F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

[ORAC]

It is of course possible the additional unexpected loads are generated by the turbulence of flying around with the bomb bay open half the time......

[SpazSinbad]

For ORAC:
http://www.pprune.org/9590892-post9915.html POST 9915 on page 496 this thread:
" • 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."
http://aviationweek.com/site-files/aviationweek.com/files/uploads/2016/01/DOT%26E%202015%20F-35%20Annual%20Report.pdf

[ORAC]

http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=23948&sid=e0a15d120dc5d9bd7dcee74c04c81b95

"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. ......

[SpazSinbad]

ORAC my reference is to the F-35B which is the variant under discussion.

[ORAC]

If you are stating definitively that the F-35B does not have the same restrictions, my apologies. Though I do find it surprising, as I would have thought the reduced capacity would make heat dispersal even more of an issue, especially when taking IR signature into account.

[Wokkafans]

Trump adds his five cents.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/812061677160202240

"Based on the tremendous cost and cost overruns of the Lockheed Martin F-35, I have asked Boeing to price-out a comparable F-18 Super Hornet!"

[Rhino power]

I have asked Boeing to price-out a comparable F-18 Super Hornet!

5 cents, was the comment even worth as much as that?

Proof, if it were even needed, that 'the Donald', hasn't got a clue... :hmm:

-RP

[Lonewolf_50]

I'd like to see what a "comparable" F-18 super hornet looks like ... in terms of how one could compare a 20 year old (but proven) fighter to something quite a bit different.

Are they both comparable by both being fruits of the poison tree of Congressional mandates on "one size fits all" designs?

[The Sultan]

The Russians must really be intimidated by the F-35 to have Cheeto try to disrupt the program.

The Sultan

[CONSO]

With all the long range goodies on our ' fighters ' available since the 60's, I wonder if the ROE re requiring a visual contact before firing is still standard in an air to air situation ??

Other than escaping an incomeing miussile ( very important :rolleyes: ) why the old meme re ' dogfighting superiority ' is still being pushed ?


for example

https://theaviationist.com/2015/10/31/impressive-previously-unreleased-footage-shows-how-two-f-14-tomcats-shot-down-two-gaddafis-mig-23s/

[glad rag]

Considering the Donalds latest statement on "nukes", that trillion dollar in life service quotation for F35 would sure come in handy to help pay for the required modernisation and upgrades ...

[AnglianAV8R]

I'm intrigued. Donald wants a price for an f18 that performs comparably with the F35... Why reduce the capability of the F18 ? ;)

[glad rag]

I'm intrigued. Donald wants a price for an f18 that performs comparably with the F35... Why reduce the capability of the F18 ? ;)
I'm certain our resident F35 SJW's will be along shortly to defame your reputation for that slur 'AV8R. .

[A_Van]

Quote
"The Russians must really be intimidated by the F-35 to have Cheeto try to disrupt the program.
The Sultan"


Sorry for maybe disappointing you, but nobody here is scared of (or even concerned with) this ugly and overpriced plane. An easy target for modern (to say nothing of the future) anti-aircraft systems.

[airsound]

Rewatching some amazing footage of Bs on USS America
Video: Watch As F-35B Nails Vertical Landings Aboard USS America | Defense content from Aviation Week (http://aviationweek.com/F-35Bcarrierlanding?NL=AW-05&Issue=AW-05_20161223_AW-05_948&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_8&utm_rid=CPEN1000001187552&utm_campaign=8015&utm_medium=email&elq2=b981d5118d2f4bc6935b781ce29a1de5)

I was struck again by how fragile that big door over the liftfan looks.

What happens if that door jams shut during seaborne ops? Presumably it would mean the loss of the airframe and hence, I can only hope, a Martin Baker letdown for the driver.

Or is there a jettison thingy for that door?

As ever, I don’t think this has been covered before in the thread - but if it has, I apologise….

airsound

[longer ron]

I was struck again by how fragile that big door over the liftfan looks.

The correct name for it is 'Bin Lid' - Airsound.
Either the door or its support structure will give problems at some stage LOL

[airsound]

I'm indebted to my honourable (and longitudinal) friend for the terminological correction.

I like 'bin lid'

airsound

[sandiego89]

The trash can lid on the B does indeed "look" fragile. I was watching B's in the pattern at Patuxent River at 100+ knots and it does look like the whole thing should rip off, but obviously much more robust than it appears, and with so much air being sucked through the fan, the loads are not directly on the door.


I was wondering whom will be first to paint something on the inside of the lid- like the eyes on the cranked up F-8 Crusader wing. Would look great, but I'm sure the designers would cringe with the thought of paint chips going through the fan...

[airsound]

sandiego
it does look like the whole thing should rip offI presume ripping off would not be as catastrophic as being stuck shut, which would prevent vertical landing (embarrassing when you're at sea).

airsound

[ORAC]

Longer_ron,

Ref Lift Fan Inlet Door redesign, they went through between 2007-2010.

http://www.enu.kz/repository/2011/AIAA-2011-6940.pdf

[The Sultan]

From A_Van

Sorry for maybe disappointing you, but nobody here is scared of (or even concerned with) this ugly and overpriced plane. An easy target for modern (to say nothing of the future) anti-aircraft systems.

Given the overwhelming success the US aircraft have against Russian aircraft and missiles the F-35 may not be needed until China becomes a contender. Doesn't mean Putin isn't taking his new puppet out for a test drive.

The Sultan

[West Coast]

Dear God, I'm agreeing with Sultan.

Van, have you any empirical evidence if your claim based on experience with 4th gen or later equipment? Your client states certainly aren't representing the capabilities all that well.

[Robert Cooper]

Donald Trump debated defense policy in a tweet today, saying:

“Based on the tremendous cost and cost overruns of the Lockheed Martin F-35, I have asked Boeing to price-out a comparable F-18 Super Hornet”

This tweet from Trump could just be a negotiating ploy on Trump's part to lower the price of the plane, as he did for the successor to Air Force One. But whether he negotiates a lower price or cancels the project entirely, many say he's on the right track.

Bob C

[SpazSinbad]

AFAIK peeps **** on the tweety (not debate - call on master bates may be) but anyway twittering posted here already & comments: http://www.pprune.org/9618081-post10009.html

[AtomKraft]

If there's any single person with balls, big enough, to cancel this preposterous turkey of an aircraft, it's our Donald.

I wonder what a graph with 'in too deep to cancel now' on one axis and 'consequences of proceeding with unsatisfactory aircraft' on the other, would look like?

Someone had the balls to pull the plug on the A-12. Can't have been an easy decision....

[longer ron]

ORAC....
longer_ron,

Ref Lift Fan Inlet Door redesign, they went through between 2007-2010.

Thanks ORAC - I am an old vstol tech and aware of the history of this colossal pile of poo,engineering madness at its 'best' :hmm:

[ORAC]

Well the finest brains and engineers in the aerospace world came up with and started building Orion.....

[MSOCS]

So, let's see if Donald actually pulls the plug. I'm betting he doesn't, because it isn't a Turkey. But he doesn't know that yet, hence the tweets.

Let him get his capability read-in, and perhaps go and talk to the F-35 guys who are training against F-18,15,16s daily and see what the outcomes have been.

[Frostchamber]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the F35B will have superlative radar and sensor fusion, stealth, F16 class manouevrability, F18 class range, state of the art BVR missiles, state of the art short range missiles, and will do all that while filling the slightly awkward niche we've created for ourselves by doing it all while being STOVL. If that's the definition of a turkey put me down for 138.

[MSOCS]

F-35's radar is mind blowing, with 'yuge' growth already planned. Sensors, likewise. Fusion IS working very well but still being improved (and will continue to develop through-life); missiles are.....well, very nice indeed. Holds its own against F-16 very well -but remember it isn't a lightweight-class fighter. Considering the design challenges, the STOVL variant is a credit to ingenuity - there isn't another fighter in the world able to fly at Max AUW from a 1500ft strip - or 600ft ramped deck - dash to M1.6 return and land at zero forward airspeed. Oh, and you won't get a radar lock on the old girl either.

Yeah, I'd buy 138 for the UK as well. The high cost is also the price of being relevant in the air for the next 40 years. Obsolescence will see F-15, 16, 18 in the boneyard soon enough.

[airsound]

The UK Sun (courtesy R Murdoch) has this
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2470733/donald-trump-casts-future-of-britains-two-new-aircraft-carriers-into-serious-doubt-by-beginning-moves-to-scrap-their-f-35-stealth-jets/
And no, I don't read it either, but the MoD does, and sent that out in its daily upsum.

airsound

PS Further to earlier mentions of the 'bin lid' - does anyone actually know if there is any procedure for dealing with a stuck-shut bin lid? (posts #10018 et seq)

PPS Fascinating stuff, ORAC, about the history of the whole intake system of the lift fan - but no mention of door (bin lid) malfunctions.

[SpazSinbad]

Somewhere there is a Whizzer Wilson story (maybe some other test pilot) talking about doing various F=35B MODE testings in flight & of course they do lots of this emergency testing in the simulator. Youse'll have to wait though as it is 0200 here and I have had it for now.

[airsound]

Sleep well Spaz - Merry Christmas

airsound

[Engines]

Airsound,

Perhaps I can help.

If the lift fan door jams shut, then the only option is a normal landing to a runway. At sea, with a STOVL ship, it's going to be divert ashore or take the ejection seat. This would apply to other doors in the STOVL lift system as well.

Of course, it's always a risk when you design bits of aircraft that need to be covered up by panels that can stick shut. Like landing gear, cockpits, bomb bays.....look, this isn't an all new issue.

Designers and engineers work damn hard to make these mechanisms as reliable as possible, and then some. And ensuring that they don't rip off in flight. They spend hours (and dollars) doing all that in the background so that they are (as far as practicable) not a problem in service.

Yes, the F-35B lift fan door was a very big challenge. What I can say with some certainty is that the solution was in large part due to the efforts of a number of very talented Brits working with LM. As was the whole world-beating lift system.

Best regards as ever to all those really clever people,

Engines

[Simplythebeast]

Surely it would be much cheaper and safer to be able to eject a stuck bin lid than a pilot? Surely that cant be beyond the wit of man?

[airsound]

Thanks, as ever, Engines. PM follows
airsound

[SpazSinbad]

For 'airsound' one or two of these snippets have been posted - probably - on this thread already, albeit some years ago now and they do not specifically address the bin lid question, they demonstrate testing and fixes for these doors plus the STOVL MODES, sadly not described here.
F-35 Begins Year With Test Objectives Unmet [STOVL IAS Change] 04 Jan 2011 Graham Warwick
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awst/2011/01/03/AW_01_03_2011_p22-279507.xml

“...unreliable upper lift-fan door actuator redesigned, and no problems were experienced in the last quarter, he says. Vertical landings, halted since September after the discovery of wear on auxiliary inlet-door hinges, are set to resume this month. McFarlan says some hinge components have been redesigned & operation of the lift-fan door rescheduled to reduce airloads on the auxiliary doors during semi-jet-borne flight.

The lift-fan door was programmed to open to 65 deg. below 120 kt., and to 35 deg. above that airspeed. But with the large door fully open, loads on the auxiliary-inlet doors behind it are reduced, so the schedule has been changed to keep the lift-fan door open 65 deg. up to 165 kt. during a short takeoff, he says...."
F-35B - Doors (Pt. 2) Graham Warwick 09 Dec 2011
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/aviation_week/on_space_and_technology/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=a68cb417-3364-4fbf-a9dd-4feda680ec9c&plckPostId=Blog%3aa68cb417-3364-4fbf-a9dd-4feda680ec9cPost%3a41e6d676-ad38-4c26-a670-b72068fabeae&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

“Dorsal auxiliary air-inlet doors, which open in STOVL mode to increase mass flow into the engine & generate an additional 7,000lb of vertical thrust, were found to flutter in semi-jetborne flight, causing premature hinge wear. The initial fix was to modify operation of the large lift-fan door forward of the auxiliary inlet to stay fully open to higher airspeed on short take-offs to ‘shelter’ the clamshell doors. Instead of closing to the 35° mid position at 125kt the aft-hinged lift-fan door now stays fully open at 65° to 170kt on take-off, & begins to open to 65° at 160kt on approach to landing.”
F-35 Flight Testing At Pax [excerpt] Eric Hehs 15 Oct 2012
F-35 Lightning II Flight Testing At NAS Patuxent River | Code One Magazine (http://www.codeonemagazine.com/f35_article.html?item_id=110)

"...The test team at Pax is also exploring the maximum speed end of the STOVL portion of the flight envelope, which is 250 knots. “The buffet and noise is significant when we have the upper lift fan door all the way open, which is an angle of sixty-five degrees, at that speed,” Faidley said....

...The team is also flying the B‑model in conventional mode but configured with various STOVL doors open. “The flight conditions mimic failure modes,” Faidley explained. “For example, we intentionally open the upper lift fan door after the engine nozzle has converted from STOVL to conventional flight mode.”

Some of the flight test aircraft have special software that allows the pilot to override the standard control laws that actuate the various doors and nozzle angles. The flight control laws for the STOVL variant have six modes that are associated with specific actuations. Mode 1 defines conventional flight. Mode 4 defines STOVL. The other four modes define transitional states between the two primary modes. “If a pilot loses a hydraulic system in Mode 2, we know that the doors associated with STOVL flight will be positioned a certain way,” Faidley explained. “We are seeing how well the airplane flies in those conditions.”...”

[ORAC]

Some seem to agree with Trump - and his methods.......


Next Big Future: Exactly how Trump can end the F35 and save $15 billion or more per year for 30-50 years while improving US military capability (http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/12/exactly-how-trump-can-end-f35-and-save.html)

The second linked paragraph is interesting in its own right......

Next Big Future: Trump asks Boeing to price out Advanced Super Hornet F-18 with conformal fuel tanks to put negotiation pressure on Lockheed and the F-35 (http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/12/trump-asks-boeing-to-price-out-advanced.html)

[glad rag]

Some seem to agree with Trump - and his methods.......


Next Big Future: Exactly how Trump can end the F35 and save $15 billion or more per year for 30-50 years while improving US military capability (http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/12/exactly-how-trump-can-end-f35-and-save.html)

The second linked paragraph is interesting in its own right......

Next Big Future: Trump asks Boeing to price out Advanced Super Hornet F-18 with conformal fuel tanks to put negotiation pressure on Lockheed and the F-35 (http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/12/trump-asks-boeing-to-price-out-advanced.html)
"With the production data, we can calculate a F-35A has a price tag of $157 million, not $102 million. It’s $265 million for a F-35B and $355 million for a F-35C, not $132 million for either variant."

Insane prices for nothing better [and in many ways less] than a GR9.

[peter we]

A GR9 is supersonic?

Say the F-35 is cancelled, you going to be happy to wait another 20 years and pay $400billion (today money) more for a replacement of the F-18/16?

[MSOCS]

Insane prices for nothing better [and in many ways less] than a GR9.

Glad Rag - I've operating experience of GR7, GR9, and F-35. I can assure you, the GR9 doesn't come close to the F-35's capabilities. Unless you've flown GR9, your statement is opinion, not fact.

[glad rag]

Same as always ms, you really shouldn't believe all you’ve been...told..however you are demonstrably more than capable of telling people what to think!

ps it's glad rag~~no false airs and graces from the bottom of these steps me ol' china ;)

[MSOCS]

Glad Rag, not at all me-old tyre kicker. Just telling how it is...from the cockpit.

[Lonewolf_50]

It's interesting to watch the figures for the final cost of each of the variants getting tossed around. I wonder what production runs these are based on, and what tail is on that dinosaur in terms of "off the production line" to "full systems cost" to "full life cycle cost." What's the number mean?

[glad rag]

Glad Rag, not at all me-old tyre kicker. Just telling how it is...from the cockpit.
speaking of which. I had the good fortune to upgrade the GR7 that was fragged at Kanahar [?] frightening how the shrapnel passed through both intakes and fus behind cockpit....I guess the plastic pig will have better ballistic resistance then...oh hang on those "testing benchmarks" were cancelled to get the programme back on, er, track......

