F-35 Cancelled, then what ? [Archive] - Page 38

ORAC

17th May 2016, 06:28

Ties into the Senate JPO closure recommendation.....

The F-35 Stealth Fighter's Dirty Little Secret Is Now Out in the Open | The National Interest Blog (http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-f-35-stealth-fighters-dirty-little-secret-now-out-the-16211)

The U.S. Senate just confirmed what an Air Force general hinted at in February 2016 — and which should have been obvious for years to close observers of U.S. air power.

The Joint Strike Fighter program is not developing one, common warplane for the U.S. Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps and the air arms of America’s closest allies. No, the Joint Strike Fighter is actually three different plane designs sharing a basic cockpit, engine and software and a logistical network. The Air Force’s F-35A, the Marines’ F-35B and the Navy’s F-35C should, in all fairness, be the F-35, F-36 and F-37.

“Despite aspirations for a joint aircraft, the F-35A, F-35B and F-35C are essentially three distinct aircraft, with significantly different missions and capability requirements,” the Senate stated in its version of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2017.......

The Senate’s assertion comes just three months after U.S. Air Force lieutenant general Christopher Bogdan, head of the JSF program office, told a seminar audience that the three F-35 models are only 20- to 25-percent common, mainly in their cockpits. It’s “almost like three separate production lines,” Bogdan said, according toAir Force magazine. A real joint fighter, the program boss said, is “hard” because each branch is adamant about its requirements. “You want what you want,” Bogdan said........ [more]

glad rag

17th May 2016, 12:42

Second time that $250 million/F-35B has been quoted Hmmm....

Still who cares eh?

:mad:

Lonewolf_50

17th May 2016, 12:44

That report gets at the root of the problem to begin with (root cause analysis): but it has to be 1 size fits all, it doesn't matter if the requirements aren't identical! On the bright side, the "commonality" between the Black Hawk and the Sea Hawk (UH-60 series to SH-60 series) was a whole lot less than was advertised when the Navy made the decision to use the S-70 as the airframe for their LAMPS requirement. But that's another story. "Parts commonality" is one of those terms that I discovered over time is loaded.

KenV

17th May 2016, 12:46

“Despite aspirations for a joint aircraft, the F-35A, F-35B and F-35C are essentially three distinct aircraft, with significantly different missions and capability requirements,” the Senate stated in its version of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2017.......And this is a surprise?!!? And how long will it be before the one area of "commonality" (the cockpit/systems) of the Navy and USAF versions diverge? Israel is already on record as significantly diverging from the USAF standard even though they bought the A model and have yet to receive a single one. The "one size fits all" mantra from the government was a fantasy in the 1960s and remains a fantasy half a century later.

Lonewolf_50

17th May 2016, 12:48

Maybe we should look on the bright side. With just one program office instead of three, the DoD saves on overhead.

KenV

17th May 2016, 13:07

Maybe we should look on the bright side. With just one program office instead of three, the DoD saves on overhead. How long will that last? USAF has bought NAVAIR managed tactical aircraft in the past, but USN has never (that I can think of) bought USAF managed tactical aircraft. Yeah, I know, its a "joint" program office, but lets face it, USAF as the biggest and most committed customer runs that "joint" office. Me thinks USN/NAVAIR will chafe and there will be changes there. And NAVAIR has always managed USMC aircraft, so I doubt there will ever be three program offices. So maybe two program offices in the future? One to manage the As and the other to manage the Bs and Cs? And if that happens it will be interesting to see how FMS is handled, seeing as some FMS customers have As and some Bs.

JPFTEJerez

17th May 2016, 17:05

The same old thing will happen if they bin the F-35... Life extension of the Tornados.

Lonewolf_50

17th May 2016, 17:58

How long will that last? USAF has bought NAVAIR managed tactical aircraft in the past, but USN has never (that I can think of) bought USAF managed tactical aircraft. Yeah, I know, its a "joint" program office, but lets face it, USAF as the biggest and most committed customer runs that "joint" office. Me thinks USN/NAVAIR will chafe and there will be changes there. And NAVAIR has always managed USMC aircraft, so I doubt there will ever be three program offices. So maybe two program offices in the future? One to manage the As and the other to manage the Bs and Cs? And if that happens it will be interesting to see how FMS is handled, seeing as some FMS customers have As and some Bs. My only comment is that the Joint Program Office that we had to deal with during T-6 Texan II implementation was ... :mad: I cannot actually post my sentiments. Suffice to say that at long last, the Navy did end up with the T-6B.

West Coast

17th May 2016, 20:36

How long will that last? USAF has bought NAVAIR managed tactical aircraft in the past, but USN has never (that I can think of) bought USAF managed tactical aircraft.

The pedant in me requires that I take up the challenge...

A bit player, and only for a relatively short while, F-16N.

Still out there today, the F-5.

Rhino power

17th May 2016, 22:35

The same old thing will happen if they bin the F-35... Life extension of the Tornados.

That's an odd interjection at this late stage of the thread...
The F-35 isn't going to get binned, haven't you figured that out yet?
The total number the RAF/FAA will eventually end up with, now that's another matter entirely...

-RP

JPFTEJerez

18th May 2016, 09:20

I know they won't get binned, it was a mere play on the fact that they've used any old excuse to extend the tornado's life.

KenV

18th May 2016, 13:28

The pedant in me requires that I take up the challenge...
A bit player, and only for a relatively short while, F-16N.
Still out there today, the F-5. You got me!!

And the pedant in me requires me to say that neither were USN operational aircraft. Only a handful were acquired by USN to provide dissimilar adversary training. But USN did indeed acquire them and they were indeed tactical aircraft.

KenV

18th May 2016, 13:32

My only comment is that the Joint Program Office that we had to deal with during T-6 Texan II implementation was ... http://cdn.pprune.org/images/smilies/censored.gifThat was indeed a nightmare and one of the reasons I think the F-35 Joint Program Office may split up once USN starts getting significant numbers of F-35s. Especially if the F-35C (and maybe the B) cockpit and systems diverge from the F-35A.

Rhino power

18th May 2016, 13:37

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/411-million-investment-in-new-missile-for-uks-new-jets-sustains-700-uk-jobs

-RP

sandiego89

18th May 2016, 16:57

You got me!!

And the pedant in me requires me to say that neither were USN operational aircraft. Only a handful were acquired by USN to provide dissimilar adversary training. But USN did indeed acquire them and they were indeed tactical aircraft.

And to be super pedant, the C-130 is considered by many to be a "tactical" aircraft. At least a tactical airlifter :E Yes I know you meant tactical jets, and are talking about "managed". Indeed there are few examples of USN Navy buying USAF aircraft.

Perhaps the FJ-2 Fury is the closest (and only) Air Force jet fighter making the transition to a US Navy carrier capable jet fighter, as it was pretty much a navalized F-86E. Not to be confused with the early straight wing Fury which was Navy from the drawing board.

KenV

18th May 2016, 18:11

And to be super pedant, the C-130 is considered by many to be a "tactical" aircraft. At least a tactical airlifter http://cdn.pprune.org/images/smilies/evil.gif Yes I know you meant tactical jets, and are talking about "managed". Indeed there are few examples of USN Navy buying USAF aircraft.

Perhaps the FJ-2 Fury is the closest (and only) Air Force jet fighter making the transition to a US Navy carrier capable jet fighter, as it was pretty much a navalized F-86E. Not to be confused with the early straight wing Fury which was Navy from the drawing board. Two more great points!! But to be hyper pedant, in USN Tacair refers to tactical strike aircraft that operate from carriers, they may or may not be jet powered. The A-1 for example was not. And while the FJ-2 was a navalized F-86, NAVAIR managed that program and all the FJ-2s ended up going to land based USMC squadrons. USN didn't like its low speed handling characteristics behind the boat. The FJ-3 was a further improvement with a Brit engine (license built Saphire) and tweaked wing to improve handling, but while they went to USN squadrons, USN didn't like them either. Although an FJ-3 was the first aircraft to board USN's new super carrier (Forrestal) The definitive version was the FJ-4, but that was an extensive redesign that (like the Navy F-35) had an entirely different wing and the Wright/Saphire engine. The B model was nuclear capable and was USN's primary nuclear delivery platform for some time.

And perhaps the FJ experience is where the F-35 is headed. The FJ started out as a USAF airplane that Navair completely took over and that Navair changed extensively relative to the F-86. By the time Navair was done with it, the "Navy Sabre" had almost nothing in common with the USAF Sabre and flew a completely different mission than USAF Sabres. The only similarity was the general shape/configuration.

ORAC

20th May 2016, 05:28

Boeing Disputes Denmark's F-35 Evaluation (http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/2016/05/19/boeing-disputes-denmarks-f-35-evaluation/84613000/)

Turbine D

20th May 2016, 15:49

Denmark should place an order for 28 F-35s at $83M each, delivery starting next year and see what happens.

TEEEJ

23rd May 2016, 08:29

Live feed for the arrival of Royal Netherlands Air Force F-35s at Leeuwarden.
According to the aviation enthusiast forums the F-35s will depart Patuxent River around 1100 BST and arrive at Leeuwarden around 1900 BST.

wACWvCTkb-g&feature=related

sandiego89

23rd May 2016, 12:40

Weather kind of cruddy around Pax River this morning.

Stops en-route?

Also, unrelated, it looks like a RAF Voyager is at pax River for refueling trials with the F-35B.

http://www.sldinfo.com/rafs-airbus-tanker-at-pax-river-working-with-the-f-35b/

TEEEJ

23rd May 2016, 16:35

Sandiego89 wrote

Stops en-route?

Apparently direct flight supported by KDC-10. Reported as running behind schedule on Twitter.

First eastbound transatlantic crossing by #F35 running behind schedule, due to land at @VlbLeeuwarden around 20.45..

https://twitter.com/Rotorfocus/status/734769416437682177

t43562

23rd May 2016, 16:39

This video is very long and uneventful so don't watch more than a couple of seconds of it. It seems like a painful process if this has to be done to a large deck area.
K3GVSir5OSI

ORAC

23rd May 2016, 16:50

U.K. Planning Four Front-Line F-35 Squadrons | Defense content from Aviation Week (http://aviationweek.com/defense/uk-planning-four-front-line-f-35-squadrons)

LONDON—The U.K. is planning to build a future force of four front-line F-35 squadrons, now that the country has committed to a fleet of 138 aircraft.

The U.K. will build a front-line fleet of 48 aircraft, 12 per squadron. A fifth unit, also with 12 aircraft, will be formed as an operational conversion unit (OCU), Air Cmdr. Harvey Smyth, the commander of the U.K.’s Lightning Force, told reporters on the sidelines of an F-35 training conference here May 19. An additional three aircraft will serve with 17 Sqn, an operational test and evaluation unit which will be based at Edwards AFB, California. This means the U.K. will have an operational fleet of around 63 aircraft, less than half of the total number of F-35s that the U.K. has agreed to purchase under last year’s Strategic Defense and Security Review. But Smyth pointed out that the total number would cover attrition replacements and the so-called sustainment fleet, which is defined as additional aircraft required to sustain the fleet to its out-of-service date as well as to cover maintenance. Other U.K. combat aircraft also have large sustainment fleets.

The U.K. is in the process of establishing its first front-line unit, 617 Sqn., which will be stood up at MCAS Beaufort, South Carolina in January 2018. The squadron will move to the U.K. that summer and achieve an interim operating capability on land by that year’s end. “Once the squadron is formed up, they have six months to get things squared away before starting a transition back to the U.K. starting in June of 2018,” Smyth told delegates.

Smyth said the U.K. does not plan to disperse its F-35s to other bases. All F-35 operations will be concentrated at RAF Marham, Norfolk, currently the U.K.’s main Panavia Tornado operating base. Over the coming years Marham’s infrastructure will undergo an about £500 million renovation. It will include the construction of an integrated training center and maintenance facilities, as well as improvements to runways, taxiways and the construction of three hover pads. U.K. operations will be conducted from hardened aircraft shelters (HAS), each of which can house two aircraft. Two HAS sites at Marham with multiple shelters will eventually each house two squadrons.

The OCU unit, which has not been given a squadron number, will begin training in the U.K. in the third quarter of 2019. The second front-line squadron, 809 Naval Air Squadron, will not form until April 2023. The F-35s will form the backbone of the U.K.’s carrier strike capability, using the two new Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers. So the Lightning Force will also have to begin preparing to go to sea. First sea trials with F-35s operating from the ship are planned for late 2018 off the U.S. East Coast. A maritime initial operating capability at sea is expected in late 2020.

Smyth told delegates the Lightning Force would face some challenges training in U.K. airspace. The U.K.’s increasingly crowded skies means that performing large-scale exercises with multiple flights would likely have to be done overseas or in a synthetic environment. Overseas options include the Red Flag exercises in Nevada or Alaska or Maple Flag at Cold Lake in Canada. Australia is also considering conducting exercises in its extensive Woomera ranges, where the U.K. tested its Taranis unmanned combat air vehicle demonstrator.

“In the good old days … we could put 40-50-60 aircraft into Scotland and run a pretty good joined up exercise and everyone would have their own piece of airspace and we’d get lots of good training out of it,” Smyth told delegates. “I can pretty much take up that airspace with an F-35 four-ship, so when we start talking about putting multiple four-ships out of Marham or Lakenheath, the U.K. simply isn’t big enough. If the U.K. itself was a range, we would struggle,” Smyth said.

Training was also handicapped by the possibility of adversaries listening to electronic emissions. “Our Typhoon force is already strongly handcuffed” because of “collectors sitting in the North Sea. We are keen not to give away our crown jewels,” Smyth added.

MSOCS

23rd May 2016, 19:19

Dutch F-35 landed a wee while ago. That's 3 successful trans-Atlants for the F-35 now. Nothing special but little achievements here and there reflect the efforts of many working hard behind the scenes.

Courtney Mil

23rd May 2016, 19:42

Great to watch the arrival at Leeuwarden.

ORAC

24th May 2016, 05:26

US Air Force Can't Afford Its Fighter Jets Past 2021 (http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/air-force/2016/05/23/us-air-force-cant-afford-its-fighter-jets-past-2021/84789148/)

vaneyck

24th May 2016, 16:21

t43562
"This video is very long and uneventful so don't watch more than a couple of seconds of it. It seems like a painful process if this has to be done to a large deck area."

Presumably that was meant to show how tough it is to burn through the coated plate. After all, it doesn't take 17 minutes to coat a half-inch strip.

Courtney Mil

24th May 2016, 18:59

No, it shows the plating being applied, vaneyck.

glad rag

24th May 2016, 19:34

They are only doing a small% of total deck area, timescale for that is at present 1 year.
Goes on in a 10,000C plasma jet 3 layers needed for complete treatment@ 2-2.5mm resistant to 1500C and will last 50 years...
thing is though where does the heat actually go??

ORAC

26th May 2016, 08:59

Anyone surprised?.......

