F-35 Cancelled, then what ? [Archive] - Page 37

LowObservable

20th Mar 2016, 12:38

While the program costs have gotten out of hand, that is mostly due to lack of discipline by the program management. You cannot blame the primes like LM, P&W, R-R, etc. for agreeing to being paid for modifications proposed by the customer.

Sorry, RR, but I'm going to call for evidence on that statement. As far as I am aware, the actual system capability requirements were established in great detail in 1995-2000 via a few iterations of JIRD (Joint Interim Requirements Document) leading to the JORD (Joint Operational Requirements Document). Boeing and LockMart both proposed SDD programs based on the JORD.

I know of no major changes to the JORD since then, apart from the relaxation of some requirements. The modifications to the aircraft, of which there have been many, were done to meet the JORD specs - in the case of the F-35B in 2003, the design was on track to fail catastrophically.

MSOCS - I'm frightfully sorry if I upset you. But KenV's attempts to inject massive untruth into the public discussion (for whatever reason), and then smugly refuse to back it up, is also offensive, and to characterize it as "professional and courteous debate" is, well, the wet bit in the bottom of a boat.

MSOCS

20th Mar 2016, 15:07

Well LO, I'm also sorry that you have to incessantly turn up the wick on a debate whenever it doesn't fit your known facts. People are inevitably right, wrong or somewhere in between. What if KenV genuinely is misinformed or has made an incorrect assertion? There's absolutely no need to start the emotive language discourse again. Just post the link (against forum rules but, hey, whatever!) and state you believe him to be wrong. Let the diaspora make their mind up after that.

If you have proof that KenV is deliberately being wrong to wind you up, show it.

Otherwise, be mindful that not everyone is an award-winning journalist with a openly polar view on the F-35 Program.

glad rag

20th Mar 2016, 16:38

Or what??

The truth about F35 is it has not delivered for xx years whilst keeping plenty if people in well paid taxpayer funded employment...

As you gloatingly stated "the big wheel keeps on rolling"

glass houses and all that...

Heathrow Harry

20th Mar 2016, 16:48

and think of the money the Bad Guys have wasted over the last 20 years working to counter it!!!!

glad rag

20th Mar 2016, 17:02

Counter what exactly?

A non operational aircraft?

Well yes, they fell for star wars so maybe you have a point ;)

Heathrow Harry

20th Mar 2016, 17:05

on the other hand it has kept a lot of our colleagues in Russia & China in work so no doubt they light a candle for LM every so often.......

glad rag

20th Mar 2016, 17:14

hope they get paid in cash then, mind you the Chinese have greenbacks galore...

Courtney Mil

20th Mar 2016, 17:46

But the shifting requirements and priorities took their toll on the schedule and on cost.

Same with Typhoon in the early days. And some of the later days, come to think of it. Lucky "JSF" was lead by only one country. It could have been worse.

Turbine D

21st Mar 2016, 00:58

It all started with the US DoD decision to save money by using a common platform for three services and three different missions. It will all end with none of the mission capabilities being achieved to the degree possible with three independent different designed platforms. Even the decision to save money hasn't panned out and never will except by accounting manipulations. A study of history and lessons learned from previous experiences were dismissed as not applicable in the F-35 decision making process.

So who's to blame? Both the customer, who demanded it be done and the suppliers who really didn't know how to oblige the customer's demands, but pretended it could be done, "Yes sir, we can do that!" So was the problem a result because of changes in requirements once the program left the starting gate? Hardly, if anything, favorable moving of the goal posts as insurmountable technical issues were encountered provided respite. And yes, you can blame more than just L-M, the US Congress, P&W, the software producers and the magic helmet suppliers can all be held accountable for a program that is years late. Does anyone understand what it means when technological advantages are lost when a program is as late coming to market such as the F-35? Geez! Even the JPO Leader General Bogdan now sees the mistakes and has advised appropriately for future platforms yet to be designed.

CM, You may think it would be worse if more countries had been co-program leaders such as the Typhoon program. Nevertheless, for the F-35, the UK will bear the increased acquisition costs, life of aircraft costs and performance shortfalls as if they would have been a co-leader, sometimes it makes no difference or maybe even be worse. Think of it this way, the US had 49 participating States as co-program leaders, far more than the Typhoon program and less pragmatic.

Robert Cooper

21st Mar 2016, 01:25

Spot on TD

Bob C

KenV

21st Mar 2016, 16:15

Ken, In my view comparing aircraft from different generations is like comparing cars from different generations, I completely agree. That's why I did not compare "aircraft from different generations". I compared processes. Since the advent of jet aviation brilliant aircraft have been developed and built. Many of those brilliant aircraft did not do well in real world operations in their OWN time. That was not the fault of flawed design. That was the fault of flawed requirements. So once again, IF the F-35 does not meet today's real world operational requirements, that is not the fault of flawed design. It is the fault (just as it has been for well over half a century) of flawed requirements.

KenV

21st Mar 2016, 16:20

This statement would appear to be flat-out false.
JSF.mil > Leadership > Former Leadership (http://www.jsf.mil/leadership/lead_former.htm)
By the time Mike Hough was on board, the requirements were largely set - the JIRD-JORD process was largely complete and the PWSC designs were well under way.LO, thanks for your reasoned, polite, and unemotional reply. I stand corrected. My memory clearly failed me. I regret that.

Nevertheless, there is often a lot more to the "set" requirements than meets the eye. The C-17 for example requirements that were firmly "set". Once development began those basic requirements remained the same, but lots of sub requirements got added. Like fly-by-wire flight control. C-17 was bid with mechanical flight controls and a stability augmentation system. USAF demanded fly-by-wire. C-17 was bid with a few basic missions. Then they added aeromedical evac, HALO, SOLL, and more. And unlike C-5 and C-141 which had kits for different missions (like cargo airdrop, CDS, troop drop, aeromedical evac, etc), the C-17 was required to do all these additional mission without kits. Everything had to be part of the airplane all the time. And even though over 30% of its operational life would now be spent at low altitude and high speed, it still had to meet it original service life. Surprise surprise, it got heavy. And worse, it got tail heavy because all that equipment for all those other missions were stowed in the empty tail area, requiring significant redesign. (The entire volume aft of the ramp is unpressurized in the C-141 and C-5. Essentially all the volume aft of the ramp is fully pressurized in the C-17).

Have the requirements shifted nearly constantly? Yes.
That's also bilge. RP asked you for evidence and you ignored the challenge, because you don't have any evidence. The requirements have remained stable except where they have been relaxed. Perhaps my memory on that is faulty also. I'll do some digging and see what I can find, but here's what comes to mind just off the top of my head: Was the windshield bird strike requirement "set" in the JORD? Or was that a later UK requirement and the reason the F-35 now has a bow in the canopy even though it is a one-piece canopy like the F-16 and F-22, neither of which have bows. Was the requirement to include a magic helmet part of the JORD? Was the requirement to have full spherical passive sensor coverage (DAS) part of the JORD? Was the requirement to have a single sensor (EOTS) that functions as both a FLIR and an IRST part of the JORD? Was the requirement to have a stealthy datalink (MADL) part of the JORD? Did these systems add weight, cost, risk, and time to the program? Was the requirement to have an ejection seat capable of safely handling a 103 lb to 285 lb pilot part of the JORD? Now, having been asked the questions, will you, using your wording, "ignore the challenge?"

And BTW, while I can play your adversarial games, it is rather tedious doing so. I've now countered with what you call a "challenge." I'll leave it at that.

KenV

21st Mar 2016, 17:01

Even the JPO Leader General Bogdan now sees the mistakes and has advised appropriately for future platforms yet to be designed.Why does that sound familiar? O yes, the F-111 debacle resulted in all sorts of warnings to "future platforms". And the result was that instead of demanding one airplane be designed for two services, the government demanded one airplane for THREE services, with one of those services demanding a STOVL version! The government is a very slow learner and quick to forget past lessons learned. The government is forgetting recent lesssons learned right now with the LRSB. They're demanding LRSB (a super stealthy new long range bomber with many exotic features) be developed FIXED PRICE! Past efforts at fixed price development programs, even for a very unexotic transport aircraft like the C-17, proved to be BIG mistakes. Did they learn? Yes. For a short while. But they've already forgotten and are making the same mistake(s) again.

KenV

21st Mar 2016, 17:12

Counter what exactly? A non operational aircraft?Good question. The B-70 never went into production. But the soviets reportedly spent gazillions developing counters for it.

AtomKraft

21st Mar 2016, 17:16

Wouldn't it have been easier to build say, two aircraft- rather than try to make ONE aircraft do everything?

One fighter, and one mud hen, say.

You could make the fighter a really nice, optimised air to air beastie- say, a bit like the F-22....

And you could make the mud mover into a really solid ground pounder, maybe like GR.4 or F/A-18...or maybe, GR.9 if you need VTOL.

I know getting one 'airframe' to do everything sounds like it ought to be cheaper, but is it?

And does anyone think the F-35 is going to better in one of its 'jack of all trades' roles, than any specialised aircraft that we could havebuilt with the same level of tech?

I don't think so.

Jack of all trades......Master of none.

Edit to add: if it's really all about having great SA due to fancy electronics, why not just stick those self same electronics into a proven airframe? F-35 electronics in a Buccaneer would likely make a great aircraft.

KenV

21st Mar 2016, 18:18

Wouldn't it have been easier to build say, two aircraft- rather than try to make ONE aircraft do everything?Maybe. And in hindsight probably. But that was not the requirement. The government was adamant. ONE aircraft had to serve all three services and perform all the missions of all three services. The contractors had no options or alternatives in that regard.

MSOCS

21st Mar 2016, 18:29

Once again we ignore the synergies of stealth with other mission attributes. A Bucaneer isn't remotely stealthy - more so at 10ft ASL sure - but, what use are your electronics at such a low height? Not much, and I also need to concentrate on not hitting the very-hard-deck as much as, if not more than, the fight.

You make a great point ref design though. The sales pitch was about commonality and affordability was/is a key pillar. As a pillar it's getting more and more eroded as we all know but the family concept was clearly sound in its day. Time has shown the various trades of doing so.

That's said - and I've said this time and again - the aircraft is impressing its pilots bar the odd one or two. It will get through SDD and very soon there'll be more F-35 on the various flight lines than the F-22. It isn't getting cancelled soon, if at all. Ever. But she isn't perfect, which isn't actually possible either.

Bevo

21st Mar 2016, 22:19

It appears that LM can make the $85 million price tag if the government is willing to spend $300 million on “affordability initiatives”.

But to achieve the stated goal of reducing the flyaway cost by approximately $10 million by the end of 2019, to $85 million for the conventional F-35A, will require the government customer to begin investing in manufacturing improvements beginning in 2017.

Under the Blueprint for Affordability, industry partners Lockheed, Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems agreed to invest $170 million over two years. The initiative assumes the government would provide another $300 million over the following three years to get to an $85 million aircraft.
http://aviationweek.com/ (http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-needs-more-government-investment-achieve-85-million-goal)

MSOCS

21st Mar 2016, 22:54

Spend to save. Seems legit.

AtomKraft

21st Mar 2016, 23:19

MSOCS

So what does the F-35 have, airframe wise, that a Buccaneer hasn't?

You answered already....Stealth!

I'd counter that 'stealth', ie reduced RCS is over rated.

It's like any other measure......soon cometh the counter-measure, and our much wanted and valued 'measure' becomes another expensive overhead.

What Ken V said is correct. Its not Lockheeds fault, or Pratts.

But that does not mean things are ok.

The F-35 is a clunker. Its the A-12 that slipped through the net. At least the Navy had the balls to pull it.

Stealth? Yeah, but so......eventually with LW radar, its worthless.

Clever EW? Yeah, but it could have gone in a pod

Lack of wing? Talk your way out of that one.

Watch my tracer.;)

MSOCS

22nd Mar 2016, 00:43

AtomKraft, are you saying that, as counters exist, we shouldn't develop new technologies because, in the case of the rubbish qualities of stealth (in your view), it's a waste? That it has no utility? To believe that F-35 rests on the laurels of stealth alone is to miss the woods for the sake of a tree. What's to say you can't put a pod on an F-35? Of course, nothing is absolute. Even if an F-44 Super Raptor existed, one could find fault if pressed and it would probably cost twice what a Raptor costs ($180m-ish).

I did enjoy the Bucaneer bit though. To a point.

tonker

22nd Mar 2016, 01:16

AtomKraft: Maybe the army should give up on camouflage because the enemy might have some really good thermal imaging equipment. Might

LowObservable

22nd Mar 2016, 01:40

Was the windshield bird strike requirement "set" in the JORD? Or was that a later UK requirement and the reason the F-35 now has a bow in the canopy even though it is a one-piece canopy like the F-16 and F-22, neither of which have bows. Was the requirement to include a magic helmet part of the JORD? Was the requirement to have full spherical passive sensor coverage (DAS) part of the JORD? Was the requirement to have a single sensor (EOTS) that functions as both a FLIR and an IRST part of the JORD? Was the requirement to have a stealthy datalink (MADL) part of the JORD? Did these systems add weight, cost, risk, and time to the program? Was the requirement to have an ejection seat capable of safely handling a 103 lb to 285 lb pilot part of the JORD?

Yes. If you look up contemporary accounts you will find almost all these features mentioned. And if you look at the earliest LockMart PWSC images you will see the canopy arch.

Here's a good starting point:

http://www.amazon.com/International-Air-Power-Review-Vol/dp/1880588528

riff_raff

22nd Mar 2016, 04:13

The F-35 variants are all very good aircraft designs. The F-35B cost is mostly due to a more complex and expensive propulsion system ($28M vs $12M for the A & C models). Adding a clutched shaft driven lift fan, swiveling exhaust nozzle, and bleed air roll control system is no small task.

If you consider the F-35B to be a dud, then you must really hate the far less capable Harriers used by the USMC.

Maybe some of you recall how the early models of the F-18 did not meet some requirements for range/payload. Yet it still turned out to be a very good aircraft.

Baron 58P

22nd Mar 2016, 09:09

Pentagon Destroyed Islamic State Cash By Investing In F-35 ? Duffel Blog (http://www.duffelblog.com/2016/02/pentagon-destroyed-cash-investing-in-f35/) :p:p

Lonewolf_50

22nd Mar 2016, 13:07

Maybe some of you recall how the early models of the F-18 did not meet some requirements for range/payload. Yet it still turned out to be a very good aircraft. And deck cycle time. IIRC, the C/D certainly was an improvement. E/F was a bit of a redesign.

glad rag

22nd Mar 2016, 13:48

LowObservable

22nd Mar 2016, 17:54

If you consider the F-35B to be a dud, then you must really hate the far less capable Harriers used by the USMC.

Not really. It did its job at the time and didn't cost too much.

Now, suppose someone in 1975-80 had decided that we'd only need one fighter and scrapped the F-16 and F-18 in favor of Harrier variants. That would have been a mess.

Courtney Mil

22nd Mar 2016, 21:10

Keeping in mind what Harrier was designed to do and that the VTOL/VSTOL/STOL/etc really was an engineering compromise against all sorts of other factors, I wonder if Riff Raff is attributing the same capability limitations to F-35 by making the comparison. I hope not.

Maus92

23rd Mar 2016, 03:04

I love the current meme of the fanboys and shills when they attempt to compare the development of the Super Hornet to the JSF. It's not even close to comparable. Super Hornet development funding was about $6B - compare that to $60B for the F-35. The Super Hornet went from program start in 1992 to IOC in 2001 (a one year delay.) The JSF contract was awarded in 2001 and SDD is not scheduled to end until 2018 (~ seven year delay) - so roughly double the development time at 10x the cost. The Super Hornet had a few issues to sort out, but nothing like what is being experienced by the JSF. And the Super Hornet was designed from the beginning to have excess electrical power, interior volume and weight margins. The JSF is basically maxed out prior to IOC with little margin for growth.

