F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

[Turbine D]

Brat,
If the F-35 is performing a role that does not require it to be stealthy, then the fact that it can perform in ‘beast’ mode is simply another plus to it’s versatility.

A fact that appears to sail right over one or two members of the ‘anti’ brigade.
If you were one of the foot soldiers on the ground and called for close air support, given a choice, would you ask for A-10s or the "versatile" F-35?

[FODPlod]

Brat,

If you were one of the foot soldiers on the ground and called for close air support, given a choice, would you ask for A-10s or the "versatile" F-35?
Both equipped with PGMs and cannon?

Please, Sir, I know. The quickest to arrive and the least likely to be shot down.

A-10 max speed: 381 kt
F-35 max speed: 1,058 kt

Is there a prize?

[glad rag]

If the F-35 is performing a role that does not require it to be stealthy, then the fact that it can perform in ‘beast’ mode is simply another plus to it’s versatility.

A fact that appears to sail right over one or two members of the ‘anti’ brigade.

Niche not versatile.

[glad rag]

Both equipped with PGMs and cannon?

Please, Sir, I know. The quickest to arrive and the least likely to be shot down.

A-10 max speed: 381 kt
F-35 max speed: 1,058 kt

Is there a prize?

One is indeed proven under fire, the other? well not even proven in testing..as for the quoted f35 speed laughable indeed and desperate, desperate.

[Heathrow Harry]

maximum speed is no indicator of Combat survivability

The A7 Corsair was originally going to be supersonic IIRC but then looking at the numbers they realised that lower and slower was more survivable, more accurate and less costly

[cokecan]

Brat,

If you were one of the foot soldiers on the ground and called for close air support, given a choice, would you ask for A-10s or the "versatile" F-35?

F-35, or pretty much anything that will firstly a) arrive within the same century it was called for, and b) when it turns up will try and use the most suitable ordnance it has as quickly as possible rather than endlessly fcuk about trying to use a weapon with a vast, and hugely inconvienient, danger area but that is actually less effective than any PGM that even the lowliest F-16 can use at the drop of a hat.

A-10's are at the bottom the wish list - AH if its close and available, followed by B-52/B-1B, then any fast jet with a downlink, and then - and only then - an A-10.

but, you know, A-10 whoop...

[glad rag]

You have obviously missed out on being exposed to army mentality.

There is a very good reason they usually employ a sledgehammer to crack a nut...

[cokecan]

You have obviously missed out on being exposed to army mentality...

that would have been some achievement, what with being Army...

there is a very good reason they usually employ a sledgehammer to crack a nut...

i don't know if you know this - and by refering the Army as 'they' i assume not - but a 500lb JDAM/Paveway is a very much larger hammer than the couple of 30mm rounds an A-10 might manage to get within a hundred yards of where i need it.

please, do tell me more about my experiences of being the consumer of air support. i'm literally all ears...

[Trim Stab]

I think cokecan does make the point rather well that expecting the F35 to emulate let alone surpass the capabilities of the A-10 rather misses the point. Just because the A-10 was awesome to fly, could fly with one engine, one wing, no electrics, no hydraulics, was built around a massive gun, etc does not mean it is the ultimate CAS platform that F35 has to beat. Ground tactics work around the capabilities of air-support available - if the air-support capability available is faster/more accurate/more powerful then ground tactics evolve to be more daring/lighter/faster. Remember CAS means close air SUPPORT

[Brat]

Brat,

If you were one of the foot soldiers on the ground and called for close air support, given a choice, would you ask for A-10s or the "versatile" F-35?

It would also depend upon the environment that the CAS asset will have to cope with, sophisticated AA, manpads, or none? What is needed? How quickly?

Nothing is that simple.

[George K Lee]

Nothing is that simple.

Indeed. However, it is fair to say that no manned asset is going to be doing CAS in a sophisticated air-defense environment (even a Pantsyr-type threat) until the defenses have been taken down, and that (so far) fixed-wing platforms with DIRCM have been able to defeat MANPADS at ranges that are compatible with their sensors and weapons. This of course is irrespective of RCS.

A-10 max speed: 381 kt
F-35 max speed: 1,058 kt

Is there a prize?

Yes. A conical hat and a stool in the corner. If the base is not close to the target (in airpower terms - under 200 nm), an F-35 will scream in at Mach 1.6 and say "sorry chaps, need to refuel, good luck, bye". As will pretty much any FJ at max speed. I think you know that.

Conversely, where the A-10 outpoints FJs is persistence over the target, or in the area. I don't see the 30-mm. as being vital in the era of PGMs or in the coming era of guided tube rounds; but the Hog will have its uses in a small-arms-and-MANPADS environment until another CAS platform comes along. By the way, small gunships and light attackers have their uses too - turboprops and DIRCM make a tough target for MANPADS.

But what you do need for CAS, in addition to a diverse PGM magazine, is multi-band EO/IR targeting and a Rover-equivalent video link. So let's continue this discussion when the F-35 has these things, which on current plans may start to happen in 2023.

[KenV]

Interesting thing that many on here stated if could CAS from 30,000 ft with the wayward [quote_to rip them up_unquote] gun system/PGM and it was naturally out of small/med/large AAA effect.
Which is handy as the ballistic trials/testing fell to the wayside under operation "catch up".....which is of course why the IAF is flying them with external lightning 5 pods ..what was that you were saying about attributes again Ken?:ok:What did I day about "attributes?". Nothing. I said the F-35 has unique capabilities other than stealth. A buyer/user of tactical aircraft has to decide of those capabilities are needed/useful. It's patently obvious that many buyers/users don't think so. So they buy something else. There are plenty of other choices. For those who think the F-35's unique capabilities are useful, they buy the F-35, even when there are cheaper alternatives available. A few buyers/users have the wherewithal to do BOTH. The UK, Italy, Israel, USN (and others) for example buy both F-35 and other non-stealthy tactical aircraft.

So to reiterate yet again, saying stealth is worth "ABSOLUTELY NOTHING" is cute, but incredibly short sighted.

[KenV]

Brat, If you were one of the foot soldiers on the ground and called for close air support, given a choice, would you ask for A-10s or the "versatile" F-35?
Neither. If I was given a choice, I'd choose a C-130 gunship or equivalent. Now that's really serious CAS.

But the point is moot. The guy on the ground simply does not get to choose. He gets what's available. And if the environment he's operating in includes radar guided anti aircraft missiles, the only thing available will likely be an F-35. Or maybe a stealthy drone.

[Brat]

Nothing is that simple.

Indeed. However, it is fair to say that no manned asset is going to be doing CAS in a sophisticated air-defense environment (even a Pantsyr-type threat) until the defenses have been taken down, and that (so far) fixed-wing platforms with DIRCM have been able to defeat MANPADS at ranges that are compatible with their sensors and weapons. This of course is irrespective of RCS.

A-10 max speed: 381 kt
F-35 max speed: 1,058 kt

Is there a prize?

Yes. A conical hat and a stool in the corner. If the base is not close to the target (in airpower terms - under 200 nm), an F-35 will scream in at Mach 1.6 and say "sorry chaps, need to refuel, good luck, bye". As will pretty much any FJ at max speed. I think you know that.

Conversely, where the A-10 outpoints FJs is persistence over the target, or in the area. I don't see the 30-mm. as being vital in the era of PGMs or in the coming era of guided tube rounds; but the Hog will have its uses in a small-arms-and-MANPADS environment until another CAS platform comes along. By the way, small gunships and light attackers have their uses too - turboprops and DIRCM make a tough target for MANPADS.

But what you do need for CAS, in addition to a diverse PGM magazine, is multi-band EO/IR targeting and a Rover-equivalent video link. So let's continue this discussion when the F-35 has these things, which on current plans may start to happen in 2023.

Wear the hat, take the stool and do try not to woffle on.

Horses for courses sums it up.

[Brat]

And I am an A-10 fan. Recently released.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4&v=HpCvySLGuOA

[glad rag]

that would have been some achievement, what with being Army...



i don't know if you know this - and by refering the Army as 'they' i assume not - but a 500lb JDAM/Paveway is a very much larger hammer than the couple of 30mm rounds an A-10 might manage to get within a hundred yards of where i need it.

please, do tell me more about my experiences of being the consumer of air support. i'm literally all ears...

Point taken.

[Lonewolf_50]

Some of you seem to have overlooked attack helicopters as providing close air support/airborne fires. As this is the Military Aviation forum, such an oversight is not well played.

The 2.75 rockets are now able to fired in guided mode. Hellfire has its bugs worked out. Apache/Cobra others have mounted guns. (No, nobody has the A-10's gun, but there's more to CAS than a gun). A variety of nations have comparable munitions. If you need airborne fires, you don't need a bazillion dollar jet, nor any jet at all. Call your local helicopter battalion or squadron. (OK, if it's a Tiger, make sure they are flying that day. *Evil Grin* )

PS: I love the A-10. A lot. Hawgs is good.

[Brat]

For a thread on 'when the F-35 is cancelled' the program despite all negative opposition seems pretty robust.

The latest LM stats put out yesterday do contain some interesting info.
https://a855196877272cb14560-2a4fa819a63ddcc0c289f9457bc3ebab.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/13567/f-35_fast_facts_jan_2018.pdf

Not sure how Russia’s equivalent is doing?

China pretty close mouthed about their contenders, but look to be ahead of the Russians, and other countries, well they are just soldiering on in development of 5th gen hardware.

[George K Lee]

Can you find the page where they talk about trends in mean time between unscheduled maintenance, average workhours to fix problems, reliability, availability and FMC rates? Thx.

And since you bring it up, this thread started in August 2010, six months after the JPO boss was booted, but only a year or so after SecDef Gates had been assuring everyone that the program was going just fine.

And Gates said it was OK to be reliant on the JSF because the Chinese wouldn't have any stealth aircraft in 2020 and "no more than a handful" by 2025. So how's that working out?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-china-fighter/u-s-downplays-chinese-stealth-fighter-status-idUKTRE7042X820110105

The schedule on paper called for Block 3 IOT&E in early FY14, but flight-test jets were being delivered 6-16 months late and when they were "delivered" they still needed a ton of upgrades and fixes. It would take another three years before the program was sufficiently stabilized to even set new IOC dates.

And while you're quoting LockMart's marketing folks, here's what LockMart's consultant was telling us back then.

Despite Predicted Cost Increases, Many F-35 Program Metrics Are Positive - Lexington Institute (http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/despite-predicted-cost-increases-many-f-35-program-metrics-are-positive/)

It's history now, but you know what the chap said about learning from history...

[Brat]

George you do rise so reliably.

No. But then nor can we so easily find any of the problems that the Russian and Chinese programs had. Theirs is not quite 'free society' we have.

Did they have problems? Be strange if they had not.

And while you continue to bash on like a broken record, take a leaf from your own book/advice and... learn from history.

China and Russia are amongst the two most blood-soaked secretive and repressive societies going.

Is the F-35/ 5th Gen program doing better than either Russian or Chinese? We may never know, but it’s what we have. Your unending bile and negativity could be considered as 'constructive criticism’, but sadly just comes across and some ‘Pier Spreyish' very sour grapes.

[Frostchamber]

The schedule on paper called for Block 3 IOT&E in early FY14, but flight-test jets were being delivered 6-16 months late and when they were "delivered" they still needed a ton of upgrades and fixes. It would take another three years before the program was sufficiently stabilized to even set new IOC dates.

Not great certainly, but then by way of comparison Typhoon was four and a half years late when delivered in 2003. Type 45 was three years late and wasn't fully capable for another 3 or 4 years after that (and still has issues). Astute was a lot later still. The Army's FRES armoured vehicle project was initiated in 2001 with an expected service date of 2009. Deliveries of Ajax, which FRES evolved into, are just about getting under way with an aim of having it deployable from the end of 2020.

[A_Van]

Brat,

IMHO, you are over-reacting about T-50/Su-57 and Russia in general. Not much less info in the (Russian) media about the machine than US and their allies (those concerned) discuss about F-35. Videos, interviews with pilots, designers, project management, stupid ones from the government and various committees, etc. It just became boring long ago (at least for me),which means that things are moving. But for those who do not know the (Russian) language, it may seem that everything is supersecret. I assume that this is the case with China, too.
Of course reports like US DoD DOT&E are not published here, but this is rather a US-specific feature to make such details open. You may call it "free society", if you like. But, IMHO, while talking about mil.stuff, such words are not applicable.

[George K Lee]

Frostchamber - I'm not arguing that other programs have experienced problems, but the F-35 is special in many ways. It has never experienced a delay due solely to a cut in funding or to customer indecisiveness (the latter plagued Typhoon for more than a decade); the execution-based delays - getting things wrong and underestimating time and cost to fix) are up there among the record-holders; and its size makes the impact of those problems uniquely large.

And given that the next few years' upgrades will be equal to some entire acquisition programs, it's not the time to forget the history.

Brat - Thanks for the valuable information about Chinese and Russian politics. None of us knew that stuff.

[Brat]

George, your are welcome. It’s part of the ‘history' you seemed to think no-one else knew, and were so conveniently reminding us of.

[glad rag]

China and Russia are amongst the two most blood-soaked secretive and repressive societies going.



reads like a line from Alastair Campbell's( 're our ex friend Saddam H) dodgy dossier, and we all know how well the millitary/industrial alliance did out of that...bit like the rest of your bile soaked input..as dodgy as a yesterdays 'kipper..

[glad rag]

Not great certainly, but then by way of comparison Typhoon was four and a half years late when delivered in 2003. Type 45 was three years late and wasn't fully capable for another 3 or 4 years after that (and still has issues). Astute was a lot later still. The Army's FRES armoured vehicle project was initiated in 2001 with an expected service date of 2009. Deliveries of Ajax, which FRES evolved into, are just about getting under way with an aim of having it deployable from the end of 2020.

Typhoon...yawn.. RN should have gone cnt with Rafale and other fw assets into the 21 century and you know it

[Frostchamber]

Typhoon...yawn.. RN should have gone cnt with Rafale and other fw assets into the 21 century and you know it


My only point about Typhoon here was that, like F35, it was one of many defence projects seeing serious delivery slippage. I would certainly never, ever suggest it should have been marinised if that's what you're getting at - that way madness lay.

[glad rag]

Indeed.

Meanwhile..

https://img.planespotters.net/photo/648000/original/3-marine-nationale-french-navy-grumman-e-2c-hawkeye_PlanespottersNet_648915.jpg

[George K Lee]

Aside note: the French did a very nice job of designing CV and CTOL versions of the Rafale in parallel. It started with balancing the requirements so that the variants could be similar, went on to a compact shape without a wing fold, and continued through the first use of CATIA to get the best trade between low scar weight on the CTOL and production commonality.

[Frostchamber]

if you're trying to reopen the CTOL vs VSTOL debate, no point. It has been debated ad nauseam and there are plusses and minuses on both sides from a UK standpoint. The decisions have been taken and the key point now is to make the best of the route we've plumped for. The UK package is a good fit for the UK, but I'm certainly not going to rake over all the whys and wherefores yet again.

[Heathrow Harry]

We're stuck with what we have.... the decisions were taken years ago

[ORAC]

I’m reminded of the joke where a wife wakes up and sees her husband isn’t in bed and a light is on downstairs in the kitchen. She gets up and goes down and finds him in the kitchen brooding over a cup of coffee.

“What’s the matter?”, she asks.

“You remember when you were 16, And I got you pregnant. Then you’re dad said if I didn’t marry you he’d get me done for statuatory rape and banged up for 20 years. So I agreed and we did?”

“Yes?”, she replied.

“I’d have been out in the morning”........

[George K Lee]

Indeed, ORAC..

No point crying over spilled milk, although there's probably about a trillion gallons of it at current market prices.

[Brat]

What a gaggle of doom merchants.

[ORAC]

Cheer up!, they said, things could be worse!

So he did..... and they were......

[George K Lee]

Oh all right, let's have puppies and rainbows instead.

F-35 Ascending: The Pentagon's Biggest Program Had Its Best Year Ever In 2017 (https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2017/12/20/f-35-ascending-the-pentagons-biggest-program-had-its-best-year-ever-in-2017/#516efe0b6fc5)

And despite what the doomsayers may say, this is absolutely totally not the same Loren Thompson who wrote this....

If you don’t follow the defense business closely, then you can be excused for believing that the F-35 joint strike fighter is in trouble. (http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/four-reasons-for-confidence-in-the-f-35/)

... eight years ago, two months before the program director got fired, leaving in his wake a shambles that took three years to stabilize.