..now about electrical system[s] protection...yes interesting in light of THAT electrical fire..polyimide film insulation in any of it's little disguises? Shirley not, mind you it is still in use just "better protected" these days..

[glad rag]

It's interesting to watch the figures for the final cost of each of the variants getting tossed around. I wonder what production runs these are based on, and what tail is on that dinosaur in terms of "off the production line" to "full systems cost" to "full life cycle cost." What's the number mean?
Who knows Lonewolf it's another of those F35 "secrets" that should be out there, in complete transparency and independently verified.

Perhaps we should ask Putin, he's BOUND to know after all, he DID rig your election...:}

[Lonewolf_50]

Who knows Lonewolf it's another of those F35 "secrets" that should be out there, in complete transparency and independently verified.

Perhaps we should ask Putin, he's BOUND to know after all, he DID rig your election...:}
Taken in order.
1. Nope. Classified program and capability.
2. Take the political BS to JB, if you please.
3. Merry Christmas/Happy Boxing Day ... as appropriate.

[ORAC]

LW_50,

The price shouldn't be classified - it's not supposed to be - that's why Congress insists it's published.

The dirty little secret I found in my service was that by the far most secret caveat used to classify information was "Embarassment in Confidence" due to the harm it would cause to the person and party in power rather than the nation.

[MSOCS]

Can't really argue with the generalisation ORAC, however, I wouldn't believe that F-35 classified is a carpet under which embarrassment is swept.

Quite wrong in this instance.

[Lonewolf_50]

ORAC, "complete transparency" is what "nope, classified" was a response to.
As to "report less due to embarrassment" -- seen that as well, but that isn't the topic I was addressing. What I was addressing before the usual entropy arrived was the multiple ways that accounting is applied to the same program and the same money to get different answers, based on what it is you are charging for and over what time period.

[ORAC]

Next Big Future: Chief tester F-35 says F35 will not be ready for combat testing til 2019-2020 and F35C wings are not strong enough to carry missiles (http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/12/chief-tester-f-35-says-f35-will-not-be.html)

[peter we]

Thats an misleading - false- headline.

[ORAC]

How so? Slightly exaggerated perhaps - as are most - but false? No.

".....Operational combat testing that all weapons systems must pass will start in mid-2018 and be completed a year later. Gilmore labeled that “false.” Instead, he said the tests will commence “no sooner than late 2018, or, more likely, in early 2019 but could be as late as 2020.”.........

".....The Navy’s version of the plane, the F-35C, also has inadequate wing strength, Gilmore said. Its wingtips aren’t strong enough to carry the AIM-9X short-range air-to-air missile, a primary weapon, at some altitudes and airspeeds. Testing on a fix is under way."......

[Wander00]

So if Strumpf (what the Smurfs are called in France) did cancel or curtail F-35, just where would that leave the UK, RAF and FAA?

[Prangster]

Wander00, we'd be paddling the carriers up a creek without the proverbial paddle that's where.

[glad rag]

Obviously then we will pay whatever to ensure that scenario does not happen.

[Heathrow Harry]

Buy more helicopters and rename the QE "Ocean"................

[peter we]

no sooner than late 2018
Isn't 2019-2020

[brakedwell]

Give the "experts" who cancelled the catapults knighthoods?

[Prangster]

Only this afternoon walked past a boat yard where they were working on a bloody great paddle. He swore it was needed PDQ to 'push a couple of carriers far up a creek and out of sight'.

[Fareastdriver]

The Israeli Air Force have got their first two examples.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2016-12/13/c_135900142.htm

[cornish-stormrider]

All I know is that my shares in Spatchcock and Shinney ( Turd Polish suppliers to the MOD ) are going up in value faster than the price of Dave, at this rate by the time the "wonderjet" deploys on an operation I will be I the position to buy one myself

[MSOCS]

So that'll probably be this year:

USMC F-35B to West Pacific, already confirmed.

USAF F-35A deployment has been suggested by their top brass.

[glad rag]

Hope they’ve got the Mains wired up properly then!

[MSOCS]

Well, one of us hasn't had our "Mains" wired up properly Glad Rag, because I don't have a clue what you're on about (per usual).

May I respectfully ask you for a more complete sarcastic reply, please?

[glad rag]

Well, one of us hasn't had our "Mains" wired up properly Glad Rag, because I don't have a clue what you're on about (per usual).

May I respectfully ask you for a more complete sarcastic reply, please?

:)

Well all the other IOC's have had trouble with the mains why should this one be any different?

And the fuel that’s too hot, imaginary role play, reboots etc, etc

But as cluster****s go, it'll be a

"oustanding"

one.

[MSOCS]

Thank you for making me none-the-wiser, GR.

[cornish-stormrider]

I understood it

A politically driven despairing push to show its worth does not make a "warfighter" ( sorry, stupid terminology)

When it's doing proper deployments and working like say a plastic bug then I'll be convinced

[sandiego89]

Well I still do not understand glad's meaning of "Mains" or "mains" either...


I do see the U.S. desire to forward deploy the F-35 earlier than other platforms. While it is partially political, it might also be desirable to see how the F-35 works, gain valuable training for crews and allies (and perhaps boost sales) and see how it will influence doctrine in the services. Even if the F-35 is not fully up yet, they offer some impressive capabilities.


Why not deploy them? Why wait until FOC? The system will be constantly be updated over the life of the program. Do you wait until all your dream home improvement projects are completed to perfection to have friends over? Nah, I say invite them over- most won't care if your don't have the bamboo floors in yet....


In the US, there was some flack about not deploying the F-117, B-2, F-22 and B-1 to certain engagements or hot spots.

[MSOCS]

Anyway, setting cryptic diatribes to one side for a moment - and regardless of the few problems which the Program is nugging its way through - the current 3i block capability would bring a hell of a lot to any Joint Commander's AOR in my opinion.

So yeah, it will likely happen, and why not? If it succeeds on a par with the Pentagon's confidence, the silence from F-35's detractors will be deafening.

[Turbine D]

If it succeeds on a par with the Pentagon's confidence, the silence from F-35's detractors will be deafening.
It's best not to count your chickens before they hatch...

[MSOCS]

Thanks Mom!

[glad rag]

If it succeeds on a par with the Pentagon's confidence, i

1. What do you mean "if"$$$$$$$$$$ ?

2. That's the problem there, the one person who has ensured that there has been some transparency is being moved on....

[MSOCS]

Must. Clutch. At. Straws.

[Royalistflyer]

Correct me if I'm wrong - but a Sukhoi SU-33 has a maximum take off weight of a little over 72,000 lbs and a reheat thrust of 2X 28,214 lbs. The SU-33 uses the STOBAR Russian carriers. A Rafale has maximum take off weight of 54,000 lbs and reheat thrust of 2 X 17,000 lbs. So why couldn't Rafales use Queen Elizabeth without catapults as STOBAR?

[KenV]

So why couldn't Rafales use Queen Elizabeth without catapults as STOBAR? 1. Still need arresting gear, which QE does not have.
2. Thrust to weight is only one of numerous variables that affect STOBAR performance. You'd need to compare many other variables to make a meaningful comparison.

[jindabyne]

In Canberra, 1999, arrived the US marketeer for JSF. His sales pitch was based on - forget Typhoon, JSF will be half the price with a vastly superior capability. Right!!

[MSOCS]

Well, at least he was half right!

[ORAC]

The F-35C has hit another major snag that could take years to fix - Business Insider (http://uk.businessinsider.com/expensive-f35-snag-years-to-fix-2017-1?r=US&IR=T)

The Pentagon has established a "red team" to address considerable shortcomings with the F-35C, the carrier-based naval variant of the most expensive weapons project in history.

The F-35, subject to cost overruns and delays throughout its production, reached an initial state of military readiness with its Air Force and Marine variants in 2016, but the Navy's variant lags behind in part due to an issue with its nose gear during catapult-assisted takeoffs from aircraft carriers, Inside Defense uncovered on Wednesday. Essentially the problem, detailed in a Navy report with data dating back to 2014, deals with rough takeoffs that hurt and disorient pilots at the critical moment when they're taking off from a carrier.

The Pentagon's red team found the problem was due to several factors central to the plane's design, and recommended several fixes that will take several months to several years to fully fix. The report states that long term actions to address the problem will not take place until 2019, at which point they'll take 12-36 months to implement. Redesigns to the plane, as well as to carriers, may be necessary to fully address the problem.

A Pentagon deficiency report in 2015 stated that extreme movements in the cockpit during launch risked pilot health. One hundred and five pilots completing catapult launches rated their level of pain or discomfort on a scale of one to five. Of the 105, 74 pilots reported "moderate" pain or a 3, 18 pilots reported "severe" pain or a 4, and one pilot reported "severe pain that persists" after launching from an aircraft carrier. "The oscillations shake the pilot's head sufficiently to impair their ability to consistently read flight critical data, which poses a safety of flight risk," reads the report cited by Inside Defense.

This pain, more than a mere inconvenience, threatens the ability of pilots to read flight-critical data as they perform the complicated task of launching from a moving platform at sea. Exacerbating the problem, some pilots locked down their harnesses to avoid jostling around during the launch, but this makes it more difficult for the pilot to eject, should they need to........

[SpazSinbad]

I'm told that persons may take advantage of a free month for Navy newsletter to see this full article. I cannot so take what I have been given on good faith - this is what Lute Generale Bogged Down has said re above issue:
"...F-35 Program Executive Officer Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan told reporters during a Dec. 19 roundtable at his office in Arlington, VA, "there's no doubt" his team has to find a solution to the nose gear.

However, he stressed, "the only time that is a problem with the C model is at very light gross weights. At medium weights and at heavy weights you don't see this problem at all."

Bogdan said his office is considering numerous short-term fixes, including changing the way pilots strap themselves into the aircraft and how they hold the straps.

"The long-term fix surely would be one that you would mechanically fix so that you don't have to make the pilots do any kind of special combinations," Bogdan said. "That fix is probably a couple of years off."..."
https://insidedefense.com/daily-news/pentagon-establishes-red-team-investigate-f-35c-nose-gear-issues-recommends-possible

[Royalistflyer]

I have been told by those who know a lot that I don't (naval architects), that fitting arrestor gear to Queen Elizabeth would be relatively (??) simple (when an engineer says "relatively simple" I worry), quite feasible and not prohibitively expensive. The Indians have an ongoing discussion regarding Rafale because the French have said that Rafale is STOBAR capable and the Indians see it as usable on both their STOBAR and CATOBAR carriers. So I repeat, why not cut our losses, fit arrestors and buy Rafale? More to the point, it would mean that our carriers were capable then of embarking future aircraft that were STOBAR capable.

[PhilipG]

Why is it with the F35 that there are always two diametrically opposite stories out there?

There was a great fan fare about how successful the latest F35C trials on a carrier had been, you think sensible Navy doing a lot of test and development with a few test aircraft, less cost in the future with concurrency etc. Not wanting to get the F35 into the front line till 3F software is proven so it is a full warfighting system, seems very sensible.

Then we find that the wings are not strong enough to carry wing tip missiles and a catapult launch is a painful and possibly dangerous experience, that needs an engineering solution...

Does this possible two year development program for a fix mean that the Navy's IOC is put back as well?

[Just This Once...]

"During a catapult launch the nose landing gear strut is compressed as the catapult pulls on the nose landing gear, with the hold back bar restraining the aircraft from forward movement due to engine thrust," according to a Dec. 28 Navy information paper viewed by Inside Defense. "Upon release of the hold back bar, the nose landing gear strut unloads and vertically oscillates as the aircraft accelerates towards take-off."

The motion is not only uncomfortable but the Helmet-Mounted Display and oxygen mask push back and up and down against the pilot's jaw. The jostling in the cockpit results in unreadable HMD during and immediately after launch, the paper reads.

C&P from elsewhere.

[sandiego89]

Royalistflyer: So I repeat, why not cut our losses, fit arrestors and buy Rafale?


I do think that time has well past unless the F-35B is somehow cut or fails. The debate has raged for years, and there were a few flip flops, but things have been firmly settled to proceed with STOVL. The costs of the arresting gear are only part of the mix: increased training requirements, less capable 4th generation aircraft, the inherit limitations/dangers of the ski jump and conventional aircraft (follow the Russian Carrier thread)....


Out of curiosity, why the leap to Rafale over Super Hornet? I imagine the Super Hornet could do the ski-jump (earlier Hornets were trialed), and comes in several flavors, the single seat E, twin seat F and with the jamming version the G. I would think a few G's would be nice to have IF the QE had a conventional air wing.

[SpazSinbad]

Having seen the long 'InsideDefense' article quoted above (available for FREE viewing temporarily if Navy Newsletter selected) then the odd phrase innit "...how they [the pilots] hold the straps...." should read: "...how the pilots hold/grab the 'hand-hold (grab bar) during the catapult stroke....".

[Lyneham Lad]

Ref the head movement on take-off, it was clearly a problem (http://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/424953-f-35-cancelled-then-what-483.html#post9484575) even to a non-naval non-aviator like me!

Snip from post in Aug 2016
Stray thoughts ref the video in #9651:-
The pilot's head/neck take quite a vertical and axial jolt as take-off is initiated. Future spinal/nerve problems?

[Engines]

Royalist, Sandie,

Perhaps I can help a little here.

it's my understanding (from a very reliable source) that fitting arresting gear to the QEC carriers wouldn't be simple, is on the very edge of being feasible, and prohibitively expensive.The situation might have been different in 2000, but since then these ships have been designed and completed on the assumption of 'no catapults or arresting gear'.

What then happened was that the spaces that were 'reserved' for cat and trap gear was given over for other uses - it's simply not practical to sail a warship around with great empty spaces in it. In the case of arresting gear, the spaces involved were very large, and have been used to house the extremely large mission planning areas demanded by the F-35 team.

Now, imagine you now wanted to install arresting gear. You take ALL the gear out of the mission planning areas and put it on the dockside. Fit the arresting gear. Now, where does the mission planning gear go? Right, just empty a few other compartments, install the mission planning gear and - you have got an equally big pile go stuff on the dockside from the compartments you've just emptied. And you've had to re-plumb all the power, cooling, data and comms services you put into the original MP areas into the new ones.

Repeat the above process about ten more times. Not simple, feasible or cheap. The time to do all this was 2000. Trying to do it in 2010-12 was a nonsense, as the team working the issues after the SDSR 2010 decision found. Trying to do it in 2017 would bee a nonsense on stilts. In my view. It's a free forum, others may disagree.

STOBAR options and Rafale. I seem to have said this quite a few times, but using a ramp to launch a conventional (i.e. non-STOVL) aircraft isn't especially efficient. In brief, a STOVL aircraft can launch from a ramp at below flying speed, but use both wing lift and vectored thrust to manage the decrease in rate of climb so that the aircraft rapidly and controllably achieves full wing borne flight about 1 km out from ramp exit. It can do this at just about max TOGW.

Conventional aircraft can't vector their thrust. With only wing lift available, their only option to manage rate of climb after ramp exit is by using pitch angle (assuming they are at max thrust). They also need to achieve a minimum speed for acceptable control, as they don't have the low speed flight control systems that STOVL aircraft have. (The BAES 'Sea Typhoon' project eventually had to admit that they would need to add a reaction control system to allow safe launch at forecast ramp end speeds). Ramp exit speed is directly linked to launch weight. Higher the weight, lower the speed.

This means that conventional aircraft flying off ramps have limited payload and restricted launch criteria. Look at any films and you'll rarely (if ever) see any external stores on the jets. The Chinese Navy even went public a few years ago to berate their own aircraft designers for giving them aircraft that had almost no effective payload. The Chinese are working hard to get more powerful engines fitted (I believe) - that will help, but not so much.

I have no doubt that a Rafale could get off a ramp. So could an F/A-18. But not carrying much payload. Just physics at work.