Tourist

23rd Mar 2016, 10:45

KenV

23rd Mar 2016, 12:55

I love the current meme of the fanboys and shills...So anyone who does not toe the line of the anti-F-35 orthodoxy are "fanboys and shills." Got it.

The JSF is basically maxed out prior to IOC with little margin for growth. A declaration based on data, or assumptions?

Rhino power

23rd Mar 2016, 13:15

The JSF is basically maxed out prior to IOC with little margin for growth.

A declaration based on data, or assumptions?

I'm pretty sure the B was at, or near, maximum specified allowable weight, with very little/no margin for growth, certainly that was the case a couple of years back and there was plenty of documentary evidence supporting that position at the time. Whether that weight issue has been resolved I don't know... I think the redesign of a major bulkhead (and possibly wing spar?) was causing much aggravation and sleepless nights for the LM weight watchers team!

-RP

KenV

23rd Mar 2016, 13:25

Now, suppose someone in 1975-80 had decided that we'd only need one fighter and scrapped the F-16 and F-18 in favor of Harrier variants. That would have been a mess. Indeed. So who's doing that today?

KenV

23rd Mar 2016, 13:31

I'm pretty sure the B was at, or near, maximum specified allowable weight, At or near max specified weight and "maxed out with little margin for growth" are two vastly different things. The Super Hornet was delivered slightly above specified weight, but the specification included lots of growth margin. Are you claiming the B weight spec includes zero growth margin? If that is so (which seems doubtful), then that is (once again) the fault of the government requirements folks, not the contractor.

Engines

23rd Mar 2016, 13:44

Rhino,

I've mentioned this before, but it might help understand the weight issue. The F-35B's weight issue comes from two factors.

The first was a failure by LM to control the weight of the basic design. This issue affected all three variants, and led to a major redesign of the aircraft in late 03/04 to get around a ton and a half out of the airframe. The problem affected the B most of all, which is why the first redesigned F-35 was BF-01, the first F-35B. To repeat, so I'm not labelled as a 'fanboy' - LM let the F-35 weight get out of control early in the programme. It took them a lot of work to get the toothpaste back into the tube.

The reason the B was the worst affected was the second factor - it's a powered lift aircraft. It is required to perform a VL at specified weights and conditions, and requires the installation of a lift system. This lift system adds weight and consumes volume, and is the reason why the B has to take a performance penalty compared to the A model.

This was recognised n the JORD, where the targets for the B's payload, range and manoeuvre were all less demanding than those for the A.

Simply put, all powered lift aircraft have a very demanding weight challenge. This applies to rotary wing aircraft as well. Tight weight margins are a fact of life on STOVL aircraft, and should not be seen as a failure.

Rhino, you're quite correct on the frame redesign - it will very probably be eating into the margins that are always tight. Sometimes, airframe redesigns can avoid weight increases if it's a matter of optimising load paths. Sadly, more often the only route available is more material - and that means more weight.

Best regards as ever to all those watching the pounds,

Engines

Maus92

23rd Mar 2016, 14:02

I think to make that comparison valid Maus you would have to add in the costs and time of the first Hornet development. They may be very different, but the earlier Hornet certainly helped as a prototyping stage.

If I added in Hornet development time, I think I'd have to add in JAST, DARPA (LM was involved in a research program that benefited its JSF entry) and X-35 time to the JSF to be fair. Also, numerous JSF capabilities originally scheduled for IOC are being backburnered to keep even the rebaselined program on track. But I take your point.

@KenV - All variants of F-35 are within a few hundred pounds of their NTE weights as far as contract compliance / KPP goes. The info is readily available in the DOT&E reports and news articles. It is generally understood that interior volume in the JSF is at a premium because everything from fuel to ord to electronics needs to be carried internally to retain signature.

JSF proponents throughout the blogosphere have been attacking the Super Hornet program with renewed interest. I can only surmise that since the Navy has expressed interest in more Super Hornet orders to mitigate their strike fighter shortage (in lieu of comparable numbers of F-35C,) that the JSF fan club feels they must disparage the Super Hornet in order to place the JSF program in a better light.

KenV

23rd Mar 2016, 14:19

It is generally understood that interior volume in the JSF is at a premium because everything from fuel to ord to electronics needs to be carried internally to retain signature. "Generally Understood?" Is that the same as "It is rumored that...." But I get what you mean and agree: growth margin is always an issue and the JSF is no exception. And if meeting the interior volume specs for the JSF means having no interior volume growth margin, then that's the fault of the government requirements folks, not the contractor. If memory serves, the Lightning, Starfighter, Harrier, Skyhawk, Tiger, Saber, Super Saber, Dragon Lady and many others had that problem. And one of the main reasons the Super Hornet exists is because the Classic Hornet ran out of growth margin.

Rhino power

23rd Mar 2016, 14:32

Engines, thankyou for your reply...

-RP

ORAC

24th Mar 2016, 05:07

So when is IOC not IOC?........

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”

Full F-35 Combat Capability Will Be Four Months Late (http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/2016/03/23/f-35-full-combat-capability-four-months-late/82187648/)

WASHINGTON – The F-35 will not get its full combat capability package until late fall of 2017, a delay of about four months from the original plan, according to a top general.

Testing of two earlier versions of the F-35 software, Blocks 2B and 3i, took longer than expected, Joint Program Office (JPO) Chief Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan wrote in his March 23 written testimony before the House Armed Services subcommittee on tactical air and land forces. The Marine Corps declared initial operational capability (IOC) with Block 2B last summer; meanwhile, the Air Force needs Block 3i to declare its jets operational this year.

Testing of Block 3F, which will give the jets full warfighting capability, started later than planned because the program office had to spend more time fixing Blocks 2B and 3i, Bogdan wrote. As a result, Block 3F will likely be completed about four months late, and will be delivered in late fall of 2017, Bogdan told lawmakers. However, Bogdan noted that this delay is an improvement over the JPO’s projection a year ago, and is not expected to impact the Navy’s ability to declare its F-35C jets operational in 2018. The four-month delay will also have no impact on coalition partners’ capabilities, he wrote.........

Success of Block 3F mission systems hinges on the program office resolving the problems with Block 3i, Director of Operational Test and Evaluation Michael Gilmore wrote in his written testimony. The stability and functionality problems in the initial versions of Block 3F, inherited from Block 3i, were “so significant that the program could not continue flight test,” he wrote.

While Bogdan stressed the Block 3F delays will not impact IOC, he acknowledged they could affect how ready the jets are for the formal initial operational test and evaluation (IOT&E) phase of development, currently planned to start in 2017.

Gilmore estimated Block 3F capabilities will not be ready for IOT&E until 2018 at the earliest. “The Block 3F schedule, even with significant improvements in software stability, deficiency resolution, and flight test rates, still appears to extend into 2018 before the capabilities will be ready and certified for IOT&E,” Gilmore wrote.

Thelma Viaduct

25th Mar 2016, 01:07

Due to the lack of bomb carrying ability, will the F-35 impact the rate at which Americans kill people around the globe?

http://www.sott.net/article/273517-Study-US-regime-has-killed-20-30-million-people-since-World-War-Two

sandiego89

25th Mar 2016, 13:10

Due to the lack of bomb carrying ability, will the F-35 impact the rate at which Americans kill people around the globe?

Study: U.S. regime has killed 20-30 million people since World War Two -- Puppet Masters -- Sott.net (http://www.sott.net/article/273517-Study-US-regime-has-killed-20-30-million-people-since-World-War-Two)

Wow Thelma, with your linked "study" containing such zingers such as "The U.S. is responsible for between 1 and 1.8 million deaths during the war between the Soviet Union and Afghanistan, by luring the Soviet Union into invading that nation.." I think I found a new source to line the bird cage.....

MSOCS

25th Mar 2016, 13:39

Once again, folks are getting hung up entirely on the stealth configuration. This jet is so much more. So we're well aware that stealth internal configure is 2 x 1000 (or 2000) pound GBU + 2 x missile or 8 x SDB size + 2 x missile. That's not a huge load for stealth but this isn't a B2. Now, if you don't need VLO then you add pylons externally and add on to the above loadout another 4 weapon and 2 SRAAM stations for up to around 18-20,000lb of expendable stores.

So, given it ain't a Mud Hen, I totally disagree with your statement Thelma.

sandiego89

25th Mar 2016, 14:19

MSOCS, Once again, folks are getting hung up entirely on the stealth configuration. This jet is so much more. So we're well aware that stealth internal configure is 2 x 1000 (or 2000) pound GBU + 2 x missile or 8 x SDB size + 2 x missile. That's not a huge load for stealth but this isn't a B2. Now, if you don't need VLO then you add pylons externally and add on to the above loadout another 4 weapon and 2 SRAAM stations for up to around 18-20,000lb of expendable stores.

Agree. I often note that many pictures of tactical western jets engaged in current conflicts often show them with only 2 precession weapons and perhaps 2-4 air to air missiles for self protection (often in theatres where the air to air threat is negligible), and no one seems to complain about the small amount of weapons. In many case they return with ordinance not having found a good target. Common to see F-16's, F-18's, Harriers, Super Entendards, Tornado's with only a few precision bombs and lots of external tanks. Sure more bangy stuff would be better in some cases, but F-35 will carry them on the wings eventually when first day of war stealth is not a requirement.

glad rag

25th Mar 2016, 16:07

MSOCS

25th Mar 2016, 18:08

gr. No. F-35A is 8xSDB I as an option. SDB II comes in Block 4.x. I wasn't being variant specific but I wanted to clarify your loaded question.

F-35B will take a number of internal SPEAR 3 weapons in Block 4.x.

Sandiego, good to see someone else out there sees the bigger picture.

Maus92

25th Mar 2016, 23:29

Right, and entire fleets of stealth aircraft are wasteful since the stealth capability is only required at the beginning of a conflict. Perhaps a subset of stealthy/disposable UAS are what's actually required for the first days of war.

MSOCS

26th Mar 2016, 00:18

Maus, a disposable stealthy platform is, in its very nature, wasteful, given the cost of stealth and the development costs associated with designing an LO UAS. I actually believe there is a niche for such a UAS but it isn't disposable and wouldn't be cheap. Moreover, LO combat platforms with external stores are still multiple orders of magnitude more stealthy than non-LO platforms with the same external stores so it isn't all doom and gloom when you carry more 'boom'. That's just plain physics.

glad rag

26th Mar 2016, 12:01

Wow Thelma, with your linked "study" containing such zingers such as "The U.S. is responsible for between 1 and 1.8 million deaths during the war between the Soviet Union and Afghanistan, by luring the Soviet Union into invading that nation.." I think I found a new source to line the bird cage.....

Freedom!

That's the same as saying the've travelled the world when in fact theve been in a 80,000 ton metal coffin seeing the world and flattening it!
How sad is that comparison of US foreign policy to totatarian communist states!!!

Trump for the win something has got to change!!

Freedom!

LowObservable

26th Mar 2016, 13:50

Moreover, LO combat platforms with external stores are still multiple orders of magnitude more stealthy than non-LO platforms with the same external stores so it isn't all doom and gloom when you carry more 'boom'. That's just plain physics.

I hate to break it to you, but the old Scottish guy who told you that wasn't really James Clerk Maxwell, but one of many impersonators.

MSOCS

26th Mar 2016, 14:47

Are you sayng that a platform with VLO properties has the same signature as a non-VLO platform when you add identical external stores, LO?

Compromising an LO OML isn't binary, but, if you think it is, I'm not sure there's any point convincing you. Perhaps your new employer - having built the B2 - may have more success in teaching an old dog new tricks.

LowObservable

26th Mar 2016, 17:17

Re-read the forum rules, MSOCS. They apply to you, irrespective of whether you think you know something or not, or whether you've been infected by the insane obsessions of some forum members.

No, I'm not saying what you say that I am saying.

However, it is fairly bleeding obvious that any aircraft carrying 2 x GBU-31s externally, for instance, has an RCS equal to or greater than 2 x GBU-31s, which have enough body-of-revolution shapes and orthogonal bits, even discounting the pylons and other naughty bits, to have an RCS which won't be orders of magnitude below an aircraft.

Which is why the B-2, to name but one example, doesn't have hardpoints.

MSOCS

26th Mar 2016, 18:09

The B2 doesn't have external hard points because of the mission and volume of weapons it was designed for. It was/is designed to remain stealthy. F-22 does have external hard points. F-35 the same, because it's not just about the stealth. Stealthy fighters are so much more.

As for your desire to pull out the "forum rules" card, I'd remind you that it's also equally against such rules to post links to other Aviation websites. That happens here too, quite a lot. Probably a lesser offence in your mind or perhaps it doesn't apply to you?

You've perfectly twisted the point I was making around. I'll bring it back. A stealth aircraft with non-stealthy external weapons is, as a whole, more stealthy (by some order of magnitude) than a non-stealthy aircraft with the same external stores.

Mil-26Man

26th Mar 2016, 18:27

You've perfectly twisted the point I was making around. I'll bring it back. A stealth aircraft with non-stealthy external weapons is, as a whole, less stealthy (by some order of magnitude) than a non-stealthy aircraft with the same external stores.

I think he gets your point, but just doesn't agree with it MSOCS.

...any aircraft carrying 2 x GBU-31s externally, for instance, has an RCS equal to or greater than 2 x GBU-31s, which have enough body-of-revolution shapes and orthogonal bits, even discounting the pylons and other naughty bits, to have an RCS which won't be orders of magnitude below an aircraft.

It's not LO that's twisting a point, he seems to be pretty clear on it.

Also, I'd suggest that outing someone on PPRuNE should be avoided unless you're happy to tell everyone your own identity also - some are, most aren't. Posting links to other forums? Not such an indiscretion.

MSOCS

26th Mar 2016, 18:36

The applicability of the rules, as written, are equal. Regardless of what you or anyone "suggests".

I'd suggest that the rules are applied with equity and left to the Mods, unless you are one?

On the subject of the aircraft, it seems we're now saying that a few pylons and weapons (as an entity) aren't an 'order of magnitude' less than an entire clean MiG-29 or Su-3X. Ok.....

LowObservable

26th Mar 2016, 19:49

"Rules don't apply to me". OK, now we know where you stand.

Depending on aspect, some weapons and pylons might be an order of magnitude (0.5 m2 vs 5 m2) less than a clean MiG. But not "multiple" (either 0.05 m2 or 0.005 m2) which is what you originally claimed, and then changed to the meaningless "some order of magnitude".

But in any event, you can't consider them in isolation because the weapons and pylons create multipath scattering and dihedrals relative to the airframe. These effects and the RCS of the weapons and pylons can be adjusted with treatments and shaping, but I have seen no evidence that it can create multiple-order effects.

And the statement "LO combat platforms with external stores are still multiple orders of magnitude more stealthy than non-LO platforms with the same external stores " still appears to rest on the assumption that stealthy airplanes magically cause things attached to them to have lower RCS.

Mach Two

26th Mar 2016, 21:43

This forum appears to have turned into a farce. More name calling and school girl squabbling than discussion.

Between the sniping, there seems to be some disagreement about RCS. I think you are trying to make comparisons based on assumptions that are ill-founded. RCS is not an additive process and is far more complicated than you seem to be suggesting. For example, a bare pylon can have a far larger reflectivity than a pylon with an adapter and/or weapon(s) fitted. A thousand pound bomb in freefall does not have the same effective RCS as the same weapon being carried and the effect the weapon has on total RCS depends greatly on the aircraft carrying it due to reflections between the weapon and the airframe.

