divisive issue between dark and light blue’ – the navy and air force.
He said: ‘There’s no point in an aircraft carrier without planes.’
An MoD spokeswoman did not confirm if the carriers would be deployed without planes.
But she added: ‘The SDSR confirmed we will be able to embark up to 24 F-35B Lightning II aircraft in the Queen Elizabeth-class carriers, by 2023, delivering a carrier strike capability second only to the United States.
‘When deployed in the carrier strike or Littoral Manoeuvre role, the composition and size of the embarked air group will be tailored to meet the required task – there is no “standard deployment”.’
Portsmouth South MP Flick Drummond said she was confident any issues between the forces would be ironed out.
She said: ‘Every section of the armed forces wants to protect their own but we have been moving towards all forces working more closely together.
‘So I don’t think its a serious issue. They have just got to work out how it’s going to work effectively.’

Courtney Mil

12th Feb 2016, 20:00

He said the problem stemmed from who would have command and control of the jets during overseas operations.

He argued short detachments by the RAF on ships ‘did not work’ and said this was a ‘divisive issue between dark and light blue’ – the navy and air force.
He said: ‘There’s no point in an aircraft carrier without planes.’

The whole point of a capital ship is that the Admiral goes on board and takes command of the task force.

Even Sharky, or whatever he's now calling himself, didn't mind having RAF pilots when he needed them.

As for a carrier without "planes" (OK, a "boat" without aircraft), they've been telling us for years that they're not just floating runways. Seems Admiral West disagrees.

ORAC

12th Feb 2016, 20:03

Bat**** crazy....

When the entire UK FJ force is down to about a dozen or less Sqns, they go where they are needed - whether Norfolk, Afghanistan or the Falklands.

There will be occasions where the carriers need a rotary wing, or where the USMC can provide an F-35 component, but the concept that the carrier needs a permanent deployed force to defend/justify itself even when there is no threat and higher priority tasks makes no sense.

The concept is that of the self-licking lollipop - better to scrap the carriers and make usable razor blades.......

Mach Two

12th Feb 2016, 20:25

ORAC,

Not sure if there was an element of humour in your post there, but there is quite a noticeable undercurrent in the MOD these days, even amongst the Dark Blue in private, wondering how much they really need them. That surprised me.

Several of the RN thinkers don't see them setting off round the world on six or twelve month cruises anymore and they don't see them doing defence of the British Isles. They know they weren't missed much in the last few international skirmishes and are thinking very hard how they are going to man them.

I think I find that more sad than they do.

sandiego89

12th Feb 2016, 21:18

A1bill I wonder why Boeing didn't put it (SuperHornet) as its FX design....

A Super Hornet decendant would never have been able meet the FX design and specification requirements. Remember you needed three distinct version with first day of war stealth, internal weapons carriage, one version that could do STOVL, and a host of other things. SH has the Wrong type, number and location of engines to meet STOVL, wrong shape, fuselage too small for fuel and weapons, etc etc....

ORAC

12th Feb 2016, 21:25

Slightly tongue in cheek - but.....

You have a carrier, which needs an air wing to defend it, and subs and AD Frigates to defend it - plus all the support logistic ships. Then they have to do a lot of constant work/exercise to remain proficient.

Now a few years ago we could afford that - but now we struggle to deploy 6 jets inside Europe and have a FJ force in the handful - I mean, get realistic. Is it really best way of employing our assets?

I said many years ago that the RN was crazy going for the carriers, look at my history here - the RN was far, far better looking at the deployed frigate roles such as Far East/Med/Caribbean stations and support for SF roles rather than putting all the eggs in one basket.

Tourist

12th Feb 2016, 22:19

I thought we were all purple nowadays?

You wonder why the RN thinks we can't trust the RAF, and yet here there is the sudden resurgence of the "carriers are pointless" meme.

Mach, re your b@llocks about the RN in private thinking that the carriers are a bad idea.

Utter cr@p.
That is just scurrilous invention cleverly disguised by saying that nobody will admit it publicly.

I can play that game too.

Several RAF officers have agreed with me privately that the RAF should be disbanded as a waste of space.

See? Easy isn't it?

ORAC

12th Feb 2016, 22:35

You wonder why the RN thinks we can't trust the RAF, and yet here there is the sudden resurgence of the "carriers are pointless" meme.
Au contraire, it's the retired navy admirals doing the power/aircraft grab. It would seem you have the wrong end if the stick....

‘They don’t understand carrier operations at all. If you don’t embark an air wing you make them vulnerable. It’s a huge error not to deploy a carrier without an air wing.’

He added: ‘I honestly don’t think the prime minister understands that this is what people at the MoD are trying to do.He would be furious if the carrier went to sea and did not have an air wing.’

Mach Two

12th Feb 2016, 22:45

Tourist,

Sorry, didn't intend to provoke such an angry response. But I'm equally sorry to report that I am not making anything up; why would I? I have no axe to grind in this debate. Don't get me wrong, I think they are happy that they're getting them and I certainly didn't say they think they're a bad idea. Those were your angry words, not mine. I also did not say what the "RN thinks".

The guys are more questioning how they're going to be used.

Turbine D

13th Feb 2016, 00:42

sandiego,
A Super Hornet decendant would never have been able meet the FX design and specification requirements.
Looks like the F-35 has this problem as well...

SH has the Wrong type, number and location of engines to meet STOVL, wrong shape, fuselage too small for fuel and weapons, etc etc....
Other than the number of engines, you are describing the current F-35B...

This is what happens when one airframe is developed to serve three different missions and three different services, a super star never results...What were they thinking given a previous experience with only two services?

Turbine D

13th Feb 2016, 01:45

So you wonder why there are organizations in the US Department of Defense like the DOT&E, which is issuing yearly reports on the F-35 program among others? Part of it is to avoid situations like this from happening years later:

Afghan Air | Full Measure (http://fullmeasure.news/news/politics/afghan-air)

ORAC

13th Feb 2016, 06:50

So you wonder why there are organizations in the US Department of Defense like the DOT&E, which is issuing yearly reports on the F-35 program among others? Part of it is to avoid situations like this from happening years later LOL.......

GAO Report to Senate Investigation into the F-111 Program, (http://www.gao.gov/assets/100/97982.pdf)

ORAC

13th Feb 2016, 07:57

Hmmm, that thing about Israel being so keen on the F-35 that Ken keeps harping on about........

carolinglick | The IAF?s Achilles? Heel (http://carolineglick.com/the-iafs-achilles-heel/)

"This week Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu told government ministers that he may wait for the next US president before signing a new military assistance deal with America. Israel’s current military assistance package is set to expire in 2018 and the new package is supposed to include supplemental aid to compensate Israel for President Barack Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran. But to date, the administration has rejected Israel’s requests for additional systems it could use to defend against Iran attacks.

Last October, Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon asked US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter to provide Israel with a new squadron of F-15s that Israel would outfit with its own electronics systems. Carter reportedly rejected that request as well as one for bunker buster bombs.

Carter instead insisted that Israel use the supplemental aid to purchase more F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, US-made missile defense systems, and the Osprey V-22 helicopter, which Ya’alon didn’t want.

The fact that the administration wants Israel to buy more F-35s instead of F-15s is alarming both for what it tells us about America’s commitment to maintaining Israel’s qualitative edge against Iran and for what it tells us about the F-35, which is set to become the IAF’s next generation combat fighter."............

MSOCS

13th Feb 2016, 08:00

I agree with ORAC. Times have changed and we don't have enough aircraft to have a permanently embarked Air Wing on either (or both) QECs. The Admiral knows this, but his accusations are false. The RAF is fully committed to Carrier Strike and certainly does 'understand' them. We haven't had large carriers for many many years, and certainly haven't deployed a fixed-wing embarked element on ops for a long time either. Therefore, I'm sad to say that there is also large proportion of the RN now that don't understand what to do with them, and maybe that was ORAC's point. That said, for the past few years a lot of sailors and WAFUs have been wisely keeping their skills up on big US carriers to prepare for QEC and F-35. A good plan IMHO.

I just wish that certain elements of the Services would stop peddling old myths to de-rail what is currently a very good plan to make both capabilities work together. These aircraft aren't just bought for the carriers. At least an air threat to the carrier strike group can be mitigated by T45, yet nobody has really acknowledged the real gorilla in the room - the sub-surface threat.

As always, if it doesn't support the rather tiresome old narrative to achieve full control, it doesn't grab headlines. Headlines which are akin to opening 5+ year-old sore wounds. Plans and relationships have moved forward considerably since then yet certain people seem intent on pushing BS up to their retired VSO "connections" in the hope of being taken seriously. That's scurrilous.

glad rag

13th Feb 2016, 08:54

We're in violent agreement. It was a great interceptor and a remarkable "complete weapons system," but never a real fighter and certainly not an air superiority fighter. The Ardvaark and Corsair II were equally remarkable in many ways. But neither were fighters, much less air superiority fighters. Interestingly, the A-4 was officially a fighter in a number of air forces. But was it really a fighter? It certainly was agile. Although some corners of its envelope were really scary ragged. It could depart in some nasty ways, which made it difficult to really fly it to its full capability.

Ken, if you can, get of your pinto and start thinking what people are trying (however obliquely) to tell you.

You might even learn something about the so called US 4th/5th gen debate lol.

glad rag

13th Feb 2016, 08:57

[QUOTE] These aircraft aren't just bought for the carriers.[ /QUOTE]

Time will tell.

Perhaps some forward thinking AM might wake up and gift the entire shooting match to the RN.

The RN can pay for them, for their maintenance and operation from their wedge of the defence budget. ..

If that isn't the case (and we know the RN could never do it by itself) then perhaps it us time for some dark blue to stfu

MSOCS

13th Feb 2016, 09:17

g r

You and I both know that it 'isn't the case', which was the point of F-35 not being solely for carriers. Reality, not time, is what will tell, and I can tell you that reality right now is that the RN could not do this alone and does not want to because it sees the enormity of it. It would take years and years for them to train enough people to be self-sustaining. Not to mention a massive budget slice.

Thankfully there is only a very, very small number of RN that still harbour the paranoia of light blue skullduggery. They are the ones who need to (as you so eloquently put it) stfu. There is no skullduggery, just a mutually agreed plan to bring Carrier Strike to life, together. None of it will work unless it's Joint.

From where I sit right now it's nothing but Joint. Sadly the small 'cadre of the paranoid' can only be heard above the noise of Jointery by using former 1SLs as a platform. It doesn't make him look good in this day and age.

glad rag

13th Feb 2016, 09:51

MSOCS, the F35B will be a UK asset, whether it should be is beyond the scope of this reply.

The fact that it is means that we, ie the UK, will have to make the best of it period.

The only chance of that is if the services jointly push for the very best outcome from their purchase.

This is further compounded by the seeming impossibility of any national "improvement" programmes.

making a purse out of a sow's ear...?

Good luck with that.

MSOCS

13th Feb 2016, 10:11

and as always, too little information can be a dangerous thing.

LowObservable

13th Feb 2016, 10:40

and as always, too little information can be a dangerous thing.

Indeed it can. But as someone said (I used to think it was Will Rogers, but it predates him): "It's not what we don't know that gets us in trouble, but what we do know, that ain't so."

MSOCS

13th Feb 2016, 10:46

Guess you don't get to quote Will Rogers in a AW&ST too often LO eh?!

Here's one:

"All the world's a stage"

LowObservable

13th Feb 2016, 11:12

That was Will Rogers?

You learn something new every day from the polymathic, specially accessed pros around here.

a1bill

13th Feb 2016, 11:13

CM : From a1b's link:

"the F-35 is an evolution in air superiority."

So it IS an air superiority fighter. Won't be needing F-22 anymore then.

CM : You don't have to be a fighter to achieve air superiority. We referred to our job in the F-3 as air defence.

The modern term "air superiority fighter" was coined as a means of describing the claimed effectiveness of an aircraft in achieving that state. When that wasn't enough to make your jet stand out from the crowd, even better terms were invented - "air supremacy" and "air dominance". All of which actually mean the same thing in military terms.

you have lost me know.

LowObservable

13th Feb 2016, 11:42

a1b: I just ran across the valuable piece of advice for people who type in lower case all the time:

Capital letters are the difference between "I helped my Uncle Jack off a horse" and "i helped my uncle jack off a horse".