Hope this helps a little, best regards as ever to all those new to this carrier aviation stuff,

Engines

[MSOCS]

Spot on Engines. Your recall of the QE 'spaces' was briefed not a short time ago. As Sandiego eludes, the time to consider Cat and Trap has truly passed without horrendously expensive retrofit which this country can simply not afford.

More generally, the capability/cost equation doesn't favour Rafale or S Hornet; I.e. investing into legacy platforms for 80% of the cost of an F-35 which is new and has the growth built in to tackle threats for the next 35+ years.

[Just This Once...]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jJbVdOmdsSE

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CBsgIBO5ry0

Shows the pogo departure quite well.

[glad rag]

Well, at least he was half right!

Beats being 100% wrong!


1526

right back at ya!!


:eek:

your going to tell me now that you've never seen the movie dodgeball

[glad rag]

Thanks Engines and "guys" some solid info there 're t/o performance and fuel management issues that still appear to be becoming more demanding and critical to succesful airframe operations.

One question though, why would there be a need for such extremely large mission planning areas if F35 were not on the carriers?

[SpazSinbad]

Some more 'bouncing bonny boyos' - this time Shornets:

VFA-102 Diamondback Super Hornet Cats 2013 Inside View

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

SLOW MOTION Catapult Super Hornet F/A-18E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75IDLJD1qp4

[Engines]

Glad,

I'll try to answer the question as best I can.

The F-35 requires some seriously high end mission planning capability. The RN has historically underestimated the facilities required to support offensive air ops, and was determined not to do so this time. The baseline designs for the QEC always had large mission planning spaces, and when the STOVL option was chosen, the large compartments on 2 deck above the aft hangar which were designed to be able to take four very large arresting engines were basically too good not to use.

At the end of the day, a primary requirement for the QEC was to be able to support high rate offensive air ops. That drove the mission planning space requirements.

Hope this helps a little, best regards to all those shuffling the spaces,

Engines

[Just This Once...]

Mission planning directly below the deck wouldn't meet my definition of 'too good not to use'. Presumably they have been rather focused on reducing the noise?

[Engines]

JTO,

Perhaps I can help here.

There's always been a challenge in locating large spaces on a carrier - which is always a crowded ship, no matter how big. The QEC class is unusual (for a UK carrier) in that it has a continuous deck located one level below the flight deck, and above the hangar. (This has been called a 'gallery deck'.) This generates a lot of additional compartments, and also a space that is tailor made for the very large 'arresting engines' required for cat and trap. As the QEC design was required to provide a structural space for this kit, large compartments were therefore designed into this 'gallery deck'.

Early on in the F-35 programme, it became clear that the mission planning task for this data intensive aircraft was going to require spaces that were not only large, but also able to handle very classified information. There were also pressures to locate the spaces higher up in the ship to provide short routes for the physical transfer of data from MP areas to the aircraft, and (not incidentally) shorter distances for the aircrew to get to and from their aircraft.

Using the large arresting gear structural spaces for the mission planning suites was an obvious and (in my view) sensible solution.

Lots of people will work on this gallery deck, some will even sleep on it. (Much like most carriers). Yes, there will be some noise, but there will also be hell of a lot of soundproofing and insulation. All part of that seagoing stuff.

Hope this helps, best regards as ever to all those working on board, on whatever decks,

Engines

[MSOCS]

Engines,

Though the spaces designed have been generous, and to the requirement set, thank you for highlighting the classified part. There has been a hard challenge and significant expenditure of effort on getting the right compartments accredited to support Program-level data handling. Not to forget that other, non-F-35B aviation (and other nations' embarked F-35B), also need spaces to plan, brief, debrief too.

Pleased to report that all is well in the aftermath so we should be 'good to go' for First Of Class Flying Trials.

[MSOCS]

US Air Force Pleus talks F-35 - Business Insider (http://uk.businessinsider.com/general-pleus-on-f35-2017-1?r=US&IR=T)

[SpazSinbad]

Talk about swing low sweet chariot....
"...I think we (the UK) have a huge advantage as both of these capabilities — F-35 and Queen Elizabeth Class — were designed with each other in mind from the very beginning. Having visited NAS Fallon with the RN last week, it is clear from the US Navy that live virtual constructive training will be crucial to understand both transformations and exploit the next generation capabilities that they bring.

"The USN were very interested in our purchase of DMRT, the deployed mission-ready trainers, essentially a portable full mission simulator [FMS], one of which is already in place at Edwards AFB to support our Operational Test and Evaluation effort.

"...Deployable Mission Rehearsal Trainers (DMRT) The less-complex DMRT design has two cockpits with smaller visual displays and is mounted in a container that can be easily transported from site to site...."

Two containers are will be ‘hung’ in the hangar deck of the Queen Elizabeth Class Carriers, which allows us to practice any number of scenarios from carrier flying to high-end training to our heart’s content on board the ship. The ability to be able to mission rehearse or even problem solve with this capability is a step into the next generation of warfare.

The next step will be connecting that across to the Typhoon simulators off the ship in order to be able to remotely participate in 4th/5th gen training. There’s work in progress at the moment in terms of connecting a range of different simulators in the UK and not just in the air domain...." The Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force Prepare for Cross-Domain Transformation: The F-35 and the Queen Elizabeth Carrier | SLDInfo (http://www.sldinfo.com/the-royal-navy-and-the-royal-air-force-prepare-for-cross-domain-transformation-the-f-35-and-the-queen-elizabeth-carrier/)

[ORAC]

The knives are out for the next session in Congress. The following is from the National Review - about as close as the neocons have to a house magazine.

F-35 -- Donald Trump Should Cancel the Failed F-35 Fighter Jet Program | National Review (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443612/f-35-donald-trump-should-cancel-failed-f-35-fighter-jet-program)

[glad rag]

Maybe its a Kremlin hack ORAC

[sandiego89]

The knives are out for the next session in Congress. The following is from the National Review - about as close as the neocons have to a house magazine.

F-35 -- Donald Trump Should Cancel the Failed F-35 Fighter Jet Program | National Review (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443612/f-35-donald-trump-should-cancel-failed-f-35-fighter-jet-program)


Actually some pretty good points in there, especially about flawed requirements, the true costs & "IOC" we have been slogging about in this thread. I do believe the "hurry up and buy more of these things" is a pretty big ploy to get firmly past the "too big to fail threshold". But if anyone can rock the corporate world, it seems President elect Trump has and will. Must be some long nights in some corporate board rooms....

[Lyneham Lad]

[Conspiracy hat on] But will the military/industrial complex allow him to interfere...[/Conspiracy hat off] :eek: :suspect:

[riff_raff]

The knives are out for the next session in Congress. The following is from the National Review - about as close as the neocons have to a house magazine.

F-35 -- Donald Trump Should Cancel the Failed F-35 Fighter Jet Program | National Review (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443612/f-35-donald-trump-should-cancel-failed-f-35-fighter-jet-program)

In case you didn't notice, National Review made a concerted effort to prevent Trump from being elected President. The F-35 aircraft models are also far more capable than media reports suggest.

[ORAC]

In case you didn't notice, National Review made a concerted effort to prevent Trump from being elected President. I know, the neocons loath him, that's partially the point. Not only do you have Trump railing against the F-35, now you have those politically opposite him as well. The F-35 is starting to run out of friends.

[MSOCS]

I know you'd like to think that ORAC but nearly every fighter program in history has been derided at the time.

It'll pass...keep jogging.

[glad rag]

10 Days and counting.

I don't think he'll ****can the ENTIRE F35 program mind....

Just the really useless variant [s]...:E

[Lonewolf_50]

The F-35 is starting to run out of friends. I don't think so.

For further reading, see The Pentagon Paradox (https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Pentagon_Paradox.html?id=SpTfAAAAMAAJ)which was an attempt to excoriate the F-18 program. The Hornet survived and has done well enough. I read that book a couple of years after it came out. An interesting read, in particular its critique of the acquisition process.

That process hasn't gotten much better over the years, as entwined as it is in politics and spreading out federal funds to many districts. F-35, IIRC, has production among contractors and subs in over 100 districts. I am pretty sure that this was a deliberate decision at least on the Congressional side. A little something for everyone, more or less - everyone gets a share. (Milo Minderbender, Catch-22).

[Turbine D]

Original Quote by Lonewolf _50: I don't think so.
I don't think so either. This was a political program set up by Congress with the intent to generate jobs across the entire US with little attention paid to logistics of such a complicated product. So now, you have in place a Party (Republican) and a elected President (Trump) who ran heavily on jobs, job creation, not job elimination. Unless the program turns into an unmitigated disaster (it isn't), nothing is going to knock the F-35 program off the tracks as there are no programs generating jobs to compare to the F-35 program on the horizon. Regardless of what Trump blusters about, a reminder of his job creation mantra by Congressional folks will overcome his negative F-35 program Tweets and he will move onto something else...

[SpazSinbad]

Lord LuvAduck spews 62 pages about the F-35 - Gilmore needs an ANTIdote - but hey:

http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2016/pdf/dod/2016f35jsf.pdf (0.9Mb)

Do I need to quote anything? Youse knows it all already so no cutee/pastie.

[ORAC]

First F-35B Squadron Moves to Japan (http://www.defensenews.com/articles/first-f-35b-squadron-moves-to-japan)

WASHINGTON — A Marine Corps F-35B squadron has transferred from the United States to Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni in Japan, marking the first permanent international deployment of the joint strike fighter, the service announced Tuesday.

Marine Corps spokesman Capt Kurt Stahl told Defense News that 10 F-35Bs from Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 121 (VMFA-121) departed Marine Corps Air Station Yuma in Arizona on Monday, with the first jets slated to arrive in Japan on Wednesday. All 10 F-35s will arrive at Iwakuni by Thursday. Eventually, an additional six jets will be relocated from Yuma to Iwakuni, bringing the squadron up to a full 16 aircraft. VMFA-121 is a part of the 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing.........

[ORAC]

Lord LuvAduck spews 62 pages about the F-35 :hmm::hmm:

You mean the Director of the Operational Test and Evaluation Directorate of the United States Department of Defense annual report to Congress on the F-35 program? :hmm:

[SpazSinbad]

Gotta give you credit 'ORAC' - you are sharp.

[ORAC]

Since you were making an as hominem attack on the gentleman in question - plus making a preemptive attempt to stop discussion of this year's paper I consider d it need to be said.

It obviously got under your skin - must contain some seriously adverse comment on the program. Obviously worth everyone reading and discussing.

......The Defense Department’s F-35 program office “has no plan to adequately fix and verify hundreds of these deficiencies using flight testing within its currently planned schedule and resources,” Gilmore wrote. Deploying F-35s “with capable mission systems is critical to our national security,” but the program now “is at high risk of sacrificing essential combat performance,” he added..........

[T28B]

within its currently planned schedule and resources,”
This appears to be code for "{the program says} give us more money to get those tests done in a more timely manner." ORAC, is that how it came across to you?


I think most of us are aware that full mission systems testing can get expensive.

[glad rag]

And therefore can be "offset" until operational use throws up "issues"?

par for the "program"...

[ORAC]

When it fails to meet the specification, it's not our fault, you should have given us more money.

When it proves unable to perform essential operational tasks, it's not our fault and it's to late now, so change the spec to meet what you've got.

Did we say it's not our fault and we need more money?

[glad rag]

"Did we say it's not our fault and we need more money?"

"Or else"....

[glad rag]

Shares of Lockheed Martin, the maker of the F-35 fighter jet, are falling after President-elect Donald Trump attacked the cost of the program during his press conference on Wednesday.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/lockheed-martin-sliding-trump-comments-press-conference-january-11-2017-1?r=US&IR=T

[ORAC]

SHOCK!! HORROR!! SURPRISE!!

Who'da thunk or forecast it........ :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

KQveng3Wxz8

F-35 delayed — again — despite CEO's promise to Trump (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/f-35-delayed-again-despite-ceos-promise-to-trump/article/2611432)

The F-35 will be delayed an additional seven months at a cost of at least $500 million despite a recent promise from Lockheed Martin's CEO to drive down costs, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee said Tuesday.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., in a statement, said the CEO's personal promise to President-elect Trump was "surprising" given a letter he received from the Pentagon last month detailing the latest delay. "This is yet another troubling sign for a program that has already nearly doubled in cost, taken nearly two decades to field, and has long been the poster child for acquisition malpractice," McCain said.

After trashing the program's rising costs on Twitter, Trump met with Lockheed Martin CEO Marillyn Hewson in late December, when she offered her "personal commitment" to "aggressively" drive down the cost of the most expensive acquisition project ever undertaken by the Pentagon. But if she intends to do that, McCain said she had better be ready to explain how. "If Lockheed Martin believes it is possible to aggressively drive down the cost of the F-35, it is time for the company to reveal its plans to do so to the Congress and to American taxpayers," he said.

The seven-month delay means the system development and demonstration phase of the program won't be completed until May 2018, according to a letter Frank Kendall, the acquisition, technology and logistics undersecretary, sent to McCain. McCain said the delay just shows the need to further reform the acquisition process, something he intends to focus on as chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

[glad rag]

SHOCK!! HORROR!! SURPRISE!!

Who'da thunk or forecast it........ :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:


F-35 delayed — again — despite CEO's promise to Trump (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/f-35-delayed-again-despite-ceos-promise-to-trump/article/2611432)

The F-35 will be delayed an additional seven months at a cost of at least $500 million despite a recent promise from Lockheed Martin's CEO to drive down costs, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee said Tuesday.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., in a statement, said the CEO's personal promise to President-elect Trump was "surprising" given a letter he received from the Pentagon last month detailing the latest delay. "This is yet another troubling sign for a program that has already nearly doubled in cost, taken nearly two decades to field, and has long been the poster child for acquisition malpractice," McCain said.

After trashing the program's rising costs on Twitter, Trump met with Lockheed Martin CEO Marillyn Hewson in late December, when she offered her "personal commitment" to "aggressively" drive down the cost of the most expensive acquisition project ever undertaken by the Pentagon. But if she intends to do that, McCain said she had better be ready to explain how. "If Lockheed Martin believes it is possible to aggressively drive down the cost of the F-35, it is time for the company to reveal its plans to do so to the Congress and to American taxpayers," he said.

The seven-month delay means the system development and demonstration phase of the program won't be completed until May 2018, according to a letter Frank Kendall, the acquisition, technology and logistics undersecretary, sent to McCain. McCain said the delay just shows the need to further reform the acquisition process, something he intends to focus on as chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Ref
http://www.npr.org/2017/01/11/509137239/watch-live-trump-holds-first-press-conference-as-president-elect
(http://www.npr.org/2017/01/11/509137239/watch-live-trump-holds-first-press-conference-as-president-elect)

"I'm very much involved with the generals and admirals on the airplane, the F-35 you’ve been reading about it.

And it’s way, way behind schedule and many billions of dollars over budget.

I don't like that.


And the admirals have been fantastic. The generals have been fantastic. I've really gotten to know them well.


And we’re going to do some big things on the F-35 program and perhaps the F-18 program.



And we’re going to get those costs way down, and we’re gonna get the plane to be even better and we’re going to have to some competition.


And it’s going to be a beautiful thing. "


Wow never realised the Donald was a hippy at heart...man..

[sandiego89]

Spaz.... http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2016/pdf/dod/2016f35jsf.pdf


Lots of interesting stuff in that report. Really highlights how much more still needs to be done/fixed, and numerous potential problems down the road.


For some reason empty weight caught my eye in making me truly appreciate how big and heavy this thing is- and I know there have been numerous debates about performance perhaps being lacking, but it is indeed quite impressive that anything this heavy can do what it can do on a single engine.


Actual empty weights as per the report:
A 28,999 pounds (AF-72)
B 32,442 pounds (BF-44)
C 34,581 pounds (CF-28)


Those empty weights are @ F-15E territory.

[Just This Once...]