External carriage certainly makes a huge difference to RCS; if that were not the case, no one would have spent all that time and money working out how to carry everything internally, with all the limitations and complications that brings. But it is almost impossible to speculate the degree of difference any external weapon would make to the total RCS of a VLO aircraft and it is somewhat pointless to try to do so, especially in public and with the attendant squabbling.

MSOCS

27th Mar 2016, 00:07

Mach 2 I agree and it was never the intention. I merely wished to make the point that a stealth aircraft with external stores is still considerably stealthier than its non-stealth equivalent with the same set of pylons and stores attached. There's no magic involved.

Maus92

27th Mar 2016, 00:12

"Generally Understood?" Is that the same as "It is rumored that...."

Nope, not the same - but you knew that.

@MSOCS: "Disposable" UAS are going to happen, in fact, basic vehicles are already in service - MALD, CHAMP, etc. Development of stealthy loitering platforms launchable from aircraft and ships is inevitable. There's going to be a blurring between cruise missiles and more autonomous vehicles with actual AI. They even want to make B-21s and future F-X / F/A-XX "optionally manned" for the most difficult missions (a concept that I think you and I would agree is would be very expensive.)

MSOCS

27th Mar 2016, 01:01

I can see the appeal of the lightweight, tactical UAV as a disposable asset. The weightier, stealth UAVs I see more as a loiter, sensor fortress, comm node platform. If you add a B-2esque weapons bay to that mix then you've pretty much ended up with a B-21. So, if you're going to chance losing one, you'd probably want to be able to take a whole load of hurt to the enemy in the process.

LowObservable

27th Mar 2016, 15:38

Of course, "considerably stealthier" is not the same as "multiple orders of magnitude" stealthier, and is far harder to define.

I believe MSOCS and KenV may be distantly descended from the same ancient military engineer, given their mastery of the motte-and-bailey argument.

http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/03/all-in-all-another-brick-in-the-motte/

MSOCS

27th Mar 2016, 22:14

Thanks LO, though I'm not an engineer by trade or qualification. KenV may be, I don't know.

Of course, you cannot prove me wrong and I cannot prove you wrong. Though the reasons for each couldn't be more different. M2 was entirely correct. Alas, our disagreement can't conclusively be settled on an unclassified and open forum. I stand by my original statement so guess that's the dead end reached.

Mil-26Man

27th Mar 2016, 22:44

Alas, our disagreement can't conclusively be settled on an unclassified and open forum.

You make it sound as though you could settle it on a classified forum MSOCS, which I doubt as you're not an engineer by trade or qualification.

MSOCS

27th Mar 2016, 23:09

Bevo

28th Mar 2016, 01:04

Or, you incorrectly assume that only engineers know or understand such things. One could assert the signature of a Russian fighter as, say, 10dbsm clean and 15dbsm with a set of stores. Now take a generic stealth fighter with -20dbsm clean, for example. Add the same stores and let's say it becomes -10dbsm or -5dbsm. That's still a multiple order of magnitude lower than the 15dbsm Sukhoi.

As I said earlier, Mach 2 is entirely correct. Without proof - which is highly guarded - it's a road to nowhere when the cognoscenti demand evidence that isn't 'out there'. LO's figures from his earlier argument are just as indefensible as those in the example above.

Well I have done some work in this area so I’ll attempt to explain some of the issues.

As has been pointed out I believe you do not understand RCS when expressed in decibels. We use decibels (dB) because radar respond to a reduction in RCS in a logarithmic manner.

The decibel (dB) is a logarithmic unit used to express the ratio of two values of a physical quantity, often power or intensity. One of these values is often a standard reference value, in which case the decibel is used to express the level of the other value relative to this reference. The number of decibels is ten times the logarithm to base 10 of the ratio of two power quantities or of the ratio of the squares of two field amplitude quantities.

Radar Cross Section (RCS) is measurement whose units are surface area, typically recorded in square meters. Since RCS is a quantity that can change several orders of magnitude as the angle between the radar and the target varies, usually the base 10 logarithm of the linear RCS is used to show the RCS in plots. It is routine to see the RCS represented this way in dBsm, or decibel square meters.

Even a small panel that's not properly installed can destroy an aircraft's low signature. If a tanker were to damage the surface of a stealth aircraft, it could also spell trouble.

To put it another way, if I use your math I could put eight weapons each with a 1 square meter RCS (1 m2 = 0 dBsm) and not change the signature of the system at all. Or even better, I could mount a very small sphere with a -50 dBsm RCS to an aircraft with a -30 dBsm signature and have a system with a -80 dBsm signature.

External store signature will overwhelm the total signature of the aircraft. While I don’t have a good reference for the RCS of various external stores I will look at a theoretical example. For a given radar with an effective radiated power of x-watts, a low signature aircraft with external stores having a very small signature of 0.1 m² RCS would be detected at 112 NM and a stealth fighter of 0.001 m² (-30 dBsm) RCS would be detected at 36 NM. If you put the external stores on the aircraft the radar will see the 0.1 m2 and the 0.001 m2 aircraft is inconsequential.

Also, when looking at external stores please note that the measurement of RCS in meters squared does not equal geometric area. A perfectly conducting sphere of projected cross sectional area 1 meter square (i.e. a diameter of 1.13 m) will have an RCS of 1 square meter. However, a square flat plate of area 1 square meter will have an RCS of σ = 4π A2 / λ2 (where A=area, λ=wavelength), or 13,982 square meters at 10 GHz if the radar is perpendicular to the flat surface. So external stores with a 0.1 square meter is very small indeed.

LowObservable

28th Mar 2016, 02:04

Well put, Bevo.

MSOCS

28th Mar 2016, 09:34

Bevo, in your example above, the 0.1m2 stealth aircraft (with external stores) is still much more stealthy than a 10m2 Sukhoi with external stores, by 2 OOM in fact. I really do appreciate the non-additive, non-linear relationship of such things. On balance, external stores will affect a stealth platform in a much more severe way than a non-stealth platform. The former are optimised against LO requirements, whereas the latter are either blissfully inconsiderate of it or treated to make a design as good as one can.

Thankfully, aerodynamic shaping on weapons fortuitously means that Rayleigh scattering/specular reflection prevents ~14000m2 being seen at the radar in reality; well, at the more offensive aspects anyway.

A stealth aircraft with external stores is still more stealthy than a non-stealth aircraft with external stores. It isn't as doom and gloom as some people like to make out. Of course, if I were LockMart I'd be developing pylons and weapons that were optimised to the F-35 and not just bolt-on bits of orthogonal metal.

Bevo

28th Mar 2016, 10:55

Perhaps you would like to explain how “Rayleigh scattering/specular reflection” will change the radar cross section expressed in either square meters or dBsm as it relates to the radar range equation. Never mind. I tried to explain.

Courtney Mil

28th Mar 2016, 11:29

Blue sky thinking, obviously.

LowObservable

28th Mar 2016, 11:59

Of course, if I were LockMart I'd be developing pylons and weapons that were optimised to the F-35 and not just bolt-on bits of orthogonal metal.

Brilliant insight, but a concept invented and flight-tested >25 years ago - and one that has to be built-in, in practice, at the earliest design stage.

Lonewolf_50

28th Mar 2016, 13:29

Of course, if I were LockMart I'd be developing pylons and weapons that were optimised to the F-35 and not just bolt-on bits of orthogonal metal. Of course, they'd do that, since they can charge more for each sub assembly. Follow the money.

Lonewolf_50

28th Mar 2016, 13:32

This forum appears to have turned into a farce. More name calling and school girl squabbling than discussion. This thread seems to attract it. Each others' eyes have a high RCS for internet fingers in this thread. :p
But it is almost impossible to speculate the degree of difference any external weapon would make to the total RCS of a VLO aircraft and it is somewhat pointless to try to do so, especially in public and with the attendant squabbling. Actually, all that can be done is to speculate, as anyone who knows the technical details sure isn't posting them on a public forum. (And if there were, they ought to be charged and jailed ...)

KenV

28th Mar 2016, 15:28

I believe MSOCS and KenV may be distantly descended from the same ancient military engineer, given their mastery of the motte-and-bailey argument.You just could not resist, could you? Yet another personal attack by you directed at me. And I wasn't even remotely involved in this particular exchange. For the record, I have never once engaged in motte-and-bailey arguments. Not once. If you insist I have, can you reference a single example of such? (No need for a link. Just an anecdotal example on any topic I have commented on)..............Thought so.

Indeed, if anyone is guilty of motte and bailey arguments, it is those (like LO) who devoutly embrace the anti-F-35 orthodoxy. They routinely make very specific claims about how terrible the airplane is (motte) and then when pressed for facts, they fall back on the usual and very typical hard data is classified and not available and my statement was based on the "generally understood" failures of the program. (bailey).

ORAC

28th Mar 2016, 15:31

IIRC in most scenarios the empty pylon has a higher signature than the pylon+weapon due to the exposed face/catches. It would seem more desirable to have one-use eject able pylons - the same way Colt had hundreds of reinforced cardboard/tinfoil tanks for the Jag - and at an even more horrendous cost to the taxpayer.

Mind you, if you hung disposable tanks on the 35B/C and jettisoned them on the edge of enemy cover, they'd might have a chance of making a target beyond the littoral before having to turn for home.

Roll on the UCAV tanker.........

Lonewolf_50

28th Mar 2016, 17:15

Roll on the UCAV tanker.........Lack of crew leaves more room/payload for fuel. From a carrier based perspective, it's also fewer bunks and a bit more fuel delivered per deck cycle.

Mach Two

28th Mar 2016, 17:46

IIRC in most scenarios the empty pylon has a higher signature than the pylon+weapon due to the exposed face/catches.

Well done, ORAC. You remember correctly all the way to post #9060 when I explained the same thing almost 48 hours ago.

Lonewolf 50, yes, your choice of words was better than mine. It is just speculation on a very complex subject. If we could do the maths, we wouldn't need the big RCS measuring rigs.

MSOCS

28th Mar 2016, 18:03

KenV, don't pander to the bait old chum. The MO is to try and get you so utterly infuriated - to try and make you join him playing the Player, not the Ball - then close ranks with the usual suspects and point and jeer. Relative to other blogs and fora, this is still quite gentlemanly though.

ORAC

28th Mar 2016, 18:51

Sorry Mach Two, didn't see it.

Had major surgery on the 16th and only got home a couple of days ago for several weeks pottering at home. Not quite with it keeping up.

MSOCS

28th Mar 2016, 19:24

Get well soon old boy.

LowObservable

29th Mar 2016, 00:16

Ken: "KC-30 is Frankentanker." "The F-35 overruns are due to the customer constantly changing requirements."

Remind me when I fell back on "hard data is classified and not available". I'm usually the one :mad:ing about that.

And if you'd raised a squeak about actual defamation of character on this forum I'd care about your feelings about criticism, maybe, but you didn't and I don't.

riff_raff

29th Mar 2016, 03:11

Unfortunately, the notion of a low-cost expendable tactical UAV is not realistic. Consider that the relatively low performance turboprop MQ-9 UAV still costs around $17M each.

MSOCS

29th Mar 2016, 07:04

riff_raff, I think the notion is somewhere between MQ-9 at the higher end (not necessarily in sensor capability but platform complexity) and Scan Eagle. Add in some economy of scale price reductions and I would imagine a sub-$5M platform plus modular payload choice ($) would appeal. Then it's down to the operator how much is spent on the overall package. Different UAS's for different roles.

Lonewolf_50

29th Mar 2016, 12:38

Unfortunately, the notion of a low-cost expendable tactical UAV is not realistic. Consider that the relatively low performance turboprop MQ-9 UAV still costs around $17M each.
MQ-9 need not be expendable, as the family of weapons it can carry will include weapons that have range. Ten of those versus one and a half F-35's. Hmmm, interesting decision point.

@LO: it has long since stopped being entertaining, this personal bone you have to pick with at least on participant. Maybe you could trade PM's with the personal disagreements, not clutter up the discussion* that a variety of others participate in.

* Such as it is; as the dead horse being beaten is nearly glue at this point

Maus92

29th Mar 2016, 12:54

The USAF is soliciting the industry wrt low cost engine technology for use in expendable air vehicles:

USAF Seeks Industry Wisdom On Disposable UAS Engines | Defense content from Aviation Week (http://aviationweek.com/defense/usaf-seeks-industry-wisdom-disposable-uas-engines)

Lyneham Lad

29th Mar 2016, 12:55

On Flight Global F-35 goes on global publicity tour in battle for hearts and minds (https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/f-35-goes-on-global-publicity-tour-in-battle-for-he-423527/)

The F-35 Lightning II might be the most sophisticated combat jet on the market today, but US programme officials and lawmakers worry that the fifth-generation stealth aircraft is losing the battle for hearts and minds.

That acknowledgement within the Pentagon and among the international partners has already seen the US Air Force establish an F-35 Heritage Flight Team that will fly at 14 events this year, with shows booked in cities from New York to Las Vegas.

The public relations battle is being waged abroad, with the Royal Netherlands Air Force planning to bring its two F-35A home in June “so that they can tell their story”. The first eight of the nation's 37 stealthy F-16 replacements aren’t formerly due to arrive until 2019 with the establishment of the first domestic base.

American and British F-35s will also be attending the UK’s Royal International Air Tattoo and Farnborough Airshow in July.

Click the link for the full article.

glad rag

29th Mar 2016, 13:41

TV MQ-9 need not be expendable, as the family of weapons it can carry will include weapons that have range. Ten of those versus one and a half F-35's. Hmmm, interesting decision point.

@LO: it has long since stopped being entertaining, this personal bone you have to pick with at least on participant. Maybe you could trade PM's with the personal disagreements, not clutter up the discussion* that a variety of others participate in.

* Such as it is; as the dead horse being beaten is nearly glue at this point
Really

It is often the case on this particular Mil forum that certain participants have either willfully deceived and/or claim that they are being persecuted when "challenged"

As for this thread, why the hell shouldn't people question the acquisition management of the airframe and the actual capability it may (or may never) bring?

KenV

29th Mar 2016, 14:19

KenV, don't pander to the bait old chum. The MO is to try and get you so utterly infuriated..... Good point and excellent advice.

MSOCS

29th Mar 2016, 17:47

I promise you, gr, that I have not and will not set out to wilfully deceive. That's a dangerous game. That said, you'll appreciate as a military or ex-military guy that not saying everything or being exact isn't deceitful but a necessity. As for the whole defamation that goes on here...well, I couldn't agree more with Lone's statement. We'd get far more out of civilised debate and discussion. Mostly it erupts or spirals downward quickly because the same (yes, the SAME) people take huge offence at information they neither recognise nor agree (or want to agree) with, rather than casually asking for a source or explanation of their PoV. Their response goes from 0 to 600kts in a heartbeat instead of staying appropriate.

That gets people's backs up and it's a vicious circle.

Anyway, you're absolutely entitled to know as a taxpayer what you're getting. You're getting the most brutally honest test reports ever seen in public that detail the deficiencies in a late, expensive jet. Those reports massage a narrative of negativity which fuels one side of the F-35 demograph. What you don't get is verbal, private accounts of the jet and mission systems and how mind blowing it is. How it isn't like the multitude of F-16 vs F-35 articles. But that's the way it is mate. There are issues but they're being worked by amazing people, and as quickly as they can.

t43562

29th Mar 2016, 19:26

Anyway, you're absolutely entitled to know as a taxpayer what you're getting.

Some of us, from the honest information provided are not impressed. Why should we be?