[Lonewolf_50]

Been reading Thompson's articles for some years, for better and for worse. I find his full disclosure to be of interest in putting his article in context. Lockheed is a longtime contributor to my think tank and a consulting client
As to his previous article, one of the salient points remains a fixed reality since 2009 and I think predates the initiation of this very thread on PPRuNe Mil Aviation. (First post was 22nd Aug 2010, 18:51).
1. There is no alternative. When the Clinton Administration decided to replace the cold-war fighters of three services with variants of one aircraft, it made the joint strike fighter indispensable to the armed forces. Secretary Gates amplified that effect by terminating the F-22 — the only other fighter with comparable survivability. If F-35 were to falter, the defense department would have to begin crash programs to develop replacements for everything from Air Force F-16s to Marine jumpjets, and it would have no chance of fielding those replacements before the advanced age of existing fighters undermined U.S. air power. While making more Super Hornets might help some customers, the point made in 2009 strikes me as still being true. (Cancellation of F-22 is still, to me, one of those teeth grinding moments).

[George K Lee]

The point was (at the time) valid to some extent, but was much easier to defend on the basis of the 2009 program of record, which still showed IOCs in 2012-15. (That was clearly moonshine, but it was the official moonshine.)

The "no alternative" argument also begged the question, incorporating the assumption that an alternative had to comply with the entire JSF requirement - CV, STOVL and all. The proper question at the time was "how do we best invest in US air combat forces, given what we now know is the real cost of JSF"?

And the hand-wringing over the "advanced age of existing fighters" is a little hard to read today, now that the last US airplane to be replaced by JSF (in 2046) will be at least 50 years old.

[Brat]

Brat,

IMHO, you are over-reacting about T-50/Su-57 and Russia in general. Not much less info in the (Russian) media about the machine than US and their allies (those concerned) discuss about F-35. Videos, interviews with pilots, designers, project management, stupid ones from the government and various committees, etc. It just became boring long ago (at least for me),which means that things are moving. But for those who do not know the (Russian) language, it may seem that everything is supersecret. I assume that this is the case with China, too.
Of course reports like US DoD DOT&E are not published here, but this is rather a US-specific feature to make such details open. You may call it "free society", if you like. But, IMHO, while talking about mil.stuff, such words are not applicable.




How many are flying?

[Brat]

...The proper question at the time was "how do we best invest in US air combat forces, given what we now know is the real cost of JSF"? ...

Find a crystal ball?

[A_Van]

How many are flying?



I recall in late 2017 there were 10
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D1%83-57


It looks like they are delaying serial production because the production lines are busy producing Su-35 and -30 machines as the target numbers from AF are not yet reached. Assume it will be delayed further because even a shallow analysis of the recent conflicts show that "4+" generation planes can do the same job being much cheaper. And in the "armageddon" scenario all such planes do not matter. Thus, better take time for testing, upgrading engines, systems, etc. IMHO.

[Just This Once...]

I think the point regarding engines is on the money. The Sukhoi dynamics and airframe teams must weep each time they see their latest efforts rewarded with such a terrible family of engines.

Great aircraft, quirky avionics and engines built like a fuse - welcome to the Su-whatever.

[Frostchamber]

I think the point regarding engines is on the money. The Sukhoi dynamics and airframe teams must weep each time they see their latest efforts rewarded with such a terrible family of engines.

Great aircraft, quirky avionics and engines built like a fuse - welcome to the Su-whatever.

Mind you, those Nenes and Derwents have given them a pretty good run.

[ORAC]

So so article, useful only for pointing towards the report which might be worth reading.

More interesting is one of the first comments below. It is of interest because, as those who have read the reports from the USA, it is the ever spiralling long term support costs for the F-35 - into the trillions, which is giving the DoD kittens. I wonder at the author’s background and wonder if Tecumseh has any comment? Comment appended below article text.

Defence chiefs told to sort out F-35 jet costs (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/defence-chiefs-told-to-sort-out-f-35-jet-costs-mwtgptkp6)

Defence chiefs must “urgently resolve” talks with the Treasury over who picks up the bill for a fall in the pound when buying US-made F-35 jets, MPs said. The public accounts committee said other military purchases would be put at risk if the multibillion-pound cost of the 138 stealth aircraft and two new aircraft carriers went over budget.

The comments came in a report on the delivery of carrier strike — the ability to launch fast jets from aircraft carriers at sea. The Ministry of Defence has budgeted to spend more than £14 billion on the programme by 2021. “The defence budget is very strained in the light of commitments made in the last strategic defence and security review,” the report said, in reference to plans set out in 2015 to purchase new warships, nuclear-armed submarines, armoured vehicles and aircraft.

The MoD based its budget for the programme on an assumption that £1 was worth $1.55 but sterling has fallen significantly since the vote for Brexit. The MPs said that the MoD “should urgently resolve ongoing discussions with the Treasury regarding current forward [hedging] contracts. Given the department’s tight financial position, the department should establish with Treasury if relief can be provided, and write to the committee with an update”.

Comment below article

Jag Patel

The ongoing problems associated with procuring the QE class aircraft carriers and its embarked F-35 jets are not only limited to the usual delays and cost overruns – they go beyond, to the contractual support arrangements put in place to acquire, and re-provision additional Support Assets to sustain the equipment in-service, for the full period of its service life. If past record is anything to go by, this aspect of defence procurement will only deliver further spiralling costs – and a headache for the Treasury.

This is because the sustained spinning campaign mounted by the communications people at MoD HQ over the last 25 years or so has succeeded in making everyone believe that, it is acquiring Support Assets for its military equipment upfront, on a whole-life sustainment basis when in fact, it has been quietly buying them separately from the prime equipment, on a piece-meal basis via a steady stream of short-term, renewable Post Design Services contracts let during the in-service phase – thereby, fooling not only its own people at Abbey Wood Bristol and the wider MoD, but also the whole of industry and in so doing, diverting attention away from the Treasury’s exposure to whole-life sustainment costs, which remain unquantified for lack of a firm selling price from the main Contractor.

What’s more, it is increasingly clear that the unrelenting spending cuts are putting such a strain on MoD’s equipment budget that, for some recently commissioned equipment into service, the military User can only afford to buy Support Assets for a very short period of the in-service phase, like one or two years at a time and on others, the User has no choice but to take drastic action like, deactivating equipment for those periods when there is no available funding for the acquisition of Support Assets – periods which are only likely to get longer and longer, thereby inadvertently creating capability gaps.

There have also been instances where the User has refused flatly to accept new equipment into service, because he is unwilling to pay for the prohibitively high cost of sustainment, foisted on him by MoD Abbey Wood.
@JagPatel3

[sandiego89]

^^^ That made my head hurt. Does JagPatel get extra credit for run on sentences and inclusion of extra words?

[glad rag]

Pretty straight forward sd

" diverting attention away from the Treasury’s exposure to whole-life sustainment costs, which remain unquantified for lack of a firm selling price from the main Contractor.

[Bigpants]

I hope this fiasco is the scandal that finally breaks BAE and the MOD. Taxpayers should demand that defence spending is slashed in the next budget. Special Forces, Marines and Light Infantry are very good but pissing money away on carriers and the F35 while binning assault ships is nuts. And then we have Air Tanker the worst PFI deal signed off ever and not a boom in sight....but feel free to use other people's tankers as long as you pay compensation!

[Onceapilot]

Bigpants
I am with you on the carriers, because I do not see how they fit into UK Defence requirement vs Budget . I see the F-35 as an asset that could have been much better in pure land based RAF use. The Voyager/Air Tanker PFI is terrible! Basic airframe is good but...we should still be doing better VFM.
MOD..... Hmmmm

OAP

[Brat]

I think in light of all the pissing and moaning the question is, should we invest in defence???

In light of history, seems madness not to.

[BEagle]

Onceapilot, the reason the RAF was saddled with having to use an external supplier for its core requirements was purely political. Way back when future needs were being discussed (around 1996), conventional procurement was the assumption and the only question was which airframe. I did some (unpaid, typical of RAF ways...) assessment for the relevant MoD department looking at A310MRTT, A300, B767-200ER, B767-300ER and 'FLA' (which became A400M about 20 years later). The A330 didn't even exist then, we also compared TriStar and VC10K4 / CIK. The winner was B767-200ER due to slightly lower burn than the -300ER, but with the same internal fuel.

When it came to looking at the transport capability, it soon became obvious that the narrower fuselage cross-section of the B767 would be an issue as it couldn't take a pair of LD3s side-by-side. Paradoxically, the A300/A310 would need additional centre tanks, meaning that unlike the B767 it would have to be supplied in combi format if it was to be a contestant in any final decision. So the eventual choice looked like becoming the A310MRTT, which was what BAe proposed to build at Filton, helping British industry. The figure of 24 new build A310MRTT each with 2 hoses, a probe and 72 t of fuel using 4 ACTs was the eventual prospect.

Then came the elephant in the room of PFI and the FSTA bidding competition...eventually won by AirTanker with new A330MRTTs rather than TTSC's used ex-ba B767s. Although the B767 met the user need spec., TTSC obviously didn't realise that MoD always wanted more than they'd spec'd. Initially I preferred the B767 until I looked into the runway performance at high AUW, particularly with significant ISA dev. Even our friendly Boeing chap admitted "That's where Airbus has got us beat"....

So AirTanker became the winner - at something over £1M per day. Which is a bit like someone needing a new car, who hasn't looked into how to pay for it - so has decided to go to Hertz to rent one. Much less expensive for a while, but after a while it becomes a MUCH more expensive option. Hertz, like AirTanker, aren't philanthropists and as such obviously expect a profit.

The best description of PFI came from the delightful Aussie lady who worked for a while on FSTA - when she went back to Australia she advised her people that PFI was not the way to go! "PFI? Poms are F*****g Idiots!"

In my humble opinion, if we'd re-examined the wing hose option when ZD949 went in for 'simple' glass cockpit modification and opted for the A310MRTT, kissing off PFI, the RAF would have been better served. But you can't put the blame on AirTanker, the PFI bolleaux wasn't of their invention!

An excellent programme on German TV channel N24 shows how the Luftwaffe use their A310MRTTs:

https://youtu.be/KPEZq_Y4U0c

They don't have an expensive AAR simulator either - the training system you see was evolved as the most cost-effective solution, plus it gives them the opportunity to practise AAR mission planning and management with their Mission Computer System for absolute peanuts. You'll see that the MCS has a moving map and a DDRMI for the Air Refuelling Operator, essential requirements realised at an early stage of MCS design (we did the DDRMI and RV computation page in a couple of weeks), as the consortium used AAR SMEs rather than engineers who thought that they knew better....

[Onceapilot]

Thanks Beags!
I am pretty much with you on that. As you know, I believe the RAF could have got much better VFM. Ridiculous! :mad:

OAP

[Bigpants]

Thanks Beagle an interesting read.

[Haraka]

Beags I can raise you 13 years on FLA(FIMA) involvement, being dragged across to Hatfield (IIRC) for meetings as company rep. in 1983 on aspects of its postulated sensor countermeasures fits.The idea apparently was that my lot would stump up privately (and provide trials fits gratis ) for the development of our particular systems for FLA integration. I think that the mere fact that it was me who was sent along, reflected the level of our board's enthusiasm for the general idea.

[George K Lee]

Meanwhile, here's a comment from last week:

So this guy says that if F-35 sustainment costs can't be "managed" and "lowered"... "we [the USAF] may end up with a fewer number of an aircraft that we don't really like."

So what uninformed naysayer, pisser and moaner said that? First correct answer gets a cookie...

[typerated]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-lockheed-arms-belgium/u-s-approves-possible-sale-of-f-35-jets-to-belgium-for-6-5-billion-idUSKBN1F82SY?il=0

I thought they might go with Dassault - and it is still possible but less likely.

I find the numbers amazing - the have dropped from buying 160 F-16's and still operating a wing of Mirages to 34 airframes! The Dutch have pretty much the same ratio of depletion.

Same rate of decay and it will be toss up whether you can count the number of replacements of the F-35 on one hand or not!

[Heathrow Harry]

The F-16C/D had a unit cost of US$18.8 million (1998) -

say 47% inflation to 2017 = $ 27.6 mm dollars per aircraft cp $ 121 mm for an F-35

So in fact they seem to be investing about the same...................

[Transall]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-lockheed-arms-belgium/u-s-approves-possible-sale-of-f-35-jets-to-belgium-for-6-5-billion-idUSKBN1F82SY?il=0

I thought they might go with Dassault - and it is still possible but less likely.

I find the numbers amazing - the have dropped from buying 160 F-16's and still operating a wing of Mirages to 34 airframes! The Dutch have pretty much the same ratio of depletion.

Same rate of decay and it will be toss up whether you can count the number of replacements of the F-35 on one hand or not!



Hi,


Typerated, I'm not aiming to upset you, but the RAF's depletion is not a lot different.
In describing us as having bought 160 F-16's and still operating a Mirage Wing, you are talking about 1989-1992. The second batch of F-16's replaced the Florennes Mirages in early 1989, leaving only Bierset with Mirages.
Back in 1989, the RAF had the Buccaneer force at Lossiemouth, the Phantom AD force, the Tornado's (about 350 GR and F2/F3 delivered or on order), the Jaguars and the Harriers.
Since one squadron of our Mirages were PR aircraft, I might also mention your Canberra's. I seem to remember they could gather 40 operational Canberra's for a 40th anniversary of the first flight party in 1989.


We were very pleased with our F-16's and SABCA got a good deal. This made the second batch possible.
Maybe 34 won't be our final number this time either.


Best regards, Transall.

[chopper2004]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-lockheed-arms-belgium/u-s-approves-possible-sale-of-f-35-jets-to-belgium-for-6-5-billion-idUSKBN1F82SY?il=0

I thought they might go with Dassault - and it is still possible but less likely.

I find the numbers amazing - the have dropped from buying 160 F-16's and still operating a wing of Mirages to 34 airframes! The Dutch have pretty much the same ratio of depletion.

Same rate of decay and it will be toss up whether you can count the number of replacements of the F-35 on one hand or not!

Typhoon is or was also offered

https://world.eurofighter.com/articles/eurofighter-typhoon-proposal-for-belgium-the-european-solution

cheers

[chopper2004]

https://theaviationist.com/2018/01/18/here-is-italys-first-f-35b-lightning-ii-flying-in-full-italian-navy-markings-for-the-first-time-today/

[Brat]

I hope this fiasco is the scandal that finally breaks BAE and the MOD. Taxpayers should demand that defence spending is slashed in the next budget. Special Forces, Marines and Light Infantry are very good but pissing money away on carriers and the F35 while binning assault ships is nuts. And then we have Air Tanker the worst PFI deal signed off ever and not a boom in sight....but feel free to use other people's tankers as long as you pay compensation!

You seem to be all for the defence of the country wishing MOD and BAE financial ruin. Your qualifications for your in depth analysis is based upon???

[typerated]

Hi Transall,

I didn't realise there was a second batch of F-16's to replace the Mirages.
The F-16 was a great buy for Europe I thought - for the first time in the cold war the smaller countries were operating something head and shoulders better than the soviets had. Especially as the UK and Germany didn't get an F-16 or F-18 class aircraft.

I remember a package of over 30 Belgian F-16s hitting Spadeadam in the mid 90s on I think it was 'Brilliant Foil' exercise - one of the Elder Forrest UK air defence exercise replacements. Bet you would struggle to do that now!

You might buy more F-35s but I doubt it! You might get less!

Yes I totally agree about the demise of the RAF - it is just a little easier to see on a single type force though.

[pr00ne]

Just how could the RAF (not that they spend the money) actually have achieved better VFM at the time?
As there was a cash shortage it HAD to be on HP. There was not the amount of cash available for an up front purchase of 14 Airbus A330 aircraft, their conversion into tanker/transport configuration, simulators, new hangars, ground support equipment, training, maintenance and support. Now with 75% aircrew and over 50% groundcrew and contractor back up providing the rest, the RAF has a real meaningful capability.
What would you have cut at the time if you wanted to buy all that lot up front?

[Davef68]

The F-16 was a great buy for Europe I thought - for the first time in the cold war the smaller countries were operating something head and shoulders better than the soviets had. Especially as the UK and Germany didn't get an F-16 or F-18 class aircraft.



Big difference being that the F16 didn't (initially at least) have a BVRAAM capability (That said, neither did the F-4F in that period!)

[typerated]

Fair call Dave but...

Central Europe in the time period - how useful would BVR be after the first morning?

For the Norwegians over the arctic - definitely a lack of capacity! - they probably bought the wrong aeroplane really- but the Belgians and Cloggies on the central front?

[ORAC]

Difficult to man a Kill Box without one.....