It's not really that much bigger than an F-16 (although it is rather fat round the middle) and yes, it really is rather heavy.


http://combatace.com/uploads/monthly_09_2015/post-8064-0-10524500-1442692204.png

[2805662]

http://www.janes.com/article/66908/lockheed-martin-delivers-200th-f-35-fighter?utm_campaign=%5BPMP%5D_PC5308_Jane%27s%20360%2013.01 .20171_KP_Deployment&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Eloqua

"The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) programme passed a milestone in early 2017 with the delivery of the 200th aircraft, it was announced on 12 January."

[Martin the Martian]

Getting costs down AND making it even better?

Isn't that like lowering taxes AND increasing spending?

I've never understood how that works either.

[A_Van]

Referring to the F-35 part of the DOTE 2016 annual report:

Can't judge about mechanics and likes, but on the software side (both flight s/w and JSE) the problem seems to be rather universal (worldwide).
Too much critrical software in such modern systems, while most of the talented guys prefer to go to googles, apples, yahoos, etc.

[Bing]

Too much critrical software in such modern systems, while most of the talented guys prefer to go to googles, apples, yahoos, etc.

The guys at google, apple, etc aren't that talented. Most of Google's software is permanently in beta and the 'rocket scientists' at Uber have so far managed a self-driving car that can knock down cyclists and which they tried to claim wasn't self-driving to get round Californian law. Apple are responsible for iTunes which is basically a virus with mouse support.
It may just be that writing critical software that doesn't have glitches is really really hard.

[MSOCS]

Bing,

Bingo!

[ORAC]

It's not that it is necessarily hard - but in the commercial market place it is unnecessary.

As Microsoft found, there is no money in fixing bugs, nobody will pay for a fixed version, they want new features. So you work on a new product and only fix the critical ones.

Accepted it doesn't work that way for safety critical systems, but horses for courses and you won't find any commercial PC or phone running ADA......

[A_Van]

OK, I respect your opinion, but still have mine. I wonder if you are in high-tech s/w business now to be so sure? I am, for many years after my retirement, and I see and periodically hear about that in many countries around the world. Even some 15-20 years ago it was already the case at NASA and some its primes which I worked with.

I have no time to thoroughly look for some recent numbers, but the following article dated 2008 is still valid I think:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/25/us/25engineercnd.html

There, Paul Kaminski is mentioned - a person whom I respect greatly and who managed to raise the bar for advanced software technologies very high when he was Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology (mid 90's).


Here is an excerpt from the above article with some numbers (NYT, not a Russian propaganda :-) I also hope you know what is M.I.T.


---
"At M.I.T., a 2007 survey showed 28.7 percent of undergraduates were headed for work in finance, 13.7 in management consulting but just 7.5 percent in aerospace and defense. The top 10 employers included McKinsey, Google, Morgan Stanley, Lehman Brothers, Bain, JP Morgan and Oracle — but not a single defense contractor or government office.
The same survey showed the average annual starting salary in finance and high-tech was more than $70,000, compared with $37,000 at the Defense Department. The average in the defense industry was $61,000.
MIT does not have comparable survey data for 10 or 15 years ago, but officials there say the trend is unmistakeable."

[Lonewolf_50]

If I may tag on to A Van's point.

Just under two decades ago I was working on acquisition projects directly associated with an aerospace OEM. The DoD requirements for CMM (Capability Maturity Model) for critical software development had levels 1-5. The OEM we were working for was trying mightily to achieve the level 3 as a milestone for an APN-1 acquisition program. (This is late 90's when the software/tech bubble had not yet burst)


Their constant frustration was that it was damnably hard for them to attract and keep the talent levels (from new talent to mature/experienced talent with years of programming experience) available in the labor market.


I don't know how much that has changed. I do know that there is an attraction in the Silicon Valley culture to get on with a start up in hopes that one's shares do for you what Google shares did for those who got in on the ground floor: earn you a tidy sum when that start up goes public.


Also attractive to some programmers is writing "that one app" that everyone uses and getting well paid for that. That's attractive from both the creative and the monetary perspective.

Being salaried and working for a medium sized or large company does not necessarily offer those kinds of rewards. (A friend of mine who works in computer game development has shared with me how very satisfying it is when the game "goes gold" and they can start producing discs for what will end up on the shelf ... though now a lot of games are streamed/downloaded rather than sold in a box).

I don't know the current state of play in the software/programmer labor market, but I'll guess it hasn't changed that much.

Also, what Bing said. Writing clean code for complex, interrelated systems with flight safety implications is hard. This from a few of my friends who are in the programming business.

[Al R]

Lockheed Martin CEO: Close to deal to lower F-35 costs, add 1,800 jobs - Business Insider (http://uk.businessinsider.com/trump-lockheed-martin-ceo-marillyn-hewson-f35-costs-jobs-2017-1?r=US&IR=T)

[ORAC]

Lowering costs at the same time as adding 1800 jobs does seem somewhat problematical.

[Al R]

It makes you wonder where the money for the next round of R&D is going to come from.

[Lonewolf_50]

It makes you wonder where the money for the next round of R&D is going to come from.
Please pardon my cynicism, but if recent history is anything to go by, the government will just print it. :p

[The Sultan]

The new Republican budget adds 9 TRILLION dollars to the US deficit before tax cuts so money no issue. Any F-35 cost reductions will come by eliminating needed capability. So that cost lives, the Republicans don't care because they are not going to be on the front lines risking their lives. Added plus it will make their new buddy Putin happy.

The Sultan

[Maus92]

Lots of interesting stuff in that report. Really highlights how much more still needs to be done/fixed, and numerous potential problems down the road.


For some reason empty weight caught my eye in making me truly appreciate how big and heavy this thing is- and I know there have been numerous debates about performance perhaps being lacking, but it is indeed quite impressive that anything this heavy can do what it can do on a single engine.


Actual empty weights as per the report:
A 28,999 pounds (AF-72)
B 32,442 pounds (BF-44)
C 34,581 pounds (CF-28)


Those empty weights are @ F-15E territory.

The report mentions that it is expected that F-35B will exceed its threshold weight numbers when incorporating modifications necessary for version 3F at the end of SDD.

[SpazSinbad]

Is this the reference text that 'Maus92' has cited?
"...Weight management of the F-35B aircraft is critical to meeting the Key Performance Parameters (KPPs) in the Operational Requirements Document (ORD), including the Vertical Landing Bring-Back (VLBB) requirement, which will be evaluated during IOT&E. This KPP requires the F-35B to be able to fly an operationally representative profile and recover to the ship with the necessary fuel and balance of unexpended weapons (two 1,000-pound bombs and two AIM-120 missiles) to safely conduct a vertical landing.

▪▪ The program completed the final weight assessment of the F-35B air vehicle for contract specification compliance in May 2015 with the weighing of BF-44, a Lot 7 production aircraft. Actual empty aircraft weight was 32,442 pounds, only 135 pounds below the planned not-to-exceed weight of 32,577 pounds and 307 pounds (less than 1 percent) below the objective VLBB not‑to‑exceed weight of 32,749 pounds.

▪▪ The actual weights of production aircraft through Lot 8 have increased slightly, with the latest Lot 8 aircraft weighing approximately 30 pounds heavier than BF-44. Weight estimates for Lot 10 aircraft and later project weight growth of an additional 90 pounds, primarily due to additional EW equipment.

▪▪ Known modifications to the 14 Lot 2 through 4 F-35B aircraft, required to bring those aircraft to the Block 3F configuration, are expected to potentially add an additional 350 pounds, which will push their weight above the objective not-to-exceed weight to meet the VLBB KPP. This KPP will be evaluated during IOT&E with an F-35B OT aircraft.

▪▪ Estimates for FoM weight growth include an additional 250 pounds, which will exceed the vertical landing structural limit not-to-exceed weight of 33,029 pounds for the Lot 2 through Lot 4 aircraft. This additional weight may prevent these aircraft from being upgraded to the Block 4 configuration...." page 63

[glad rag]

The F35, the return of the lead sled.

A awful lot of estimation going on Re weight and weight growth, it will be illuminating to see what actually happens in the real world on the scales...

[riff_raff]

The new Republican budget adds 9 TRILLION dollars to the US deficit before tax cuts so money no issue. Any F-35 cost reductions will come by eliminating needed capability. So that cost lives, the Republicans don't care because they are not going to be on the front lines risking their lives. Added plus it will make their new buddy Putin happy.

The Sultan

Say what? Do you even understand how the US federal government budget process works?

First, there is no such thing as a "Republican budget". The US budget is defined by a federal law passed by both Republicans and Democrats in Congress each year and signed by the President. The US budget becomes effective at the start of the fiscal year on October 1st.

Second, the FY 2017 US federal budget deficit is estimated to be approximately $560 billion, and not the $9 trillion that you claim.

Third, the portion of the US federal budget spent on defense is only around 18% of the total.

[RAFEngO74to09]

F-35As from 388 FW arriving at Nellis AFB for Ex REDG FLAG 17-1.

An unusually rainy day for my part of the world - hopefully bodge tape is not required around the cockpit frame edge like some UK jets I remember !

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rACWl1zRVaQ

[glad rag]

F-35As from 388 FW arriving at Nellis AFB for Ex REDG FLAG 17-1.

An unusually rainy day for my part of the world - hopefully bodge tape is not required around the cockpit frame edge like some UK jets I remember !

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rACWl1zRVaQ
Well..

..Still one of the very few aircraft in the world that is able to operate at low level, day or night and in poor weather, the Tornado is now equipped with a modern precision-guided weapons suite and world-class reconnaissance sensors such as the Reconnaissance Airborne Pod for Tornado (RAPTOR). The aircraft also carries the Litening III Advanced Targeting Pod, which is used in both attack and reconnaissance roles...

..The RAPTOR pod is one of the most advanced reconnaissance sensors in the world and greatly increases the effectiveness of the aircraft in the reconnaissance role. Its introduction into service gave the GR4 the ability to transmit, real-time Long Range Oblique Photography (LOROP) to commanders or to view this in cockpit during a mission. The stand-off range of the sensors also allows the aircraft to remain outside heavily defended areas, thus minimising the aircraft’s exposure to enemy air-defence systems. Additional capability in the Non-Traditional Intelligence Surveillance and Reconnaissance (NTISR) role is provided by the Litening III RD and the use of the ROVER data link for providing tactical operators with real time Full Motion Video (FMV) in the battle space...

...The aircraft can fly automatically at low level using Terrain Following Radar (TFR) when poor weather prevents visual flight. The aircraft is also equipped with Forward Looking InfraRed (FLIR) and is Night Vision Goggle (NVG) compatible. This gives it a relatively unique all weather night capability as well as making it an impressive platform for mounting passive night electro-optical operations.
For navigation purposes, the Tornado is equipped with an integrated Global Positioning Inertial Navigation System (GPINS). The GR4 also has a Ground Mapping Radar (GMR) to identify fix-points and update navigation systems as well as providing an air to air search facility. The GR4 is also equipped with a Laser Ranger and Marked Target Seeker (LRMTS) that can be used to locate targets designated on the ground or can provide accurate range information to ground targets...

..The Tornado GR4 is now equipped with the Storm Shadow missile and 2 variants of the Brimstone missile, including the most advanced DMS variant. The Storm Shadow allows the Tornado to make precision strikes in poor weather with a greatly increased stand-off range from the target area. Whilst legacy Brimstone provides the Tornado with an effective anti-armour weapon coupled with an enhanced stand-off range. The DMS variant enables unrivalled flexibility coupled with precision which is second to none.
In addition, the Tornado GR4 Force trains and maintains a capability with legacy weapons such as 1000lb class dumb weapons, legacy Paveway II and III as well as their enhanced variants...

... DMS and Legacy Brimstone, Enhanced Paveway II, Storm Shadow, , Paveway II, Paveway III, Paveway IV...

...and a WSO to bring it all together...and then there's the stuff that isn't talked about..

Sorry, what does the plastic pig bring to the party apart from "coming soon" folks/pass the hat around (again).

[KenV]

Sorry, what does the plastic pig bring to the party apart from "coming soon" folks/pass the hat around (again). "What's it bring?"

1. Where have you been? The new capabilities the F-35 brings to the battle have been discussed ad nauseam and the tactics to exploit those capabilities are now being developed. Including tactics that use the F-35 to significantly improve the effectiveness and lethality of legacy aircraft still in the forces.

2. The Tornado first flew 38 years ago and has been out of production for nearly TWO DECADES and the fielded aircraft are reaching the end of their service lives. The F-35 is at the very beginning of its operational/service cycle. How much better was Tornado than the aircraft it was replacing when Tornado first entered service? The F-35 brings far more capability at the beginning of its service cycle relative to the aircraft it will replace than Tornado did when it was first fielded.

3. Waiting for all the Tornados to die before developing and bringing into service a new aircraft is stoopid.

...and a WSO to bring it all togetherThe argument about a second flesh and blood crew member versus a digital computer will likely not be fully resolved in our lifetimes. In any event, the types and number of sensors and the sensor fusion provided by the F-35 systems by all accounts is far ahead of what legacy aircraft can do, even those with a 2nd crew member.

...and then there's the stuff that isn't talked about.. Do you really imagine that there's nothing that "isn't talked about" with regard to the F-35? Or are you saying the Tornado's secret stuff is better than F-35's secret stuff because you say so?

And finally there is the matter of stealth, which the Tornado cannot under any circumstance ever provide. Yeah, I know, "stealth is over rated." Tell that to USAF, USN, Israel, Denmark, and more than a few other national air arms.

[Heathrow Harry]

"The new capabilities the F-35 brings to the battle"

the problem is Ken that it isn't arriving.... those much desired capabilities keep moving to the right

[sandiego89]

what does the plastic pig bring to the party


I'm sure the "gooffers" would line the rail to witness a GR4 landing on the QE....

[glad rag]

I'm sure the "gooffers" would line the rail to witness a GR4 landing on the QE....
which brings us back to the diminishing range of naval aircraft over the last 3 decades or so..nicely bringing home base into ssm territory..

[glad rag]

"The new capabilities the F-35 brings to the battle"

the problem is Ken that it isn't arriving.... those much desired capabilities keep moving to the right
Well, after the PM's speech today, it seems we have signed up to a capability that is suddenly redundant and out-with the remit of the UK ex-expeditionary millitary doctrine.
What a surprise!

[Brat]

The F-35 as a weapon system is remarkable, the F-35 program no less so.

It has created a closer alliance between the participating countries who will be operating it, the the various armed forces who will be utilising it, and those who may have to go to combat in it.

To not recognise that is myopic.

There are many participating countries. Just one of them.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XR9g-4DFVvg

Sorry, what does the plastic pig bring to the party apart from "coming soon" folks/pass the hat around (again). ??????

[Brat]

From an ex military pilot who knows the plane.
https://www.f35.com/in-depth/detail/the-best-seat-in-the-house

[ORAC]

Looks like the Navy is getting its way and getting out of the F-35C programme, The various comments from sources in the article seem designed to lesson the impact of a final decision.

More interesting will be the effect on the F-35A buy - the Budget Office paper a few pages back comes to mind.


Mattis Orders Separate Reviews of F-35, Air Force One Programs | DoD Buzz (http://www.dodbuzz.com/2017/01/27/mattis-orders-restructuring-f-35-air-force-one-programs/)

[Heathrow Harry]

"It has created a closer alliance between the participating countries who will be operating it, the the various armed forces who will be utilising it, and those who may have to go to combat in it."

True, very true - they all suspect they've been sold a pup.......................

[MSOCS]

F-35 is better than Tornado and stealth negates the low level all-weather requirement. Moreover, everything else Tornado brings is a weapon capability, not one inherent in the aircraft; I know this because I've operated in both aircraft programmes and flown the GR4 on operations many times. That's not to detract from GR4's exceptional operational service record - few other aircraft have ever come close or beaten it in role. She is a true icon and has served the UK with distinction, but let your emotions for it go glad rag - she's nearing retirement and we now need F-35's capabilities to be prepared for the next 40 years or so. Most of the weapon capability you speak of is being transitioned to Typhoon, for exactly that reason.