Final F-35 Testing Slips To 2018 (http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/2016/05/24/final-f-35-testing-slips-2018/84885820/)

WASHINGTON — The military’s top weapons tester has been warning for months that the F-35 will not be ready for its final test phase until 2018 at the earliest. On Tuesday, the Pentagon officially acknowledged the schedule slip. “We reviewed the status of operational test planning, and there is consensus that that is likely to occur in calendar year 2018 given the realities of the schedule at this time,” said Frank Kendall, the Pentagon’s top acquisition official, during a Tuesday conference call. “The target was the middle of 2017, but it’s clear we’re not going to make that.”

This slip reflects a six-month delay for initial operational test and evaluation, or IOT&E, the last major period of testing before full-rate production. IOT&E will test the F-35's full combat capability, verifying the jets can fly real, operational missions as intended. The joint program office’s objective to begin IOT&E was August or September 2017, said JPO chief Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, speaking to reporters along with Kendall after the F-35 chief executive officer roundtable in Phoenix. But that start date has slipped to January or February, he said.

The challenge lies with retrofitting all 23 aircraft required for IOT&E with the full 3F software and hardware capability, Bogdan said. “We believe that in order to get all 23 airplanes for the [operational test] fleet to a full 3F production-representative configuration is going to take us longer than” anticipated, Bogdan said. “That is merely a function of trying to get those older airplanes fully mod-ed to a complete 3F hardware and software capability so they can do IOT&E with production-representative aircraft.”

The delay has nothing to do with the ongoing software glitches that cause the jets’ systems to shut down and need to be re-booted, a problem seen across the fleet, he said. However, fixing these software issues did lead to a delay in wrapping up testing of the 3i software, which the Air Force needs to declare its F-35A jets operational this year. The work on 3i has eaten up “a majority” of the team’s schedule margin for beginning IOT&E, officials at Edwards Air Force Base, California, told Defense News recently.

Bogdan has already acknowledged that delivery of the final Block 3F software slipped by four months to late fall 2017, a delay that was primarily due to the software issues seen in both 3i and 3F..................

MSOCS

26th May 2016, 09:32

Not in the least

vaneyck

26th May 2016, 23:24

MSOCS

27th May 2016, 00:45

Time consuming and expensive compared to, say, having to re-coat/repair the deck multiple times over 30+ years of operations because you wanted it done fast and on the cheap?! New compounds and heat-resistant chemicals are being developed.

Who knows, maybe in 20 years time you could spray some new-fangled paint on with a garden hose and get better results in a tenth of the time. Until then, it is what it is.

tdracer

27th May 2016, 04:11

Restarting F-22 maybe isn't as far fetched as we're thinking?

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=2202

Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh III said May 26 that reopening the F-22 manufacturing line was within the realm of possibility, and that it may cost less than developing a sixth-generation fighter.
Welsh said he has not seen results from that cost analysis yet. A timeline of when the cost analysis will be complete was not immediately available. The Rand Corp. estimated in a 2010 report that it would cost over $500 million in 2008 dollars to restart production.$500 million? What's that, the cost of 3 or 4 F-35s?

Rhino power

27th May 2016, 08:43

So, F-22 re-start estimated at half a billion $ in 2010 (you just know that will have gone up in the following 6 years), but what about the actual cost of producing and buying the new F-22's? The software, and hardware on which it's hosted, will have to be updated, not to mention probably fitting some of the F-35's magic avionics plus upgraded/new F-22 specific avionics, develop the F-22's ground attack capabilities further perhaps. What about the existing F-22 fleet, would the avionics/software/hardware be backwards compatible, or would the USAF end up with a 'fleet within a fleet'? Add in a goodly measure of testing and evaluation and the price tag starts to go up considerably. I guess it would still be cheaper than a clean sheet, 6th gen design though, or would it? It would no doubt kill off Boeing as a fighter designer/manufacturer and consolidate LM as the only game in town...

-RP

Bevo

27th May 2016, 18:02

Building aircraft is not what keeps the design teams current. You can only do that by "designing" things. So the issue is what things are Boeing military aircraft or the "Phantom Works" designing? For the Phantom Works we may not know as much of their activities are "proprietary". I will grant you that the production side is what funds a lot of the design activity.

For the F-22 Boeing built the wings and aft fuselage, including the structures necessary for engine and nozzle installation, and was responsible for avionics integration, 70 percent of mission software, the training system, the life support and fire protection systems, and the pilot and maintenance training systems.

John Farley

27th May 2016, 18:23

Building aircraft is not what keeps the design teams current. You can only do that by "designing" things.

Is that not the truth.

glad rag

28th May 2016, 10:15

AtomKraft

28th May 2016, 16:44

The longer they persist with the F-35, the more likely is the re-opening of F-22 production.

Reason? The F-22 does exactly what it was planned to do.

The things that the F-35 is planned to do, are tricky for a heavy single with a small wing- never mind trying to cludge all the different requirements into one airframe type.

Lockheed are the best, but the laws of physics are irrefutable, and even Lockheed Martin are subject to them.

MSOCS

28th May 2016, 17:01

airpolice

28th May 2016, 17:30

Never mind pedantry, this is for posterity....

They are only doing a small% of total deck area, timescale for that is at present 1 year.
Goes on in a 10,000C plasma jet 3 layers needed for complete treatment@ 2-2.5mm resistant to 1500C and will last 50 years...

I'm going to stick my neck out and say that in less than five years there will be an issue with that treatment needing (expensive) remedial work. 50 years my arse.

Remember the tiles on the space shuttle?

glad rag

30th May 2016, 10:57

Glad Rag, on what? The two QECs aren't even out of build and you're claiming they would be operational, if they were "PROPER"?

Do you also work for the EU Referendum "Spin" shop in your spare time? Rofl.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Chr4cj3W0AA_5rt.jpg

In the meantime...

"The EU will isolate and use sanctions against any far-right or populist governments that are swept to power or presidential office on the wave of popular anger against migration."

Ref. Juncker vows to use new powers to block the far-right | | The Times & The Sunday Times (http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/59f9d6da-211a-11e6-840f-4c4661f34181)

Or even just this..

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CjnqhHZWkAAkoHe.jpg:large

:suspect:

artee

31st May 2016, 21:11

Second radar cross-section test range identified in China | IHS Jane's 360 (http://www.janes.com/article/60583/second-radar-cross-section-test-range-identified-in-china)

Airbus Defence and Space imagery captured in 2016 shows a new radar cross-section test range in China
A J-20 full-scale test article is present at the new test range, with apparent design changes suggesting either a new powerplant installation or a new aircraft variant under evaluation

Lyneham Lad

3rd Jun 2016, 10:35

Good news for Norfolk?

F-35 Not Much Noisier Than F-16, Say Dutch (http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/2016/06/01/f-35-f-16-dutch-netherlands/85238616/)

Lonewolf_50

3rd Jun 2016, 10:37

The F-35 will make its official international debut at the Royal International Air Tattoo and Farnborough Air Show in the United Kingdom next month.

How many of you will be in attendance?

MSOCS

3rd Jun 2016, 11:22

Tickets for RIAT are pretty much already gone. Few left. Somewhere like 55,000 per day.

MSOCS

3rd Jun 2016, 11:24

Good news for Norfolk?

F-35 Not Much Noisier Than F-16, Say Dutch (http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/2016/06/01/f-35-f-16-dutch-netherlands/85238616/)

....of course, many have been saying this for quite some time, however the Dutch AF aren't "bought and paid for" LM spokespersons. The data is out there on all F-35 variants.

BEagle

4th Jun 2016, 14:45

It would seem that the Dutch are rather sensitive to noise...

When we had an air force, the RAFG Harriers at Wildenrath were moved to Gutersloh, with F-4s moving in to take their place.

Some local German mayor got wind of this and wrote a somewhat pompous note to his Cloggy oppo, just over the border, something along the lines of "The noise of der Phantom vill be much vorse than it voz mit der Harrier! Can ve ask you to help us complain?"

The reply from the Netherlands was quite brief - "Yes, we know that the F-4 is noisier than the Harrier. But we prefer the noise of either to the noise of the Stuka!".

No further correspondence was forthcoming....:uhoh:

Engines

4th Jun 2016, 15:57

Ozy,

Perhaps I can help here. Some while back, I was closely involved with F-35 noise studies (all variants).

Of course perceived noise (i.e. the noise a person will hear) will be different for an F-35B hovering to an F-35A in the circuit. The F-35B will be close to the ground, the A will be a few hundred feet up. So, yes, a B in the hover will be noisier than an A in the circuit, as long as you are standing fairly close to the landing area.

The noise emitted from the main engine in the F-35 at max power is very nearly the same for all three types. For the F-35B in the hover, the main engine exhaust is actually delivering about 50% less thrust, as half of the engine power is being sent forward to the shaft driven fan. The noise signature around the jet during landing ops is higher than for the Harrier, but can be managed. I understand that sound insulation is being fitted under the F-35B deck landing areas, much as has been done for many years under CVNs' catapults.

The most severe noise issue with any F-35 variant is for the F-35C and the USN carrier flight deck catapult launch crew, who have to be close to the aircraft while it is at high power before launch. The F-35C's noise signature was found to be very close to 'legacy' jets like the Super Hornet, and was well mapped and understood, especially once the USN had carried out special trials in front of a Jet Blast Deflector (JBD).

For deck launch, F-35B noise is less of a problem than for the C, for much the same reason as landing - less energy is being generated by the very fast hot engine exhaust, and the forward lift fan exhaust is being directed at the deck, where it disperses rapidly.

The whole issue of F-35 noise has been very carefully addressed for many years, with BAE leading the effort in measuring and characterising the aircraft's external environment. This is complicated stuff and the team I worked with were absolutely world class - and recognised as such by their US counterparts.

The biggest problem with noise in the UK is not the aircraft, but the UK MoD's decision to impose limits for noise exposure set out by EU Noise and Vibration legislation. These are FAR more stringent than anything the US required, and have led to very extensive (and successful) efforts to protect QEC carrier flight deck crews.

Hope this helps a little

Best regards as ever to all those trying to keep the noise down,

Engines

ORAC

5th Jun 2016, 06:23

Air Force Plan For 2030 Doesn't Mention The F-35 (http://www.popsci.com/air-forces-plan-for-2030-doesnt-mention-f-35)

".....If there is anything that defines the Air Force in 2030, it should be the ubiquity and inadequacy of the F-35....."

http://www.af.mil/Portals/1/documents/airpower/Air%20Superiority%202030%20Flight%20Plan.pdf

"....Penetrating Counterair (PCA). Capability development efforts for PCA will focus on maximizing tradeoffs between range, payload, survivability, lethality, affordability, and supportability. While PCA capability will certainly have a role in targeting and engaging, it also has a significant role as a node in the network, providing data from its penetrating sensors to enable employment using either stand-off or stand-in weapons. As part of this effort, the Air Force should proceed with a formal AoA in 2017 for a PCA capability. Consistent with an agile acquisition mindset designed to deliver the right capability on the required timeline, this AoA will include options to leverage rapid development and prototyping in order to keep ahead of the threat......."

"The Air Force’s projected force structure in 2030 is not capable of fighting and winning against this array of potential adversary capabilities....... "

"Capability development efforts for PCA will focus on maximizing tradeoffs between range, payload, survivability, lethality, affordability, and supportability........"

glad rag

5th Jun 2016, 12:17

10 year trick pony if that...

ORAC

6th Jun 2016, 06:17

The "interim" line is a smoke screen for political and work share purposes......

Liberals planning to buy Super Hornet fighter jets before making final decision on F-35s, sources say | National Post (http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/liberals-planning-to-buy-super-hornet-fighter-jets-before-making-final-decision-on-f-35s-sources-say)

Not_a_boffin

6th Jun 2016, 12:06

Hmmm. Another F-35 bashing article, which while wailing that the F35 is not mentioned, conspicuously fails to mention that neither is the F22 or any other patform bar the B21.

While it's all very well quoting this :

"The Air Force’s projected force structure in 2030 is not capable of fighting and winning against this array of potential adversary capabilities....... "

What does the author think the response would be to a statement along the lines of "The Air Force’s projected force structure in 2030 is more than capable of fighting and winning against this array of potential adversary capabilities....... "?

The obvious answer to which from a Congress needing to find budgetary savings would be "well no aircraft or system development funding or projects for you between now and the 30s then". Which is fifteen years or so for anyone struggling with arithmetic.

I feel sure that would be a universally acclaimed outcome.

sandiego89

6th Jun 2016, 12:33

Regarding noise, I was rather close to several B's at Pax River and thought they were quite similar decibel wise to the F/A-18D chase aircraft on a conventional takeoff- plenty loud. On rolling STOL landings and STOL touch and goes (no hovering the days I saw them) I was surprised how quiet they were. No discernible fan noise- I was expecting some sort of fan whine I guess.

MSOCS

6th Jun 2016, 16:55

glad rag

6th Jun 2016, 20:41

http://38.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mef1hnPH9V1rnr47go1_r1_250.gif

Buster15

7th Jun 2016, 11:28

Life extenaion of Tornado shouldn't be that much of a problem based upon the GAF stating that they wish to operate their Tornado until up to 2040.
However, for the MoD that would be a real climb down on their mid 2019 OSD and you can bet, to save every penny, Tornado spares will have been reduced to as little as possible. a decision needs to be made soonest....

Rhino power

7th Jun 2016, 13:53

UK F-35 training set for equal synthetic/live split | IHS Jane's 360 (http://www.janes.com/article/60972/uk-f-35-training-set-for-equal-synthetic-live-split)

-RP

sandiego89

7th Jun 2016, 15:53

Looks like the Voyager/F-35B in flight refueling trials wrapped up at Pax River. 18 sorties.

https://theaviationist.com/2016/06/07/the-royal-air-force-completes-f-35b-tanker-trials-a-week-early/

glad rag

7th Jun 2016, 20:50

Cameron just pleged another 12 Billion for the NHS live on TV now, where do you think that's coming from?

:eek:

Harley Quinn

7th Jun 2016, 21:44

MSOCS

8th Jun 2016, 00:51

Probably due the fact that, unlike our Tornado fleet, the GAF Tornado fleet haven't been on continuous ops since 1991. Fins in the ME for 25 years and counting is no small effort.

ORAC

9th Jun 2016, 05:59

Canadian Fighter-Jet Debate Turns Testy (http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense-news/2016/06/08/canadian-fighter-jet-f-35-super-hornet/85605450/)

VICTORIA, British Columbia — Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has slammed the F-35, labeling the aircraft as a fighter that “does not work,” as his government considers the purchase of Boeing Super Hornets instead.........

kbrockman

11th Jun 2016, 16:52

Lockheed Martin warns it will pull $825M in F-35 contracts if Canada buys another jet - Politics - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stealth-fighter-contracts-1.3629403)
Lockheed Martin warns it will pull $825M in F-35 contracts if Canada buys another jet

U.S. defence giant Lockheed Martin is warning Canada that $825 million in aerospace industrial contracts signed with Canadian companies to build and equip F-35 jets would be moved to other partner nations if the Trudeau government decides to buy a different fighter jet.