Dominator2

13th Feb 2016, 11:51

LowObservable

a1b: I just ran across the valuable piece of advice for people who type in lower case all the time:

Capital letters are the difference between "I helped my Uncle Jack off a horse" and "i helped my uncle jack off a horse".
13th Feb 2016 12:13
Great Put Down!!

a1bill

you have lost me know.

I believe that you meant now and NOT know

MSOCS

13th Feb 2016, 11:57

I used to think so LO, but it predates him.

ORAC

13th Feb 2016, 12:12

Mark Twain (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/marktwain109624.html), shoulda guessed.....

It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.

Turbine D

13th Feb 2016, 13:53

ORAC,
LOL.......
Good find! Who woulda thought that history is repeating itself. I guess it confirms the saying, "The one thing about history is we learn we don't learn."

a1bill

13th Feb 2016, 21:17

Thanks LO and dominator, as you can see CM's posts really shook me up. I tried to understand, what seems opposing opinions of a few posters.

chopper2004

14th Feb 2016, 00:45

412th LRS executes F-35 'deployment' plan (http://www.edwards.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123468788)

2/11/2016 - EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. -- The 412th Logistics Readiness Squadron "deployed" 81 personnel from the 31st Test and Evaluation Squadron to Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho, Feb. 9. The troops will be involved in a month-long test mission. A day earlier, six F-35s from the 31st TES took off and landed at the Idaho base

sandiego89

14th Feb 2016, 01:48

I would suspect lots of help with a mountain of spares and scores of contractors for the first off base test deployment of the A, like was done for the B test deployment/experiment aboard the USS WASP.

Of minor interest, the contract 737 from Southwest Airlines to send the 81 airmen- maybe they can pick up a few tips about quick turns and dispatch rates :}

Maus92

14th Feb 2016, 05:37

Nobody is trumpeting the Italian F-35A crossing the Atlantic? Check out its stellar performance:

"F-35 Makes First Transatlantic Crossing"

"NAVAL AIR STATION PATUXENT RIVER, Md. – An Italian Air Force F-35 completed the fighter jet’s first transatlantic crossing Friday, a historic event that kicks off a landmark year for the international program.

The aircraft, an Italian Air Force F-35A dubbed AL-1, touched down here Feb. 5 after a seven-hour flight from Lajes Air Base, Portugal. The plane, which began its journey from Cameri Air Base in Italy, on Tuesday, was scheduled to arrive here on Wednesday, but was delayed due to weather and maintenance issues..."

F-35 Makes First Transatlantic Crossing (http://www.defensenews.com/story/breaking-news/2016/02/05/f-35-makes-first-transatlantic-crossing/79901306/)

Wot? MX issues? No wonder it was accompanied by C-130s carrying SAR equipment (and presumably spares and maintainers.)

And check out this poll by FlightGlobal:

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/opinion-f-35-budget-woes-deflate-transatlantic-cele-421863/

Ho hum.

glad rag

14th Feb 2016, 10:12

wonder if they had a spare donkey in the back of the Herc as well.......

PhilipG

14th Feb 2016, 10:48

The Italian built F35 having made the first Ocean transit must be rather embarrassing for LM, as as far as I know no US made planes have managed to get out of US controlled airspace, except for trips to USS Wasp and a couple of carriers.

MSOCS

14th Feb 2016, 10:58

PhilipG,

I'd very much doubt there's any embarrassment, as much as the jet's detractors would like there to be. If you remember, the first trans-Atlantic move was planned for June 2014 but, due to a completely unforeseen and catastrophic engine problem, the Program wisely curtailed the trip until they could take adequate stock of the situation.

Roll forward a year and the USMC focus was their IOC. The Marines had offered huge support and help to the MoD to send the jets to the UK in 2014 but their more important IOC meant they couldn't in 2015.

Roll forward another year and the plan is to very much get the jets to the UK for this summer.

Of course it's very easy to look at the above facts in isolation and spin them into whatever narrative one chooses.

Lyneham Lad

14th Feb 2016, 11:00

Also on Flight Global.
International F-35 customers pushing block-buy plan (https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/international-f-35-customers-pushing-block-buy-plan-421870/)

LowObservable

14th Feb 2016, 12:05

MSOCS, do you seriously want to get your credibility down to a1bill level?

"The program" did not "wisely" curtail the 2014 trip. They were hot to trot until the last moment...

F-35s Will Not Fly At Air Tattoo; Farnborough Appearance In Jeopardy | Defense content from Aviation Week (http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35s-will-not-fly-air-tattoo-farnborough-appearance-jeopardy)

...until Navair put the brakes on.

RPT-UPDATE 2-U.S. Navy maintains grounding order for F-35 fighter jets | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/lockheed-martin-fighter-idUSL2N0PN09520140712)

These facts are all public record. Why do you (with all your supposed clearances and stuff) think you can get away with a different narrative?

LynehamLad - OK story, but the headline should have "says program manager" after it, since not one of the hereinbeforementioned "customers" is actually quoted in it.

MSOCS

14th Feb 2016, 12:27

LO,

I do apologise old chap. My reply to PhilG was expeditious. I meant to say "Services" not Program. That was an honest misuse of terms; though the Program DID provide technical advice as the situation went on.

As for your other points, think what you want. I have never confirmed any of your suspicions, and nor will I. Your bullish tone is pretty tiresome and patronising.

Out.

Courtney Mil

14th Feb 2016, 12:32

It's OK, MSOCS. I guess someone didn't get the number of Valentines Day cards he was expecting.

MSOCS

14th Feb 2016, 12:44

Snigger..

Thanks for the reminder, must go buy a card, quickly!!

LowObservable

14th Feb 2016, 22:15

I'd say jet-lag and a cold - but you have to admit that MSOCS' miswording changed his statement into a monstrous whopper.

a1bill

14th Feb 2016, 22:30

LO : MSOCS, do you seriously want to get your credibility down to a1bill level?
It could be worse. Can you let me know when it's down to the level of Sweetman, Axe, APA and other clown club members

MSOCS

14th Feb 2016, 22:32

Take a massive Lemsip and a nap LO.

Given the heat that the Program (and I do mean that term) was under following the engine issue, the JPO were working WITH the Services (US NAVAIR, USMC and UK) to make the RIAT and Farnborough 14 event happen as much as possible. In that regard, I'd point out that it is considered a very military thing to work to the objective until the point of no return, then decide. You saw that played out in the press. That decision was, ultimately, called, following more question and answer sessions, technical advice and deliberations than you could imagine. It was a wise call and one made in consultation with ALL involved parties, not solely NAVAIR even though they were the ultimate voice.

I've also heard Echinacea shows positive benefits to getting over a cold....

I really do love our little talks.

LowObservable

14th Feb 2016, 23:11

glad rag

15th Feb 2016, 11:41

In It could be worse. Can you let me know when it's down to the level of Sweetman, Axe, APA and other clown club members

Is that not just a little bit naughty ?

(been reading the virgin thread, like Wow)

KenV

15th Feb 2016, 13:44

Ken, if you can, get of your pinto and start thinking what people are trying (however obliquely) to tell you.Good old glad rag. I can always count on you for the obligatory personal dig. I'm not biting.

Snafu351

15th Feb 2016, 14:03

But are you thinking Ken?

FODPlod

15th Feb 2016, 14:59

Snafu351

15th Feb 2016, 15:19

Or praise it to the high heavens?

KenV

15th Feb 2016, 15:25

But are you thinking Ken? Decided to join glad rag, have we? Still not biting

KenV

15th Feb 2016, 15:52

Stop. Attempting. To. :mad: Stir.Still not biting.

a1bill

15th Feb 2016, 23:02

Seriously, a1bill.... Who was crowing over the 31 "extra" Navy jets in PB17, which was in fact the reversal of a staggering cutback in the (never published or reported) POM? Who was blithely dismissing the idea that the USAF might have a big cutback in PB17 and move the money into F-15s and F-16s?
I recall at the time about the USN increase being a 'click bait' from Av week and another reason why we should take what they write with caution. I assume the latest increase is legit?

re the teens, what are you on about, are you trying to say upgrade plans a new thing? There is a total defence money budget cut, You are welcome to post how money has been moved. I would be interested to read it.

Meanwhile in the real world
WQE2mnpTrx0

a1bill

16th Feb 2016, 07:48

Maus92 : Nobody is trumpeting the Italian F-35A crossing the Atlantic?
The pilot said what he thought.

Ninja Discusses His F-35 Flight Across the Atlantic: The Right Stuff Italian Style | SLDInfo (http://www.sldinfo.com/ninja-discusses-his-f-35-flight-across-the-atlantic-the-right-stuff-italian-style/)
NINJA DISCUSSES HIS F-35 FLIGHT ACROSS THE ATLANTIC: THE RIGHT STUFF ITALIAN STYLE
"2016-02-08 On Feb. 5, the Italian Air Force’s first F-35, AL-1 with code “32-01” and markings of the 32 Stormo Wing landed at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland, at the end of the JSF’s first ever transatlantic flight.

The aircraft was piloted by “Ninja,”an Italian Air Force test pilot, belonging to the Reparto Sperimentale Volo (Test Wing) from Pratica di Mare, and who had successfully completed his initial F-35 flight training at Luke AFB in November 2015.

To put this in perspective, the pilot had only 50 flight hours of F-35 flying experience.

And the Lightning II which Ninja flew across the North Atlantic in winter had only 15 flight hours on before he took off on his historic flight. 32-01was the first plane to came off of the Italian assembly line at Cameri Italy.

And this was done in the middle of winter, flying in and out of cloud layers over the turbulent North Atlantic against 120-knot headwinds....

...Question: You flew in formation and through heavy clouds, we understand?
Answer: We had four aircraft total; and kept tight formation; and refueled in the clouds as well. We had two C-130s just in the case; the tanker, a Typhoon headed to Red Flag and the F-35.

Question: So you were in a new aircraft, single engine, flying in the middle of winter across the North Atlantic in heavy headwinds?
Answer: That characterizes it.

Question: Did you hand fly the plane to stay in formation?
Answer: The plane is very reliable, and I hand flew some times, but auto pilot handled a great deal of the flight.

Question: What about the air refueling events?
Answer: We had 100% success even in the clouds; the big thing here is that the plane is very stable and reliable with no problems. We had no disconnections; the F-35 is a very stable airplane....

...Question: When you sit in the F-35 cockpit and flew across the Atlantic how did the various systems assist you in the flight?
Answer: The great thing about the F-35 is that the human-machine interface (HMI) is so good and so built around the pilot that you don’t have to learn how it works. You just use it. You can configure the screens to configure for the mission.

The aircraft is built to understand; you are building a strategy, not focusing on managing the sensors or really focused on the flying function. I was able to see the aircraft surrounding me through the clouds, such as keeping distance with my tankers, by using my helmet and the Distributed Aperture System and see the C-130s below me below the clouds.

Question: Did you have any problems with your helmet?
Answer: No. I used the Gen II helmet and the Gen III has improved the helmet, but my helmet worked flawlessly during the flight. I was able to fulfill the mission and I am here.

Question: How different is flying the Tornado compared to the F-35?
Answer: How can answer and be polite? There is no comparison. Recently, I flew the Tornado after learning to fly the F-35. It was a real shock to go back in time. I had to move my head and focus on the switches and sensors – you have to manage the aircraft to fly. The F-35 is totally different....

...Question: How was the airplane ergonomically?
Answer: I did not think about it until you asked the question. The seat is very comfortable. You can stretch your legs in front of you. The helmet was confortable, and the seat was very supportable and comfortable. With this helmet I do not have to turn my head, which makes it easier as well for the pilot....

FODPlod

16th Feb 2016, 17:25

Thank you a1bill. Sounds like quite an achievement to me. However, my transatlantic experience is restricted to warships and airliners.

It's also good to hear from the mouth end of the horse for a change.

Courtney Mil

16th Feb 2016, 18:15

The report on the ferry flight is good. It should be comfortable to fly, easy to tank and stable. Those are givens for a modern aircraft. Sadly not using the Gen III helmet, so nothing there. Nice account of the DAS in cloud.

LowObservable

17th Feb 2016, 03:13

Nice to hear after 20 years and $100 billion that the ergonomics/MMI are better than Tornado.

Stitchbitch

17th Feb 2016, 06:43

No reports of neck ache either, good job PFF squippers.