Oh, and have another look at PM May's language. She said 'no longer would we intervene to make others in our own image'. She didn't say we wouldn't intervene to protect the UK's sovereign territory or national interests. That was purposeful and means that expeditionary warfare is NOT a thing of the past. c.f. Op SHADER: where we are fighting Daesh at range rather than on our own doorstep.

True, very true - they all suspect they've been sold a pup.......................

No, HH, you might suspect that, but you have no clue what we're really getting...clearly!

[FODPlod]

Well, after the PM's speech today, it seems we have signed up to a capability that is suddenly redundant and out-with the remit of the UK ex-expeditionary millitary doctrine.
What a surprise!
It sounds as though we are less likely to be trying to enforce regime change in third world countries or fighting nomads equipped with donkeys, AK-47s, RPGs and IEDs. How does that affect our requirement for the F-35?

"It has created a closer alliance between the participating countries who will be operating it, the the various armed forces who will be utilising it, and those who may have to go to combat in it."

True, very true - they all suspect they've been sold a pup.......................
A pup? Not according to the pilots.
(http://uk.businessinsider.com/f35-pilot-f-35-can-excel-dogfighting-2017-1) F-35 pilot: Here's what people don't understand about dogfighting, and how the F-35 excels at it (http://uk.businessinsider.com/f35-pilot-f-35-can-excel-dogfighting-2017-1)
According to Lt. Col. David "Chip" Berke, the only US Marine to fly both the F-22 and the F-35, the public has a lot of learning to do when assessing a jet's capability in warfare. "The whole concept of dogfighting is so misunderstood and taken out of context," Berke said in an interview with Business Insider. "We need to do a better job teaching the public how to assess a jet's capability in warfare."

"There is some idea that when we talk about dogfighting it's one airplane's ability to get another airplane's 6 and shoot it with a gun ... That hasn't happened with American planes in maybe 40 years," Berke said...

"We need to stop judging a fighter's ability based on wing loading and Gs," Berke said of analysts who prize specifications on paper over pilots' insights. Furthermore, Berke, who has several thousand flying hours in four different airplanes, both fourth and fifth generation, stressed that pilots train to negate or avoid conflicts within visual range — and he said no plane did that better than the F-35.F-35 Pilot Gives Scout Warrior an Inside Look at the Stealth Aircraft (http://www.scout.com/military/warrior/story/1670801-most-read-2016-pilot-s-view-flying-the-f-35)
Speaking to Scout Warrior as part of a special “Inside the Cockpit” feature on the F-35A, Air Force Col. Todd Canterbury, a former F-35 pilot and instructor, said the new fighter brings a wide range of new technologies including advanced sensors, radar, weapons for attack and next-generation computers.

Although he serves now as Chief, Operations Division of the F-35 Integration Office at the Pentagon, Canterbury previously trained F-35 pilots at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla. Canterbury is uniquely positioned to know the F-35’s margins of difference because he has spent thousands of hours flying legacy aircraft such as the service’s F-15 and F-16 fighters.

"The F-35 is a dream to fly. It is the easiest airplane to fly. I can now focus on employment and winning the battle at hand as opposed to looking at disparate information and trying to handle the airplane,” Canterbury told Scout Warrior... “If we don’t need stealth, I can load this up with weapons and be a bomb truck,” Canterbury explained... Just out of interest, what are your credentials for making such a pejorative statement?

[RAFEngO74to09]

VMFA-121 F-35Bs complete PCS from MCAS Yuma, AZ to MCAS Iwakuni, Japan upon reassignment to 1 MAW.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrmirvAA5xA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpXJcwuiFj0

[Heathrow Harry]

"but you have no clue what we're really getting...clearly!"

the trouble is the program is not moving anywhere near as fast as it should and we're not getting what we need when we need it

the latest problems with the MoD budget due to the exchange rate can only mean fewer UK F-35's in the long run

[MSOCS]

No, HH. Your previous comment - about F-35 being a pup - was clearly a dig at performance/capability and is completely unfounded. Trying to somehow make said comment about a scheduling issue is bolleaux. Let's actually see what happens to the buy plan herein, rather than second-guessing something which has yet to happen - by the way, the current delivery schedule was locked-in a number of years ago, before any of the current political/economical turbulence came up. Right now jets are being delivered within a month or two of that years-old plan I mentioned; over 200 delivered which is more than the entire production run of F-22.

So, frankly, I don't buy your opinion as fact.

PS - go ask the USAF how F-35A is getting on in Red Flag. Tell them it's a pup and take a photo of their faces. Then post it here with another armchair critic "guess" that you pulled out of your posterieur.

[glad rag]

but let your emotions for it go glad rag -

You see this has been the problem with your participation in this discussion, you always, always, take it to the personal, derogatory level.

I can only surmise that your hatred of what I and others post stems from not only the accuracy of our statements but that you,for whatever reason, feel personally threatened by the facts about both the airframes limitations and the ##mismanagement of the whole programme.


## obviously this depends on what side of the $$$$ line you're on.

[Brat]

GR your trolling appears to suggest that no other aircraft program has ever had these sorts of problems.

Your statements are extremely general, and could be applicable to almost any development program for any piece of advanced equipment.

You appear to be reluctant to give any credentials for your opposition to the F-35.

[MSOCS]

No GR, I have no hatred. None at all. But I do sit in a position whereby I've flown GR4, on ops, and understand the F-35 Program. My comparison is therefore not clouded by a personal hate for the F-35, unlike yours. It is one from the cockpit, knowing the capabilities. Yours is????

You have failed to state your credentials many times. Yes, we banter, but that's what folk often do on PPRuNe. Where I draw the line is when, in trying to point out errors in some of the statements, you immediately assume I'm a paid "shill", which would currently be be both immoral and illegal if it were true. You've done it again in your last reply, without evidence. I'm still under Crown employment ffs.

[Heathrow Harry]

MSCOS - it's just not good enough to say that "all advanced programmes overrun"

This one has become such an important programme to the whole of teh Western military that it's under the icroscope constantly but I'm sure that even you would have to admit it's a real mess - and there is little sign that it's really under control even now

LM and USAF have announced that all is well so many times - only to annouce further delays and overruns - is it any surprise that no-one believes a word they say anymore?

[MSOCS]

HH, I have never denied the Program is both late (not too late though) and over cost (it is way over total Program cost). The unit price will settle within 10% of the goal - if it doesn't, Trump will axe it. That's what his statements on F-35 really mean, whilst giving the USN some options to plug their fighter gap with SHornet until F-35C's problems are ironed out some more. I'm not an apologist but take issue with unfounded leaps of faith, such as the one you made about F-35 being a "pup", under suspicion by those receiving/buying it. The customers are very aware of what they are getting. People fear what they do not understand and the journos snatch the little snippets they get and publish. Those snippets are often wholly taken out of context. The IOT&E report is 'warts and all' but dangerous when interpreted by those who aren't necessarily able to view them in the context of the entire system capability. Therefore they are unable to answer the question 'what does this mean then?', often bridging the gap with assumption and WAGs.

Whether you believe LM, or don't, is a personal judgement. The USAF declared IOC, end-of. Be critical and suspicious if you will, but when I occasionally point out that the mountain is awesome even though the mole hills are problematic, I'm being honest, not paid to say so.

There are things that affect the Program, outside of the Office's control. From where I sit, things are pretty stable now but the new administration may alter that.

Will the Program be cancelled? I sincerely doubt it.

[Rhino power]

Everyone can now relax, the F-35 is now better than ever, all thanks to the Donald, apparently... :hmm:

F-35 A 'Great Plane' Now, Thanks To President Trump (http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/f-35-a-great-plane-now-thanks-to-president-trump-1791824958?utm_medium=sharefromsite&utm_source=Foxtrot_Alpha_facebook)

-RP

[Lyneham Lad]

Everyone can now relax, the F-35 is now better than ever, all thanks to the Donald, apparently...

F-35 A 'Great Plane' Now, Thanks To President Trump

For the F35C on the other hand... (Flight Global)
US defense secretary orders immediate review of F-35 and Air Force One (https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-defense-secretary-orders-immediate-review-of-f-3-433607/?cmpid=NLC%7CFGFG%7CFGFDN-2017-0201-GLOBnews&sfid=70120000000taAm)

Although Trump has criticised the entire F-35 programme, the review will take only the C variant into consideration, which accounts for the smallest share of Lockheed’s programme of record. The Super Hornet needs a catapult to launch from a carrier and would not be able to replace the short-takeoff and vertical landing B variant.

“In parallel, the deputy secretary of defense will oversee a review that compares F-35C and F/A-18E/F operational capabilities and assess the extent that the F/A-18E/F improvements (an advanced Super Hornet) can be made in order to provide a competitive, cost effective, fighter aircraft alternative,” Mattis writes.

The decision to pit the F-35C against an advanced Super Hornet follows Trump’s 21 December tweet, which targeted the F-35 programme’s cost overruns and suggested Boeing price out a “comparable Super Hornet.” While even an advanced Super Hornet is unable to compete with the F-35 in terms of stealth, FlightGlobal previously noted the F/A-18E/F could provide a natural, non-very low observable (VLO) stealth replacement for the C variant. The Super Hornet could still perform well against less sophisticated threats.

[Brat]

Like most ‘Presidents/Heads of State’ to be, after confirmation a string of people line up with the mass of 'need to know' stuff they never knew before.

The 'Oh my’s’ ‘Good Heavens’ “ Really!!!’ and ‘well I never knew that’ must be something else, as all of a sudden a whole new perspective opens up for them on a multitude of issues, programs and state secrets.

Most of them begin ageing visibly from then on until they either step down or die.

Trump has obviously had a period of being quietly brought up to speed on the F-35, something sadly that will not be available to it’s multitude of detractors who will happily continue badmouth something they know not a lot about.

[MSOCS]

You've just eloquently described PPRuNe Brat, but particularly this thread.

[Turbine D]

Brat,
Trump has obviously had a period of being quietly brought up to speed on the F-35, something sadly that will not be available to it’s multitude of detractors who will happily continue badmouth something they know not a lot about.
You are sure about that? I'd bet against your reasoning. Example: One of Trump's major pillars of US policy support was for Netanyahoo's settlement enlargement plans ( Tweet: I am all in for you on this, your friend, Donald). Today he took the 180 degree opposite position, don't do it, hold off Netanyahoo. Trump bounces off the wall from one day to the next relative to any substantial convictions he might have about anything. It has nothing to do with advise given or not.

Time to sit back and see what his viewpoints will be in the near future on the F-35, it will not be the same as now... He is early to take credit for the good things he didn't have a hand in (I negotiated a good deal on the F-35) but never takes credit for anything that fails, just his nature... :ok:

[Brat]

Learned not to sure about anything. As for your assessment on Trump, it follows my own.

I do however stand on my point about people taking power being ‘enlightened’.

Guantanamo, last I heard, was still functioning. There appear to be one or two things even a President can’t quite change.

The F-35 appears to be here, and a number of countries appear to plan on having them.

[SpazSinbad]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkVMaN1i3tE

[Lonewolf_50]

Spaz, given that the video is 30 minutes long, would you care to summarize the points?

[SpazSinbad]

I'd rather do this:

Agreement Reached on Lowest Priced F-35s in Program History 03 Feb 2017

https://www.f35.com/news/detail/agreement-reached-on-lowest-priced-f-35s-in-program-history

[MSOCS]

Key take-aways:

1st F-35A Ex RF
13 aircraft deployed to Nellis from Hill AFB, Utah
110 missions flown in 2 weeks, without unserviceability
Most challenging Red Air replication seen to date
F-35A achieved a training ELR of 15:1 but did lose a few (anyone who has done RF will understand why his happens)
Worked interoperably with F-22, UK Typhoon, Growler and Aus Wedgetail, amongst others.
F-35A released inert 2000lb JDAM on most sorties - highest weapon release aircraft type on Flag.

Really just headlines but, for an IOC Block 3i config jet, F-35A has firmly "held its own" from what I've heard.

[SpazSinbad]

Lockheed credits Trump's involvement in deal for 90 F-35 jets 03 Feb 2017 Rebecca Kheel
"...The contract is worth about $8.5 billion, a decrease of $728 million from the last batch. The price per jet for the F-35A will also land below $100 million for the first time....

...The price per unit will be $94.6 million for the F-35A, $122.8 million for the F-35B and $121.8 million for the F-35C...."
Lockheed credits Trump's involvement in deal for 90 F-35 jets | TheHill (http://thehill.com/policy/defense/317792-lockheed-pentagon-reach-deal-on-next-90-f-35s)
________________________

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/lockheed-finalises-deal-for-90-f-35s-claims-728m-s-433827/
"...According to the JPO’s math, the F-35A’s price decreased by 7.3% to $94.6 million, including the Pratt & Whitney F135 engine. The B variant came down to $122.8 million, a 6.7% decrease, and the C decreased by 7.9% to $121.8 million....

...“Lot 10 reflects a $728 million reduction in the total price when compared to Lot 9 and marks the first time the price for an F-35A is below $100 million,” the JPO states. “The bottom line is unit prices, including jet, engine and fee for all three variants went down.”..."

[The Sultan]

Spaz,

This price reduction was in the plan for this lot for over a year. In negotiations Lockheed tried to block it, and the govt would not budge. The reduction was announced in the Lot 10 deal in December. At best Trump convinced Lockheed not to fight it further.

The Sultan

[SpazSinbad]

'The Sultan': personally I do not care who did what to whom as long as the price comes down. That Dictator Trump claims credit is amusing.

[The Sultan]

Spaz,

Not so much amusing as pathetic. Today's Lockheed is not the Lockheed of Kelly Johnson. In his day Lockheed would not have padded the contract $700m to give back. They are still $30m or so above original cost per aircraft.

The Sultan

[SpazSinbad]

'The Sultan': I'll guess we have to know 'original cost in what dollars?' - 'today dollars' adjusted for inflation or some other metric. What is your reference for "...$30m or so above original cost per aircraft." Please explain.

[peter we]

http://www.ft.com/fastft/files/2017/02/LMTchart.jpg

[riff_raff]

'personally I do not care who did what to whom as long as the price comes down. That Dictator Trump claims credit is amusing.

So you're cool with whatever action even a "dictator" might take, as long as it results in the price of an F-35 coming down? Do you realize that the annual US military budget is set by legislation produced by Congress, and even President Trump can only approve or veto the budget legislation?

[SpazSinbad]

Haven't we been through this harrumphing business with El Presidente and the Budget and Uncle Tom Cobbley and all on recent previous pages? Can you see a JOKE? and btw I'm an TASwegian so I ONLY care about the money - show me the money! WTF?! Australians are buying 8 cheaper F-35As - wots not to like.

[A_Van]

Is it F-35 program that has eaten up all the spares?


Quoting the following article: Grounded: Nearly two-thirds of US Navy?s strike fighters can?t fly (http://www.defensenews.com/articles/grounded-nearly-two-thirds-of-us-navys-strike-fighters-cant-fly)


"WASHINGTON — The U.S. Navy’s F/A-18 Hornet and Super Hornet strike fighters are the tip of the spear, embodying most of the fierce striking power of the aircraft carrier strike group. But nearly two-thirds of the fleet’s strike fighters can’t fly — grounded because they’re either undergoing maintenance or simply waiting for parts or their turn in line on the aviation depot backlog.

Overall, more than half the Navy’s aircraft are grounded, most because there isn’t enough money to fix them. ....."