MSOCS

11th Jun 2016, 17:42

An oft-missed benefit of being a partner is the industrial work share that comes with it. This reduces the cost of the Program to countries. For instance, the U.K. Will get around £3 back for every £1 put in, provided the total numbers forecast are eventually ordered - clearly that's not guaranteed but there's a way to go yet.

If you no longer want to be a partner, why should you retain the work share? Far better to split that amongst the committed nations and concomitantly reduce the cost of the Program to them.

ORAC

12th Jun 2016, 06:25

It seems the Danish order will only be a firm order for 21 aircraft, the remaining 6 being an option - depending on what the price and running costs actually turn out to be.......

Agreement for the Acquisition of New Combat Aircraft (http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/174598/denmark-to-buy-only-21-f_35s-as-final-six-are-conditional.html)

(EDITOR’S NOTE:

So, in the final analysis, Denmark does not know what price it will pay for its F-35As, and if the price increases it will buy fewer of them. This is the reason why, instead of the publicized figure of 27, the parties have in fact committed to buy only 21, with the remaining six to be bought only if there is enough money to pay for them.

This, by the way, would bring the purchase in line with the intentions of the Konservative party, which voted against the purchase because it wants to limit the number to 21. Given that this is barely enough to equip a single operational squadron, if it hard to understand why, given the cost, Denmark does not simply do away with fast jets altogether.

All the more so that Danish media, including the Berlingske daily newspaper, puts the lifetime costs of the F-35 fleet at well over 50 billion krone, or about $7.6 billion, while Henrik Dam Christensen, defense speaker for the opposition Social Democrats, puts that figure at 55 billion kroner.

In any case, given the F-35’s history of cost inflation, late delivery and mandatory upgrades, it is more than likely that, like Norway and the Netherlands, it will end up with far fewer aircraft that it initially wanted – in this case no more than 21.

glad rag

12th Jun 2016, 12:25

Turbine D

12th Jun 2016, 13:19

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military–industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together. President Dwight D. Eisenhower - January 17, 1961

So MSOCS, who is running the US DoD these days, would it be LM? It seems to me the message to Canada on the F-35 should come from the US Government, not the industrial supplier. Keep in mind, everything about that aircraft developed by means of government funded R&D programs is owned by the US government, not LM. IMHO, the US government sets policies like this, not LM, unless the US DoD have ceded their role and responsibility to LM. Then I refer you back to Eisenhower's warning.

MSOCS

12th Jun 2016, 18:25

Turbine, FWIW I agree it should come from the US govt, not LM. Doesn't change the rationale or validity of arguments as to why the contracts should be re-competed, without Canada, should that country decide to buy a 4th Gen jet off the shelf that will last a few more years than the venerable CF-18.

Glad Rag - no, but you can't secure industrial work share on the basis of a purchase commitment, pull the plug on that commitment and hope nobody notices. If Canada buys SHornet, good for them. Every bit of expert study and competition they've conducted still points to F-35 as the answer. I have that on good authority from a Canadian individual involved in the studies. It's kinda like leaving the EU but hoping you can still have your current tariff-free access to the single market. So no - this stuff needs to be re-negotiated and hashed out between Governments. I think LM weren't wise to state this as it does appear like a threat / blackmail coming from the contractor and beneficiary.

Tourist

12th Jun 2016, 19:03

So you support the blackmailing of a NATO ally by LM then?

http://38.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mef1hnPH9V1rnr47go1_r1_250.gif

Blackmail is one way of looking at it.

Another is enforcing a contract.

You buy this many, you get this workshare.
If you no buy any, you no get workshare.

Turbine D

12th Jun 2016, 22:33

MSOCS,
Doesn't change the rationale or validity of arguments as to why the contracts should be re-competed, without Canada, should that country decide to buy a 4th Gen jet off the shelf that will last a few more years than the venerable CF-18.
Canada never has had a signed contract to buy F-35s, only an "intent" to buy. The $800M+ positioning of F-35 component manufacturing in Canada was just the typical "carrot and stick" enticement by LM. As far as contract renegotiations with other country participants should Canada back out, as I see it, that is a strictly a "LM proceed at your own company's risk" as LM seems in charge of US DoD F-35 procurement contracts. Personally, I think the whole partnering arrangement on the F-35 is like none other that have successfully happened in the past. The F-35 arrangement is putting the cart in front of the horse, typical when the supplier calls the shots of contract arrangements.

ORAC

13th Jun 2016, 05:39

It would appear many have forgotten, or are unaware, of the F-35 subcontractor work share model.

F-35 Reality Check Ten Years On, Part 2: The Jobs Mirage and Other Stories (http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/feature/5/135384/f_35-reality-check-part-2%3A-the-jobs-mirage-and-other-stories.html)

MSOCS

13th Jun 2016, 05:47

Unlike any other. Agreed.

Now, nobody committed to buy their declared numbers at the start but they had to start somewhere, so an initial statement of purchase numbers was made by all partners, to allocate the industrial work share. You're right, there was no contract per se, just mutual trust and an agreement on numbers between the US DoD and each country's Armed Forces and lo, the work share was allocated. Canada declared 65 IIRC.

Extricating yourself from the Program doesn't give you Grandfather rights to continue to make a select group widgets and components for all F-35s for the next 40-50 years.

ORAC

13th Jun 2016, 06:11

And buying doesn't guarantee keeping production - but since since each subcontractor was chosen on lowest cost and has to absorb all costs, it is logical moving any production will lead to both delays and higher cost per aircraft as the disruption and retooling costs by the manufacturer are absorbed by the program.

Moving production would be one of those cut off your nose to spite your face moves.

Tourist

13th Jun 2016, 08:49

Moving production would be one of those cut off your nose to spite your face moves.

Not really. They would have to balance the cost of losing a buyer of a trance of aircraft against the possible cost of moving production.

The "stick" might just persuade a wavering customer to stick with the programme.

glad rag

13th Jun 2016, 09:20

But are/were Canada actually ever a "customer"? ?

ORAC

13th Jun 2016, 10:26

Canada is a program member and a prospective customer.

If Canada acquires F-18E/F/Gs as an "interim" measure pending final testing of the F-35 and software, with the stated intent of an eventual purchase, it remains a program member and prospective customer.

It would be interesting to see the legal consequences and court cases if LM proposed withdrawing contracts based on such a buy - caused by the LM slippages in F-35 delivery.

kbrockman

13th Jun 2016, 10:35

Meanwhile USMC are reintroducing some of their boneyard F18's
http://snafu-solomon.********.be/2016/06/f-35-delays-force-usmc-to-bring-30-f18.html
via IHS Janes

The US Marine Corps (USMC) is having to recover Boeing F/A-18C Hornet combat aircraft from the 'boneyard' at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base (AFB) in Arizona to bridge the delayed introduction into service of the Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), a Boeing official said on 10 June.
Speaking at Boeing's Global Sustainment and Support (GS&S) site at Cecil Field in northern Florida, Bill Maxwell, senior manager F/A-18 operations, said that the USMC has contracted the company to recover 30 legacy Hornets from the 309th Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group (AMARG) facility at Davis-Monthan AFB to cover a projected shortfall in numbers and capability as the service transitions over to the JSF.

PhilipG

13th Jun 2016, 10:49

Having seen the article about the USMC planning to spend significant money on updating and life extending F18s from the boneyard, so that the squadrons on CVNs have something to fly, I was confused about the reference to the F35B in the press release.

As I understand it the legacy Hornets have been very heavily used and are requiring a lot of costly maintenance.

If the F35C's IOC and hence FOC is focussed on more than that for the F35B then the USN /USMC can replace their legacy F18s with F35Cs and transition to two fixed wing fast jets on a carrier sooner.

The F35B as far as I know has never been planned to regularly operate off a CVN and an F18 has never operated off an LHD.

Just This Once...

13th Jun 2016, 11:08

Turbine D

13th Jun 2016, 13:48

When LM claim that partner nations could also attract large contracts the truth may be something different.
This is where the F-35 contracting goes amiss. In a US government led push to sell aircraft overseas, agreements are reached on product pricing and the amount (value) of offset contracts required in the buying country. The US government (DoD) tells the major suppliers what must be achieved, not the other way around. The F-16 foreign sales program was a good example of how it should work. Thanks to the current F-35 arrangement, LM is cleaning up. First cost overruns are paid for by the American tax payers and soon the same will occur for "Partner" participants with no guarantee promised work will stick if the full quantity isn't bought. What a deal for LM! Some one will write a book about it...

sandiego89

14th Jun 2016, 12:56

In the 'fair and open' world of F-35 competitive contracts has, unsurprisingly, favoured US companies that enjoy more favourable terms - particularly with USD pricing. That these contracts have been spread out to encompass almost every state in the US is fortuitous for LM. When LM claims to congressmen and governors that the F-35 will bring money to their electorate they are not fibbing. When LM claim that partner nations could also attract large contracts the truth may be something different.

Given the likely overall projected buy, it would be logical that US companies would get the lions share, but just as LM has done a good job at involving numerous congressional districts, they have also built an impressive list of foreign producers as well. It was quite clear early in the program if you wanted to get on board you had better do so- this was going to be a partner program from the start- and to play you had to buy into the program. LM and EVERY country involved has tied production considerations/jobs to the program as well. I am sure the good folks at Cameri and Nagoya assembling the jets, and hundreds of other places around the globe, are happy to have the jobs, and their politicians are working just as hard to bring home the bacon (except Trudeau perhaps :})

ORAC

14th Jun 2016, 15:31

If you want a job creation scheme I assure you buying into a multinational aerospace programme costs at least a hundred times more per job than the workers involved will ever earn. Better to give them a salary of 50-100K each and send them on gardening leave.....

MSOCS

14th Jun 2016, 19:15

...but it isn't a job creation scheme ORAC. It's a Fighter creation scheme. Those who secured the lucrative industrial contracts to manufacture and supply bring money to the country. Ergo, the Fighter creation scheme is (for some countries at least) a money creation scheme to one's treasury.

If Canada "wants in" on that great sounding deal, they have to maintain their desire to procure their 60-odd F-35. If Canada doesn't care about that deal and wants to commit itself to a sticking plaster solution for its future combat aircraft requirement, then that's their (Liberal PM's) choice....buuuut, the extant Canadian contracts will be re-competed amongst the committed partner nations if it turns its back completely. Being Liberal, there's a certain centricity to this issue. Canada may not turn completely, but may instead keep feeding the JPO the holding response that it's still considering a buy. There was a time only a year or so ago where every partner could have hidden behind the language of non-committal but, now that jets are being built and flown by many of those same partners, that tactic no longer works.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

Hempy

14th Jun 2016, 19:22

To the politicians it's a 'job creation' scheme. X number of 'jobs created' = x number of votes. How much it ends up costing the taxpayer is irrelevant..

ORAC

14th Jun 2016, 19:50

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

I couldn't have put it better myself..... :E:E:E

melmothtw

14th Jun 2016, 20:32

Should the USN and USMC now concentrate on the C?
Having seen the article about the USMC planning to spend significant money on updating and life extending F18s from the boneyard, so that the squadrons on CVNs have something to fly, I was confused about the reference to the F35B in the press release.

As I understand it the legacy Hornets have been very heavily used and are requiring a lot of costly maintenance.

If the F35C's IOC and hence FOC is focussed on more than that for the F35B then the USN /USMC can replace their legacy F18s with F35Cs and transition to two fixed wing fast jets on a carrier sooner.

The F35B as far as I know has never been planned to regularly operate off a CVN and an F18 has never operated off an LHD.

The issue with the F-35B is that they were already supposed to be flying operational missions, taking some/much of the strain off the Hornet fleet. With the delays to the F-35, the Hornets are now having to fly excess hours that they were never intended to fly, meaning that their airframe lives will run out much earlier than had been originally planned. Hence the need for 30 'new' airfames from the boneyard.

Lyneham Lad

14th Jun 2016, 20:43

Paragraph from a Flight Global article (https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/dutch-f-35-deployment-yields-strong-results-426162/) on the Dutch F-35s.
Since the Dutch air force will use hardened aircraft shelters for its F-35s, the first deployment has also been used to trial operations from these types of hangars. In the USA, the aircraft are operated from sun shelters or larger hangars, and the confined space in a smaller shelter increases the sound and vibration levels placed on the airframe. Emission levels from the Pratt & Whitney F135 engine also needed to be monitored, to ensure ground crews can perform their work safely.

Somewhat surprised that it is only now that the effects of HAS operations are being checked-out.

glad rag

15th Jun 2016, 03:22

Canute

15th Jun 2016, 10:30

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me glad.

MSOCS

15th Jun 2016, 13:05

Canute, Glad Rag suffers the ailment of "playing the man, not the ball" - a posting history of snark and tenuous-at-best internet pictures/GIFs with scant contribution to the debate at hand instantly proves that accusation.

I enjoy engaging with those who challenge the viewpoints I make, using their professional knowledge, reasoning and irrefutable logic, rather than label and lambast the style in which I make those viewpoints. One of those approaches is widely considered the essence of meaningful debate. The other is not - call it antagonising, inflaming, trolling or whatever. It's just a shame GR fails to grasp that fundamental difference but he's in a very small percentage of folk here who argue consistently from a known repertoire of logical fallacies. I'm by no means whiter than white but I try to inform where I can and express my opinion where I think it adds to a side of the argument, as long as it actually adds that is.

t43562

15th Jun 2016, 13:23

Lonewolf_50

15th Jun 2016, 15:22

Wander00

15th Jun 2016, 15:29

LW50 - the bit that Lawson forgot!

Lyneham Lad

15th Jun 2016, 16:48

It would be interesting to know if the money spent in Canada would mostly stay there or if some of the companies are owned e.g. in the US and send their profit back. Presumably salaries and tax are the only benefits that one can bank on?

According to this article, US companies are taxed heavily on profits earned in other countries as soon as those profits are repatriated. Hence the enormous holdings stashed abroad by companies such as Microsoft...
Microsoft?s tax saver in LinkedIn deal | | The Times & The Sunday Times (http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/microsofts-tax-saver-in-linkedin-deal-08tq3xphb?shareToken=f37c49271442a3b1e11456ad1dc37bbe)

Turbine D

15th Jun 2016, 17:16

MSOCS,
...but it isn't a job creation scheme ORAC. It's a Fighter creation scheme. Those who secured the lucrative industrial contracts to manufacture and supply bring money to the country. Ergo, the Fighter creation scheme is (for some countries at least) a money creation scheme to one's treasury.

Good new! Cadillac has a new purchasing scheme tailored for your needs. In that we, at Cadillac, don't know yet what the cost of 2019 car is, we would like to make you a Cadillac participating partner. Then, we will a bill you occasionally for development and long lead-time items and as time goes on we will send you bills for manufacturing and parts that you must pay. Then, when your new Cadillac is ready for delivery in 2019, you can just add up the bills you paid so you know how much it cost. Good deal, eh? Ready to sign up?

That is what the USAF, USN, USMC and all participating partners have done. In fact, nobody knows what the cost of an F-35, or price if you would, really is. Everything is an estimate to this day. Everyone believes it is expensive. Only US Foreign Military Sales countries, Israel, Japan & Korea know, because they are buying their F-35s at a negotiated price with the US government, not LM.