Turbine D

17th Feb 2016, 13:48

I wonder if this crossing of the Atlantic will go down in history matching Lindbergh's crossing of the Atlantic?

FODPlod

17th Feb 2016, 14:13

I wonder if this crossing of the Atlantic will go down in history matching Lindbergh's crossing of the Atlantic?

Who? (Yes, I know all about Charles Lindbergh - and his kidnapped son.)

Maus92

17th Feb 2016, 14:20

The interviewer forgot to ask about the maintenance issue. Must have slipped his mind.

airsound

17th Feb 2016, 15:13

KenV & a1bill (et al?)
Perhaps you should brace yourselves before reading on.

Reporting a USAF press release, defense-aerospace.com includes this note:EDITOR’S NOTE: Despite claims in various trade outlets, including here (http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/2016/02/15/f-35-trans-atlantic-flight-featured-all-italian-support/80406388/), the Italian air force F-35A that crossed the Atlantic on Feb 5 did not “feature all-Italian support,” but was instead accompanied by a Lockheed Martin maintenance team.
The relevant passage in emphasized in bold typeface in the above US Air Force Europe news item.
While this is just another of the obfuscations and errors (http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/feature/5/171060/%3Cb%3E***updated%3C%C2%A7b%3E%3A-the-real-story-of-the-f_35%E2%80%99s-transatlantic-crossing.html) that have marked official and media coverage of this event, it is significant that, in addition to Italian air force personnel, the aircraft had to be accompanied by Lockheed maintainers, even though it was built by Alenia (now Finmeccanica Aircraft Division) at Cameri.
It is not immediately clear why F-35 backers feel so compelled to “spin,” obfuscate and “massage” all information relating to the program. My bold at the end.

If you click on obfuscations and errors above, you get another excoriating note startingAfter several days of official dithering and dissembling, and conflicting reports and retractions from the US Air Force and the F-35 Joint Program Office, we have determined that the JPO’s account of the F-35’s first transatlantic crossing was wrong. Offered without further comment

airsound

Stitchbitch

17th Feb 2016, 15:45

Quote: Admittedly, these discrepancies are not of earth-shaking significance, but they do show that inertia and gullibility are often enough to accredit false information, which is then set in stone for future reference.

😜

KenV & a1bill (et al?)
Perhaps you should brace yourselves before reading on.

Reporting a USAF press release, defense-aerospace.com includes this note: My bold at the end.

If you click on obfuscations and errors above, you get another excoriating note startingOffered without further comment

airsound

KenV

17th Feb 2016, 16:18

KenV & a1bill (et al?)
Perhaps you should brace yourselves before reading on.I have never stated nor remotely suggested that the F-35 program was without problems. Some of them severe. I have gone on record as suggesting that many of the F-35's detractors have turned their hobby (and for some their profession) into well nigh on a religion. Anyone that questions the orthodoxy of that religion is to be suppressed by any and all means.

Courtney Mil

17th Feb 2016, 16:20

To be fair, Ken, the same can be said for the other end of the spectrum.

KenV

17th Feb 2016, 16:46

I generally agree. However, I have to ask how much are the F-35 fans on this forum attempting to suppress the naysayers here?

And to cut short any misunderstanding by the many adherents of the anti F-35 religion, don't count me as a fan of the F-35. I take a similar approach to F-35 as USN. It provides some impressive new capabilities including making existing platforms more capable, but it is no panacea by any stretch. It's a new tool and pretty cool, but only one tool in a big box of many tools. And its coolness notwithstanding, it's expensive and way late to the party.

And yes, I understand that for some air arms it's the only tool. But I believe one should not blame that on the airplane or the folks building it. Many air arms have been content for decades to have a single tool. Some the A-4, some the F-4, some the F-5, some the F-16, some the Harrier (the Harrier!!).

There, I've done it. I've questioned those who embrace the Harrier orthodoxy. :p

t43562

17th Feb 2016, 18:17

At this point someone will be forced to point out again that it has been promoted as being a panacea and that *is* the fault of the makers.

This is why claims of "not being a fan" fall on stony ground. It's exasperating, hence the overreactions from the opposite viewpoint.

KenV

17th Feb 2016, 18:58

At this point someone will be forced to point out again that it has been promoted as being a panacea.... I must be seriously out of touch because I've never encountered such promotions.

MSOCS

17th Feb 2016, 19:39

The extremes of either end of the F-35 appreciation spectrum are just as toxic so CM is spot on. But, I have to say, the lengths and language that people have gone to in order to decry a straightforward trans-Atlantic trail indicate just how visceral the campaign is to find fault with this aircraft or its media reporting, in every conceivable way.

It really is quite revealing.

Trial by media doesn't even cover it. I suppose you can blame the PR machine for "bigging up" the event so much. However, it has revealed more in the backlash IMHO.

KenV

17th Feb 2016, 20:04

Trial by media doesn't even cover it. I suppose you can blame the PR machine for "bigging up" the event so much. However, it has revealed more in the backlash IMHO. (emphasis added)
I agree completely.

Turbine D

17th Feb 2016, 21:47

I must be seriously out of touch because I've never encountered such promotions.
Err, Just go to any Lockheed-Martin ad, wherever. Some are even intertwined with JPO leadership personnel. I expect sometime its promotion will replace Viagra ads on the nightly Evening News which have gotten more sexy than ever. :p

a1bill

17th Feb 2016, 23:12

@airsound, I don't recall gushing over the flight, I posted a link to the pilot's interview, in answer to Maus question.

I was aware of delays because of weather and as well as maintenance issues. This isn't new news, perhaps if you read more widely, as we all should. you would not be caught by 'click bait' articles. A fault of mine too, I also recently recently posted a 'click bait' av week article on USN tail numbers.

I would be very surprised if JPO/LM wasn't in charge of the flight and personnel. I would hate to pay for the man-hours of the personnel, planning and organising of the flight. Up to the point of lodging a flight plan and take-off, it would have been a huge operation. I hope there were enough seats in the refueler for the support staff. Sitting in the back of a herc is no fun.

PS, the Typhoon would have had quite an entourage too.

LowObservable

17th Feb 2016, 23:43

KenV: You're still here. a1bill is still here, as are MSOCS and FODPlod. So it's hard to see how you're being suppressed. But we'll try harder if you tell us that's what you want, what you really, really want.

LowObservable

17th Feb 2016, 23:53

As for the panacea thing:

Setting the Record Straight on F-35 -- re> FORT WORTH, Texas, Sept. 19 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- (http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/setting-the-record-straight-on-f-35-65133117.html)

Add to these claims the repeated assertion that F-35 also costs less than alternative aircraft, and I think its quite reasonable to say it has been promoted as a panacea.

O-P

18th Feb 2016, 00:23

a1bil,

Enlighten me, how many engineers deployed in support of a single Typhoon. It's not like it's been done before!

Turbine D

18th Feb 2016, 00:34

A1bill,
I would hate to pay for the man-hours of the personnel, planning and organising of the flight.
Have no worry, we in the US are taking care of it with our black, unlimited expense, Amex card.:ok:

a1bill

18th Feb 2016, 01:30

@O-P, How many do they send to red flag? It would be a few pallets of stuff and more engineers/ground crew than a football team. I'm sure there is a reference to the numbers somewhere, if anyone is bothered.

@LO compared to our hornets, the f-35 is a panacea, as was the Shornets to the F111.
your link is a bit dated, it isn't 400%. now, it's a 6 times LER of 4th gen
"U.S. Air Force analyses show the Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT) F-35 Lightning II is at least
400 percent more effective in air-to-air combat capability than the best
fighters currently available in the international market.
The Air Force's standard air-to-air engagement analysis model, also
used by allied air forces to assess air-combat performance, pitted the 5th
generation F-35 against all advanced 4th generation fighters in a variety
of simulated scenarios. The results were clear: the F-35 outperformed the
most highly evolved fighters in aerial combat by significant margins."
(someone should email sweetman too, his latest article seems to think it's a LM plot, when infact air force run these. http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=25623&start=1740 )

@TD, china is funding the program, they are the bankers for the US amex

Courtney Mil

18th Feb 2016, 09:17

A1Bill,

We went through the whole simulation evaluation thing for JSFfan's benefit back in 2013, so I don't intend to back over the predicted kill ratios now. From my years of involvement with BVR Combat Simulation (COEIA process) I should remind you of two important points regarding the JSF "trials".

First, even with extremely high-fidelity aircraft, systems and weapons modelling, this simulation is extremely effective at predicting the effects of changes to any subject model, but not so good at running direct, baseline comparisons between aircraft types. This latter issue is especially true when when using desired or expected performance data - all that is available in early development or concept phases.

Second, the outcomes are extremely sensitive to minor changes in aircraft, systems and weapons characteristics. These outcomes are further influenced by the statistical analysis applied to the raw data - don't think for a moment that twenty blokes disappear into a fancy sim for a couple of weeks and come saying "we beat them 6:1 so we know how good it is."

With two "features" of BVR combat simulation in mind you should be able to understand that the results of comparing Aircraft A against Aircraft B need to be properly understood in the context of EXACTLY what the trial was designed to evaluate. The effect of minor inaccuracies in aircraft, systems and weapons characteristics on outcomes is often disproportionate to the scale of the inaccuracies; this means that assumptions about future aircraft performance are critical limitations. The JSF trials were conducted at a very early stage of development when certain characteristics were still reasonable, but ambitious aspirations AND certain elements of the baseline data were reset in 2012. The outcomes would certainly be affected by both those factors.

The results of the trials that were used to support the LER figures must be caveated anyway and are invalidated to an unknown degree by the changes in baseline data.

a1bill

18th Feb 2016, 09:54

So the air force sims are wrong, in your opinion. public announcement and know baseline are two different things. back in early 2000's they announced the f-35 isn't going to reach all non-KPP. the base line was announced in 2012, the report to parliament was 2012.

Although they do say they are conservative with sim specs and give the example of the f-22 in exercises exceeding the sim data. They also say the piloted sims give better results too. They also gave the increase from 3:1 to 400% to 6:1 because of the greater knowledge.

I hope you don't mind if I take the various air forces opinions, rather than forum chatter. I also think the UK have a fair idea of the Typhoon, if they ran it as the 4th gen with the F-35 in a sim.
The RAAF said it's possible to lose with the f-35 in the sim (statement to parliament) but you have to try hard.

PhilipG

18th Feb 2016, 10:26

a1bill,

A simulation is an approximation of what is thought might happen. As far as many people know the performance envelopes of the F35, be these software, aerodynamics or communication performance envelopes have yet to be established.

As such it is quite easy to give the F35 performance characteristics in the simulator that show the plane up in a positive light, sadly these performance characteristics may well not be the ones that the final IOC / FOC aircraft has.

You may recall that according to the simulator the F35C could land on an aircraft carrier, when the test aircraft tried to land on a dummy deck with arrestor wires it became apparent that a redesign was required.

A very good simulator as CM states is good at showing the effects of changes to a system not necessarily the interactions of two systems.

I think that we all accept that the performance of the F35 is as yet an unknown quantity thus difficult to accurately simulate, how much comfort do we have that the performance characteristics of the red force is accurate?

Courtney Mil

18th Feb 2016, 10:29

So the air force sims are wrong

Where, exactly did I say that? I was simply explaining the facts behind this type of simulation, the sensitivity of modelling to data accuracy and the caveats associated with derived data analysis and interpretation.

Your response is based on the usual attempt to rubbish what I'm telling you from first-hand knowledge and to dismiss it as "forum chatter". Just restating the same public forum claims does not address the limitations of the simulations. I think even you should be able to do better than that.

You might also explain two more things for us all. Which "Air Force" simulators do you think they used? What do you mean by running Typhoon with F-35 in a sim? These are important points to clear up because your statements about both points suggests that you may not understand how the simulator trials have to be run and therefore you wouldn't know what the limitations are. PhilipG has just given you further insight into the reasons for this.

MSOCS

18th Feb 2016, 12:12

a1Bill,

CM is right. Highly subjective and without the full story and setups it's just another pro-F35 story that irritates many on this forum.

Anything that really gives an indication of capability is deeply protected and not in the public domain so a 6:1 LER is a sound bite without credibility. I'm sorry but as CM says, this issue was table tennis-ed in 2013 around 4,000,000 posts ago.