Rhino power

29th Mar 2016, 21:21

Some of us, from the honest information provided are not impressed. Why should we be?

That's a good point, given the large amounts of information (both official and unofficial) detailing all the problems and shortfalls, where are all the reports (both official and unofficial) detailing the 'mind blowing' things it has achieved (not hoped/hoping to achieve)? As taxpayers, are we not entitled to see some of that too? Could it be that such reports are actually somewhat thin on the ground? Given the ruinously expensive development costs and increasingly late to service delivery of any meaningful combat capability, it's not too much to ask is it?

-RP

MSOCS

29th Mar 2016, 21:34

RP, they're not thin on the ground but something tells me you know why they aren't downloadable on Amazon.

airpolice

29th Mar 2016, 21:54

aren’t formerly due to arrive until 2019

With writing that bad, he should be working for the BBC.

Lonewolf_50

29th Mar 2016, 22:01

As for this thread, why the hell shouldn't people question the acquisition management of the airframe and the actual capability it may (or may never) bring? Done, and done, and freaking glue.

If you'll bother to read the title of this thread, which began about six years ago, the F-35 still isn't cancelled. Some orders either have been, or will be soon, due to the two problem that NOBODY disagrees with:
a) late (in terms of schedule and program objectives)
b) pricy, even in terms of original price point and some of the usual (and almost reasonable) cost growth that all new programs seem to have. That "reasonable level" left the barn a while back.

A personal aside: I am glad that my extremely small involvement with the JSF program was done with in 2003. We were working the training and readiness side, and basing priorities (while BRAC was still in f:mad:ing progress). Some of our projects included Environmental Impact Statements and addressing how loud the engine is compared to the Hornet and how angry the f:mad:ing fruitbats in California would be with a noisy jet engine. At the time, the EIS had to do with the area near NAS Lemore, one of the garden spots of the San Joaquin valley. :rolleyes:
The problems with a litany of airframe and mission systems weren't even on the table at that point. (In retrospect: if I'd have had the stomach for it, maybe I should have gone all in on that program when I retired as it seems to be a neverending source of funding and jobs ... somewhere)
When I handed over my box of folders and notes to a another staff section it was like taking the most satisfying dump in a lifetime.

Delivered capability: it is interesting to note that the USAF has almost two full squadrons delivered and they are in their usually thorough operational testing and tactics development program.
We don't actually know what's inside that box.
I have no idea if this 5th gen fighter will eventually do as the F-18, prove to be a fine edition to the order of battle, or if it will be a time and money sink for its entire life.
Maybe a mix of both.
Regardless of that future, the political decision to only fund a one size fits all strike fighter aircraft has long since been made so that we, in the US, are going to dance with this girl at the prom since she's the only date who is available for the dance. For better AND for worse.

If you can't be with the one you love, brother, love the one you're with. (See Stephen Stills, Buffalo Springfield).

Rhino power

29th Mar 2016, 22:59

RP, they're not thin on the ground but something tells me you know why they aren't downloadable on Amazon.
Perhaps not surprisingly, Amazon wasn't the first place I looked...
But the question remains, I'm not expecting that any of it's full capabilities (promised or otherwise) be laid bare for all to see, but surely something, a little taster of those 'brochure' capabilities is not to much to ask for? The odd news item about dropping a couple of LGB's in a relatively benign test just doesn't cut it, considering the investment!

-RP

t43562

29th Mar 2016, 23:03

Regardless of that future, the political decision to only fund a one size fits all strike fighter aircraft has long since been made so that we, in the US, are going to dance with this girl at the prom since she's the only date who is available for the dance. For better AND for worse

Some countries are locked into that, some are only partly locked in, some are totally free to do something else so it is a bit relevant to question it. Not that anything said here matters.

MSOCS

29th Mar 2016, 23:40

RP, I think we'd all like that to happen.

Lonewolf_50

30th Mar 2016, 12:17

Some countries are locked into that, some are only partly locked in, some are totally free to do something else so it is a bit relevant to question it. Not that anything said here matters. I believe I addressed that already, thanks, in terms of orders being cancelled, or likely to be. It is one thing "to question it" and about 450 pages later I don't see what is going on as "question it" but something else entirely. Glue manufacture, mostly. What I find the most disappointing, is the software piece. This aircraft seems to be more software dependent, not less. I suspect that this will amplify problems in configuration and deployment.

Given what I was doing about a decade and a half ago related to a program that DID get cancelled, and the software challenges there, maybe I should not be surprised/disappointed.

Backinblack

30th Mar 2016, 14:15

Any good piece of news about F-35 program?

Snafu351

30th Mar 2016, 15:02

As an interested taxpayer, amongst other things, the postings of MSOCS are coming across as rather more LM PR than UK military with knowledge (that they can't speak of... !) of the inside workings of the program.

From a purely human point of view if all is fine with the program and all will be revealed to the disappointment and shame of the so called naysayers I would have thought that shutting up and cracking on with the delivery asap would be sufficient reward for such an "insider."

Yet here we have strident and constant posturing in support of the program, claims of harassment whenever inconsistencies in the posturing are pointed out and to top it all actual harassment of those whose views differ from the apparent "insider" view.

KenV

30th Mar 2016, 15:17

From a purely human point of view if all is fine with the program and all will be revealed to the disappointment and shame of the so called naysayersDisappointment and shame? Is such possible?

MSOCS

30th Mar 2016, 16:14

I'm not an LM employee Snafu and apologise if my exuberance for F-35 convinces you otherwise. I assure you that I'd rather inform on this forum - where I can, that is - rather than it spiral into bickering, inexorably.

Lonewolf_50

30th Mar 2016, 17:17

Any good piece of news about F-35 program?
1. It's not cancelled.
2. They keep delivering aircraft

What do you consider good news?

Courtney Mil

30th Mar 2016, 18:11

Snafu, I think the point about who works form whom, or more importantly who doesn't, has been thrashed to death here. MSOCS has answered that accusation more than enough times now. What's the point of keep accusing him?

He is a sensible debater with an opinion based on something other than his employer.

Turbine D

31st Mar 2016, 00:31

What do you consider good news?
Er, just wait a moment, Spaz will be along shortly with videos of more successful take-offs and landings followed by pilot testimonies of how great everything is.

Wouldn't mind seeing a sales invoice from LM showing a delivery price for today's aircraft of $80M, but then that probably wouldn't include the engine and a few other things, forget it...

LowObservable

31st Mar 2016, 01:14

... let alone a FFP number for getting it to an IOC standard.

Maus92

31st Mar 2016, 03:37

Lonewolf_50

31st Mar 2016, 13:27

Some not so good news about the Charlie: Testing was halted back in November after a "small crack" was found in the titanium wing spar, which was downplayed at the time by JPO spokesperson Joe DellaVedova, "Such discoveries are expected during a developmental test program." Note that the JPO was more or less forced to respond to press reports about the cracks - the JPO had not released news of the casualty publicly. Testing resumed in February after repairs, but was halted 3 days later after strain gauges detected further cracking.
Another set back, but I am not surprised that any/each bump in the road is not publicized. Think about it: if you were running the program, would you go out of your way to stress the issues that arise? That's counter intuitive.

Let the press work for their pay.

People running the tech side probably want to be left alone to solve the problems. From what you say, that crack does not look related to the hook problem that was previously solved, and given where it is ... wonder how long the actual fix / redesign will take?

Snafu351

31st Mar 2016, 13:58

@ Courtney & MSOCS, I wasn't claiming that somebody actually was an employee of LM. I was merely making the point that the current postings rather tended to give that impression. I don't know either way.

However for me endless positive outpourings given the program timeframe, cost to date, actual progress and delivery to date seem logically strange; particularly when the evident desire or need to attempt, somewhat aggressively, to counter simple observation of all of the above four elements is noted.

Tourist

31st Mar 2016, 15:48

endless positive outpourings
You must be reading a different thread than me.....:rolleyes:

KenV

31st Mar 2016, 17:13

I wasn't claiming that somebody actually was an employee of LM. I was merely making the point that the current postings rather tended to give that impression. I see. So any messenger who brings positive news must be yet another bought and paid for stooge of LM, no matter who they actually work for, apparently even including USN test pilots. And any messenger who brings negative news must be a sainted emissary from the gods providing divine warning of imminent doom. And yes, that last sentence was a bit exaggerated. But sadly only a bit.

And "endless positive outpourings"? On THIS thread?!! Or from the media in THIS universe? There appears to be some kind of parallel universe quite different from this one.

Lonewolf_50

31st Mar 2016, 17:47

I see. So any messenger who brings positive news must be yet another bought and paid for stooge of LM, no matter who they actually work for, apparently even including USN test pilots. And any messenger who brings negative news must be a sainted emissary from the gods providing divine warning of imminent doom. And yes, that last sentence was a bit exaggerated. But sadly only a bit.

And "endless positive outpourings"? On THIS thread?!! Or from the media in THIS universe? There appears to be some kind of parallel universe quite different from this one. Are the chicks hot there? :cool: (Imo, this thread would benefit from the occasional Slasher input, just to keep the tone lighter ...)

Turbine D

1st Apr 2016, 00:42

So any messenger who brings positive news must be yet another bought and paid for stooge of LM, no matter who they actually work for, apparently even including USN test pilots.
Hey Ken, here is good news on the F-35 and certainly I am no stooge of LM. In fact, there are three good news versions:

!. LM good news version :ok:
https://www.f35.com/news

2. Defense News good news version :uhoh:
F-35 Will Fly Until 2070 ? Six Years Longer Than Planned (http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/2016/03/24/f-35-fly-until-2070-six-years-longer-than-planned/82224282/)

3. Breaking Defense good news version :confused:
Current F-35 Costs Drop, But Total Costs Go Up « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary (http://breakingdefense.com/2016/03/current-f-35-costs-drop-but-total-costs-go-up/)

So there you have it, three good news stories to peruse at your leisure...;)
Enjoy and have a good weekend.:)

Just This Once...

1st Apr 2016, 07:44

So the unit price of an F-35B when averaged over the life of the program in 'then year' dollars is a snip at $134M.

Probably best not to buy the early aircraft if you want to save the odd billion.

alfred_the_great

1st Apr 2016, 09:21

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-cancels-f-35-purchase

This is obviously a bite, I wonder how many people will nibble?

MSOCS

1st Apr 2016, 10:54

Happy April 1st, Internetz!!

Army Mover

1st Apr 2016, 13:06

............ and another (http://forces.tv/32263401) one. :)

Turbine D

1st Apr 2016, 16:13

Originally posted by Maus92
Some not so good news about the Charlie: Testing was halted back in November after a "small crack" was found in the titanium wing spar, which was downplayed at the time by JPO spokesperson Joe DellaVedova, "Such discoveries are expected during a developmental test program." Note that the JPO was more or less forced to respond to press reports about the cracks - the JPO had not released news of the casualty publicly. Testing resumed in February after repairs, but was halted 3 days later after strain gauges detected further cracking.
Interesting problem, but may not necessarily be a design problem, could be a material processing problem. Manufacturing titanium components can be tricky, whether they are cast or forged. Both processes expose the components being produced to elevated temperatures that form a brittle layer called alpha case. The alpha case must be removed to prevent cracks from developing in service. The usual method of removal is chem-milling the component. But if not done properly, one of two things can result, the alpha case isn't totally removed or hydrogen is introduced from the bath chemicals into the titanium resulting in subsequent hydrogen embrittlement and cracking in service. So I am sure it will be witch hunt to identify the cause and spars affected if it isn't a basic design problem...

riff_raff

2nd Apr 2016, 03:57

Turbine D - The crack in the Ti spar was detected before it became a serious problem, and the aircraft continued to be flown after installing strain gauges to monitor propagation of the fracture. This tells me that they are doing a thorough job with the test program.

The aluminum die forgings used for the fuselage frames also had some fracture issues. Fixing those problems required some expensive changes to the massive die sets used to produce the aluminum forgings. However, I imagine the Ti wing spars are not produced from die forgings since the cost would be prohibitive. They are likely machined from shapes hammer or roll forged from wrought stock. Thus adding thickness in most areas of the spar to resolve the cracking issue would only require modification of the CNC machining program.

Titanium is very sensitive to surface flaws, which can result in fractures propagating from these defects. So the surface of a machined titanium part subject to high stress or fatigue conditions must be smooth and/or mechanically pre-stressed in compression by shot peening.

Titanium also tends to work harden when machined. So Ti parts that are subject to significant machining and stock removal require periodic stress relief treatments to produce a dimensionally stable finished component.

Maus92

2nd Apr 2016, 15:15

@RR: you might be talking about earlier cracking in a different aircraft - you mention that the aircraft was flown after adressing minor cracking. The F-35C that I'm referencing is a test article as mentioned in DOT&E written testimony to Congress last week:

"Structural testing. Major findings are continuing in the durability test articles, particularly in the titanium bulkhead in the F-35C test article. Significant limitations to the life of the fielded F-35C aircraft can only be addressed with intrusive structural modifications prior to the expected full service life, and show again the high cost of concurrent production and development. In the past year, discoveries of unpredicted cracks continued to occur, and in some cases required pauses in testing to determine root causes and fixes. This occurred in all three variants. Currently, only the F-35A structural test article can be tested; it is about to begin the third lifetime test phase, or the third series of 8,000 equivalent flight hours of testing. The F-35B test article is still down for repairs needed to complete the second lifetime. The F-35C test article restarted testing in mid-February but stopped three days later when strain gauges indicated cracking in a titanium bulkhead; it has not yet restarted."

glad rag

2nd Apr 2016, 15:24

So that'll be 2020 then for RAF lightning II's then??

Muhahahah.

Not really, they'll just delete more testing benchmarks from the schedule and everything will be just fiinnee.

YAY More Good News!!!

:}

MSOCS

2nd Apr 2016, 17:06

There aren't any "RAF" Lightnings glad rag, only UK ones that will be flown and operated Jointly by the RN and RAF and if there aren't any until 2020 that's news to a LOT of people!!

Turbine D

2nd Apr 2016, 20:04

The cracking of one wing spar was discovered on an aircraft being used for cyclic testing. The cyclic testing had accumulated the equivalent of 20 years of operational service towards a longer life goal. The problem has been identified as a design problem and not a subsequent manufacturing processing problem. Correcting the design will add one half pound to the weight of the spar. Of course, all assembled and deployed aircraft will require retrofitting the new beefed up spar at a convenient time, lets say short of 20 years.

The wings are bigger on the F35-C version than either the -A or -B versions. I would think the UK version would be good to go by 2018 assuming nothing goes wrong between now and then. Anyhow, what could possibly go wrong between now and then?

glad rag

3rd Apr 2016, 15:31

There aren't any "RAF" Lightnings glad rag, only UK ones that will be flown and operated Jointly by the RN and RAF and if there aren't any until 2020 that's news to a LOT of people!!
Ha just new you'd bite on that on matey, here's hoping the RN have shallow pockets because they are going to need them!

wink, wink and all that...

Royalistflyer

3rd Apr 2016, 16:16

On the general subject of battlefield vulnerability and all that, despite ISIS having a fair bit of portable technology, it seems the USAF is deploying several Broncos to mark targets for them in Iraq/Syria.

27mm

3rd Apr 2016, 16:24

MSOCS

3rd Apr 2016, 16:34

Hey gr, I'd love to believe it was a purposeful phrase, but alas..! The correction was for the wider audience who perhaps don't appreciate the full extent of the Joint arrangement.

Willard Whyte

3rd Apr 2016, 22:49

Well, according to the RAF website, the erstwhile Marham Staish, Harv Smyth, has been appointed OC Lightnings at Marham. Isn't it about time we renamed this thread, as the project, like the banks, is way too expensive to cancel?

