F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

[vaneyck]

In Michael Gilmore's latest memo referenced in a couple of the articles mentioned above (it can be found at https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3035572/DOT-amp-E-AF-IOC-Memo.pdf there are a couple of references to problems with MADL along with many other issues of a similar type. Here's a part of it:

In addition to the
limitations listed above, Block 3i also has hundreds of other deficiencies, the most significant of
which must be fixed in Block 3F to realize the full warfighting capability required of the F-35.
These deficiencies include, but are not limited to the following:
 Avionics sensor fusion performance is still unacceptable.
- Air tracks often split or multiple tracks are created when all sensors contribute to
the fusion solution. The workaround during early developmental testing was to
turn off some of the sensors to ensure multiple tracks did not form, which is
unacceptable for combat and violates the basic principle of fusing contributions
from multiple sensors into an accurate track and clear display to gain situational
awareness and to identify and engage enemy tracks.
- Similarly, multiple ground tracks often are displayed when only one emitter threat
is operating. In addition, tracks that “time out” and drop from the display cannot
be recalled, causing pilots to lose tactical battlefield awareness.
- Sharing tracks over the Multi-Aircraft Data Link (MADL) between aircraft in the
F-35 formation multiplies the problems described above.
- The Air Force IRA report also identified deficiencies with fusion in Block 3i.
 Electronic Warfare (EW) capabilities, including electronic attack (EA), are inconsistent
and, in some cases, not effective against required threats.
- Although the details of the deficiencies are classified, effective EW capabilities
are vital to enable the F-35 to conduct Suppression/Destruction of Enemy Air
Defenses (SEAD/DEAD) and other missions against fielded threats.
- The Air Force IRA report also identified significant EW deficiencies in Block 3i.
 Datalinks do not work properly. Messages sent across the MADL are often dropped or
pass inaccurate off-board inter-flight fusion tracks based on false or split air tracks and
inaccurate ground target identification and positions.

I recommend the whole memo. It's an eye-opener.

[SpazSinbad]

The JPO & all involved know the issues cited by Gilmore/DOT&E - the JPO provides the info cited. From the original post about the F-35B/SM-6/MADL combo is this:
"...The unmodified F-35 picked up the target with its own sensors and routed the track via the fighter’s Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL pronounced: MAHdel) to the Navy’s USS Desert Ship (LLS-1) test platform running the Baseline 9 Aegis Combat System. Lockheed and the Navy attached a MADL antenna to the combat system to receive the track information that fed the information to the SM-6.

The test is an expansion of the Navy’s Naval Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air concept (NIFC-CA) – a scheme designed to tie together data from the ships and aircraft in a carrier strike group to create a network of sensors and shooters – a proverbial kill web....

[Lonewolf_50]

I recommend the whole memo. It's an eye-opener. The memo is sixteen pages of "Dear sir, give me more money."


I note that the memo is of fairly recent vintage, August 2016. I also note a curious formatting difference between page 1 (a scan) and the much cleaner body.

[RAFEngO74to09]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/09/16/air-force-grounds-15-f-35-joint-strike-fighters-because-of-peeling-and-crumbling-insulation/

Update:

Affects 57 aircraft - 13 x USAF, 2 x foreign, 42 x in production.

U.S. Air Force grounds F-35 fighters over cooling line problems | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-lockheed-f35-grounded-idUSKCN11M26K)

[SpazSinbad]

FWIW LM PR Response to insulation bits in fuel tanks: https://www.f35.com/news/detail/temporary-suspension-of-flight-operations-announced-for-a-limited-number-of
_____________________________

'Lyneham Lad' asked back at post 9662 on page 484 of this thread: http://www.pprune.org/9484575-post9662.html
"Stray thoughts ref the video in #9653:
• The pilot's head/neck take quite a vertical and axial jolt as take-off is initiated. Future spinal/nerve problems?..." Just because SLOW I came across this video snippet of VFA-102 Super Hornet 'Diamondback' inside view of their catapults - note lots of jolting head movements at start of the catapult. Then note 'Engines' response to that question at post 9666. http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/424953-f-35-cancelled-then-what-484.html#post9485791

AND a different view of the 'head bob' in the F-35C.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfj12L6kWeg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAh2BSWeZaI

[Maus92]

@Hempy: ".... [All] well and good, but all AESA equiped gen 4/4.5 aircraft have the same capability, no?"

Yes, although not with MADL - which interestingly enough, is a short-ish range datalink technology. This was more of a test of MADL-hosted waveforms working with the latest Aegis software version. Their *might* be times when a Marine F-35Bs embarked as part of an ARG/MEU could use MADL or Link-16 to provide targeting for the group's Aegis AD destroyer. CVGs would most likely link their F-35s (as well as Growlers and Super Hornets) to forward E-2Ds (or future RAQ-25s) which further exploits SM-6's beyond the Aegis radar horizon capability.

[KenV]

I believe the point of the F-35B/Aegis exercise was part of USN's overall Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) initiative and sought to answer three primary questions:
1. Can a sensor equipped aircraft (like the F-35B) obtain tracking data on a target with sufficient accuracy AND precision AND update rate to provide targeting data for an Aegis/SM6 installation?
2. Can the remote sensor platform transmit the above target data at sufficient bandwidth to ensure near real time target tracking? Link 16 lacks the bandwidth.
3. Can the Aegis/SM6 installation receive and process the data in near real enough time to enable a missile launch and then guide that missile to enable the missile to intercept the target?

I suspect that a fourth consideration would be can the remote sensor platform transmit the targeting data securely and with low probability of signal intercept?

Further, I believe this test is also intended to lead to Super Hornets getting MADL so they can receive remote targeting data from stealthy F-35Cs to enable the Super Hornets to launch longer range stand off weapons. (Meteor? ERAAM? FMRAAM? Other?)

[Hempy]

Let me get this straight.

The only benefit the F-35 has is it's stealth capability, which enhances the range of targeting information to be sent back to other weapon carriers?

Nextgen UAV's could be used in that role (assuming the enemies radar technology has just stopped in its tracks)

[Lonewolf_50]

Let me get this straight.

The only benefit the F-35 has is it's stealth capability, which enhances the range of targeting information to be sent back to other weapon carriers?

Nextgen UAV's could be used in that role (assuming the enemies radar technology has just stopped in its tracks)
Perhaps, Hempy, the only thing wrong in you post is the word "only" and that this capability is part of the whole (and expensive) package the F-35 brings with it.

[Hempy]

LW, fair cop. Could not the F-22 in greater numbers, at less cost, in a proven platform have fulfilled this role?

[Lonewolf_50]

Hempy, the F-22 production run being cut short is a pet peeve of mine. (I'll not digress). From our PoV in the states, our future carrier based aircraft had to be a joint deal (like the old F-111 deal in the 1960's) so that F-35C (CV, replace Hornet) had to be linked to USAF low mix fighter/attack (F-35A, replace Viper) by Congressional mandate.


And so it has, for better and for worse. I see no reason not to make the most of it, even though it is so darned expensive. (I do not blame any of the partner nations for their dismay/frustration at the cost and delay. The complaints are well deserved).

[Hempy]

Politics stinks /endex

[KenV]

The only benefit the F-35 has is it's stealth capability, which enhances the range of targeting information to be sent back to other weapon carriers?Ummmm, no. It has sensors (passive and active) that other current fighters don't have and a highband datalink system that no other aircraft has. However, those sensors and datalinks could (in theory) be retrofitted to other legacy aircraft. What stealth provides longer term is the ability to penetrate contested space, loiter there, and gather the targetting data with those sensors.

Assuming radar improves over time and reduces stealth effectiveness, standoff jammers can degrade radar performance to restore stealth effectiveness. At least that's USN's approach to long term viability (hence the Growler). We'll have to wait and see if things work out that way or not.

[Hempy]

Ok, let me rephrase the question.

IF someone was to retrofit MADL and its sensors to say a Super Bug, what advantage other than stealth would an F-35 have over that aircraft? B model VTOL notwithstanding.

What if it was fitted on an F-22?

[ORAC]

F-35 Program Office Hopeful to Move Out on Ejection Seat Retrofit Plan This Fall (http://www.defensenews.com/articles/f-35-program-office-hopeful-to-move-out-on-ejection-seat-retrofit-plan-this-fall)

[sandiego89]

Hempy: IF someone was to retrofit MADL and its sensors to say a Super Bug, what advantage other than stealth would an F-35 have over that aircraft? B model VTOL notwithstanding.

What if it was fitted on an F-22?


A rather rhetorical question to eliminate stealth and STOVL for the B advantages for the F-35, and I think you know the answers performance wise- we know there are areas where performance is less, equal or greater than legacy aircraft- not a game changer here as addressed numerous times on this thread, but a few thoughts:


Advantages:
- New build airframe. Less hours than a rebuilt F/A-18 E/F. Super Hornet hours are getting eaten up quickly.
- Longer range. The C has loads of fuel.
- Reduced maintenance (intended, not there yet)
- More accurate gun (intended, not there yet)
- Reduced training hours.
- A design specifically intended for the sensor and airframe interface. Integrating a very complex sensor and computing suite to a legacy airframe is never a simple bolt on process. There are placement, power, interference, cabling and numerous issues to address. Not without risk, and very expensive if even possible.

[Hempy]

The VTOL advantage is spurious at best.

That solution is to buy more advanced Super Hornets and its electronic attack variant in the form of the EA-18G Growler while investing in a stealthy new unmanned strike aircraft and a future F/A-XX. To pay for those programs, the Navy could cancel its portion of the F-35 buy and reinvest the money. The Navy would have to accept some risks, but the long-term payoff could save the carrier from obsolescence in the era of precision-guided warfare.

[Maus92]

KenV writes:

2. Can the remote sensor platform transmit the above target data at sufficient bandwidth to ensure near real time target tracking? Link 16 lacks the bandwidth.
3. Can the Aegis/SM6 installation receive and process the data in near real enough time to enable a missile launch and then guide that missile to enable the missile to intercept the target?

I suspect that a fourth consideration would be can the remote sensor platform transmit the targeting data securely and with low probability of signal intercept?

E-2D backhaul to the CVG uses Link-16, and it processes a lot of data for multiple targets. Providing initial and midcourse targeting cues against a single target for the SM-6 isn't particularly data intensive, and in fact, Super Hornets and Growlers can and have done the same. This test was to prove MADL compatibility with the latest Aegis baseline, and demonstrate that F-35Bs can provide some over-the-horizon targeting ability for a formation that lacks the ability to support organic AEW assets. However, the F-35B lacks the persistence to perform a meaningful AEW mission, so the hype of this evolution smells of another Marine publicity stunt. The LPI aspect of MADL is an advantage when transmitting from within the enemy's WEZ, although I'm pretty sure that the F-35B's limited range would place the ARG in harms way. And providing updated guidance to the SM-6 is not stealthy, nor is using the F-35Bs radar to track the target.

[Bevo]

Some solutions to get some connectivity between the data link systems.

As stealth aircraft, F-22s are not equipped with conventional datalinks such as Link-16 which can be easily spotted by enemy SIGINT. Instead, they use a unique stealth-qualified, narrow-beam Intra-Flight Data-Link (IFDL) designed to relay data and synchronize a situational picture only among the Raptors. As this stealth datalink is incompatible with all other communications devices, Raptors cannot communicate with other friendly aircraft.

However, because of a dramatic cutback in the number of Raptors purchased—187 bought for operations, compared to the 648 planned in 1996 to be procured—the aircraft must now communicate with F-35s as well as legacy “fourth-generation” fighters such as the F-15, F-16 and F-18 families.

To address the jets' inabilities to link to one another—or to legacy fighters—in air campaigns, their manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, has demonstrated a new data-linking capability it developed for them secretly through “Project Missouri,'” a proprietary program. During the demonstration, Lockheed validated the use of a Link 16 transmit capability from the twin-engine F-22 Raptor and showcased an exotic waveform developed by L-3 Communications and optimized for low-probability of intercept/low-probability of detection transmissions (LPI/LPD), says Ron Bessire, vice president of technology and innovation at the company's Skunk Works.

The demonstration required 8 hr. of flight time and took place Dec. 17 and 19, 2013, Bessire tells Aviation Week. The trials required use of a U.S. Air Force Raptor and the F-35 Cooperative Avionics Testbed (CATbird), a Boeing 737-based flying laboratory that was used as a Joint Strike Fighter surrogate to test F-35 software. The F-22 also was able to transmit to a Link 16 terminal on the ground. LINK (http://aviationweek.com/awin/lockheed-s-secret-project-missouri-links-f-22-f-35)

[KenV]

IF someone was to retrofit MADL and its sensors to say a Super Bug, what advantage other than stealth would an F-35 have over that aircraft?No much. But that's like saying if someone were to retrofit F-4 systems and missiles on a Lightning, what advantage does a Phantom have over a Lightning. First its not at all certain if F-35 systems can be successfully retrofitted to other aircraft and what is certain is that cost would be very high, maybe higher than just buying brand new F-35s in the first place.

And BTW, not even Boeing is proposing such a thing for their F-15. The latest Boeing proposal for the F-15 is NOT to fit F-35 systems on it, but to fit a compatible datalink onto it and enable it to carry even larger numbers of stand off weapons than the E version now carries. Basically, they are proposing to make the F-15 the arsenal plane USAF has been talking about for a while now to accompany the F-35 and give it more firepower.

Boeing Sees Upgunned F-15 As Potential ?Arsenal Plane? | AWIN_Defense content from Aviation Week (http://aviationweek.com/awindefense/boeing-sees-upgunned-f-15-potential-arsenal-plane)

[ORAC]

Why would you want to fit F-35 sensors? Frankly they are 30 year old and obsolete, the EO for example. Any upgrade to the F-35 will take years and $Bs, but any new retrofit to another platform would take advantage of the progress since the F-35 sensors were designed.

It would be like deciding to upgrade the radio in an 80s Merc and trying to retrofit an 90s FM set and CD player rather than a DAB/Sirius with an integrated Bluetooth phone system.

[Rhino power]

Following the recent leaked memo on the current status of the F-35 programme, written by DOT&E chief, Michael Gilmore, Morten Hanche, an F-35 pilot has written this reply...

https://theaviationist.com/2016/09/20/dote-leaked-memo-suggests-f-35-may-never-ready-combat-f-35-pilot-doesnt-agree/

-RP

[Finningley Boy]

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Lightning II (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-35-specs.htm)

I heard on Forces News yesterday that we remain committed to buying 138 Bs.

If so, we've got to be mad. I hope, as has been suggested at RIAT earlier this year, that the balance of 90 aircraft beyond the initial confirmed order for 48, will be As.

FB:)

[glad rag]

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Lightning II (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-35-specs.htm)

I heard on Forces News yesterday that we remain committed to buying 138 Bs.

If so, we've got to be mad. I hope, as has been suggested at RIAT earlier this year, that the balance of 90 aircraft beyond the initial confirmed order for 48, will be As.

FB:)

Surely Cs would be a better choice?

[glad rag]

No much. But that's like saying if someone were to retrofit F-4 systems and missiles on a Lightning, what advantage does a Phantom have over a Lightning. First its not at all certain if F-35 systems can be successfully retrofitted to other aircraft and what is certain is that cost would be very high, maybe higher than just buying brand new F-35s in the first place.

And BTW, not even Boeing is proposing such a thing for their F-15. The latest Boeing proposal for the F-15 is NOT to fit F-35 systems on it, but to fit a compatible datalink onto it and enable it to carry even larger numbers of stand off weapons than the E version now carries. Basically, they are proposing to make the F-15 the arsenal plane USAF has been talking about for a while now to accompany the F-35 and give it more firepower.

Boeing Sees Upgunned F-15 As Potential ?Arsenal Plane? | AWIN_Defense content from Aviation Week (http://aviationweek.com/awindefense/boeing-sees-upgunned-f-15-potential-arsenal-plane)

Interesting Ken, I didn't know Boeing built F35 sensors...

[FODPlod]

Following the recent leaked memo on the current status of the F-35 programme, written by DOT&E chief, Michael Gilmore, Morten Hanche, an F-35 pilot has written this reply...

https://theaviationist.com/2016/09/20/dote-leaked-memo-suggests-f-35-may-never-ready-combat-f-35-pilot-doesnt-agree/

-RP
Very interesting. Thank you. It appears that Major Morten “Dolby” Hanche is an F-35 instructor pilot from the Royal Norwegian Air Force.The Aviationist 20 Sep 2016: DOT&E leaked memo suggests F-35 May Never Be Ready for Combat. F-35 pilot doesn’t agree. (https://theaviationist.com/2016/09/20/dote-leaked-memo-suggests-f-35-may-never-ready-combat-f-35-pilot-doesnt-agree/)...I fully expect the F-35’s most hardened critics to discount this article, regardless of what I write. However, some may choose to believe my story, based on the fact that I know the airplane and its capabilities as a pilot. I don’t make my claims based on bits and pieces of information, derived from potentially unreliable sources. They are based on experience actually flying and training with the jet for nearly a year... Personally, I am impressed by the the F-35. I was relieved to experience just how well the F-35 performs with regard to speed, ceiling, range and maneuverability...

[PhilipG]

It would be quite nice to know what is real as regards the F35.

DOT&E chief, Michael Gilmore says that the aircraft is not on a good pathway to achieve what it was meant to, the software is late etc etc, other papers say that an F35 with Software version 2B or 3I needs many other assets to enable it to do its job. Whilst Major Morten “Dolby” Hanche seems to say that the 3I plane that he is using with the USAF is the best thing since sliced bread.

Obviously if the 3I F35 is so good, once the flight restrictions are taken off the plane with a full 3F software load and all the developmental steps needed for full release to the USAF and international customers having been achieved, it would seem that a new (5th?) generation of superlatives will be needed...

I am assuming that the truth is somewhere between "It is in a death spiral" and "It is the best thing since sliced bread" it would just be nice to know where on the continuum it is.

[KenV]

Interesting Ken, I didn't know Boeing built F35 sensors...They don't. Neither does Lockheed. Since airframe manufacturers routinely take others company's systems/parts (from complete engines down to individual rivets and everything in between) and integrate them into their products, it does not really matter to the airframer who builds the systems/parts. Indeed this fact is why essentially every airplane program is a product of a TEAM of companies.

[KenV]

I am assuming that the truth is somewhere between "It is in a death spiral" and "It is the best thing since sliced bread" it would just be nice to know where on the continuum it is. Might the F-35 be "the best thing since sliced bread" when compared to every other fighter out there, and yet be deficient when compared to the full specification and potential of the design?

[PhilipG]

KenV you might well be right however when there is great excitement that a development airframe, with a test pilot on board and not G limited I would have thought, is said to be outclassed by a two seat F16 as I recall, I find comments about the agility and the like of a G limited F35 being superior to an F16 difficult to take at face value.

If an F22 pilot had taken a ride in a G limited F35 and said that it was "the best thing since sliced bread" I think many people would have been rather surprised, to say the least, possibly it is, I doubt that an F22 pilot would think so though.

Obviously the F35 needs to perform at or near to the specifications that it was designed, or has since been designed to, or there will be holes in many airforces and Royal Navy Carriers with no planes available.

My point was that both reports cannot be correct, it would just be reassuring to know where the project really was...

[SpazSinbad]

'PhilipG' I could bore you with a bunch of quotes about the F-22/F-35 experience as noted by this former USMC F-22 pilot now F-35B boy - you can see/hear yourself. There are other former F-22 USAF pilots now flogging the F-35A but less quotable....
Major Berke reported to Tyndall AFB, FL in February 2008, for transition training in the F-22 Raptor. Upon completion he was assigned to the 422nd Test and Evaluation Squadron at Nellis AFB, NV as an Operational Test Pilot. He served as the Commander of the F-22 Division. In July 2011, LtCol Berke reported to Eglin AFB, FL where he is currently serving as Commanding Officer, VMFAT-501. He has accumulated over 2,800 flight in hours in the F/A-18, F-16, F-22, & F-35. http://www.williamsfoundation.org.au/sites/default/files/BIO-Berke.pdf (no longer available here)
______________________________________________

At the Vortex of 4th and 5th Generation Aircraft Integration: The Weapons Revolution | SLDInfo (http://www.sldinfo.com/at-the-vortex-of-4th-and-5th-generation-aircraft-integration-the-weapons-revolution/)
______________________________________________

A recent BERKE quotable quote though....
"...I’ve always said this: the greatest advocates of the F-35 are the people closest to the program. The biggest skeptics and critics are the people farthest away from the program. The less you know about it, the less you understand it, and the more critical you are of it. If you ever hear someone pining away for the F-16 of 1979 or the F-18 of 1983 or the F-15 of the mid 70’s, you’re talking to a someone who’s so far behind the technology and what the airplane can do that to me, his criticisms are just totally unwarranted.