Now Frank Kendall, bless his soul, swore on his grandmother's bible that F-35 contracts would be changed from cost plus to fixed price contracts with the transition starting in Lot 4 sometime ago. Lot 5 was to be even more fix price than Lot 4. We are now up to Lot 9 and the transition is still in process. But, there is no indication any meaningful fixed cost price contracts have been applied to the airframe (prime contractor), for the engine, the first move was late 2014
To give you an example as to how this all sorts out, first of 15 manufacturing contracts (of 30) issued for Lot 8 (43 jets).
2013
Feb 28 $333,786,000 fixed-price-incentive -- parts
Mar 25 $40,200,000 fixed-price-incentive -- parts
May 2 $20,100,000 fixed-price-incentive -- parts
Jul 18 $70,358,000 modification to previous contract-- parts
Sep 18 $99,010,000 modification
Oct 18 $30,000,000 fixed-price-incentive modification

2014
Mar 18 $65,280,712 modification to cost-plus
Mar 26 $10,242,104 modification - engine [ERROR NOTE: There was no previous contract to modify.]
May 13 $101,900,000 modification
Jun 6 $122,099,075 cost-plus modification -- parts
Aug 11 $46,197,710 cost-plus modification -- tech assist
Sep 11 $65,566,174 modification - engine parts
Sep 25 $331,408,457 cost-plus modification -- tooling
Oct 30 $793,051,336 modification to fixed-price -- engine
Nov 21 $4,123,746,486 [$4B] modification -- primary
[NOTE: Finally 21 months after the first Lot 8 contract they specify how many planes are being bought.]
Nov 2014- Dec 2015 -- fifteen more F-35 "modification" contracts

Contracts (http://www.defense.gov/News/Contracts)

Now if you were in charge of F-35 procurement, being a participating partner and having already paid millions of dollars in development costs to remain at the table, what would you do, having no clue, what the F-35 cost/price is ten years or more into the program? Like the country & western gambler's song, would you hold them or fold them? As far as the money creation scheme is concerned, LM is the treasury...

MSOCS

15th Jun 2016, 18:12

Nobody said this is cheap!

It's worth it though, IMHO.

Lonewolf_50

15th Jun 2016, 18:20

To give you an example as to how this all sorts out, first of 15 manufacturing contracts (of 30) issued for Lot 8 (43 jets).
2013
Feb 28 $333,786,000 fixed-price-incentive -- parts
Mar 25 $40,200,000 fixed-price-incentive -- parts
May 2 $20,100,000 fixed-price-incentive -- parts
Jul 18 $70,358,000 modification to previous contract-- parts
Sep 18 $99,010,000 modification
Oct 18 $30,000,000 fixed-price-incentive modification
2014
Mar 18 $65,280,712 modification to cost-plus
Mar 26 $10,242,104 modification - engine [ERROR NOTE: There was no previous contract to modify.]
May 13 $101,900,000 modification
Jun 6 $122,099,075 cost-plus modification -- parts
Aug 11 $46,197,710 cost-plus modification -- tech assist
Sep 11 $65,566,174 modification - engine parts
Sep 25 $331,408,457 cost-plus modification -- tooling
Oct 30 $793,051,336 modification to fixed-price -- engine
Nov 21 $4,123,746,486 [$4B] modification -- primary

Nov 2014- Dec 2015 -- fifteen more F-35 "modification" contracts You add a few hundred million here and a few hundred million that and all of a sudden, you are talking serious money. :mad:

Turbine D

15th Jun 2016, 20:06

MSOCS,
Nobody said this is cheap!

It's worth it though, IMHO.
Well, nobody said blank taxpayer checks would be issued to pay for it, either. As far as it being worth it or not, that has been decided a long time ago when it didn't come to market when it was promised along with all the bells and whistles which worked. Think much broader, where is the money going to come from to evolve and production fund a new B-21 bomber fleet? Where is the money going to come from to evolve and production fund the next new fighter interceptor fleet?

There are many Department of Defense programs that are worthy of fully funding, will they be affected by the out of control spending on the F-35 program? If you don't know what something costs, you are out of control.

The longer the F-35 program goes on in time before the planes are fully capable and work as promised, the lesser value they become. Conversely, the more expensive they become.

MSOCS

15th Jun 2016, 21:15

Turbine, I'm not going to question your issue with the cost. I also never said, nor implied, that public blank cheques were acceptable. This Program is expensive. What is appropriated to B-21 is of no direct concern of mine. That's a DoD and Capitol Hill issue that's frankly out of my area. If B-21 is vital, you'll find the money. Of that, I am sure.

I've never denied F-35 is late, and over budget (hold the front page!!!!). It's here to stay and will remain for 3 or 4 more decades. Fact.

glad rag

16th Jun 2016, 02:21

ORAC

16th Jun 2016, 19:11

And remember Boeing have their entire civil order book to provide offset work from, orders of magnitude more airframes than the F-35 over the next few decades. Do you prefer a piece of the F-35 or the 737Max, 777 or 787?

CF-18 airframes approaching their age limits as replacement debate rages - Politics - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/politics/cf18s-wearing-out-1.3637807)

"....Last week Lockheed Martin warned it would pull hundreds of millions of dollars in F-35 related work out of the country unless its jet was selected to replace Canada's CF-18s. On Wednesday, rival aerospace company Boeing tried to paint that notion as an empty threat and promised to match or even exceed the value of lost contracts should Canada go with it instead......

Boeing vice-president Roger Schallom also attempted Wednesday to put to rest the notion that Canadian aerospace jobs would be lost if the F-35 isn't selected.

Many of the 110 Canadian companies doing business with Lockheed Martin are also working for Boeing on separate contracts. If Boeing's plane is chosen, Schallom said, the company could replace or even exceed the current $825 million in contracts and the up to $10 billion lifetime value of industrial benefits. "We will put in much more work than those numbers. I can't quantify it until we see what the [air force] requirement is, but we will definitely trump those numbers......"

A_Van

22nd Jun 2016, 11:15

Meanwhile, the US marines seem to start re-using a good old stuff from an Arizona desert: https://warisboring.com/the-u-s-marines-are-pulling-old-f-a-18s-out-of-desert-storage-a9b2febe3d64#.a8lkq1d29

chopper2004

22nd Jun 2016, 17:12

Lockheed Martin and Israel Celebrate Rollout of Israel?s First F-35 ?Adir? Â· Lockheed Martin (http://lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2016/june/lockheed-martin-and-israel-celebrate-rollout-of-israels-first-f-35-adir.html)

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/longranger113/1466613900717_zpsofgocyg0.jpg

Kitbag

22nd Jun 2016, 22:42

Looks like the RAF will have to rely on US repair contracts for some avionics systems (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/06/22/raf-wont-be-able-to-repair-kit-on-f-35-jets---even-though-it-was/)

Hope they have bought enough spares to deal with postal delays.

PDR1

22nd Jun 2016, 22:48

This is already true of many items today - it's not a new phenomenon.

PDR

NutLoose

23rd Jun 2016, 00:35

If the Fox News technical specs are to be believed the shortage of range has been well and truly cured

Marine Corps looks to fighter jet 'boneyard' after new fleet delay | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/06/22/marine-corps-forced-to-pull-warbirds-out-boneyard-after-new-fleet-delay.html)

Max Range: 50,000 nautical miles

glad rag

23rd Jun 2016, 18:27

This is already true of many items today - it's not a new phenomenon.

PDR
Ho ho ho... Odd that the current RAF strike ac seems to do just fine.. longterm workshare really..

Rhino power

24th Jun 2016, 22:16

Exclusive: USAF Weighing Replacement F-35 Ejection Seat (http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/air-force/2016/06/24/sources-usaf-weighing-replacing-f35-ejection-seat/86257576/)

-RP

WE Branch Fanatic

25th Jun 2016, 21:41

WE, the Kearsage is a part of a Amphibious Ready Group (ARG) with a Marine Expiditionary Unit (MEU) emparked. The normal complement of the MEU airwing will include Harriers, MV-22, CH-53's, UH-1, and AH-1 aboard the LHD and on the other ships in the ARG. Usually 6 Harriers will be deployed.

This is a MEU deployment- not a "Harrier Carrier" deployment.

When the Harriers are deployed as part of a MEU they are attached to a medium helicopter/tiltwing squadron, thus the VMM designation in the article. The medium squadron is the largest squadron in the MEU and now consists of MV-22 (until recently it would have been the CH-46 sqaudron). The whole harrier squadron does not deploy, just a detachment of 6 jets and associated pilots and maintainers. They are adminstratively assigned to the larger helo/tiltwing squadron for the deployment. Sometimes you will see it noted as VMM (reinforced).

Six jets is better than none.

http://www.stripes.com/polopoly_fs/1.415067.1466161285!/image/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_804/image.jpg

Harriers from USS Boxer begin airstrikes against Islamic State (http://www.stripes.com/news/harriers-from-uss-boxer-begin-airstrikes-against-islamic-state-1.415062)

And to think not so many years ago many on PPRuNe were saying Harrier is obsolete and of no use - here it is taking the fight to the enemies of humanity.

riff_raff

26th Jun 2016, 03:34

According to the article, the problem with the existing M-B ejection seat is from USAF pilots weighing less than 136 lbs. But the USAF requirement for pilots is 160 to 231 lbs.

Rhino power

30th Jun 2016, 09:32

F-35's finally appear in the UK...

https://theaviationist.com/2016/06/29/photos-eurofighter-typhoons-escort-three-british-and-american-f-35bs-arriving-in-the-uk-for-the-first-time/

-RP

airsound

30th Jun 2016, 19:36

The UK MoD offers some nice footage.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/lightning-lands-in-the-uk

airsound

Rhino power

30th Jun 2016, 21:43

Interesting to note, or maybe not, I don't know, that the F-35's are trailing vapour/vortices from the wing tips in what appears to be straight and level flight, whilst the Typhoons are not...

-RP

Cobra98

1st Jul 2016, 00:52

KB
Don"t believe everything you read on the interwebs
98

glad rag

1st Jul 2016, 12:47

Ten minutes to go and the excitement builds at marhams spotters point!

glad rag

1st Jul 2016, 13:34

THE gulfstreams pitched upnow looking good!!

Rhino power

1st Jul 2016, 13:36

What's happening at Marham?

-RP

glad rag

1st Jul 2016, 13:40

F35 was meant to pitch up 1330 yesterday word is it was due 1400 today.

Hope so :E lot of dissappointed spotters and cynical raffies there will be......

Not_a_boffin

1st Jul 2016, 13:54

Errr, 14:00 is the nominal time for flypast at Rosyth.......

glad rag

1st Jul 2016, 14:07

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

At least the sun turned out

lollollol.

Davef68

1st Jul 2016, 16:29

Which is more than it did at Rosyth - in fact exactly the opposite.

RfYfYs8-kRs

MSOCS

2nd Jul 2016, 14:40

Guess you and the spotters didn't get the memo of the changed times glad rag.

FODPlod

2nd Jul 2016, 23:21

Doesn't everyone know that the F-35 can't fly in the rain (among all its other flaws)? ;)

glad rag

3rd Jul 2016, 01:54

Guess you and the spotters didn't get the memo of the changed times glad rag.

Didn't see a thing Guvnor!

Pity the MOB and the "thousands" of expectant service and civilian punters were left wondering is the stealth REALLY THAT GOOD?

But from the bbc clip, it can be seen that the wing is already working hard pulling alpha behind that C130 for those unforgetable pr shots..

MSOCS

3rd Jul 2016, 20:42

And long may they continue to wonder.

1g, 200kts-ish? Plenty more alpha and care-free handling left in her!

glad rag

4th Jul 2016, 21:47

Could well be tactical, you know disguise the energy state by producing vortex in all states of flight regime. ..

MSOCS

4th Jul 2016, 22:44

I'd stick to F700s and doing "indies" if I were you gr. 😜

ORAC

5th Jul 2016, 10:00

sandiego89

5th Jul 2016, 12:48

Israel hinting it wants the F-35B.

As the comments say, the V-22 is a red herring and a misinterpretation, in mentioning versions of the F-35 he is obviously referring to the F-35B.

Netanyahu Hints at V-22 Orders (http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/international/mideast-africa/2016/07/01/netanyahu-hints-v-22-orders/86591696/)

Agree: "We appreciate the latest machine, the F-35. We’ll talk about the other versions we want. Vertical takeoff, that’s a hint,”

This would be an interesting move for Israel, and could really open up the number of austere short fields/highway operations- or could a carrier be in the works? I imagine traditional airfields are watched quite closely, and being able to operate from austere sites or to launch a stealth attack jet from the sea would be quite intriguing...and worrisome for others in the region.

sandiego89

5th Jul 2016, 13:24

And on the three A models making it across the Atlantic:

US Air Force F-35s Land in UK After First Transatlantic Flight (http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/show-daily/farnborough/2016/06/30/air-force-f-35-england-first-transatlantic-flight-riat-farnborough/86580962/)

So three A models and three B's in the UK right now. The heritage flight with the F-35, P-51 and F-22 should be well received.

ORAC

5th Jul 2016, 18:25

F-22 in a heritage flight as one of the older members..... :}:}

SpazSinbad

6th Jul 2016, 18:45

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMH8Jnnav0Y

MSOCS

6th Jul 2016, 21:44

Great link Spaz, thanks.

... but I missed the bit where the jet was supposed to smash every window pane and melt the pad. #thetruthhurts

Lonewolf_50

7th Jul 2016, 01:43

Back in the day, the T-2 Buckeye was referred to with affection as the Thunder Guppy.

I watched the take off and immediately thought: Guppy II. F-35B is a funky looking bird, no matter how I slice it. Given that I mostly flew helicopters, which are ugly enough to scare the air out of the way so that we can fly, me calling the F-35B funny looking is a bit rich ... but there you have it.

KenV

7th Jul 2016, 13:38

F-35B is a funky looking bird, no matter how I slice it.
I doubt that its possible to make a supersonic airframe with internal weapon bays and a lift fan for STOVL operations look pretty. And the thorough ugliness of Boeing's JSF makes the F-35 look graceful and lithe in comparison

tonker

7th Jul 2016, 17:04

https://youtu.be/0zn0FHDhEK4

An Australian 60 minutes programme.

Royalistflyer

7th Jul 2016, 17:49

Hmmm ..... I wouldn't have expected any of those involved to criticise the aircraft. I've seen that journo before and I wouldn't expect any hard questions from her.

RAFEngO74to09

8th Jul 2016, 16:31

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ik7Nixi4WrU

Lyneham Lad

8th Jul 2016, 16:45

RafEngO - thanks for the link. Anyone know what the fuselage protuberances just ahead of the fins are?

RAFEngO74to09

8th Jul 2016, 17:38

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qmKB9wqff4

2805662

8th Jul 2016, 18:28

RafEngO - thanks for the link. Anyone know what the fuselage protuberances just ahead of the fins are?

To change/enhance the RCS for peacetime operations, apparently.