[Buster15]

KenV. Not sure where you get 38 years from. I am pretty sure that 1st flight was late 1974 which makes 43 years. First production delivery was in June 1979, which makes 38 years. Much has been written about F35, much f that not very complimentary. Most people are extremely concerned about the eye watering cost to UK of both development and production programmes. of course, to that we need to add the new QE Class a/c carriers. So what do uk get for its money. For F35, the main 'selling point' seems to be that it is 5th generation..... This promarily involves Stealth and Sensor Fusion. Sensor Fusion I can understand, particularly in a modern battle space. But Stealth; the key issue is how long into its service life that remains a benefit before it becomes obsolete. After that, what type of a/c are we left with. Fast ? Agile ? Good Weapons payload ? Good range ?
I still struggle with the concept of a stealthy aircraft operating from an A/C Carrier. Surely any adversary would go for the weakest links and target either the Tanker or the Carrier. It seems we are locked into this programme, but deploying both F35 and the Carrier is already stretching our limited defence budget and programmes such as Tornado and to an extent Typhoon enhancements are paying the price. How interesting to compare UK with say Italy (F35, Typhoon, Tornado till 2025 and AMX), Germany (Typhoon and Tornado until post 2030) and Saudi Arabia (F15, Typhoon, Tornado till 2025 at least). The current plan to retire RAF Tornado from 2019 will result in clear and dangerous capability gaps, but as mentioned, it isn't 5th generation.

[Brat]

F-35 results for the latest Red Flag seem to indicate that the F-35/F-22 package are producing some impressive kill rates.

F-35 Scores Impressive 15:1 Kill Ratio at Red Flag War Games (http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a25078/f-35-red-flag-war-games/)

[MSOCS]

So what do uk get for its money.

A 5th Gen Carrier aircraft for ~£98M per jet with growth for the next 40 years
Access and design input via Level 1 partnership
A jet with capability and upgrades which the UK could never afford on its own
Jobs for some 500 UK companies involved in manufacture
A projected return on investment of £2-3 for each £1 we put in (depends on total production run through-life) - 15% UK workshare in every ac off the line.

So, quite a lot actually. And that's without stating the mind-blowing combination of SA-fusion, networking and stealth-Enabled access. The weapons will come and Typhoon will take the mantle of GR4 weapons to mitigate your perceived 'gap'. Meanwhile, a whole host of excellent weapons will trickle down the F-35 pipeline for the next 4-5 decades.

So, yeah, a lot for the money UK has vested.

[GlobalNav]

F-35 results for the latest Red Flag seem to indicate that the F-35/F-22 package are producing some impressive kill rates.

F-35 Scores Impressive 15:1 Kill Ratio at Red Flag War Games (http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a25078/f-35-red-flag-war-games/)
After listening to the Q&A Youtube, I would say that win:loss ratios are not the major lesson to be culled from the exercise, but crew training and familiarity with the tactics and techniques of employment and integration of the new weapon systems.

Don't mean to dispute the headline directly but rather to focus on the true benefit of the activity. Contractor red air, a handful of F-16's and simulated EW/AD as aggressors are certainly a challenge, but not equivalent to the most advanced of our real world opponents. My hope is that numerous exercises such as Red Flag will make us and our allies ready for whatever comes.

[Brat]

...crew training and familiarity with the tactics and techniques of employment and integration of the new weapon systems.

Indeed... the purpose of Red Flag.

The headline perhaps just an indication of the jump in effectiveness achieved by this much criticised weapon system?

[SpazSinbad]

This is all greek to me.... 08 Feb 2017
""Greece is taking the first steps toward upgrading its existing F-16 fighter jets and purchasing, in due time, fifth-generation F-35 fighters.... inform the US government of the Greek interest in buying F-35s.... Greece will have to send another letter of request confirming how many of the Lockheed Martin aircraft Athens wants to buy."
New additions and upgrade for Greek air force fleet | News | ekathimerini.com (http://www.ekathimerini.com/215986/article/ekathimerini/news/new-additions-and-upgrade-for-greek-air-force-fleet)

[Lyneham Lad]

The wrangling continues:-
F-35 cost target impossible without block buy, Lockheed says (https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/f-35-cost-target-impossible-without-block-buy-lockh-433981/)
(Flight Global 9th Feb)

[ORAC]

Excellent article. Nit a hatchet job or hagiography of the F-35, just putting the Red Flag reports into perspective.

Let's Talk About Those F-35 Kill Ratio Reports From Red Flag - The Drive (http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/7488/lets-talk-about-those-f-35-kill-ratio-reports-from-red-flag)

[Buster15]

[QUOTE=MSOCS;9668413]A 5th Gen Carrier aircraft for ~£98M per jet with growth for the next 40 years
Access and design input via Level 1 partnership
A jet with capability and upgrades which the UK could never afford on its own
Jobs for some 500 UK companies involved in manufacture
A projected return on investment of £2-3 for each £1 we put in (depends on total production run through-life) - 15% UK workshare in every ac off the line.

So, quite a lot actually. And that's without stating the mind-blowing combination of SA-fusion, networking and stealth-Enabled access. The weapons will come and Typhoon will take the mantle of GR4 weapons to mitigate your perceived 'gap'. Meanwhile, a whole host of excellent weapons will trickle down the F-35 pipeline for the next 4-5 decades.

So, yeah, a lot for the money UK has vested.[/QUOTE

[Buster15]

Some very impressive statements about F35 which I hope prove to be correct. I am not sure about the price. I have never seen it quoted at £98M for the B version and even if it is correct you must know that this figure would not included the engine or lift fan. You mention that typhoon will take over the GR4 role which I understand. However what role will the F35 carry out. Remember it wasn't designed to be a fighter and the US are already operating it with the F22.I do understand that the UK on its own would not have been able to afford an aircraft like F35. My point though is that the only real justification for buying F35 seems to be to operate it from the new carriers and it is quite true to say that we have managed to carry out air ops in against Libya and now iraq/Syria without the massively expensive aircraft carrier. F35 may give us a short term advantage but there are so many limitat ions range, payload, speed and manoeuvrability that to me ought weigh the massive cost of procurement and operation.

[A_Van]

Against jihaddists, AC-130 is the best. If anybody is thinking of attacking/invading Russia (or China), then all those childish calculations/pseudo_simulations with results like 1:15 should be forgotten.

[MSOCS]

Buster, take a look at this link for latest prices. Top line: F-35B $122.8M a copy including engine/lift fan. So, at current exchange rate it's ~£100M a copy mark. I expect it to drop again in successive LRIPs, broadly in line with the cost curve in an earlier but fairly recent post.

LRIP-10 F-35 cost: Lockheed Martin says Trump helped get lowest prices - Business Insider (http://uk.businessinsider.com/lrip-10-f35-cost-2017-2)

F-35 roles include: SEAD/DEAD, Strike (AI, Attack), OCA/DCA, CAS. In many cases swing-role (it is amazingly optimised for switching roles quickly) however you are right in saying it is primarily a self-escort bomber, however I'll add that its A-A is extremely potent. Where it lacks over F-22 (other than 2 engines and TV) is internal missile carriage. This has been debated here many, many times. F-22 ran at around $180M a copy. Now that's expensive.

There is no other aircraft built that has the fused sensor SA and stealth combination of F-35. For the money, it's a lucrative prospect for U.K., which is why time and again the Government has supported the operational analysis for buying the F-35B. It presents the best, most flexible variant which meets the carrier configuration. Look at the NAO audit on the B to C to B debacle to see what changing to Cat/Trap would have cost. Again, another mired discussion also presented on here many times.

I fear we'll never agree, but it's of no consequence as the facts will argue themselves.

[Buster15]

Thanks for the link to the latest price data and as I mentioned I hope that F35 turns out well. Regarding un escorted bomber I read that the USA are planning to operate it with F18 growler. So F35 operating with F22 and Growler....Both aircraft which we do not have. I do admire your passion for this project and we will let the facts answer for themselves as you rightly say.

[Brat]

Excellent article. Nit a hatchet job or hagiography of the F-35, just putting the Red Flag reports into perspective.


Certainly did. And ended with...

...the F-22 had proved that 4th generation fighters are no match for 5th generation ones over a decade ago, and has done so time and time again since.

Which one might take as... stop dicking around with talking about getting re-vamped 4th gen Hornets that are presently vapourware, and just get on with some 5th Gen F-35’s that are here, now, and being bought by various allies that will enable much closer co-operation co-rdination between various Air Forces than has ever been possible before.

Look forward.

[Brat]

One other point to remember the F-35 is a multi-role aircraft/weapon system that has been specifically designed to do various jobs/and replace/ a number of specialised aircraft presently doing those roles.

An economy many critics fail to factor in.

[Heathrow Harry]

Trouble is it may not actually be bought in enough numbers to replace all those platforms due to cost and it may not be as good as some of the ones it replaces..............

And on the day you need it it may be needed for the other roles as well

[Brat]

And on the day you need it it may be needed for the other roles as well

Errrr...yes. Well with the economy of scale you will of course not be buying one to replace three.

This however appears not to have been self evident...to you.

Expectations are a fine thing. Miracles another.

[A_Van]

Well with the economy of scale you will of course not be buying one to replace three.


IMHO, that's correct. But it looks like at the time of decision making antagonists of Frederick Lancester (and those who claimed his laws should be at least re-examined and significantly revised) outplayed the protagonists

[SpazSinbad]

Some war stories from Red Flag with more tomorrow:

At Red Flag ‘It’s Tough To Be Legacy Aircraft In An LO World’

At Red Flag ?It?s Tough To Be Legacy Aircraft In An LO World? « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary (http://breakingdefense.com/2017/02/at-red-flag-its-tough-to-be-legacy-aircraft-in-an-lo-world/)
___________________________________________

More quotable quotes:

F-35A stealth brings flexibility to battlespace 13 Feb 2017

http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/1081364/f-35a-stealth-brings-flexibility-to-battlespace.aspx

[ORAC]

US Air Force: Removal of F-35 pilot weight restrictions eyed for April (http://www.defensenews.com/articles/air-force-removal-of-f-35-flight-restrictions-could-occur-as-early-as-april)

[A_Van]

SpazSinbad,

All this Red Flag stuff is indeed a good LVC training exercise. Complex tasks, real stress to pilots and so on, as in any live training.
However, measuring effectiveness (1:15, 1:100, etc) here is a miss by a mile.
One should not only have accurate models and sims of the adversary planes, SAMs, radars (all kinds), EW aircraft, but also C4I. Would be interesting to see their validation report concerning that matter :-)

[MSOCS]

However, try not to forget that Red Flag has tested Allied Tactics, Training and Procedures since its inception. These TTPs have then been validated or invalidated in many real conflicts, post-Vietnam.

There is a correlation between what you describe as just LVC and how effective that will be in a future battle scenario. Is it 100%? Absolutely not. Would I take the RF kill ratio, strip out the false contributors and apply military experience to assess capability? Yes, and I'm confident that's been done and compared with modelling and real test results.

[A_Van]

MSOCS,

You are absolutely right, but we are talking about different things. No doubt about great value of LVC, and I am its consistent and long-term advocate (and at this "campus" since this term was born). Moreover, what you called correlation is actually a monotonic function (thus, the correlation is indeed 100%). The more you train in such a way, the better you would behave in a real situation, no matter what would be the win/loss ratio.

I am only challenging numbers because the entire adversary system contains thousands of parameters and hundreds of links, and in the West just a few dozens are known (of old MiG, Su, S-200/300 and some other already obsolete systems that Eastern European countries were happy to deliver to new "landlords"). "Validation" in local conflicts against some stand-alone systems and poorly trained military is quite questionable.

[Brat]

A Van It could be postulated that Red Flag is about the worlds most complete and complex adversarial training available in the world today.

[SpazSinbad]

Some more Red Flag (to a bull**** artist) goodness:
"...After about two weeks at Red Flag, the joint strike fighter brought down 15 aggressor aircraft for every one F-35A defeated. Its kill ratio has improved since then, but the data has not been finalized as of yet, he said. For a fighter jet in an air superiority role, a kill ratio that exceeds 10-to-1 is considered “very good,” [Brig. Gen. Scott] Pleus said. The F-35 also fared well in air-to-ground missions...."
&
"...From a maintenance perspective, the F-35A achieved a mission capable rate of about 90 percent during Red Flag. The issues encountered by maintainers were mostly one-off problems, like a broken generator, and did not reveal any systemic flaws of the aircraft, said 1st Lt. Devin Ferguson, of the 388th Aircraft Maintenance Squadron...."
Red Flag may affect whether F-35s deploy overseas this year (http://www.defensenews.com/articles/red-flag-could-inform-decision-on-whether-to-deploy-f-35-overseas-this-year)
______________________
"...Although they don’t have an updated figure, the pilots told us that the F-35 kill ratio was higher than the 15-1 figure they initially reported. While F-35A pilots continue to say that their success against Integrated Air Defense Systems and ability to bomb targets is at least as important as their ability to kill enemy fighters, the fact is that the kill ratio is a simple baseline against which the plane can be judged."
http://breakingdefense.com/2017/02/f-35a-at-red-flag-90-mission-capable-key-systems-up-every-flight/
______________________
"...With the inclusion of the Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL) and Link 16, the F-35 was able to share one threat picture across 70 aircraft, Lt Col Dave DeAngelis, commander of the 419th operations group says. Where threats were communicated via radio on legacy aircraft, MADL saves time by communicating with the F-35’s wingman, he says....

...The service does not yet have a tally of F-35s hit by integrated air defenses or surface to air missiles, but the action report with those details should release in about a month, the USAF adds.

“The F-35 mission was to get in undetected and hit targets, so we weren’t there specifically for air to air role,” Lt Col George Watkins, commander, 34th fighter squadron says. “Our ratio has gotten better but I don’t have the final numbers. We saw an improvement in our pilot’s proficiency throughout Red Flag and that number was just F-35 kills and depth.

Since its last Red Flag exercise at Nellis two weeks prior, the USAF turned up the heat on its F-35As with more advanced SAMs. The service also leveraged some blue forces to fly on the red side to increase threat numbers, Lt Col John Wagemann, director of operations for 414th combat training squadron says. At its peak, more than 20 red aircraft flew against blue forces, he says....

...the [USAF] service is making Red Flag more challenging for blue forces by improvising. Once red forces were killed during the Red Flag event at Hill, those same aircraft returned “alive” to the fight later, Wagemann says.”
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/f-35a-premiers-at-hill-afb-red-flag-434174/

[Brat]

The USMC meanwhile continues to press ahead with it’s F-35B program with two USMC going from initial training straight to the new machine.

The USMC AV-8B has been considered only for more experienced/capable pilots after trying to put ‘nuggets’ onto the machine and seeing a sharp rise in accidents.

It would seem that there is confidence that this will not be the case with the F-35.

https://www.dvidshub.net/news/223082/vmfat-501-initial-ascension-pilots-finish-training-f-35b-lightning-ii

[2805662]

http://www.janes.com/article/67679/usaf-seeks-interim-500-lb-bomb-with-moving-target-capability-for-f-35?utm_campaign=%5BPMP%5D_PC5308_Jane%27s%20360%2015.02.2017 _KP_Deployment&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Eloqua

"USAF seeks interim 500 lb bomb with moving target capability for F-35"

The short timeline is interesting: "The first contract is expected to be awarded in the third quarter of fiscal year 2017, with deliveries of the initial order to begin no later than six months after the contract date."

Maybe an operational deployment is on the cards?

[SpazSinbad]

Testing F-35A in 2016 at Edwards AFB

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfGuwS2tGPg

[SpazSinbad]

FWIW reporters are twittering 'bout Red Flag: https://twitter.com/ValerieInsinna/status/832254757045694464

[aerolearner]

US Air Force: Removal of F-35 pilot weight restrictions eyed for April
I was amazed in reading that by April an UCAV version of the F-35 will be ready...
...until I realised that the title wasn't "Removal of F-35 pilot weight eyed for April" as I first read it! :}

[SpazSinbad]

Typhoid infects F-35 in Babel Fish III: RAF demos F-35B and Typhoon interoperability | IHS Jane's 360 (http://www.janes.com/article/67763/raf-demos-f-35b-and-typhoon-interoperability)

[tartare]

Wow - the bravo is quite a bit more expensive, compared to $148m for the A model.
$251m flyaway cost.
Guess the RAAF really won't be getting them anytime soon, even in their dreams.