[Davef68]

https://raf-beta-public.org/news/uk-fighter-pilots-fly-f-35-lightning-for-first-time/

Interesting they only use the pilots' first names.

[Rhino power]

Looks like things are (still not) coming along nicely then... :hmm:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-25/lockheed-defends-its-f-35-after-pentagon-tester-s-criticism

-RP

[George K Lee]

On the bright side, if you're a loggie or a wrench-turner you can look forward to a lifetime of employment.

[Turbine D]

More on the bright side, it takes off, flies and lands resulting from 16 years of development, what more can one expect?

[Heathrow Harry]

"In the testing office’s annual report to Congress on major weapons systems, director Robert Behler said the availability of the F-35 for missions when needed -- a key metric -- remains “around 50 percent, a condition that has existed with no significant improvement since October 2014, despite the increasing number of aircraft.”"

[Rhino power]

The DOT&E's 2017 report in full...

Request Rejected (http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2017/pdf/dod/2017f35jsf.pdf)

-RP

*Ignore the 'Request Rejected' title, it opens fine!

[Lyneham Lad]

Something of a summary of the reports linked above...

F-35 Problems: Late IOTE, F-35A Gun Inaccurate, F-35B Tires, Threat Data, Cyber… (https://breakingdefense.com/2018/01/f-35-problems-late-iote-f-35a-gun-inaccurate-f-35b-tires-threat-data-cyber/?utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=60259038&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9cVGm3mzBtyco6jFMaKa_ck9chJesXwu_iIfAHFu4U1ipkCE32OVhzwCZvqk E7ord9soP9UAFrWoOS0Mcrk9Ow1KGRvg&_hsmi=60259038)

[George K Lee]

Thanks, LL.

The comments are illuminating. The pitch, volume and spittle content of the straight-out-of-the-gate vituperation from the fans and trollbots tells you there's some major concern about the issues in the report.

LockMart wasn't too happy with Dr Roper's confirmation testimony the other day either, one understands.

[Old Ned]

It will be the cost of replacing the 4 Nuc subs (£30 Billion but probably twice that by 2040) that will screw the defence budget. I dare say we will get the Lightning II, but not many and I also dare say the two new aircraft carriers will be late, so the aircraft will not be able to do their proper tasks.


What we surely need are simpler aircraft and lots of 'em!:confused:

[pr00ne]

Old Ned,

You do know that both carriers are finished, one delivered and the other about to be?

[Buster15]

Old Ned,

You do know that both carriers are finished, one delivered and the other about to be?

FINISHED.Depends on what you mean by finished. The real issue is when it/they will be declared operational and that will not happen for a few years...

[pr00ne]

Like any other new class of warship entering service. First F-35's to embark next year.

[glad rag]

Like any other new class of warship entering service. First F-35's to embark next year.

Much too easy to burst your bubble on that one....

[pr00ne]

Er, How exactly?

[Fonsini]

Has anyone improved their opinion of the F-35 since this thread began, I sense a slight change in the wind, just slight mind you.

[India Four Two]

I read in one of the recent links (I can't remember which) that the F-35 flight test hours are now over 100,000!


How does that compare with other development programs?

[George K Lee]

Has anyone improved their opinion of the F-35 since this thread began?

What's the scale?

5 - It works perfectly, destroys everything on the ground and in the air and is untouchable, and anyone who says otherwise is a whiny naysaying Pommy poopie-head.

4 - 5th-GenTM is the future and the US has the $$$$$ to see this thing through, so hang on to the bedpost and remember that it happened to the Queen.

3 - OK, 5th-GenTM is the future, but how much of our current capability do we want to burn to pay for it?

2 - 5th-Gen, schmithGen, what if the other guys are well on the way to negating it with VHF AESA and J-20s to schwack the tankers and HVAAs?

1 - It's a giant LMT/Pentagon plot to make the Western alliance dependent on the MICC for ever and ever, and hang the consequences for national or regional security.

[sandiego89]

Has anyone improved their opinion of the F-35 since this thread began, I sense a slight change in the wind, just slight mind you.


Perhaps like most (all?) controversial weapons programs, once the type starts seeing operational service in sizable numbers the furor goers down a notch. In the US we saw this with the V-22 and other programs. Lots has happened since this thread started, and while there is still a ways to go we have seen:


- 265+ F-35 deliveries
- 66 built in the last year
- Ever increasing customers achieving milestones (first crews, deliveries, new orders...)
- Operational service declared (yes with pages of back and forth of what that means)
- New assembly and support facilities- not just LM Fort Worth anymore
- Some cost control on the F-35A (if you believe it)
- Some positive reports (if you believe it)
- Participation in increasingly advanced exercises.
- Deployments overseas.
- Ever increasing capabilities (with still much to go)


I opine that once the product hits the fleet, and at least shows it brings some capability, the furor lessens. Note I did not say the costs or questions lessen.

[George K Lee]

Well, actually, since the USAF started receiving and flying substantial numbers of airplanes, they have cut their planned full-rate production tempo from 80 to 60 jets a year, and their senior acquisition officer has expressed increasing concern about the need to upgrade the current jets with the next-gen processor and has actually asked Congress to not fund more jets than the AF has requested.

A deep dive into the DOT&E availability, reliability and maintainability numbers will tell you more about this than any 237 updates of LockMart's happy-talk Fact Facts.

[Brat]

Well, actually, since the USAF started receiving and flying substantial numbers of airplanes, they have cut their planned full-rate production tempo from 80 to 60 jets a year, and their senior acquisition officer has expressed increasing concern about the need to upgrade the current jets with the next-gen processor and has actually asked Congress to not fund more jets than the AF has requested.

A deep dive into the DOT&E availability, reliability and maintainability numbers will tell you more about this than any 237 updates of LockMart's happy-talk Fact Facts.

What a piss dripping misery-guts you are George.

Deep dive investigation indicates that these online, active, service aircraft, that are technically ahead of whatever is being fielded by Russia or China.

They are front line weapon systems, presently in operation. Do tell us what is better???

Yup not perfect, what weapon system is. They are in development.

[glad rag]

They sure have been.

[George K Lee]

piss dripping misery-guts

That's how you spell "realist" and "taxpayer", correct?

They are in development.

You don't need to remind people here of that fact, because development started 21 years ago last November, and (unlike most other contemporary fighter programs) has always been fully funded.

[Brat]

The B-52 is still 'under development’, and been around just a little while.

[glad rag]

No it isn't "under development" at all lolol.

MEANWHILE to illustrate GKL's point..

https://www.theregister.co.uk/AMP/2018/01/30/f35_dote_report_software_snafus/

“The [F-35] program is using test point data from older versions of software to sign off capability specifications and justify baseline test point deletions, even though the old data may no longer be representative of the latest version of Block 3F software.”

Britain’s 14 F-35Bs are all thought to be running Block 3F software of various sub-versions. Yet the all-singing, all-dancing jet still can’t talk to its guided air-to-ground bombs properly, even with the latest patches installed.

“For Block 3F, the pilot is now able to see what coordinates are sent to the bomb, but is still not able to see what coordinates are actually loaded in the bomb,” noted DOTE. “The [US] Services are assessing if this correction meets the requirements directed by the rules of engagement in specific areas of operation.”

Even more worryingly, trials identified that the AIM-120 AMRAAM missile, which the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy intend to use as the F-35B’s main air-to-air weapon, cannot currently be used to its full potential by the supersonic stealth jet. After six test firings in simulated combat scenarios, test pilots identified “key technical deficiencies in the ability of the F-35 to employ the AIM-120 weapons”.

And there's plenty more, read it and inwardly digest.

Having worked in civil aircraft production, you have specific production markers to meet then the customer pays some more etc etc.
If you were to lie or otherwise deceive the customer, that would be fraudulent ....

[George K Lee]

By that standard the 737 is still under development, even though nearly 10,000 have been delivered. And the B-52, in 21 years, went from a balsa model in a Dayton hotel suite to operations, a massive redesign and combat over Vietnam.

[Turbine D]

Brat,
What a piss dripping misery-guts you are George.

Maybe you ought to begin to critique the subject, which is far from perfect and IMHO, will never be perfect because of the mistakes made in the beginning of the program. If you are hung up with the words "development phase", replace it with the words "discovery phase", it's the phase that occurs after when development was done incorrectly.

Currently, the USAF is ordering more replacement wings for A-10 Warthogs as they begin to see through the fog and now are facing reality:

ACQUISITION, AIR, INTEL & CYBER
F-35 Problems: Late IOTE, F-35A Gun Inaccurate, F-35B Tires, Threat Data, Cyber…

By COLIN CLARK on January 26, 2018 at 4:59 PM

From the Behler report:

There’s another important problem which will make it very difficult for the Air Force to argue that it can replace the A-10 with the F-35A, as planned: “The F-35A gun has been consistently missing ground targets during strafe testing; the program is still troubleshooting the problems.” The gun shoots “long, and to the right.” The Marine’s F-35B and the Navy’s F-35C guns, which are not built in, are apparently performing better. “Initial accuracy testing of the F-35B and F-35C podded guns showed better results than that of the F-35A model,” Behler writes. “Both the F-35B and the F-35C gun pods exhibited the same right aiming bias as the F-35A, however the long bias is not manifested in the podded gun systems.”

The other bad news here is that “delays in completing the remaining gun testing and correcting gun-related deficiencies within SDD, especially for the F-35A, are adding risk to the IOT&E schedule,” the report says.

[PhilipG]

Britain’s 14 F-35Bs are all thought to be running Block 3F software of various sub-versions. Yet the all-singing, all-dancing jet still can’t talk to its guided air-to-ground bombs properly, even with the latest patches installed.

Not the I am questioning the understanding that the British F-35Bs are all running 3F software however I have yet to see a photo of a not test and development aircraft with external stores, an incremental capacity with 3F, unless it has been pushed back a generation?

[Baron 58P]

The F-35 is all a hoax! See what Duffelblog says.....
https://www.duffelblog.com/2018/01/f-35-m-night-shyamalan-movie/

[A_Van]

I don't think that situation with F-35 is dramatically different (in negative sense) as compared with many previous aircraft programmes of that sort. The main difference is that in the current "era" of Internet media and social networks, millions of laymen generate gigabits of rubbish texts that circulate on the Net. And, as usual, negative news are the most attractive for non-specialists who think they have "finally found the truth that was previously covered".

[ORAC]

What’s that funny word on the Typhoon thread again? Oh yes - stochastic.

More data analysis is a sure fire way to save money.........

Pentagon ‘can't afford the sustainment costs‘ on F-35, Lord says (https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/02/01/pentagon-cant-afford-the-sustainment-costs-on-f-35-lord-says/)

WASHINGTON – Sustainment costs on the F-35 are poised to become unaffordable, and that’s a big challenge for Ellen Lord, the Pentagon’s newly christened undersecretary of defense for acquisition and sustainment. As a result, Lord is focused on testing new business and data processes on the fifth-generation stealth fighter, including leveraging big data analytics for sustainment purposes.

“Right now, we can’t afford the sustainment costs we have on the F-35. And we’re committed to changing that,” Lord told reporters at a Jan. 31 roundtable, adding that the plane is the “most significant” program in the Department of Defense.....

With just over 250 joint strike fighters absorbed into the fleet already, the Defense Department is experiencing a number of problems sustaining the aircraft. In an October report, the Government Accountability Office laid out numerous challenges, including long maintenance times for parts, a spare parts shortage and delayed updates to the F-35’s logistics system.

After the report was released, the F-35 joint program office stated that although it was factually accurate based on the data gathered at the time, it “does not fully account for the critical work the F-35 sustainment team has led over the past several months to accelerate depot capability and capacity, implement solutions to increase spare parts and reduce overall sustainment costs.”

Lord said her team is “in the process” of detailing six acquisition professionals from her team just to focus on the sustainment issue for the jet, working hand in hand with the F-35 joint program office. The goal, she said is to go to the basics of how sustainment is done and to try new methods for driving costs down. “It’s really deconstructing a program, as you always would, but [F-35] being a large complex program with international partners, [foreign military sales] coming up, there’s a complexity to it that benefits from fresh eyes that are familiar with the program routinely looking at and asking questions,” she explained.

Because F-35 is such a massive program, the hope is to prove out these fresh approaches and then drag them onto other sets of major defense acquisition programs, including the use of data analytics to find ways to cut costs. “One of the things we’ve been talking about a lot is that we will be data driven. So we are frankly wasting people’s time if we sit around with opinions and concepts,” Lord said. “If that is not backed up by analytical rigor and the data behind it. So, we’re practicing all of that on the F-35. I think we’re getting a little sharper in all the areas.”

[Turbine D]

A_Van,
I don't think that situation with F-35 is dramatically different (in negative sense) as compared with many previous aircraft programmes of that sort.
One that kinda sticks in my mind is the F-111...

[etudiant]

A_Van,

One that kinda sticks in my mind is the F-111...

That airplane served rather well in Australia, iirc. The replacement Hornets were a downgrade in capabilities in terms of range and payload.

[glad rag]

That airplane served rather well in Australia, iirc. The replacement Hornets were a downgrade in capabilities in terms of range and payload.

Just like the F35!!

[A_Van]

I recall F-104 "Starfighter". A revolutionary plane for mid 50's. The total number built was about 2500 that is somewhat similar to the planned amount of F-35. About 15 countries used it. It was called "flying coffin" in Germany because some 30% of about 900+ machines were lost (in peace time). Can anybody imagine such numbers now, or, better say, with current public attitude? I assume that the designer and program management would be crucified (and the world would not see SR-71 because both planes were designed by Kelly Johnson).

[Brat]

No it isn't "under development" at all lolol.

It most certainly is. lolol!

Development:- the process of developing or being developed.
"she traces the development of the novel"
evolution, growth, maturing, expansion, enlargement, spread, buildout, progress.

https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/up-to-119b-for-b-52h-maintenenace-modernization-06583/

[QUOTE]By that standard the 737 is still under development,
Yes George, it is still evolving, growing, getting bigger better, maturing.

[jindabyne]

Because F-35 is such a massive program, the hope is to prove out these fresh approaches and then drag them onto other sets of major defense acquisition programs, including the use of data analytics to find ways to cut costs. “One of the things we’ve been talking about a lot is that we will be data driven. So we are frankly wasting people’s time if we sit around with opinions and concepts,” Lord said. “If that is not backed up by analytical rigor and the data behind it. So, we’re practicing all of that on the F-35. I think we’re getting a little sharper in all the areas.”



Which means ----?

[Turbine D]

Which means ----?
It means that analytical rigor and data they didn't have when concurrent engineering was the plan used supposedly to shorten the development cycle time and reduce costs. Some of this data knowledge isn't yet available today, and we continue in the discovery mode...

[Turbine D]

Brat,
Development:- the process of developing or being developed.
"she traces the development of the novel"
evolution, growth, maturing, expansion, enlargement, spread, buildout, progress.

So what you are saying is that any aircraft still flying is being developed?
I guess that limits developed aircraft to those (usually the last ones) on display in museums...

[glad rag]

[quote=glad rag;10037353]No it isn't "under development" at all lolol.

It most certainly is. lolol!

Development:- the process of developing or being developed.
"she traces the development of the novel"
evolution, growth, maturing, expansion, enlargement, spread, buildout, progress.

https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/up-to-119b-for-b-52h-maintenenace-modernization-06583/


Yes George, it is still evolving, growing, getting bigger better, maturing.

So you agree that they have deployed aircraft on operations that do not have the appropriate, cluster, :) of characteristics that will enable the aircraft to succesfully engage the enemy and survive.
This must be the case surely, otherwise why waste even more money on "development".

[flighthappens]

[quote=Brat;10040121]

So you agree that they have deployed aircraft on operations that do not have the appropriate, cluster, :) of characteristics that will enable the aircraft to succesfully engage the enemy and survive.
This must be the case surely, otherwise why waste even more money on "development".

Glad Rag... you really are quite tiresome regarding the F35. The fact is that most aircraft are continually upgraded throughout their service lives.

A perfect parallel is your beloved Tornado, which is quite a different beast now to when it first came out of the factory. As is the Typhoon, even in its Tranche2 guise, which has evolved from no air to surface capability to a reasonable (whilst not earth shattering) capability. This air to surface capability, along with other capabilities (air to air, defensive suite etc) that will continue to evolve as new software standards, hardware and weapons are added.

What’s the point? If you stand still in mil aviation your going backwards. Why you would be critical of the JSF solely seems quite absurd.

[Buster15]

[quote=glad rag;10040471]

Glad Rag... you really are quite tiresome regarding the F35. The fact is that most aircraft are continually upgraded throughout their service lives.