SpazSinbad

8th Jul 2016, 21:42

Removeable Luneberg Lens are the 'fuselage protuberances' as indicated by '2805662'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNt97bSHbvs

Rhino power

8th Jul 2016, 22:34

RIAT 2016 USAF F-35A Display Rehearsal
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ik7Nixi4WrU

I assume the crowd were all advised to drink strong coffee prior to this 'display'? ;)

What kind of manoeuvring/g-limits are still in place if this is the best it can do?

And before anyone chips in with comments about display routines aren't everything, blah blah blah, I know that, but c'mon, that was as dull as ditch water!

-RP

MSOCS

8th Jul 2016, 23:30

RP, I don't know the exact limits currently imposed on the A but I thinks it is 5g or thereabouts. The AOA is straight up 50.

Looking at the "display" it's not aerobatic, so this is probably a simple role demonstration routine - i.e no dedicated F-35A display pilot. As the envelope available expands to 9g, I'm confident that more aggressive manoeuvres will be introduced. Raptor display wasn't as punchy in the early days as it is today.

SpazSinbad

9th Jul 2016, 00:27

For 'rp':
US Marine Corps F-35s Cleared for Farnborough 05 Jul 2016 Valerie Insinna
"...The Air Force F-35As, which will fly only at RIAT, conducted their flight validation at Langley Air Force Base in Virginia before the jets flew across the Atlantic Ocean last week, said Maj. Will Andreotta, F-35A heritage flight team commander and an F-35 pilot.

One of the A-variants conducted a practice flight Tuesday morning, Andreotta said. A different F-35A will run through the same profile Wednesday morning, and the F-22s will practice Thursday.

“It’s our first time flying in the UK so they have different rules. We’re doing actually a new profile here that we don’t do [in the US],” he said. “So today was one of those days to go out there and kind of look at the overall lay of the land, see where the show line is, where the crowd lines are. Obviously safety is our priority while we’re over here.”

During heritage flights, the aircraft typically conducts three maneuvers. The pilots first conduct an “arcing” or “banana pass,” which gives the crowd a view of the top of the jet, then do a “flat pass” where the aircraft flies straight and level. In the US, the pilots fly over the crowd before breaking formation and landing, but because flying over the crowd is prohibited in the UK, the pilots will instead repeat either a flat or arching base, Andreotta said...."
US Marine Corps F-35s Cleared For Farnborough (http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/show-daily/farnborough/2016/07/05/f35-riat-farnborough-validation-flight-fairford/86711318/)

Rhino power

9th Jul 2016, 08:37

Thanks for the replies, MSOCS and Spaz.

-RP

Tourist

9th Jul 2016, 16:23

And before anyone chips in with comments about display routines aren't everything, blah blah blah, I know that, but c'mon, that was as dull as ditch water!

-RP

I wonder about the wisdom of putting it in formation with the F-22.

Whilst the F-22 is not exactly pretty, it is certainly dramatic, edgy and aggressive looking.

Watching it flyby with the F-35 made me think that the F-35 looked a lot like the chubby b@stard offspring resulting from an embarrassing drunken night the F-22 had with a fat girl.

Lonewolf_50

9th Jul 2016, 20:05

... the F-35 looked a lot like the chubby b@stard offspring resulting from an embarrassing drunken night the F-22 had with a fat girl.
I am guessing that most fighter pilots are OK with that, providing that they keep up enough knots to make a single head to head pass with that target, go vertical, and then join up on the target's six.

Let the flying and the O'Club missions merge.

RAFEngO74to09

10th Jul 2016, 02:01

USMC F-35B blowing away the display center markers at RIAT today:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gz__nC6jdRI

ORAC

10th Jul 2016, 16:01

How the hell will we tank them to get them in range of the enemy???:confused::confused:

UK Air Force Mulls F-35A Benefits as US Jets Visit England (http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/air-force/2016/07/09/f35-uk-british-air-force/86892660/)

FAIRFORD, England —The British public got its first taste of the F-35B short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft purchased for the Royal Air Force (RAF) and Royal Navy at an air show Friday, and it’s just possible they also got a glimpse of the next combat jet in line for purchase........

British F-35 officials at the show confirmed there is interest in the conventional takeoff version and that the issue could start to be addressed as soon as the next strategic defence and security review (SDSR), currently scheduled for 2020.

“What we will do as we go forward into the next SDSR is look at the force mix,” said Air Commodore Linc Taylor, the Royal Air Force officer responsible for delivery of the British F-35 program. “There is an absolute benefit to maximizing combat air power with interoperability with Typhoon and the capability from the [aircraft] carrier. We will look at all of those options as we go forward into the next SDSR,” Taylor said to reporters at RIAT.

Britain’s combat air fleet will be based around the Eurofighter Typhoon and F-35B once the RAF’s Tornado strike jet is pensioned off in 2019. Taylor said the F-35A could bring something to the force mix the other jets couldn’t match. “The F-35A offers you a greater range and greater payload. There may be space for an 'A' variant so we will look at 'A' and 'B's in the future, but not the 'C's,” Taylor said. “The F-35 and Typhoon have complimentary qualities but the Typhoon is not low-observable, it can’t get to where the F-35 can get to.".........

The F-35A has been on the RAF’s wish list for a long while, according to Doug Barrier, the senior air analyst at the London-based think tank International Institute for Strategic Studies.

“There has been a long-standing interest on the part of the RAF in the F-35A to meet some of the roles now addressed by Tornado GR4. Greater range and payload performance than the 'B' model, and commonality with the USAF, are likely part of the draw,” he said. “The ground-attack role post the Tornado GR4’s retirement could eventually be divided between the Typhoon — equipped with the Storm Shadow long-range land-attack cruise missile and other weapons — and the F-35A, with the latter offering the ability to penetrate airspace defended by high-end threat systems, using medium air-to-surface weapons such as the MBDA SPEAR 3 now in development,” Barrie said.........

PhilipG

10th Jul 2016, 16:09

There could be an argument to get Cs instead of As, with the refuelling simplicity, as well as having both F35 variants being under USN design control.

MSOCS

10th Jul 2016, 17:20

No it wouldn't necessarily. Especially if the A is being looked at to fulfil a completely separate set of requirements for the Air Force. A is lowest cost per frame so you get more jets for your budget. There'll never be interop for UK QEC and the C model as we will never get cats and traps. So the A would make total sense. Why carry all that additional weight around for the C when you can't use it 90+% of the time?

PhilipG

10th Jul 2016, 17:48

My point was that the RAF does not have any boom tankers, so unless someone pays LM to put a probe on the A, there is a range problem. Also with the Department of the Navy being the lead customer for the B and C their development might go on a similar path the the one that the USAF wants, easier to have more similar aircraft. Obviously I am aware that the C will never land on a RN carrier, it does have a longer range than the A as well. When it was thought that the carriers were to be cat and trap, people seemed very happy with the concept of having the C, has the prospective role changed since then?

ORAC

10th Jul 2016, 18:26

There'll never be interop for UK QEC and the C model as we will never get cats and traps. Never say never.

Engines

11th Jul 2016, 11:34

I hope some background stuff might be of interest.

The selection of the boom refuelling receptacle for the A model was under debate for some while, especially when the weight issues began to bite in 2003.

The boom receptacle added a couple of hundred pounds of weight, as it had to be made of heavy metals to withstand the pounding it can get. It also needed a hefty and fairly complex retractable ramp door system, and worst of all its location on the fuselage spine took up scarce fuel tank volume - I seem to remember a figure of around 400 pounds of fuel lost.

I know that there was a RAND study done at some stage that looked at the USAF's policy of having all its aircraft equipped for boom refuelling. I seem to remember that it concluded that a probe and drogue system made more sense for smaller tactical aircraft, offering faster refuels at multiple points from a single tanker, and better NATO interoperability. Booms would be retained for the larger aircraft (e.g. B-2, B-52, C-17).

Again working from memory, but I don't believe that the space on the A where a retractable probe ( as per B and C) would be installed has been used for anything else. The main challenges would probably be the routeing of the plumbing and reprogramming the fuel management software.

The C model certainly offers longer range than a C, but at the expense of a lot of additional airframe weight (tons of it) that has to be hauled around with no benefit. A fairly obvious future variant could involve putting a 'C' type wing (without fold) on to an 'A' airframe, without all the additional weight required for carrier ops. Again, my memory may be at fault, but I think that this option may have been looked at at some stage at Fort Worth. However, it was probably a 'US only' effort. Such an aircraft could have had an MTOW of around 80,000 pounds, with an unrefuelled range of around 900 to 1000 miles.

Hope this is of some interest, best regards as ever to those working out the fleet mix,

Engines

MSOCS

11th Jul 2016, 12:25

UK can and probably will fit booms to Voyager. UK may buy A model for the RAF's future Combat Air requirement, thereby solving the AAR Red Herring.

Bastardeux

11th Jul 2016, 12:53

Interesting that it was specifically stated that the C variant is not an option. It makes me want to don my tin foil hat and question the political motivations behind such a comment.

MSOCS

11th Jul 2016, 13:15

We did the whole debacle of B to C and back to B, when it was quickly realised just how expensive a conversion of both QEC would be. So, on the basis that the C variant carries significant additional weight solely for conventional carrier ops, it is totally dead weight when you can only use it on another country's conventional carriers. The margin of fuel the C has over the A would be largely negated by the additional weight you are carrying but never going to use for take off or landing. Change the QECs to conventional carriers? That's a different matter, but the costs go through the roof and the UK will inevitably end up with less total aircraft as a result of yet another impassioned U-turn.

So, look at the more important issue. The RAF has a requirement for an addition to its Combat Air "force mix" between 2020-2050. It's called FCAS. Now it isn't necessarily an F-35 but recent interviews say it might likely be. Therefore, why are we even debating a sea-based aircraft for a requirement that is entirely separate from the original one that has resulted in the F-35B? We are buying and operating a load of F-35B from QEC for the next 30-40 years under that requirement. This one is separate.

KenV

11th Jul 2016, 13:24

So, on the basis that the C variant carries significant additional weight solely for conventional carrier ops, it is totally dead weight when you can only use it on another country's conventional carriers.Yes, the C carries extra weight to enable catapult/arrestor operations. But this seems to beg a follow up question. Does the B's lift fan and related systems not incur an even greater penalty in weight, plus a penalty in fuel AND weapon bay capacity?

Lonewolf_50

11th Jul 2016, 13:30

I hope some background stuff might be of interest. Awesome input, as usual.

A fairly obvious future variant could involve putting a 'C' type wing (without fold) on to an 'A' airframe, without all the additional weight required for carrier ops. Again, my memory may be at fault, but I think that this option may have been looked at at some stage at Fort Worth. However, it was probably a 'US only' effort. Such an aircraft could have had an MTOW of around 80,000 pounds, with an unrefuelled range of around 900 to 1000 miles.
And so the F-35D concept begins to take shape: SuperLightning! :E

MSOCS

11th Jul 2016, 13:47

Ken, I see the additional weight on the B as absolutely vital to enable a Carrier ops from our ships in their current configuration. Yes you only need it for take off and landing but sometimes you are forced to require that capability for take off and landing or there is no mission. The B is therefore a self-fulfilling prophecy once the country committed to a STOVL carrier design.

Bastardeux

11th Jul 2016, 13:53

Would conversion of the carriers be more expensive than conversion of the tankers + the cost of developing a bespoke AEWAC capability for the carriers?

There's also the intangible cost of not being able to operate any future UCAV's that will inevitably develop in the next 40 to 50 years.

It seems like a relatively trivial cost saving in the grand scheme of things, for the sake of absolutely zero flexibility in the future.

MSOCS

11th Jul 2016, 14:08

The Voyager conversion pales in comparison to the c.£2Bn estimated Carrier conversion cost (in 2012) for catapults and an arrestor system. AEW is already planned to be delivered by Crowsnest on the Merlin. Again, we seem to be conflating the subject of a future RAF requirement with the carrier. The RN's future requirements may lie in focusing their [equally] limited equipment budget on other ship programmes, especially as the Carrier Strike requirement is being delivered. Oh, and don't forget the RN want V-22 too. Money seems to grow on trees, it seems.

I'm confident that, should there be a desire for a UCAV to operate from QEC, a novel solution will be developed to launch and recover it.

Bastardeux

11th Jul 2016, 14:37

A V22 AEW was what I was referring to...not cheap.

And you've hinted exactly at what I was trying to get at originally by saying the RN has its own priorities re the carrier, rather than looking at it in the wider context...hence politically charged comment (maybe) about no consideration of the C varient from the Air Force.

A novel landing solution for a UCAV would again suggest a ruinously expensive bespoke design capable of VSTOL. Hence my objection to ruling out any future purchase of the C and by implication any reasonable expectation of a future conversion of the carriers in their long future.

pasta

11th Jul 2016, 14:50

A novel landing solution for a UCAV would again suggest a ruinously expensive bespoke design capable of VSTOL
Given the relative weights, and presumed lower landing speed, a UCAV arrestor system would probably have to absorb less than 10% of the energy of an F35, and could also be designed with different safety criteria. VSTOL wouldn't be the only option...

MSOCS

11th Jul 2016, 14:52

Is there a desire to land Taranis on the QEC? Is that a Taranis requirement? I genuinely don't know chap, so I'm asking the wider illuminati that often pause here for entertainment. Failing that, if they nail the range/persistence it won't need to be an embarked capability per se, akin to tankers. Even ambition needs to be managed.

V-22 is an excellent choice for the RN IMHO. I sincerely hope they find the money for that because it would help SF, MITL and whole other bunch of stuff too.

Sorry I don't see or appreciate your dim view of future plans. FWIW I think they are lining up to be very good for all sides. Just because some within the RN want to be like Uncle Sam, we shouldn't all be.

Bastardeux

11th Jul 2016, 14:53

That's interesting to know, pasta. Is that the case for the X47? Would that also be the case if it was bringing back a weapons load of the same weight expected of the F35?

MSOCS

11th Jul 2016, 14:58

Again, I ask you what the Taranis requirements are. Why is an F-35B payload a comparator? We're not replacing the latter's capability in a UCAV, to my knowledge.

Once again we seem to be conflating the RAF's requirement, for a Future Combat Air System, with a confusing argument (or straw man) about why the C isn't in the line up. The C variant is best suited for a conventional carrier, which we won't have. The A variant has 95% of the fuel load and range, with the same payload and none of the parasitic weight of the C.

Bastardeux

11th Jul 2016, 15:02

MSOCS, I think we're dancing around each-other's point. I'm not trying to make mystic meg style predictions about the future; the point that I'm taking issue with is that there was a concerted effort (maybe) to say the C was off the cards. I think it's weird, and represents an unwelcome level of inflexibility about the future is all. And if (as an accusation) it is true, then I hope it is not politically motivated. That's what I'm getting at. Cheers

Evalu8ter

11th Jul 2016, 15:31

The RN covet the V-22 as a MITL/COD bird - and the new USN COD variant would seem to fit that spec quite nicely. I can't be alone in thinking that the extra fuel it carries would be useful for SF but a likely RN buy would be too small to allow them to use it. If the much touted enlarged SF "war chest" stretches to V-22 I imagine it would be the USAF SOCOM CV-22 variant, recently publicly trailed in all of the papers, that would be favourite. Rumours are rife on the extent of the "shopping spree" - but the niche use of V-22 makes sense (if affordable). Once it's in service, then you can start looking at other roles (Crowsnest, AAR etc). Re the F-35A, it makes a more sensible GR4 replacement than Typhoon, with the option to buy ever-improving small batches through life rather than have a costly attrition fleet sitting around (assuming, of course, you don't end up in a high tempo shooting war...). Lots of potential through life savings by buying into a large long running programme......just like with AH64, P8 and I wonder what else?