The higher echelons of the military, politicians and senior government wheels will have been briefed categorically on the capability and potential capability of the jet. That's a big reason that these little snags (as we wade through the custard of SDD) don't really make a huge difference on their opinion. Gilmore is paid and employed to turn over every stone and say exactly what he sees is wrong. He's holding the Program to account and rightly so. It's the ONLY way to ensure it's fixed ASAP and gets prioritised. If he's knocking heads with the Program then I can only imagine it's because a lot of folks there have vested time and care about the JSF, so take it personally. That's a human reaction but probably futile. There's a lot of that on this thread as you know.

KenV

18th Feb 2016, 13:03

KenV: You're still here. a1bill is still here, as are MSOCS and FODPlod. So it's hard to see how you're being suppressed.L.O., It's interesting you mention that you find it "hard to see." I find that a rather telling admission. To help you see:

1. I was declared a troll, a liar, a phony, a wannabe, a poser and various and sundry other epithets not worthy of posting here and to be personally attacked at every opportunity. To quote another poster on this forum: "What is avoidable and rather sad is that much of this chatter is aggressive and personal in nature." Is such aggressive and personal "chatter" suppression? Dunno. No longer care. But it sure felt like suppression at the time. Interestingly, some of it is still going on. Very recently (as in three days ago) I was repeatedly baited by multiple members of the orthodox faith and I had to say repeatedly: "I'm not biting" and "Still not biting". I'll let you decide if that is a form of suppression or not.

2. I was NOT "here" for several weeks. Locked out. I'll let you decide if that is a form of suppression or not.

Engines

18th Feb 2016, 13:22

PhilipG,

Perhaps I can help shed some light here.

Unfortunately, your example of the F-35C tail hook is a little off beam. The simulator process on F-35C certainly looked at the ability of the aircraft to approach the carrier in a controlled way at the required speed and sink rate. (Plus lots of other stuff) Engagement with the arresting wire was assumed, because (and this is important) there is no way of reliably simulating the engagement of a moving hook with a deck wire.

This is why a deliberate series of physical tests were planned and carried out to check hook/wire engagement. The F-35C's problem was found on the first series of tests (low speed taxying into the wires). The fixes were developed and re-tested, leading to successful hook/wire engagements on board. This is not an unusual issue - a number of naval aircraft have encountered hook or landing problems. Taking the wire is a hard thing to do, and that's why the USN relied on physical tests, not simulations.

With modern combat aircraft that rely on a large number of factors to achieve success (including signature. complex weapons and data linkages), and the massive increases in simulation capability, the role of simulations has increased. Indeed, in some areas (e.g. defensive aids systems) the ONLY way that a system can be really tested is via some form of simulation (often called 'hardware in the loop').

In the USA, DOT&E has a lot of clout, and its business is (mostly) conducted in public. It would be nice if the UK had an independent OT&E system (it doesn't) and the results were aired in public (they most definitely aren't). That would stop some of the shenanigans that have taken place in the UK in the last few years, (that I can't reveal in open forums) to achieve a supposed 'IOC'.

It's not a binary case of 'simulation bad' or 'real world testing good'. There are good reasons to use simulations, and good reasons to question the outputs. Like most aspects of combat aircraft development, you use all the tools available.
I remember analysing the UK's simulation of air to air gun engagements, which was so badly set up that it was giving ridiculous results. Sadly, the results were accepted as 'truth' and influenced the decision to delete the Typhoon's gun. As ever it's 'garbage in garbage out'.

MSOCS is bang on the money. Simulations give an indication, the actual data and results are very highly classified, and much of what is going on here (both pro and anti) is 'forum chatter'. What is avoidable and rather sad is that much of this chatter is aggressive and personal in nature. Which is why I now seldom post.

Best regards as ever to those sorting the data, making the decisions, and working the programme.

Engines

a1bill

18th Feb 2016, 13:27

MSOCS, The air force had it at 3:1 in 2008 and the air force/s has increased it to 6:1 in 2012, because of more knowledge. If the groups involved in the sim weren't confident of their simed assessment, wouldn't they would have left it at 3:1 till they fly it in full exercises? It's of no consequence to general public whether it's 3 or 6 to 1.

this is where the 6:1 came from. Jensen repeats APA for political points.
ParlInfo - Parliamentary Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade : 20/03/2012 : Department of Defence annual report 2010-11 (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=COMMITTEES;id=committees%2Fcommjnt%2F3cb4e326-70e4-4abd-acb7-609a16072b70%2F0001;query=Id%3A%22committees%2Fcommjnt%2F3cb 4e326-70e4-4abd-acb7-609a16072b70%2F0000%22)

Backinblack

18th Feb 2016, 13:38

The epic of the F-35 will never end

MSOCS

18th Feb 2016, 13:47

a1Bill, I'm aware of the background and content but thanks for the link nonetheless. The problem is that posting such things will invoke a hard response because a lot of folk around here understand the nuances and sensitivities of simulation all too well. I'm trying to help get things back to reasoned, educated debate, as pointless as that seems.

Engines - thanks for the background re:F-35C. As always, a pleasure to learn from you.

I too despair at the constant goading that goes on here. It is far too personal at times. Those who have been bullies know it.

Anyway, back to the grind!

Lonewolf_50

18th Feb 2016, 15:03

The epic of the F-35 will never end Then maybe it should be called Ben Hur, or The Last Air Ben Hur. (Obscure movie reference, play on words (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0938283/)).

It's expensive and late to the party. That's been my position for about a decade. That it will be put to good use I don't doubt.

a1bill

18th Feb 2016, 15:23

MSOCS, I understand that it has a hard response from those that have had previous experience from the era in which they served. However Liberson isn't a slouch when it comes to sims either.
Gary Liberson, who is on his right, has 22 years of experience as an operations analyst and research engineer with McDonnell Douglas, the RAND Corporation, and Lockheed Martin Aeronautics. He has extensive experience with combat analysis, methodologies and analysis techniques. He is considered an expert in Brawler, Thunder, Suppressor, SeaFan and PacWar constructive simulation tools. His areas of expertise include combat aircraft systems and tactics as well as advanced threat analysis.

The link is a long page but this is my summary of it.

Mr Burbage : We do a lot of analysis at Lockheed Martin. We use validated and accepted air force detailed campaign-level tools. We also put loop in simulations and high-fidelity cockpit type simulations. I do not know where that data (3:1) came from—Gary may have a better feel for it—but that is not what the current assessment shows. Again, you are pulling information from before we had the full definition of what this airplane can do.

Mr Liberson : Our current assessment that we speak of is: greater than six to one relative loss exchange ratio against in four versus eight engagement scenarios—four blue at 35s versus eight advanced red threats in the 2015 to 2020 time frame.

Mr Burbage : It is probably also important to add that pilots from the Royal Australian Air Force, all the participating nations' air forces and all three US services have come into the manned tactical simulator, the pilot-in-the-loop high-fidelity simulation of an advanced high-threat environment. They have actually flown the airplane in that environment, and the results of those simulations show that the airplane is effectively meeting its operational requirements.

Mr Liberson : And it is very important to note that our constructive simulations that Mr Burbage talks about without the pilot in the loop are the lowest number that we talk about—the greater than six to one. When we include the pilot in the loop activities, they even do better when we include all of that in our partner manned tactical simulation facility.

Mr Burbage : We actually have a fifth-gen airplane flying today. The F22 has been in many exercises. We have one of the pilots here who flew it and they can tell you that in any real-world event it is much better than the simulations forecast. We have F35 flying today; it has not been put into that scenario yet, but we have very high quality information on the capability of the sensors and the capability of the airplane, and we have represented the airplane fairly and appropriately in these large-scale campaign models that we are using. But it is not just us—it is our air force; it is your air force; it is all the other participating nations that do this; it is our navy and our marine corps that do these exercises. It is not Lockheed in a closet genning up some sort of result.

Air Cdre Bentley : All of the defence officials who are appropriately cleared in all of the nations that are participating in this country know exactly what we have briefed, what those briefings entail and what the analysis entails, and they have chosen F35. .... Believe the nine best air forces in the world as far as their operators and their analysts are concerned and I think that you will come to realise that it is not us telling the story; it is them telling the story to their governments and their governments making a decision to go forward with this aeroplane.

MSOCS

18th Feb 2016, 16:11

a1Bill, let me phrase my point another way.

Folks on this thread that don't like the Program or the jet are, frankly, of no consequence to its success. It will, inexorably, march forward and continue to deliver - orders in LRIP and FRP will fluctuate a little, that's a given. The last paragraph you've pasted, from Air Cdre Bentley, reflects my opinion 100%.

This aircraft will be the backbone of 9 'Air Forces' and many more, for the next half century. That prospect worries a LOT of companies that make tactical fighters. They like to poke holes and distrust where they can to preserve their future piece of the fighter pie. Media is the only real way to do this.

Of course, if one wants an argument, this is the place to come for sure.

ORAC

18th Feb 2016, 16:21

This aircraft will be the backbone of 9 'Air Forces' and many more, for the next half decade. That prospect worries a LOT of companies that make tactical fighters. Geez, a service life of only 5 years.... built in obsolescence is getting really crazy these days.

KenV

18th Feb 2016, 16:33

Air Cdre Bentley : All of the defence officials who are appropriately cleared in all of the nations that are participating in this country know exactly what we have briefed, what those briefings entail and what the analysis entails, and they have chosen F35. .... Believe the nine best air forces in the world as far as their operators and their analysts are concerned and I think that you will come to realise that it is not us telling the story; it is them telling the story to their governments and their governments making a decision to go forward with this aeroplane. Pffffft. What does he know? Besides, he's probably a bought and paid for stooge of LM anyway.

And for those who missed it last time.............yes, that was sarcasm.

LowObservable

18th Feb 2016, 16:35

As CM stated, this topic has been wrung out exhaustively over this thread.

I also agree with CM (because it's clearly the truth) that small changes in the ground rules and assumptions in a simulation can bring about large changes to the outcome.

It's also a question of fact, not opinion, that the F-35 doesn't bring any improvement in firepower, speed or agility to air combat; consequently (and this is backed up by many briefings and statements) its claimed loss-exchange-ratio advantage must stem from stealth and fusion creating a highly asymmetric "see first, shoot first" situation.

Although properly that should be "see first, identify first, shoot first". And that's where the questions arise. DRFM jamming, digital passive EW and selective RCS reduction make LPI radar much more challenging than it used to be. IRST has made some very important advances.

It makes things more complicated, and I think it's ambitious to assume in the 2020s that you'll be able to track an aircraft on radar without being detected.

Courtney Mil

18th Feb 2016, 16:50

A1Bill,

As you decline to answer my points, let me make a comment on your "summary" and compare just your first three quoted paragraphs with the original. For some reason you have moved things around and ommitted parts of the discussion and in so doing changed the context of the discussion in a way that makes it appear that the statements that were made were accepted as you have represented them.

I have used bold on the bits you edited out.

I have marked in red a paragraph that is from much earlier in the discussion that you have moved and, therefore, changed its context completely.

Mr Burbage : We do a lot of analysis at Lockheed Martin. We use validated and accepted air force detailed campaign-level tools. We also put loop in simulations and high-fidelity cockpit type simulations. I do not know where that data came from—Gary may have a better feel for it—but that is not what the current assessment shows. Again, you are pulling information from before we had the full definition of what this airplane can do.

Mr ADAMS: These guys need to know where we are getting this—

ACTING CHAIR: I told them Aviation Week and Space Technology.

Mr ADAMS: Okay—sorry.

Mr Liberson : Our current assessment that we speak of is: greater than six to one relative loss exchange ratio against in four versus eight engagement scenarios—four blue at 35s versus eight advanced red threats in the 2015 to 2020 time frame.

ACTING CHAIR: What are those advanced threats?

Mr Liberson: I cannot get into the specifics of those advanced threats. They are classified.

ACTING CHAIR: This says Su27. My concern with that is that Su27 is an old aeroplane. You could be analysing it against camels. How are we supposed to take this when you are saying, 'We're not going to tell you what threats we're analysing'?

Air Cdre Bentley: Doctor, I think I have already answered that. We have provided that analysis to all the participating nations and to all their officials. They have all of the details of those threats and all of the details of those analyses. Each of those nations, each of those experts in those nations, have taken that analysis and have done analysis of their own and have come up with an agreed position, that the F35 is the best aeroplane for them.