A perfect parallel is your beloved Tornado, which is quite a different beast now to when it first came out of the factory. As is the Typhoon, even in its Tranche2 guise, which has evolved from no air to surface capability to a reasonable (whilst not earth shattering) capability. This air to surface capability, along with other capabilities (air to air, defensive suite etc) that will continue to evolve as new software standards, hardware and weapons are added.

What’s the point? If you stand still in mil aviation your going backwards. Why you would be critical of the JSF solely seems quite absurd.

But, the difference with Tornado was that during its 35+ years life cycle, it only had one real upgrade programme and the GR4 upgrade was primary the result of lessons learnt during GW1. The GR4 upgrade was NOT prior to EIS but over 10 years after.
The Typhoon update was the result of a change in role from A2A to A2G.
Both are completely different to the pre EIS updates of F35 which are essentially to achieve spec compliance.

[flighthappens]

[quote=flighthappens;10040685]

But, the difference with Tornado was that during its 35+ years life cycle, it only had one real upgrade programme and the GR4 upgrade was primary the result of lessons learnt during GW1. The GR4 upgrade was NOT prior to EIS but over 10 years after.
The Typhoon update was the result of a change in role from A2A to A2G.
Both are completely different to the pre EIS updates of F35 which are essentially to achieve spec compliance.

If you think Typhoon Tr1 was a finished product at EIS 😱

[Buster15]

[quote=Buster15;10040696]

If you think Typhoon Tr1 was a finished product at EIS 😱

Yes you are right regarding Tranche 1, point taken. In defence of that, it was primary the result of delays to the development programme (mainly German) which meant that EF2000 EIS was introduced as an 'austere' standard with very limited capabilities.
My apologies for forgetting that.

[PPRuNeUser0211]

Tornado F2 anyone....?

[glad rag]

A perfect parallel is your beloved Tornado

ROFL.

Now getting back to those F35's that are quite clearly REMF material..

[ORAC]

A perfect parallel is your beloved Tornado ROFL.

And I have no doubt, given 10-15 years, the RAF will be able to modify it to perform adequately as a platform, if not brilliantly.

It’s just unusual in that they are usually forced to do that to keep incompetent UK companies in business, not American.....

[Brat]

Brat,

So what you are saying is that any aircraft still flying is being developed?
I guess that limits developed aircraft to those (usually the last ones) on display in museums...

No not any aircraft. Most active military aircraft are continually being upgraded, with some more that others.

[glad rag]

ROFL.

And I have no doubt, given 10-15 years, the RAF will be able to modify it to perform adequately as a platform, if not brilliantly.

It’s just unusual in that they are usually forced to do that to keep incompetent UK companies in business, not American.....

You never know.

The RAF might be able to inherit some of those Gucci F/A 22's by then....

[Turbine D]

I wonder if the F-35 Program will become part of this accounting fiasco as more auditing goes on:
One of the Pentagon’s largest agencies can't account for hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of spending, a leading accounting firm says in an internal audit obtained by POLITICO that arrives just as President Donald Trump is proposing a boost in the military budget.

Ernst & Young found that the Defense Logistics Agency failed to properly document more than $800 million in construction projects, just one of a series of examples where it lacks a paper trail for millions of dollars in property and equipment. Across the board, its financial management is so weak that its leaders and oversight bodies have no reliable way to track the huge sums it's responsible for, the firm warned in its initial audit of the massive Pentagon purchasing agent.

The audit raises new questions about whether the Defense Department can responsibly manage its $700 billion annual budget — let alone the additional billions that Trump plans to propose this month. The department has never undergone a full audit despite a congressional mandate — and to some lawmakers, the messy state of the Defense Logistics Agency's books indicates one may never even be possible.

“If you can’t follow the money, you aren’t going to be able to do an audit,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley, an Iowa Republican and senior member of the Budget and Finance committees, who has pushed successive administrations to clean up the Pentagon’s notoriously wasteful and disorganized accounting system.

[ORAC]

And, as every year, the more the F-18 orders go up, so the planned F-35 orders go down....

Trump to seek 24 Boeing Super Hornets in budget (https://www.heraldnet.com/business/trump-to-seek-24-boeing-super-hornets-in-budget/)

President Donald Trump’s fiscal 2019 budget will request 24 Super Hornet jets built by Boeing, reversing an Obama administration decision to stop buying the fighter after this year, according to two people familiar with the decision.

The Navy has argued that it needs more of the planes designated F/A-18E/F to fill a shortage in its inventory until more of Lockheed Martin’s newer F-35s are deployed. Before Trump even took office, he’d promoted the Super Hornet as a less costly alternative to the F-35, though the two planes have different capabilities.

The proposal in the budget due to be presented Feb. 12 is likely to be welcomed in Congress, which has consistently added more Super Hornets than requested and resisted Pentagon plans under former President Barack Obama to phase it out. Lawmakers approved 12 of the aircraft in fiscal 2016 when none were requested and 12 more in fiscal 2017 when two were requested. This fiscal year, House and Senate appropriators have proposed adding 10 aircraft to the 14 requested.

If Boeing “can get the cash for this, it’s very good news” because 24 aircraft per year is the minimum economic production rate to keep Boeing’s plant in St. Louis operating, Richard Aboulafia, military aircraft analyst for the Teal Group, said in an email. Boeing also is working with the Kuwaiti government to build as many as 32 F/A-18s for Kuwait over the next few years. “The big question is: How long will the Navy sustain the line?” Aboulafia said. “But in the ‘here and now,’ this is very good news for one of Boeing’s most profitable programs.”

The people familiar with the budget request asked not to be identified in advance of its release. Lt. Seth Clarke, a Navy spokesman, said in an email, “I can’t confirm a specific number” for any aircraft procurement in the coming budget.

The fiscal 2019 request for the Super Hornets will be the largest since fiscal 2012, when the Navy asked for funds to buy 28 of the fighters.....

[Jabba_TG12]

Just how could the RAF (not that they spend the money) actually have achieved better VFM at the time?
As there was a cash shortage it HAD to be on HP. There was not the amount of cash available for an up front purchase of 14 Airbus A330 aircraft, their conversion into tanker/transport configuration, simulators, new hangars, ground support equipment, training, maintenance and support. Now with 75% aircrew and over 50% groundcrew and contractor back up providing the rest, the RAF has a real meaningful capability.
What would you have cut at the time if you wanted to buy all that lot up front?

Pardon my pedantry, but IIRC, at the point that deal was formulated, let alone signed off, hadn't the ever bounteous Dear Leader Brown forever banished boom and bust? What MOD cash shortage at the time?? According to him, everything in the garden was rosy!

[Brat]

Brat,
So what you are saying is that any aircraft still flying is being developed?
I guess that limits developed aircraft to those (usually the last ones) on display in museums...

As previously stated...some more than others.

And as an interesting adjunct to the subject of ongoing development of certain aircraft over others, it was interesting to see a suggestion that the USAF might be considering the retirement of the B1 and B2 Bombers in favour or replacement by the B21 Raider, while retaining the upgrades B-52’s.
USAF's Controversial New Plan To Retire B-2 And B-1 Bombers Early Is A Good One - The Drive (http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/18410/usafs-controversial-new-plan-to-retire-b-2-and-b-1-bombers-early-is-a-good-one)

While Taylor Rogoway is sometimes considered as a somewhat off-the-wall blogger on military affairs, he does have a reasonably long record of following developing trends, and, the article contains logical postulation.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a17045156/air-force-plans-to-retire-b-2s-and-b-1s-in-preparation-for-new-b-21-raider/

[glad rag]

As previously stated...some more than others.

And as an interesting adjunct to the subject of ongoing development of certain aircraft over others, it was interesting to see a suggestion that the USAF might be considering the retirement of the B1 and B2 Bombers in favour or replacement by the B21 Raider, while retaining the upgrades B-52’s.
USAF's Controversial New Plan To Retire B-2 And B-1 Bombers Early Is A Good One - The Drive (http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/18410/usafs-controversial-new-plan-to-retire-b-2-and-b-1-bombers-early-is-a-good-one)

While Taylor Rogoway is sometimes considered as a somewhat off-the-wall blogger on military affairs, he does have a reasonably long record of following developing trends, and, the article contains logical postulation.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a17045156/air-force-plans-to-retire-b-2s-and-b-1s-in-preparation-for-new-b-21-raider/

One simple google undoes all the hyperbole BRAT

[Brat]

One simple google undoes all the hyperbole BRAT

Don’t be coy rag, fitterspeak a tad oblique, do enlighten.

[ORAC]

The story is baćked up by Defence News (https://www.defensenews.com/smr/federal-budget/2018/02/12/air-force-requests-1563-billion-in-fy19-plans-to-retire-b-1-b-2-fleets/).

Planned retirement of B-1 and B-2 fleets and official USAF announcement in the FY19 budget proposal.

[George K Lee]

It's a logical plan, up to a point.

100 jets that can get to the fight and raise a friendly digit to the IADS, which can't see them even with VHF.

75 jets that can stand off at a great distance and throw things that are hard and expensive to shoot down.

But only up to a point. Because then you have 1900 jets that can't get anywhere without a tanker. Speaking of tankers, I'm sure there was supposed to be one around here, 'cos I'm out of gas over the oggin. What happened to the tanker? Oh :mad:

http://www.defencenews.in/images_articles/1_img110218091920.jpg

[glad rag]

And in the meantime, whilst REMF F35's are developed into "warfighter material"...

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2015/08/23/chinese-radar-strongly-resembles-israeli-product/

"TAIPEI and ISLAMABAD — A Chinese avionics marketing and manufacturing firm has put Israeli-US relations under a microscope after marketing an advanced fire control radar identical to Elta's ELM-2052 active electronically scanned array (AESA)"

[ORAC]

SNAFU!: US Navy opts for the Advanced Super Hornet in all but name...we know how the F-35 vs Super Hornet comparison worked out! (http://www.snafu-solomon.com/2018/02/us-navy-opts-for-advanced-super-hornet.html)

[George K Lee]

From GR's linked story:

Yang Yunchun, NAV Technology chairman and president, did not respond to repeated requests to comment. By phone, NAV Technology’s Mr. Xiong turned down requests for information about the company’s activities.

That's a shocker.

[Heathrow Harry]

There's a good comment following that link ORAC put up:-

"Earl Tower (https://disqus.com/by/earltower/) • 3 hours ago (http://www.snafu-solomon.com/2018/02/us-navy-opts-for-advanced-super-hornet.html#comment-3762689785)

I think the US Navy always felt the C model of the F-35 was a pig in a poke. The B model at last has the idea of it might have some operational use due to its VSTOL capacities, and the USAF can always just use the A model as an over sensored F-16. In the end the A is usable, since the Air Force tends to integrate several air craft types into any air campaign, and the B can see use for sea control ship style functions. The C model just doesn't have enough over the advanced F-18 superhornets to really matter in the long run.

The US Navy has seldom gone for deep strike missions for application of naval aviation. Instead they tend to just batter the defenses down and peel the target back layer by layer till there is no opposition. Besides for deep strike the Navy can always turn to land attack cruise missiles. By the time the Navy is doing land strikes, they have destroyed air defenses and gained air superiority. So that stealth for the F-35 is just a waste of money."

[glad rag]

In the meantime HMS Ocean sold for half the price of a single F35...

https://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/uk-world/602408/navys-flagship-hms-ocean-sold-to-brazil-for-84-million

[peter we]

Plus the cost of the refurb, which we wouldn't get if its was simply scrapped.

And it was scrap, wasn't it.

[Lyneham Lad]

On aviationanalysiswing:-
Norway carries out first in-country F-35A parachute braking trials (http://www.aviationanalysis.net/2018/02/norway-f35a-first-braking-trials-orland.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+AviationAnalysisWing+%28Aviation+Analys is+Wing%29)

Snip:-
Norway has completed the first in-country braking trial of a drag chute fitted F-35A on Feb 16, from the Ørland Air Force Base.

The test successfully verified the parachute braking system, a unique feature being developed for the Norwegian F-35As.

It is being added in order to rapidly decelerate Royal Norwegian Air Force F-35s after landing on the country’s icy runways when there are challenging wind conditions.

The chute is housed under a small fairing on the upper rear fuselage between the vertical tails.

[Not_a_boffin]

The US Navy has seldom gone for deep strike missions for application of naval aviation. Instead they tend to just batter the defenses down and peel the target back layer by layer till there is no opposition. Besides for deep strike the Navy can always turn to land attack cruise missiles. By the time the Navy is doing land strikes, they have destroyed air defenses and gained air superiority. So that stealth for the F-35 is just a waste of money."



The A3, A5, particularly A6 and to a degree the Bombcat role for F14 towards the end of its life tend to contradict that. The failure/cancellation of the A12 programme to replace the A6 constrained them to the construct they have now. Nor can cruise missiles service all the deep strike targets you might wish to hit.

[Lonewolf_50]

I think the US Navy always felt the C model of the F-35 was a pig in a poke. The Navy has often been frustrated with the Joint "one size fits all" mantra spouted by politicians who have little technical understanding. But they got on board the program because there was no other choice. The US Navy has seldom gone for deep strike missions for application of naval aviation. I don't think you have much of a clue about the US Navy, Harry. This isn't the first time I've found your assertions on that score to be out of synch. I would be curious in getting an idea about what you think deep strike is. Your definition would be of interest, but as written you have offered a vague platitude. (Your point on cruise missiles is OK, they are a mixed blessing and are good for some missions, not as good for some others).

A-5, A-6 (with EA-6B support) and A-12 (our first go at a stealth strike platform that ran into serious troubles as it was to replace our A-6 but died in the acquisition process) all are deep strike capabilities (and roles and missions areas) that go back some decades. Not_a_boffin's point on the Tomcat/Bombcat is well made. (I recall a few missions from carriers in the PG up into Northern Iraq around Tal Afar over a decade ago, CAS/Strike). Part of the appeal of A-12, had it come to fruition rather than dying a horrible death, was its capacity for strikes that avoid IADS networks, and avoid the need for the SEAD war first ...

Does the USN have a Buff (B-52)? No. That's the USAF's bailiwick.

[Not_a_boffin]

To be fair to HH, I think he's actually posting someone else's comment from the SNAFU link ORAC put up, albeit one he's chosen from a range of different opinions.

[Heathrow Harry]

Correct...

In fact historically the USN spent lots on duplicating USAF long range capabilities

I thought the article was an interesting US take on the issues

[Davef68]

In the meantime HMS Ocean sold for half the price of a single F35...

https://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/uk-world/602408/navys-flagship-hms-ocean-sold-to-brazil-for-84-million


Slightly more than half of what we paid for it. Not bad after 20 years of service

[tdracer]

Sorry for the thread drift, but I really don't see the logic behind mothballing the relatively new B1 and B2, while dumping vast money into the 60 year old BUFF (I'd estimate the re-engine program at a minimum of $100 million each - probably quite a bit more with the associated R&D).
The B2 is quite stealthy, the B1 moderately so, while the BUFF is the antithesis of stealth. Yea, the BUFF can carry a large load, but the B1 is no slouch in that regard. In any sort of contested airspace the BUFF would be a sitting duck (or as a minimum would require a fleet of suppression aircraft) - the B1 and B2 would have at least a fighting chance.
What am I missing?

[Heathrow Harry]

Theres a new thread on the B52......

[ORAC]

Russia has deployed the SU-57 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-57) to Syria..

https://youtu.be/qsGR8BLhbr8



https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Aq0KhY8Wem4/hqdefault.jpg

[glad rag]

Ratchet, ratchet, ratchet...becoming quite the little Russian test zone..

[KenV]

Sorry for the thread drift, but I really don't see the logic behind mothballing the relatively new B1 and B2, while dumping vast money into the 60 year old BUFF (I'd estimate the re-engine program at a minimum of $100 million each - probably quite a bit more with the associated R&D).
The B2 is quite stealthy, the B1 moderately so, while the BUFF is the antithesis of stealth. Yea, the BUFF can carry a large load, but the B1 is no slouch in that regard. In any sort of contested airspace the BUFF would be a sitting duck (or as a minimum would require a fleet of suppression aircraft) - the B1 and B2 would have at least a fighting chance.
What am I missing?