The people that know the most about the jet are the people who are the biggest advocates for it. And keep in mind these are people with experience in other airplanes and other warfighting assets. I didn’t grow up on the F-35. I had three previous operational experiences with amazing airplanes prior to the Joint Strike Fighter. My opinion of the F-35 is vastly higher than that of anything else, and that’s just because I understand it." https://www.thecipherbrief.com/article/qualitative-advantage-1091
___________________________________

More quotes from RAAF former exchange F-22 pilot (but not yet F-35A AFAIK) plus BERKE and others:

http://www.sldinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Air-Combat-Seminar-summary-AndrewMcL.pdf (0.9Mb)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxK6O5--9Z0

[PhilipG]

Spaz, yes I have seen all the bits you have quoted. None of them answer the question as posed.

Is a G limited F35 the best thing since sliced bread, that can out perform an F16 whilst a non limited one looses out to a two seat F16. These two situations seems slightly difficult to reconcile....

The Gilmore report suggests that there are various serious hurdles to get over before 3F un restricted planes can be released to the services, you fail to talk to this.

[SpazSinbad]

'PhilipG' you can't always get what you want. You make a claim that is false IMHO: "...whilst a non limited one [test F-35A?] looses [loses] out to a two seat F16..." I think that aspect has been covered here at the time the single test point report beginning of 2015 released middle of 2015?

The Gilmore report is made from JPO details given to them with prognostications on possible future of 3F made by DOT&E - we shall see won't we? Meanwhile a quote from four wize ones? 21 Sep 2016:

Carlisle: F-35A is fusion warfare key component > U.S. Air Force > Article Display (http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/951113/carlisle-f-35a-is-fusion-warfare-key-component.aspx)

[KenV]

My point was that both reports cannot be correct, it would just be reassuring to know where the project really was... And my point was that both reports CAN be correct depending on what is being compared to what.

As for the single F-16 dogfight datapoint, that's pretty old news, has been discussed on this and several other forums ad nauseam, and has been pretty much put to bed. So "where is the airplane now?" That's been answered: the pilots who actually fly the airplane "now" are loving it and most have experience in other tactical jets. By their reconning, the F-35 is already better than those legacy aircraft. The test and development folks continue to wring out the airplane and are continuing to improve it. It's got a ways to go before everything that needs doing gets done. That's pretty typical. What is unclear is how much will get done under the current budget plans/constraints. And no one can answer that right now, but the answer is being worked on.

[SARF]

The pilots flying it have to say they love it... Or they will be off the program..
Think less military., think more corporate

[SpazSinbad]

'SARF' IF F-35? pilots (test & operational) are lying why would they want to be on the F-35 program? Are they all going to fly with LM (as test pilots) as civilians later. I thought USAF pilot retention problem today was due to NOT flying much with other jets and good civilian big jet jobs outside USAF.

[glad rag]

Ooo that hit a bit of a raw nerve...

[SpazSinbad]

Please explain?

[t43562]

I'm sorry but I don't understand the idea that anyone in a hierarchical organisation has free speech. It certainly isn't the case at any company that I've been in.

One doesn't lie, that's a ridiculous suggestion. One just tells the appropriate parts of the truth, leaving a lot of complexity out.

[Lonewolf_50]

SARF: are you in the program, or are you guessing? (Not saying that it's a bad guess ...)

[FODPlod]

The credibility of Lt. Col David Berke USMC is based on personal experience: I had three previous operational experiences with amazing airplanes prior to the Joint Strike Fighter. My opinion of the F-35 is vastly higher than that of anything else...The credibility of Major Morten Hanche RNoAF is based on personal experience: I don’t make my claims based on bits and pieces of information, derived from potentially unreliable sources. They are based on experience actually flying and training with the jet for nearly a year... Personally, I am impressed by the F-35.What is the credibility of their PPRuNe detractors based on? I think we should be told.

[KenV]

The pilots flying it have to say they love it... Or they will be off the program..
Think less military., think more corporate Still trotting out that long dead "Lockheed shills" mantra I see. The airplane is now in service and MILITARY (not corporate) operational (not test) pilots are flying it. They are not on Lockheed's payroll nor "on the program".

[t43562]

They may love it but if that was all we heard we would think there were no problems at all....and there are.

[PhilipG]

As I put above it is difficult to understand how a G Limited plan running 3I software can be so much better than anything else, in all respects we are lead to believe, when the Gilmore report says thee are so many problems.

If 3I is "the best thing since sliced bread", what adjective or phrase can be used to describe the fully war fighting capable 3F software? "The dogs Bo....s"?

[MSOCS]

Dr Gilmore is simply, and effectively, "doing his job", holding to account the various operational metrics of the Program; he is documenting (for the public record) all the shortcomings at the time of writing each report. On the other hand, the JPO are well aware of these shortcomings prior to Gilmore putting pen to paper. Indeed, the report is useful in the procurement process as it helps to force issue resolution where stagnation occurs on some of the highlighted issues. Most of the fixes already have a path to resolution when he writes, but he still has to document it - then it appears (outwardly) that there is no fix to the public when they read it, out of context, and in isolation from knowing what is going on inside the Program.

That's Morten's point and he's trying to do so in a way to help the wider audience understand. I shouldn't have to tell you that he's not a "shill", or a corporate talking head, but I will. If he didn't believe the stuff coming out of his own mouth, in his own words, he wouldn't write anything and would stay quiet.

[MSOCS]

PhilipG, maybe I can help a bit.

3i software is currently charging around on various Exercises and scenarios, kicking ass in applicable mission sets - remember it's only "IOC" and the stated 3i capability is for "limited war fighting". Details can't be discussed, naturally. If people choose to not believe that, fine. Morten is stating how impressive it already is at the initial war fighting capability and that's in comparison to his previous experience, so quite interesting.

3F is already in developmental test and the operational test guys will get it next year. 3F will bring the full war fighting capability in terms of some of the sensors, fusion upgrades, and will complete the mission sets. That means it can charge around kicking ass in all declared missions. When sufficient jets/squadrons and personnel are trained up and established at readiness, FOC will be declared.

[KenV]

They may love it but if that was all we heard we would think there were no problems at all....and there are. If? A might big "if", no? And a hypothetical that totally flies in the face of reality. The reality is that we've been hearing about all sorts of problems for literally YEARS. This thread was started over 6 years ago and is approaching 10 thousand posts and we started hearing about problems well before this thread was begun.

[Finningley Boy]

In answer to the original post, I think we can now honestly say it won't be cancelled now! Not before Jeremy Corbyn becomes PM anyway!!:uhoh:

FB:)

[Maus92]

The Norwegian test pilot is employed by the program, so he does have a stake in the future of the aircraft and that should be taken into account when evaluating his comments and opinions. BTW, his paper was originally published in the Norwegian JSF program office blog before being republished with permission in the Aviationist blog. Dr. Gilmore's independent department has a larger role overseeing the program: its inspectors monitor its progress in meeting production and performance specifications, and will eventually conduct/monitor tests to verify that production representative aircraft meet those specs (up until now, DOT&E mostly relies on JPO data because OT&E tests have not yet taken place.) He has no personal or professional stake in its success or failure; his function is to ensure the government gets what it pays for. To its credit, the JPO almost always concurs with DOT&Es factual findings (it is JPO data,) yet sometimes differs on timeframes to correct deficiencies. Both entities have been wrong on those predictions.

[SpazSinbad]

HANCHE is this: https://nettsteder.regjeringen.no/kampfly/2016/03/01/f-35-i-naerkamp-hva-har-jeg-laert-sa-langt-the-f-35-in-a-dogfight-what-have-i-learned-so-far/
"...The author of this post, Major Morten «Dolby» Hanche, has more than 2200 hours behind him in the F-16, he is a U.S. Navy Test Pilot School graduate, and on 10 November 2015 he became the first Norwegian to fly the F-35. He now serves as an instructor and as the Assistant Weapons Officer with the 62nd Fighter Squadron at Luke Air Force Base in Arizona." He usually writes on the "Kampflybloggen (The Combat Aircraft Blog) is the official blog of the Norwegian F-35 Program Office within the Norwegian Ministry of Defence".

[t43562]

Most of the fixes already have a path to resolution when he writes, but he still has to document it - then it appears (outwardly) that there is no fix to the public when they read it, out of context, and in isolation from knowing what is going on inside the Program.
This is not news. When you work on a product you are often far more aware of what's wrong than anyone outside. You also have a fix for everything lined up. The issue is that your competitors may have much less to fix and need less time than you and your product will fail to get out the door before theirs does or be worse when it does.

If your management realise this then they will try to get out of an inevitably losing position, cancel the product before they expose themselves to even bigger losses.

This is a different situation. We the customers sit here and absorb *all* the screwups, endlessly.

[Maus92]

Apparently there has been another fire involving the F-35A, this time at Mountain Home AFB in Idaho (some earlier? lot aircraft are not affected by the recent grounding order.) Sketchy details atm:

"WASHINGTON — An F-35A caught fire during an exercise at Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho, the Air Force confirmed to Defense News.

The incident took place at around noon and involved an F-35A aircraft from the 61st Fighter Squadron located at Luke Air Force Base, the service said in a statement. No serious injuries seem to have been sustained by the pilot or nearby crew.

"The pilot had to egress the aircraft during engine start due to a fire from the aft section of the aircraft," Air Force spokesman Capt. Mark Graff said in an email. "The fire was extinguished quickly. As a precautionary measure, four 61st Aircraft Maintenance Unit Airmen, three Airmen from the 366th Maintenance Group and the 61st Fighter Squadron pilot were transported to the base medical center for standard evaluation." "

F-35A Catches Fire at Mountain Home Air Force Base | Defense News (http://www.defensenews.com/articles/f-35a-damaged-in-fire-at-air-force-base)

[Buster15]

We probably all want to know how good or how bad F35B is going to be for the UK. it is clearly a massive investment in both aircraft and of course aircraft carriers. To my mind, our prime security requirement must be to protect the UK from foreign attacks. To that end, why do we really need massively expensive to procure and massively expensive to operate aircraft carriers ?
The biggest concern is that these 2 projects will consume so much of our defence budget that capabilities we really need to protect our shores will and have been seriously degraded. Further, the 2 main attributes F35 possesses are - Stealth and Sensor Fusion and BVR. That will be fine for a limited number of years when these 2 capabilities become negated by inevitable advances. Then, we will be left with an aircraft that has the following basic deficiencies:
Poor agility, poor range, poor acceleration, minimal weapons storage onboard and if external, stealth compromised, single engine risk etc, etc.
At least with Typhoon, we have an aircraft that has excellent flying capability. Yes it may not be 5th Generation, but the basic platform is capable end flexible.
it could (relatively) easily and most likely at a significantly lower cost be made carrier capable (assuming we really need that).
There is no way that F35 or the Carriers will be cancelled. Too much has been invested and TOO MANY AIRFORCE AND ROYAL NAVY CAREERS depend on these; they always want the latest shiny new toys. Lets all hope that these 2 projects deliver what is required. If not, there will be a massive hole in the defence budget.

[glad rag]

Well said.:D:D:D:D:D:D

One should also not discount the industry jobs/pensions for life that this behemoth program sustains.

[FODPlod]

...At least with Typhoon, we have an aircraft that has excellent flying capability. Yes it may not be 5th Generation, but the basic platform is capable end flexible; it could (relatively) easily and most likely at a significantly lower cost be made carrier capable...
With that one statement, you have managed to destroy the credibility of anything else you say. I suspect you believe the F-35B's characteristics are inferior to the Harrier's, too.

Notwithstanding the fact that the carriers would need extensive (and expensive) modification to accommodate CTOL aircraft, beefing up the airframe and undercarriage of the Typhoon (first flown in March 1994) and incorporating more robust materials to withstand the repeated stresses and strains of violent catapult launch, sudden arrested recovery on a pitching deck and prolonged survival in a salt-laden marine environment, not to mention the addition of an arrestor hook and other intrinsic systems, would involve so much extra design, development and production work and result in so much weight gain and reduced performance that you might as well start from scratch.

[glad rag]

With that one statement, you have managed to destroy the credibility of anything else you say. I suspect you believe the F-35B's characteristics are inferior to the Harrier's, too.

Notwithstanding the fact that the carriers would need extensive (and expensive) modification to accommodate CTOL aircraft, beefing up the airframe and undercarriage of the Typhoon (first flown in March 1994) and incorporating more robust materials to withstand the repeated stresses and strains of violent catapult launch, sudden arrested recovery on a pitching deck and prolonged survival in a salt-laden marine environment, not to mention the addition of an arrestor hook and other intrinsic systems, would involve so much extra design, development and production work and result in so much weight gain and reduced performance that you might as well start from scratch.

Well we are all allowed an opinion. Notwithstanding, it is fair to say, those who decry the project have nothing to gain from it's continuance.

[SpazSinbad]

'Buster15' said amongst other things:
"...At least with Typhoon, we have an aircraft that has excellent flying capability. Yes it may not be 5th Generation, but the basic platform is capable and flexible. It could (relatively) easily and most likely at a significantly lower cost be made carrier capable...." Have a gander at this material to find out how easy it is. Chapter THREE of first PDF is very relevant. What is a navalised Typhoon? A TYPHOID?

AIRCRAFT DEVELOPMENT Navy’s Participation in Air Force’s Advanced Tactical Fighter Program; GAO 1990
"...Chapter 3: Basing and Mission Differences Affect Aircraft Design
Few attempts to make common airframes serve both Air Force and Navy purposes have been successful. Studies show that it is difficult to accommodate Navy missions and carrier basing in an airframe designed for Air Force missions and land basing. The services have had more success with common use of major components such as engines, weapons, and avionics equipment....

...Past Experience With Cross-Service Use of Aircraft
Since the mid-1940s successful cross-service use of fighter and attack aircraft has been limited. The F-4 and A-7 are among the more successful aircraft used by both the Air Force and the Navy during this period, but both were initially designed by the Navy to operate from aircraft carriers. Since World War II no US. fighter or attack aircraft developed to operate from land bases has been successfully adapted to operate from carriers and procured by both the Air Force and the Navy...." http://archive.gao.gov/t2pbat11/141083.pdf (2.2Mb)
_________________________________

Since this thread is about the F-35 then....

The Influence of Ship Configuration on the Design of the Joint Strike Fighter by Mr. Eric S. Ryberg, 26-27 Feb 2002 http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA399988 (PDF 1Mb)
________________________________

Some Carrier Aircraft Requirements:

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewNewAllBum/Some%20Carrier%20Aircraft%20RequirementsFORUM.gif~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewNewAllBum/Some%20Carrier%20Aircraft%20RequirementsFORUM.gif.html)

[glad rag]

thank you spaz for that informative post especially the jet blast deflector compatibility. .....

[Turbine D]

Few attempts to make common airframes serve both Air Force and Navy purposes have been successful. Studies show that it is difficult to accommodate Navy missions and carrier basing in an airframe designed for Air Force missions and land basing.
Think we are in the midst of confirming these to be true statements.

[LFT]

Bring back the Buccaneer.

[Lonewolf_50]

Few attempts to make common airframes serve both Air Force and Navy purposes have been successful. Studies show that it is difficult to accommodate Navy missions and carrier basing in an airframe designed for Air Force missions and land basing.
Think we are in the midst of confirming these to be true statements.
I was under the impression that the F-111 had already confirmed that. :cool:

[SpazSinbad]

[S]HADES of the Vampire Wet Start | 'Maus92' post: http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/424953-f-35-cancelled-then-what-491.html#post9518356
Back end flameout roasts F-35 on runway 25 Sep 2016 Richard Chirgwin
"...The fire happened while the pilot was starting the F-35; the pilot exited the aircraft while it was extinguished, and the US Air Force reports there were no injuries.

While the cause of the fire is still under investigation, Aviation Week says “initial assessments point to a tailpipe fire due to strong tailwinds as the engine was starting”.

If accurate, that would point to an aborted start that left too much unburned fuel in the exhaust duct. Aviation Week says at the time, winds were gusting up to 70 km/h (45 mph) from the northwest to west-by-northwest....”
Back end flameout roasts F-35 on runway ? The Register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/09/25/back_end_flameout_roasts_f35_on_runway/)

MORE ON THE 'tailpipe/wetstart?' fire: http://aviationweek.com/awindefense/initial-assessments-point-f-35a-tailpipe-fire

[Darren_P]

I was under the impression that the F-111 had already confirmed that.

Hasn't the Rafale broke the mould with that though? It doesn't seem to give up much compared to the French Air Force version.

[PhilipG]

Hasn't the Rafale broke the mould with that though? It doesn't seem to give up much compared to the French Air Force version.
Darren P, as I understand it the Rafale's development was only started because a Naval Version of what is now Typhoon was ruled out by the then consortium, the French then left and started development of the Rafale, that from the bottom up has been designed to fly off carriers. Similar in many ways to the Phantom and Buccaneer.

That is not to say that if the Rafale had only been developed for the French Air Force that it might not have been slightly lighter etc but then the French Navy would have no up to date aircraft.

[ORAC]

Darren P, as I understand it the Rafale's development was only started because a Naval Version of what is now Typhoon was ruled out by the then consortium, the French then left and started development of the Rafale, that from the bottom up has been designed to fly off carriers The French pulled out of the EFA consortium, which became the EF2000 consortium, because they insisted upon a carrier capable design which would be able to operate of off the Foch. The weight, range and payload limitations that would have imposed (the "10 ton" airframe) were unacceptable to the other nations. Hence they designed Rafale on their own.

[AtomKraft]

Sounds to me like the French called that one correctly.....

[ORAC]

Ironically, however, due to the production delays, by the time the Rafale-M entered service the Foch and Clemenceau had been decommissioned and replaced by the larger Charles deGaulle, so the weight limitations didn't apply.

IIRC if it had had to operate of the Foch it would have to operate with only a couple of AA Mx and internal fuel, essentially the same missions and weapon load as the F-8 Crusader it was designed to replace.

[PhilipG]

The French pulled out of the EFA consortium, which became the EF2000 consortium, because they insisted upon a carrier capable design which would be able to operate of off the Foch. The weight, range and payload limitations that would have imposed (the "10 ton" airframe) were unacceptable to the other nations. Hence they designed Rafale on their own.
ORAC Thank you for the further insight into French design goals. It is still however true to say that the Typhoon's basic structure was not designed to take the stresses of CATOBAR operations whilst the Rafale even with a lower weight was from the outset.

[KenV]

It is still however true to say that the Typhoon's basic structure was not designed to take the stresses of CATOBAR operations whilst the Rafale even with a lower weight was from the outset. I agree. Rafale was designed from the start as a Naval fighter capable of carrier operations, with not only the necessary structure, but also the necessary over-the-nose sight lines, low speed handling, EMI performance, corrosion resistance/prevention, and other factors unique to naval aircraft. Adding those features after the fact to Typhoon would make it a very different airplane. The only aircraft (that I'm aware of) that started out land based and was successfully converted to carrier operations was the subsonic Hawker Siddeley Hawk which Douglas successfully turned into the T-45 Goshawk. But that was a pretty simple trainer and even then, it required BAE and Douglas to do an extensive redesign of the basic Hawk 60.

[sandiego89]

KenV:....The only aircraft (that I'm aware of) that started out land based and was successfully converted to carrier operations...Indeed the list is small, but for jets you can add the FJ Fury (series) derived from the F-86, Sea Vampire, Sea Venom, the Sea Vixen (more of a stretch), MiG 29, Su-25, Su-27 (ski jump/arrested), Sea Harrier (STOVL), and the French Zephyr training jet. I would not count it but a real stretch would be the F/A-18 derived from the F-17 Cobra. I am not including helo's (Sea Hawk, etc) and some one offs like the U-2, Bronco, C-130 etc....