[juliet]

Expecting flak but here's my general understanding and then a question.

The F-35 is touted as being able to fly almost unrestricted within an IADS, hoovering up information and then sharing it with the team. It can use its radar and other sensors to then attack various systems. It has a warload but much has been made of its abilities outside of the kinetic in the traditional form.

Can someone please explain for the benefit of a truckie who slept through a lot of the EWO course why this role can't predominantly be carried out by a non fighter aircraft? If the F-35 is borderline invisible and does much of its work through non traditional non kinetic means why use a fighter design? Why not use something not limited by "fighter" design requirements that would easily be more stealthy and more persistent.

To be clear I'm not advocating not having a stealthy fighter, just asking why we need so many fighters in what is effectively a non fighter role?

[Just This Once...]

The F-35 isn't borderline invisible, it can still be detected by lower frequency radars and, by day, optical trackers and contrast trackers - the opposing force will know what is coming. But its LO capabilities degrade targeting radars, increases its JtoS ratio for EA and provide a good host to sensitive ESM systems and weapons for direct attack. Off board sensors, speed and manoeuvre provide the rest.

Can this be done by a larger aircraft - clearly yes and the US has the B-2. Its increase in size provides a better capability against low frequency search radars, so the opposing force is less likely to know what is coming, but it trades away speed and manoeuvre, but increases loiter and weapons carried. Rather more expensive per copy though.

A larger platform has some advantages, but will not operate from tactical locations or ships. For an adversary grappling with an F-35 will be a challenge, even with a reasonable picture of where it is. Add in the potential complications provided by the B-2, F-22, stand-off and stand-in jamming, EA, stand-off weapons and decoys it will be a nightmare to deal with.

With the F-35 once the IADS door is kicked in it will become a tactical bomb-truck that can protect itself.

[ORAC]

More a question about USAF AAR rules - but also on F-35 fuel consumption, though they do deflect it to the probe being left out - WTF? 9 tankers for 10 fighters and 6 night stops?

How Often Does The F-35 Need To Refuel? | Defense content from Aviation Week (http://aviationweek.com/defense/how-often-does-f-35-need-refuel)

A recent, lengthy journey by U.S. Marine Corps F-35Bs traveling from Arizona to Japan has sparked a quiet debate within the Pentagon about how often the stealthy fighter needs to refuel during ocean crossings. It took seven days for 10 U.S. Marine Corps F-35Bs to fly from Yuma to their new home at Iwakuni, Japan, a flight that on a commercial airliner normally takes less than 24 hr.

Many factors contribute to the time it takes a military fighter to get from point A to point B: weather, terrain and pilot fatigue, to name just a few. But on this particular voyage, the U.S. Air Force’s conservative refueling model required the Marine Corps aircraft to refuel with accompanying tankers a grand total of 250 times, a number the Marine Corps’ top aviator says is far too high for an efficient ocean-crossing.

“The airplane has got longer legs than an F-18 with drop tanks, so why are we going with the tanker so often? We don’t need to do that,” said Lt. Gen. Jon Davis, Marine Corps commandant for aviation. “We are tanking a lot more than we should, maybe double [what we should.] We could be a lot more efficient than that.”. While Davis says the tanking model for refueling the Joint Strike Fighter is “off in an overly conservative manner,” it is ultimately up to the Air Force to set the rules—and the air arm is not budging.

An often overlooked piece of the air logistics puzzle is tanker refueling, a critical enabler for operations around the world. Fighters are thirsty aircraft, and the F-35 is no exception, said Air Force spokesman Col. Chris Karns. During the Jan. 18-25 crossing to Iwakuni, nine tankers flew with the 10 F-35Bs, transferring a total of 766,000 lb. of fuel over 250 aerial refuelings, or 25 per F-35, according to Karns...........

It comes as no surprise to Air Force Brig. Gen. Scott Pleus that the Marine Corps jets needed to refuel so many times during the crossing to Iwakuni. The Air Force sets up ocean crossings assuming the worst-case scenario, so that if any aircraft is not able to get fuel at any given time during the journey—whether due to weather or a technical malfunction—the entire group has enough gas to land safely, Pleus explained. For instance, the F-35Bs flew with their refueling probes out during the entire voyage, which significantly increases drag on the aircraft, to simulate a scenario in which the operator is not able to retract the probe.

“So when we plan these things we take the worst winds, we take the worst configuration of the airplane, and we say: at the worst time, what would happen?” said Pleus, a former F-16 pilot who now heads the Air Force’s F-35 integration office. “It is very conservative, and the reason why we’re so conservative is because it’s a life or death decision.” Traditionally the Air Force refuels “almost continuously” when crossing a large body of water, as often as every 30 or 40 min., Pleus said. An F-35B, which carries 5,000 lb. less fuel than the Air Force F-35A, likely needs to hit the tanker even more often than that, he noted...........

[SpazSinbad]

The reporter is disingenuous stating it took seven days. Sure but not all the ten F-35Bs flew across at the same time - they went in small groups at different times. Details are not known but they did stop in Alaska taking the northern 'coronet' route due weather.

STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL JON DAVIS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS DEPUTY COMMANDANT FOR AVIATION BEFORE THE HOUSE ARMED SERVICES SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES ON F-35 LIGHTNING II PROGRAM 16 FEBRUARY 2017
"...While VMFA-121’s movement was not the first time TACAIR aircraft have been re-deployed across the Pacific, it is noteworthy that for the duration of the transit, all aircraft remained operational and in an “up” status. That is not usually the case with large movements like this for a brand new aircraft. Additionally, this redeployment provided valuable lessons-learned as we move forward with the program. For instance, the northern route we took was meant to reduce the number of times the aircraft were required to plug for air-to-air refueling. We have since learned that the fuel models are overly-conservative. Our movement generated data that will be used by the JPO to increase the model’s accuracy. In the end it will benefit all three variants of the F-35 to be leveraged by the Marine Corps, Air Force and Navy...."
http://docs.house.gov/meetings/AS/AS25/20170216/105552/HHRG-115-AS25-Wstate-DavisJ-20170216.pdf (100Kb)

[SpazSinbad]

P'raps we'll know more about ARF & suchlike after the Down Under Trans Pacific Pair make it soon - to AVALON:
"...Getting the pair of highly advanced, ‘fifth generation’ jets to the Avalon Air Show will itself be a comprehensive demonstration of aviation logistics. They’ll be flown to Australia by Aussie pilots and frequently topped up along the way by a RAAF KC-30 air-to-air refuelling tanker...."
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/jsf-time-reality-check-part-1/ 17 Feb 2017

[PeterGee]

Anyone know if we have ordered anymore beyond the 4 test cabs?

Looking at Lockheed data, seems UK has 4 in LDIP8, 3 in 9 and 3 in 10. As LRIP 9 deliveries start in Q1 of this year, does that mean there are now 8 in total?

I read that the government approved 10, so that aligns. Just never seen and PR on orders or deliveries.

Be good to see this is actually progressing. Guess though the RAF doesn't PR in each new Typhoon delivery, just when squadrons stand up.

[airsound]

Janes has some interesting news about the RAF's initial Release to Service for the F-35B.
UK awards F-35B initial Release to Service | IHS Jane's 360 (http://www.janes.com/article/67775/uk-awards-f-35b-initial-release-to-service)

Possibly churlish to mention it, but let's hope they've got a proper Safety Case for all the necessary components, and, indeed, for the whole 5th Generation Thing. It wouldn't do to Release something to Service without those, would it.... Oh wait....

airsound

PS Remember the Mull of Kintyre, anyone? Or the Reds ejection seat accident? Or....?

[ORAC]

Quick fix to F-35C catapult problem being investigated next week.

https://news.usni.org/2017/02/16/f-35c-catapult-problem-next-week

[riff_raff]

Seems like a damping problem with the NLG strut. Should not be a difficult thing to correct.

[Engines]

Perhaps I can help a little here...

The problem seems to be made up of a number of parts - which is the normal position. In my view, they are:

1. The nature of the force being applied to the aircraft on launch, which is a function of the catapult power setting and the release characteristic of the hold back bar

2. The response of the NLG strut to that force

3. The response of the airframe structure and seat between the NLG strut and the pilot

4. The influence of the cockpit design and the pilot's equipment, especially the seat restraints, helmet mass and the pilots position on launch.

Reading the article, it looks as if the USN/LM team are going for part 1 above, by adjusting the power setting of the catapult so as to reduce the NLG response. If that fails, it's on to 2 (likely), 3 (less likely) and 4 (possible). Damn difficult stuff, this cat and trap aviation.

Best regards as ever to all those good people working the naval aviation issues,

Engines

[Rhino power]

Bring back the F-4, they always launched with the nose leg at full extension, not much chance of any 'bounce' during launch with that method! :}

-RP

[Just This Once...]

I see that the date for the RN reforming 809 Sqn has slipped again - it is now listed as 2023.

This 5-year slip will mean quite a few of the RN pilots gaining and maintaining experience abroad may never actually serve on an RN squadron. The plan to have overlapping RoS periods between their current exchange type and F-35B conversion now has a rather large hole in it.

[ORAC]

https://www.dodbuzz.com/2017/02/17/trump-order-fa-18xt-super-hornets/

Trump Eyes ‘Big Order’ of New F/A-18XT Super Hornets

[SpazSinbad]

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

[MSOCS]

Just This Once, 809's reformation has been 2023 for some time - perhaps this changed from a prior declaration but I can't recall such; the SDSR assumption is for 2 front-line UK F-35B squadrons in 2023. Realistically, the training for those destined for the 'Immortals' will have to begin prior, but this will be in the UK, at Marham. Most/all of the current USA cadre are destined for 617 Sqn or the (as yet to be named) Lightning OCU, as both squadrons will be jointly manned through-life (as will 809).

[Just This Once...]

I've been out of the program for a while but back then the RN squadron would reform in 2018 and hit IOC by 2020. My point with the cadre in the US is that most (all?) will be considerably beyond the RoS and their careers, inside or out, are against the usual clock.

With respect to the training location it was accepted back then that the UK would only have the capacity to sustain the steady-state requirement. Before this point the UK would be reliant on US training to do the bulk of the heavy lifting. I would be surprised if that has changed as it would bog-down the UK F-35 force in conversion training for far too long. Clearly I am aware that the bean-counters saw UK training as the cheaper option but back then the impact on IOC, FOC and manpower sustainment was seen as too debilitating.

[MSOCS]

JTO, yes but the plan for a long time has been that UK Pilot and Maintainer trg ceases in the USA in 2019. This was a condition of the Pooling Agreement with the USA. By 2019 the bulk of personnel will already be trained and 617 Sqn will be around 140% of its final size - this will grow to around 170% by the early 2020s and, approaching 2022, a shadow 809 will likely form as seed corn; the remainder being provided, business-as-usual, by the OCU and ITC at Marham between 2021-2023.

Some of the older RN cadre who have hung out in the USA, and who don't feature in the 617 Sqn or OCU manning assumptions, may we'll be too early for 809; as you say. RAF saw that with Case White (Typhoon) personnel.

[Turbine D]

ORAC,
Trump Eyes ‘Big Order’ of New F/A-18XT Super Hornets
It seems to me Trump is dabbling in areas he shouldn't be dabbling in. With Trump, it is impossible from one hour to the next, one day to the next to determine what his motivations are. Is this pronouncement because an executive of Lockheed-Martin and former Navy SEAL turned him down on the National Security Advisor post, a bit of revenge, perhaps? First he attacks Boeing, the new Air Force One 747 aircraft cost way too much, then he visits Boeing's South Carolina plant and just raves over what a great company it is and the great people that work at Boeing.

While this kind of off the wall crap may have worked sometimes for him in the NYC real estate venue and is part of his "deal book," we are talking here about significant military technology procurements for which he knows little about. It is why we have a Department of Defense stuffed full of experts in this field. The Secretary of Defense has said he is reviewing the F-35 situation, but he hasn't come to any conclusions yet. Sometime when Trump gets a moment and stops the victory touring and campaigning for reelection in 2020, maybe he might visit the Pentagon and see what does go on inside the building. Trump is still the one man band running "Trump, Inc., NYC" instead of letting the people he has selected for his cabinet do their jobs...

[kilomikedelta]

interesting commentary.
most of the fanboys(I have seen no commentary that I could ascribe to fanwomen) seem to be located in the UK,OZ and Texas ,areas that have made major political/profit generating commitments to the F-35.

I have seen little positive comment here in Canada other than from RCAF fanboys who have never flown an F-35 in the arctic with only one engine and no radio communication capability with anyone.

Is the F-35 programme more of a Military/Industrial/Corporate entity to generate 8 figure incomes for executives than a defense option for a countries survival?

KMD

[Harley Quinn]

interesting commentary.
most of the fanboys(I have seen no commentary that I could ascribe to fanwomen) seem to be located in the UK,OZ and Texas ,areas that have made major political/profit generating commitments to the F-35.

I have seen little positive comment here in Canada other than from RCAF fanboys who have never flown an F-35 in the arctic with only one engine and no radio communication capability with anyone.

Is the F-35 programme more of a Military/Industrial/Corporate entity to generate 8 figure incomes for executives than a defense option for a countries survival?

KMD

No.

Personally I dislike the B because of its complexities, especially in the middle of the oggin, but it is the only machine currently capable of operating from the QE ships that offers modern capabilities. Hopefully no one will die when the software, microswtches, door actuators, fan clutch or weather proves to be unreliable.

[Brat]

Is the F-35 programme more of a Military/Industrial/Corporate entity to generate 8 figure incomes for executives than a defense option for a countries survival?


It would appear that a number of Government’s independent fighter requirement studies, and senior military advisors with considerable experience in their field, have all indicated that the F-35 program is the way forward, and accordingly have invested huge sums of money in, and expended considerable efforts on the program.

Hardly the ‘fanboys' you mention.

Personally I dislike the B because of its complexities, especially in the middle of the oggin, Spoken like a seasoned professional?


Hopefully no one will die when the software, microswtches, door actuators, fan clutch or weather proves to be unreliable.
Of course these items only pertaining to the F-35?

[GeeRam]

I see that the date for the RN reforming 809 Sqn has slipped again - it is now listed as 2023.

This thread is now into its 7th year..... :ooh:

Its highly likely that a lot of the pilots who get to finally fly this in squadron service wouldn't have even been born when we signed up to the program in 1995 :uhoh:

[Not_a_boffin]

No different to this (1969)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d2/Image_of_a_15_Squadron_GR4_taken_over_Royal_Air_Force_Lossie mouth,_and_surrounding_countryside._MOD_45155748.jpg/300px-Image_of_a_15_Squadron_GR4_taken_over_Royal_Air_Force_Lossie mouth,_and_surrounding_countryside._MOD_45155748.jpg

or this (mid-80s)

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/271/19907670802_7f543e00b0_b.jpg

then.

[Harley Quinn]

Of course these items only pertaining to the F-35?

Well certainly the case for the fan clutch and the big door above the fan, I know the swivel nozzle will overcome the fairing/door things but if that fan doesn't spin up then things may get unpleasant.

[sandiego89]

C model will require a new outer wing (outboard of wing fold) to carry AIM-9X.


F-35C Needs New Outer Wings To Carry AIM-9X | Defense content from Aviation Week (http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35c-needs-new-outer-wings-carry-aim-9x?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark)

[airsound]

Possibly even more significant than the US Navy not being able to carry the newest (and more advanced) version of AIM-9, is the fact referred to later in the article that: Another task for the F-35 team is adding a moving target capability, as reported by Aviation Week on Feb. 15. There are currently no plans to install weapons capable of hitting moving and maneuvering targets, such as an insurgent driving away in a pickup truck. These types of weapons were designed for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and can hit targets traveling at speeds of up to at 70 mph. They are now making their mark in the air campaign against the Islamic State group. Because the F-35’s laser designator cannot lead the target, its basic inventory of late-1990s guided bombs will fall short if that target moves briskly.You couldn't write this stuff for a satire programme.