ACTING CHAIR: The point that I am making is that here you have obviously reported, as has the United States Air Force, when you were wanting to sell a story. You have said what the threats were; you have said it is Su27 and MiG29. We are not asking for details of the exact geometry of the analysis, what assumptions were made about ECM or anything else. All we are asking is, for instance: was the MIG29 analysed; was the PAC FA analysed; was the J20 analysed? We do not want to know the specifics.

Air Cdre Bentley: Dr Jensen, if you were to receive a classified briefing, you would be able to understand what those threats were and how that analysis was done.

Mr Burbage: It is probably also important to add that pilots from the Royal Australian Air Force, all the participating nations' air forces and all three US services have come into the manned tactical simulator, the pilot-in-the-loop high-fidelity simulation of an advanced high-threat environment. They have actually flown the airplane in that environment, and the results of those simulations show that the airplane is effectively meeting its operational requirements.Your final paragraph is again moved and was actually in response to a question from the Acting Chair who was trying to ascertain what the trials had involved. Burbage and Liberson were continually dodging the question on the grounds of security. You also missed off the beginning of the quote thus; again the bits you missed out is in bold:

Air Cdre Bentley : No, it is not an excuse. All of the defence officials who are appropriately cleared in all of the nations that are participating in this country know exactly what we have briefed, what those briefings entail and what the analysis entails, and they have chosen F35. If you are purporting to be a huge—

ACTING CHAIR: So what you are saying is, 'Believe us; we've got all the classified data in a brown paper bag'—

Air Cdre Bentley: Believe the nine best air forces in the world as far as their operators and their analysts are concerned and I think that you will come to realise that it is not us telling the story; it is them telling the story to their governments and their governments making a decision to go forward with this aeroplane.

Now why would you deliberately change the order of those statements in such a misleading way? Unlike your version of events, the briefing was not accepted quite as readily as you suggest.

a1bill

18th Feb 2016, 21:14

The link was there and I said "The link is a long page but this is my summary of it.." I posted the answers, I saw relevant and left out the stuff I thought wasn't. "No, it is not an excuse." isn't relevant. Jensen was on a roll with his APA stuff, demanding that LM disclose classified stuff.. as I said when I posted the link. "Jensen repeats APA for political points."

I was thinking of putting this in from on of jensen's questions "Lockheed Martin and USAF analysts put the loss-exchange ratio at 30:1 for the F22, 3:1 for the F35 and 1:1 or less for the F15, FA18 and F16. Is that Lockheed Martin's view? It says here that that was both analysis by Lockheed Martin analysts and the USAF" but went with (3:1) in an answer instead..

" Yes, and you can take that on notice. In terms of simulations and so on there was a report in Aviation Week and Space Technology called 'Raptor's edge', written by David Fulghum. It said the operational arguments focus on combat effectiveness against top foreign fighter aircraft such as the Russian Su27 and MiG29. Lockheed Martin and USAF analysts put the loss-exchange ratio at 30:1 for the F22, 3:1 for the F35 and 1:1 or less for the F15, FA18 and F16. Is that Lockheed Martin's view? It says here that that was both analysis by Lockheed Martin analysts and the USAF.

Mr Burbage : Time has moved on since 2008 and we know a lot more about this airplane now than we knew then."

"Mr Burbage : We do a lot of analysis at Lockheed Martin. We use validated and accepted air force detailed campaign-level tools. We also put loop in simulations and high-fidelity cockpit type simulations. I do not know where that data (3:1) came from—Gary may have a better feel for it—but that is not what the current assessment shows. Again, you are pulling information from before we had the full definition of what this airplane can do."

This is really nit picking of you in my view.

LowObservable

18th Feb 2016, 21:34

What sources, methods, capabilities or other sensitive information would be compromised by identifying the "advanced threat" as, for instance, an Su-27S, an Su-30MK, or an Su-35S? None at all.

However, the threat level that each one presents is very different. The first-gen aircraft had analog RWR and were very dependent on ground control. The MK can carry jamming systems that can give an AIM-120 a few problems. The Su-35S has digital passive EW, integrated jamming and RCS reduction. That doesn't mean it can't be detected but it complicates LPI detection and tracking.

You may think those issues are nit-picking, but you'd be wrong.

a1bill

18th Feb 2016, 21:37

MSOCS, Yes, I did agree with your points, but was highlighting where I differed a bit. I think that the Air Force has the best data and sims going. What they say has to be very high acceptance in my view and they would be aware of all that is good and bad in sims. yet they doubled it from 3 to 6:1

"Media is the only real way to do this." that and buying politicians with donations :) though having jurno's on the payroll doesn't hurt either.

@LO. your link said what 4th gen they sim from http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/setting-the-record-straight-on-f-35-65133117.html didn't you read it?

"F-35 Lightning II is at least
400 percent more effective in air-to-air combat capability than the best
fighters currently available in the international market.

The Air Force's standard air-to-air engagement analysis model, also
used by allied air forces to assess air-combat performance, pitted the 5th
generation F-35 against all advanced 4th generation fighters in a variety
of simulated scenarios. The results were clear: the F-35 outperformed the
most highly evolved fighters in aerial combat by significant margins.

"In all F-35 Program Office and U.S. Air Force air-to-air combat
effectiveness analysis to date, the F-35 enjoys a significant Combat Loss
Exchange Ratio advantage over the current and future air-to-air threats, to
include Sukhois," said Maj. Gen. Charles R. Davis, F-35 program executive
officer."

Courtney Mil

18th Feb 2016, 21:56

This is really nit picking of you in my view.

No, you deliberately changed the order of statements made, which significantly altered their meaning and significance. Your "summary" represented the briefing in a significantly different light to the way it appeared from the transcript you took it from. Highlighting that is not nit picking.

Do you now understand the sensitivity of simulation to data inaccuracies or do you still insist on believing and then stating results from trials conducted with certain assumed data, some of which has since been degraded?

The Air Force's standard air-to-air engagement analysis model, also
used by allied air forces to assess air-combat performance, pitted the 5th
generation F-35 against all advanced 4th generation fighters in a variety
of simulated scenarios.

That statement does not reflect the methodology for operational effectiveness trials, which makes me doubt its credibility. It sounds to me like it was made by someone that either hasn't been involved in the trials, doesn't understand them or is trying to maximise the perceived capability of the F-35. Under examination, he then hid behind security and refused to state what aircraft it had been trialled against. What would be so insecure about listing all the advanced 4th generation fighters. Inconsistencies make me doubt.

It is stuff like that that starts to make me doubt

LowObservable

18th Feb 2016, 22:25

If the press release is interpreted literally, the simulation would not have included the Su-35, which was not available on the market because the VVS had not ordered it.

Also, the wording in that section says nothing about "adversary" fighters, so maybe someone here can comment on how the JSF is 400 per cent better in A2A than Typhoon.

Finally, which companies have "jurno's" (a spelling error and a grocer's apostrophe in seven characters!) on their payroll? Come on, man, tell us! Speak truth to power! Are you a man or a mouse?

a1bill

18th Feb 2016, 22:29

LowObservable

18th Feb 2016, 22:38

Interesting that the 400/600 per cent brag doesn't show up in here:

https://www.f35.com/news/detail/joint-program-office-response-to-war-is-boring-blog

Indeed, I don't recall seeing it in a while.

Turbine D

18th Feb 2016, 22:52

a1bill,
"F-35 Lightning II is at least
400 percent more effective in air-to-air combat capability than the best
fighters currently available in the international market.
Simulations are always built on assumptions when actual data isn't available, they might be correct or wrong. So, what are the assumptions for this point you advertise? The F-35 has been on a slippery slope down the hill from what was originally promised. Where on the slope are the assumptions based? So far, the only real data point is the encounter with the F-16, leaked to the general public, that didn't go to well for the F-35. But you can revive the arguments of the fine points of why which were already discussed many pages ago. In the meantime, all of these F-35 performance claims tends to be window dressing by a combination of L-M, the US DoD and those who are attempting to justify their decisions to purchase the F-35 at an inflated prices, certainly by the time the F-35 is really ready for front line usage. Time races on, faster than the F-35.

Mach Two

18th Feb 2016, 23:04

A1Bill, it looks very much like you have been caught manipulating the text of a briefing to suit your own position. It also looks like you are equally selective about which questions you answer here and which ones you ignore. That doesn't make you very credible, I'm afraid.

There is lots of very good stuff about F-35, which doesn't get mentioned much here because you end up in ridiculous arguments about out of date, ill founded claims and deliberately misrepresenting other's statements instead of engaging in reasoned debate - debate includes listening to and taking on board what others say. You are currently doing more to discredit the F-35 with your approach than you do to promote it.

Courtney Mil

18th Feb 2016, 23:30

do you have a source to where they didn't use current data? I'm sure the test pilots did sustained turns early in the piece and would have that data well before that sim was done, in the time line of sim results released...publicly releasing the down grading of sustained turn etc is another matter. both the release and testimony was in 2012.

Do you really still think that the BVR Combat Simulation that the LER claims were based solely on sustained turn after so many people have tried to explain to you? I have never said that "they have it wrong." I said that the full data were not available when the trials were run and that the data will have changed after 2012. The modelling is affected hugely by small changes in those data. Let me give you an example of the modelling involved and then you will quickly be able to determine which data were available and which had to be based on well-informed assumptions.

Installed engine thrust and fuel burn; airframe lift, drag, mass and obscuration; 3D, multiband RCS (including weapons bay door cycling for launch/release); radar probability of detection, tracking algorithms, eclipsing, co-channel interference; IRST detection, weather, signal degradation, target characteristics; datalink connectivity (basic model); missile seeker model, gimbal limits, radar scan volume coverage for support, target obscuration and manoeuvre (including target g), sun/glint, exhaust plume obscuration, boost/sustain dynamics, navigation law, MBC, aerodynamic performance, fusing.........

Each of those characteristics requires an huge number of data. The entire dataset for even a simple trial runs to over 200 pages of small print.

You may be able to work out which parts of that lot are affected by changes to sustained turn rate and which parts were not precisely known when the simulation was conducted.

What have Typhoon and F-15 pilots said to you that is so different to that?

Courtney Mil

18th Feb 2016, 23:46

As an aside and a little light relief, the most fun to be had in the BVR combat sims is in the pre-trial testing of the software/dataset/modelling. Instead of paying for an entire team of frontline pilots to fly the sims, the scientists and programmers that do the clever numbers fly the sims along with a few pilots. While the boffins had a very limited knowledge of combat tactics, radar and aircraft handling, etc, they could often be unbeatable if they go, say, 4v4 against the pilots. Their manoeuvre based on their knowledge of the modelling and missile performance data (kinematic and guidance) beats the pilots' realistic tactics.

Bevo

19th Feb 2016, 00:15

Same here. While attending USAF test pilot school we took a trip to a new simulator. One of the instructors and I flew against each other (we actually had both been in the same squadron at RAF Lakenheath).

The set up was basically a fly out to 20 nm separation then turn in. First to get radar lock could shoot BVR. So the instructor kept his speed up to around 450 kts for the turn-in. I decided that the game was to complete the turn the quickest so I flew at 275 kts (not a very good speed for real combat). After I got missile kills on the first three engagements I finally revealed my “secret” tactic.

Fonsini

19th Feb 2016, 01:00

I saw one of the more recent documentaries about the F-35 flight test program, and when asked for a comment about the flight characteristics of the aircraft one of the pilots replied "well it goes where you point it".

Talk about damning with faint praise.

a1bill

19th Feb 2016, 02:20

CM, the down grading was the sustained turn and acceleration, wasn't it?
Though it seems we aren't that fussed about it
ParlInfo - Parliamentary Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade : 16/05/2013 : Department of Defence annual report 2011-12 (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22committees%2Fcommjnt%2Ffb49a6a2-5080-4c72-a379-e4fd10cc710a%2F0002%22)

Air Vice Marshal Osley : The points that the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation made there about the manoeuvrability, as you point out it was the sustained turn and the transonic acceleration. He pointed out that the targets that have been set for those parameters were not going to be met by the F35. The figure of I think it was 55 seconds for transonic acceleration, the F35 was going to take 63.9 seconds to do that. That is obviously at a certain altitude, I think it was 30,000 feet, and a range of mach 0.8 up to mach 1.2.

The point to make about those is that that acceleration by the F35 is in a combat configuration. If you look at the legacy aircraft and we talk about comparable performance, a legacy aeroplane would require weapons and, obviously, external fuel tanks to be in combat configuration.