[SpazSinbad]

I'm reminded of the FORRESTAL/ENTERPRISE fires many years ago now. Will RN carry out hot loads aboard CVF?

Hot loading F-35B: MAWTS-1 ordnance innovation sets new standard > The Official United States Marine Corps Public Website > News Display (http://www.marines.mil/News/News-Display/Article/954936/hot-loading-f-35b-mawts-1-ordnance-innovation-sets-new-standard/)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JL6qVCRWaU

[glad rag]

Very good spaz, very good.

[Buster15]

FOD Plod. I accept your point about Tyhpoon conversion to carrier capable. The reason I made that comment is that when I worked on the Eurofighter programme during the development days, I was aware that there was interest from Australia to have such a capability and that was one of the reasons that the Thrust Vectoring Nozzle was designed. My main point though was the massive cost versus the very many indifferent reports about F35 performance and ultimate capability.

[Not_a_boffin]

Given that HMAS Melbourne decommissioned in 1982 and that in 1983 the Australian Government announced she would not be replaced, I'd suggest that "interest" was at best wishful thinking. Particularly during Typhoon development......

"Massive cost" can be a very subjective term.

Straight from the last MPR report, the biggest Air and Maritime projects (Land not included as equipment costs tend to be much lower cf manpower) :

A400M - £2.7Bn
Typhoon - £18Bn
FSTA - £11.4Bn
Marshall - £1.8Bn
Total - ~£34Bn

F35 (a "joint" asset) - £5Bn (yes it'll be a much higher figure eventually)
QEC - £6.2Bn
T26 - not published in MPR but statements indicate £8Bn
T45 - £6Bn
Astute - £9.6Bn
MARS - £0.5Bn
Total ~ £35Bn

QEC doesn't even make fourth on the list. QEC + F35 is about 16% of the combined total. Typhoon on its own is 26%.

A very simplistic analysis admittedly and doesn't include the monster that is Successor among other things. Spreading that spend out over time would also be very instructive.

[ORAC]

More on the comms connectivity issue - and work on a solution....

U.S. Air Force Sticks With Northrop Airborne Comms Node (http://aviationweek.com/combat-aircraft/us-air-force-sticks-northrop-airborne-comms-node)

"........The success of BACN has not been lost on the U.S.’s coalition partners, who themselves have difficulty passing data between dissimilar equipment within their air, land and naval forces. Northrop is marketing a family of airborne gateways to include Smart Node Pod, which can be carried on smaller platforms such as the General Atomics Aeronautical Systems MQ-9 Reaper. The company is also pushing a BACN-derived processor called Resilient Network Controller, optimized for connecting battle management and surveillance networks.

The international demand is being driven in part by the looming introduction of the Lockheed Martin F-35 among allied and NATO nations. F-35s communicate via the Multifunction Advanced Data Link, which is not compatible with earlier-generation aircraft and must be translated and retransmitted on Link 16 by some other means.

Australia will introduce 72 F-35s over the coming years, with aircraft arriving at Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) Bases Williamtown and Tindal beginning in 2018. The RAAF is getting ahead of the problem by launching “Plan Jericho,” an initiative to link all airborne, land and maritime forces under one resilient combat network. That includes the Royal Australian Army’s troubled Airbus Tiger Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter, which communicates via EuroGrid, a data link format that is not supported by any other asset within the Australian Defense Force. The UK, meanwhile, will procure 138 B-model F-35s, which will have difficulty sharing data with the Eurofighter Typhoon.

Northrop is offering BACN-like airborne gateways to both nations and recently supported a live-fire demonstration in Puckapunyal, Australia, involving most of that country’s combat aircraft, including the Boeing F/A-18F Super Hornet, E-7A Wedgetail and Tiger. The company provided an airborne gateway carried aboard its Gulfstream II business jet. The exercise in March, named Jericho Dawn 16-3, successfully demonstrated interoperability with the Tiger and other platforms.

“We connected the [Tiger] to the ground forces and to their naval and air forces,” Karkainen says. “They were pleased enough with our ability to do that quickly, since we were put under contract in January and implemented the demonstration in March of this year. They want to have an interim gateway to continue to support their [Plan Jericho] demonstrations. We’re still discussing requirements with them on what their interim gateway would look like and what platform it would be on. We will get the requirements, bid for them and move forward.”

The UK has a similar networking vision called the Future Integrated Battle Force, and Northrop is working with the British Defense Ministry to demonstrate how the Eurofighter and F-35 can be linked using airborne gateway technology. Northrop expects a contract for a flight demonstration soon, with the first tests expected by year-end or next spring..........."

[KenV]

Indeed the list is small, but for jets you can add the FJ Fury (series)...I guess it depends on how you define successful. The FJ-2, despite lots of money spent and lots of mods was never a satisfactory carrier aircraft. Almost all went to the Marines who operated them mostly from land bases. By 1956 (only 5 years after the first flight of the prototype) essentially all the FJ-2s had been retired. It took a major wing redesign and a new engine (license built Sapphire) that resulted in the FJ-3 to make the Fury an acceptable carrier aircraft. But even then there were problems. The Sapphire's lubrication system tended to fail under the acceleration load of a catapult launch and there were turbine blade issues resulting from steam ingestion. It was not until the FJ-4 Fury was developed that the Navy had a real carrier aircraft. The the FJ-4 was an almost complete redesign of the FJ-3, including a totally different wing and much greater fuel capacity, and shared only basic configuration with the earlier Furys. It was also a fighter/bomber, not an air superiority fighter, and had an extensive air-to-ground capability, including in later versions a nuke!

The waters get further muddied if one considers (I believe incorrectly) that the F-86 was itself a derivative of the straight wing FJ-1 Fury. So technically, a Naval design (FJ-1 Fury) was derived into an Air Force design (F-86), which was then derived back into a naval design (FJ-2, 3 and 4 Fury). This was the very beginning of the jet age, so there was lots of cross pollination. Navy/Air Force fighter design and features diverged quite a bit after this early period.

[ORAC]

Engine Upgrades for the F-35 Expected in Mid-2020s | Defense News (http://www.defensenews.com/articles/new-engines-for-f-35-mid-2020s-likely-says-bogdan)

WASHINGTON – The F-35 joint program office is eyeing the middle of the next decade for when major upgrades to the engines on the joint strike fighter can proceed.

Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan, who heads the JPO head, said at last week’s Air Force Association conference that the “mid-2020s” is when the power plant on the joint strike fighter could be refreshed, whether through improvements to the Pratt & Whitney F135 design currently used or through a new engine design from another competitor. “I would expect ... that somewhere in the mid-2020s much of the work being done in the labs right now with our industry partners will find its way onto the F-35,” Bogdan told an audience Sept. 21. “Whether it finds its way onto the F-35 in the current engine or some modified engine remains to be seen, but we do fully expect in the mid-20s to include some advanced technologies on engines.”

The Air Force is currently funding the early stages of the Adaptive Engine Transition Program (AETP) competition, with both Pratt and General Electric Aviation participating. The goal of AETP is to see if the companies can successfully add a third stream of air inside the engine. The program’s goal is to “demonstrate 25 percent improved fuel efficiency, 10 percent increased thrust, and significantly improved thermal management,” according to an Air Force statement. Both companies received contracts worth $1.01 billion over the summer to fund the research under AETP, with a period of performance ending in September 2021.

While the AETP competition will likely be the source of the F-35 power plant of the future, its official focus is whatever the service decides to do with the so-called “sixth generation” fighter development. Theoretically, engine improvements could also be rolled into the B-21 Raider bomber, which is expected to enter production by the mid-2020s. Pratt & Whitney is the engine supplier on the program; and although neither they nor Northrop Grumman, the prime on the B-21, have said what engine is being used, speculation is that some form of the F135 engine will power the bomber.

Bogdan made it clear it is too early to make any decisions about how engine improvements could be rolled into the F-35 program. “We have to take a look and see if they are 1) applicable and can be integrated into the F-35, and 2) the right time and place to do that,” Bogdan said. “A lot of that comes from the warfighter telling us what he or she needs and wants on the airplane, but relative to engine technology, just like sensor technology, just like materials technology, engine technology is moving along also. And there is a lot of work being done in the labs right now to improve the range [and] capability of our engines, the thrust capability on the size and weight of our engines.”

[SkyHawk-N]

They do look nice.

JaO9Sq-gFvY

[Heathrow Harry]

"The French pulled out of the EFA consortium, which became the EF2000 consortium, because they insisted upon a carrier capable design"

It would be more accurate to say the French have pulled out of almost every multi-national arms deal where they haven't been allocated design leadership....................

[KenV]

They do look nice.I agree. But there are plenty of trashboys who insist it does not look "right", and therefore must be all "wrong".

[draken55]

Not a boffin,

Re your comment on "Massive Costs" a wee peek outside the military sphere shows that upgrading the A9 (Perth to Inverness) from single to dual carriageway will cost an estimated £3bn. Nothing that involves engineering of any sort comes without a hefty price tag these days!

[SpazSinbad]

LM F-35 GM Weekly Update Jeff Babione 29 Sep 2016
“F-35B DT-III FCLPs
Switching over to flight test news, the team at Pax River accomplished more than 50 vertical landings last week to complete field carrier landing practice (FCLP) flights, before embarking on [USS America] F-35B DT-III next month. The at-sea period is the final shipboard testing for the F-35B as part of the system development and demonstration (SDD) testing. The FCLPs are conducted at Pax with the ship’s crew using AM2 matting to simulate the deck of an LHD carrier. This gives the deck crew some valuable experience with the F-35B before working with the jet at sea. This is just the beginning of what promises to be another outstanding success from the test team for this final round of testing.”
https://a855196877272cb14560-2a4fa819a63ddcc0c289f9457bc3ebab.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/17197/f35_weekly_update_9_29_16.pdf (150Kb)

Appear to be two LHA decks of 600 feet marked out with the ski jump further down the graphic then a VL pad on the right at mid field NAS Patuxent River image dated 20 Oct 2013.

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewNewAllBum/PaxRiver2013centrefieldSkiJumpLHArotZOOMrulerFORUM.gif~origi nal (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewNewAllBum/PaxRiver2013centrefieldSkiJumpLHArotZOOMrulerFORUM.gif.html)

[SpazSinbad]

F-35 NEWS Sep 2016 Combat Aircraft Magazine
"...Testing continues to evaluate the F-35B’s ability to carry asymmetric external loads in flight. The tests are designed to ensure that the fighter can operate safely while carrying a 1,000lb (454kg) store under one wing but not the other. Testing has already been conducted in non-crosswind conditions and is now being carried out in stronger crosswinds that might be experienced at sea. The latest round of land-based weapons testing is the final hurdle that the Lightning II must clear before it embarks aboard the USS America (LHA 6) for at-sea developmental testing phase 3 (DT-3) in October 2016. DT-3 is the last of three at-sea testing periods that will ultimately allow the US Marine Corps’ F-35Bs to deploy aboard US Navy amphibious assault ships. The F-35B is currently limited to crosswinds of 15kt during vertical landings. DT-3 will evaluate the aircraft’s ability to operate safely in conditions up to sea state 6, which translates as equivalent to wave heights of 13-20ft (4-6m). The DT-3 tests will involve the use of two instrumented F-35Bs...."
Combat Aircraft Magazine September 2016 Volume 17 Number 9

[FODPlod]

...The F-35B is currently limited to crosswinds of 15kt during vertical landings. DT-3 will evaluate the aircraft’s ability to operate safely in conditions up to sea state 6, which translates as equivalent to wave heights of 13-20ft (4-6m)...
I suppose a ship could always consider doing something silly like turning into wind. Ashore, a pilot might even consider turning into wind himself before landing vertically. :)

[riff_raff]

ORAC-

The benefits from the variable cycle turbine engine technologies being developed would be well worth the cost to retrofit on the F-35 models. From what I understand, this development work is making very good progress.

[SpazSinbad]

'FODPlod' said on previous page:
"I suppose a ship could always consider doing something silly like turning into wind. Ashore, a pilot might even consider turning into wind himself before landing vertically."
Captains of flat deck ships often have other things to deal with as well as the landing aircraft. Within aircraft landing limits these Captains may make the WOD [Wind Over the Deck] such that it is within the aircraft limits for landing. Operational necessity - crowded seaway - other ships on collision courses or whatever can be imagined, may produce not ideal wind conditions for landing aircraft. It is even more difficult on angle deck carriers for various reasons. Here we have axial flat decks.

[Maus92]

A 15kt demonstrated crosswind component is a fairly typical limitation for fixed wing aircraft. It doesn't mean that the aircraft cannot land in crosswind conditions exceeding that number, but a Harrier or two have been damaged when attempting to land in challenging crosswinds, reference Bagram in the early days following 9/11.

[Bevo]

A 15kt demonstrated crosswind component is a fairly typical limitation for fixed wing aircraft. It doesn't mean that the aircraft cannot land in crosswind conditions exceeding that number, but a Harrier or two have been damaged when attempting to land in challenging crosswinds, reference Bagram in the early days following 9/11.

The F-4, F-15, F/A-18C, and F/A-18E all have "recommended" crosswind limits of 30kt.

[SpazSinbad]

CrossWind INFO mostly about the Bee on Ships...
... • [F-35B] Crosswind landing testing in the conventional landing mode (not vertical landing) was not completed; but sufficient testing was accomplished to clear landings up to 20 knots of crosswind, short of the ORD requirement of 25 knots of crosswind....”
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae/articles/communiques/DOT-E_2014_Annual_Report_Section_on_F-35.pdf
__________________________________

Navy Sees Few Anomalies in F-35B Ship Trials [DT-I] Oct 31, 2011 Amy Butler | Onboard the USS Wasp
"...Pilots were qualified using the heart of the Harrier wind envelope. During testing they have expanded that up to a 30-kt. headwind, 10-kt. crosswind and 5-kt. tailwind. Pilots report good handling qualities, Cordell says...."
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awst/2011/10/24/AW_10_24_2011_p30-384427.xml&headline=Navy&next=0
____________________________

Jumping Jack Flash July 2014 AIR International F-35 Special Ed.
“...Over the course of the 19-day DT-I test period the two [F-35B] jets logged 28 hours flight time & completed 72 short take-offs & 72 vertical landings in conditions of up to 33 knots of wind-over-deck & 10 knots of starboard crosswind.... ...We opened out to 10 knots of crosswind from the right and 15 knots from the left, which is a super envelope.... ...DT II was about crosswind envelope expansion; getting out to 40 knots of headwind; tailwind envelope expansion...

“...As part of the test programme, VX-23 undertook crosswind and tailwind envelope expansion. This included what Peter Wilson described as “some very interesting test points” with the aircraft positioned with a tailwind – which involved tracking the centreline with various bank angles moving backwards at 25 knots or so, “really testing close to the limits of the propulsion system’s capability. So we’ve hit the corners of the envelope going backwards and sideways”. VX-23 also conducted vertical landings with a 15-knot crosswind and with expected hot gas ingestion from the ship’s funnels. “We’ve completed extreme descent rates touching down at 12ft/sec and not exceeded the load limits of the landing gear,” said Wilson. Crosswind testing is an interesting scenario.

There are two ways to achieve the required objective. The pilot can generate crosswind in the hover by turning 90-degrees away from a headwind to generate crosswind from the natural wind and then move sideways over the ground to achieve the required test condition. The wind can be forced to come at any angle to the aircraft. The alternate way is to test when the desired wind speed is available naturally, pedal turning the aircraft until the direction required by the test point is achieved. “DT II was about crosswind envelope expansion; getting out to 40 knots of headwind; tailwind envelope expansion; and the internal carriage of inert weapons during take-offs and landings for the first time,” said Wilson....

...Another aspect of STOVL ops tested during DT II determined the effect of wind coming around the ship’s island. When an aircraft is in the hover, the island is on the right. If the wind comes from the right it makes its way around the island and catches the aircraft from various angles. “That makes the hot gas coming out of the ship’s stack come at you, which is bad news. Aeroplanes don’t like ingesting hot gas: it reduces performance,” said Wilson. “We had mixed results, some good, some bad. With the wind coming from ‘round the back of the island, the aeroplane starts to feel like it’s jostling around. And the effects of the hot gas coming from around the front eroded our performance margin, but not to a point we were concerned because the aircraft has the capability to withstand the effects. We opened out to 10 kts of crosswind from the right & 15 kts from the left, which is a super envelope. It was a great success.”...”
_________________________

F-35B Successfully Completes Wet Runway And Crosswind Testing 31 Jul 2014 noodls
"Collectively, the results support clearing the 20 knot cross-wind envelope for Conventional Take Off & Landings (CTOL), Short Take Offs (STO) & Short Landings (SL), with ideal handling quality ratings and meaningful improvement over legacy 4th generational fighter aircraft."
Public · Technologies (http://www.noodls.com/view/DF71E8C7D883DB07332A26ED32F3479B4E3120F5)
_______________________________

VX-23 2015 STRIKE TEST NEWS Maj M. Andrew “Tac” Tacquard
F-35(B) Short Takeoff & Vertical Landing (STOVL) Mode
“The F-35B team continued to expand the STOVL envelope last year in the clean wing configuration and with symmetric and asymmetric external stores. The process began with flying qualities testing in semi-jet, short takeoff, and jet borne modes to clear the aircraft for takeoff and landings. The team completed testing at airspeeds as low as 70 knots with 24,000 lb of asymmetry and jet borne with 10,000 lb of asymmetry. Next year, the team will feature jet borne testing to 19,000 lb of asymmetry.

Flying qualities during asymmetric testing were nearly identical to symmetric testing from the pilot’s perspective. The team performed Rolling Vertical Landings (RVL), Creeping Vertical Landings (CVL), Vert-ical Landings (VL), Slow Landings (SL), and Short Take Offs (STO) tests with nominal winds at Patuxent River. They continued landing and takeoff testing during a detachment to Edwards AFB, Air Force Plant 42 in Palmdale, California, and at NAWS China Lake. Testers focused on expanding the crosswind envelope with crosswinds of up to 25 knots. We also performed the 1st high altitude CVL & VL during the detachment...."
http://issuu.com/nawcad_pao/docs/striketest2015_single
_________________________

VX-23 Strike Test News 02 Sep 2014
"The F-35B STOVL envelope expansion continued last year. The Rolling Vertical Landing (RVL), Creeping Vertical Landing (CVL), Vertical Landing (VL), Slow Landing (SL), Short Take Off (STO) and Vertical Takeoff (VTO) envelopes were all expanded. RVL testing included main runway testing with some crosswind testing. CVL testing began and was completed on both the main runway and the Expeditionary Airfield (EAF). The VL wind envelope was further expanded, with up to 10 knots of tail wind and 15 knots of crosswind. SL and STO testing included crosswind expansion out to 20 knots, completed primarily at Edwards Air Force Base and NAWS China Lake during a wet runway and crosswind detachment. STOVL formation testing began this year, which included formation STOs and SLs. VTO expansion occurred concurrently with AM2 soft soil pad certification...."
____________________________

F-35 Lightning II Flight Test Update 14 Eric Hehs 20 January 2015
22 April 2014: Multiple Crosswind Tests
Lockheed Martin test pilot Dan Levin was at the controls of [F-35B] BF-4 Flight 225 for a day of extensive crosswind testing at NAS Patuxent River, Maryland, that included three short takeoffs, two slow landings, and two conventional landings. Crosswinds for these tests ranged from nineteen to twenty-five knots."
F-35 Lightning II Flight Test Update 14 | Code One Magazine (http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=152&sf7045660=1)
______________________________

F-35(B) Asymmetric Tests Pave Way for DT-3 Sea Trial 13 Jul 2016 Lara Seligman, Tony Osborne & Angus Batey
"...F-35 test pilots have begun testing the aircraft’s ability to carry asymmetric external loads in powered-lift flight. The trials are one of the final hurdles before the aircraft embark on the USS America at the end of October for at-sea developmental testing phase 3 (DT3) – the last of three maritime trials that will give the green light for the Marine Corps F-35Bs to deploy onto amphibious assault ships. The trials will explore the aircraft’s ability to operate safely onto decks with a 1,000-lb. asymmetric load as an external store under one of the wings, but not the other.