[ORAC]

That's not a major problem as there is no real weight issue with the F-35C, just the cost of retro-fitting the current 32 aircraft, reinforcing the resistance to a multi-aircraft buy prior to the completion of testing without resolving where the cost of rectification lies.

However, I am more interested in comments later in the article linked above. Especially for an aircraft which is, reputedly, operational as a CAS aircraft with the USMC.....

Another task for the F-35 team is adding a moving target capability, as reported by Aviation Week on Feb. 15. There are currently no plans to install weapons capable of hitting moving and maneuvering targets, such as an insurgent driving away in a pickup truck. These types of weapons were designed for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and can hit targets traveling at speeds of up to at 70 mph. They are now making their mark in the air campaign against the Islamic State group. Because the F-35’s laser designator cannot lead the target, its basic inventory of late-1990s guided bombs will fall short if that target moves briskly.

The JPO is now working with the U.S. Air Force and Marine Corps to integrate Raytheon’s GBU-49 Lot 5 Enhanced Paveway II, which automatically corrects for target speed and direction as well as wind conditions. The Marines have expressed a preference for the Raytheon GBU-53B Small Diameter Bomb Increment II, but that is not slated for full integration and flight clearance until Block 4.2, around fiscal 2022 or later. It is not clear if GBU-49 will be automatically selected for F-35 or competed against the latest Boeing Laser Joint Direct Attack Munition and Lockheed Dual Mode Plus. Whatever the decision, it cannot delay F-35 Block 3F.

“I’m working to figure out how we can fit that in sooner rather than later, whether it becomes part of Block 3F or if it gets done at the tail end of 3F,” Bogdan told reporters after the congressional hearing. “The big deal there is to get it done before the middle of Block 4, when we get the moving target capability.”

Bogdan says the F-35 was originally due to be fielded with a cluster bomb that could hit moving targets, the CBU-103 Wind Corrected Munition Dispenser. But the Pentagon has pledged to stop using cluster munitions that leave unexploded ordnance by 2018.

GBU-49 can operate through poor visibility but is not an all-weather weapon. “SDB II is the weapon we all want, and that’s an all-weather moving target [glide bomb],” says Lt. Gen. Jon Davis, deputy commandant for Marine Corps aviation.
So, 5 years+ before they can hit a moving truck????

Further to the above, and in an associated article in the same edition, they are looking for a "quick fix", however - and please correct me if I am wrong - they'd all have to be slung as an external load buggering the stealth and reducing range. In which case why bother with the expense if you already have F-16, F-15, A-10 etc which can hit moving platforms?

Ain't politics and face saving wonderful.........

http://aviationweek.com/combat-aircraft/f-35-excels-destroying-targets-if-they-don-t-move

Despite being fixated on the GBU-49, the Air Force wants to hear from all weapons vendors that have moving-target weapons that are “mechanically, electrically and logically compatible with the F-35 Block 3F aircraft operational flight program” and could be integrated without disrupting the wider rollout schedule of May 2018. The service is specifically looking for 500-lb.-class types that can hit targets traveling at 70 mph in one direction, or performing maneuvers up to ±0.2g at 40 mph.

While Raytheon’s GBU-49 appears to be the main contender, other options could include an improved 500-lb. Boeing Laser JDAM or Lockheed Martin Dual Mode Plus. All three dual-guidance options are capable of striking targets moving at about 70 mph.

The market-survey notice issued Feb. 10 says the weapons would be purchased and fielded as a “quick-reaction capability” for Air Combat Command, with the first production contract expected in the third quarter of fiscal 2017, with deliveries six months later.

[Fonsini]

ORAC,

It seems to me Trump is dabbling in areas he shouldn't be dabbling in. With Trump, it is impossible from one hour to the next, one day to the next to determine what his motivations are. Is this pronouncement because an executive of Lockheed-Martin and former Navy SEAL turned him down on the National Security Advisor post, a bit of revenge, perhaps? First he attacks Boeing, the new Air Force One 747 aircraft cost way too much, then he visits Boeing's South Carolina plant and just raves over what a great company it is and the great people that work at Boeing.

While this kind of off the wall crap may have worked sometimes for him in the NYC real estate venue and is part of his "deal book," we are talking here about significant military technology procurements for which he knows little about. It is why we have a Department of Defense stuffed full of experts in this field. The Secretary of Defense has said he is reviewing the F-35 situation, but he hasn't come to any conclusions yet. Sometime when Trump gets a moment and stops the victory touring and campaigning for reelection in 2020, maybe he might visit the Pentagon and see what does go on inside the building. Trump is still the one man band running "Trump, Inc., NYC" instead of letting the people he has selected for his cabinet do their jobs...
Let's not forget that an uninformed businessman informed the (very unhappy) Air Force that they would have to use the F-4 Phantom - an aircraft they ended up loving, championed the design and introduction of the F-111, and introduced the now ubiquitous concept of true multi-role combat aircraft. I am of course referring to Robert McNamara.

I will however admit that if he runs into an F/A-18 QFI who tells him that the Shornet is amazing and the F-35 is terrible, he is liable to base a procurement decision on such heresay.

[Turbine D]

Fonsini,

Speaking about Robert McNamara, here is what President Trump's new National Security Advisor, Lt. General H.R. McMaster, had to say about him relative to the Vietnam War:
McMaster portrays Robert McNamara, a former president of the Ford Motor Company who had become Secretary of Defense, as foolish. He said that he viewed Vietnam “as another business management problem” and “forged ahead oblivious to the human and psychological complexities of war.” “McNamara and his assistants in the Department of Defense were arrogant,” McMaster wrote. “They disparaged military advice because they thought that their intelligence and analytical methods could compensate for their lack of military experience and education. Indeed military experience seemed to them a liability because military officers took too narrow a view and based their advice on antiquated notions of war.”
I suspect McNamara continued his arrogance when it came to pushing the multi-service role of the to be F-111 as a cost reduction over two separate designs, very foolish. I suppose you could call the F-35 program concept another "business management problem" going back to its very beginning. :(

[riff_raff]

Actually, I believe McNamara served as an officer in the USAAF during WWII and a couple years afterward. So he had some military experience. He was appointed Secretary of Defense by President Kennedy, who had some military experience himself. Sadly, McNamara was mostly a failure as US SecDef.

Of course, there have been several US Secretaries of Defense that had no military experience.

[Brat]

James Mattis would therefore seem a qualified Sec Def...who doesn’t mind some plain speak about certain NATO ‘allies’ not carrying their weight.
https://www.dodbuzz.com/2017/02/15/m...llies-pay-now/

Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn as White House national security adviser would similarly seem suited to the job.

Considered, Marine Gen. John Kelly for secretary of homeland security and Navy Adm. Michael Rogers for director of national intelligence (DNI).

[Lonewolf_50]

Flynn's out, or hadn't you heard? President Trump advised him "You're Fired!" Newest appointee (NSA/NSC) appears to be McMaster, who is a good choice.

The Phantom predated MacNamara arriving as SecDef. Navy was doing carrier trials on the Phantom in 1959.

As to "not being able to hit a moving truck" ... some of you write amusing copy. Have you read the whole article?


The cluster munitions do it, (and the "we'll stop using cluster munitions" is a platitude that may well change).
FFS, you Don't Need a 500 pound bomb to blow up a truck! Maverick, Hellfire, and a variety of smaller munitions do nicely.
While I don't mind the idea of a 500 lb being able to hit a truck -- my mind's eye picture of that borders on the hilarious -- for the USAF to state that as the requirement is a symptom of standard-USAF-gold-plating ... further comments censored.

[Obi Wan Russell]

Yes the Phantom was flying and in service before McNamara came along, with the U.S. NAVY and MARINES. McNamara told the U.S. AIR FORCE they would have to adopt the F-4 as well, in the interests of commonality, and they ended up loving it.

[GeeRam]

Not_a_boffin
No different to this (1969)



or this (mid-80s)



then.

Quite a bit I'd say...

Tornado entered squadron service in 1982.....so I make that 13 years from 1969, so I seriously doubt there were any under 13's on those first Tornado squadrons!
Typhoon is longer at 1983 to 2003, but, again, I doubt there were any under 20 year old on those first Typhon squadrons?

Not saying there WILL be any on the first F-35 squadrons, but, given that 13 year time frame, became a 20 year time frame, and we're now looking at a nearly 30 year time frame period, and there could well be some under 30's on those first squadrons.....which is a staggering thought to me.

[Just This Once...]

...Air Force that they would have to use the F-4 Phantom - an aircraft they ended up loving...

'Loving it' could be overstating it slightly given the USAF Vietnam experience so soon after the F-4 came into USAF service. The F-4 gained better manoeuvrability, power and an internal gun in short order but the clamour for improved aircraft performance was only answered by the F-15 and F-16.

[ORAC]

The F-4 gained better manoeuvrability, power and an internal gun in short order And missiles......

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-4_Falcon

[SpazSinbad]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJd0wXu_2hg

[SpazSinbad]

F-35A Red Flag Debut AIR International Magazine March 2017
"Norman Graf spoke with aircrew from the 388th and 419th Fighter Wings about participation of the F-35A in Exercise Red Flag for the first time.

The overall goals of Red Flag remain the same from exercise to exercise, but the individual mission sets are tailored to the specific squadrons and allied air forces participating. In terms of coalition partners, Australia, the UK and the United States are about as close as they come, so the first Flag of each year features these players and is normally at a correspondingly higher level of intensity. This year was no exception, as the US Air Force debuted the latest addition to its aerial inventory, the F-35A Lightning II.

The US Air Force declared initial operational capability (IOC) for the F-35A in August, 2016; Red Flag 17-1 was the type’s first large force exercise since IOC. Commander of the 34th Fighter Squadron, Lt Col George Watkins said: “It is exciting to integrate the newest operational fighter squadron and the F-35A with all the other experienced aircrew, including two of our partner nations. The professional aggressors are providing great training, but [they are] no match for our integrated fourth and fifth-generation air force.” While exercises in the past few years have expanded in scope and have been embedded in larger scenarios involving off-site and even virtual players, this year’s Red Flag concentrated more on the tactical issues of integration and interoperability of fourth and fifth-generation fighters. Mission scenarios included defensive counter-air (defending airspace against the Red Air force), air interdiction (AI, striking targets deep in enemy territory) and dynamic targeting (trying to find targets on the fly detecting threats and finding those on the ground and trying to hit those targets). As the most modern fighter in the US Air Force inventory, possessing capabilities to gather, fuse and share sensor data, coupled with its stealth technology and offensive weapons capabilities, the multi-role F-35A was at the centre of the action....

...Commander of the 419th Operations Group, Detachment 1, Lt Col Dave DeAngelis and one of the reserve pilots said Red Flag offers intensive training and is a tremendous learning experience. He said: “The aggressor pilots are among the best of the best and spend their days learning the tactics of enemy air forces, so it definitely puts us to the test.” Just one week into the exercise, the first ten-aircraft sortie was launched, followed in the late afternoon by an eight-ship launch.

Lt Col Watkins highlighted how four of his squadron pilots, who previously flew F-15s and F-16s at Red Flag for years, had expressed their satisfaction with the F-35A. The squadron commander quoted them as saying, ‘This is amazing. I’ve never had this much situational awareness while airborne. I know who’s who, I know who’s being threatened, and I know where I need to go next.’ Watkins said “You just don’t have all of that information at once in fourth-generation platforms. On the first day we flew defensive counter-air and we didn’t lose a single friendly aircraft. That’s unheard of. It feels like air dominance.”

[b]Red Air
One of the more demanding tasks for the Red Air force was to make this exercise challenging for the combined Blue Air force comprising fourth and fifth-generation fighters.

Major Mark Klein, an Air Force Reserve Command pilot who flies with the 64th Aggressor Squadron said: “We focus on adversary tactics all the time, so we are subject matter experts on how enemy aircraft operate and perform. Then we replicate that here [at Red Flag].”

Civilian contractor pilots from Draken International flying A-4 Skyhawks augmented the F-16s of the Nellis-based 64th Aggressor Squadron. Additionally, F-16Cs from the 115th Fighter Wing, Wisconsin Air National Guard and F-15Cs from the 125th Fighter Wing, Florida Air National Guard, and Block 50 F-16Cs assigned to the 77th Fighter Squadron from Shaw Air Force Base, South Carolina rotated on to the Red Air team to increase the number of aggressor aircraft needed to assure a robust threat laydown. On average 20 to 24 Red Air aircraft flew each day, including regeneration (a process allowing aggressor aircraft that have been shot down to rejoin the fight), so the Blue Air force would face three or four times that number.

Lt Col Watkins said: “They have ramped up the level of the threat. They’ve stepped it up with the number of Red Air aircraft fighting against us. The amount of jamming, the skill level of the adversaries and the surface-to-air missile threat have signicantly increased from when I was here last flying the F-16. There’s always a change in the threat. We’re continuing to build new systems and get more capable the adversary threats are also becoming more capable, so there’s always a stair step approach. But there’s a marked difference in this Flag from the ones I’ve experienced in the past. I believe that’s because of integration of the F-22, F-35 and all the fourth-generation players. We’re able to bring that all together for this fight. It’s needed to challenge all of us as we’re fighting together.”...

...Whereas in previous Flags there might have been one or two advanced surface-to-air missile threats to counter, this year’s event featured a more complex integrated air defence system. Fourth-generation aircraft would have had to concentrate exclusively on eliminating the threats from a distance, launching many stand-off weapons, including calling in Tomahawk cruise missiles for fixed sites.

Lt Col Watkins explained how this has been ramped up. “In this Red Flag we’ve seen four advanced SAMs in one scenario, and we don’t necessarily know where they are. We can’t simulate hitting them with standoff weapons before the vul time [the time period a flight plans to be on station] even starts, so we’re using an integrated cross-domain approach to find them. We’re using information supplied by cyber and space assets, Rivet Joint and Wedgetail, and we’re fusing all information together to find the target location. Between the Block 50 F-16s and the F-35s we’re locating the threats and are able to use the F-22’s standoff capability and the stealth capability of the F-35 to get close enough to the target locations where we can drop on them. Even in a Block 50 F-16 it would be impossible to target the missile system, because it would be too dangerous to get that close.”

Lt Col DeAngelis echoed that sentiment: “We’re able to use our sensors to find the location and use our synthetic aperture radar mode to map the general area and determine where the surface-to-air missile site is. We carry two internal GBU-31(V)3 JDAMs, so we’re able to put a 2,000lb bomb on the threat. As a former F-16 pilot, we used to shoot HARMs [AGM-88 High-speed Anti-Radiation Missiles], which have much smaller warheads and are not as capable. With the F-35 we’re able to find the site and put a 2,000lb bomb on it, which is much more effective against an integrated air defence system.”...

...[b]Brits
The Royal Air Force deployed eight Typhoons to Nellis and flew two waves of six aircraft each day. Officer Commanding No.6 Squadron, Wing Commander Billy Cooper said the majority of Typhoons tasking was air-to-air fighting. He said: “As a swing role platform, we carried bombs on some of the missions. Some of the time we’ve been using the F-35 to find some of the integrated air defence systems and on occasion the Typhoon dropped bombs on the targets located, but lots of the time we were out at the front of the package, providing air cover. Quite often the F-35 provided some of the Link 16 picture that we were able to use to generate situational awareness.”

Interest in working closely with the F-35A during Red Flag 17-1 was understandably high within the RAF contingent, as the UK is due to introduce the F-35B into service in the coming years. Once in service, the UK will have a fourth/fifth-generation mix of Typhoon and F-35B. Experience gained from exercises such as Red Flag 17-1 is critical to gain experience and develop tactics and operating procedures for effective future operations...."
AIR International Magazine March 2017 Vol.92 No.3

[glad rag]

meanwhile.....