5 (AC) had a Sqn boss nicknamed Billy No-Planes* To be fair Sentinel did eventually arrive. Although after he'd done his 2 years of triv-tasking, that is.

*instead of -Mates

riff_raff

4th Apr 2016, 00:15

@Maus92- Thanks for correction. I went back and re-read the article (http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/strike/2015/11/16/crack-discovered-f-35c-wing-spar-test-plane/75893376/). The wing spar crack was in the fatigue structural test airframe and occurred at the equivalent of 6,850 flight hours. It was noted the issue had no impact on current F-35 flying operations.

The previous cracking issue I noted was with the die forged aluminum bulkheads used on the F-35B (http://breakingdefense.com/2014/02/bulkhead-cracks-in-f-35b-wont-slow-fielding-marines-say/). Similar to the situation above, the cracking was discovered on the fatigue structural test airframe at 9,400 hours, which is beyond the design requirement of 8,000 hours. People should appreciate that the aluminum die forgings used for the bulkheads are very impressive pieces of manufacturing engineering.

http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=18555&t=1

Engines

4th Apr 2016, 02:01

Snafu,

Perhaps I can help a little - I can confirm that I'm not an employee of LM, nor am I paid to post here ( I understand the term is 'a shill').

To be clear, I was employed by BAE and worked on the F-35 programme for a few years - I don't think I've ever tried to hide that. I left BAE about 10 years ago, and they don't pay me to post either.

Hope this helps

Best wishes as ever to those of any opinion,

Engines

Snafu351

4th Apr 2016, 12:20

@Engines. Your postings reflect the statement you make. As far as this outside observer can tell they are factual and present interesting information that contributes to general knowledge. My original post was mostly directed at another posters comments which were coming across very close to a party line to the detriment of the intent behind them, in my opinion.

@Ken V none of which I (or anybody else really) has actually said. You wish people were actually saying those things because it might make your desire to dismiss opinion that does not coincide with yours easier to achieve in reality.

KenV

4th Apr 2016, 15:40

@Ken V none of which I (or anybody else really) has actually said. You wish people were actually saying those things because it might make your desire to dismiss opinion that does not coincide with yours easier to achieve in reality. A desire to dismiss opinion? It appears that toeing the orthodox line includes being blind to sarcasm. So be it. Y'all enjoy your orthodoxy.

Hempy

5th Apr 2016, 11:54

KenV, the more you post the sillier you look. Stick to JB....it might not increase your (already impressive) post count, but it's more amenable to your demographic.

Rhino power

5th Apr 2016, 13:03

http://theaviationist.com/2016/04/01/f-35c-carrier-variant-jsf-drops-first-agm-154-joint-standoff-weapon-jsow/

-RP

glad rag

5th Apr 2016, 14:32

Yeah right...

ILcVt9p7cug

Rhino power

5th Apr 2016, 15:27

Yeah right...

ILcVt9p7cug

Er, ok, I give up, this is related to the F-35 how?

-RP

Hempy

5th Apr 2016, 16:31

RP, I thnk gladrags post is positing that once the 'stealth doors' are open then it may as well be an F-15.

I may be wrong (it wouldn't be the first time!)

Courtney Mil

5th Apr 2016, 18:11

Open, shoot, shut. How many radar sweeps was that?

MSOCS

5th Apr 2016, 18:59

Hempy, Ad Hominem to KenV's post isn't helpful chum. Can we all please leave the personal issues at the door now, and perhaps move on with some considered debate? Perhaps it also might help if posters signposted 'fact', 'opinion' or 'guess' behind their posts. That way we don't start demanding evidence or a source behind a held opinion or guess.

Just a thought (opinion)

I also can't see the link between gr's video link and this thread. Other than the fact we have impressive CIWS....

LowObservable

5th Apr 2016, 23:48

Other than the fact we have impressive CIWS....

Unfortunately we don't have a monopoly...

http://www.popsci.com/sites/popsci.com/files/styles/large_1x_/public/ld-2000.jpg?itok=pizD2yW4&fc=50,50

http://www.ausairpower.net/PVO-S/KBP-Pantsir-S-SPAAG-SAM-3S.jpg

... and defending HVTs against slow glide bombs is what they're for.

MSOCS

6th Apr 2016, 07:52

Perhaps we need to design a swarm of weaponised, ill-tempered Sea Bass, armed with frickin' laser beams.

Courtney Mil

6th Apr 2016, 08:00

So it's the bombs that are now obsolete?

MSOCS

6th Apr 2016, 09:07

Apparently so. Or maybe. Just maybe. There's a systems-of-systems based approach to absolutely everything the military does.

Effects-based operations. I should ™ that.

glad rag

6th Apr 2016, 12:57

So it's the bombs that are now obsolete?
Depends what you're bombing I suppose......

glad rag

6th Apr 2016, 12:58

Perhaps we need to design a swarm of weaponised, ill-tempered Sea Bass, armed with frickin' laser beams.
Sharks It's SHARKS with frikken lasers...besides it's BASS not SEA BASS you've been shopping in tesco's too much.

Army Mover

6th Apr 2016, 15:40

Sharks It's SHARKS with frikken lasers...besides it's BASS not SEA BASS you've been shopping in tesco's too much.

Sea Bass are much more lethal than the common variety; come with a built in laser foo-foo switcher-offer. (I've never set foot in Tesco's). :)

KenV

6th Apr 2016, 17:27

...and defending HVTs against slow glide bombs is what they're for. So we need to develop stealth bombs to go along with the stealth bombers? Which begs the question, what's the RCS of a Mk 80 series bomb? And what's its RCS after adding a JDAM kit? And what's the RCS of a GBU-39/53 SDB?

LowObservable

7th Apr 2016, 00:06

I have no idea, Ken, because aside from anything else you don't specify if it's frontal sector (probably quite small) or from the side (probably quite big). And once you're in range of these bleeders you need a pretty minuscule RCS to make a difference anyway.

Turbine D

7th Apr 2016, 00:45

Effects-based operations. I should ™ that.

The US DoD took note of this comment and liked it very much! As such, they have claimed ownership of it with all the rights that go with it. You should be receiving a letter thanking you for your contribution... :p;):D

Turbine D

7th Apr 2016, 00:51

So we need to develop stealth bombs to go along with the stealth bombers?
Probably, especially if it takes as long as the F-35 has taken in achieving combat readiness. Detection technology moves along quite rapidly...

glad rag

7th Apr 2016, 03:18

So we need to develop stealth bombs to go along with the stealth bombers? Which begs the question, what's the RCS of a Mk 80 series bomb? And what's its RCS after adding a JDAM kit? And what's the RCS of a GBU-39/53 SDB?

Well....apparently the SDB "bomb" has three sensors the first one operated allegedly being a millimetric radar widget so I guess stealthy bomb 0 CIWS 1

Still with 8 in the bays the '35 A and C can swarm the little 182lb buggers all over the place...marvelous mayhem ensured!!

kbrockman

8th Apr 2016, 03:10

Air Force moving forward with possible A-10 replacement, general says (http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/2016/04/07/air-force-moving-forward-possible--10-replacement-general-says/82744324/)

The Air Force is taking a key step toward developing a dedicated close-air support plane to replace the A-10 "Warthog," a top general said Thursday.

“My requirements guys are in the process of building a draft-requirements document for a follow-on CAS airplane,” Lt. Gen. Mike Holmes, the deputy chief of staff for strategic plans and requirements, said. “It’s interesting work that at some point we’ll be able to talk [about] with you a little bit more.”
&
The Air Force’s latest plan, reflected in the fiscal 2017 budget request, is to retire the A-10 by fiscal 2022. But in the out-years, the F-35 can only partially fill the capability gap left by the A-10, officials have said

“I would never look at you and tell you, 'Hey, the replacement, one-for-one, for the A-10 is the F-35,' ” said Air Force Vice Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein last month

MSOCS

8th Apr 2016, 08:57

Nobody in their right mind would say the F-35 is a 1-for-1 replacement for the venerable A-10. If they do, it's marketing spiel and utter bolleaux. Odd that the JORD states it but nobody believed it.

If the USAF want a dedicated CAS monster, good for them. Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrt!

LowObservable

8th Apr 2016, 12:54

Very true. But...

Who are you and what have you done with MSOCS?

KenV

8th Apr 2016, 16:00

Any good piece of news about F-35 program? Don't know if this counts as "good" news, but I'm confident that the orthodox believers will find a way to show this is "bad" news.

Britain To Start Construction Of F-35 Facilities
LONDON — Lockheed Martin, BAE Systems and British building firm Balfour Beatty have been contracted by the U.K. defense ministry to build the new facilities that
will support and house the British F-35 fleet. The three companies will share a £142 million ($200 million) to construct three facilities at RAF Marham, Norfolk, the base
selected to become the main operating location for Britain’s F-35 Lightning Force, jointly run by the Royal Air Force (RAF) and Royal Navy.

The three facilities will include a Logistic Operations Center, an Integrated Training Center and a Maintenance and Final Finishes center responsible for the maintenance of the aircraft and its low-observability stealth coatings. The three buildings will be a key element in the U.K.’s requirement for a so-called Freedom of Action capability allowing Britain to conduct F-35 operations independently. Work on the new facilities will begin in the next few weeks, Lockheed Martin U.K. announced April 7, with the facilities due to be ready for the first British frontline F-35 unit, 617 Sqn. – known as The Dambusters — to begin using them during the summer of 2018.
Of the £142 million, £118 million has been awarded to PROGRAMS subcontractor BAE Systems, who will manage the project, while £82.5 million will go Balfour Beatty for the construction work itself.

Three separate contracts for the U.K. Defense Infrastructure Organization (DIO), worth a total of £25 million, have been awarded to prepare electrical power supplies, local utilities and demolish old buildings to make way for the new F-35 facilities. The announcement coincides with the completion of the tenth aft section being built for the U.K.’s F-35 fleet.

Britain currently has four F-35Bs operational: three at Edwards AFB, California, and one located at MCAS Beaufort, South Carolina, to support training. The size of the U.K. fleet should double during 2016 with the arrival of four more aircraft, the first of which, BK-5, is expected at Beaufort in May. The rest of the aircraft also will be delivered to Beaufort, allowing the U.K. to begin standing up 617 Sqn. from within a U.S. Marine Corps unit, VMFAT-501, during 2018. 617 Sqn. will move back to the U.K. in the summer of 2018 and move into the new facilities at Marham. Additional works also are planned for Marham including the construction of hover pads and improvements to taxiways and runways ready for F-35 operations. The DIO has been asked by Aviation Week when work on this additional infrastructure will
get underway, but the organization had not replied at the time of publication.

KenV

8th Apr 2016, 16:03

Odd that the JORD states it but nobody believed it.
How long before someone claims LM paid off someone in uniform to include this in the JORD?

LowObservable

8th Apr 2016, 16:13

Ken - Why don't you write about what you think, and why, rather than writing about what you think other people are about to say, before they say it, even when they weren't going to?

Did you get a degree in post-structuralist literature?

PS - No conspiracy theories needed, aside from the AF's fighter community's ever-present desire to get rid of the A-10 and anything that looks like it.

GlobalNav

8th Apr 2016, 17:17

By Jove, KenV, I believe you hit a nerve!

KenV

8th Apr 2016, 17:31

Ken - Why don't you write about what you think, and why.......Did you get a degree in post-structuralist literature?Still don't get sarcasm, huh? Or maybe the sarcasm is hitting too close to home?

As for what I think and why:
I think it entirely plausible for someone in the orthodox anti-F35 community to make such a claim
The reason why is because that community has already claimed that the entire USN test pilot community are bought and paid for shills of LM. That's far more far fetched and inflammatory than suggesting LM paid off someone to influence a single JORD requirement, so making such a claim would fit that community rather well. My sarcasm was intended to point that out. But note that I've made no suggestions as to which forum members belong to that orthodox community. That's up to them to decide.

No conspiracy theories needed, aside from the AF's fighter community's ever-present desire to get rid of the A-10 and anything that looks like it.Can't disagree much there. Yet I'd like to make two points on that subject:

1. No conspiracy theories are needed for the F-35's many issues, either. Yet the orthodox community has been rife with posting countless such conspiracy theories in this very thread.

2. Lt. Gen. Mike Holmes, deputy chief of staff for strategic plans and requirements, and a pretty big wig in the "AF fighter community" you referenced said: “My requirements guys are in the process of building a draft-requirements document for a follow-on CAS airplane. It’s interesting work that at some point we’ll be able to talk [about] with you a little bit more.” Will those requirements include stealth and thus the resulting jet look more like the F-35, or will they not require stealth and thus look more like the A-10? And maybe it will include a requirement to be designed around a future directed energy weapon, just as the A-10 was designed around the GAU-8? Who knows?

glad rag

8th Apr 2016, 18:43

Don't know if this counts as "good" news, but I'm confident that the orthodox believers will find a way to show this is "bad" news.

Britain To Start Construction Of F-35 Facilities
LONDON — Lockheed Martin, BAE Systems and British building firm Balfour Beatty have been contracted by the U.K. defense ministry to build the new facilities that
will support and house the British F-35 fleet. The three companies will share a £142 million ($200 million) to construct three facilities at RAF Marham, Norfolk, the base
selected to become the main operating location for Britain’s F-35 Lightning Force, jointly run by the Royal Air Force (RAF) and Royal Navy.

The three facilities will include a Logistic Operations Center, an Integrated Training Center and a Maintenance and Final Finishes center responsible for the maintenance of the aircraft and its low-observability stealth coatings. The three buildings will be a key element in the U.K.’s requirement for a so-called Freedom of Action capability allowing Britain to conduct F-35 operations independently. Work on the new facilities will begin in the next few weeks, Lockheed Martin U.K. announced April 7, with the facilities due to be ready for the first British frontline F-35 unit, 617 Sqn. – known as The Dambusters — to begin using them during the summer of 2018.
Of the £142 million, £118 million has been awarded to PROGRAMS subcontractor BAE Systems, who will manage the project, while £82.5 million will go Balfour Beatty for the construction work itself.

Three separate contracts for the U.K. Defense Infrastructure Organization (DIO), worth a total of £25 million, have been awarded to prepare electrical power supplies, local utilities and demolish old buildings to make way for the new F-35 facilities. The announcement coincides with the completion of the tenth aft section being built for the U.K.’s F-35 fleet.

Britain currently has four F-35Bs operational: three at Edwards AFB, California, and one located at MCAS Beaufort, South Carolina, to support training. The size of the U.K. fleet should double during 2016 with the arrival of four more aircraft, the first of which, BK-5, is expected at Beaufort in May. The rest of the aircraft also will be delivered to Beaufort, allowing the U.K. to begin standing up 617 Sqn. from within a U.S. Marine Corps unit, VMFAT-501, during 2018. 617 Sqn. will move back to the U.K. in the summer of 2018 and move into the new facilities at Marham. Additional works also are planned for Marham including the construction of hover pads and improvements to taxiways and runways ready for F-35 operations. The DIO has been asked by Aviation Week when work on this additional infrastructure will
get underway, but the organization had not replied at the time of publication.

As the saying goes, follow the money. ;) Well it is Grand National weekend [when even bed ridden grannies make to the bookies then lie screaming at the telly] -anythings worth a punt ;) ;)

However, and more importantly, this is a decisive step towards UK ownership of rights to maintain, modify and develop those F35B and their systems, which are in UK service, to meet UK service requirements.

LowObservable

8th Apr 2016, 18:52

The reason why is because that community has already claimed that the entire USN test pilot community are bought and paid for shills of LM.