“In normal high-speed flight we deal with asymmetric loads by adjusting the flight controls,” says BAE Systems test pilot Pete Wilson, but this is not as straightforward when the aircraft enters the powered lift stage of flight just before recovering onto the deck. Tests have already begun in no-crosswind conditions, and the team are now beginning to test what may occur when stronger crosswinds are introduced. During most carrier landings, ships will point into the wind and the aircraft will be able to recover safely, but at times the ship may be constrained by geography, forcing aircraft to recover with a crosswind component.

The F-35B’s vertical landing crosswind limits is currently 15 kt., although the aircraft can translate at speeds of 20-25 kt. The team want to confirm computer models and prove how the aircraft will operate in such conditions. The issue was rarely a concern for older generations of STOVL, as they did not often bring back such high-tech munitions...."
F-35 Asymmetric Tests Pave Way for DT-3 Sea-Trials | ShowNews content from Aviation Week (http://aviationweek.com/shownews/f-35-asymmetric-tests-pave-way-dt-3-sea-trials)
_____________________________
INTEGRATED TEST at PAX James Deboer US NAVY & MARINE CORPS AIR POWER YEARBOOK 2016 Magazine "...We can launch [catapult F-35C] with up to a 15kt crosswind and we can recover with up to a 10kt crosswind’...."
______________________

ALL AT SEA F-35B/F-35C test update SHOWCASE 2016 SYLVIA PIERSON
"...WET RUNWAY, BRAKING VALIDATION AND HIGH CROSSWIND TESTING
ITF testers proved the aircraft can stop safely in extreme weather conditions and validated the aircraft envelope out to a 25-knot crosswind with high asymmetric air-to-ground loadings. Even in a maximum asymmetry configuration (up to 26,000 lb·ft) with weapons stores on one wing, the aircraft performed well – in fact, the high asymmetry and crosswind required little additional attention from the pilot...."
SHOWCASE 2016 AEROSPACE TESTING INTERNATIONAL

[sharpend]

Nov Pilot mag has a letter from an ex naval officer who has very little regard for F35. He states it has little range, cannot launch with full weapons load, has very limited carrier landing capability due to carrier pitch & roll limits, no in-flight-refuelling capability, far too sophisticated, far too expensive (6 F35s = 2 whole Squadrons of uprated F18 Super Hornets). If all true, this lemon is a lemon.

[Kitbag]

Is Sharky still alive then?

[MSOCS]

Sharpened, some interesting claims there:

Carrier limitations - laid down requirements that include launching at Max AUW but yet to be tested, so how does 'he' know? Ship hasn't sailed out of port so no actual SHOL done by test pilots. Modelling is very encouraging. Ship doesn't roll or pitch very much at all, even in Sea State 5/6.

Range - done to death. It's broadly equivalent to fighter jets with external tanks.

Too sophisticated - I bloody hope so for the wait/price/capability demanded. Some older generations fear smart phones too ya know 😉

As far as In-Flight Refuel, presume author refers to ability to buddy-buddy and give gas to other platforms. Was NEVER a requirement. Sea Harrier didn't, F-35C won't need it either (see latest successful boarding rate thanks to Delta FP/Magic Carpet a Ride), and neither will F-35B. I want my limited numbers of jets down range destroying stuff, not hanging out overhead in case someone bolters (off a VL??!!!!!)

Expensive....ok, yup, it is. In "this year" $$$ it's a large bill but not excessively so. There's a lot of better cost data coming out now than previous years. But she is expensive.

All in all, a factually incorrect letter to Pilot mag....

[Obi Wan Russell]

Don't forget the old chestnut of only 6 F-35Bs on board... when this has been debunked for years. The absolute MINIMUM number will be 12 aircraft, and probably 24 when deployed to a combat zone. Individual sqns will have 12 aircraft each, are they suggesting only HALF a sqn will go to sea? Did that ever happen with the Harriers? Don't think so...

[SpazSinbad]

'sharpend' said: "...[F-35B on CVF?] cannot launch with full weapons load...". This is wot a RAF Chappie said:
“...Onboard the Queen Elizabeth aircraft carriers, the aircraft would take off at its maximum weight of nearly 27 tonnes using a UK-developed ski-jump,...” 2204.62lbs = 1 tonne 59,535lbs = 27 tonnes [Wing Commander Hackett explained in: ETS winter 2012_13 LIGHTNING STRIKES]
http://content.yudu.com/A219ee/ETSWin12/resources/20.htm
_____________________________
"...[F-35B] maximum weapon payload of 6 Paveway IV, 2 AIM-120C AMRAAM, 2 AIM-132 ASRAAM & a missionised 25mm gun pod..." http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/f35jointstrikefighter.cfm
_________________________________

Ship Shape — F-35/QEC simulator Sep 2014 PAUL E EDEN
"300 Take-off run in feet from QEC for lightly loaded F-35B
800 Take-off run in feet from QEC for fully loaded F-35B
AEROSPACE TESTING INTERNATIONAL Magazine September 2014
___________________________

Pete Kosogorin BAE test pilot: (start 37 seconds) "...800 feet with full operational load [F-35B CVF off Ski Jump]..."
https://youtu.be/gxezKrL6apQ?t=37 OR
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxezKrL6apQ

'MSOCS' mentioned SHOL - here is the F-35B DT-I diagram for USS Wasp. Meanwhile LM has produced a new F-35 PR video....

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewNewAllBum/F-35Boct2011testDT-1windWASPforum.gif~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewNewAllBum/F-35Boct2011testDT-1windWASPforum.gif.html)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7ufjQ6Eyj8

[glad rag]

Ah well sounds like they will be going in harm's way soon, guess we will have all the answers then.

[MSOCS]

Maybe gr, maybe. If I had to fly into harm's way again, I'd choose an F-35 over anything else out there flying today; save Raptor, which is US only.

[Lonewolf_50]

MSOCS, if I had to fly in to harm's way tomorrow, given the condition my back's in, I'd not be fit to climb into a cockpit. I'd have to fly into harm's way using a Reaper, preferably loaded with GBU-12's. That way, when the bladder signals to me that it's got an overpressure, I'd not have to use a piddle pack. :E

[SpazSinbad]

'sharpend' mentioned a letter... here 'tis.

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewNewAllBum/PILOTletterEngineerIsF-35BfabForum.gif~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewNewAllBum/PILOTletterEngineerIsF-35BfabForum.gif.html)

[KenV]

The Norwegian government has requested authorization to buy 12 additional Lockheed Martin F-35s in its 2017 national budget, allowing the country to participate in the last two years of a proposed international block buy.

Under the budget proposal, rolled out Oct. 6, Norway wants to order six more F-35s in Low-Rate Initial Production (LRIP) lot 13 and another six in LRIP 14, Norwegian ministry of defense spokesman Endre Lunde told Aviation Week. If the proposal is approved, it would bring Norway’s number of approved F-35s to 40.

The blueprint would allow Norway to participate in the second and third years of a proposed international block buy, beginning in 2019 and covering lots 13 and 14. The government estimates the block buy will yield 385 million Norwegian Krone in savings, or about $48 million, Lunde said. The F-35 international partners are considering moving forward with a block buy beginning in 2018, covering LRIPs 12 through 14. Joint Program Office Chief Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan estimates such a block buy would cover about 450 aircraft over three years and save more than $2 billion.

The U.S. is planning on joining the block buy one year later, in lot 13, Bogdan said last month at the Air Force Association’s annual air and space conference. He expects that plan will be rolled out early next year along with President Barack Obama’s fiscal 2018 budget request.

So does this mean that Norway just compounded their "foolish" decision to buy the woefully deficient F-35 in the first place? ;-)

[MSOCS]

No Ken,

It's because the Norwegians now have first-hand experience of the capability and the enormous potential. It simply isn't a "PowerPoint jet" to the countries who own and fly them. Regardless of the criticisms levied at the Program, the jet on the ramp is impressing its pilots, most of whom have significant previous experience in the same jet types that the F-35 is "supposedly" inferior to, overall.

Or, the entire NOR government and people are Lockheed "shills" and are doubling down on the so-called Sprey "Lemon".

[Wander00]

Mr Keenan has some trenchant points it seems

[KenV]

MSOCS, its gotta be the latter explanation, plus saving face. The Norway gov't folks can't admit to having made a bad decision in the first place so they are doubling down on a bad decision just to save face. Yeah, that's the ticket. :)

[ORAC]

Report Raises Chance Of More Australian F/A-18 Super Hornets | Combat Aircraft content from Aviation Week (http://aviationweek.com/combat-aircraft/report-raises-chance-more-australian-fa-18-super-hornets)

"Expect Australia’s finger to be on the trigger in case of further delays in the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning program. A parliamentary committee has called on the defense department to prepare a backup plan, increasing the possibility of the country ordering more Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornets.

The committee did not go as far as recommending that Canberra place another Super Hornet contract. But its proposal closely follows the reasoning of a submission from a think tank, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI), urging the government to be ready to do so no later than 2019.

Separately, the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) has mentioned the possibility of a further Super Hornet order, apparently without much conviction, while also suggesting the F-35B, the vertical-landing version of the Lightning, as potential equipment. Unmanned strike aircraft are notably absent from its list of alternatives.............."

[SpazSinbad]

LM F-35 GM Weekly Update 27 Oct 2016 Jeff Babione
"F-35B DT-III...
...The success of DT-I showed the world how impressive this aircraft is, and since then, we haven’t looked back. Next week, the test team once again heads out to the open seas to accomplish the final shipboard test detachment for the System Development and Demonstration (SDD) test program.

The plan for DT-III is fairly straightforward: expand the shipboard operating envelope to full operational capability. This requires the team to expand night operations, high-winds and-high sea states as well as test a variety of internal and external stores loads. The two stars of the detachment are BF-1 and BF-5, who operated during DT-II, and have accounted for a majority of the more than 1,100 vertical landings and nearly 2,200 short takeoffs for the SDD program....
&
Lightning Carrier Proof of Concept
"During the same deployment, the Marine Corps is taking this opportunity to complete the “Lightning Carrier Proof of Concept” demonstration to assess what the support of various Marine Corps aircraft, including 12 F-35Bs, two MV-22Bs, and two H-1 helicopters entails, and to develop the concept of operations for future shipboard deployments. In addition to testing the operational suitability and effectiveness of the F-35B, they will conduct several mission sets such as strike missions, close-air support and armed reconnaissance missions...."
https://a855196877272cb14560-2a4fa819a63ddcc0c289f9457bc3ebab.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/17233/f35_weekly_update_10_27_16.pdf (0.6Mb)

[FODPlod]

A nice anniversary. BZ Dale Collins:35 years in Her Majesty's service (http://www.dcmilitary.com/tester/tenant_profile/years-in-her-majesty-s-service/image_f2ddf60c-321d-51e7-8bc5-a2844db5678c.html)


http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/dcmilitary.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/f/2d/f2ddf60c-321d-51e7-8bc5-a2844db5678c/5812073820c49.image.jpg?resize=750%2C500
Courtesy photo by Dane Wiedmann

Royal Navy Lt. Cmdr. Dale Collins celebrated 35 years in Her Majesty’s service Oct. 5 at Naval Air Station Patuxent River.

In 2015, Collins was sent to Pax River for a U.S. assignment on the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter program where he serves as the U.K. Air Engineer and Ship Integration Project Officer at the F-35 Pax River Integrated Test Force (ITF) based at Air Test and Evaluation Squadron (VX) 23.

Throughout his tenure, Collins has led numerous flight test engineering projects in preparation for the First of Class Flying Trials scheduled to take place aboard HMS Queen Elizabeth in 2018. Soon, Collins will lead an integrated U.K.-U.S contingent of Royal Navy, Royal Air Force, MOD, and U.S. Marine Corps personnel aboard USS America (LHA 6) for the third and final phase of Developmental Test (DT-III) of F-35B Lightning II.

[ORAC]

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/turkey-confirms-second-f-35-order-430947/

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/foreign-policy/middle-east/turkey/cancel-f-35-deal-turkey/

F-35 'sovereign data gateway' will stop US reading pilots' personal data? Yeah right ? The Register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/10/31/f35_alis_logistics_system_sovereign_data_gateway/)

[Lonewolf_50]

ORAC, I personally agree with the "don't sell F-35's to Turkey" under the same MO where we restricted sales of F-16's to Pakistan a few decades ago due to their government being utter :mad:'s. The reason I take that position is that there is no :mad:ing way Turkey is paying for those birds: they are being funded by US "loan guarantees" just as a host of military kit was sold to Turkey in previous decades due to their being a NATO ally. Similar to the F-35's and V-22's being "sold" to Israel when they are actually funded, at least in part, by US aid to Israel that's in the 3 billion per year, and more, level of bribery (as well to Egypt) reaching back to the 1973 Yom Kippur War peace deal.

That said, the "sale" is unlikely to get cancelled: over 100 Congressional districts are involved in F-35 production. "The money's too good." :p

[SpazSinbad]

F-35 Lightning II Testing Begins on USS America 31 Oct 2016 USS America (LHA 6) Public Affairs
"PACIFIC OCEAN (NNS) -- Five Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II aircraft landed on the amphibious assault ship USS America (LHA 6) on Friday, October 28.

America will embark seven F-35Bs -- two are scheduled to begin the third shipboard phase of developmental test (DT-III) and five are scheduled to conduct operational testing....

... said Lt. Col. Tom "Sally" Fields, F-35 Patuxent River ITF Government Flight Test director assigned to VX-23. "During the next three weeks, we will be completing critical flight test for both Developmental Test (DT) and Operational Test (OT). The F-35 Pax River ITF and VX-23 will be conducting DT work that will establish the boundaries of safe operation for the F-35B in the 3F configuration. VMX-1 will be conducting OT operations focused on preparing maintenance crews and pilots for the first deployment of the F-35B aboard USS Wasp (LHD 1), scheduled to start in just over a year."

The operational testing will also include simulating extensive maintenance aboard a ship, said Col. George Rowell, commanding officer of VMX-1, based at Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, Arizona.

Rowell stated one of the VMX jets on board will be placed in the hangar bay, taken apart, and put together again, just to make sure everything goes well.

The maintenance work will include the replacement of a lift fan, the specialized equipment made by Rolls Royce and Pratt and Whitney that gives the F-35B variant its short take-off, "jump jet" capability, Rowell said...."
http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=97428

WATCH: Marines’ F-35B Executes Perfect Vertical Landing on Ship Hope Hodge Seck 01 Nov 2016
"...In this last round of testing, conducted off the coast of San Diego [commenced Friday 28 Oct 2016], test pilots and planners pushed the envelope by intentionally operating in choppy waters, with swells of up to six feet, to see how the aircraft would handle the tough conditions.

In this video, shot from the back of an MV-22B Osprey on the flight deck, an F-35 approaches the ship in seconds, then hovers in mid-air, churning up clouds of sea spray with its powerful lift fans before descending for a precise vertical landing on the ship. You can see the deck swaying with the elevated swells as the aircraft makes its approach...."
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2016/11/01/watch-marines-f-35b-executes-perfect-vertical-landing-ship/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1X40_xczGL0

[Lonewolf_50]

FFS, Spaz, have you spent any time at sea? It's obvious the journo in question has not. If, per the article, those are elevated swells
You can see the deck swaying with the elevated swells as the aircraft makes its approach...." then I'm the starting point guard for the San Antonio Spurs.


I love me some maritime flight ops, but the F-35B is supposed to be able to land on the ship: it's in the spec, it's a hard requirement.

[SpazSinbad]

'Lonewolf 50' I do not see the need to attack reporters when I do not know the circumstances. Seck would not be the first to exaggerate and likely it was HER first time on a ship at sea in any kind of swell - however I do not know. And I'm tired of having to say again what my experience in the RAN FAA has been - some forty odd years ago now.

[Addition: As a Cadet Midshipman around mid 1966 (along with Dave Ramsay ['ramsdog' to all & sundry] later an exchange SHAR pilot with RNFAA for a few years) we boarded HMAS Melbourne by workboat with a bunch of others in Jervis Bay via a cargo net climb up to somewhere or other - quarter deck perhaps?). Anyway Dave knew the way to goofers so we both were able to watch a Sea Venom land on; then flying was cancelled due to worsening weather. Unable to disembark by work boat our Cadet Middies were offloaded by Iroquois back to the 'quarterdeck' at RANC (HMAS Creswell) where I had joined the RAN as a new 17 year old at beginning of that year; but did not graduate - went to the RAN FAA instead for a total of 9.5 years in - damn that Venom Pilot and Damn that Iroquois ride - it all looked TOO EASY to my then ignorant young eyes. :-) ]

Directly to answer in mid 1967 I spent 3 months plus onboard HMAS Anzac (then a training destroyer) with my first days at sea circling a cyclone with Force 6 sea states - I was as sick as a dog along with most of the new Midshipmen onboard. Then I had about 6 months at sea total with VF-805 flying the now venerable A4Gs - mostly blue water ops with no tanker (only four A4Gs onboard HMAS Melbourne in late 1971/early 1972) in the Pacific, except night flying we had a divert - six A4Gs are still flying today with DRAKEN USA (via upgrading to KAHU status with the RNZAF). What is your experience?

Earlier posts (if not here) at least on previous post from LM indicate some DT-III goals:
"...The plan for DT-III is fairly straightforward: expand the shipboard operating envelope to full operational capability. This requires the team to expand night operations, high-winds and-high sea states as well as test a variety of internal and external stores loads...." ______________________

F-35 NEWS Sep 2016 Combat Aircraft Magazine
"...Testing continues to evaluate the F-35B’s ability to carry asymmetric external loads in flight. The tests are designed to ensure that the fighter can operate safely while carrying a 1,000lb (454kg) store under one wing but not the other. Testing has already been conducted in non-crosswind conditions and is now being carried out in stronger crosswinds that might be experienced at sea. The latest round of land-based weapons testing is the final hurdle that the Lightning II must clear before it embarks aboard the USS America (LHA 6) for at-sea developmental testing phase 3 (DT-3) in October 2016. DT-3 is the last of three at-sea testing periods that will ultimately allow the US Marine Corps’ F-35Bs to deploy aboard US Navy amphibious assault ships. The F-35B is currently limited to crosswinds of 15kt during vertical landings. DT-3 will evaluate the aircraft’s ability to operate safely in conditions up to sea state 6, which translates as equivalent to wave heights of 13-20ft (4-6m). The DT-3 tests will involve the use of two instrumented F-35Bs...."
Source: Combat Aircraft Magazine September 2016 Volume 17 Number 9

[SpazSinbad]

:-) Looks like an Xwind from LEFT is causing some cringeing on deck :roll: : https://a855196877272cb14560-2a4fa819a63ddcc0c289f9457bc3ebab.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/17241/b-dt-iii-news-1__main.jpg

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewNewAllBum/FiveF-35BsViewUSSamericaNov2016forum.jpg~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewNewAllBum/FiveF-35BsViewUSSamericaNov2016forum.jpg.html)

[KenV]

Looks like Turkey is yet another nation doubling down on their original poor F-35 purchase decision by buying more F-35s. :O

Turkey To Buy Two Dozen More F-35s
LONDON—Turkey has committed to purchase an additional 24 F-35 Joint
Strike Fighters, one of the largest single orders for the aircraft placed by a
foreign country.
Ankara has already placed orders for six aircraft, following orders made in 2014 and 2015, and will now buy two dozen more aircraft, Defense Minister Fikri Isik told broadcaster A Haber in a Nov. 1 interview.
The decision follows an Oct. 28 meeting of Turkey’s Defense Industry Executive Committee (SSIK), the first since the attempted coup against the AKP government on July 15. It called for first deliveries of the F-35 in 2018, with initial deliveries of the second batch of aircraft to follow in 2021. It is unclear whether Turkey’s order will form part of a larger block buy strategy being pursued by Lockheed Martin to reduce the per-aircraft price.
Turkey is currently planning to purchase around 100 F-35s, primarily as a replacement for the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom, which remains in service in an upgraded form, as well as to replace some early model F-16s. Turkey is also continuing to pursue development of an indigenous fighter currently known as the TFX, likely to be a twin-engine aircraft.
The F-35 program was one of a number of programs discussed by the SSIK. Other programs signed off on by the committee include a modernization program for the Turkish navy’s fleet of 24 S-70B Seahawk helicopters. The committee also approved the development of a new light armored vehicle.
—Tony Osborne, [email protected]

[PhilipG]

It looks to me as though Marine Corps Ear Defenders need updating...