Cut and paste from the B-52 re-engine thread:

That's not really correct. A single large high bypass engine on the outboard pylons would end up too close to the ground. Some people claim this would cause an engine strike in a cross wind landing, but that's false. The B-52 does not bank into a crosswind. It has steerable landing gear and crabs wings level into a crosswind. The real problem is two-fold: FOD ingestion and wing flutter. In addition the airflow and CG distibution of a four engine layout would be very very different than the 8 engine layout. This would require recertification of every weapon and weapon combination from every store location and combination of store locations on the aircraft. That would require a LOT of very expensive test flying. The more we looked at the four engine solution, the worse it got. It quickly became a non player. The advent of modern engines in the required thrust range designed for biz jets made an eight engine solution possible again. There are still some issues, but they are miniscule compared to the four engine solution.

As for the B-52 vs the B-1, USAF preferred keeping the Bone flying over the Buff. For the past 10+ years USAF has been tearing down and doing deep-dive inspections of the Bone's structure. Sadly, keeping the structure safe to fly much past a single design lifetime is going to be very difficult and horrendously expensive. So the Buff gets the nod over the Bone and the Buff's new engines will pay for themselves if the Buff keeps flying for another 20-25 years. And to ensure that, USAF is investing heavily in corrosion inspections, abatement, correction and protection on the Buff. As for the B-2, that fleet is just too small to effectively manage and its stealth coating systems ludicrously difficult and expensive to maintain, so keeping it going after the B-21 comes on line would be foolish.

[Heathrow Harry]

"Ratchet, ratchet, ratchet...becoming quite the little Russian test zone.."

and why not................. low risk, not much serious opposition so far.......

[tdracer]

Theres a new thread on the B52......
Yea, opened about 5 hours after I made my thread drifting post :ugh:
I'll continue my discussion over there...

[Turbine D]

Article in today's Wall Street Journal...
By Doug Cameron
Updated Feb. 28, 2018 6:47 p.m. ET
The Pentagon is pushing to make the F-35 combat jet cheaper and will take over some repair work to prevent the world’s most expensive military program from becoming unaffordable. Lockheed Martin Corp.’s multiyear effort to reduce the plane’s cost has worked, but the military head of the program warned spending on the F-35 could still surpass the Pentagon’s budget for the program by 2021. “The price is coming down, but it’s not coming down fast enough,” Vice Adm. Mat Winter said on Wednesday.

Lockheed derives a quarter of its sales from the F-35 program. The Pentagon’s request could dent expectations for Lockheed to win a greater share of the business of maintaining the planes, which is typically more profitable than building aircraft. Adm. Winter has launched a six-month review of labor expenses incurred by Lockheed and partners including Northrop Grumman Corp. and BAE Systems PLC to analyze the plane’s cost structure. Lockheed Martin said in a statement that it was “aggressively” cutting costs and working with the government and suppliers to identify other opportunities.

The Pentagon said that taking on some of the F-35 repair work will free companies working on the program to make spare parts that have sometimes run short. Adm. Winter said just over half the fleet of 280 jets is available to fly because of spares shortages and quality issues. Lockheed and its partners are in talks with the Pentagon on an 11th batch of jets for the U.S. and allies including the U.K., Norway and Australia. Adm. Winter said the average cost of jets in the 130-plane deal would be less than for the previous batch.

The average cost of the F-35A model used by the U.S. Air Force dropped to $94.6 million in the last contract, a 7% decline from the previous deal.

[ORAC]

And that finally just about kills off the F-35C as anything but a token force.....

Boeing Receives U.S. Navy Contract to Modernize F/A-18 Super Hornet Fleet (http://boeing.mediaroom.com/2018-03-01-Boeing-Receives-U-S-Navy-Contract-to-Modernize-F-A-18-Super-Hornet-Fleet)

ARLINGTON, Va., March 1, 2018 – Boeing [NYSE: BA] has been awarded a contract to modernize the U.S. Navy F/A-18 fleet, extending the life of existing Super Hornets from 6,000 to 9,000+ flight hours. In the early 2020s, Boeing will begin installing initial updates to the aircraft that will convert existing Block II Super Hornets to a new Block III configuration.

The Block III conversion will include enhanced network capability, longer range with conformal fuel tanks, an advanced cockpit system, signature improvements and an enhanced communication system. The updates are expected to keep the F/A-18 in active service for decades to come.

“The initial focus of this program will extend the life of the fleet from 6,000 to 9,000 flight hours,” said Mark Sears, SLM program director. “But SLM will expand to include Block II to Block III conversion, systems grooming and reset and O-level maintenance tasks designed to deliver a more maintainable aircraft with an extended life and more capability. Each of these jets will fly another 10 to 15 years, so making them next-generation aircraft is critical.”

The indefinite-delivery contract is for up to $73 million. Work begins in April on an initial lot of four aircraft at Boeing’s St. Louis production center. An additional production line will be established in San Antonio, Texas in 2019. Additional follow-on contracts could be awarded over the next 10 years. The U.S. Navy fleet consists of 568 Super Hornets.....

[Haraka]

When you think that the programme originated with Northrop studies for an F5 replacement ( the P530 Cobra) in the mid '60's........

[Brat]

And that finally just about kills off the F-35C as anything but a token force.....

Have you considered that the fact that the F-35 is being developed/discovered as a major force multiplier of 4th Gen assets, that it makes perfect sense to utilise established production lines, pilots, service facilities, that have years of experience with these present aircraft that require no re-tooling re-training but will be vastly more effective by virtue of the F-35’s existence?

[ORAC]

Except it wasn’t, was it? It was being procured to replace them - and the funds to continue buying them, in increasing numbers, comes from the same budget; the funds to upgrade thise already purchased comes from the same budget, the personnel to maintain and fly them from the same pool - and the space they occupy on a carrier the same space.

2 into 1 won’t go.

[PhilipG]

If the F35C is not taken up seriously by the USN/USMC the question must be asked what are they going to do with the rather long in the tooth legacy F18s?

Replacing the legacy F18s with new build Super Hornets instead of F35Cs would be a solution, not that it would be popular with the USMC.

[ORAC]

Replacing the legacy F18s with new build Super Hornets But that is exactly what they have been doing for the last few years - and continue to do. That’s above and beyond the upgrade programme above.

http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/big-military-budget-refuels-st-louis-built-super-hornet/article_50cac932-0c7e-5fa7-910f-3618aeec8a0a.html

....”Dan Gillian was upbeat during a tour of Boeing’s north St. Louis County factory this month.

Maybe it was good news in the budget deal hammered out by Congress that cheered the vice president of Boeing’s F/A-18 Super Hornet attack fighter and electronic warfare Growler. Signed by President Donald Trump that morning, it removed caps on military spending put in place earlier this decade by Congress under the Obama administration. And word on the street was that Trump would request another 24 Super Hornets in his fiscal 2019 budget request, an ask made far likelier to get funded given the higher military spending authorized both this fiscal year and the next in the budget deal.

Last week, the president did indeed request another two dozen fighters for next year, on top of the 24 congressional budget writers have already included in this year’s budget. Beyond 2019, the U.S. Navy says it wants to buy 86 into 2023.“......

[PhilipG]

But that is exactly what they have been doing for the last few years - and continue to do. That’s above and beyond the upgrade programme above.

As I understood it the USN had planned to replace its legacy Hornets with F35Cs in the first instance as the legacy airframes were getting rather long in the tooth, so replacing the USN legacy fleet is not much of an issue.

As I understood it the USMC had decided not to replace its legacy Hornet fleet with Super Hornets but go directly to F35Cs. It could be argued that having an all F35 (B&C) fleet would give the USMC some savings.

Whilst replacing legacy Hornets with new build Super Hornets would materially increase the availability of airframes for the fleet, it would mean a major change in strategy for the USMC, not something that I have seen discussed?

The subsidiary question is I suppose how many legacy Hornet squadrons are there in the fleet, thus how many new build Super Hornets would be required to make the whole afloat and training fleets Super Hornet, somewhere in the hundreds I would have thought?

[ORAC]

The subsidiary question is I suppose how many legacy Hornet squadrons are there in the fleet 3 active and 1 reserve squadrons. That’s 48 aircraft - the number being purchased next year. Every one after that are attrition/fatigue life spares.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Navy_aircraft_squadrons

“.....The F-35C is a fifth-generation strike fighter that was originally planned to replace the F/A-18C Hornet, but expiring F/A-18C service life and delays in F-35C procurement forced the Navy to increase its buy of F/A-18E and F Super Hornets to replace F/A-18C Hornets while awaiting the arrival of the F-35C. As of 2018, all but three active component F/A-18C Hornet squadrons and the single reserve component Hornet squadron had transitioned to the F/A-18E or F Super Hornet. The first deployable squadron to transition to the F-35C is a Super Hornet squadron. Ultimately the three active component Hornet squadrons will transition to either the Super Hornet or F-35C......”

I suppose they could use the few F-35Cs they’ve bought as replacements for their aggressor Sqns (http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/11910/legislators-want-to-know-fate-of-navys-reserve-fa-18-aggressor-squadrons)....

The question is what happens to the planned USMC F-35C squadrons (not B). The USN buy their aircraft, will they press on with a stand-alone force where the USMC will be the sole customer, or switch some of those to new Super Hornets as well?

The 2 EW squadrons would seem logical to switch to F-18G, three of the 10 fighter squadrons have already equipped with the F-35B, so the rest I assume will do likewise. That leaves the 4 AWX squadrons which would seem too small a viable force and could also simply change from the Hornet to Super Hornet. The planned buy of 86 by 2023 would seem adequate/designed to cover that contingency.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_United_States_Marine_Corps_aircraft_squadrons

[PhilipG]

Thanks for the clarification.

So the USN will have sent all their Legacy Hornets to the bone yard, if all goes to plan by next year.

There then just remains the question of what to equip the USMC legacy squadrons with...

[Not_a_boffin]

I suppose they could use the few F-35Cs they’ve bought as replacements for their aggressor Sqns (http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/11910/legislators-want-to-know-fate-of-navys-reserve-fa-18-aggressor-squadrons)....

The question is what happens to the planned USMC F-35C squadrons (not B). The USN buy their aircraft, will they press on with a stand-alone force where the USMC will be the sole customer, or switch some of those to new Super Hornets as well?




That's a bit of an extension to make, based on the veracity of wiki.


Binning the only system available to a CVW that can do day 1 strike is a far from logical decision given the near universal agreement that we're now back in peer on peer threats.


Retiring classic bugs is a logical step from both airframe and range perspectives. That's a long way from canning F35C no matter how many people would love to see anything from F35 canned.

[glad rag]

Binning the only system available to a CVW that can do day 1 strike

But it CAN'T can it.

Not now and not in the future, without #billions of dollars of new processor design and manufacture, software writing, weapon clearances and TESTING.

You know the stuff that was binned to get the program "back on track"...:hmm:

How about plastering some :mad: ISIS :mad: across the desert then?

Nope.

Even Trump looked {ok a bit more} bemused than normal saying it was a beautiful thing as he counted the #zeros on the invoice.

F35=burning holes in the sky.

Well 50% of them are.:oh:

[Not_a_boffin]

That's another rather large extrapolation of DOT&E conclusions, primarily relevant to the pre lot 10 aircraft IIRC.


As opposed to the F35C that have not yet been bought.

[ORAC]

And first day strike against who? Not China, or anyone else equipped with a decent ASW missile keeping the carrier more than 250nm offshore, at least not until the MQ-25 reaches the fleet in operational numbers, which is many years away. And if they intend to use stand-off Mx, then the current generations can’t be fitted in the weapons bay so have to be hung under the wing, so you might as well use the existing F-18s.

But back to the point that the Super Hornet purchases to date, and planned, have already replaced all the USN aircraft planned to be replaced by the F-35C, and the now funded life/capability upgrades will keep them in the fleet until around 2030-2035, when the FA-XX is planned to start entering service.

As I said above, the money’s been spent, the manpower assigned and the decks full. Hell, you can’t even lend them to the RN for the UK carriers.....

And as you say, the F35C that have not yet been bought...

[glad rag]

That's another rather large extrapolation of DOT&E conclusions, primarily relevant to the pre lot 10 aircraft IIRC.


As opposed to the F35C that have not yet been bought.

So would you agree then that your turn of phrase

"the only system available"

was in fact not accurate?

[Not_a_boffin]

I'm struggling to understand why anti-submarine warfare missiles would keep a carrier 250nm offshore.

Likewise, the F35C is the only CVW system available now and in the near to medium term that will be able to do day 1 strike.

Which is probably why the latest USN FY19 budget (dated Feb 2018) notes that Full rate production for F35C is due in Apr 19 and that the programme of record remains at 369 cabs, with IOC in Aug 18. Strangely the max rate (24 pa) is reached in the same year that the FA18E begins to ramp down.

The FA18 SLEP budget line is described as : OSIP 20-14 increases due to ramp up of the F/A-18E/F service life modifications from three aircraft in FY18 to seven aircraft in FY19. This OSIP fund modifications required to extend the F/A-18E/F service life and maintain sufficient aircraft inventory to meet fleet operational requirements through FY2043.

In the same budget, they're asking for 5.4Bn to complete the balance of F35C.

Strangely, the DoN doesn't seem to think it's an either/or scenario.

[ORAC]

Typo, read that as ASuW..... and modern hypersonic missiles, let alone ballistic, make approaching the coast too risky for any CBG.

[Not_a_boffin]

Theoretically, so do submarines, mines and in other environments double digit SAM, AAA, 4th gen DCA fighters, ATGW, UAV-cued MLRS etc, etc.


Point being, radii lines on a map do not always reflect tactics or realities. DF21 is a serious potential threat, but not omnipotent, nor even proven.

[George K Lee]

"An additional production line will be established in San Antonio, Texas in 2019."

Anyone want to take a bet as to when it becomes the only production line?

NaB - "the programme of record remains at 369 cabs"

Indeed it does, because of what happens if the PoR number gets reduced too much.

[golder]

Except it wasn’t, was it? It was being procured to replace them - and the funds to continue buying them, in increasing numbers, comes from the same budget; the funds to upgrade thise already purchased comes from the same budget, the personnel to maintain and fly them from the same pool - and the space they occupy on a carrier the same space.

2 into 1 won’t go.

You may find that the F-35c was to replace the legacy Hornet in the fleet. Even the legacy Hornet had a life extension and upgrade program, why wouldn't the Super Hornet? You may find you get sore fingers, if you wring your hands too much.

[ORAC]

You may find that the F-35c was to replace the legacy Hornet in the fleet. All of which have now been, or are being, replaced by Super Hornets - which have now been funded for SLEF programs taking their life into the 2030s - when the FA-XX is planned to enter fleet surface as the Super Hornet replacement.....

[T28B]

ORAC, the US Marines apparently never went to the E/F (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_United_States_Marine_Corps_aircraft_squadrons ).

[golder]

So you think CFT's on a Super Hornet is the death knell of the F-35. Yes, you could be right and the f-35 will be cancelled. I recall when the f-15 got conformal fuel tanks. That was forecasted as the end of the F-22 development too. They were right. You may know they didn't build as many as they were going to.

It may in fact be why the US didn't put conformal tanks on the F-16. Or the F-35 would have never started.

I think I see a pattern here. Perhaps they should start with a conformal fuel tank and build the FX-XX plane around it. It will save a lot of time and money. With conformal tanks from the begining, it will never need replacing.

Given that the euro designed planes don't have conformal tanks fitted. It could explain their limited sales. You have opened my eyes and it's all starting to make sense.

[ORAC]

The A-10 vs. F-35 Flyoff Could Start This Spring (https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a19054974/a-10-vs-f-35-flyoff-could-start-this-spring/)

[Engines]

Perhaps I could help throw some light on the issue of conformal fuel tanks.

All fast jet combat aircraft face a common challenge - making space within the aircraft for enough fuel to do all the required missions. This challenge arises due to the iron laws of physics, and the achievable values for specific fuel consumption and engine thrust to weight ratios. The main solutions usually available are:

1. Reduce the fuel load and accept a shorter range/endurance - which nobody likes
2. Add fuel internally to the aircraft inn places you normally wouldn't.
3. Add fuel to the aircraft externally, using extra tanks.

Option 2 above has been used occasionally in the past, and is a good indicator of how hard the struggle has been. If aircraft have fuel tanks in their fins, tailplanes, flaps, or even their undercarriage doors, they've had a problem with internal fuel volume during their initial design phase.

The third option is almost always adopted, and it's unusual to find a tactical combat jet that hasn't used drop tanks. However, these generate a lot of drag, and it's common for tanks to generate so much that most of the fuel they carry is used up hauling the tank around the sky. I don't have precise figures to hand, but I think that any 'productive drop tank fuel fraction' over 50% would be very good indeed. I do know that the large tanks on the F3 (2250l?) gave only about 10% 'productive fuel' in some sortie profiles.