Missed that one, and I certainly wouldn't make that statement myself. Citation?

Maybe you're thinking of the time that a LockMart consultant accused Pentagon testers of delaying the program for personal gain.

http://lexingtoninstitute.org/pentagon-slow-roll-of-f-35-fighter-hurts-budget-trade-balance-burdensharing/

LowObservable

8th Apr 2016, 18:54

Additional works also are planned for Marham including the construction of hover pads

So if you're planning to add that professional-grade pizza oven to your kitchen, now's the time to order the materials before the MoD bids the price up...

glad rag

8th Apr 2016, 19:57

MSOCS

8th Apr 2016, 20:04

Ah LO, 'tis the same ole me. Sorry.

I speak as I find, where I can, and views are always my own.

Though the USAF is gunning (excuse pun) for a new Warthog, the F-35 has already conducted CAS trials in OT and by the Line squadrons alike, and performed remarkably well.

Clearly it also brings a contested airspace utility which the A-10 (and nearly all other fast platforms) lack. We can all argue until we're blue in the face about the usefulness of stealth but it has a quality of its own, applicable to every mission it does.

In time the increasing weapon type clearances will add to the CAS load outs possible. I'd compare F-35 CAS capability more to F-16 and F-18 and not A-10. Primarily not designed for 'in your face' gunnery and no Ti bath tub etc.

LowObservable

9th Apr 2016, 17:01

The reason why is because that community has already claimed that the entire USN test pilot community are bought and paid for shills of LM.

OK, Ken, you've had nearly 24 hours to back up or retract this claim, and now I'm calling :mad: on it.

I'm 99.999 per cent certain that nobody said it here; I'm pretty sure that nobody has said it in print anywhere.

Tourist

9th Apr 2016, 17:14

LO

Give it a rest. You and everybody on here know the point he was trying to make. It has been suggested on here enough times that whenever the various military pilots involved say something positive that they are not free to speak their true minds.

LowObservable

9th Apr 2016, 17:27

Tourist,

Had he said something like that I would not argue with him. And as we also all know, the largest F-35 customer has placed all its people under orders to tell a positive story in public.

But that's not what he said, at all. Mottes and baileys again...

Tourist

9th Apr 2016, 17:31

Every now and then, for a page or two, this thread becomes really interesting.

...then people start bickering with zero content.

LowObservable

10th Apr 2016, 02:15

Let Ken defend himself, Tourist. And that's all I have to say on this topic.

riff_raff

10th Apr 2016, 06:27

Interesting. I actually know a guy that worked on the design of the metal grate landing pad built at L-M Palmdale for F-35B testing.

Heating of the carrier deck from engine exhaust has been a problem with the AV-8, the V-22, and the F-35B.

MSOCS

10th Apr 2016, 08:09

For the UK, both the carriers will have a deck coating to mitigate accumulated heat damage from repeated F-35B recoveries. The proprietary, non-skid, Thermal Metallic Spray (TMS) has been developed by Monitor Coatings of South Shields, nr Newcastle (UK) and is performing very well under test by all accounts. Durability also very good.

Probably can't be applied to wood but then I'm pretty sure we don't have a scorched deck policy!

LowObservable

10th Apr 2016, 11:39

RR - there's a question of degree (degrees?). John Farley landed a Harrier on a ship with a wooden deck, and I don't think you'd do that with an F-35B. At least not twice.

Maus92

10th Apr 2016, 14:04

MSOCS

10th Apr 2016, 15:01

Maus, as far as I know, there was no requirement for F-35B to have a thermal burden, 'no greater than that of AV-8 or MV-22'. The USMC's total commitment to F-35B therefore attracts an additional cost of bringing other USMC assets (MOB, LHA etc) up to whatever standards the the jet requires to effectively operate. Exactly how many of those assets are encompassed in this modernisation is, I am fairly sure, a DoN&MC call, no? The Royal Navy are looking at applying TMS onto other decks and not just the QE Class carriers. Why? Well, not only is TMS able to withstand much more heating effects; it has more durability/life than CAMREX afaiu so it is seen as a wider investment beyond just F-35B. For instance, should V-22 grace their decks then the ships are already prepped.

Just my opinion.

glad rag

10th Apr 2016, 18:58

TMS must be pretty special stuff [akin to the effectivness of the shuttle thermal blocks] if it's going to comtrol heat transfer through the deck metals.

Good to see innovative British engineering!!

2805662

10th Apr 2016, 20:52

One could reasonably wonder why if the AV-8B and MV-22 had known issues with thermal stress on deck (and under deck) structures, why did the America Class require such an extensive redesign (and yard period) to accommodate the F-35B? It cost hundreds of millions of dollars to modify and refit the LHA-6 and the USS Wasp, and millions more will be spent modify the follow-on LHA-7, and refit other amphibs (LHA-8 will have the mods incorporated into its build.) These are not limited to mechanical structures: electrical systems, mx departments, space for ALIS, etc. - all need modification. I think it's reasonable to assume that A wasn't talking to B, and the thermal and mechanical loads that the F-35B imparts on underlying structures is much greater than anticipated.

I don't think that's a reasonable assumption at all. From my experience, it's easier - and cheaper - to execute a contract to the agreed build state, then let a new contract once the first is complete. That gives time for the scope of the changes to become apparent and a detailed statement of work to be written.

Otherwise you risk trying to negotiate some amorphous engineering change proposal under a contract change proposal. It becomes sole source and isn't negotiated in a competitive environment. Not a good thing for cost & schedule.

The USS America refit looks like pretty sound project management.

LowObservable

10th Apr 2016, 21:11

Maus, as far as I know, there was no requirement for F-35B to have a thermal burden, 'no greater than that of AV-8 or MV-22'. The USMC's total commitment to F-35B therefore attracts an additional cost of bringing other USMC assets (MOB, LHA etc) up to whatever standards the the jet requires to effectively operate.

Interesting question. It would be very surprising (and an important omission) if the JORD didn't say that the aircraft should be Wasp-compatible, encompassing everything that such a requirement implies. (It wouldn't have to be rated against the AV-8 or anything else.)

It would have been another serious omission to fail to define the composition, as well as the size, of a STOVL runway on land. 3000-foot runways, even in the U.S. and Europe, generally ain't made of MIL-SPEC concrete.

sandiego89

11th Apr 2016, 15:06

It does seem that the effects on steel deck and concrete spalling have been higher than anticipated with the B. Perhaps the velocities and temperatures were underappreciated. Apparently VTOL in the grocery store parking lot as per some of the early 1970's Harrier wishful marketing will not be part of the B austere field plan.... :E

Engines

11th Apr 2016, 15:29

Perhaps I can help a little here on F-35B exhaust effects. (I've posted this stuff a few times before, but it's clearly an issue that generates a lot of interest. Please forgive the repetition.)

On requirements issues as raised by LO and others,the JSF Joint Operations Requirements Document (JORD) had a set of high level statements on F-35B/C ship suitability and basing. The basic format was:

'The F-35(B or C) shall be compatible with and operationally supportable from (LHD or CVN) class ships as described in annex 'X''.

The JORD contained detailed Annexes on the ship designs, as well as the surfaces it was required to work from. From a basing perspective, the requirements were, as far as we were concerned at the time, pretty comprehensive. Certainly good enough to form the basis for building the far more detailed design requirements.

Everybody knew that the F-35B was going to pose a bigger challenge for flight deck and runway surfaces. Basic physics told us that. So the program knew that understanding and quantifying the external environment (noise, velocity, pressure, temperature) generated by the aircraft was essential. That's why the program carried out the most detailed set of tests and trials ever conducted for a powered lift aircraft. Three separate test programmes looked at how the hot gases flowed around the airframe, their effect on the airframe itself, and also the effect of the hot exhaust on a range of surfaces, including Mil Spec concrete asphalt, AM-2 matting and flight deck coatings. The results from these were immediately passed to Navair and other agencies to inform ship integration trials. A was certainly talking to B, at least from where I stood.

The results showed that deck coating erosion was manageable but significant. The arrival of the 'Thermion' coating was very timely, and it was added to the surfaces tested. The reason it performs well ( as I understand it) is the fact that it forms an exceptionally close bond with the surface it is applied to. The coating's material also has a coefficient of expansion closer to deck steel than normal paints.

These mean that it's less likely to crack and spall off. Again, I stress that this was subjected to literally hundreds of hours of testing.

I understand that there have been some issues with deck buckling - we experienced plenty of those with Sea Harriers on UK ships. The USN solution appears to be similar - addition of extra stiffening beams under the deck to support the deck plates. Not unexpected.

It's probably important to realise that integrating any new aircraft with an existing ship will require some level of modification. The integration challenge is harder for a ship than for a land base, mainly because space is constrained. Stuff like electronic antennae, weapons, people, ground equipment etc., is always going to be closer to an operating aircraft on board than ashore. Space for support facilities is also much harder to come by.

The customer understood that, and also expected to have to make ship modifications. However, the JORD also included very tight requirements for F-35B logistics footprint, to reduce the impact as far as possible.

Yes, the USN have carried out ship modifications for F-35B. But these were planned in with existing ships programmes, as far as I know.

To answer LO's point about STOL strips - yes, the JORD specified some surfaces. However, the USMC intention was always to expand the ability of the B to operate from as man types of surface as possible. As far as I know, STOL operations to concrete and asphalt do not pose any major exhaust/surface issues, as long as direct hot exhaust impingement (I.e. 90 degrees) is avoided.

I do have to admit to being ever so slightly miffed when some posters seem to assume that the people actually doing the work on the F-35 programme must have made 'serious omissions' or that 'A wasn't talking to B'.

What's happening is that a seriously talented and hard working international team are doing their damnedest to deliver a major step forward in combat capability. And have been doing so from the start. They are not numpties. This powered lift stuff is seriously hard. They know what they are doing. A little respect might, once in a while, be offered.

That said, this is a free forum, opinions can ( and should) be thrown out there. I hope that this post helps inform those opinions.

Best regards as ever to those working the sums and shaping the metal,

Engines

Courtney Mil

11th Apr 2016, 18:06

At last, the voice of reason.

KenV

11th Apr 2016, 19:03

OK, Ken, you've had nearly 24 hours to back up or retract this claim, and now I'm calling :mad: on it.
I'm 99.999 per cent certain that nobody said it here; I'm pretty sure that nobody has said it in print anywhere. Oh my. I don't visit this forum much less this thread on a daily basis. So sorry that that upsets you.

As for my claim, someone posted a link right here in the thread to a Pax River Test community video not that long ago. The orthodox berated that video as yet more F-35 propaganda. One of the more devout in the orthodox camp claimed the folks in the video were bought and paid for stooges of LM. Never mind that the video was about the accomplishments of the test folks, NOT about the airplane!! Given what they have accomplished, they were justified in thumping their chests at least a little.

I will attempt to find the post that included that link and the inflammatory post that levied the charge against the Pax River test folks. I'm certain I'm not the only one who remembers that link and that reply to it. Maybe someone can help locate it.

t43562

11th Apr 2016, 20:14

What's happening is that a seriously talented and hard working international team are doing their damnedest to deliver a major step forward in combat capability. And have been doing so from the start. They are not numpties. This powered lift stuff is seriously hard. They know what they are doing. A little respect might, once in a while, be offered.

I have worked with very clever people on projects that failed simply because they were too hard. To criticize this project is not to imply that the people who are working on it aren't extremely able.

LowObservable

12th Apr 2016, 00:18

I will attempt to find the post that included that link and the inflammatory post that levied the charge against the Pax River test folks. I'm certain I'm not the only one who remembers that link and that reply to it. Maybe someone can help locate it.

Errm, no, it wasn't "Pax River test folks", it was, according to you, "the entire USN test pilot community". So that's a pretty wide-ranging, damning charge that now you can't find evidence for.

And again, per earlier posts, the only person I can recall leveling charges of self-interest against a so-called "test community" was a paid agent of LM.

Engines

12th Apr 2016, 05:49

T43562,

Thanks for responding.

Yes, my bad there - it's quite possible for good clever hard working types to fail if the project is too hard. Sorry for not covering that angle, and thanks for pointing it out.

However, what does wring my withers ever so slightly is when people assert that the F-35 team have been stupid, or omitted obvious aspects of developing a powered lift aircraft. There I would disagree.

For what it's worth ( not much as I'm now retired and not doing it for real) my opinion (just opinion) is that the F-35 is an outstanding achievement and will take air combat a long way forward. It's not without faults, like any other aircraft. Others can and will disagree. That's all to the good.

Best regards as ever to those who deserve a little respect,

Engines

FODPlod

12th Apr 2016, 08:02

..Best regards as ever to those who deserve a little respect,

Engines

Amen. Enough posturing and directing blind vitriol towards these people and fellow posters, please. It has grown ridiculously tedious.

LowObservable

12th Apr 2016, 11:02

Best regards as ever to those who deserve a little respect,

Exactly.

KenV

12th Apr 2016, 14:16

Errm, no, it wasn't "Pax River test folks", it was, according to you, "the entire USN test pilot community". So that's a pretty wide-ranging, damning charge that now you can't find evidence for.You got me there. The Pax River test folks are the majority of but not quite the entire USN test community. On the other hand, the video I referenced, while produced by the Pax River folks, did not just cover the Pax River folks, and covered if not all, almost all of the USN test community. Can you name a part of that community the video did not cover? In any event, sorry for the slight imprecision of my statement. Nevertheless, I think it is far more correct than incorrect. And the evidence is most certainly there.

Lyneham Lad

12th Apr 2016, 14:45

Just for a change, some news that does not lend itself to controversy from any angle.
Netherlands Tanker Cleared To Refuel F-35 (http://aviationweek.com/defense/netherlands-tanker-cleared-refuel-f-35?NL=AW-05&Issue=AW-05_20160412_AW-05_602&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_1&utm_rid=CPEN1000002495459&utm_campaign=5554&utm_medium=email&elq2=2d29a3d4293f4582becb7a625f4f0803)

Interestingly F-35s to the Netherlands in May, where the aircraft will perform a series of noise perception flights to give local communities living near the RNLAF’s two main fighter bases, Leeuwarden and Volkel, an idea of the noise levels produced by the F-35 in comparison to the F-16 Fighting Falcon that it will replace.
I wonder when/if the folks resident in the Marham area will be given a similar comparison?

KenV

12th Apr 2016, 15:13

Just for a change, some news that does not lend itself to controversy from any angle.
Netherlands Tanker Cleared To Refuel F-35 (http://aviationweek.com/defense/netherlands-tanker-cleared-refuel-f-35?NL=AW-05&Issue=AW-05_20160412_AW-05_602&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_1&utm_rid=CPEN1000002495459&utm_campaign=5554&utm_medium=email&elq2=2d29a3d4293f4582becb7a625f4f0803)You underestimate the folks in this forum. The A330MRTT/Voyager is (allegedly) a much better tanker than those Dutch KDC-10s can ever hope to be. And don't even think about the KC-46. There's plenty of controversy to go around.

Lyneham Lad

12th Apr 2016, 16:30

Well, the final paragraph in the article does state:-
The KDC-10 will play a limited role in refueling the Dutch F-35s, however, as the Netherlands is involved in a multinational tanker program with Poland and Norway to purchase Airbus A330 Multi-Role Tanker-Transports. These will replace the two KDC-10s currently in service.
So the KDC-10s role in this respect will not be long-term.

Navaleye

14th Apr 2016, 21:11

After what seems like a lifetime of waiting I'm going to see the F-35b fly and get up close in Fort Lauderdale next month. This beastie of showing worrying signs of becoming reality! :ok:

sandiego89

15th Apr 2016, 19:35

KenV You underestimate the folks in this forum. The A330MRTT/Voyager is (allegedly) a much better tanker than those Dutch KDC-10s can ever hope to be. And don't even think about the KC-46. There's plenty of controversy to go around.