[ORAC]

Or an indication the concerns about noise/efflux were not as spurious as claimed?

[SpazSinbad]

So when the efflux was not a concern the crosswind for STO must have been from the right? Makes sense. New Communication Ear Defenders are being used by deck personnel.

Flight Deck Headset Compensates for F-35 Engine Noise 23 Sep 2015 Andrew Clevenger
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/show-daily/modern-day-marine/2015/09/23/flight-deck-headset-compensates-f-35-engine-noise/72706410/

http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/2feee69581913188b2cf299f4cee3495a99e38ea/r=537&c=0-0-534-712/http/cdn.tegna-tv.com/-mm-/88928d0920c07640e59b08adead6faea3b30f747/c=0-632-2329-3737/local/-/media/2015/09/23/DefenseNews/DefenseNews/635786301139947765-0923151529EARBUDSROTATE.jpg

[Lonewolf_50]

. And I'm tired of having to say again what my experience in the RAN FAA has been - some forty odd years ago now. While I appreciate your enthusiasm for this new bird, the cut and paste of press releases and videos often comes off as spam. (Even when the videos are cool shots of the planes flying ...) You've gotten your share of blow back in this thread from a variety of F-35B haters, and I am not one of them.
I will remember that you've been on the high seas in future responses. Even old salts are subject to memory defects as age increases.

[Lonewolf_50]

Looks like Turkey is yet another nation doubling down on their original poor F-35 purchase decision by buying more F-35s. :O

Turkey To Buy Two Dozen More F-35s
LONDON—Turkey has committed to purchase an additional 24 F-35 Joint
Strike Fighters, one of the largest single orders for the aircraft placed by a
foreign country. Per my response to ORAC, Ken, I don't think Turkey is actually paying for them. You and I are, tax dollars for allies. I'll be quite surprised to find out otherwise.


I also note that the program has not been cancelled. I wonder if we need to start a new thread, now that the original question of six years ago has been answered? Maybe not, there may still be a few cases of cold feet and deep disappointment in cost ...

[SpazSinbad]

'Lonewolf 50' you have not outlined your NavAv experience. Meanwhile 'Merica:

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5790/30614908802_14dab56a77_o_d.jpg (3.1Mb)

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewNewAllBum/USSamericaLOGOdt-IIIF-35Bnov2016forum.jpg~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewNewAllBum/USSamericaLOGOdt-IIIF-35Bnov2016forum.jpg.html)

[Lonewolf_50]

Spaz:
I spent 25 pretty decent years in the USN, rotary and fixed wing, Naval aviator. During that time, I had the chance to both preside over and serve on a few aviation mishap boards, as I noted to a churlish poster on Rotorheads who questions the US Navy's use of the term Mishap for an accident.
I even go stuck in an acquisition job where I had to deal with the fallout of a very expensive APN-1 program playing havoc with the programs we had oversight on. The F-35 program I had a small bit of work in, early 2000's, but that was on the training systems side, not the air vehicle side.

Allusions to much of that are in a variety of threads here on Mil, as well as no few in this very thread, as has my experience on the NATO side where I had service in NATO proper. What I don't do is spam other peoples' work when I post. There, now you know. Given the number of haters in this extended discussion, it is nice to see someone with enthusiasm for the F-35, warts and all.

I had the professional opportunity to work with ship, and even serve with officers, sailors and Marines in the:
RN
Australian Navy
Japanese Maritime Self Defense Force
Canadian Navy
Italian Navy
German Navy
Dutch Navy
Greek navy
Turkish Navy (and had to work for a Turk in NATO)
Spanish Navy

As well as some work with Marines, Air Forces, and Armies. Probably forgot a few, that was off the top of my head.

It was a good run, though it appears that you and I are of a slightly different vintage. I retired in 2005.


The F-35 isn't going to be canceled any time soon. It's bloody expensive, and we wont' know if it's any good until it gets into the fight: and by that point, what options will anyone have? Hope is the method (and I do hope it succeeds). All eggs in one basket: that's the decision in more than one government, hence this thread.

[ORAC]

Hmmmm - asking for another $500M and being sued by your own contractor. Programme proceeding as normal then........

The Pentagon wants $500 million more to finish the F-35 - Business Insider (http://uk.businessinsider.com/pentagon-500-million-f35-2016-11)

Defense officials at the Pentagon say they need up to $500 million more to finish the development phase for the F-35, the troubled fifth-generation fighter that's already gone 50% over its original budget.

The F-35 program office requested the money last month to the Defense Acquisition Board, according to Bloomberg, which first reported the news Wednesday. The call for additional funds is pretty familiar at this point, since the program — known as the Joint Strike Fighter since it will be used by the Navy, Marines, and Air Force — has been plagued by lengthy delays and enormous cost overruns............

Lockheed, Pentagon Spar Over F-35 Contract - WSJ (http://www.wsj.com/articles/lockheed-martin-secures-6-1-billion-f-35-contract-1478124769)

The Pentagon on Wednesday awarded Lockheed Martin Corp. a $6.1 billion deal for the next batch of F-35 fighter jets, triggering an unusual rebuke from the defense contractor over the terms and timing. The deal for the ninth batch of the stealthy fighters covers 57 jets for the U.S. and some foreign air forces, with talks continuing on another contract involving more than 100 planes. Lockheed has been in negotiations with the Pentagon for 18 months about a combined deal for 160 jets covering two years of production, and the two sides had hoped to reach agreement in early 2016. But negotiations over price and other issues dragged on longer than expected as the Pentagon tries to cut the cost of the F-35A model used by the U.S. Air Force to around $80 million by the end of the decade, and The Wall Street Journal reported last week that the order would be split.

Lockheed said in a statement Wednesday that the new deal was imposed on it, and a spokesman said the company is considering a court appeal so that talks could be reopened.

"We are disappointed with the decision by the Government to issue a unilateral contract action on the F-35 [latest] contract," the company said. Negotiating F-35 deals in bigger batches was intended to cut the Pentagon's price and help Lockheed and its partners negotiate better deals with their suppliers. The F-35 accounts for 23% of Lockheed's revenue and is an important contributor to sales and earnings at other companies including Northrop Grumman Corp. and BAE Systems PLC, as well as dozens of smaller contractors.

[Turbine D]

Post by KenV: Looks like Turkey is yet another nation doubling down on their original poor F-35 purchase decision by buying more F-35s.

There is a downside and partial upside to all of this:

Downside
Shades of the Iran F-14 deal, sell/give them one of your best, government changes and then wish you had them back.

Partial Upside
The way things are going, the Turks may well be the first to put the F-35s to use in a real combat test. Question remaining, who will they be testing them against?

[KenV]

Shades of the Iran F-14 deal, sell/give them one of your best, government changes and then wish you had them back.I'd guess that ongoing support of the F-35 would be even more problematic for Turkey should their government go awry than supporting the Tomcats was for Iran after their government went awry. Further, Turkey is still a NATO member nation. I'd guess that whatever government came into power over there, they would likely do whatever was necessary to maintain that NATO membership. Especially considering that they share a significant border with Russia with whom they are far from friendly.

[GlobalNav]

Just read the news release of Sen McCain's letter to Gen Brogdan and the Pentagon, criticizing the F-35 program. With due respect to the good senator, I wonder how he would do running such a complex program. It's much easier to tell someone how badly they are doing than it is to do it yourself. Considering his performance in the Senate, it might be interesting if he had the job of defense secretary and see if he can actually accomplish something.

[Lonewolf_50]

I've got a warm spot in my heart for Senator McCain, his faults and virtues mostly balance, but I also think he's reached his sell by date. (See similar issues with Senator Byrd of W Va. At some point, retire FFS!) He's been ragging on selected programs and acquisition issues for some years, so his giving F-35 and its program lead the needle is consistent with some of his previous rhetoric. (http://blog.al.com/live/2009/10/mccain_wants_a_watchdog_in_air.html)

[sandiego89]

Downside
Shades of the Iran F-14 deal, sell/give them one of your best, government changes and then wish you had them back.



Indeed blowback is a concern. I would think that with the F-35 being so software dependent, and tied to the ALIS system, that operations by a country that has gone "the other way" would be much more difficult. Perhaps even a few lines of code that the jet could be "bricked", or not receive an update it needs. I know some countries were concerned about not having the rights/or the full code.


It is one thing to keep a Huey/Cobra, C-130, F-4, F-5, F-14 etc. running with little outside support- and the Iranians have done an impressive job- but the amount of software on those airframes pales compared to the F-35. It sound like buyers will be very tied to the LM software codes (some perhaps more than others).

[chopper2004]

More news with the UK chosen as global F-35 MRO,

cheers

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-chosen-as-a-global-f-35-repair-hub

[chopper2004]

Also in lieu of whoever gets elected come the end of play tomorrow - the F-35 program is still safe ....

cheers

[ORAC]

Marine Corps F-35 Caught Fire During Training Flight | Military.com (http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/11/07/marine-corps-f35-caught-fire-training-flight.html)

[KenV]

F-35 ‘Too Smart’ For Training, Pilot Says
Defense Daily 11/07/2016
Author: Pat Host


The F-35 aircraft is so good at fusing information received via sensors that it negatively impacts the training its pilots receive, according to a pilot.Air Force Lt. Col. Scott Gunn, a F-35A pilot, said Monday the aircraft will often ignore threats during training that the training system has set up to be a threat. Gunn said, in response, the Air Force almost has to dumb-down the aircraft to recognize threats that pilots may see on the battlefield. Gunn said in the past with federated systems, he could send out little bits and pieces and trick the pilot, trick the system into thinking he’s giving them good training.

“If I don’t have something that really looks like, smells like and acts like the threat I’m trying to find, I never get the pilots the training that I need when I go and send them out to combat,” Gunn said at an Air Force Association event on Capitol Hill.

Air Force Warfare Center Commander Maj. Gen. Glen VanHerck said a lot of the service’s most realistic training will occur in a virtual constructive environment in the “not too distant future.” These virtual environments, he said, are where the Air Force can do larger force, more realistic deployment of fifth generation aircraft and not give away capabilities. VanHerck said the Air Force, in the meantime, will continue flying to make sure its wringing out capabilities.

Gunn called the sensor training issue one of the infrastructure-related challenges the Air Force is tackling with the F-35. In addition to a limited airspace issue that he said the service has faced since the F-22, Gunn said the infrastructure network that the F-35 plugs into is like connecting to a dial-up modem in the ’80s and ’90s. During a discussion on what pilots would want in a sixth generation aircraft, Gunn said the Pentagon needs to first improve the infrastructure before getting into how fast or how far a sixth generation aircraft should fly.

The F-35 is developed by Lockheed Martin [LMT] with subcontractors BAE Systems and Northrop Grumman [NOC].

[ORAC]

I am surprised that nobody as commented on the F-35B fire above - which happened on 27th Oct, but which the press release was snuck out the day before the elections. What is it they say about hiding bad news?

Note that it was a weapons bay fire which resulted in Class A $2M+ damage.

No mention of possible cause or ramifications. Engine, fuel leak, hydraulics, electrical?

What's the safety case for a major fire in a weapons bay filled with bombs and missiles?

And the pilot's notes? Fly around till it goes out - if you feel lucky? Do not bring it back anywhere near us?

[PhilipG]

I am surprised that nobody as commented on the F-35B fire above - which happened on 27th Oct, but which the press release was snuck out the day before the elections. What is it they say about hiding bad news?

Note that it was a weapons bay fire which resulted in Class A $2M+ damage.

I seem to recall a few months ago that there were discussions about having to open the weapons bay in flight as it was getting hot. Seems that the fix on the face of it was not 100% successful.

[sandiego89]

ORAC: I am surprised that nobody as commented on the F-35B fire above...


Interesting. Perhaps worth noting that there was no grounding of the rest of the squadron or the high profile trials on the USS AMERICA, perhaps suggesting an isolated incident? If it were a major unknown or major flaw, it would seem a stand down or inspection order would have gone out by now. Seems to be a lot going on in the weapons bay, and heat build up being a known issue, as we saw the reports of the need to open the bay doors to cool off.


On a perhaps related note, I seem to recall the dry bay fire suppression system being deleted as part of the weight reduction program? Was that for the weapons bay or other parts of the aircraft?


I would imagine the SOP would be to land immediately.

[PhilipG]

Link to the DOT&E Report that highlighted the weapons bay heat problems, these were in an A, I would have thought that a B would have more of a propensity to overheat.

It would be interesting to know if the flight was planned to avoid the known problem height speed and temperature envelope problems?

http://aviationweek.com/site-files/aviationweek.com/files/uploads/2016/01/DOT%26E%202015%20F-35%20Annual%20Report.pdf


The following details discoveries in F-35A flight sciences testing:
- Testing to characterize the thermal environment of the weapons bays demonstrated that temperatures become excessive during ground operations in high ambient temperature conditions and in-flight under conditions of high speed and at altitudes below 25,000 feet. As a result, during ground operations, fleet pilots are restricted from keeping the weapons bay doors closed for more than 10 cumulative minutes prior to take-off when internal stores are loaded and the outside air temperature is above 90 degrees Fahrenheit. In flight, the 10-minute restriction also applies when flying at airspeeds equal to or greater than 500 knots at altitudes below 5,000 feet; 550 knots at altitudes between 5,000 and 15,000 feet; and 600 knots at altitudes between 15,000 and 25,000 feet.
Above 25,000 feet, there are no restrictions associated with the weapons bay doors being closed, regardless of temperature. The time limits can be reset by flying 10 minutes outside of the restricted conditions (i.e., slower or at higher altitudes). This will require pilots to develop tactics to work around the restricted envelope; however, threat and/or weather conditions may make completing the mission difficult or impossible using the work around.

[ORAC]

So you suggesting that this all singing, all dancing, jet which can automatically almost land by itself, and which frustrates training because it defeats the instructor through its data fusion - will suffer Class A damage costing $2M+ to repair, and be out of service for an undefined period, each the pilot forgets to open the bay doors every 10 minutes? :rolleyes:

Perhaps they should fit the "Changi Mod" they fitted to the F3 crew helmets to solve the problem (I'd tell you what it was - but they'd shoot me...) :\

[PhilipG]

So you suggesting that this all singing, all dancing, jet which can automatically almost land by itself, and which frustrates training because it defeats the instructor through its data fusion - will suffer Class A damage costing $2M+ to repair, and be out of service for an undefined period, each the pilot forgets to open the bay doors every 10 minutes? :rolleyes: :\

In a word Yes

Well I am just pointing out that the A has the problem, so it would seem probable that the B also has the problem.

What I do not know is if the all singing all dancing software reminds the pilot that they have to do these manoeuvres or if the mission planning software takes the known restrictions into consideration, might get expensive if it does not.

Mission planning could get very interesting, if the routes to certain targets only have certain ways for an F35 to get there due to this problem, brings back F117 memories...

[KenV]

CAPITOL HILL: How smart is too smart? When F-35 Joint Strike Fighters (http://breakingdefense.com/2016/11/mccain-breakdown-in-f-35-contract-talks-sign-of-big-acquisition-problems/) flew simulated combat missions around Eglin Air Force Base in Florida, their pilots couldn’t see the “enemy” radars on their screens.

Why? The F-35s’ on-board computers (http://breakingdefense.com/2016/10/bells-v-280-tiltrotor-is-part-f-35/) analyzed data from the airplanes’ various sensors, compared the readings to known threats, and figured out the radars on the training range weren’t real anti-aircraft sites — so the software didn’t even display them. While the software and pilots on older aircraft hadn’t noticed the imperfections and inaccuracies in how the Eglin ranges portrayed the enemy, the F-35s’ automated brains (http://breakingdefense.com/2016/08/artificial-intelligence-drone-defeats-fighter-pilot-the-future/) essentially said, “Fake! LOL!” and refused to play.

The Eglin anecdote is just one example of how the F-35 Lightning and its twin-engine older brother, the F-22 Raptor (http://breakingdefense.com/2016/07/secaf-james-is-cool-on-f-22-restart/) — collectively called fifth-generation fighters — are overturning how the Air Force operates (http://breakingdefense.com/2016/08/hawk-carlisle-on-the-way-ahead-de-ew-data/). The sophistication of fifth gen sensors, software, and stealth (http://breakingdefense.com/tag/stealth/) requires the Air Force to overhaul training and network infrastructure. They even challenge longstanding assumptions about who makes what decisions (http://breakingdefense.com/2015/11/centaur-army-bob-work-robotics-the-third-offset-strategy/) and who’s in command. If the pilot of a fifth gen jet infiltrating enemy airspace has a clearer picture of the battle than senior officers further back on a vulnerable AWACS (http://breakingdefense.com/2016/06/nato-awacs-likely-for-centcom/) command plane or back at base in Air Operations Center (http://breakingdefense.com/2016/09/air-force-ops-centers-lead-way-to-3rd-offset-bob-work/), why should they be telling him or her what to do?

Information — the sensors to collect it, the software to make sense of it — becomes the critical contribution of 5th gen aircraft, pilots argue, which means you need to evaluate them on different criteria than traditional fighters. “When I first started flying the Raptor, I was enamored with how powerful the airplane was,” said Lt. Col. David Berke, a Marine F-35B pilot who’s also served in Air Force units. “The F-22 is just so fast, (but) the least impressive thing the F-22 is is how powerful it is.”

What matters isn’t the G forces the plane can pull or the Mach number it can hit, Berke argued, but the awareness it can give you of what’s going on. “In the 21st century battlefield, without information, the fastest airplane out there is the first one to die.”

Berke spoke this morning alongside three Air Force pilots at a Capitol Hill event organized by the Air Force Association’s Mitchell Institute. Presiding were Air Force Warfare Center commander Maj. Gen. Glen VanHerck and former Gulf War air commander David Deptula (http://breakingdefense.com/tag/david-deptula/), a frequent contributor to Breaking Defense (and father of one of the pilot panelists).

It was Lt. Col. Scott Gunn, an F-35A pilot based at Eglin, who told the training anecdote. Eglin isn’t some backwater base with inadequate equipment. It’s the crown jewel of Air Force test programs, Gunn said, “but a lot of those precious resources are just not quite enough for what you need in fifth gen.

“A lot of the simulated threat surface-to-air emitters that we have are basically a little radar dish on a stick that’s attached to a computer,” which tells the radar what signals to emit to replicate a threat, Gunn said. “Well, the F-35 sees that and says, ‘nope, that’s not the threat.’ So it ignores it.

“We’re finding we almost have to dumb down the system a little bit to say, ‘all right, well, it’s not exactly the threat, but it’s good enough to display it,'” Gunn said. “If you don’t have something that’s really replicating the threat, you’re not getting the training you need, because the airplane is too smart.”

The sensors on the F-35 and F-22 suck up so much data, in fact, that the communications networks on the aircraft can’t transmit most of it. Compared to the amount of data you have to share, the network connections available to share it make you feel like you’re on an old dial-up modem, Gunn said: The Air Force needs to upgrade the network infrastructure to carry that data across the force.

Once the networks can carry the load, however, you have the potential for what airpower theorists like Deptula call the combat cloud (http://breakingdefense.com/2013/01/why-the-air-force-needs-a-lot-of-f-35s-gen-hostage-on-the-com/). Just as commercial cloud computing services untether companies from proprietary data centers and let them access their data anywhere (in theory), the combat cloud could untether air warfare from purpose-built command posts — be it AOCs on the ground or AWACS in the air — and let frontline pilots get the vital data in their own cockpits.