So, conformal tanks have often been adopted as a way to add fuel with less drag. Actually, some were around before conventional tanks, examples being the Bf110, Seafire belly tank, Lancaster spine mounted tank, and the Supermarine Attacker. They've appeared on Soviet aircraft (Mig-21, etc.) and later on US aircraft (F-15, F-16 and now F-18). Now they're appearing on the Typhoon. Essentially, what you do is add a new bit of airframe on to the outside of the aircraft to hold fuel, picking up on a number of attachment points along the fuselage. Most conformal tanks aren't jettisonable - they are a semi-permanent addition.

So why put them on? I don't know the precise reasons for each decision by type, but here are my (hopefully) informed guesses:

1. In service weight increases - most aircraft get heavier as time goes on. Extra this, extra that. all lead to more weight, so more lift required, so more drag. (Darn those pesky physics). Eventually, you just need more fuel and you can't lose another pylon.
2. Extra drag - you build a nice clean aircraft and then start adding lumps and bumps all over it (EO turrets, extra antennae, RWR systems, etc.). Or bigger external stores. More fuel required for the same range/endurance.
3. Changes to requirements. Here's an example. Might be Typhoon, or not. You build an aircraft that's basically an out and out high altitude BVR death machine, pulling tons of G and firing off telegraph poles of death on JTIDS data at the dastardly foe coming at you over the North German plain. A few years later, you then get told that the primary role is to haul tons of draggy bombs around at medium level for hours on end, as your available bases are hundreds of miles from the action. You end up needing more fuel, and lots of it. Losing a few 'G' off the envelope is now not so important.

I have seen claims that adding conformal tanks reduces drag. With all due respect, I find those slightly unlikely. However, it might be true at the new sortie profiles now being demanded. More likely, what they are actually saying is that a set of conformal tanks generate less drag than the equivalent set of drop tanks. That would be very likely. Conformal tanks usually appear toward the end of an aircraft's service life. Perhaps driven by the 'in-service' factors I outlined above. Sometimes, they appear during development - the V-22's external fuselage fairings grew massively during development to house more fuel as they struggled with weight increases.

LO aircraft designs make the design challenge I outlined at the start of this post even tougher - you don't have the 'add drop tanks' option available to you for many of the expected missions, and the internal volume of the aircraft is also being taken up by many of the avionics bits and pieces often carried in pods outside the skin. (I'm not making excuses for the F-35 here, just stating the facts). It's even harder if you also stress the internal volume with big lumps of powered lift gear. In the case of the F-35 (all variants, note) the aft fuselage 'hump' got noticeably larger during the SDD phase, driven by the need for more fuel. They just avoided carrying fuel in the fins - the fins had been designed to carry fuel, but during the weight reduction phase it was found that this imposed too much of a weight penalty in extra fin structure, and the fuel volume was found elsewhere.

To wrap up - designing tactical combat aircraft is really hard. keeping them relevant throughout their service lives is just as hard. Conformal tanks are a useful way of solving some of those problems. But for my money, the better option has to be to get as much fuel into the aircraft as you can first time around. Trading off 'high end' performance might just be a price worth paying. But try telling single seat pilots that.

Best regards as ever to all those juggling with the iron laws of physics,

Engines

[sandiego89]

Looks like the first operational deployment of the B at sea is beginning. Several deploying aboard the USS WASP. Actual number unclear, but the usual deployment of the Harrier was around 6 aircraft, which were temporarily administratively assigned to a medium helo, now tilt-rotor squadron, (enhanced) for the deployment.


USMC prepares for F-35B maiden operational embarkation | Jane's 360 (http://www.janes.com/article/78340/usmc-prepares-for-f-35b-maiden-operational-embarkation)

[tdracer]

I have seen claims that adding conformal tanks reduces drag. With all due respect, I find those slightly unlikely. However, it might be true at the new sortie profiles now being demanded. More likely, what they are actually saying is that a set of conformal tanks generate less drag than the equivalent set of drop tanks. That would be very likely. Conformal tanks usually appear toward the end of an aircraft's service life. Perhaps driven by the 'in-service' factors I outlined above. Sometimes, they appear during development - the V-22's external fuselage fairings grew massively during development to house more fuel as they struggled with weight increases.

Engines, according to those in the know (which I'm not), at least on the F-15 the conformal tanks resulted in no increase in airframe drag when subsonic, although transonic/supersonic was a different story (never heard anyone claim a reduction though). Looking at the installation, my aero engineer training says the claim is at least plausible as it gives the aircraft a more 'tear drop' profile.
I've not heard much about the F-18 conformal tank installation, but I'd expect similar results (especially since it's coming from the same people).

[Just This Once...]

Engines, your titbit on the large Tornado tanks is incorrect. The big jugs were quite slippy, the small tanks were the draggy ones. You could also take the big tanks to a higher speed and (on the GR version at least) achieve a higher cruise ceiling... or put another way, finding yourself descending when you jettison them in a misguided attempt to climb over a CB during a shooting war...

[Engines]

tdracer,

Thanks for coming back.

Yes, I've seen these claims and, honestly, I am a bit sceptical. I don't know a single combat jet that didn't struggle with internal volume, and adding fairly large lumps on the outside (that definitely increase frontal area) without reducing drag seems unlikely. However, it's possible that the effects aren't as marked at subsonic speeds, as you mentioned. A change in desired sortie profiles can make big changes to both drag and fuel burn. It's also possible that the drag reduction claim includes the drag of external bombs - the F-15 combines conformal tanks with revised bomb carriage locations to reduce drag. (Interestingly, some of the F/A-18 proposals included a 'stealth' (probably also lower drag) weapons 'pod' on the centreline.

The other possibility, of course, is that the original airframe design wasn't worked as thoroughly as it might have been, and they found this extra volume later on, when the need drove them.

Incidentally, the Buccaneer belly tank on the S2B was originally designed as a solution to the excessive drag created when Blackburns looked at putting four more 1000lb bombs on the outside of the bomb bay door. They came up with the idea of adding a fairing on the outside of the door (which already had a fuel tank it, i believe) which would provide recesses for the bombs to lie in. The external bombs idea wasn't taken forward, but the belly tank provided a very efficient way of adding fuel.

Tough stuff, this pesky aerodynamics, ain't it?

Huge respect as always to those working the wind tunnels,

Engines

[Engines]

JTO,

Very happy to be corrected on the F3 tanks. Very interesting how the aircraft could achieve a HIGHER cruise ceiling with all that additional frontal area and weight - there must have been some significant interactions between the tanks and the airframe.

By the way, the worst drop tanks ever (to my knowledge) were the original 'pinion' wing tanks on the Buccaneer, which (I was told) actually decreased the range. The fix was to add an angled fairing between the top of the tank and the wing leading edge.

Best regards as ever to all those who take the time to read my efforts here on PPrune...

Engines

[Helicopterfixerman]

Could it be that in some cases interference drag is reduced ? This might be true of the F-15 and F-18, but it doesn't look like it for F-16, Typhoon, etc. .......

[Lyneham Lad]

On Aviation Week today:-
F-35 Finally Can Use All Its Weapons In Combat (http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-finally-can-use-all-its-weapons-combat)

Snip:-
The newest U.S. Air Force F-35s, both stateside at Hill AFB, Utah, and overseas in the Pacific, finally can employ the stealth fighter’s full suite of air-to-air and air-to-ground weapons in combat.
The F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) has delivered the flight clearances, simulators, threat information, and logistics system required for the Air Force’s F-35As equipped with the latest software load to employ all of its weapons throughout the full flight envelope, according to the JPO, Lockheed Martin and Air Force officials.

This milestone gives the Block 3F-configured F-35As assigned to the 34th Fighter Squadron stationed at Hill and those forward-deployed to Kadena Air Base, Japan—on North Korea’s doorstep—some lethal capabilities. The aircraft now can fire Raytheon’s short-range AIM-9X Sidewinder missile, the GAU-22 25mm gun, and Boeing’s precision-guided Small Diameter Bomb, all while flying up to 9Gs at 1.6 Mach.

[George K Lee]

Harry Hillaker (Mr F-16) once remarked that the natural evolution of a fighter was in terms of greater zero-fuel weight (payload and equipment), which meant more thrust and more fuel to maintain performance. Eventually, he added, you would run out of wing area and external stores capability, and if you ever saw anything above the wing you knew the limit had been reached.

The F-16 had two volume-adding mods in its lifetime: the conformal tanks (the first set had been designed in the 70s) and the originally-Israeli fat spine, which was intended to create a two-seater with similar internal fuel to the single-seater.

I don't think it would be a bad idea, in fact, to design conformals into a fighter from the outset. It would be a nice way to add flexibility and it might be possible (if difficult) to add them in a way that minimized LO issues.

I too tend to be skeptical about the idea of conformals reducing drag, except when qualified by "with the same fuel load" or even "loaded for equal range". However, ISTR being told in one case that the jet trimmed better at subsonic speed with the conformals in use.

Finally - looking at the F-35, I have no idea where you'd put conformal tankage, except maybe on the upper rear centerline. You could put a few gallons into the horrible wart that covers the Noggies' brake chute, even. And IMHO the A/B versions are already at their limit for wing loading.

[glad rag]

Engines, your titbit on the large Tornado tanks is incorrect. The big jugs were quite slippy, the small tanks were the draggy ones. You could also take the big tanks to a higher speed and (on the GR version at least) achieve a higher cruise ceiling... or put another way, finding yourself descending when you jettison them in a misguided attempt to climb over a CB during a shooting war...

Can confirm this, they generated useful lift according to my mate ginger over a few swallies one night at the north pole gentleman's club...

[ORAC]

Jus5 bemused about the climbing over CBs bit.

IIRC when the tankers all went off to war they looked at the best fit for the F3s to reach Cyprus unsupported. On paper the best fit was the 4 tank ferry fit and filling up from one of the few tankers left near the Channel before heading south. The only problem was they wouldn’t be able to clear the Alps without using burner.

The next best fit was with 3 tanks, 2 big and 1 small - but no one had ever done the clearance trials....

Getting airborne with full tanks was of negatory value, the take-off and climb burned all the xtra fuel, if not more, and you still had the drag. The optimum was to get airborne with empty tanks and RV with the tanker at cruise altitude before proceeding to CAP/en-route which could double the time on task.

The plan, in war of course, was to fly on external fuel, topping up the tanks as required. The tanks would then be dropped when committing to combat, entering the fight with full internal fuel. If you are carrying the extra fuel internally or in conformal tanks then you carry the weight of the additional fuel and tanks into the fight with you*....

*Clever Jets have a fuel dump where you can select to dump down to a selected weight where it stops. Unlike a certain jet where you had to remember to switch it off before the fuel emergency caption lit up.....

[Engines]

Glad,

Thank you for that response - what an interesting subject. Three quite different (?) responses on 2250 litre tanks on the F3. Perhaps, to square the circle, the big tanks generated some lift, probably depending on speed and angle of attack, possibly at lower speeds, but seem to have had a significant effect on available 'G' and also the (already not exactly stellar) SEP curves of the F3.

For my part, they looked like ferry tanks, and would probably have had a serious effect in a fight. I have to observe that (just my opinion) the Tornado was slightly more optimised as a bomber than it was as a fighter, and the use of a tank as big as the 2250 litre seems to confirm that it had some challenges meeting the fighter sortie profile requirements.

None of which, of course, takes anything away from the professionalism and dedication of the crews flying and supporting them.

Best regards as ever to those doing the fuel calculations,

Engines

PS: beaten to the punch by ORAC - I have to say that when you have a fighter that can't get over the Alps in dry thrust, you have unusual thrust/weight and SEP values. For a fighter. I'd love to know how many of the tanks were provisioned if the plan was to bang them off in combat.

[ORAC]

I’m not sure about those procured for the F3, but at LU during the F4 day’s the airfield was literally crammed, all around the perimeter track and elsewhere, with rotting wooden crates full of underwing fuel tanks.

When visitors asked what they were I used to explain, with as straight a face as possible, that if the runway was cratered in wartime it would be flooded and they were pontoons to fit over the wheels on the undercarriage to allow water take-offs and landings....

[glad rag]

Glad,

Thank you for that response - what an interesting subject. Three quite different (?) responses on 2250 litre tanks on the F3. Perhaps, to square the circle, the big tanks generated some lift, probably depending on speed and angle of attack, possibly at lower speeds, but seem to have had a significant effect on available 'G' and also the (already not exactly stellar) SEP curves of the F3.

For my part, they looked like ferry tanks, and would probably have had a serious effect in a fight. I have to observe that (just my opinion) the Tornado was slightly more optimised as a bomber than it was as a fighter, and the use of a tank as big as the 2250 litre seems to confirm that it had some challenges meeting the fighter sortie profile requirements.

None of which, of course, takes anything away from the professionalism and dedication of the crews flying and supporting them.

Best regards as ever to those doing the fuel calculations,

Engines

PS: beaten to the punch by ORAC - I have to say that when you have a fighter that can't get over the Alps in dry thrust, you have unusual thrust/weight and SEP values. For a fighter. I'd love to know how many of the tanks were provisioned if the plan was to bang them off in combat.

The F3 wasn't a fighter. It was a missile carrying interceptor optimised by original (short arsed) design for low level.
If we wanted a fighter we should have bought Eagles instead. And retrofitted speys to **** it up just like the last time...

[Engines]

Glad,

At the risk of pulling at an open sore, I was under the impression that 'F' stood for 'fighter'.

I lost count of how many light blue wearers told me that the Tornado F3 was handicapped by the compromises required for the low level role. About as many light blue wearers that told me the GR was handicapped by the compromises required for the high level role.

My opinion here, the original design idea seemed to be that adopting a swing wing design would allow the two very different sets of requirements to be met. (not too different, albeit on a smaller aircraft, than the F-111A/B idea).

Again my view, but the structural and layout penalties that came with swing wings (before the days of full authority fly by wire) handicapped both the F and the GR to a significant extent.

But, let me add again, commenting on the suitability of a design takes absolutely nothing away from the people who flew, and fought so bravely, in them. And this who still do it to this day. Respect.

Best regards as all those who do it for real,

Engines

[ORAC]

Not so much a “modest proposal”, as the way the USN has already gone over the last few years. Posted because of the relevance of the F-18G slides to the discussion on the use and relevance of conformal tanks vs underwing....

SNAFU!: Evolution of the Super Hornet & A Modest Proposal! (http://www.snafu-solomon.com/2018/03/evolution-of-super-hornet-modest.html)

[golder]

I think I will wait till Air Power Australia gives their opinion. After all, they are the experts on the Super Hornet and the F-35. I've often seen SANFU bow to their greater knowledge.
ausairpower.net/bug.html

It's just that if they wake up to themselves and cancel it, it had better happen soon. There is a commitment order for 1,000 F-35 by 2022 and Australia will have all their 72 delivered by 2023. Eight of which are being delivered this year. If they don't hurry up. Australia will be the first country with a complete f-35 fleet and be stuck with them, when everyone else cancels theirs.

[ORAC]

The point here is that the USN hasn’t been ordering the F-35C. Each time the budget has come around they’ve ordered more Super Hornets...

Returning to my point that their Super Hornet orders have reached the point that they can retire the last of the F-18A/B/C/Ds that the F-35C was supposed to replace - and hence the fate of the 4 remaining legacy USN F-18 Sqns. It would seem it was indeed not a coincidence....

The future of the handful of USMC F-18 Sqns also supposed to require with with the F-35C as opposed to F-35B remains in the balance.. though the USN hand-me-downs will allow them to soldier on for a few more, expensive, years....

US Navy to scrap scores of fighter jets from its inventory (https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/03/06/navy-to-scrap-scores-of-fighter-jets-from-its-inventory/)

WASHINGTON ― The U.S. Navy is moving to scrap almost 140 older Hornet fighters from its inventory and accelerate the transition to newer Super Hornet models in a bid to cut the costs of maintaining old aircraft that have seen hard use over two decades of continuous combat operations. The Navy projects it will recoup the better part of a billion dollars over the next five years, money used to fund other readiness initiatives both in the beleaguered Naval Aviation Enterprise and elsewhere.

The plan, hashed out in June, is to strike F/A-18 “A” through “D” models for a total of 136 Hornets, 66 of which will be gone by the end of 2020.

Two strike board reviews with Fleet, CNO, and NAVAIR personnel determined that 136 aircraft could be authorized for strike because their effective life was consumed and would require significant repair,” said Lt. Lauren Chatmas, a Navy spokeswoman. “The Navy will strike these aircraft over the course of fiscal years 2017 and 2020”.