Please Ken, I don't think that anyone is going to argue that the KDC-10's that were bought over 24 years ago second hand from an airline are "better" than the MRTT or KC-46 that are still fresh from the factory. The KDC-10's seem to have been quite useful over the years, and the KC-10/KDC-10 were doing boom equipped multi role tanker/transport operations long before it was cool to do so. Not bad for an airframe that was first designed in the late 1960's and later developed into a tanker/transport with the KC-10 some 40 years ago. Lynham lad posted a nice link relevant to the F-35 story- no need to bash the KDC-10 by assuming that others would have some controversy over it...

riff_raff

17th Apr 2016, 04:14

While it's easy to heap criticism on the F-35B, it would be nice if people also appreciated just how difficult a task the F-35B's design presented. The shaft driven lift fan concept developed by Dr. Bevilaqua (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Bevilaqua) was a very impressive piece of engineering. And the fact that LM/Allison/R-R/P&W got it to work was also impressive. Do people realize just how difficult it is to design a 30,000hp carbon-carbon clutch reliable and light enough for use on a fighter aircraft?

ORAC

17th Apr 2016, 12:46

I have the utmost respect t for those working on the project, and I am sure it is a marvel of engineering. But at what cost?

If I had a comparison to bring to mind it would be the Space Shuttle. Another marvel of engineering which did many magnificanr things. However, it was intended as a .space "truck" which would fly with weekly turnarounds and dramatically reduce the cost of access to orbit rendering it routine.

In the event it provided inordinately complex, slow and expensive to turnaround and, in hindsight, brought the US/NASA manned space programme to its knees.

MSOCS

17th Apr 2016, 14:19

ORAC, in my opinion, you've just perfectly described the F-22 rather than the F-35. The per-airframe expense, though arguably worth it for the exceptional capability it brings in the Air Dominance role, is much more than the metric that F-35 has ever had in mind. During this period of concurrency it is genuinely difficult to predict where sustainment cost and per-airframe cost for F-35 will end up. I personally predict it to be above what is hoped to bottom out at, simply because that is what always happens for pretty much every aircraft program. I'm not talking about Total Program cost here because the delays and all have blown that figure way out of the water.

KenV

19th Apr 2016, 12:46

Please Ken, I don't think that anyone is going to argue that the KDC-10's that were bought over 24 years ago second hand from an airline are "better" than the MRTT or KC-46 that are still fresh from the factory. I never said nor remotely suggested that anyone was going to argue that the KDC-10's "are better than the MRTT or KC-46". Indeed I stated the opposite.

....no need to bash the KDC-10....I would never dream of bashing the KDC-10. I worked for Douglas back in the day and was part of the KC-10 program as well as the program to mod the Martinair DC-10s into KDC-10s. And as an aside, the KDC-10 was the first tanker ever to use a remote aerial refueling operator (RARO) station with a 3D camera system. The KC-10 used an aerial refueling operator station with a huge window in the belly, the world's largest pressurized window.

Channel 2

20th Apr 2016, 02:56

House Legislation Orders F-22 Restart Study (http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2016/04/19/house-legislation-orders-f-22-restart-study/83248788/)

Congress looks into restarting the F-22 Raptor | TheHill (http://thehill.com/policy/defense/276915-congress-looks-into-restarting-the-f-22-fighter-jet)

sandiego89

20th Apr 2016, 06:52

KenV....I never said nor remotely suggested...... I would never dream of bashing the KDC-10......l

Ken, you were the one that said the MRTT is a better tanker than the KDC-10 "could ever hope to be" and I stated no one would suggest otherwise. I know you never said the KDC was better. Please, no need to twist my words. Thank you. Sorry if I was unclear in any way.

Anyhow, back to the F-35, looks like the lighter helmet and neck injury reduction programs for lighter pilots are coming along. Lots of smart folks working hard.
First Light F-35 Helmet Test A Success (http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/2016/04/19/first-light-f-35-helmet-test-success/83230588/)

KenV

20th Apr 2016, 17:07

Ken, you were the one that said the MRTT is a better tanker than the KDC-10 "could ever hope to be" and I stated no one would suggest otherwise. I know you never said the KDC was better. Please, no need to twist my words.We're clearly misunderstanding each other. Sorry for my part in that.

insty66

20th Apr 2016, 18:59

I wonder when/if the folks resident in the Marham area will be given a similar comparison?

Soon I hope, my double glazing is beginning to show its age.

itsnotthatbloodyhard

21st Apr 2016, 04:18

A couple of F-35 questions from someone who's been out of the loop for a while:

1. The infamous 4.6g sustained turn performance - at what altitude and AUW is this? Doesn't mean a whole lot to me without knowing that.

2. The repeated claims by one or two posters here that the F-105 is superior in every conceivable metric - is there any data to back this up? Top speed is a no-brainer, but what of things like climb rate and turn performance? Sure, the F-35 is no F-22 or Typhoon, but I'm struggling to believe that its performance is so comprehensively inferior to the 105.

Courtney Mil

21st Apr 2016, 09:53

It's a while since I looked at this, but if memory serves, the requirement was detailed at 15,000ft, M0.8, 60% internal fuel, 2xAMRAAM.

You do realise you may now be treated to an angry lecture on area ruling.

itsnotthatbloodyhard

21st Apr 2016, 11:30

You do realise you may now be treated to an angry lecture on area ruling.

"Whitcomb's area ruling", you mean? :)

(And thanks for a straightforward factual reply.)

APG63

21st Apr 2016, 23:42

CM,

You recall correctly. Those were the stated parameters. The thrust reduction that's caused this is a great shame in more areas than simply sustained g, but given the altitude for the spec, it wasn't altogether a crippling revelation.

skylon

24th Apr 2016, 12:53

Mate You're a strange fellow, you compare a fighter developed in 1950's with a fighter of 2010's.. F-105 had avery dismal record in Vietnam war, the F-35 has not been tested in battle yet.The name of the game today is Avionics and no longer Aerodynamics. If someone detects you before you detect him, the game is pretty much over. Supersonic agility and maneuverability is useless if you don't know you're being shot at.F-35 will be able to carry the Meteor, AIM-120and if they survive and come close they have AIM-9X's to deal with.

MSOCS

24th Apr 2016, 13:07

One of the biggest factors affecting the outcome of aerial engagements, as studied and concluded by the USAF post-GW 1, is Situational Awareness. Yes, there are other factors, but they are in some cases significantly paler in comparison to this metric. This alone explains why such a premium has been placed on high-fidelity information flow. Datalink improvements; networks; less reliance on verbal comm. Shaping the engagement, dictating the flow, countering the enemy quickly through various means, all enhances lethality.

The playground spat on F-105 and the somewhat ill-understood (or poorly communicated) rant that followed it on area ruling isn't helpful or even remotely relevant to a debate on F-35. Regardless of the things other platforms are better at (B-52 can carry more than F-35 etc), the F-35 design concept was balanced with more pressing and more effective means in mind (Situational Awareness and a number of others). I couldn't give a rat's posterior if F-35 is thought to "minimally" conform to the Whitcombe Area Rule if it isn't as relevant today to lethality as it was back in the 60s. In those days your bombs rarely hit directly (had to carry more!) and had to have accel/speed to get outta SAM threats quickly.

Whether you agree or not, Channel 2, modern fighting concepts have moved on considerably from what was important even 20 years ago and we're now well beyond being able to "get outta dodge quickly". Stealth really is a must. If that stealth means you get in and get out then great. If SA means you are superior in engagements then great. If those and other factors mean you have to stick some of your Whitcombe Area Rule up your posterior, as a result of physics and expert design, then frankly I rest my case your Honour.

This is why most of the professional fighter pilots here read your remarks with more than a little bit of contempt.

ORAC

24th Apr 2016, 13:28

Whether you agree or not, Channel 2, modern fighting concepts have moved on considerably from what was important even 20 years ago and we're now well beyond being able to "get outta dodge quickly". Stealth really is a must...... The USN disagree, perhaps the world has moved on again......

https://news.usni.org/2016/04/21/navy-seeking-family-of-systems-to-replace-super-hornets-growlers-sheds-fa-xx-title

"The break with the Air Force in a joint development of NGAD’s system speaks to a lingering cultural difference between the Air Force and the Navy in tactical air development. The Air Force has traditionally favored faster and stealthier manned platforms – like the F-22. The Navy focuses development on the ability of tactical aviation to field and deliver payloads.

In early 2015, then-Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert said the follow-on to the Super Hornets would likely rely less on stealth and speed and would ideally be expandable to include evolving weapons systems.

“I don’t want to necessarily say that [stealth is] over but let’s face it, if something moves fast through the air and disrupts molecules in the air and puts out heat – I don’t care how cool the engine can be – it’s going to be detectable,” he said. The Super Hornet follow-on “has to have an ability to carry a payload such that it can deploy a spectrum of weapons. It has to be able to acquire access probably by suppressing enemy air defenses… Today it’s radar but it might be something more in the future.”.........

Turbine D

24th Apr 2016, 15:46

ORAC,
The USN disagree, perhaps the world has moved on again......

This is now where the philosophy differs between the USAF and the USN for the next fighter/attack aircraft. IMHO, the next round will evolve two distinctly different aircraft, one for each service that matches their individually identified missions.

From what I have read, there is no mention of a future Marine style F-35B which IMHO, doomed both the A and C versions to less than optimum capability. I hopefully imagine the US DoD may have learned a lesson once again, forgotten from the years ago 1960s fiasco.

Turbine D

24th Apr 2016, 18:50

Since we are back to comparing yesteryear with today, numbers don't really work that well. The F-105D was designed for one primary purpose, the supersonic, low altitude penetration to deliver a single tossed, internally carried nuclear bomb. The emphasis was placed on low-altitude speed and flight characteristics, range and payload. Traditional fighter attributes such as maneuverability were a secondary consideration. Initial F-105Ds were based in Europe, within range of intended targets, generally flat terrain and open spaces. McNamara, upon coming to power, determined that the F-105 has only a single mission capability, failed to meet criteria for integrative enhancement of flexible force structure, and was non-cost-effective. Then came Vietnam.

Since assets to bomb Vietnam targets were minimal (the B-52s were limited to strategic retaliation against the USSR), F-105Ds were moved from Europe to the Far East. when there, the aircraft's offensive capabilities were sarcastically referred to as a "Triple Threat" — it could bomb you, strafe you, or fall on you. You don't need a degree in aeronautics to figure it out. Lose power in an F-105 and it will fall out of the sky like a rock. Hang a full load of ordnance under its wings and it won’t climb very high. Point its nose at the ground, and it will dive like a lawn dart. At that time, on the Howdy Doody Kiddies Show, there was a character by the name of Chief Thunderthud. It had a nice ring to it. Thunder THUD. Thud, as in the noise made by a large heavy object hitting the ground. So, the F-105 became the Thunderthud, and finally, in life and legend, just The Thud. There is no disrespect here. The name came from the pilots that flew them and mused in the club afterward what an appropriate name might be. 334 of 833 procured were lost over Vietnam. The F-105Ds had teething problems as well, in fact twice the entire fleet was grounded for engine failures and fuel flow problems in '61/'62. It took until '67 to fully resolve the engine problems.

As to area rules which have been credited for fantastic F-105D performance, OK465 explained the real area rules quite well.
There were three 'area rules' that applied to the F-105.

1) It took an inordinate amount of 'geographic area' to turn it around (7.33 corner was somewhere around 500 with reasonably negative SEP))

2) It was able to leave a 'geographic area' straight-ahead at an inordinately high speed in its early days (later on not so much)

3) It took quite a large 'geographic area' to build a runway long enough for it to get airborne (even with its water injection system)

1) and 2) limited the F-105d effectiveness in missions over Vietnam. Not only that, The F-105D turned too slowly to reliably beat the Russian-made MiG-21, the Thunderthud's main potential rival at the time. So the USAF received from the Israeli Government an MIG-21 to look at tactics for survival. What was learned was that encountering a MiG-21, the F-105 crew should try to flee, the testers advised. If the F-105 was behind the MiG-21 and the MiG flier didn’t know it, the Thunderchief crew could attempt a high-speed ambush.
But when the F-105 and MiG-21 started out in equal and opposite positions, the F-105 was in trouble. “If the F-105 attacker attempts a prolonged maneuvering engagement, it becomes vulnerable to follow-up attacks as the offensive situation deteriorates due to loss of energy and maneuvering potential,” the Air Force reported.

Comparing the F-35A to the F-105D by means of numbers and area rules isn't the whole story to conclude the F-105D is either equal to or better than an F-35A.

The F-35A's perceived lack of fighter maneuverability, yet to be fully determined, should be more than mitigated in air to air situations by its stand off electronic capability, situational awareness and communications with accompanying aircraft, at least I would hope so.

Courtney Mil

24th Apr 2016, 21:39

Turbine D,

Surprised you're still discussing this ridiculous comparison, but your points are spot on. The F-105 was one of few aircraft withdrawn from a theatre of operations because of its appalling loss rate.

Courtney Mil

24th Apr 2016, 21:57

If SA means you are superior in engagements then great

You raise a very important point, that seems to have fallen by the wayside a bit in this thread recently. SA is king and that is the point of Gen 4 & 5 fighters - stealth to deny SA and sensors and links to build it.

MSOCS

25th Apr 2016, 05:56

I'll leave you to ad hominem to your heart's desire, C2. Odd that the Pacific Vision presentation (90-slide pack) cited a lack of turn/climb/runaway as a damning disadvantage in 2008 but the same author says it isn't the characteristic set required of the future, in the much more accurate (in my mil pilot opinion) trends analysis. I know that Stillion authored both. One set of his attributed analysis contradicts the other and but agree with most within his trends paper - very insightful in places. Stealth is a must; SA is king. Both increase weapon system lethality and are waaaayy more significant than manoeuvre, climb etc. The trends paper backs this thinking up.

PhilipG

25th Apr 2016, 14:25

Picking up on the SA points made above, obviously a 5th Generation Stealth/y plane has an advantage over a non stealth/y plane with poor SA, the whole argument that a 5th Generation plane will engage at range and that Dog Fighting ability is not important, assuming that your plane has some weapons available.

My question is what happens when two equally SA and Stealth/y planes with equally competent pilots converge on the same piece of the sky, it would seem that there is a possibility that they might only be aware of each other within +/- Dog Fighting range, this brings into question how important it is to be able to dog fight in a 5th Generation plane.

Or put another way, if F22s have been both red and blue in an exercise at what sort of range did they become aware of each other? I am not seeking an exact range but an indication of at what sort of range the tactical map (SA) firms up.

Lonewolf_50

25th Apr 2016, 14:29

One of the biggest factors affecting the outcome of aerial engagements, as studied and concluded by the USAF post-GW 1, is Situational Awareness.
If I recall correctly, Manfred von Richtoffen said something about seeing the other guy first, and accurate gunnery, deciding about 9/10 air to air engagements.

Courtney Mil

25th Apr 2016, 16:54

And we both know he was right, Wolf. See first, shoot first, kill first.

typerated

29th Apr 2016, 06:41

Skipping a little back on the thread and joining the dots I was left with the impression that despite a conventional high wing loading, the lifting body part of the airframe may make the aircraft 'normally' fighter wing loaded.
anyone care to elaborate on that?

If this is the case is the C model then a little lightly wing loaded? I was previously thinking the C model might have a bit of an edge in agility?