Dr JENSEN: Air Vice Marshal, sorry to interrupt you, the basis of my question—

Air Vice Marshal Osley : Chair, can I finish that one off?

CHAIR: Let the Air Vice Marshal finish his answer, then proceed.

Air Vice Marshal Osley : If we compare those two, the legacy aeroplane with fuel tanks and weapons on it, if we take a fourth generation fighter, typically an F16 or an F18, in that configuration it would take substantially longer than 63.9 seconds. If you took a 4½ generation aircraft it actually could not accelerate to supersonic in any time over that 0.8 to 1.2 range with a combat configuration of external tanks and weapons. The point I made originally was that we need to talk apples and apples between legacy fighters and the F35 on manoeuvrability and performance capabilities.
............
Dr JENSEN: I guess my concern is that the numbers that we were talking about, the numbers that the JPO has asked the JROC to reduce them from, are actually threshold numbers. They are not the desired numbers; they were the bare minimum threshold specifications. They did not reach it, but more to the point you had this group APA which actually accurately predicted what those numbers were going to be, in stark contrast to what Defence, Lockheed Martin and all those other organisations were saying. My question is: what does that say about the fidelity of the modelling and the analysis that is undertaken by all those organisations when you can get a small organisation getting the numbers right but all of those that are involved with the JSF have got them so wrong?

Air Vice Marshal Osley : The way that the requirements for the F35 were set up is to talk about mission performance. Mission performance specification is the high level. There is no doubt at this time about the F35 meeting that mission performance—that is, the ability to counter certain threats that might be encountered at IOC and into the future. That level of the specification remains as valid; we are not questioning that; it is actually achieving that. Below that you have your key performance parameters. The aeroplane at this point in time is achieving those, as far as the F35A is concerned.

The figures that you are talking about, the specifications down the bottom with the sustained turn and the transonic acceleration, are derived values in order to meet the overall mission performance specification. We have always been focused on the ability of the aeroplane to meet the overall mission performance specification—the ability to do its air-to-air mission and to do its air-to-ground mission. If you take a particular parameter, such as the transonic acceleration, the difference between—in fact, the F35 can reach mach 1.16 in 55 seconds, so it is 0.04 mach short of that target, and in a slight descent it will exceed the limit.

The point to make is that we do not necessarily get too focused on those individual derived parameters. We are focused on the overall ability of the platform, trading off everything—all the different capabilities—it has there: the situational awareness, the performance of the radar, the performance of the electronic warfare capability, the performance of stealth, the balance of range mission payload and the weapons.

The situational awareness is really the key—taking that and seeing how it performs against the overall mission specification. For instance, the trade-off that might have been made—the delay in the transonic acceleration—might have been due to giving it increased stealth as they were going through the design of the aeroplane. So you really need to see not the individual parameters but the overall specification. At the highest level, as I said, it is all about mission performance. That is what we do focus on.

as to the other data need to write in the reams of paper. (posted on the last page)
Mr Burbage : We actually have a fifth-gen airplane flying today. The F22 has been in many exercises. We have one of the pilots here who flew it and they can tell you that in any real-world event it is much better than the simulations forecast. We have F35 flying today; it has not been put into that scenario yet, but we have very high quality information on the capability of the sensors and the capability of the airplane, and we have represented the airplane fairly and appropriately in these large-scale campaign models that we are using. But it is not just us—it is our air force; it is your air force; it is all the other participating nations that do this; it is our navy and our marine corps that do these exercises. It is not Lockheed in a closet genning up some sort of result.

Rhino power

19th Feb 2016, 09:41

a1bell, studiously ignoring, CM's question again I see...
Given the faintest possibility that you did actually miss it, here it is again-
What have Typhoon and F-15 pilots said to you that is so different to that?

-RP

Engines

19th Feb 2016, 10:07

CM and others,

Perhaps I might be allowed a short observation here.

CM's post about the complexity of the simulations now being used by the US and the UK for F-35 is illuminating. There are literally hundreds of parameters being fed into these programmes, and literally hundreds of different dynamic and tactical situations being investigated. Plus hundreds of different starting positions.

As well as these, there are literally thousands of assumptions being fed into these things. Many of them centre on the attributes of the 'foe' or 'adversary' weapon systems, plus their tactics. Some are intelligence fed, some are pure estimates.

Some of these simulations run without pilot input, many have 'pilot in the loop'. Some have other personnel 'operating' various friendly or 'foe' synthetic systems.

All these inputs have varying degrees of sensitivity. To exaggerate to make my point, I think it's a safe bet that your own missile's warhead effectiveness is a bit more significant than the thickness of your enemy's cockpit framing. But a lot of these inputs have a high degree of sensitivity.

So what? The 'so what' has to be uncertainty. Your aircraft might not achieve some of the parameters you initially assumed. (Such as F-35 sustained turn rate). Or your assumptions about enemy equipment or their tactics might be wrong. So how reliable are these simulations? Running them thousands of times, and feeding the results into what I understand are called 'Monte Carlo' algorithms, is claimed to reduce the uncertainties, but I always worried about the simple certainty of errors in the simulations. Plainly put, given the size of these things, the chance of incorrect code being entered has to be very high.

I had personal experience of a Farnborough simulation that was using wholly incorrect input data, tactics and assumptions. Plus some bad code. These had gone undetected for three years, and the results from it were influencing MoD decisions. The only reason they were found was that someone who had experienced similar issues in the US advised us to ask the same questions of the UK team doing the sim work.

Yes, these simulations can be used to estimate changes in combat effectiveness, and to derive estimates of loss ratios. But that's all they are. Estimates. Really numeric, complicated, high end guesses. But for aircraft like F-35, where we can't really send four of them up against four real Shenyang superjets, and see who lives, simulations are all the people driving these programmes have.

I'm not 'pro' or 'anti' sim. They are an essential tool, and very valuable if used well. In many areas, they are all the decision makers have. But I do worry that some people think that the more complex a simulation is, the better it is. I'd be more worried about errors.

As far as F-35 goes, (and I'm not a pilot, so this is just my own opinion), the direction of travel that the F-35 has followed is the right one. Outright aerodynamic performance is no longer the dominant attribute required for effective combat - it's the ability of the platform to sense, gather information, use it, and deliver an effective weapon, while denying as much of that information as possible to the foe. The Sea Harrier FA2 was a very, very effective fighter in the 90s despite its very limited airframe capability, due to a great radar, good radar/missile integration, and a great weapon. Same went for the Tornado F3, once it had JTIDS and AMRAAM.

The F-35 has, from day one, gone for a balance of platform and systems capabilities that is not the same as that pursued for legacy aircraft. Is that right or wrong? I don't know, and I'm certainly not qualified to judge. Perhaps this thread could calm down a bit if a few more of us admitted that.

Best regards as ever to those who have to make the calls for real in the air and on the ground

Engines

Heathrow Harry

19th Feb 2016, 10:41

Monte Carlo simulations are fine if you have a good understanding of the inputs, the range of values, the distribution of those values and how each input may interact with the others

It doesn't give you a "right answer" but only a "most likely " distribution

It is a lethal technique if there are "Black Swan" event out there, or you don't understand the inputs and their interaction

Reading Engine's excellent post I'd say it was fine for canopy thickness issues but something to avoid for simualting opposition tactics etc.............

Courtney Mil

19th Feb 2016, 10:54

And any other point or question that is too difficult, Rhino.

A1B,

Your long quote completely misses the point, demonstrating that you either don't understand the issue at hand or that you just choose to ignore it. As it happens, the extract you've chosen this time does two things, it confirms that the acceleration time has increased and, if Osley's numbers are correct, that the problem may be worse than we thought. His waffle about legacy jets not doing any better and F-35 could meet the old KPP in a descent is a bit of a smoke screen.

Regarding simulation, as you've been told several times now, small changes in parameters can have a disproportionate effect on outcomes, so Osley has restated that the performance figures have changed since the simulation that claimed the famous LER was run and that there has been no revision to that claim from repeat simulations using the new acceleration time AND the reduction in sustained g from 5.3 to 4.6 - quite a marked reduction.

What is more alarming about his numbers that you quote is the roll off in acceleration approaching M1.2. He states that the F-35 can reach M1.16 in 55 seconds and concedes that it takes 63.9 seconds to M1.2. He is saying that it takes a further 9 seconds to accelerate by M0.04, which means the acceleration has dropped off to around M0.004/sec. In other words it has hit a brick wall.

Engines,

I completely agree with what you say there and I thank you for expanding on the points. In particular, as I have said before, simulation is good at assessing the effect of changes (as long as you only change one part of the overall system at a time), but not so good at producing direct fighter comparisons. And that is one of the main reasons I treat any claimed LERs with such caution.

Interesting that you should mention the coding errors in the DERA (then) and US sims and the F-3 with AMRAAM in the same post. I too discovered some issues in the dataset associated with those trials, which may have had a significant effect on the derived operational effectiveness. Fortunately the measured change in effectiveness was later shown to be "within tolerances". If anyone believes that all the millions of data points and lines of code are issue free then they are being badly misled.

WhiteOvies

19th Feb 2016, 12:12

So the real problem lies with the issue of how these results, or any information, is presented into the public domain by both pro and anti F-35 media articles. The articles do not discuss the grey areas and details of the pros and cons of simulation vs reality as they push for attention grabbing headlines and hyperbole. I'm not blaming the journalists, more the style of modern media communications. The political and financial issues which circle this aircraft only put fuel on the fire.

Picking up on a few recent points regarding contractor support - it was/is not unusual to take contractors with you on large exercises/events. Examples from my own experience include taking BAES radar reps and Rolls-Royce reps to places like, Malaysia and Vegas on Flying Fish and Red Flag as well as taking them to sea on the CVS. By this point Sea Harrier FA2 was a very mature platform with plenty of extremely experienced blue suit engineers and pilots, but taking the reps gave another layer of confidence and easy access into the Comapny resources. Given the current maturity of the F-35A and the experience level of the Italian Air Force it makes perfect sense to use as much experienced contractor support as was available. Likewise the upcoming detachment to Mountain Home. Crawl, walk, run is an often repeated mantra and yet the push from some quarters would appear to be for all 3 variants of the F-35 to stop crawling and start running at about Varsity level.

Lonewolf_50

19th Feb 2016, 13:20

The F-35 has, from day one, gone for a balance of platform and systems capabilities that is not the same as that pursued for legacy aircraft. Is that right or wrong? I don't know, and I'm certainly not qualified to judge. Perhaps this thread could calm down a bit if a few more of us admitted that.
What a concept: optimizing a system rather than one feature. Who'd have thunk it?

KenV

19th Feb 2016, 13:38

What a concept: optimizing a system rather than one feature. Who'd have thunk it? Wait a minute!! Are you saying that finely crafted point designs, like say the EE Lightning and the F-104, are no longer good ideas? Heresy!!

Lonewolf_50

19th Feb 2016, 13:58

Wait a minute!! Are you saying that finely crafted point designs, like say the EE Lightning and the F-104, are no longer good ideas? Heresy!! There was something about the F-5E (Tiger II) that always appealed to me in a fighter. F-5G/F-20 as well. (Sorry to see that it didn't work out in the end ... ). But that's looking backwards, not forwards.

When it comes to pure good looks, though, I probably cannot be trusted due to long rotary wing experience and the belief that being so ugly that the ground repels them is not how helicopters actually fly. For my money, the V-22 is not good looking (the V-280 will be when it gets flying) but it seems to work pretty well.

That latest arsenal ship, Zumwalt class, doesn't look good. I really don't like it's looks, but I suppose it will work out in the end. (It better, those things are freaking expensive).

Likewise with the F-35. I don't really like its looks, but I suspect it will work out in the end.

MSOCS

19th Feb 2016, 14:14

I suspect you're 100% correct Lonewolf.

It'll work very well because those that work hard will make it so. I hope the criticisms can stay with the movers and shakers who have allowed things to get where they are. I hope the criticisms can stay away from those operating it. One only has to look at how pilots who praise it are berated on this forum, and others, to realise that some people just wanna vent their disgust at anyone who will listen.

The Atlantic trail is a clear example.