The Navy thinks this is an opportunity to get some usable spare parts for the in-service jets and help the Marine Corps by sending it the best of the remaining aircraft. “The decision was based upon readiness risk of existing F/A-18 A-D inventory, long term operational costs versus gain in capability, and the potential to improve USMC readiness by transferring best of breed aircraft to the USMC,” Chatmas said.

The plan recoups about $124 million in 2019 and $852 million across the five-year budget projection, Chatmas said. Four squadrons flying legacy Hornets will transition to the newer versions between now and the end of 2019, she said.

The Navy has been buying batches of Hornets in recent years to replace the ones that are at the end of their service lives. The service has been slow to buy its F-35C, citing development issues.

The Navy’s flight demonstration team, the Blue Angels, will have to sit tight with its legacy Hornets until there are enough “E” or “F” versions available to spare, Chatmas said.

[Not_a_boffin]

Navy cans knackered classic bugs on logistics grounds - shock horror! Must inevitably mean F35C is dead says well respected and not at all sensational blogsite.

Or you could try what the USN is actually saying

http://navylive.dodlive.mil/2017/08/03/f-35c-integration-into-the-fleet/

Which includes the following tidbits - albeit sprinkled with defspeak nonsense.

"Recognizing Naval Aviation’s capability of today and the need for increased capability tomorrow, the Navy remains committed to pursuing the right procurement ramp for F-35C to balance inventory management, affordability and force modernization. A detailed asset allocation study determined that the most efficient and effective composition of strike fighters for the future CVW is two squadrons of F-35C and two of F/A-18E/F. With 10 CVWs , the Navy’s objective is to attain 20 F-35C squadrons, two per CVW by the early-2030s. This strategy calls for the continued procurement of low rate initial production aircraft and the enhanced capabilities of Block 3F software, and eventually Block 4’s advanced capabilities. The Navy’s plan for full rate production optimizes the force for the introduction of next generation capabilities to the Navy in the near term, while allowing the fleet to build the community and work integration solutions."

That doesn't sound like "bin it". Nor does ;

"The F-35C’s stealth characteristics, long-range combat identification and ability to penetrate threat envelopes, while fusing multiple information sources into a coherent picture, will enhance the role that the CSG and numbered fleets must play in support of our national interests. Ultimately, with the F-35C integrated and interoperable with the CVW, the CSG of the future will continue to be lethal, survivable and able to accomplish the entire spectrum of mission sets to include day one response to high end threats."

[PhilipG]

There would seem to be a logical case for the USMC to put the first F35C squadron on a carrier.

If the USN is happy with the F/A-18E/F in the near future and the legacy Hornets are getting too expensive to maintain, financially it makes some sense and builds on the USMC's knowledge base from operating the F35B.

Then when the USN is comfortable with the performance and integration into the CVW of the F35C, squadrons can be generated or transferred over to the F35C, which by then may have reduced in price.

[ORAC]

I’m sure the USN will be happy to accept the F-35C, they just won’t commit their budget to them but spend it on other items. If the House and/or Senate want to add 12 or. Ore as a budget supplemental each year, I’m sure they’ll find a use for them....

[Not_a_boffin]

I’m sure the USN will be happy to accept the F-35C, they just won’t commit their budget to them but spend it on other items. If the House and/or Senate want to add 12 or. Ore as a budget supplemental each year, I’m sure they’ll find a use for them....


If only analysis of the USN budget materials for F35C since FY2016 supported that contention....

[ORAC]

I believe that’s an additional $16B, of which the UK, as the only Tier 1 partner, will pick the lion’s share of $3.7B.....

U.S. F-35 fighter modernization could cost $16 billion through 2024 (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-lockheed-f35/u-s-f-35-fighter-modernization-could-cost-16-billion-through-2024-idUSKCN1GK02M)

[Heathrow Harry]

From Janes...............

Key Points



The Pentagon is facing a major potential F-35 Block 4/C2D2 cost increase
This could add between USD6.9 billion and USD12.5 billion more to the Pentagon’s most expensive platform

The Pentagon is facing a cost increase for what was known as Block 4 modernisation of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) ranging between USD6.9 billion and USD12.5 billion, according to a key lawmaker and a Defense Department official.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) in August tabbed at over USD3.9 billion the research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) funding needed for F-35 Block 4 modernisation, now known as Continuous Capability Development and Delivery (C2D2), through fiscal year 2022 (FY 2022). During a 7 March 2018 House Armed Services (HASC) tactical air and land forces subcommittee hearing, F-35 program executive officer Admiral Mat Winter said C2D2 would cost USD10.8 billion through FY 2024.

Subcommittee Ranking Member Niki Tsongas of Massachusetts said the total cost for C2D2 could reach USD16.4 billion through FY 2024 – USD11 billion for development and USD5.4 billion in procurement. Tsongas believed this figure greatly exceeded any cost figures previously provided to Congress.

GAO said in August that Block 4 would be carried out in four increments – 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4. Block 4.1 is primarily software, as well as some new capabilities and correct deficiencies of nine capabilities carried over from the current development programme, such as the prognostics health management system down-link and communication capabilities. GAO said programme officials expected increments 4.1 and 4.3 to be primarily software updates while increments 4.2 and 4.4 would consist of more significant hardware changes.

[glad rag]

So, once again, the facts run counter to the fiction...

[Lyneham Lad]

On Aviation Week - F-35 Parts Shortage Threatens To Hold Up Pilot Training (http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-parts-shortage-threatens-hold-pilot-training?NL=AW-05&Issue=AW-05_20180313_AW-05_293&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_1&utm_rid=CPEN1000003474208&utm_campaign=13951&utm_medium=email&elq2=c04cd093afaf45ada4f022bea052a6fe)

Snip:-
Compounding the problem, the GAO found that the F-35 enterprise does not have enough capacity to repair components “in a timely manner,” because the establishment of repair capabilities at the military depots is six years behind schedule. These capabilities were planned to be completed by 2016, but some capabilities have now been delayed until 2022, according to the watchdog.

:eek:

[Heathrow Harry]

Editorial in. Times today saying it looks like foreign customers are being held over a barrel on costs and that this is "unfriendly"....

First straw in the wind .........

[Turbine D]

HH,
Editorial in. Times today saying it looks like foreign customers are being held over a barrel on costs and that this is "unfriendly"....

First straw in the wind .........
Realism is finally setting in...

[George K Lee]

Very little of this could not have been foreseen ten years ago, when the signs that the program was out of control, with a ludicrously optimistic schedule, were emerging. That was also when Stillion and Perdue warned that the F-35 could not be expected to dominate the A2A fight of the near future. Eight years ago the SAR warned us about O&S costs.

And here we are.

[golder]

"Stillion and Perdue warned that the F-35"
Now that was brave of you, I wouldn't have posted this. It is a long and tragic story, finishing with Stillion telling RepSim/APA etc. to never contact him again.

[Bigpants]

Is there a financial case for now saying all bets are off, cancelling the UK order and telling the contractors to go whistle?

I would happily see one of the UK carriers sold off and the other kept as a helicopter platform.

[Heathrow Harry]

Brave man!!

WEBF and his mates will round to see you sharpish.................

[golder]

Did it come across wrong? It's a common expression here. Stillion was lead astray by repSim/APA and embarrassed himself with the misinformation, that took several years to overcome. To say that he was unhappy with repSim/APA is an understatement

[ORAC]

Luftwaffe chief dismissed over F-35 support (http://www.janes.com/article/78644/luftwaffe-chief-dismissed-over-f-35-support)

The Chief of the Luftwaffe is to leave his position in large part due to his support for a German procurement of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), Jane’s has learned.

Lieutenant General Karl Müllner will leave his position by the end of May, with the news of his retirement breaking just two days after Germany’s defence secretary, Ursula von der Leyen, was sworn in for another term.

Jane’s understands that Gen Müllner’s outspoken public support for the JSF as a successor to the German Tornado fleet was pivotal in the decision for his early retirement. “The Luftwaffe considers the F-35’s capability as the benchmark for the selection process for the Tornado replacement, and I think I have expressed myself clearly enough as to what the favourite of the air force is,” Gen Müllner told Jane’s and other media in November 2017.

The Chief of the Luftwaffe’s active support of the JSF clashes with current Ministry of Defence planning, which prefers a successor solution involving the Eurofighter Typhoon.

[Heathrow Harry]

Wow!!!

That will get the attention of SO's everywhere.....

Expect some serious caution going forward.....

[Buster15]

Luftwaffe chief dismissed over F-35 support (http://www.janes.com/article/78644/luftwaffe-chief-dismissed-over-f-35-support)

The Chief of the Luftwaffe’s active support of the JSF clashes with current Ministry of Defence planning, which prefers a successor solution involving the Eurofighter Typhoon.

Makes some sense to follow the UK policy of replacing the Tornado A2G role with Typhoon. They clearly are not currently able to logistically support their jets let alone the complex F35. The major issue though would be their nuclear requirement which Typhoon is not capable.

[glad rag]

Wow!!!

That will get the attention of SO's everywhere.....

Expect some serious caution going forward.....

Expect some serious political lobbying from the vested interests more like!!

[Heathrow Harry]

Expect some serious political lobbying from the vested interests more like!!

Yes - and it will all go on the bill.................... :*:*

[ORAC]

They managed to clear the A-4, F-104 and Jaguar to carry the B-61; I don’t imagine it would take great effort to clear the Typhoon if the US really wanted the GAF to hold on to the role.

[Lonewolf_50]

@ORAC I am not convinced that the expense and effort of adding tactical nukes to tactical aircraft will be deemed to be worth it. Delivering that payload (Lord save us if it comes to that) is probably best left to other platforms, and I suspect that the cruise missile will be the delivery platform of choice: but I really hope it doesn't come to that.

[George K Lee]

Just for larfs, here's a new report on the NATO nuclear weapon program. And let's not forget that INF, for now, bans cruise missiles.

Building A Safe, Secure, and Credible NATO Nuclear Posture | Analysis | NTI (http://www.nti.org/analysis/reports/building-safe-secure-and-credible-nato-nuclear-posture/)

[Brat]

With and assumption that the sharing of responsibility for the storage and delivery of tactical nuclear weapons among member countries is a key aspect of NATO’s strategic deterrent, and, that NATO’s arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons consists of air-delivered B61 gravity bombs, currently U.S. forward-based fighters, and certain NATO countries Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands and Turkey host tactical nuclear weapons. All but Turkey have dual-capable aircraft dedicated to their delivery.

There should indeed be serious questions about what is stored at Incirlic, and, the behaviour of NATO ‘allies’.
https://warontherocks.com/2018/02/drawing-incirlik-proposal-improve-americas-strained-relations-turkey/

Tillerson is out...and Mabij would seem to be next.
Kazan Soda Elektrik Üretim Tesisi Aç?l?? Töreni - Ankara Haberleri (http://www.milliyet.com.tr/kazan-soda-elektrik-uretim-tesisi-acilis-ankara-yerelhaber-2532430/)
https://www.turkishminute.com/2018/02/13/erdogan-threatens-any-us-aggression-in-manbij-with-ottoman-slap/

Turkey...and the F-35??

No laughs here.

[glad rag]

No laughs here.



https://youtu.be/ygNSrpT-gXY

[Brat]

Shouldn't this be included in the price?

Why should future ongoing development costs of any item be included in the original price?

https://www.accountingtools.com/articles/research-and-development-accounting.html

[Turbine D]

Why should future ongoing development costs of any item be included in the original price?
When they come intermixed with technical deficiencies, e.g., promised capabilities costs paid for in existing aircraft but not delivered by the supplier of the product. There is lots of creative accounting techniques to mask past shortcomings in hopes nobody notices.

[ORAC]

LDP to propose introducing F-35B fighters (https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20180320_26/)

Japan's main governing Liberal Democratic Party plans to propose introducing F-35B fighter jets and a multi-purpose aircraft carrier to be operated under the country's defense-only stance.

The government is to review the National Defense Program Guidelines this year for the first time in 5 years. On Tuesday, the LDP panel on national security compiled a set of proposals to be considered. The panel stressed the need to enhance Japan's defense capabilities both in quality and quantity. It said North Korea's nuclear and missile development and China's military buildup and growing maritime presence are creating a security crisis.

The panel will call for procuring a multi-purpose aircraft carrier that can also serve as a hospital ship. It will be operated solely for defense purposes. Retrofitting of the Maritime Self-Defense Force's destroyer Izumo is to be listed as an option.

The panel also wants the Defense Ministry to acquire advanced F-35B stealth planes, which can take off from short runways. Panel chair Gen Nakatani suggested Japan must become able to hit back at enemy bases.

The LDP plans to submit the proposals to the government for discussion in late May.

[ORAC]

F-35: Is America's Most Expensive Weapon of War the Ultimate Failure? (http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/f-35-americas-most-expensive-weapon-war-the-ultimate-failure-24984)

[glad rag]

F-35: Is America's Most Expensive Weapon of War the Ultimate Failure? (http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/f-35-americas-most-expensive-weapon-war-the-ultimate-failure-24984)


Naa that's just smoke and mirrors that is..

..“Finally and most importantly, the program will likely deliver Block 3F [the untested, allegedly “fully combat-capable” F-35 model now entering production] to the field with shortfalls in capabilities the F-35 needs in combat against current threats.”

[ORAC]

We had already established that the remaining USMC F-18A/Bs are in-line to be replaced with New purchase F-18C/Ds. That just left their F-18C/D Sqns future unresolved.

It has now been revelaed they are al going to have their radars replaced with AESA radars between 2020-2022. Presumably the amortisation period will be more than a couple of years, so they won’t be replaced by F-35Cs any times during the 2020s.....

USMC to upgrade Hornets with new AESA radar | Jane's 360 (http://www.janes.com/article/78735/usmc-to-upgrade-hornets-with-new-aesa-radar)

[Not_a_boffin]

I don't think anyone is buying any "new" C/D models. Presumably you mean E/F.


There's a reason they're doing this - the average remaining frame life for the 460 or so C/D across the combined USN/USMC fleet is in the hundreds of hours. They've been spending on structural mods to get another 2000 hours out of them and have been for some years, to the tune of $2.7Bn or so.


Nor are "all" the USMC C/Ds going to have their APG65/73 replaced by AESA. The RFI is for 98 kits (7 sqns worth) and adding 98 AESA kits to that total is probably largely offset by savings in not having to support 65/73.


A bit of context from the actual budget materials usually puts these things in perspective.

[ORAC]

NoB, the number of remaining Sqns under discussion number around... 6 or 7.

VFMA(AW) 224, 225, 242 And 533. VMFAT-101 and 501.

https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/424953-f-35-cancelled-then-what-561.html

[Not_a_boffin]

A circular reference. How illuminating.

[Heathrow Harry]

http://www.aviation.marines.mil/Portals/11/2018%20AvPlan%20FINAL.pdf

ORGANIZATION
The F‐35B and F‐35C will replace F/A‐18, AV‐8B, and EA‐6B. The Marine Corps will procure a total of 420 F‐35s (353 F‐35Bs and 67 F‐35 Cs) in the following squadron configurations:
1) 9 Squadrons x 16 F‐35B
2) 5 Squadrons x 10 F‐35B
3) 4 Squadrons x 10 F‐35C
4) 2 Squadrons x 10 F‐35B reserve
5) 2 Squadrons x 25 F‐35B Fleet Readiness Squadron (FRS)

The aircraft is currently tracking to reach its full program‐of‐record operational capability (Block 3F) in calendar year 2018.
The full transition from legacy to F‐35 will complete with the transition of the second reserve squadron in 2031.

F/A‐18A‐D HORNET (VMFA) PLAN VALUE TO THE MAGTF
The F/A‐18A‐D Hornet, with its complement of advance precision guided weapons, advanced LITENING targeting pod, network interoperability, and beyond visual range air‐to‐air missiles provides relevant and lethal
capability to the MAGTF and combatant commanders.

F/A‐18s remain the primary bridging platform to F‐35B/C with a planned sunset of 2030. Hornets will consolidate on the west coast by 2027 with the exception of VMFA (AW)‐242, which will remain assigned to MAG‐12
at MCAS Iwakuni until a scheduled F‐35B transition in 2028. The F/A‐18A‐D community continues combat operations for the sixteenth straight year as Hornets support Operation INHERENT RESOLVE: Land‐
based with SPMAGTF‐CR and shipboard on aircraft carrier deployments as part of our TACAIR Integration (TAI) commitment. The USMC fleet will have 10 active squadrons and one reserve squadron in
2018.