Davef68

11th Jul 2016, 15:41

Is this the first time the RAF's interest in the F35A has been spoken of in such a public way?

MSOCS

11th Jul 2016, 15:45

Evalua8er, your view pretty much matches mine in this. Though you clearly have more knowledge re: V-22.

Dave - probably.

Engines

11th Jul 2016, 16:41

There have been a few posts here on carriers and aircraft - perhaps I can help clear up a few points.

MSOCS - no, Taranis was not required to operate from a carrier. As I've posted often here, the whole business of getting an aircraft on and off a cat and trap ship is extremely difficult, and demands some specific design features and expertise which only the USN really have.

Both Taranis and X-47B were nothing more than flying shapes, and as the F-35 programme shows, getting from that stage to a military aircraft with a usable combat load, range , endurance and speed is a non-trivial problem. It's interesting to note how many people were, a while back, proposing that we buy 'X-47B' as our carrier borne UCAV - less people have commented on the fact that the USN appears to have put their UCLASS programme on hold while they go back and look again at requirements and available technology.

I've posted before on the tendency to assign UCAVs with nearly god-like powers of range and payload, despite the fact that they are still machines governed by the laws of aerodynamics and physics. It's just possible that the USN have determined that, for now, building a UCAV to operate from a carrier with a payload and performance envelope a bit better than a legacy manned aircraft would probably result in a UCAV nearly as big, complex and expensive as a comparable manned aircraft.

On carrier design versus variant choice - it might be useful to remember that JSF (remember that?) actually came first, and the UK's place at the table as a Tier 1 partner on JSF was predicated on two things. First, and most importantly, our STOVL knowledge and a long (over 20 years) history of high level co-operation with the US on that technology. (The MoU under which the UK joined the JSF was actually titled the 'JSF STOVL MoU'). Secondly, the fact that we actually had a requirement, which was (I think) Naval Staff Target 6466, for a Harrier replacement - it was called Future Carrier Bome Aircraft (FCBA). This became Future Joint Combat Aircraft (FJCA) in around 2001, and from where I stood, FJCA was the Tornado replacement.

At that time, as far as I understood, the high level plan for the RAF was a mix of F-35 as a strike asset, with Typhoon as the AD asset. F-35 variant was not specifically identified, but it was my impression that a buy of F-35A was never far away from the table.

UK carrier requirements were framed to include a wide range of aircraft, including FCBA, F-18, Rafale, and even a marinised Typhoon (which didn't actually exist, thus making designing a ship around it a tad iffy). Why not only FCBA? There was some UK nervousness over putting all our eggs in the STOVL basket, but the lack of decisiveness in the UK's carrier design looked worse and worse as time went on. Lack of expertise and an accurate cost model led to the debacle of SDR 2010 and the subsequent carrier design 'hokey-cokey'.

8ter is right on target (as usual) on V-22. My view (and that's all it is) is that the combination of STOVL capability plus good range and endurance will eventually make the case for a UK purchase, especially for SF ops from a carrier.

Hope this helps a bit, best regards as ever to all those building our future land based and maritime aviation capabilities,

Engines

Not_a_boffin

11th Jul 2016, 17:10

My (probably hazy) recollections are that the FCBA requirement looked at JSF-STOVL, JSF-CV, F/A18E and what was referred to as Navalised Eurofighter 2000 (NEF2000) as candidate aircraft. With STOVL, CTOL (in the carrier sense), STOBAR and Advanced STOBAR as operating modes.

The FJCA project was created by combining the RN FCBA and the RAF FOAS (Future Offensive Air System) requirements into a oner, as part of the ongoing Equipment Capability requirement rationalisations. FOAS was most definitely the GR4 replacement - sorry, future required capability(!).

The danger (IMO) of going down the mixed A & B route is that we will eventually end up with an orphan fleet, where - as has happened before with an aircraft that shall not be named - small fleets end up in the "savings measure" target sights.

Aside from the known divergence in commonality across the variants, I'd imagine the training requirements and syllabi would start to diverge as well, to the point where you'd end up with de facto three separate forces (Typhoon, F35A and F35B), with a concomitant reduction in commonality and an increase in DLOD costs.

MSOCS

11th Jul 2016, 17:50

There would most assuredly be a common syllabi for the A and B, you then just add the element of STOVL trg for those destined for the B. Remember the Mission Systems of F-35 family are 99% the same. The selection of the A over the C would actually save on the requirement to train, because there is no additional burden to train cats and traps which is a massive overhead (FCLP etc)

Sorry but the whole orphan paranoia is exactly that, paranoia. The F-35B fleet will be very difficult to cull while there are Carriers. What else would replace them? Let's not clutch at straws.

Stitchbitch

11th Jul 2016, 18:14

Why not just give the F-35B to the FAA? The RAF could then operate the A. I'll get my coat...

ORAC

11th Jul 2016, 18:35

I'm just considering numbers. We are buying the joint F-35B wing to allow surge capability and reduce costs (plus no doubt the opportunity of a shore tour to maximise retention). With the reducing size of the RAF and the shrinking Tornado force vs Typhoon, what size additional but are we looking at, particularly if a "force" with a mix of manned platforms controlling UAV wingmen? One, maximum two, squadrons?

For this we would introduce a new type with reported only 10-20% airframe and spares commonality? Even accepting the idea is to solve the problem by sharing spare with the USAF wing at Lakenheath it seems weird - plus the cost of converting the tanker force.

Why not go the whole hog and base them as an integral part of the Lakenheath wing including USAF tanker support? But with long timeframes I am old enough to remember the fallout from the Skybolt cancellation. Not suggesting that the F-35A will be cancelled, but what if the USAF/USA relocated them back to the USA or Eastern Europe etc?

Seems extremely poorly explored and thought out. The route of more F-35B would seem lower risk, and the tanker force was scaled for more squadrons than we will have anyway.

Accepting the additional range and payload would be advantageous, it does seem ambitious as an idea and reflective of an age of a larger Air Force. Nowadays we have to cut out cloth to suit our purse.

Lonewolf_50

11th Jul 2016, 18:39

... and the tanker force was scaled for more squadrons than we will have anyway. Having a few too many tankers beats not having enough.

Not_a_boffin

11th Jul 2016, 18:45

you then just add the element of STOVL trg for those destined for the B. Remember the Mission Systems of F-35 family are 99% the same.

My bold. Once on type though, how much cross-pol would there actually be? Absolutely agree on the mission systems, but the airframe and lift engine? Emergency procedures? Non-aircrew training? It's an additional cost which always gets the accountants (and eventually SO1s) salivating.

The selection of the A over the C would actually save on the requirement to train, because there is no additional burden to train cats and traps which is a massive overhead (FCLP etc)

Don't recall suggesting the C. I'm just questioning why you'd add another type.

Sorry but the whole orphan paranoia is exactly that, paranoia. The F-35B fleet will be very difficult to cull while there are Carriers.

Once (in fact twice) bitten, twice shy. Understand and grudgingly agree with the 2010 rationale. However, why risk repeating history? There were carriers in 2009 - miraculously in 2011 there were none.

What ORAC said....

MSOCS

11th Jul 2016, 19:36

ORAC, the vital statistics of the B don't meet the FCAS requirement. The A does. It's that simple. The aggregate sustainment and logistics cost of staying within the same program as opposed to a completely different type makes sense. Given the above logic, the F-35A would make complete sense to me, as someone earlier said.

ORAC

11th Jul 2016, 19:42

ORAC, the vital statistics of the B don't meet the FCAS requirement. The A does. It's that simple. And since when have MOD requirements been written in stone? I can give you ample examples when political needs and costs have changed requirements.

MSOCS

11th Jul 2016, 21:06

Lonewolf_50

11th Jul 2016, 21:23

...and I could give you just as many examples in return, as could many other experienced military personnel on this forum. Your rather weak and diversionary fact about moving the goalposts of requirements doesn't alter the fact that the FCAS ones aren't met by aircraft currently in our inventory. Did you mean the A instead of the B, or the A instead of, or to replace, Typhoon? If you mant A instead of B, what do you do with the carriers built for B's?

Evalu8ter

11th Jul 2016, 21:23

"Why not go the whole hog and base them as an integral part of the Lakenheath wing including USAF tanker support?" - Why not base an RAF F-35A wing very close? Mildenhall is going to be very quiet (i.e. shut...) soon and Honington is almost as close with a couple of HAS sites. The Rocks would love digging holes somewhere new...

I'm not sure, but is there confirmation of the make up of the 138 ac buy? Just thinking the 35B numbers could get capped at the 60-70 mark to give a reinforced CAG plus spares and the other 70-odd as 35As would make a reasonable sized wing for the RAF. If you shifted the balance further to the F35A (say 40/100) then you could conceive of giving the RN the B in toto and leaving the RAF with the A. Mind you, would the rump FAA struggle to man two Sqns plus dedicated STOVL training unit and still supply the required number of Staff and support posts?

flyinkiwi

11th Jul 2016, 21:36

There would most assuredly be a common syllabi for the A and B, you then just add the element of STOVL trg for those destined for the B

Mind you, would the rump FAA struggle to man two Sqns plus dedicated STOVL training unit and still supply the required number of Staff and support posts?

Forgive my intrusion in this excellent and informative thread, but I need some clarification. Part of the JSF STOVL research which included the VAAC Harrier was to look long term at reducing the training requirements (and therefore cost) of STOVL training. If the project succeeded in their goal of getting the aircraft to behave the same at 5 knots as it does at 500 knots then it follows that there would not be much to teach a budding F-35B pilot as opposed to one assigned to a different variant? I understand that the only difference in the cockpit is the hook handle is replaced with a STOVL mode switch in the B model.

Thanks in advance for any answers.

MSOCS

11th Jul 2016, 21:54

Flyinkiwi, they did indeed deliver on their goal. Training for STOVL is much, much more simple in relative terms to the Harrier, hence my point about just needing a STOVL trg package to convert an A pilot to a B. Maintaining currency will be straightforward in the jet and sim.

Lone wolf, afaik it is A in addition to Typhoon and F-35B. The A can easily replace the Tornado deep strike capability and exceed its payload (with external stores) while maintaining Combat Air mass for the UK.

Evalu8er, there will likely only ever be one training unit and that will be based at Marham. It could deliver B and A trg if given the remit to do so. C is more difficult because there isn't a mock cat and trap deck there. So your question really is about the RN manning 2 combat squadrons and jointly manning the OCU. The answer to that is, "probably, in time" but I don't know for sure. As for the 138 make up, again, no idea.

Engines

11th Jul 2016, 22:19

Flyinkiwi,

Working from increasingly long memory (so I could well be wrong), but the cockpit layouts of the A and the B are very nearly identical, with just an additional 'mode switch' on the left hand control inceptor ('throttle'). However, there are differences in the cockpit display software to support STOVL operations. The view forward is the same, the view aft isn't.

MSOCS is absolutely correct about the simplicity of flying the F-35B compared with the Harrier, and I'm sure that the amount of hours required to adequately train pilots in the basic mechanics of STOVL takeoff and landings will be very low.

However, where there will be a delta will be the training required to allow pilots to operate safely in the totally different environment of the carrier and its associated fleet. All the way from responding to mandatory instructions from flight deck crew to the completely different arrangements for recovering a formation to the fleet and the ship. However, I don't want to over egg these aspects - naval aviators have been doing them for some time, and the FAA has enough continuity from its exchange time with the USN to redevelop those skills.

On the practicality of a split fleet, it might help to appreciate where the major technical cost drivers are in supporting a combat aircraft. In my experience, they are avionics, propulsion and airframe systems. F-35A and B avionics hardware fits are very nearly identical, and there is a very large amount of avionics indeed on any F-35. On propulsion, I am told that there are some common components between the A and B engine, but there are a lot of unique B components associated with the lift system. Airframe systems have a great deal of commonality between A and B.

Again just my experience, but the actual airframe bits (frames, skins, etc) are not significant cost drivers.

My own thoughts (and that's all they are) is that it would be nonsensical to buy 138 STOVL aircraft if the standard assumption for the carrier is 12 aircraft at sea. I'd suggest building a fully joint support and training system that delivered As and Bs (and trained aircrew and maintainers) to the respective Services for their operational tasks - to the RAF and Air Command for land based strike and recce, and to the RN and Sea Command for maritime strike, recce and fleet air defence.

Hope this helps the discussion along - best regards as ever to those working in the puzzle palaces,

Engines

ORAC

12th Jul 2016, 06:12

Only 20-25% commonality between the models, and mainly in the cockpit.

https://warisboring.com/u-s-general-admits-f-35-is-actually-three-separate-airplanes-9c3a542a739f#.awbw7kv7q

peter we

12th Jul 2016, 06:58

Ignore the C and whats the commonality between the A and B?
More importantly, whats the commonality for the 'major technical cost drivers' for A and B? Engine's comments indicates that its 'a alot'.

ORAC

12th Jul 2016, 07:11

Well apart from the wing, tail, fuselage, weapons bay and software, as Engines say's it does have common avionics.

However, with the age of the current sensors I'd expect an updated fit long before the RAF would order the A, and the differing roles would drive the fit even further apart s the design offices diverge. The software builds equally diverging.

That leaves the cockpit, seat and core engine. Unless the USAF changes the seat and upgrades to a new AETP engine.

No risk there then....,,

USAF Plans for Radical F-35 Upgrade Reveal Obsolescence (http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/feature/162520/usaf-plans-for-radical-upgrade-reveal-f_35-obsolescence.html)

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/farnborough-usaf-reopens-door-for-ge-to-compete-for-427210/

Exclusive: USAF Weighing Replacement F-35 Ejection Seat (http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/air-force/2016/06/24/sources-usaf-weighing-replacing-f35-ejection-seat/86257576/)

Just This Once...

12th Jul 2016, 07:17

I think if you are concerned over the commonality between the A & B you are missing the point.

If we choose to add the A to the mix we will find it has a near 100% commonality with all the other F-35As in the global fleet. Same is true of the F-35Bs, albeit with a much smaller global fleet size.

With the F-35 we will not be guessing on a UK spares buy to cover our presumed usage (before slashing it in a future mythical savings round) and trying to keep the aircraft going as a UK cottage-industry, with robbing as our usual spares bank. Spares will be governed by the false-God that is ALIS and unique fleets or fleets-within-a-fleet will not be the allowable norm. Think UK C-17 rather than UK E-3.