“Before…we would need to have the entire intelligence, surveillance, & reconnaissance constellation of aircraft and satellites all working together to get us some information that’s going to be pretty old” by the time they reach the target, Maj. Andrew Stolee, an F-22 pilot, told reporters after the panel. “Now, instead of waiting for all that stuff to be built in at an Air Operation Center somewhere, that information is now being immediately displayed to people that are in aircraft in the AO (Area of Operations) that can immediately apply some sort of effect, either kinetic (e.g. missiles) or non-kinetic (e.g. jamming (http://breakingdefense.com/2016/11/darpa-ups-funding-for-autonomous-electronic-warfare-work/)).”

If you rewrite rules of engagement to reflect how fifth gen aircraft can sense, fuse, share, and act on information, Stolee argued, “it enables us to delegate decision-making from much higher levels down to individual cockpits.”

“That’s all because we’re seeing the same picture and able to operate in places others cannot,” Stolee emphasized. Compared to current 4th gen fighters like the F-15, F-16, and F-18, fifth gen planes can get closer to the enemy, maximizing the collection capacity of their sensors, the pilots on the panel said. Then their onboard computers can fuse the data into a coherent picture and their datalinks transmit it to other aircraft — including the fouth gen planes, multiplying their effectiveness.

Currently, “the limitation…on that airplane is me,” said the fourth panelist, F-22 pilot Maj. David Deptula (son of Lt. Gen. Deptula). “It’s the person sitting in the cockpit with the giant color display. (We want to) get to a point that we’re passing information from machine to machine seamlessly.” Then what one aircraft sees will display on other aircrafts’ screens, automatically and at machine speeds, without a human intermediary slowing down the process or garbling the information.

“The kind of ubiquitous and seamless sharing of information (among) fifth generation aircraft like the F-22 and F-35…could at some point render a new paradigm for the command and control of military forces,” the elder Deptula told me. “This new paradigm sees an evolution of the (Air Force) command and control tenet of ‘centralized control—decentralized execution, to ‘centralized command—distributed control—decentralized execution.'”

“Separate aircraft dedicated to command and control (e.g. AWACS) will become less necessary,” Deptula said, “(as) information from all aircraft, ships, spacecraft, land sensors, etc. is integrated.”

Instead of any one aircraft or command post, the fulcrum of the force becomes the network itself — and the artificial intelligences (http://breakingdefense.com/tag/artificial-intelligence/) that, hopefully, make sense of the data for us. (This “human-machine teaming (http://breakingdefense.com/2016/05/iron-man-not-terminator-the-pentagons-sci-fi-inspirations/)” is central to the Pentagon’s high-tech Third Offset Strategy (http://breakingdefense.com/tag/offset-strategy/)). Instead of America’s advantage lying in any one aircraft, it would reside in the whole force — a complex system that, hopefully our adversaries will find much harder to replicate (http://breakingdefense.com/2016/08/chinas-j-20-vs-f-35-meh-says-csaf-goldfein-pilot-crisis-noted/) than our planes.

[glad rag]

Seems to be an awful lot of "it will do" as opposed to "it can do"...

Never heard of the height speed doors restrictions before.

Oops.

[ORAC]

Well I am just pointing out that the A has the problem, so it would seem probable that the B also has the problem. Hmmm. A much smaller space - perhaps a greater heat accumulation/dissipation problem?

[Lonewolf_50]

If the USAF would ever learn how to keep their mouths shut, it would be a great boon to the world. But that's a dream.

[SpazSinbad]

For all the budding fire/mishap F-35B investigators out there - here are more clues:

US Marine Corps investigating cause of F-35B fire 08 Nov 2016 Leigh Giangreco
"
Two systems, including the Honeywell-supplied integrated power package (IPP) linked to a previous aircraft fire, failed as a fire erupted inside the weapons bay of a US Marine Corps Lockheed Martin F-35B on a 27 October training mission.

Sensors onboard the aircraft detected a fire in the right weapons bay and failures of the IPP and a hydraulics system while the aircraft was flying in the airport's landing pattern, according to a mishap report released by the Naval Safety Center.

The center has classified the incident as a class A mishap, meaning the aircraft suffered at least $2 million in damages, but the results of the investigation could change the cost estimate, the USMC tells FlightGlobal. The Marines have not ordered a precautionary safety stand-down for the F-35B fleet.

The pilot assigned to VMFAT-501 at MCAS Beaufort, South Carolina, landed safely without injuries or further incident, the USMC adds...."
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-marine-corps-investigating-cause-of-f-35b-fire-431286/

[ORAC]

A cause or a symptom perhaps? ........The integrated power package (IPP) provides conditioned air and liquid cooling for the aircraft systems.......

[SpazSinbad]

Gentlemen SWAP Your ENGINES: First F-35B Power Module, Engine Swap Take Place on USS America (http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=97593)

[SpazSinbad]

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/11/marines-pound-uss-americas-deck-with-f-35bs-videos/
"◾The first Royal Navy pilot was carrier qualified"
http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewNewAllBum/10xF-35BsUSSamerica20nov2016forum.jpg~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewNewAllBum/10xF-35BsUSSamerica20nov2016forum.jpg.html)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=see6H2PJZkQ

[sandiego89]

Nice links spaz.


I think we see BF-01 (the first B) in the video- nice to see her still earning her keep, she has been flying for quite awhile now, unlike some pre-production aircraft which seem to retire early.


-------
Also of note this memo highlighting some very serious problems with the testing schedule and other issues. Seems there is great pressure to cut testing now, but that will surely increase problems later. What a fiasco.


http://aviationweek.com/blog/pentagons-top-weapons-tester-f-35-still-challenged


http://aviationweek.com/site-files/aviationweek.com/files/uploads/2016/11/16/F35memo.pdf


First I had heard about the yaw movements with the A firing the gun (and suspected pitch movements with the belly mounted gun on the B and C).

[SpazSinbad]

'KenV' may be interested in this PDF...
Enhancing HMD-Based F-35 Training through Integration of Eye Tracking and Electroencephalography Technology
7th International Conference, AC 2013 Held as Part of HCI International 2013 Las Vegas, NV, USA, July 2013, Proceeding

Enhancing HMD-Based F-35 Training through Integration of Eye Tracking and Electroencephalography Technology - Springer (http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-39454-6_3) (PDF 200Kb)

Available at: http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=20448 (PDF 155Kb)

+ Good HMDS story: https://www.f35.com/news/detail/f-35-helmet-ahead-of-our-time

[sharpend]

"The latest revelations by the US Department of Defence further deepens my concerns that the F35 programme may be the biggest and most costly white elephant in military history.

[Lonewolf_50]

@sharpend, was that your testimony to Congress, or someone else's?

[peter we]

He's ashamed to identify the person who made the comment or the newspaper that reproduced it.

For good reason.

[SpazSinbad]

Ukip”s[sic] Mike Hookem MEP said the 'sharpend' quote along with this:
"...“Having flown a simulator of the aircraft, I know the concept is cutting edge; but the reality is, the engineering and software are simply not working in practice, and may never do so...."
And... Sharkey gets a Guernsey....
https://reportuk.org/2016/11/21/mods-usless-supersonic-jets-will-allow-russia-to-dominate-britains-skies-experts-warn/

[Lonewolf_50]

OK, testimony before Parliament. I see that Commander Ward remains in full curmudgeon mode ... though in this case, I find some of his basic reasons rational.

[peter we]

Negotiations between the DoD and Lockheed Martin to definitise both the Lot 9 and Lot 10 production contracts have dragged on for a number of months. With these negotiations failing to come up with an agreed price, it was reported that the DoD had imposed its own pricing on Lot 9 and is likely to have also done the same for Lot 10. Though not an exact science, dividing the contract value (including separate previously disclosed long-lead awards amounting to USD1.4 billion) by the number of aircraft gave the Lot 9 a unit cost of approximately USD131 million (without engine), while doing the same for Lot 10 (long-lead items at USD920 million) gives a considerably lower unit cost of approximately USD90 million (without engine).

This figure is close to the USD80-85 million by 2019 target that is the goal of the Blueprint for Affordability effort, and is likely to be significantly lower once the programmatic costs of the deal are removed.

DoD awards Lot 10 production contract for F-35 | IHS Jane's 360 (http://www.janes.com/article/65741/dod-awards-lot-10-production-contract-for-f-35)

[AtomKraft]

IMHO this jet is not what's needed.
The kind of enemy we face these days is not the kind of enemy that the F-35 is designed to fight.But that's the nature of these things- we buy kit that would have helped us in the LAST war we fought.
We'd do better with larger numbers of less sophisticated and expensive aircraft.

It's all terribly obvious, but clearly nobody has the balls to grasp the nettle and pull the plug.

Oh well, the longer they leave it, the messier it's going to be.

Sounds like Canada has wised up though, and I bet they're not the last...

[Arclite01]

and the UK is stuck with it 'Good or Bad', 'Like it or not.................' as without it we have no aircraft to put on the carriers.....................or anywhere else for that matter - eggs in one basket...........discuss......

Arc

[MSOCS]

AtomKraft,

You write as if you know what the "real" threat is.....

So then, oh Nostradamus, please write to the Pentagon and MODs of all the other countries and tell them their Intelligence and War Gaming have all been wrong and for nought. Good luck with that!

By the way, the F-35, T45; QE Class carriers etc, are not built for the last war. They are designed with the best guess of what the next war might feasibly throw at us. Judging tomorrow based on today is folly. Trends dear boy, trends. "Tomorrow" is about having the right information on which to act.

[AtomKraft]

MSOCS
Well, do those advocating the F-35 know? I don't think so!

I takes so long to complete these programs that by the time the finished article is ready, the damn things been in development for twenty years and the whole geo political landscape has changed around it- the things it was meant to do no longer need done.

We get ever more complex and expensive kit, that all has to be paid for. Great for Lockheed- but not quite so good for the rest of us. It's all ready, but who is it meant to fight?

I think we'd do better with more soldiers, better vehicles, some more ships, a decent but less sophisticated mud mover for CAS and a good pointy jet for AD.

The F-35 is a classic example of a plane that's designed to do a lot of things, but none of them very well.

It won't be a great mud mover, it won't be a great fighter.

The military get it VERY wrong sometimes. I think they've over reached themselves with this thing.
At least the US Navy had the balls to pull the plug on the A-12.

This program has grown it's own legs politically and one hears all sorts of economic reasons why this country or that should 'stay with the program' but it's never because it's such a brilliant aircraft.

The truth is that it's just not a very good warplane- IMHO of course!;)

[GlobalNav]

"The F-35 is a classic example of a plane that's designed to do a lot of things, but none of them very well."

Rubbish. It's so d**n easy to tear down a program, with no firm data, only pessimistic suppositions. People will listen to what tickles their dears, no wonder Trump was elected.

[ORAC]

Lockheed Martin Gets $1.3 Billion Advance for U.S. F-35 Jets (http://fortune.com/2016/11/24/lockheed-martin-f35-jets/)

Lockheed Martin lmt subsidiary Lockheed Martin Aeronautics has received an interim payment of $1.28 billion for its 10th contract for F-35 fighter jets, the Pentagon said. It said in a statement the payment was to ensure there would be no major production delays while the final terms of the contract for 90 F-35 Lightning II jets up to a maximum of $7.19 billion were being finalized.

The award is a modification to a previous Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) contract and comes after negotiations on the ninth contract for F-35 jets concluded. The U.S. Department of Defense will continue to negotiate the specifics of LRIP 10 to finalize the contract, a spokesman for the F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) said.

This order includes 76 F-35A aircraft for the U.S. Air Force, Non-U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) participants and foreign military sales customers; 12 F-35B aircraft for the U.S. Marine Corps and non-U.S. DoD Participants and two F-35C aircraft for the U.S. Navy.........

[glad rag]

Lockheed Martin Gets $1.3 Billion Advance for U.S. F-35 Jets (http://fortune.com/2016/11/24/lockheed-martin-f35-jets/)

Lockheed Martin lmt subsidiary Lockheed Martin Aeronautics has received an interim payment of $1.28 billion for its 10th contract for F-35 fighter jets, the Pentagon said. It said in a statement the payment was to ensure there would be no major production delays while the final terms of the contract for 90 F-35 Lightning II jets up to a maximum of $7.19 billion were being finalized.

The award is a modification to a previous Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) contract and comes after negotiations on the ninth contract for F-35 jets concluded. The U.S. Department of Defense will continue to negotiate the specifics of LRIP 10 to finalize the contract, a spokesman for the F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) said.

This order includes 76 F-35A aircraft for the U.S. Air Force, Non-U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) participants and foreign military sales customers; 12 F-35B aircraft for the U.S. Marine Corps and non-U.S. DoD Participants and two F-35C aircraft for the U.S. Navy.........
So THESE batches of aircraft WILL NOT require rework to meet the final war fighting specifications??

Anybody?

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/06/24/article-2347524-1A7C5F28000005DC-357_634x400.jpg

[Royalistflyer]

Please correct me if I'm wrong .... but isn't opening the weapons bay to cool things off whilst en route to a strike going to make the aircraft ever so slightly er.... unstealthy? And vulnerable?

[MSOCS]

Royalistflyer, don't believe that utter horse-tripe. Russian internet propaganda, just like most of the drivel spouted on this forum about an aircraft people know nothing about.

There's an amusing level of politburo posting here that tries hard, yet achieves little!

Keep it up Vladimir! The jet will kick your boys' asses when the fit hits the shan.

[glad rag]

"Due to inadequate leadership and management on the part of both the Program Office and the contractor, the program has failed to develop..?

http://aviationweek.com/site-files/aviationweek.com/files/uploads/2016/01/DOT%26E%202015%20F-35%20Annual%20Report.pdf

"The following details discoveries in F-35A flight sciences testing:
- Testing to characterize the thermal environment of the weapons bays demonstrated that temperatures become excessive during ground operations in high ambient temperature conditions and in-flight under conditions of high speed and at altitudes below 25,000 feet. As a result, during ground operations, fleet pilots are restricted from keeping the weapons bay doors closed for more than 10 cumulative minutes prior to take-off when internal stores are loaded and the outside air temperature is above 90 degrees Fahrenheit. In flight, the 10-minute restriction also applies when flying at airspeeds equal to or greater than 500 knots at altitudes below 5,000 feet; 550 knots at altitudes between 5,000 and 15,000 feet; and 600 knots at altitudes between 15,000 and 25,000 feet. Above 25,000 feet, there are no restrictions associated with the weapons bay doors being closed, regardless of temperature. The time limits can be reset by flying 10 minutes outside of the restricted conditions (i.e., slower or at higher altitudes). This will require pilots to develop tactics to work around the restricted envelope; however, threat and/or weather conditions may make completing the mission difficult or impossible using the work around.
- Testing to characterize the vibrational and acoustic environment of the weapons bays demonstrated that stresses induced by the environment were out of the flight qualification parameters for both the AIM-120 missile and the flight termination system (telemetry unit attached to the missile body required to satisfy range safety requirements for terminating a live missile in a flight test). This resulted in reduced service life of the missile and potential failure of the telemetered missile termination system required for range safety."

of course there may well be NO evidence of B model overheating as the testing for this variant may have been ****canned either due to being another inconvenient truth or they just never got round to it ...

[SpazSinbad]

'glad rag' said above: (lovely use of 'may' BTW)
"of course there may well be NO evidence of B model overheating as the testing for this variant may have been ****canned either due to being another inconvenient truth or they just never got round to it ... "
Page 45 of same PDF quoted above:
"• The following details discoveries in F-35B flight sciences testing:
- Testing to characterize the thermal environment of the weapons bays demonstrated that temperatures become excessive during ground operations in high ambient temperature conditions. As a result, during ground operations, fleet pilots are restricted from keeping the weapons bay doors closed for more than 10 cumulative minutes prior to take-off when internal stores are loaded and the outside air temperature is above 90 degrees Fahrenheit. Time with the weapons bay doors closed in flight is currently not restricted."

[glad rag]

So that takes right back to the inflight fire doesn't it.

Now about the curtailed testing....

[SpazSinbad]

'glad rag' please produce evidence of the cause of the F-35B in the circuit recent fire. Also I like the way the first sentence you used in the abovementioned quote was transposed from the Verification Simulation (VSim) opening sentence on page 56.

[SpazSinbad]

Israel increases order for F-35 fighter jets to 50 27 Nov 2016 (Reporting by Ari Rabinovitch; Editing by Greg Mahlich)
“Nov 27 Israel's security cabinet on Sunday approved the purchase of an additional 17 Lockheed Martin F-35 stealth fighter jets, bringing its total number on order to 50...."
Israel increases order for F-35 fighter jets to 50 | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/lockheed-israel-idUSL8N1DS0OK)

[SpazSinbad]

I can remember one chap complaining that the flat deck was never moving in previous DTs. There is one pic showing the F-35B manned, engine running and chained with a seven degree roll. But anyway....

F-35B Completes DT-III on USS America 27 Nov 2016 Todd Miller
"...Onboard maintenance activities involved the entire replacement of an engine, driveshaft and lift fan on one of the VMX-1 aircraft. After replacement, the VMX-1 aircraft was flown off the deck.

USMC VMX-1 Commanding Officer, Col. George “Sack” Rowell, noted that the F-35B will equal or exceed the shipborne operational capabilities of the AV-8B Harrier in high sea states. Flight operations took place in winds of up to 47 knots from various angles, a deck roll of 5° and deck pitch of 3°. Maintenance work was accomplished (albeit with challenges) while the ship was rolling 9°!..."
http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewNewAllBum/F-35BsevenDegreeDeckRollForum.jpg~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewNewAllBum/F-35BsevenDegreeDeckRollForum.jpg.html)

[SpazSinbad]

Deck moves during STO and look how close the chaps are during a VL...

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

[Lyneham Lad]

Flight Global article (https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/picture-paveway-iv-dropped-from-f-35-432098/)

Snip:-
Raytheon Systems' Paveway IV laser-guided bomb has been dropped from a Lockheed Martin F-35B, paving the way for integration of the weapon on the UK’s future Joint Strike Fighter fleet.

[glad rag]

Have you seen the 'shopped image yet?

It sums the program up perfectly

A falsehood.

[Lonewolf_50]

glad rag, the news report seem to be factual, but that picture made me shake my head. (I don't think an F-35 can hold that many bombs internally ... ???)
Which makes me ask: who went put that image in there, and why?
EDIT: Answered by MSOCS, it's time lapse and that's just one bomb. :O oops, not the first time such an image has been presented. No soup for the Lone wolf. :=

[MSOCS]

Um....It's a time-lapse....you know, to view fins deploying and bomb separation characteristics without needing video or multiple photos.

Having a 'dull day' Glad Rag? Or do you really think the LM PR machine wants the world to think there's 15 bombs inside?!!! 😜

Back of the class for you....

[SpazSinbad]

Where's Wally - 12 F-35Bs USS America 18 Nov 2016

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5446/30951057130_aed094d5b1_o_d.jpg (4.7Mb) https://www.flickr.com/photos/lockheedmartin/30951057130/in/album-72157676041850865/

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewNewAllBum/12%20F-35Bs%20USS%20America%2018%20Nov%202016%20REARforum.jpg~origi nal (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewNewAllBum/12%20F-35Bs%20USS%20America%2018%20Nov%202016%20REARforum.jpg.html)

[FODPlod]

More grist for the mill from the Aviationist:The most experienced USMC F-35B pilots speak about their aircraft. And they say it’s exceptional. (https://theaviationist.com/2016/12/08/four-of-the-most-experienced-usmc-f-35b-pilots-speak-about-their-aircraft-and-they-say-its-exceptional/)The combined F-35 fleet now has over 75,000 flight hours, yet many continue to question the performance and value of the aircraft. Much of this can be expected given early program challenges, and the reality that many of the F-35s capabilities are classified. Add that many do not grasp the war the F-35 was designed to deter – or fight. 21st century warfare and capability has about as much in common with wars of the past as your 1970s land line has to your smartphone. It is in this “smartphone” battlespace that the F-35 is designed to fight and to do so with a distinctly unfair advantage.