KenV

19th Feb 2016, 14:19

Likewise with the F-35. I don't really like its looks, but I suspect it will work out in the end. If you think the F-35 is ugly, Boeing's JSF (which would have been the F-32) makes the F-35 look a thing of elegantly graceful beauty. Did Boeing really think USAF would ever select their ugly monstrosity? Clearly they did.

ORAC

19th Feb 2016, 15:55

looks aren't everything......

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g4/dkckj/F-4ABDR001.jpg

GlobalNav

19th Feb 2016, 16:04

Well, that's what I told my wife. She said they are everything, if that's all you've got.

KenV

19th Feb 2016, 16:05

looks aren't everything......And neither is agility. At least not anymore. In today's complex air warfare environment agility is but one factor in countless factors that determine the effectiveness of a weapon system.

glad rag

19th Feb 2016, 17:38

Define agility Ken.

Courtney Mil

19th Feb 2016, 18:37

I'm guessing agile in the sense of energy manoeuvrability. In my book that includes turn rate/radius/g, climb, accel. All good for missile energy at launch and missile defence. Did I mention that before? Sorry.

KenV

19th Feb 2016, 19:37

Define agility Ken.
As CM said, basically energy manueverability. For some, agility/EM has dropped so low on the list of priorities in air warfare that missileer concepts are re-emerging. Where missileer is defined as an airborne missile platform with very limited agility/EM and optimized for the sensor suite and the number and range of missiles it can carry. I'm not at all a proponent of such and consider them point designs of little utility/effectiveness in the real world.

Courtney Mil

19th Feb 2016, 19:48

Wasn't there a time when some bright spark announced that every battle could be won with missiles? They even started building aircraft without guns as a result.

KenV

19th Feb 2016, 20:15

Wasn't there a time when some bright spark announced that every battle could be won with missiles? They even started building aircraft without guns as a result. Indeed. Fortunately, at least the Phantom had many other attributes that made it an excellent all round fighter. Even then, the gun was added later. Interestingly, I'm given to understand that RAF Typhoons have no gun? Is that true?

Courtney Mil

19th Feb 2016, 20:45

No, they have a 27mm Mauser. The Typhoon gun story is a long and shocking one. Probably too much thread drift to go into whole thing here, so précis.

Designed with gun. Announcement to remove it save money (really? How much does a gun cost?). Expense of removal = huge. Leave gun in to preserve c of g but no ammo or support equipment. 2006, "ooh, a gun is a good idea for CAS and such, buy ammo."

Other stories of mounting a gun in a plastic aeroplane, but it's working.

LowObservable

19th Feb 2016, 21:37

I hope the criticisms can stay with the movers and shakers who have allowed things to get where they are. I hope the criticisms can stay away from those operating it. One only has to look at how pilots who praise it are berated on this forum, and others, to realise that some people just wanna vent their disgust at anyone who will listen.

The Atlantic trail is a clear example.

MSOCS - You have me puzzled. I just re-read the Atlantic-trail comments here and while there was some critique, nobody was being "berated" as far as I can see. Do you have specifics?

Courtney Mil

19th Feb 2016, 22:18

Maybe just leave the Atlantic Trail as it is. It's not big news, it worked, it's not the first time it's been done. I think MSOCS point is don't shoot the guys flying the trail.

LowObservable

19th Feb 2016, 23:14

My point is more the one-sided attitude-policing we've seen lately on this thread, where F-35 critics are portrayed as abusive bullies and pro-F-35 people are allowed to plant all kinds of misinformation without any consequences.

glad rag

20th Feb 2016, 09:04

Question for you all, can the F35B operate the AMRAAM from internal carriage ? I don't mean carry, I mean operationally fire and guide the weapon to target which includes any mid course data linkage.

Simple question.

Rhino power

20th Feb 2016, 09:30

F-35A has done it (iirc), can't see any reason why the B wouldn't be able to?

-RP

PhilipG

20th Feb 2016, 10:04

The USMC has declared IOC with 2b software, that only supports internally carried weapons. One would have hoped that the USMC had proven that the B could launch an AMRAAM....

Tourist

20th Feb 2016, 10:46

Courtney Mil

20th Feb 2016, 10:53

The B model did a double firing a year or two ago. Not surprisingly, I don't recall seeing anything about the range or any other firing parameters, but it seems to have worked.

glad rag

20th Feb 2016, 11:47

Hmm, all I can find at the moment is 2B gives "initial" A/A capability....

Whatever that is....but it's not "full" A/A capability...congressional report April '5....

Tourist, you mean like these guys?

Operational Testers Flag F-35 Software Issues « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary (http://breakingdefense.com/2016/01/operational-testers-flag-f-35-software-issues/)

?

MSOCS

20th Feb 2016, 12:30

gr,

AFAIK, AIM-120 has been successfully deployed from both stations inside the Weapon Bay, with read across to the other bay, thereby qualifying the carriage, jettison and release of AMRAAM. Missiles have been fully supported throughout the set engagement envelope.

CM, I don't believe the trial specifics are in the public domain, therefore range, aspect, is still close-hold.

Firings were very successful, as one would expect, given the time/money/sweat/effort available.

LowObservable

20th Feb 2016, 21:03

"Full A2A" in 3F is, I believe, defined as four internal AIM-120C and two external AIM-9X. (The third and fourth AIM-120s replace the internal bombs.) 2B/3i is two internal AIM-120C, which is determined to be the minimum load required to give away your position, take out one or two of the opposing Sukhois and :mad: off the rest. Whether this is tactically advisable is another question.

Asraam may still be in 3F, too.

DOT&E had some ripe things to say about AIM-120 testing, saying that the test team reduced target maneuver limits and changed target spacing, among other things, in order to get positive results. The report didn't quite use the R-word but the implication is clear.

Courtney Mil

20th Feb 2016, 21:11

Reduced target manoeuvre for the benefit if the aircraft systems (radar basically), the software or the missile?

LowObservable

20th Feb 2016, 21:16

"Specifically to work around F-35 system deficiencies", says Dr Doom.

Courtney Mil

20th Feb 2016, 21:42

What report was that, LO? I'd be interested to read.

Rhino power

20th Feb 2016, 23:06

Page 3, under 'Weapons Integration', CM...

http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2015/pdf/dod/2015f35jsf.pdf

-RP

Courtney Mil

20th Feb 2016, 23:08

Brilliant. Thanks, Rhino.

glad rag

20th Feb 2016, 23:55

Same as Courts, thanks Rhino for some clarity through the clouds of JPO obscuration...

meh..

glad rag

21st Feb 2016, 11:36

No. Well, maybe, but we don't know what to say.

"The program altered the event scenario for three of
these events, as well as the twelfth event, specifically to
work around F-35 system deficiencies (e.g., changing
target spacing or restricting target maneuvers and
countermeasures).
- The performance of the Block 2B-configured F-35, if used
in combat, will depend in part on the degree to which the
enemy’s capabilities exceed the constraints of these narrow
scenarios and the operational utility of the workarounds
necessary for successful weapons employment."

Radix

21st Feb 2016, 12:01

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

Courtney Mil

21st Feb 2016, 13:53

Yes, Radix, it's surprising how much DOTE.OSD.MIL seem happy to declare in public.

"Don't tell him, Pike!"

glad rag

21st Feb 2016, 14:56

Radix, I would imagine they already know all about the F-35, the true test will be if they attempt to emulate it or it's technologies....

LowObservable

21st Feb 2016, 19:42

Radix - If the adversaries need to be told that they can make life more difficult for us by maneuvering, using countermeasures or flying close together or in trail, I'd say we don't have much to worry about.

Courtney Mil

21st Feb 2016, 20:31

Flying closer together to make life harder for an AMRAAM carrier, LO? Not really. As long as you're not only carrying two.

a1bill

22nd Feb 2016, 02:58

CM, when I said "you are ex f-15 and was involved in some of the typhoon stuff. you are the only one's attitude I don't understand here, when compared to what other f-15 and typhoon pilots say"

The F-15 and Typhoon pilots that have anything to do with it, including those of the RAF. Say the F-35 is a step change and is a good platform.
......
LO, the block 2b had flight restrictions and will continue to do so. I don't know if the AIM-120 is cleared for some or all the restrictions that are in place.

Maus92

22nd Feb 2016, 03:36

@Radix; @CM:

The publicly released DOT&E reports are vetted for security. There is also a classified version that the public - and presumably adversaries - do not see. So it seems the meme that the DOT&E is somehow aiding the enemy is just another misdirection by program advocates.

LowObservable

22nd Feb 2016, 12:17

Program advocates would like DOT&E to go away:

We Have To Stop Letting The Testers Run The Asylum - Lexington Institute (http://lexingtoninstitute.org/we-have-to-stop-letting-the-testers-run-the-asylum/)

However, the "adjust parameters until the probability of test success = 1.0" approach seen in the JSF program is exactly why the DOT&E office was created in the first place.

Courtney Mil

22nd Feb 2016, 16:03

CM, when I said "you are ex f-15 and was involved in some of the typhoon stuff. you are the only one's attitude I don't understand here, when compared to what other f-15 and typhoon pilots say"

The F-15 and Typhoon pilots that have anything to do with it, including those of the RAF. Say the F-35 is a step change and is a good platform.

And what do you assume my opinion of the platform to be?

Lonewolf_50

22nd Feb 2016, 16:14

Program advocates would like DOT&E to go away: We Have To Stop Letting The Testers Run The Asylum - Lexington Institute (http://lexingtoninstitute.org/we-have-to-stop-letting-the-testers-run-the-asylum/)
I wonder if the folks at the Lexington Institute have read up on Admiral Lockwood versus Bureau of Ordnance regarding torpedoes that didn't blow when they reached the target during numerous war time patrols. (WW II)

Maybe some of their granddads were members of the Bureau of Ordnance. How do you know it works? You check it out.

ORAC

22nd Feb 2016, 16:27

Snigger.... I shouldn't laugh, but......

US commander defends Joint Strike Fighter F-35A ahead of Senate inquiry (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-21/us-commander-defends-joint-strike-fighter-f-35a/7187616)

Bogdan dismisses concerns F-35As not suited to hot climates

In a submission to the Senate inquiry, Australian defence analyst David Archibald said F-35s would have trouble operating out of northern Australia.

"The F-35 uses its fuel for cooling its electronics," he wrote. "The aircraft won't start if its fuel is too warm, making deployment in northern Australia problematic."

But Lt Gen Bogdan said the issue with fuel was no different to legacy fighters.

"There are limits on any engine including the F-35 as to how hot the fuel can be before you put it in the plane," he said........

Courtney Mil

22nd Feb 2016, 16:58

"One thing you ought to know — and I am pre-empting my speech in front of the Senate — I am not an F-35 salesman," he said.
"There is no match in the world [for the F-35s] and there won't be for 10 or 20 years.
"Here's what an F-35 can do for you: long before two aeroplanes get close enough to see each other the F-35 is going to see that other aeroplane and kill it."

Er, oh, um, what?

LowObservable

22nd Feb 2016, 18:36

"Here's what an F-35 can do for you: long before two aeroplanes get close enough to see each other the F-35 is going to see that other aeroplane and kill it."

I thought that was what my Granny used to call "Beyond Visual Range".

And as I have remarked too many times, the stealth ideal of "one-way BVR" was hard enough to make real in the ATF days, before digital ESM, RCS reduction (counter-NCTR as much as delaying detection), IRST that worked, and networking.

glad rag

23rd Feb 2016, 13:22

Bannock

23rd Feb 2016, 22:21

Yes its the Daily Mail, but I have added the source Link also. Maybe some valid points made about the F35s home plate.

US aircraft carriers are no longer the ultimate deterrent amid new technology | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3459383/US-aircraft-carriers-no-longer-ultimate-deterrent-China-Iran-Russia-easily-attack-new-technology.html)

http://www.cnas.org/growing-threat-to-us-aircraft-carriers#.VszqPZyLSM-

Not_a_boffin

23rd Feb 2016, 22:31

Why is it that these things are always an existential threat to a moving and therefore harder to target ship, complete with some fairly heavy SAM carrying escorts, but somehow never to a fixed point with fuel and bomb shops that can be readily identified using google earth?

LowObservable

24th Feb 2016, 00:55

Because if I hit your runway with a 1000 lb penetrating munition going at Mach 3, you call up Bloggs and you say, yea, Bloggs, saddlest thou up the armored Cat D7 and fill yonder hole, that flight operations may resume.

I understand that it doesn't work the same way with grey floaty things.