ORAC

12th Jul 2016, 08:45

If you are suggesting the MOD staffing and logistics tail for the F-35, whichever model, is going to be smaller and cheaper than for previous FJs because of ALIS I need an interlude to roll on the floor screaming in hysterical laughter......

WE Branch Fanatic

12th Jul 2016, 08:49

Over on Linkedin - a post from the MOD points out that over 500 UK companiies are involved with the F-35, producing something like 15% of the aircraft. Would I be right in assuming that percentage is higher for the B version - with the Rolls Rolls LiftSystem and STOVL controls?

PhilipG

12th Jul 2016, 09:48

We in the UK are never going to have a very large fleet of F35s I think we can all agree.

My point made earlier about if there was another variant bought of the F35 to think of the C was to do with management of the development, design authority etc, as well as the ability to refuel.

Once the development phases have been completed for the F35 I think that it is not unreasonable to think that the JPO will disband and the USAF take responsibility for the A and the USN take responsibility for the B & C.

The development agendas of the USAF and the USN may be different and thus changes to the A might not necessarily be made to the B at the same time or ever, making maintenance and training more complicated, whilst it is not unreasonable to think that the USN would progress the B&C in parallel.

Engines

12th Jul 2016, 11:27

I might be able to help with a few points that have arisen in recent posts. Please forgive me if I get anything badly wrong, I'm not on the programme now, and I'm really going mostly on professional experience.

ORAC, my sincere apologies for not being clearer in my earlier posts. What i was trying (badly) to put over is that support costs (and technical issues) tend to be concentrated on a surprisingly small subset of the entire aircraft. Things like wings, tails, fuselage and weapons bays don't really drive costs. Flying controls systems also tend to be low significance items.

What really does drive cost are hardware items that need frequent replacement and/or rectification boy the manufacturer. Engines are the prime cost driver on most jet combat aircraft, and if they go wrong the results can be ruinous. The USAF had an absolute disaster with their engines in the late 60s and 70s, and the RAF had a fairly awful (and horribly expensive) experience with the RB199. Ditto the RN with the Gem in the Lynx. Of course, the F-35B's lift system has to be a major area for attention.

After engines, it would be avionics, but I would note that hardware reliability has been one area where technology has definitely delivered in spades. Disasters like the F3's AI24 Foxhunter are now very rare, and in my 30 years as an aircraft engineer I saw massive improvements in avionics reliability (and support cost reductions). F-35B avionics hardware is, as far as I remember, nearly identical to F-35A. There will be a different software load in some areas of the flight controls, of course.

The final area I'd watch would be airframe systems - generators, power systems, actuators, valves, switchgear, etc, etc. F-35B has plenty of these, and that's another area where any commonality would help.

And yes, the Uk does manufacture around 13 to 15% of the aircraft by dollar value. Add in items built by UK owned companies in the US (e.g. BAES Avionics) and I think the figure might be higher. Yes, the F-35B figure is quite a bit higher due to the UK manufactured lift system.

PhilipG makes a very good point about support going forward, as the aircraft moves out of SDD, run by the JPO, and into through life support, where the individual services rule the roost. I honestly don't know what the US DoD has planned, but I do know that a single ALIS system will be used to manage the support chain, and there was certainly an aim that where F-35s owned by a number of countries were operating together, they would all be able to access the system. I also know that commonality was a through life issue, not just in development. I won't try to speculate further, as I'd just be wrong.

However, I think it's reasonable to assume that overall configuration control of the aircraft will be tightly controlled by the US, and that will present a challenge for the RAF, who have, in my view, not always been totally excellent in controlling 'fleets within fleets'. The situation whereby only a small number of their aircraft can actually be deployed on operations at any one time will simply not be acceptable in the future, and it's my hope (as a retired engineer, but still paying taxes) that the F-35 fleet will stay at a generally common standard as far as possible. I think JTO's post is bang on the money here.

Best regards as ever to those putting together the support plans,

Engines

ORAC

12th Jul 2016, 12:45

However, I think it's reasonable to assume that overall configuration control of the aircraft will be tightly controlled by the US I have my doubts, particularly as regards software and external stores.

based on the recent articles relating to the F-35i 9yes, we are getting into export versions), the baseline software is being regarded as the equivalent of IOS on the iPhone, where customers can add their own apps to control external devices and add new capabilities on their displays in the form of overlays etc.

One only hopes it will end up as the IOS model and not the Android.....

Israel’s F-35 App And Its Implications (http://aviationweek.com/defense/israel-s-f-35-app-and-its-implications)

Lonewolf_50

12th Jul 2016, 13:01

USAF Plans for Radical F-35 Upgrade Reveal Obsolescence (http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/feature/162520/usaf-plans-for-radical-upgrade-reveal-f_35-obsolescence.html)
Ten to twelve years into the F-16's service, how many upgrades were added to the mission systems and capability of that aircraft? Given how long this program has stretched out, a similar "refresh" is about due, even though it hasn't populated active wings as quickly as the Viper did. They need to get ahead of any new fit as it will take some years to get it done, since testing and dynamic interface issues will be added to the queue of what's still being sorted out. Seems to me that this aircraft will never stop playing "catch up" as a program.

MSOCS

13th Jul 2016, 07:27

Lonewolf_50, you raise an extremely important point. It's one of the reasons that Block 4 won't just be a single upgrade delivered straight after SDD is finished. Each of the US Services and PNs need time to bed-in, but they won't have long. Will it be long enough? Probably, but when Block 4.1, 4.2, etc all start to roll in with upgrades from 2019 we'll need to be careful not to overmatch what the customers can cope with. It just creates confusion and takes jets away from the line constantly.

riff_raff

13th Jul 2016, 08:25

The F-35B lift fan is a R-R product, but it is produced by a US subsidiary.

The US ITAR regulations limit what defense-related technology can be provided to foreign governments. So foreign F-35 customers are not provided the best avionics/radars/ etc available. Of course, this does not prevent F-35 customers like Israel from developing their own avionic systems that might be better.

Rhino power

13th Jul 2016, 09:10

The ITAR regulations seem to be applied unevenly then, since the UAE's Block 60 F-16E/F's are far more advanced and capable than the Block 50/52 F-16C/D's the USAF operates...

-RP

MSOCS

13th Jul 2016, 10:10

RP - indeed.

I personally don't share riff_raff's view about not being provided the best avionics/radars/etc available. After all, Brit pilots are flying USMC jets in the USA and USMC pilots are flying Brit jets.

Engines

13th Jul 2016, 11:17

Riff and others,

Perhaps I can help once more (but do please let me know when I stop helping).

ITARs - it's not quite true that ITARs mean that foreign customers 'are not provided' with 'the best avionics/radars etc available'. ITARs have been around for years, and their purpose is to closely control what military technology (and data, and related services) are provided by US companies to what foreign 'persons' ('Persons' can mean governments, companies and individual people). One of the key ways ITARs control what US companies can export is via things called Technical Assistance Agreements (TAAs), which take around 6 months to a year to put in place.

Remember as well that, unlike the UK, the US DoD generates and owns most of the validation and verification data that supports bringing aircraft and weapon systems into service. (Stuff like flight test data, environmental test results, EMC testing, and so on). TAAs don't cover DoD owned stuff, so strong and comprehensive 'Government to Government' agreements are essential.

ITARs and other US regulations can be incredibly restrictive, but the UK has been generally successful in getting access to 'top end' US military technology. The best way to ensure success is to make sure that any UK purchase of US equipment is backed up with a solid set of Government to Government agreements, such as Treaties (e.g. the 'Bermuda Treaty' that supported Polaris and Trident) or Memorandums of Understanding (MoUs) like the 'STOVL JSF MoU' that made us a Tier 1 partner on F-35. These not only allow Government to Government data transfer, but they also provide essential support to US Government approval of TAAs. As ever, politics plays a big part in how comprehensive these agreements are and how much technology transfer they support. That's why Israel always gets a good deal, as does the UK.

However, (there's always a however) you cannot ever take this sort of situation for granted. When people in the UK think that our 'special relationship' means that we can still get a good 'off the shelf' deal without getting these TAAs and agreements in place, they get a rude shock, and our defence programmes suffer. That happened on Apache, it may have played a part on Rivet Joint, and it sure as hell happened on many of our UORs where we wanted rapid purchase of US sourced kit.

In the case of F-35, the UK is very well covered across the piece, and I expect that as a Tier 1 partner, we will get very good access to the data we will need. Will we get everything the US has? Probably not. Will we get what we need? My assessment is 'probably yes'. But it will require hard work.

Best regards as ever to all those working the detail in the documents,

Engines

Lyneham Lad

18th Jul 2016, 14:38

F-35's Farnborough debut a welcome lift (https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/opinion-f-35s-farnborough-debut-a-welcome-lift-427518/)
It was still possible at the Farnborough air show in 2014 to speculate whether the Lockheed Martin F-35 programme would survive the decade.

That time has passed. Not only is a global fleet of F-35s now inevitable, the single-engined strike fighter is finally maturing before our eyes into the warplane that will soon be – for better, or worse – the world’s go-to aircraft to answer almost any crisis. The long-belated viewing of a UK-owned F-35B in the Hampshire skies confirmed a great deal of progress. This variant is technically operational, although the US Marine Corps has no plan to deploy it until next year.

But it not all sweetness and light...

But there is still much work to do. The F-35’s sensors remain frozen at technical specifications developed early in the last decade, and a comprehensive refresh is necessary as soon as possible. A global fleet must perform coalition operations, but the US government still has not found a way to easily share information between an international F-35 formation in-flight. The logistics and maintenance systems are badly dysfunctional and late, and Lockheed must deliver on time as the production rate roughly quadruples by 2019.

The programme’s management also could be undone, with Senator John McCain keen to eliminate the Joint Programme Office and divide authority for management and upgrades between three services. The F-35 is at risk of losing a unified leadership structure.

:ooh:

Lyneham Lad

18th Jul 2016, 14:43

More from Flight Global:-
Israel further assesses F-35B buy (https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/israel-further-assesses-f-35b-buy-427486/)

The Israeli Air Force’s potential acquisition of the Lockheed Martin F-35B to add to the ordered fleet of F-35As has gained further momentum following a recent strategic assessment.

The number of short- and long-range rockets in use by militants in Lebanon and Gaza can affect the IAF’s ability to use its bases during conflict, the service says.

The IAF has formed special units equipped to perform quick fixes to damaged runways, but the problem remains significant.

“The operational need for the F-35B is clear,” an Israeli source told FlightGlobal.

Turbine D

21st Jul 2016, 13:41

Seems that Lockheed-Martin is getting low on cash and may have to borrow money to pay their suppliers. There isn't an agreement with the US DoD on how much the next batch of F-35s should cost. You can read the full article from the WSJ here:

Lockheed Jet Takes Toll on Its Cash -- WSJ - NASDAQ.com (http://www.nasdaq.com/article/lockheed-jet-takes-toll-on-its-cash--wsj-20160720-00074)

A bit of a "Catch 22" situation for the current US government and taxpayers thanks to the way the contract was setup from the get-go.

Bevo

21st Jul 2016, 16:15

It doesn’t appear that the short term cash flow issue has dampened the company’s business forecast.
For the year, Lockheed now expects to report $12.15 to $12.45 in earnings per share, up from an earlier prediction of $11.50 to $11.80 a share. The company expects to log $50 billion to $51.5 billion in revenue this year, higher than its previous $49.6 billion to $51.1 billion forecast.

Lyneham Lad

25th Jul 2016, 13:03

The Canadian government has issued a request for information from aerospace firms about the types of fighter aircraft they could provide, a signal that an earlier proposal to acquire Boeing Super Hornet jets on an interim basis is likely dead.

Canada Casts Wide Net in Search for Fighter-Jet Replacements (http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/2016/07/20/canada-casts-wide-net-search-fighter-jet-replacements/87352106/)

How much life left in their CF-18's ?

MSOCS

25th Jul 2016, 17:07

From where I sit this is likely one of two things:

1 - Canada cannot appear to have chosen the candidate fighter before a 'competition' is declared, therefore must cast the net wide. It may still have eyes on the SHornet, but needs an apparent competition. Boeing will eventually get a call for those 'buy now, pay later' "Best Buy" rates it promised the Canadian Govt to keep it in the fighter business.

2 - The Trudeau Govt is slowly waking up to the fact that SHornet will become obsolete far sooner than it wants for a 'new type'. Thus, it must now re-position to select F-35A (or C) once more, without unconvincingly destroying their election promise.

Out of the options above I would side with option 2 because I know that Canadian Air Force SMEs have recommended F-35 each and every time they have been asked to provide the military judgement on the matter. Sadly it seems to have fallen on deaf ears, much to the frustration of the Air Force experts.

ORAC

25th Jul 2016, 17:48

The third view is that they are sticking to their story - there will be a competition for a new fighter - but with no date given for a decision, lots of time to decide, certainly not before one of the options, the F-35, needs to have achieved full operational service to establish its actual capability.

In the meantime, the F-18E/F/G is being procured as a follow on order to the current fleet as an interim option to fill the operational need whilst utilising the current type experience with minimal engineer/pilot training etc - in exactly the same way that the RAAF is doing.

"See, we are just doing what they are doing, nothing underhand to see here, move along folks....."

SARF

25th Jul 2016, 22:29

MSOCS

25th Jul 2016, 23:30

SARF - It's been mentioned here before: If Canada wants to drag out the decision, fine, but it risks losing a large proportion of its secured industrial participation in doing so. Every partner has now placed firm orders for aircraft, except Canada, and Canada has already lost precious 'intelligent customer' status within the partnership. Relegation to the back benches is not where they wanted to be, and, if that industrial share goes, the offer becomes a lot less attractive to Canada.

ORAC - Canada may indeed be holding out but from where I sit it's a dangerous game. As far as capability is concerned, the USAF will probably declare their IOC earlier than planned and LM have turned a massive corner with a few of the Program's issues to enable that. After all, the USAF are the Program's biggest and best customer. But I also don't believe that a Super Hornet 'Band Aid' - to see Canada through to an F-35 commitment - will wash with Mr Trudeau and his Govt. Delaying any orders too far shallows the gradient on the F-35 cost curve and the US and other partners won't be appreciative of that. It's like Canada is the last in the pub round to buy, but hopes last orders will be called before they're expected to dip into their pockets. Finally, the comparison between Canada and Australia is quite invalid - on one hand you have Australia, which has already bought (and has placed further orders to buy) F-35s, as well as F-18Es to bridge their fighter gap. On the other hand you have Canada, which hasn't ordered a thing from any fighter manufacturing company yet and, as they say, money talks.

glad rag

26th Jul 2016, 00:54

The Plastic Pig

"Term for a small cab made from GRP
Made famous as the transport for del boy in the TV show only fools and horses. Very slow and has a tendency to roll over when cornering. Used as a term of abuse for any slow or crap cab."

How apt.

MSOCS

26th Jul 2016, 01:37

As eloquent as ever gr. Per usual, you seem to lack a relevant point or any background to your statements.

Perhaps another dit from you about the 'vv' and 'alpha' again, for giggles?