To understand the significance and value of the F-35, cut through the complexity and noise. Simplify. Put aside the politicians “it does not work (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-07/misleading-f-35-answers-drafted-by-pentagon-testing-chief-says-iwerk3w8)!” the ideologues, the self-proclaimed experts and listen to the voice of the pilots. The pilots will take the aircraft into combat, their own lives in the balance as they penetrate contested space and are wildly outnumbered by adversary aircraft.

The Aviationist and a handful of journalists recently had the opportunity to visit with four such pilots during a “Proof of Concept” demonstration (https://theaviationist.com/2016/11/25/we-went-aboard-uss-america-during-usmc-f-35b-proof-of-concept-sea-trials/) on the USS America, Nov. 19, 2016. The four pilots are some of the most experienced F-35B pilots in the United States Marine Corps (USMC) and their previous experience provides valuable context to their statements.


George “Sack” Rowell, Commanding Officer (CO) of VMX-1 (Marine Operational Test & Evaluation Squadron). Prior to the F-35, Rowell spent appx. 3000 hours over 18 years of flying the F/A-18 Hornet. Previously the CO of VMFA(AW)-533
Col. Chad “Mo” Vaughn, CO of VMFA-211. Prior to the F-35, Vaughn spent a couple 1000 hrs over 13 years in the F/A-18A-D Hornet, as well as time in the F-16A-B Fighting Falcon/Viper and F/A-18 Super Hornet at NAS Fallon.
Col. Rich “BC” Rusnok, slated to become the CO of VMFA-121 in March 2017. Prior to the F-35, Price spent appx. 7 years flying the AV-8B Harrier II with additional time in the F/A-18 Hornet.
Col. John “Guts” Price, slated CO for VFMA-122 (2018). Prior to the F-35, Price spent appx. 1200 hrs and 10 years flying the AV-8B Harrier II, and has about 400 hrs in the F-35 over the past 3 years.

The pilots provide unique insights, a different perspective on the F-35 and its unique capabilities. The comments have been edited for readability with best efforts made to maintain context and integrity of intent...

[SpazSinbad]

Edgell oughta be nicknamed DAVE - waddaya say? Some rockin' & a'rolling seen in this talkie / action video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7dywuqY63o

[KenV]

The most experienced USMC F-35B pilots speak about their aircraft. And they say it’s exceptional.

Pfffft. L-M shills. The whole lot. After all, the USMC IOC was a total sham, so you just can't believe these guys. Right glad rag? ;-)

[ORAC]

Lord how time flies, 10 years next Thursday since the F-35 first flight. What a lot it has done since then......

Alert 5 » 10 years ago this month, Jon Beesley took the F-35 into the air for the first time - Military Aviation News (http://alert5.com/2016/12/10/10-years-ago-this-month-jon-beesley-took-the-f-35-into-the-air-for-the-first-time/)

[FODPlod]

Lord how time flies, 10 years next Thursday since the F-35 first flight. What a lot it has done since then...
Agreed. Ten years and over 75,000 hours on all three 5th generation variants, without any significant accidents or incidents, flying from airfields and ships with full payloads. USAF and USMC IOC achieved and USN IOC expected within the next year. Pretty impressive, even when compared with the less complex single (land) variant 4.5 generation... ...Typhoon

1972: Air Staff Target 396 (AST-396) issued for a STOVL aircraft to replace the Harrier and Jaguar fleets. AST-403, specification revised for an air superiority fighter. STOVL requirement dropped and AST-409 led to development of Harrier GR5.

Mid-1970s: France, Germany and UK initiated the European Combat Aircraft (ECA) programme

1979: Following differing requirements (particularly French requirement for carrier compatibility,) BAe and MBB proposed the European Combat Fighter (ECF).

27 Mar 1994 (22 years after initial AST): First flight.

21 Nov 2002 (8 years after first flight): Spanish twin-seat Typhoon prototype DA-6 crashed owing to double engine flameout.

1 Apr 2006 (12 years after first flight): No.3 Sqn RAF (first operational RAF Typhoon squadron) formed.

29 Mar 2007 (13 years after first flight): No.11 Sqn RAF stood up with Typhoons.

23 Apr 2008: RAF Typhoon written off after wheels-up landing at China Lake.

24 Aug 2010: Spanish Typhoon crashed after take-off with one fatality.

6 Sep 2010 (16 years after first flight): No.6 Sqn RAF stood up with Typhoons.

15 Sep 2012 (18 years after first flight): No.1 Sqn RAF stood up with Typhoons.

9 Jun 2014: Spanish Typhoon crashed on landing with one fatality.

9 Jan 2015 (21 years after first flight): No.2 Sqn RAF stood up with Typhoons.

2017 (23 years after first flight): Continued integration, trial and certification of outstanding weapons systems.

[glad rag]

Um....It's a time-lapse....you know, to view fins deploying and bomb separation characteristics without needing video or multiple photos.

Having a 'dull day' Glad Rag? Or do you really think the LM PR machine wants the world to think there's 15 bombs inside?!!! 😜

Back of the class for you....

How can it be "time lapse" if it is presented as a still image? What about the image of the aircraft and background not showing any displacement?

What it IS is a montage/'shopped of individual raw images from a video file, ie NOT what they described it as..ergo such as the aircraft itself..it's a common technique (now) used to produce a still image from a video file.

https://youtu.be/4ufHUsr5jB0.

[FODPlod]

Lord how time flies, 10 years next Thursday since the F-35 first flight. What a lot it has done since then...Agreed. Ten years and over 75,000 hours on all three 5th generation variants, without any significant accidents or incidents, flying from airfields and ships with full payloads. USAF and USMC IOC achieved and USN IOC expected within the next year. Pretty impressive, even when compared with the less complex single (land) variant 4.5 generation Typhoon...
Further to my last, I have discovered that the F-35B STOVL variant didn't achieve first flight (https://defense-update.com/newscast/0608/news/news1106_stovl.htm) until 11 Jun 2008. Graham Tomlinson, a former RAF Harrier pilot was at the controls.

The first operational RAF F-35B squadron (No.617 Sqn RAF (https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-planning-four-front-line-f-35-squadrons/)) is due to stand up at RAF Marham in 2019 (11 years after first flight). I haven't found a date for 809 Naval Air Squadron.

Over 200 F-35s have been built to date and this figure is expected to exceed 600 (with the consequent reduction in unit cost/price) by 2020, including 180 for US partner nations:F-35 Production Set to Quadruple As Massive Factory Retools (http://www.defenseone.com/business/2016/05/f-35-production-set-quadruple-massive-factory-retools/128120/)

[ORAC]

Which version of the schedule is that from? I get confused, they seem to come annually, with a 12 month slip......,

[FODPlod]

Which version of the schedule is that from? I get confused, they seem to come annually, with a 12 month slip......,
The article doesn't say but it was dated 6 May this year. This one, by Texas A&M University, was published 2 months 3 weeks ago:The F-35: Soaring to Faster Production (https://www.ecnmag.com/news/2016/09/f-35-soaring-faster-production)
...Lockheed Martin has already developed the plans to implement the increased production rate, but is open to new techniques that may identify improvements in the current plan.

"Lockheed Martin plans to increase their F-35 production rate by about four and a half times from their current rate," Banerjee said. "The plan is to increase the production rate in stages over the next few quarters."...
http://cdn.defenseone.com/media/img/upload/2016/05/06/21468703626_ac69517414_k_1_1gD3zXg/defense-large.jpg


(Are you always this desperate to find some cloud associated with every silver lining or is it just where the F-35 is concerned? ;))

Merry Christmas.

[glad rag]

Ah, that's what the low g limits are for then....Anyway


Trump Slams 'Out Of Control' F-35
by Lara Seligman
Lara Seligman
Dec 11, 2016
Donald Trump left the collective defense community quaking in its boots last week after he threatened to cancel Boeing's new Air Force one. Now he's going after another massive aerospace firm, slamming Lockheed Martin's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) for "out of control" costs.

"Look at the F-35 program with the money, the hundreds of billions of dollars," Trump said on Fox news Dec. 11. "It's out of control."

If the president-elect is looking to cut costs or send a message to defense contractors, the $100 million-a-copy JSF is a huge target. The program has succeeded in bringing costs down for the past few years, but is still haunted by a critical cost breach in 2010. The Pentagon's most recent estimate pegs the cost to operate and sustain the F-35 fleet over its 60-year service life is just over a trillion dollars.

Trump also appeared to double down on his recent proposal to ban defense contractors from hiring former Pentagon acquisition officials, criticizing the industry's revolving door.

"The people that are making these deals for the government, they should never be allowed to go to work for these companies," Trump said on Fox. "You know, they make a deal like that and two or three years later, you see them working for these big companies that made the deal... they should have a lifetime restriction."

Trump first floated the potential lifetime ban during a rally in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, last week, according to Reuters.

Trump's remarks come just days after Northrop Grumman named recently retired Gen. Mark Welsh, who served as U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff last year when it selected the company to build the next-generation stealth bomber, to its board of directors.

There are rules restricting what government employees can do if they move to industry, but they do not prohibit Welsh from joining Northrop, says Air Force spokeswoman Ann Stefanek. Welsh had no involvement in the source selection process for the new bomber or the decision to award the contract to Northrop, she stressed.

[ORAC]

I'm just very cynical about the schedule based on the record so far.

For what it's worth, UK IOC is budgeted for Dec 2018 and FOC for Apr 2023.

See below, page 98.

https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Appendices-and-project-summary-sheets.pdf

[Lonewolf_50]

Somebody needs to brief Mr Trump on the more than 100 Congressional districts that are involved in F-35 work.

[Two's in]

I hope the irony of criticizing the revolving door system is not lost on the President Elect after his cabinet nominations. Clearing the swamp by hiring those who pollute it the most is a bold strategy.

[ORAC]

Hire the poacher to become the gamekeeper......

[GlobalNav]

"Somebody needs to brief Mr Trump on the more than 100 Congressional districts that are involved in F-35 work."

I get that this is what politicians care about, but I'd rather he cares about what truly matters, the combat effectiveness and necessity for the airplane. I have no idea what he really cares about, except the worship and praise from others. He may occasionally stumble on a good idea and make a good decision - we'll see if he follows up on any of them.

[Lonewolf_50]

I get that this is what politicians care about, Well, the House is where the money is raised for things that get bought. What they care about informs their decision process.
I'd rather he cares about what truly matters, the combat effectiveness and necessity for the airplane. Aye. Wouldn't it be nice if that was the prime consideration?
I have no idea what he really cares about, except the worship and praise from others. It's anybody's guess what will be important, and when. I am not sure he knows until he wakes up each morning. It's going to be entertaining, at least in the short term.

[ShotOne]

"What truly matters....combat effectiveness..." Yes and no; are you saying money really is no object? Full marks to the Donald for laying it down on value for money. Of course actually making those savings is never so easy.

[chopper2004]

Ah, that's what the low g limits are for then....Anyway


Trump Slams 'Out Of Control' F-35
by Lara Seligman
Lara Seligman
Dec 11, 2016
Donald Trump left the collective defense community quaking in its boots last week after he threatened to cancel Boeing's new Air Force one. Now he's going after another massive aerospace firm, slamming Lockheed Martin's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) for "out of control" costs.

"Look at the F-35 program with the money, the hundreds of billions of dollars," Trump said on Fox news Dec. 11. "It's out of control."

If the president-elect is looking to cut costs or send a message to defense contractors, the $100 million-a-copy JSF is a huge target. The program has succeeded in bringing costs down for the past few years, but is still haunted by a critical cost breach in 2010. The Pentagon's most recent estimate pegs the cost to operate and sustain the F-35 fleet over its 60-year service life is just over a trillion dollars.

Trump also appeared to double down on his recent proposal to ban defense contractors from hiring former Pentagon acquisition officials, criticizing the industry's revolving door.

"The people that are making these deals for the government, they should never be allowed to go to work for these companies," Trump said on Fox. "You know, they make a deal like that and two or three years later, you see them working for these big companies that made the deal... they should have a lifetime restriction."

Trump first floated the potential lifetime ban during a rally in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, last week, according to Reuters.

Trump's remarks come just days after Northrop Grumman named recently retired Gen. Mark Welsh, who served as U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff last year when it selected the company to build the next-generation stealth bomber, to its board of directors.

There are rules restricting what government employees can do if they move to industry, but they do not prohibit Welsh from joining Northrop, says Air Force spokeswoman Ann Stefanek. Welsh had no involvement in the source selection process for the new bomber or the decision to award the contract to Northrop, she stressed.
Him saying this is, is his business mind talking as opposed to a strategic thinker...let us hold our horses till....he officially takes office in January. It be safe to say that the naysayers and anti F-35 crowd be probably rubbing their hands with glee with this announcement

( I will hold onto my photos (for dear life ) from RIAT as it be the one time opportunity to see 5 airframes altogether..)

cheers

[chopper2004]

In better news , the first Adir(s) have arrived in Israel today,

cheers

The Israeli Air Force : The ?Adir? Has Landed (http://www.iaf.org.il/4451-48791-en/IAF.aspx)

(photos courtesy of IAF)

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g209/longranger/15385495_1386013061441662_56592214877368662_o_zpsqr3zyamc.jp g

[tdracer]

"The people that are making these deals for the government, they should never be allowed to go to work for these companies," Trump said on Fox. "You know, they make a deal like that and two or three years later, you see them working for these big companies that made the deal... they should have a lifetime restriction."
Lifetime sounds excessive to me, but I do think a "cooling off" period should be in order (I'm thinking five years).
However you need to be careful - people in procurement and similar high level Pentagon work need to be treated differently than the people out in the field. It used to be pretty common for people to retire after 20+ years in the military and come to work as engineers and low level managers for companies such as Boeing and LockMart - for the most part the ones I knew were top notch and their real world experience as to how the stuff gets used was priceless.

[Finningley Boy]

Surely, there are far too many overseas orders for Trump to step on this particular cake?

FB:)

[ORAC]

The president does not have a line veto on bills presented for signature, and he won't veto a defence bill approved by the GOP majority in both Houses.

Great sound bites, but take them for what they are, political shots across the bow of the establishment, using a starting pistol......

[MSOCS]

Absolutely ORAC.

To me this is political grandstanding in advance. He's alpha-maling the establishment early. No nonsense - and it's a good strategy to pre-empt his tenure.

However, the last time to cut the F-35 probably passed a few years ago. To do so now would be insane. Then again.......

[Lonewolf_50]

However, the last time to cut the F-35 probably passed a few years ago. To do so now would be insane. Then again....... In American politics, insane has become the norm. Per the Chinese blessing/curse ... we live in interesting times.

[ORAC]

However, the last time to cut the F-35 probably passed a few years ago. To do so now would be insane. Then again....... Cross post from the "Trump cutting military budget?" thread.....

Congressional Budget Office recommended option.....

Cancel Plans to Purchase Additional F-35 Joint Strike Fighters and Instead Purchase F-16s and F/A-18s (https://www.cbo.gov/budget-options/2016/52200)

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program is the military’s largest aircraft development program. The F-35 is a stealthy aircraft—one that is difficult for adversaries to detect by radar and other air defense sensors. The objective of the program is to produce three versions of that aircraft: the conventional takeoff F-35A for the Air Force, the short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) F-35B for the Marine Corps, and the carrier-based F-35C for the Navy. Through 2016, 285 F-35s had been purchased for the U.S. military: 178 F-35As, 71 F-35Bs, and 36 F‑35Cs. Current plans call for purchasing 2,158 more F‑35s through 2038. The Department of Defense (DoD) has estimated that the remaining cost of those purchases, including the cost to complete development, will amount to $265 billion (in nominal dollars). The Marine Corps and the Air Force declared their versions of the F-35 operational in 2015 and 2016, respectively. The Navy expects to declare its version operational by 2019.

Under this option, DoD would halt further production of the F-35 and instead purchase the most advanced versions of older, nonstealthy fighter aircraft that are still in production: the F-16 Fighting Falcon for the Air Force and the F/A-18 Super Hornet for the Navy and Marine Corps. The services would operate the F-35s that have already been purchased. By the Congressional Budget Office’s estimates, the option would reduce the need for discretionary budget authority by $29 billion from 2018 through 2026 if the F-16s and F/A-18s were purchased on the same schedule as that currently in place for the F-35s. Outlays would decrease by $23 billion over that period. Additional savings would accrue from 2027 through 2038 if F-16s and F/A-18s were purchased instead of the F-35s that are scheduled to be purchased in those later years. However, the Navy and Air Force are both planning to develop entirely new aircraft with fighter-like capabilities to be fielded in the 2030s and might choose to replace some planned F-35s with those aircraft instead.........

[Turbine D]

All Trump's talk about the F-35 program and for that matter, Boeing is window dressing. The F-35 program and its future will be decided in Congress, not by Trump. The program represents jobs in nearly every state as designed by Congress. Trump would get thrown under the bus for job losses instead of jobs for America as he touted during his campaign. He's boxed in but doesn't know it, yet. So he can blabber on all he wants, it will change nothing.

[Finningley Boy]

Defence experts warn of 'disaster' for Britain after Donald Trump suggests undoing 'out of control' F-35 fighter jet project (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/12/donald-trump-pledges-cut-military-budget-criticising-control/)

May be just sensational reporting but here's how some experts have responded. Personally, I think wed have to buy the bullet and what we should have done in the first place. Convert to angle deck carriers and buy F-18Es and Fs, for both the RN and the RAF.

FB:)

[GlobalNav]

Perhaps Mr Trump's game is not entirely obvious. His statements are largely untrue, reflecting little understanding of the program status. It's simply an attack on the F-35 program, but with little valid truth. Are the costs really out of control? No. Are any program's costs ever entirely under control? No. Frankly we would never be happy about paying so much for a weapon system, even if the cost was half or third of what it seems to be today. And Mr Trump's hip shot statements can hardly address the complexities of program cost control. He could hardly care less. He is causing some chaos in the community and that's probably exactly what he wants. Create chaos, change the game rules, and step into the vacuum of the uncertainty. What a guy, what a great president he's going to make. His behavior is not unlike what we have seen historically from a former major power half way around the world. Hopefully his VP and cabinet choices will act with more thoughtfulness, competence and serious intent.

[sandiego89]

I do think that these are shots across the bow, and perhaps about time. The US has a long history of overinflated requirements, artificially (arguably criminally) low bids, underperforming contractors that guess what? They ask for more money to be bailed out of a hole they partially dug. All the while they are netting all time high profits. About time they get held to task and be scared. The old good ole' boy system of congress forking money into the contractors troughs needed a shake up. If a Senator or some watchdog says something, no one blinks an eye, but the President elect tweets something and they panic.

[AtomKraft]

I think Trump is spot on here.

This jet is way too expensive and anyone with eyes that work properly can see it.

It's become a real gravy train for L-M and the contractors already, but it's just getting into its stride.....

If the warning shots are ignored, expect a broadside.

This program is long on all the worst aspects of defence procurement.
1. Too dear!
2. Not capable.
3. Better grounded politically than it is technically.
4. Technically flawed.
5. Designed to do too many things, thus not very good at any.

[Lonewolf_50]

Atom, that's been known but the decision was made nearly a decade ago to put all eggs in one basket, in Washington. By Congress. They hold the purse strings.

[Finningley Boy]

[QUOTEI think Trump is spot on here.

This jet is way too expensive and anyone with eyes that work properly can see it.

It's become a real gravy train for L-M and the contractors already, but it's just getting into its stride.....

If the warning shots are ignored, expect a broadside.

This program is long on all the worst aspects of defence procurement.
1. Too dear!
2. Not capable.
3. Better grounded politically than it is technically.
4. Technically flawed.
5. Designed to do too many things, thus not very good at any. ][/QUOTE

Agreed,

But its what we have and its too late to consider an alternative.

FB:)

[AtomKraft]

Finningley Boy.

That's that sorted then!

[GeeRam]

But its what we have and its too late to consider an alternative.

The same could have been said for the MRA4.........still got canned at the 11th hour.


Still think that continuing with just the A-model and canning the B & C would be the sensible option.
Would leave us in the smelly stuff, but hey, won't be the first time....or the last.