Navaleye

24th Feb 2016, 01:02

Ah, but your airfield cannot cover 650 miles in a day as we just did yesterday and make itself very hard to find.

LowObservable

24th Feb 2016, 02:59

True, that. But the USN seems less certain than it used to be about the "hard to find" bit.

Can't imagine why that might be...

http://theaviationist.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Chinese-Joined-Wing.png

Not_a_boffin

24th Feb 2016, 05:40

Because if I hit your runway with a 1000 lb penetrating munition going at Mach 3, you call up Bloggs and you say, yea, Bloggs, saddlest thou up the armored Cat D7 and fill yonder hole, that flight operations may resume.

Possibly. But not quite the same with a fuel or bomb farm. Which is why I was specific about them.

Radix

24th Feb 2016, 06:33

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

Tourist

24th Feb 2016, 06:50

ORAC

24th Feb 2016, 07:05

One builds carriers to project power to the other side of the Pacific - the other builds carriers (and islands) to sanitise the South China Sea and neutralise the first.........

c3WRirPzY7U

China Deploys Fighter Jets To Contested Island in South China Sea (http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2016/02/23/china-deploys-fighter-jets-contested-island-south-china-sea/80824116/)

China's Island Radar Bigger Threat Than Missiles, CSIS Says - Bloomberg Business (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-23/china-s-island-radar-bigger-threat-than-missiles-csis-says)

Hmmmm, that's the radar that can track the F-22 and F-35, right?

Just This Once...

24th Feb 2016, 07:19

So, the country that has developed the "carrier killer" missiles is building it's own carriers.

That suggests that despite them having the research info re the effectiveness of these missiles against carriers, they still think they are worth having.

You can take away from that what you will........

Still easier to deny the UK from effective use of its carrier than deny it from using any of its airfields.

It's also easier to list all the countries that have or plan to have a carrier that does not have any organic SAM capability.

Tourist

24th Feb 2016, 07:35

It's also easier to list all the countries that have or plan to have a carrier that does not have any organic SAM capability.

Remind me of the RAFs SAM capability?

Do you in fact have anything defending the airfields whatsoever?

T45 goes with the carrier. That is a reasonable plan.

Just This Once...

24th Feb 2016, 07:39

Ahh, the all-other-countries-got-it-wrong answer.

Tourist

24th Feb 2016, 07:42

The RN has a history of good ideas when it comes to carriers......:)

Tourist

24th Feb 2016, 07:47

One builds carriers to project power to the other side of the Pacific - the other builds carriers (and islands) to sanitise the South China Sea and neutralise the first.........

Either carriers are vulnerable, or they are not.

It matters little where they are.

The simple fact is that the country that has developed the alleged capability to render carriers ineffective is building it's own. This seems to suggest it is rather less cut and dried.

ORAC

24th Feb 2016, 09:37

There I would disagree Tourist.

An asset can be vulnerable or not depending on how, where and when you deploy it - and in the face of which threat.

Courtney Mil

24th Feb 2016, 10:36

I knew Bannock's post would start this one again.

Airfields stay still, which I rather like about them, so everyone knows where they are. But they are hard and you don't need to put all your avtur and bombs in one place. Takes a lot of effort to close a runway for 24 hours, but there are others (although nowhere near as many as their used to be). SAM systems are available. Of course, you're talking all out war to see that kind of threat to mainland UK or regional war to see attacks on Overseas bases. Reach, with deployed force multipliers (still like that term no matter what the others say) means you can operate from bases out of harm's way, given the right circumstances, obviously. Pluses and minuses as always.

Carriers move about a bit, but surveillance and targeting technology have moved on in recent decades and satellites and other assets can achieve good coverage anywhere in the world - not all of it all at once though. With the right assets, a carrier can be well defended from air, surface and sub-surface threats depending on the amount of effort an enemy is willing to put into it and how many assets the UK is willing and able to provide for protection. Not sure about the size of air wing that might be fielded. The ability to position, either to stand off or close in is an obvious advantage, but that may be facing ground based assets with greater reach. Vulnerability is an issue as it MAY only take one weapon to take out the runway, fuel and bomb farm and there may not be another one within reach unless the "boys" come home with a lot of gas. Low tech managed to inflict a lot of hurt in '82 and the failure to hit a capital ship had an element of good fortune in it - but things have moved on for both sides. So, pluses and minuses again.

On balance, maybe that's why a lot of nations like to have some runways that move and some that stay still.

ORAC

24th Feb 2016, 11:44

Or use aircraft that don't need a runway. Which is where we came in........

glad rag

24th Feb 2016, 11:47

Remind me of the RAFs SAM capability?

Do you in fact have anything defending the airfields whatsoever?

T45 goes with the carrier. That is a reasonable plan.

What those those, clunk, "someone put some money in the meter"
ultra reliable T45's then??

:E

Tourist

24th Feb 2016, 12:47

On balance, maybe that's why a lot of nations like to have some runways that move and some that stay still.

What a grown up response. Are you sure you are RAF?:ok:

Tourist

24th Feb 2016, 12:47

What those those, clunk, "someone put some money in the meter"
ultra reliable T45's then??

:E

We can all play that game with just about every aircraft, ship or tank ever produced.....;)

Tourist

24th Feb 2016, 12:49

There I would disagree Tourist.

An asset can be vulnerable or not depending on how, where and when you deploy it - and in the face of which threat.

So essentially you are saying as long as the Chinese don't intend to use their carriers, they are safer.

LowObservable

24th Feb 2016, 13:45

Tourist - If the Chinese intended to sail their carriers 200-300 nm off the West Coast and bomb the crap out of Las Vegas, they would of course be very vulnerable. They would be vulnerable in an all-out conflict anyway, but the idea is more show-of-force than anything else. Their best defense is the idea that if anyone sinks a Chinese carrier, they're apt to lose an asset of their own.

Which is where ASBM becomes a very interesting idea. Not particularly expensive to buy, very cheap to operate, extremely hard to destroy on the ground (the range vs. theater size gives you a lot of China to hide in). Developing the RV is the biggest job. The technology is only a step or so beyond Pershing II, and you can dial-in a lot of different effects, such as a load of deck-puncturers that would leave the CVN afloat but with the cats and elevators hosed.

The hard bit is the targeting, although these days even small UAS can do that, not to mention satellites like Kondor-E. (There was a model of a truck-mobile satellite launcher at Zhuhai in 2014.) Of course, your targeting isn't really credible until you've got a realistic target to practice on. Which China now has.

KenV

24th Feb 2016, 16:10

Which is where ASBM becomes a very interesting idea. Not particularly expensive to buy, very cheap to operate, extremely hard to destroy on the ground (the range vs. theater size gives you a lot of China to hide in). Developing the RV is the biggest job. The technology is only a step or so beyond Pershing II, and you can dial-in a lot of different effects, such as a load of deck-puncturers that would leave the CVN afloat but with the cats and elevators hosed.

The hard bit is the targeting, although these days even small UAS can do that, not to mention satellites like Kondor-E. (There was a model of a truck-mobile satellite launcher at Zhuhai in 2014.) Of course, your targeting isn't really credible until you've got a realistic target to practice on. Which China now has.

I've got a few caveats.

Drones: It would seem that using drones to do the targetting for a ballistic missile would not work. Drones are relatively easy to shoot down and being unmanned there would be no hesitation to shoot one down if the political/military climate between the shooter and the target nations got warm, never mind hot.

Satellite tracking: Yes, satellites can track a carrier. But carriers are mobile and satellites have only relatively small windows of opportunity to track any specific area. These windows are predictable and are spaced relatively widely apart. It would take a truly massive constellation of satellites to generate data sufficiently precise, accurate, and timely enough for weapon targeting of a mobile target like a carrier.

Deck Puncturers: A ballistic missile reentry vehicle with a terminal guidance system accurate and precise enough to track a mobile target and a maneuvering system able to hit such a target? Has anyone anywhere ever made one of those? The Pershing II that was referenced had active radar homing and a CEP of 30 meters against a fixed land target. And that radar system used scene correlation, which would be useless over the ocean and useless against a mobile target. And assuming such an RV was even possible, could a ship's close in defense system deal with it? And assuming such an attack could be done successfully, would the reaction/consequences to a deck punctured carrier be much less than a sunk carrier? If not, why bother?

Missile defense: The Aegis system with SM3 and SM2 block4 is quite competent at shooting down ballistic missiles. Both Japan and USA have them in that part of the world and Taiwan is reportedly getting some also. And it would seem that in the event a ballistic missile was fired at a carrier the assumption is going to be that it carries a nuke. And if such an attack failed it is going to result in an awful lot of hurt for the country that fired that missile.

LowObservable

24th Feb 2016, 17:19

Caveat away....

Drones are easy to shoot down once you get to them. The Saab EriEye radar is claimed to have a horizon-limited 190 nm range against jet-skis, which last time I looked were smaller than CVNs. So I should think that the Soar Dragon at FL500+ could easily carry a radar capable of detecting a large ship at 250 nm or so. I can send the CAP to run him down, but they may have to go to burner to get parameters on him, and if the UAV senses my lethal intent and beetles off, he can pull the range out a bit.

Satellites can't really track a carrier. But they can detect and ID it, and cue the UAV or even the missile. Depends how fast your kill-chain can work. And the swath is (again) hundreds of miles across, so it takes a finite formation of sats to sweep the S China Sea. I can make an evasive maneuver, but even in an hour the uncertainty circle is measures in tens of miles.

A ballistic missile reentry vehicle with a terminal guidance system accurate and precise enough to track a mobile target and a maneuvering system able to hit such a target? Has anyone anywhere ever made one of those?

The USN seems to think so...

And assuming such an attack could be done successfully, would the reaction/consequences to a deck punctured carrier be much less than a sunk carrier?

Yes, if you're not a complete lunatic.

Missile defenses are expensive and can quickly end up on the wrong end of a cost-imposition equation.

And it would seem that in the event a ballistic missile was fired at a carrier the assumption is going to be that it carries a nuke. And if such an attack failed it is going to result in an awful lot of hurt for the country that fired that missile.

I really hope you're not saying what I think you're saying.

ORAC

24th Feb 2016, 17:46

LO, IIRC, "Hack the Shad" was precisely the original rationale for the SHAR on a "thru-deck ASW escort carrier" - up threat and able to engage the Bear-D at short notice when it could slip in and out of radar cover of the CV before their onboard aircraft/CAPs could react and engage.

Oooooh - this is just like the good old days......

KenV

24th Feb 2016, 20:07

I can send the CAP to run him downCVNs operate as part of a battle group. Said battle group includes anti-air assets, like Aegis, which can detect the drone and take it out. No CAP required. And with Hawkeyes in the air, the drone can be detected and killed long before the drone can detect the carrier.

The radar horizon of a radar at 50,000 ft is just under 275 NM.
Assuming the Hawkeye is at 30,000 ft and the drone is at 50,000 ft the Hawkeye's radar horizon to the drone is just under 450 NM. And that's assuming the Hawkeye is directly over the carrier. The Hawkeye will likely be stationed away from the carrier along the major threat axis. If the threat is China, that'd be between China and the carrier. And using cooperative engagement, the Hawkeye can guide a missile fired from an Aegis ship to a drone that's well beyond the ship's radar horizon. No CAP required.

So the battle group has the ability to take out the search drone long before it could track the carrier, and should that fail, to take out the missile in the exoatmosphere, and if that fails to take out the RV at high and medium altitude inside the atmosphere, and should that fail, assuming it's a deck puncher, to take it out in the terminal phase using close-in defense systems. So it's a very well layered defense.

And while it might take a finite number of sats to continuously cover the S. China Sea, it would still take quite a lot. And that assumes China would really focus that heavily on just the S. China Sea and not provide more global coverage.

And "complete lunatic?!!" Do you really think that if a nation punched a bunch of holes in a CVN that the reaction would be much less than if they had sunk it? Both are clearly acts of war, and once they've declared war in such a provocative way, all bets are off. And no matter how you look at it, a nation that declared war in such a fashion would be in a world of hurt. That does not mean a nuclear response (if that is what you were thinking), but their Navy is likely toast and their commercial sea commerce would be severely restricted if not outright cut off. And the base that launched the missile? Probably toast also.

And about your claim that USN believes China or somebody else has a ballistic missile with a deck punching warhead, care to share the source of that?