Lonewolf_50

26th Jul 2016, 02:35

What do you expect from JATK, MSOCS? For the sake of posterity
Awesome. JATK sd. (http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/566533-hawker-hunter-loss-shoreham-airshow-81.html#post9447726)

sandiego89

26th Jul 2016, 12:54

Why not just wait.. Drag out what they have.. see how the f 35 a performs then decide.. Also as a purchaser of a large wedge of military kit also offset performance v cost .. Now and in the future.. Then choose what suits Canada best . Why rush it

Besides the potential risk of losing work share, there is also risk with pushing the decision too far- as was done with the CH-124 (S-3) Sea Kings in Canadian service. The Sea Kings were pushed way past their expected service lives due to dickering, politics, finances, indecision and the late cancellation of their intended replacement. The Sea Kings were never expected to serve so long. With old airframes you either get to unsafe conditions, or lots of money to keep them going a few more years, or both. Major upgrades are deferred because no one expects the aircraft to be in service that long. You could spend millions to bandaid the fleet together, or many more millions for a major upgrade (like the center barrel section replacement on the Hornets). You can then be forced into a purchasing crisis as your equipment is literally falling out of the sky.

Anyone that has had debated keeping an old car relate- you pay for the $600 brake repair, the $2,500 transmission repair, 6 months later, the $250 radiator repair....it adds up. Would your money be better spent on a new car? Oh by the way your Band-Aid car is now 20+ years old, does not have airbags, does not have antilock brakes, still has a cassette deck, and is less reliable- and you think "do I really want my sons and daughters driving this thing?"

Do you want your warfighters to go into battle with Band-Aid gear? Most worrisome is you risk putting pilots into danger in perhaps obsolescent or unsafe aircraft.

You can only kick the can so far down the road. Canada does not have a great track record on deferred decisions.

RAFEngO74to09

26th Jul 2016, 17:09

VMFA-121 from MCAS Yuma participates for the first time with the F-35B in Red Flag 16-3.

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08Qr3Yt1xNg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGxQRxe4niw

Turbine D

26th Jul 2016, 17:37

Original quote by sandiego89: Anyone that has had debated keeping an old car relate- you pay for the $600 brake repair, the $2,500 transmission repair, 6 months later, the $250 radiator repair....it adds up. Would your money be better spent on a new car? Oh by the way your Band-Aid car is now 20+ years old, does not have airbags, does not have antilock brakes, still has a cassette deck
Funny you should bring up old cars, we have two, one is 17 years old going on 18 and the other is 15 years old going on 16. Both have all the stuff you think are missing. But, what is missing are monthly loan or lease payments when you don't have the cash to plunk down upfront for the latest and greatest. Don't think your analogy fits the current picture quite correctly. For the F-35, one thing that won't be missing is the continual upgrades to fix things that don't work well along with the associated costs, or to replace technology that is quickly becoming dated due to late delivery.:uhoh:

Maus92

26th Jul 2016, 18:26

The logical way forward is to purchase 24-36 F/A-18Fs to bolster the immediate needs of the air force, and include the wiring for conversion to the EA variant at a later date. Then conduct a full scale, fair evaluation of alternatives in 2022-4. (it would be advantageous for LM to wait until the F-35 matures and gains added capabilities in Block 4.x.) If LM plays hardball and threatens to pull contracts, tell them they will be disqualified from consideration in any new evaluation. Furthermore, the government should stipulate that any winner is expected to produce a certain percentage of the aircraft in Canada. AFA the Super Hornet being obsolete, only the fanboys believe that nonsense - certainly the USN doesn't believe it as evidenced by its purchasing decisions.

2805662

26th Jul 2016, 19:23

SARF -

Finally, the comparison between Canada and Australia is quite invalid - on one hand you have Australia, which has already bought (and has placed further orders to buy) F-35s, as well as F-18Es to bridge their fighter gap.

Interesting point, however the RAAF procured only twin seaters (F, F+, & G) to address a strike/bomber gap with the retirement of the F-111, not a fighter gap.

MSOCS

27th Jul 2016, 00:09

Thanks for the correction there. My bad.

Maus - the Super H isn't obsolete today, and won't be tomorrow either, but it will be far sooner than F-35. No "fanboy" nonsense either, as I'm a "fan" of both.

Canada playing the short game will be more costly. If it plays the longer game it'll reap rewards beyond just having the jets. As for holding LM hostage YGBSM. Canada's orders will pale compared to the total production and there are plenty of partners and US companies baying for Canada's industrial share already.

ORAC

27th Jul 2016, 07:22

280, in view of the lack of improvement of the F-35 in fighter performance of the last F-15/16/18 generation, and limited Mx load, it surely makes an even better for Canada seeking. A fighter replacement that Australia a bomber?

MSOCS, as linked to perilously, the Canadian F-35 work share is not tied any future order, only to Canada's - continuing - partnership in the programme. Any attempt to take away work in breach of contract would end up badly for LM. Plus, of course, Boeing saying they will outmatch any LM offset work, and they have their entire civil airline production lines to provide aviation related offset work from - unlike LM.

ORAC

28th Jul 2016, 06:20

Aimed at replacing the BACN etc and at getting the F-22/35 to talk with each other and all the L16 world?

AW&ST : Raytheon Wins Contract to Link UAVs, Aircraft

"The U.S. military still has a problem getting different types of aircraft to communicate with each other. But DARPA is working to change that, seeding companies to link manned and unmanned aerial vehicles. As part of that effort, Raytheon has won two contracts worth $9 million under DARPA’s Dynamic Network Adaptation for Mission Optimization program.

The goal is to easily share information with different types of sensors on different aircraft, even in contested environments. “First, we will adapt radio parameters in reaction to changing information needs and conditions, so current and future airborne networks can communicate with each other,” says Jason Redi, vice president for Raytheon BBN Technologies Networking and Communications. “Second, we will create an efficient way to share information across and between networks that are currently incompatible so that applications operating on them can share relevant data.”

The program is looking for technology that can bridge the gap between legacy networks and future adaptive ones. In the end, the program will conduct in-air experiments in tactically relevant scenarios. DARPA is looking for two primary elements—an information-based network framework and a network optimizer that can adapt even when radio frequencies are contested. Another part of the program is to integrate those technologies into a system of real radios, DARPA said in announcing the program"

KenV

29th Jul 2016, 13:13

The Air Force is close to declaring the controversial F-35 ready for combat
Washington Post 07/28/2016
The Air Force is close to certifying that the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is ready for combat, a declaration that would become one of the most significant milestones in the long and tortured history of the Pentagon's most expensive weapons program ever.After years of delays, cost overruns and controversy, top Pentagon officials could make the decision as early as next week, some 15 years after the program began.
In an interview, Gen. Herbert "Hawk" Carlisle, the head of the Air Force's Air Combat Command, said the jet fighter would likely be declared combat ready "at the leading edge" of a timeframe that begins Aug. 1. Once that happens, he said "they are ready to go." Still, he said the program remains in its developmental stages, and that officials have continued to find and fix problems. The plane still still due for upgrades in its software in addition to other changes.
"I'm very, very confident it is going to continue to exceed our expectations," he said. Declaring the plane's "initial combat capability is just the beginning. We still have work to do on the airplane, and it will continue to get better."
For years, the $400 billion program suffered a series of problems, and the F-35 was derided as "the plane that ate the Pentagon." In 2014, the engine of one of the jets caught fire as it was preparing to take off, forcing the Pentagon to temporarily ground the entire fleet.
But in more recent years the program has gotten back on track, Pentagon officials said. Production has begun to climb. Prices have come down. And it has hit a series of milestones, including its international debut at an airshow this summer in the United Kingdom.
Approximately 180 of the aircraft have been delivered by Bethesda-based Lockheed Martin, the world's largest defense contractor. And the Pentagon plans to buy a total of 2,443—though some in Congress, including Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, has said there is no way the military will be able to afford that many.
Still, military officials say the so-called 5th generation fighter is a significant step up from its predecessors, allowing pilots to maneuver undetected through enemy territory. The plane, which relies on so many lines of code it's often referred to as a "flying computer," has also been heralded for its ability to give pilots unparalleled situational awareness.
As the Air Force transitions from F-16s to the F-35, Lt. Col George Watkins, the commander of the 34th Fighter Squadron, said he has "been amazed at what we can do when going up against 4th generation fighters" in training.
"They have no idea where we're at," he said in a call with reporters. "And that's a pretty awesome feeling to know your pilots are in a unfair fight. That's what we're looking for."
The jet comes in three variants. One for the Marine Corps, which can land vertically and take off on a short runway. The Navy version is capable of landing on aircraft carriers, while the Air Force's is a more conventional fighter jet.
Last year, the Marine Corps declared that its variant was ready for combat. But the declaration from the Air Force would be much more significant because the service plans on buying 1,763 of the jets, more than any other of the services.
"It's an endorsement that the program is back on track, and it really needs that," said Richard Aboulafia, an aerospace analyst at the Teal Group, a Virginia-based consulting firm.
He also noted that the Air Force's version, the F-35A, is the version of the jet that many foreign governments have chosen as well. "They are taking a lot of heat because of the problems with the program," he said. "And this gives them political cover: 'Hey it's entered service in the U.S.'"
In recent testimony before Congress, Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, the program's executive director, said the fighter is "at a pivot point" as production is about to ramp up. He said while 45 aircraft were manufactured in 2015, that number should grow to more than 100 in 2018 and up to 145 by 2020.
Richard Meyer, the Air Force's Deputy Chief of the F-35 System Management Office Division, said the aircraft that's being certified will be able to perform many basic functions but will continue to evolve as time goes on.
"There are more improvements that are going to continue to modernize the airplane," he said. "We'll be able to get better weapons and better avionics, and make it better against an evolving threat. The enemy isn't standing still."
Contract negotiations between Lockheed Martin and the Pentagon on the next two batches of aircraft, a total of 147 jets, have dragged out for months. And during a recent earnings call, Bruce Tanner, Lockheed's chief financial officer, said the company has had to spend nearly $1 billion of its own money to keep the line going.
"We will not be able to continue and have that level of cash outflow as a corporation. We simply don't have that capacity," he said. "The Pentagon clearly knows that situation, and I'm optimistic that we are going to get cash soon."

ORAC

29th Jul 2016, 19:51

Israel to walk away from the F-35?

The JPost (http://m.jpost.com/Opinion/Column-one-Time-to-walk-away-from-US-aid-462677#article=6017Mzc5OTg5QkNCNDkzQjFBOTUyRTFGMThGRUIyMUQzR Dk=)

"....And so we come to the F-35.

For Israel, to a significant degree, the aid package on offer is about the F-35, the US’s fifth generation fighter, otherwise known as the Joint Strike Fighter. Last month Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman and IAF Chief of Staff Brig.-Gen Tal Kelman flew to Texas to ceremonially “take possession” of Israel’s first two F-35s. Both aircraft are set to be delivered to Israel in December.

To date, the IAF has purchased 33 F-35s – all with US aid money. The IAF wants to purchase a total of 75 F-35s, which are supposed to replace the F-16s and the F-15s that the IAF currently fields. As Liberman made clear during his visit, whether Israel purchases them or not is entirely dependent on the aid deal.

We should not take them. We should walk away. And we should walk away even if we receive nothing in exchange for the planes we reject.

The F-35 is a disaster of epic proportions, for the US first and foremost. If Israel agrees to base its next generation fighters on the F-35, it will be a disaster for us as well. Although it is late in the game, we need to cut our losses......"

MSOCS

29th Jul 2016, 20:49

I smell a rat:

"stealth is its calling card"....um, nope.

"Too hot, has to open weapon bay doors"....also, nope.

"20 million lines of code"....that's also bogus. It's just shy of 9 million.

This article was likely manufactured by a kid in a basement. Don't believe everything that comes with a fancy header. And if it IS "kosher", the journalist also probably thinks a 5 inch gun is the length of a toothbrush.

MSOCS

29th Jul 2016, 21:13

Um....ever heard of NORAD?

Lonewolf_50

29th Jul 2016, 23:35

To date, the IAF has purchased 33 F-35s – all with US aid money.
In other words, the US taxpayer buys them, and the the government gifts them to "someone."

Why did our government not buy and gift those 33 F-35's to our closest neighbor and NATO ally, Canada?

MPN11

30th Jul 2016, 09:30

Perhaps because nobody wants to expand their Empire onto radioactive territory? ;)

FODPlod

30th Jul 2016, 09:55

A nice bit of video to brighten our day:F-35 in the UK - A Commitment Kept (https://vimeo.com/lmaeronautics/review/176199061/3ed563576e)

Wander00

30th Jul 2016, 12:57

Impressive video

MSOCS

30th Jul 2016, 13:07

F-35 won't get cancelled airpolice. Those of you who hope for it will have to live with that disappointment.

glad rag

30th Jul 2016, 14:27

Teresa May doesn't think Hinkley is good value either, by the sound of things....

Geordie_Expat

30th Jul 2016, 14:28

Teresa May doesn't think Hinkley is good value either, by the sound of things....

And the point is ?????

Hempy

30th Jul 2016, 14:34

MSOCS, I don't think anyone with a sound mind thinks it should be cancelled now. Too many resources have been spent for them to be wasted.

Most are just hoping that the reality matches the hyperbole, and sooner rather than later. Australias decision to get the Super to supplement the Classic seems prescient right now (and, whilst it replaced the Pig, it's used in a true F/A role, which the Pig could never do. See Aces North..)

MSOCS

30th Jul 2016, 15:44

Ah, I see JATK is back with another pointless comment that causes more confusion than thought or consideration. Typical.

Hempy, The hyperbole (where it really matters) is bearing fruit and exceeding expectation. USAF declares IOC this week. Dog Davis has also said he'd put F-35B in harm's way today if he had to, and he doesn't mince words or hedge bets.

Overall I'd say don't believe all of the utter ****e you read, or have read in the past. Not all of it has been impartial journalism.

F-35 is here to stay and, like the F-18 and F-16 program, the negative hyperbole will be long forgotten soon enough.

Lonewolf_50

30th Jul 2016, 15:49

Surely Mexico is just as close a neighbour as Canada is? No, Mexico is not a close ally and is NOT in NATO. Culturally, Canada is a heck of a lot closer to us than Mexico. So while Mexico's border is juxtaposed to ours, "closeness" works in more ways than one. Canada fought shoulder to shoulder with us in Afghanistan, in a variety of peacekeeping ops in Bosnia, etcetera. Actions speak louder than mere proximity. El Salvador sent troops to support the effort in Iraq. Mexico? Nada, for either op.
Speaking of Mexico, why don't they need a nuclear deterrent? If having the ability to melt most of another country is so crucial to defence, why are the non nuclear countries not being fried? I suggest you start a thread with that question in Jet Blast, since it has Bloody Fork All to do with the F-35.
Supposing that Trump decides to have the F35 project shut down and all airframes crushed, all tooling to be destroyed and the capability to resurrect the program effectively wiped out. Eye watering savings for the Pentagon. Learn to live with the capability gap, if indeed there is such a thing as result of scrapping the F35. When your IQ gets up to 70, sell.