On a different tack does anyone have any ideas how the US Navy will use the aircraft WRT to the F-18E?
I'm sure not too many will disagree in calling both aircraft jack of all trades in terms of performance - but one is stealthy and the other isn't.

so F-35s take the strike role and the 18's air defence? or the other way around? I suppose the F-35 will get whatever is deemed as higher risk?

I'd assume as the F-35 comes on strength RAF Typhoons would concentrate more on Air Defence after taking on A-G as Tornado retires.
I can't imagine you would have F-35 doing Air Defence and the Typhoon A-G?

KenV

29th Apr 2016, 14:47

On a different tack does anyone have any ideas how the US Navy will use the aircraft WRT to the F-18E? I'm sure not too many will disagree in calling both aircraft jack of all trades in terms of performance - but one is stealthy and the other isn't.
USN sees F-35 as a compliment to F-18E/F as well as a force multiplier. Besides stealth, the F-35 has a sensor suite the F-18 lacks. But with datalinking, the F-18's will have all the sensor data that the F-35's have. The only role the F-35 will be assigned to and not the F/A-18 is the "first day of war" penetration mission to a heavily air defended target area. But even that may change if air defense systems adapt and are able to counter stealth and USN relies more on jamming using Growlers than on stealth. Or maybe using Gowlers as stand off jammers (as opposed to escort jammers) to support F-35s who would still fly the first day penetration missions. Unlike USAF, USN has not put all their eggs in the stealth basket. Seeing as the F-35C is still a ways off from IOC and way way off from FOC, things are in a state of flux in USN. Tactical doctrine will be fleshed out once enough F-35s get into the fleet and they figure out its full capabilities and how to best use F/A-18 and F-35 together.

I can't imagine you would have F-35 doing Air Defence and the Typhoon A-G? A LOT of money is being spent to give Typhoon a very good A2G capability. It would be a huge waste to not to use it when needed. And the F-35 has a pretty potent A2A capability. It would be a huge waste not to use it when needed.

tdracer

29th Apr 2016, 18:37

It would appear that we'll soon have some real F-35 vs. A-10 data:

A-10 vs. F-35: Air Force warplanes to face off - CNNPolitics.com (http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/28/politics/air-force-f-35-vs-a-10-showdown/index.html)

"We are going to do a comparative test of the ability of the F-35 to perform close air support, combat search-and-rescue missions and related missions with the A-10," Michael Gilmore, the Pentagon's director of operational test and evaluation, told a Senate Armed Service Committee hearing on Tuesday.

Time to grab some popcorn :E

Maus92

29th Apr 2016, 21:25

@typerated

The Navy intends to use its F-35Cs to replace F/A-18A-D. The Super Hornets and the remaining legacy Hornets will continue to fly all missions until there are sufficient numbers of F-35Cs in fleet service, at which time the Super Hornets will transition to more of an AD force, while the F-35C prosecute the deep strike missions in contested airspace.

However, block 3F F-35s are limited in in the number and types of weapons they can employ, so the plan is to use them as forward sensor nodes and armed scouts until block 4.x comes online sometime in the 2020's. Block 4.x is a major upgrade in capability for the F-35s, but will be delivered in increments. What will be included in each increment has not been decided, but it will require an ICP upgrade / TR to support new weapons, radar modes and EW capabilities, and from past experience, re-hosting software onto new hardware has not been a smooth process for the program. The Navy needs block 4.x to support ASMs, anti-radiation missiles and/or an expendable EW payload, otherwise the Super Hornets will have to continue to fly all missions - which they probably will anyway.

ORAC

30th Apr 2016, 12:09

Only One of Six Air Force F-35s Could Actually Take Off During Testing (http://fortune.com/2016/04/28/f-35-fails-testing-air-force/)

Five of six Air Force F-35 fighter jets were unable to take off during a recent exercise due to software bugs that continue to hamstring the world’s most sophisticated—and most expensive—warplane.

During a mock deployment at Mountain Home Air Force Base in Idaho, just one of the $100 million Lockheed Martin F-35s was able to boot its software successfully and get itself airborne during an exercise designed to test the readiness of the F-35, FlightGlobal reports (https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/f-35-chief-considers-fix-for-troubling-block-3i-soft-424650/). Nonetheless, the Air Force plans to declare its F-35s combat-ready later this year.

Details surrounding the failed exercise were disclosed earlier this week in written testimony presented to Congress by J. Michael Gilmore, the Pentagon’s chief weapons tester. “The Air Force attempted two alert launch procedures during the Mountain Home deployment, where multiple F-35A aircraft were preflighted and prepared for a rapid launch, but only one of the six aircraft was able to complete the alert launch sequence and successfully takeoff,” Gilmore wrote. “Problems during startup that required system or aircraft shutdowns and restarts – a symptom of immature systems and software–prevented the other alert launches from being completed.”

It’s not the only recent example of “immature systems and software” stalling progress on the $400 billion F-35 program. Aside from reports of glitches affecting both the onboard and ground-based software that drive the F-35—including bugs in the F-35’s radar software that requires periodic in-air radar reboots and maintenance software problems that could potentially ground the entire fleet—Gilmore detailed another recent example in which F-35s had to abort their test mission due to software stability issues. In that incident, two of four F-35s loaded with an earlier version of the combat jet’s software were forced to abort a test of the aircraft’s radar jamming and threat detection capabilities due to software stability problems encountered at startup. The aircraft that were able to fly didn’t do so well in the evaluation either, Gilmore added.

Perhaps more troublesome for the F-35 program, overall, is the fact that software stability seems to be getting worse. U.S. Marine Corps F-35Bs loaded with an earlier version of the software are reportedly the most stable, enjoying up to eight hours between “software stability events,” military lingo for glitches in one of the aircraft’s computer programs. The Marine Corps has already declared its F-35s combat ready, though Gilmore acknowledged that in real-world combat the F-35B would require assistance acquiring targets and avoiding threats. The Air Force runs a newer version of the software known as “Block 3i” on its F-35s, and gets roughly half the time between significant software glitches—though F-35 program chief Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan recently told reporters that a new version of Block 3i software appears to have tripled in stability during tests, going up to 15 hours without a serious software issue.

Earlier this week Bogdan told reporters that despite the software issues, the Air Force still plans to declare its F-35s combat-ready sometime later this year. That could happen as soon as August, he said, though problems with the F-35s ground-based maintenance software will likely push that declaration back 60 days to October.

ORAC

2nd May 2016, 05:54

Lots of interesting bits.....

http://docs.house.gov/meetings/AS/AS25/20160323/104712/HHRG-114-AS25-Wstate-GilmoreM-20160323.pdf

ORAC

2nd May 2016, 06:38

Could Connectivity Failure Ground F-35? It's Complicated (http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/2016/04/27/could-connectivity-failure-ground-f-35-program-chief-gao-disagree/83589006/)

Maus92

2nd May 2016, 14:22

And another tidbit surfaced in last week's Senate hearing on the F-35: During the course of the Marines "expeditionary" deployment at 29 Palms, two F-35B jets were downed by FOD. This was not widely publicized by the Marines, SLD, the program office, or the other usual suspects. It was contained in written testimony from the DOT&E. No wonder some have their knives out for that organization - it seems it is the only source of factual and non-biased / untainted information on the program.

glad rag

2nd May 2016, 15:23

Maus92

2nd May 2016, 19:23

"The Marine Corps conducted an assessment of F-35B austere site deployed operations at Twentynine Palms, California, from December 8 – 16, 2015, with eight F-35B aircraft assigned. The Marines intended to fly four aircraft a day from an expeditionary landing field made of aluminum matting and with minimal permanent infrastructure, representing the type of temporary airfield that can be quickly built near the forward line of troops. The demonstration included the use of inert ordnance and production representative support equipment. Aircraft availability for this detachment was again in the 55 to 60 percent range, which led to a significant number of missed flights on the planned flight schedule. The detachment flew 41 out of 79 planned missions; however, 22 of the 38 missions not flown were due to high crosswinds which made landing and taking off from the aluminum matting too risky. Overall, 16 missions were lost due to either lack of aircraft availability, difficulties in transferring and accepting aircraft data into the deployed ALIS, or ground aborts. Propulsion system maintenance was particularly burdensome. Two F-35B aircraft received foreign object damage to their engine fan stages, a result from operating in rugged conditions with jet wash likely blowing small rocks into aircraft intakes. This prevented those aircraft from further participation in flying activities until repairs were completed just prior to the ferry flights home. A contractor technician was called in from the East Coast and was able to repair the engine damage on site, as opposed to having to perform a full engine swap. A further engine system discrepancy required an aircraft swap around mid- way through the detachment. Routine flight operations, such as aircraft start-up and basic troubleshooting, also relied heavily on contractor maintenance."

lomapaseo

2nd May 2016, 20:13

Two F-35B aircraft received foreign object damage to their engine fan stages, a result from operating in rugged conditions with jet wash likely blowing small rocks into aircraft intakes.

Certainly not unique to most forward facing fighter inlets.

Lonewolf_50

2nd May 2016, 20:55

Certainly not unique to most forward facing fighter inlets. On this forum, such events seem to be assumed to be F-35 specific unless proved otherwise. :p (One would think that a form of procedural mitigation learned from Harrier ops would be the key to avoiding this? :confused: )
Perhaps more troublesome for the F-35 program, overall, is the fact that software stability seems to be getting worse. Tip of the iceberg, as software gets more patches and fixes to meet timetables/schedules? :confused:

Turbine D

2nd May 2016, 21:59

Lots of interesting bits.....

Looks like everything is proceeding along according to Hoyle... :ouch:

Turbine D

3rd May 2016, 02:33

During the course of the Marines "expeditionary" deployment at 29 Palms, two F-35B jets were downed by FOD.

Back in the good old days when they thought of everything that could go wrong and prepared for it:

Incredible Jet Landing on an Aircraft Carrier (http://www.chonday.com/Videos/harrierlj2)

Maus92

3rd May 2016, 18:15

@LW - There are photos of Marines with brooms at the 29 Palms landing area...

ORAC

3rd May 2016, 20:02

"Block-Buy" vs "Multi-Year". Not all weasels are politicians......

F-35 Stealth Fighter Chief Struggles to Justify Block Buy | The National Interest Blog (http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/f-35-stealth-fighter-chief-struggles-justify-block-buy-16008)

2805662

4th May 2016, 05:08

ORAC

4th May 2016, 09:00

The Marines Are Running Out of Fighter Jets - The Daily Beast (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/05/03/the-marines-are-running-out-of-fighter-jets.html)

glad rag

4th May 2016, 12:49

The Marines Are Running Out of Fighter Jets - The Daily Beast (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/05/03/the-marines-are-running-out-of-fighter-jets.html)
Interesting article.

So what is going to die first, F35B or USMC FJ aviation?

A "the choice is yours" moment approaches..

Tourist

4th May 2016, 14:34

Quite a strange article really.

It seems to suggest that "hoarding" money in advance of a new purchase was unwise.

It seems perfectly reasonable that there will transitional difficulties.

Lonewolf_50

4th May 2016, 15:36

The Marines Are Running Out of Fighter Jets - The Daily Beast (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/05/03/the-marines-are-running-out-of-fighter-jets.html) Having watched David "Grind My" Axe turn the wheel at the V-22 over the years, I'd take anything he writes with a grain of salt. The slow-motion collapse of the combat squadrons could This kind of sensationalist language is packaged that way for novices and ignoramuses to consume. The one piece I recognize from when another Democratic President was in office is this one
The Marines’ wish list for 2017 includes a staggering $800 million for warplane spare parts We ran into the same problem in the 90's in (at the very least) P-3, SH-60F, and SH-60B squadrons. O&M funds get/got raided since they are the most accessible. With the cut backs in the last three years, gee, Who Saw This Coming? (Anyone who is familiar with DoD funding and programming).

Axe pretends that spares for current inventory and APN-1 acquisition projects are the same thing. They aren't. By law the money is a different color for each. If he's such a :mad:ing expert, he'd know that. But he isn't.

In his defense: the problem he describes, the extended deployments and the home training squadrons having few up birds is a very real one. Always has been. Deployed forces get supply priority over home based forces. That's a decades old story.

The conclusion Axe draws from this is ... well, his usual line of manure.

MSOCS

4th May 2016, 21:07

The article quotes $250m per aircraft. That's utter tosh. Baloney. It may be the approx cost per aircraft of early LRIP jets, but not across the total buy. That'd be insane.

I'm not surprised that Axe doesn't get that.

Obba

6th May 2016, 22:42

Any news from the A10 vs F35 games yet?

Navaleye

7th May 2016, 19:31

It flies! I saw it with my own eyes not two hours ago. Not the most exciting display.

Good to see the Harrier airborne as well. Also volumes to be said for having proper fast jets on dispels teams.

PhilipG

9th May 2016, 15:59

Any news from the A10 vs F35 games yet?
Possible stupid question but can the A10 v F35 games start until Block 3F software is available? Putting an F35 with two internal weapons for CAS against an A10 would not quite be a level playing field.

Rhino power

10th May 2016, 15:00

The F-35 JPO has declared that the 3i software is good to go, but wasn't Gilmore up before Congress only about a week ago saying that 3i was still riddled with bugs?
Good news if they've cracked it though nontheless...

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/f-35-locked-and-loaded-with-improved-block-3i-softwa-425098/

F-35 Program Office Signs Off On Air Force 3i Software (http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/2016/05/09/f-35-program-office-signs-off-air-force-3i-software/84138390/)

-RP

Hempy

10th May 2016, 15:06

I thought the Marines had signed off on IOC.

Oh...wait.

ORAC

11th May 2016, 16:32

I thought the Marines had signed off on IOC.

A Day in the Life of An F-35 Test Pilot (http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/2016/05/10/f-35-test-pilot-edwards-air-force-development/84042220/)

EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. — Here at the F-35 integrated test force, pilots spend their days simulating real missions to prepare the jets to one day operate on the battlefield.

Defense News got a glimpse into the day-to-day life of an F-35 test pilot during a May 4 visit to Edwards Air Force Base. We followed Maj. Raven LeClair, assistant director of operations for the 461st flight test squadron, as he zipped up his flight suit, climbed into the cockpit, taxied to the runway and finally took off into the clear, desert sky.

Around 10 a.m., LeClair walked out to begin checking his jet, which was loaded with a version of the Block 3F software that will eventually give the plane its full combat capability. AF-3 was set to fly a captive carry missile test using AIM 9X and AIM 120 missiles, an exercise meant to test that the loaded weapons can communicate with the jet's main computer.

The first sign of trouble was the appearance of a “nuisance ICAW,” which stands for indications, cautions and warnings — essentially a false indication that the 270-volt battery that powers up the aircraft had failed. The team had to restart the jet's main power plant twice to get the false warning light to go away. Then, the jet’s electronic warfare system failed to power up correctly. The team tried recycling the different systems to avoid fully restarting the jet, also called a “cold iron” reset, but had little success.

Just before 11:30 a.m., the team shut down and rebooted the jet, starting the entire process from scratch. But this time, the startup was clean, according to John Day, AF-3’s flight test control engineer. At 11:40 a.m., the pilot got a thumbs up, and Day took a bow. “The second startup was so clean, it was ridiculous,” he said.

LeClair finally lifted off around noon, lighting up his afterburner to cheers from the team.

But problems continued after liftoff. During the flight, one of the weapons had problems talking to the main computer, and LeClair was forced to land again so the team could reset the stores management system. AF-3 eventually completed the planned mission, but the team observed a number of “anomalies” during the flight. They plan to review the test data to determine a root cause.

The startup issues LeClair and AF-3's team experienced May 4, though just one test point, are representative of what F-35 pilots are seeing every day....."