[Obi Wan Russell]

The same could have been said for the MRA4.........still got canned at the 11th hour.


Still think that continuing with just the A-model and canning the B & C would be the sensible option.
Would leave us in the smelly stuff, but hey, won't be the first time....or the last.
Why pick on the B and the C? They both work as well as the A, same weapons and sensors, just different operating platforms. The B is already entering service and the C isn't far off. The plane works, get over it, Trump get canned before the Lightning. Too many vested interests in the plane, not nearly enough in him!

[Rhino power]

But its what we have and its too late to consider an alternative.

FB

The same could have been said for the MRA4.........still got canned at the 11th hour.

Not even remotely comparable, the MRA.4 programme was for a handful of old airframes bodged into new airframes for one customer, the F-35 on the other hand is a clean sheet design (not matter how flawed it is perceived/proven to be) for several thousand airframes for many customers, not least of which is the US, to try and compare the two is ridiculous beyond belief!

-RP

[SpazSinbad]

UhOh - the shark alarm has sounded - clear the water - clear the beach - OH NOessss...
"...Hitting back, the Ministry of Defence denied Cdr Ward’s claims, saying they were untrue...."
Falklands Harrier hero raises fears over navy?s new aircraft carriers - The News (http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/defence/falklands-harrier-hero-raises-fears-over-navy-s-new-aircraft-carriers-1-7732473)

[GeeRam]

Not even remotely comparable, the MRA.4 programme was for a handful of old airframes bodged into new airframes for one customer, the F-35 on the other hand is a clean sheet design (not matter how flawed it is perceived/proven to be) for several thousand airframes for many customers, not least of which is the US, to try and compare the two is ridiculous beyond belief!

I think you're missing my point entirely.
I was comparing the 11th hour cancellation by a senior politician of a massively expensive military project - despite there being 'no other option on the table'.

[MSOCS]

Spaz,

Sharkey's claims are nothing more than fatuous, egotistic bolleaux which, time and again, require official MoD spokespersons to waste time refuting. Strange how his oft-wheeled-out career history mentions nothing of being a naval architect....yet, like his ignorance of modern carrier aviation, he seemingly remains abjectly out of touch with the progress of technology, tactics, techniques and procedures.

Mr Ward...pour another Pina Colada and enjoy a quiet, deserving retirement. You earned much respect and adoration for your S. Atlantic exploits but it would be a total shame to destroy the pitiful remnants of that former reputation in your dotage.

[Lonewolf_50]

I think you're missing my point entirely.
I was comparing the 11th hour cancellation by a senior politician of a massively expensive military project - despite there being 'no other option on the table'.
Ever hear of the P-8? It was an option. The number of '5th gen' fighters available is very small. (I am still not sure just what '5th gen' means other than "bloody expensive.")

[glad rag]

USMC to fly from UK carriers 2021...hang on when will the RAF F35b's be operational from UK carriers, 2020?....

update first operational deployment 2021....

[noflynomore]

Just reported by BBC

US F35 fighters to deploy from Royal Navy aircraft carrier - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38336101)

US and UK F35 fighters are to deploy alongside each other when the Royal Navy's new aircraft carrier begins her first operational tour in 2021.
Defence Secretary Sir Michael Fallon has signed an agreement with his US counterpart to allow Marine Corps F35Bs to fly from HMS Queen Elizabeth.
The first Royal Navy and RAF F35s, the Lightning II, will be deployed in 2018.
The announcement came on the margins of a London meeting about action against the so-called Islamic State group.
The F35 fighter is built by Lockheed Martin in the US.
The aircraft will later also be available for deployment on HMS Prince of Wales, the second of the new Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers, currently being constructed in Rosyth.
Sir Michael said: "As Britain's pre-eminent operational partner, including in our current fight against Daesh [Islamic State group], the inter-operability of British and American forces is crucial...
"Britain and America's longstanding defence and intelligence sharing epitomises the special relationship that helps keeps both our nations safer and more secure."

[taxydual]

Hang on. USMC plus FAA/RAF to act together in 2021 against 'the so called Islamic State'.

2021. Isn't that 5 years away?

Politicians (nice suits though) giving away the 'Master Plan' again.

[Bigpants]

The Emperor's new clothes? The RN played a blinder all those years ago when they persuaded Gordo Brown to order two aircraft carriers and fast jets that the UK cannot afford and does not really need.

Now they are about to be delivered the RN and MOD suddenly realised that the ships are naked so they desperately need to clothe them with something impressive so a mix of AAC Apache and some Marine Corp F35s will be draped on the decks to pretend that we have a big stick. Just a matter of spending a few £ Billion fixing those all electric destroyers and all will be ready for a quick cruise down the channel before either running out of cash or breaking down.

[ORAC]

Old, old, old, news - been planned and reported by the government, navy, media - and F-35 and Carrier threads here for months.

e.g.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/09/09/usmc_will_fly_f35s_on_hms_queen_elizabeth_first_op_deploymen t/

[Sandy Parts]

shouldn't be an issue - the US F35s will be using the right hand side of the deck and we will be using the left ;) Anyhoo - is the govt saying that they won't have defeated the 'stop-calling-it-so-called-everyone-is-actually-already-calling-it-IS-or-Daesh' by 2021?
I was promised the increased defence and Intelligence services spending would have won the 'so-called' war by then? I was looking forward to decades of peace on Earth and no national debt by 2020....

[glad rag]

shouldn't be an issue - the US F35s will be using the right hand side of the deck and we will be using the left ;) Anyhoo - is the govt saying that they won't have defeated the 'stop-calling-it-so-called-everyone-is-actually-already-calling-it-IS-or-Daesh' by 2021?
I was promised the increased defence and Intelligence services spending would have won the 'so-called' war by then? I was looking forward to decades of peace on Earth and no national debt by 2020....

Yeah but the person who promised that turned out to have a yellow streak a mile wide running down his back..

[MSOCS]

As ORAC says, this information has been in the public domain for months now and planned behind the scenes for quite some time prior.

Think about it: with inherently in-built interoperability, why WOULDN'T you test and operate USMC F-35B with UK ones, on the world's only purpose-built F-35B aircraft carriers?! This is called increasing capability for mutual benefit folks... Sure, it's a way of plussing up the firepower on our decks early on, but the Marines are keen, so again, why not?

I suspect the OP is attempting to incite outrage from what is, ostensibly, a logical move.

[Torquelink]

Presumably basing on the QE2 class will be the only time that USMCs F35s will use a ramp for TO or do they have them on their own ships?

[MSOCS]

All USMC LH-class are flat-tops so yes, Torque, flying from QE Class will be their only ramp experience.

[PhilipG]

If both projects had gone head on their initial timescales, it could be argued that the USMC might have been so impressed with an F35 on a ramp, as I recall they liked Harriers on ramps off the Illustrious class, that they might have ordered a number of QECs.

[sandiego89]

If both projects had gone head on their initial timescales, it could be argued that the USMC might have been so impressed with an F35 on a ramp, as I recall they liked Harriers on ramps off the Illustrious class, that they might have ordered a number of QECs.


Highly doubt it. The US Navy specifics the "carriers" they want, and something as big as the QEC would be counter to the current LHA/LHD classes and the super carriers, and in betweener if you will. Yes, US Marine Harrier pilots were impressed with the ski jump when they used it, and outfitting ski ramps to the LHA's/LHD's over the past decades has come up periodically but this was dismissed with the thought that ramp taking up to many helo spots on the LHA/LHD, and the flat deck was deemed to work well enough for the Harriers.


Conspiracy theorists would also opine that the carrier admirals would see a large deck STOVL carrier as a direct threat to carrier orders, and worry that politicians may decide, "hey lets buy cheaper carriers" and risk future conventional carrier operations. As most would agree, cats and traps allows for greater payload off the deck and for aircraft that are not as compromised with STOVL penalties.


Thirdly the US has a robust ship building industry, with very strong ties to US congress. Why buy from a foreign yard? Legal obstacles as well.


Fourthly, the QEC is partially designed to commercial standards. US warships are designed to military specs. Likely a non-starter.


The LHA/LHD and carrier mix seems to work well with current US doctrine. The LHA/LHD is designed to support robust amphibious ops, helo ops and imbedded Harriers and soon F-35's to support the task group. The aviation heavy USS America gave up other capabilities to support more aircraft, but looks like that will not be repeated for future orders.

[LFT]

There's a ramp at Pax River -


http://i65.tinypic.com/11ljtzs.jpg

[LFT]

"Fourthly, the QEC is partially designed to commercial standards. US warships are designed to military specs. Likely a non-starter."


Which means what exactly, apart from Frame Numbers are from Fwd to Aft on a naval ship compared to Aft to Fwd on a Commercial ship?

[glad rag]

[QUOTE=MSOCS;9611111]

I suspect the OP is attempting to incite outrage from what is, ostensibly, a logical move.[/QUOTE

Just passing on what, was, at the time, live from a parliamentary news feed.

What was of more interest, alongside the continued extension of RAF GR4 operations in theatre (again no surprises there) was the quiet slippage of UK F35B, on Operations, to the right. Again.

Still its bound to find it's niche eventually.

[MSOCS]

Not sure what you mean GR. IOC Maritime has been Dec 2020 for quite a long time now. Therefore the feasible first EMBARKED operational deployment is 2021. There is nothing to necessarily preclude UK F-35B deploying on land-based operations after the earlier IOC Land is declared; i.e some time in 2019...

That's only 2 years away

[Out Of Trim]

I have noticed in most videos and still photos of the F-35 in flight; that they often appear to have visible wing tip vortices even in straight and level flight.

Is this a design flaw? I would expect to see them when pulling g at high speed but not during AAR behind a tanker!

It can't be a great feature in a 5th generation stealth fighter; unless it makes the opposition think they're pulling more g than they actually are.

Am I missing something here? :confused:

[Just This Once...]

The bit you are missing is AoA, rather than G. At normal cruise speed the vortices are not really visible.

If you think about LO requirements the lack of anything resembling or artificially acting as a wing fence / pylon etc is understandable.

[SpazSinbad]

And now for something completely different - the running, jumping and standing still fillum

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ywu_cAO8lZ0

[cattletruck]

At the price for one F-35, Lockheed should call the development team not the skunk works but the oink works.

[ORAC]

Hmmm,

Referring to my last post about being a wee bit cynical - can I read this as at least another 6 month slip - and the funds being stolen from the next upgrade spiral meaning at leat another 6-12 month slip on that - assuming another $B+ funding isn't found to plug the gap?????

Extended F-35 Flight Testing Could Eat Into Follow-On Upgrades (http://www.defensenews.com/articles/f-35-developmental-flight-test-delays-could-impact-follow-on-modernization-program)

[MSOCS]

If it comes from Lt Gen Bogdan, I'd say it's legit.

(Gnashing, wailing commences...)

[SpazSinbad]

Twas an F-35B fire in the circuit (in the hole) around Nov 8 this year but fix found:
"...fixing a faulty wiring bracket that caused a fire in an F-35B..."
F-35 ?Not Out Of Control?: Prices Drop 5.5% For F-35A « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary (http://breakingdefense.com/2016/12/33483/)

AND... the price is right (or whatever your inclination) for LRIP 9 at same source. And the last sentence at source from Generale BoggedDown:
"...“My strategy is to just tell the truth.”

[ORAC]

Did somebody mention ALARP?.......

Pentagon Knew of F-35B Weapons Bay Fire Problem (http://defensetech.org/2016/12/20/pentagon-knew-f-35-weapons-bay-fire/)

A Marine Corps F-35B caught fire during a late October flight because of a weapons bay defect that military officials knew about and were already working to fix.

Air Force Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, the F-35 program executive officer, told reporters Monday at the program’s offices in Arlington, Virginia, that the Oct. 27 mishap occurred when a bracket that held electrical wires in the weapons bay came loose, allowing the wires to chafe and come into contact with hydraulic lines, causing the fire........ “The good news is, we knew what it was,” Bogdan said. “When knew about this problem long before that, and all of our airplanes were being retrofitted with a new bracket.”

The F-35B that caught fire had not yet received the replacement bracket, he said, but had been inspected as part of a stopgap regiment designed to prevent mishaps. Prior to the flight, Bogdan said, the bracket had seemed to be holding. “We inspected, it looked fine, and it just didn’t look fine in the air,” he said.

In the wake of the fire, the Marine Corps opted not to ground any aircraft or pause flight operations. Officials did, however, update the inspection regimen to make assessment of the faulty brackets more rigorous, Bogdan said.

Bogdan acknowledged it was a risk to fly the F-35Bs that had not yet received the bracket retrofit, but said it was one of many risks that come with operating the aircraft. “Military airplanes all have risk,” he said. “This plane is like no other and yes, there are acknowledged risks, and that would be one of them. Until we fix that bracket, every airplane of the B-model that doesn’t have that bracket is going to have to be inspected, and hopefully that bracket remains in place when it’s flying.”

It’s not yet clear when the retrofit process will be complete or how many aircraft still need the new equipment.

[MSOCS]

Do the US Services subscribe to the ALARP principle; safety management system etc? (It's ok, I know the answer...)

The UK do, and often apply more stringent operating limits for its people, if they are deemed necessary by the Duty Holder chain.

[SpazSinbad]

GenerallyBoggedDown was busy:
F-35’s $400K Helmet Still Blinds Pilots on Night Flights
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2016/12/20/f-35s-400k-helmet-still-blinds-pilots-night-flights/
&
Pentagon Knew of F-35B Weapons Bay Fire Problem
http://defensetech.org/2016/12/20/pentagon-knew-f-35-weapons-bay-fire/

[EAP86]

MSOCS
There is no legal significance to ALARP in the USA; I believe only the UK, Ireland and Australia use the concept in statute. As regards safety, if you look up Mil Std 882 and its history, you'll find they have been using safety engineering and management far longer than the UK. ISTR that 882 came about as a result of the Minuteman missile programme around the early 60s.

EAP

[MSOCS]

Thanks EAP. I knew ALARP is a relatively new adopted concept in the UK (some years now) but your point on the Minuteman I did not know.

Many people bandy around the term ALARP but perhaps don't appreciate that, whether something either 'is' or 'isn't' ALARP, it is a very personal thing to the one who 'owns' the risk(s) involved. Point being, asking an Internet forum if an issue is ALARP is illogical (unless the Duty Holder is on the forum and is happy to respond in public), but also contradicts the whole point of having an accountable person by asking the masses.

Most visitors here don't have the appropriate safety information to sentence risk...

[AutoBit]

MSOCS,
Whilst the US doesn't subscribe to the exact model of risk ownership that we do, in my experience there is a implicit responsibility to own the associated risk attached to being a senior commander. The US select their senior leaders based on experience and a proven background in their specific area or command.

Thus if you try to explain to a USN senior officer that in the UK we'll have a commander responsible for the operating safety case of fixed wing carrier operations who has never landed on a ship yet alone worked from one, they look at you as if you've come from Mars.

Not trying to start arguments about ownership, but simply using it as an example.

[MSOCS]

AutoBit, totally agree. My point was merely to highlight the nuance of ALARP (UK). You make a good point about the US vs UK differences though, and this remains an area where dialogue is vital for both sides to understand how risk is handled and managed. Your point on SQEP is also very valid.

[ORAC]

So, to summarise.

We have a known problem where the result of a failure is a bomb-bay fire. The solution to allow flying to continue, inspections, is not, at the General' own admission, effective; the bracket failing between the pre-flight inspection and the flight.

Prior to the flight, Bogdan said, the bracket had seemed to be holding. “We inspected, it looked fine, and it just didn’t look fine in the air,” he said.

And the solution? More frequent inspections......

In the wake of the fire, the Marine Corps opted not to ground any aircraft or pause flight operations. Officials did, however, update the inspection regimen to make assessment of the faulty brackets more rigorous, Bogdan said.

Was this the result of a vigorous risk assessment that reached a balanced decision?

Until we fix that bracket, every airplane of the B-model that doesn’t have that bracket is going to have to be inspected, and hopefully that bracket remains in place when it’s flying.”

So, who holds this risk for the UK F-35Bs?

[Bengo]

So, to summarise.

We have a known problem where the result of a failure is a bomb-bay fire. The solution to allow flying to continue, inspections, is not, at the General' own admission, effective; the bracket failing between the pre-flight inspection and the flight.

Prior to the flight, Bogdan said, the bracket had seemed to be holding. “We inspected, it looked fine, and it just didn’t look fine in the air,” he said.

And the solution? More frequent inspections......

In the wake of the fire, the Marine Corps opted not to ground any aircraft or pause flight operations. Officials did, however, update the inspection regimen to make assessment of the faulty brackets more rigorous, Bogdan said.

Was this the result of a vigorous risk assessment that reached a balanced decision?

Until we fix that bracket, every airplane of the B-model that doesn’t have that bracket is going to have to be inspected, and hopefully that bracket remains in place when it’s flying.”

So, who holds this risk for the UK F-35Bs?
Theree should only be a risk to hold if the UK B models have the original bracket. If it has been replaced then all should be well.
Do we know the UK aircraft mod state(s)?

N

[PhilipG]

The next question of course is why was the bracket designed in this what now appears to be "fail deadly" way? Is the bracket only on the B or is it common across the family and are there similar brackets elsewhere in the airframe?

[sandiego89]

PhilipG: The next question of course is why was the bracket designed in this what now appears to be "fail deadly" way?....


Geez, designers do not intend brackets or other things to fail...some problems take a while to be known and some are manageable until fixed. No one wants to introduce a known faulty design (except perhaps the designers of Ford Explorer "Exploder" I owned, I am convinced they must have designed faults into that thing to make me buy a new one every few years, or frequent trips to their service department...)

[PhilipG]

Geez, designers do not intend brackets or other things to fail...some problems take a while to be known and some are manageable until fixed. No one wants to introduce a known faulty design (except perhaps the designers of Ford Explorer "Exploder" I owned, I am convinced they must have designed faults into that thing to make me buy a new one every few years, or frequent trips to their service department...)

Sorry my point was not questioning the design of the bracket.

I am sure that it was done in good faith, my point was that this reasonably designed bracket has failed, I am not aware that the exact failure mechanism has been disclosed.

My point was that following the failure of this bracket, are there other brackets designed using the same methodologies on the airframe, that MAY be at danger of failing?

Obviously it would be helpful if this particular bracket was a unique design, so there is no danger of repetition.

[MSOCS]

PhilipG, if you're concerned as to whether LM are 'doing their jobs' as the design authority, fear not; they are and more thoroughly than you seem to imply. Indeed, when you're running the world's biggest fighter program as the Design Authority, and when every inch of column news is scrutinised to the nanometre by (literally) everyone, you don't simply just 'sit on your a**' with these things. You also don't go running around like a headless chicken either.

Sure we can talk about this stuff in a sandbox forum, but the only people who are really concerned here are the ones who fix these problems to keep things at a tolerably safe level for those who operate the jet.

[KenV]

My point was that following the failure of this bracket, are there other brackets designed using the same methodologies on the airframe, that MAY be at danger of failing? Obviously it would be helpful if this particular bracket was a unique design, so there is no danger of repetition. The depends entirely on whether the problem was a design failure, or a failure to understand the loads in the specific environment(s) the bracket was used. An identical bracket could easily last the life of the aircraft in one location, and fail prematurely in another location.

Keep in mind that the failed bracket was in the weapons bay. Also keep in mind that there were some concerns about weapon bay overheating and keeping the doors open to prevent such overheating. It could very well be that the bracket in this specific location experienced higher than anticipated temperatures, higher than anticipated loads, or higher that anticipated cyclic rates, or any combination of the three to cause premature failure. We just don't know. But they know and have already designed a fix and are busily installing it in the fleet. In the meantime they are inspecting the old bracket until it gets replaced with the new one.

[PhilipG]

The depends entirely on whether the problem was a design failure, or a failure to understand the loads in the specific environment(s) the bracket was used. An identical bracket could easily last the life of the aircraft in one location, and fail prematurely in another location.

Ken I am glad to hear that the exact failure mechanism is fully understood by LM and an appropriate solution is being rolled out to the fleet, from what you say the problem is confined to the B and is only on one side of the airframe.