As transition to F‐35 continues, VMFAT‐101 will sundown in FY23 and VMFA‐323 will assume aircrew training responsibilities through FY29

ORGANIZATION
F/A‐18A‐D squadrons are assigned to MAG‐31 at MCAS Beaufort, SC
,
MAG‐11 at MCAS Miramar, CA, MAG‐12 at MCAS Iwakuni, JP, and MAG‐41 at JRB Fort Worth, TX :
1) MAG‐31: (1) F/A‐18A++/C+ (2) F/A‐18C (2) F/A‐18D
2) MAG‐11: (1) F/A‐18A++ (2) F/A‐18C (1) F/A18‐D (1) FRS
3) MAG‐12: (1) F/A‐18D
4) MAG‐41: (1) F/A‐18A++/C+ (reserves)
5) Two Squadrons x 25 F‐35B FRS (transition squadrons

[ORAC]

Belgian F-16 Replacement Program In Turmoil (http://aviationweek.com/defense/belgian-f-16-replacement-program-turmoil)

LONDON—Belgium’s future fighter program has been thrown into turmoil after it emerged that cheaper options to extend the life of the country’s F-16 Fighting Falcons had been deliberately hidden from ministers.

The scandal, which has already resulted in the suspension of several military officers and civil servants, came to light after the leaking of a Lockheed Martin assessment dated April 2016 to several Belgian news outlets on March 20. The documents suggested the country’s F-16s could be upgraded and given another six years of operational life, making a new fighter purchase less urgent than government officials had previously contended.

Defense Minister Steven Vandeput told the country’s Parliament that he had not been made aware of the report about the potential life extension option. “If this report actually exists, if its content is accurate, and if the defense [ministry] has decided not to share it, there is a problem,” Vandeput told a Belgian radio station.

The news comes just weeks after the British and U.S. governments submitted their best price tenders for the Belgian fighter program for the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Lockheed Martin F-35A Joint Strike Fighter, respectively.

It is unclear whether the €3.6 billion ($4.35 billion) program will be frozen or terminated in light of the life extension option. But Vandeput is eager for the program to continue unhindered. “The purchase program has reached a crucial phase and we do not want to disrupt this sensitive moment,” Vandeput said.......

[KenV]

Belgian F-16 Replacement Program In Turmoil (http://aviationweek.com/defense/belgian-f-16-replacement-program-turmoil)

The scandal, which has already resulted in the suspension of several military officers and civil servants, came to light after the leaking of a Lockheed Martin assessment dated April 2016 to several Belgian news outlets on March 20. The documents suggested the country’s F-16s could be upgraded and given another six years of operational life, making a new fighter purchase less urgent than government officials had previously contended.Hmmmm. How much money would it have taken to extend their service life for six years? And had that money been allocated to F-16 service life extension, would that money have come out of the budget for a replacement aircraft and thereby endangering the replacement program? It appears that at best an investment in life extending the F-16 would have delayed the replacement decision by six years. And perhaps reduced the competition from two (Typhoon and Lightening) to just one (Lightening.)

[ORAC]

Good questions - but ones that should have been asked of, and answered, by politicians who had been given access to all of the facts by their unelected subordinates.

Additional questions could include both whether those subordinates had been offered any post retirement jobs or emoluments.....

[Lyneham Lad]

On Flight Global:-
US Navy completes fleet carrier qualifications for F-35C (https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-navy-completes-fleet-carrier-qualifications-for-f-447087/)

Progress!

[golder]

Some critics are wearing out and given up the fight.

star-telegram.com/news/politics-government/article207050669.html
"Government watchdog groups criticise the program for missing deadlines, exceeding cost estimates and failing to live up to promises. But with little appetite left to slow the current program in Washington, they’re now focused on stopping future versions of the plane, rather than convincing Congress to reconsider its investment."

“I have no real illusion we’re going to effect any drastic changes to the F-35,” said Dan Grazier, a military fellow at the Project On Government Oversight, POGO and one of the program’s leading critics in Washington. “It’s next to impossible to generate enough political opposition to the program.”

[glad rag]

On Flight Global:-
US Navy completes fleet carrier qualifications for F-35C (https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-navy-completes-fleet-carrier-qualifications-for-f-447087/)

Progress!

Good news! Now we just need a couple of modifications on the flattop...

[Bigpants]

And how will the F35 stop terrorist attacks in the UK, or car bombs in Afghanistan from getting through?

Truth is the UK is fighting an ideology of militant islam from within and external threats which are slippery and hard to determine and define. Putin is not going to wage a conventional war against NATO but he will use proxy conflicts and techniques to put pressure on HMG.

There is no political appetite left among conservatives for Cameron style military adventures abroad and a coalition under Labour is hardly going to use military force to achieve its aims.

[SARF]

Better to have and not need ...........

[George K Lee]

The critics may not have won the day - which may hardly be surprising when you start to think about what the pro-F-35 side has spent on lobbying, marketing, advertising, PR , trade shows &c - but it's a bit harder to overcome the realities of engineering, physics and economics.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-28/air-force-risks-losing-third-of-f-35s-if-upkeep-costs-aren-t-cut

This from the largest F-35 customer and (at this point) the organization with the largest F-35 force. Don't forget they already cut their peak planned rate by 25%, pushing the final deliveries into 2044. It does rather seem as if the more they see of the airplane the less they like it - and in the Bloomberg story, the Brits appear to be getting a bit jumpy too.

[pr00ne]

Bigpants,

Just what on earth do you think Op Shader is all about? The RAF is flying Typhoon and Tornado strikes from Akrotiri hitting ISIS targets in Iraq and mainly now Syria daily, RAF flown Reapers are doing a similar thing from Kuwait, also daily. Some appetite...

And at home we combat extremism via the Police and intelligence folk, who are doing a terrific job of foiling and preventing attacks.

[Brat]

The critics may not have won the day - which may hardly be surprising when you start to think about what the pro-F-35 side has spent on lobbying, marketing, advertising, PR , trade shows &c - but it's a bit harder to overcome the realities of engineering, physics and economics.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-28/air-force-risks-losing-third-of-f-35s-if-upkeep-costs-aren-t-cut

This from the largest F-35 customer and (at this point) the organization with the largest F-35 force. Don't forget they already cut their peak planned rate by 25%, pushing the final deliveries into 2044. It does rather seem as if the more they see of the airplane the less they like it - and in the Bloomberg story, the Brits appear to be getting a bit jumpy too.

George...still trying hard. The title of the thread needs revising, as does the veracity/relevance of your posts.

The aircraft has been selected by a number of countries, all of whom have studied, one assumes, with fairly critical eyes, and knowledge.

It is a cutting edge weapon system, and as such, has continued to go ahead whatever you personally have thought, think, or say.

As for the people on the ‘front line’ or as near to one of them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=83&v=f9d-qPCc1gA

But then I know nothing...a Captain in the USAF flying one possibly might have a tad more grounds for appearing a... ‘fan-boy’ was it?

[Heathrow Harry]

I notice you don't mention costs....

and asking pilots? Oldest trick in the book - give some snazzy new hardware to fast jet pilots and ask them what they think after a few months. Do you REALLY think he's going to say anything other than Fab/Superb/Amazing???

later you find all the flaws............ and it's not just the USA IIRC the Soviet Union landed themselves with a couple of turkeys by doing the same thing

[ORAC]

US Navy plans to modify 45 more Super Hornets (https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/navy-plans-to-modify-45-more-fa-18-super-hornets-in-447133/)

The US Navy plans to modify 45 more Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornets in the next two years to increase the aircraft’s service life and capabilities, the US Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) announced on 27 March. The potential contract will cover modifications to up to 15 aircraft in fiscal year 2019 and a maximum of 30 aircraft in FY2020, NAVAIR says. The modifications are designed to extend the fighter’s airframe life from 6,000-9,000h, adding up to 10 years of service.

Boeing will also convert existing Block II Super Hornets to a new Block III configuration starting in the early 2020s. This conversion will include adding an enhanced network capability, a longer range thanks to internal conformal fuel tanks, an advanced cockpit system, reduced radar signature and an enhanced communication system. Such updates are designed to keep the type effective in combat until at least into the early 2030s.

Boeing was on 28 February contracted to perform work on an initial four aircraft by April 2020, under a contract valued at $73.2 million. The award to modify 45 additional aircraft was an expected follow-on, and is part of an upgrade programme expected to last a decade. Boeing plans to modify between eight and 12 aircraft at its St Louis, Missouri site this year, before opening a second modification line in San Antonio, Texas, in 2019......

[George K Lee]

Well, no, nobody signed up for this program in full knowledge of the costs.
Here's this from Bloomberg:

Stephen Lovegrove.... the permanent secretary of the Ministry of Defence, said he’d be discussing the “slightly unknown territory” of long-term costs in meetings with F-35 program officials....“I am constantly being asked by parliamentarians in the U.K. what the total cost is going to be and they are sometimes, understandably, a bit frustrated when I have to tell them, ‘At the moment nobody is entirely sure,’” Lovegrove said.

Did the UK have knowledge of this when they joined the program? Did anyone (including Korea)?

[Heathrow Harry]

Everyone believed (or hoped) the LM mantra that unit costs of production would be much lower than initial estimates

[Not_a_boffin]

Selective quoting by Bloomberg from a round table briefing is a tad on the naughty side. The full IHS Jane's quote from the meeting is :


UK officials are pleased with the current state of F-35B Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter acquisition and they are now starting to shift their focus to the costs of operating and maintaining the aircraft.

“We are very pleased with the development of the aircraft,” UK Permanent Secretary for the Ministry of Defence Stephen Lovegrove said on 27 March during a media roundtable discussion of UK defence programmes and policies.

“It’s doing everything we hoped it would do,” he said. “We are pleased to see the cost of acquisition coming down in line with the way we assumed it would.”
He added that now “the next area of intense interest is the sustainment and operational cost of the aircraft.”
He and other military officials are constantly being asked by members of Parliament what those potential costs are going to be for the 138 aircraft. “They are frustrated when I say at the moment no one’s entirely sure,” he said.
Historically, he said, the United Kingdom has been “OK at buying stuff”, but it has failed at sustaining or operating what it acquires in an affordable way. “We need to work very, very, very hard on that.”
He noted the United Kingdom will be operating and sustaining the aircraft until 2048. “We’ve got headroom in the programme,” he said. “But there is a degree of uncertainty.”

That uncertainty exists, he said, for all of the countries in the F-35 acquisition programme.

Doesn't mean everything is hunky-dory, but the sky ain't falling either....

[sandiego89]

On Flight Global:-
US Navy completes fleet carrier qualifications for F-35C (https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-navy-completes-fleet-carrier-qualifications-for-f-447087/)

Progress!


Indeed, 140 "traps". No mention of the pilot neck strain issue that came up in earlier trials. Recall excessive head movements during the early part of the cat stroke during certain types of launch (lighter loads I believe). Has that been fixed?

[glad rag]

"It is a cutting edge weapon system"

In desperate need of billions of dollars of upgrades to match the operational capabilities of the few remaining legacy platforms, NEVER FORGET.

[George K Lee]

The sky may not be falling, Mr Boffin, but the cloud-base keeps getting lower.

As we know, 70 per cent of weapon system costs are in O&S.

HH - That'e because everyone got Augustine wrong.

[ORAC]

Air Force Risks Losing Third of F-35s on Upkeep Costs (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-28/air-force-risks-losing-third-of-f-35s-if-upkeep-costs-aren-t-cut)

The U.S. Air Force may have to cut its purchases of Lockheed Martin Corp.’s F-35 by a third if it can’t find ways to reduce operations and support costs by as much as 38 percent over a decade, according to an internal analysis. The shortfall would force the service to subtract 590 of the fighter jets from the 1,763 it plans to order, the Air Force office charged with evaluating the F-35’s impact on operations and budgets said in an assessment obtained by Bloomberg News.

While the Defense Department has said it has gained control over costs for developing and producing a fleet of 2,456 F-35s for the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps -- now projected at $406 billion -- the internal analysis underscores the current and looming challenges of maintaining and operating the warplanes. It may cost as much as $1.1 trillion to keep the F-35s flying and maintained through 2070, according to the current estimate from the Pentagon’s independent cost unit......

The analysis represents the first public disclosure of the potential impact if support costs aren’t reduced. Using figures developed in 2012, the Air Force faces an annual bill of about $3.8 billion a year that must be cut back over the coming decade.

The Air Force analysis doesn’t represent anything close to a final decision, according to spokeswoman Ann Stefanek. The potential reduction in aircraft was a “staff assessment on aircraft affordability. It’s premature for the Air Force to consider buying fewer aircraft at this time,” Stefanek said.......

[Heathrow Harry]

Hey!! That's LM's future profits they're attacking............... positively Un-American

[Niner Lima Charlie]

F-35: Still No Finish Line in Sight. 17 years in development, over budget, not ready.

F-35: Still No Finish Line in Sight (http://www.pogo.org/straus/issues/weapons/2018/f-35-still-no-finish-line-in-sight.html)

[Toadstool]

[Why America's Two Best Fighter Jets Can't Talk to Each Other] http://va.newsrepublic.net/article/i6539884886528885257?user_id=6511319578042172425&language=en&region=gb&app_id=1239&impr_id=6541618625197902090&gid=6539884886528885257

The fix won't be ready till 2023 so, until then, secure comms.

[Bigpants]

Bigpants,

Just what on earth do you think Op Shader is all about? The RAF is flying Typhoon and Tornado strikes from Akrotiri hitting ISIS targets in Iraq and mainly now Syria daily, RAF flown Reapers are doing a similar thing from Kuwait, also daily. Some appetite...

And at home we combat extremism via the Police and intelligence folk, who are doing a terrific job of foiling and preventing attacks.

Could you explain to assorted readers the legal basis for bombing Syria from Cyprus? Do you seriously believe a Labour Government led by Jezza is going to condone or continue to bomb Syria using the F35 from a Carrier or Akrotiri?

The times they are a changing....in the USA Trump is talking about withdrawal from Syria.

[ORAC]

Could you explain to assorted readers the legal basis for bombing Syria from Cyprus?

Legal basis for UK military action in Syria - Commons Library briefing - UK Parliament (http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7404)

[Brat]

F-35: Still No Finish Line in Sight. 17 years in development, over budget, not ready.

F-35: Still No Finish Line in Sight (http://www.pogo.org/straus/issues/weapons/2018/f-35-still-no-finish-line-in-sight.html)

Finishing up with..."Despite all of the effort, time, and money—17 years and over $133 billion—spent to date on the F-35 program, it is doubtful it will ever live up to the lavish promises made all those years ago when the Defense Department and Congress committed to the program. Hidden within the pages of the DOT&E report is this litotic summation:

“Finally and most importantly, the program will likely deliver Block 3F [the untested, allegedly “fully combat-capable” F-35 model now entering production] to the field with shortfalls in capabilities the F-35 needs in combat against current threats.”

Whether it will live up to 'lavish promises’ or suffer shortfalls in 'anticipated capabilities’ might just be countered with... is it flying? Can it do a specific tasks that up till now was not possible? Is it a credible counter to similar type threats being developed by enemies?

[Lyneham Lad]

Further signs of progress. Will U.S. Navy’s F-35 Be Ready On Time? (http://aviationweek.com/defense/will-us-navy-s-f-35-be-ready-time?NL=AW-05&Issue=AW-05_20180409_AW-05_237&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_1&utm_rid=CPEN1000003474208&utm_campaign=14365&utm_medium=email&elq2=91b8aac4c81446d0b0245d035e586af8) (Aviation Week Network).

Extract:-
The U.S. Navy’s USS Carl Vinson aircraft carrier will be headed to sea loaded with war-ready F-35Cs for the first time in 2021, if all goes according to plan.

But the F-35C carrier variant has a long road ahead before it can kick off its first operational deployment.

The Navy version of Lockheed Martin’s new fighter has made major progress over the last year. The “Rough Raiders” of VFA-125, the “Grim Reapers” of VFA-101 as well as VX-9 recently completed carrier qualifications on the USS Abraham Lincoln, greenlighting the first nine F-35C pilots to take off and land. At NAS Lemoore, California, the “Argonauts” of VFA-147, which will support the 2021 deployment, in February began their transition to the F-35C.

The JPO is working to implement three hardware fixes
The Navy will not declare the F-35C combat-ready until it demonstrates 3F capability during IOT&E
IOC will likely happen in 2019
The Navy will continue working on interoperability, communications and weapons integration
Meanwhile, the Joint Program Office (JPO) has resolved three major deficiencies on the F-35C: a “green glow” that obscures pilots’ vision during nighttime carrier landings; violent vertical oscillations during carrier launches; and overloading of the wings when carrying Raytheon’s AIM-9X air-to-air missiles, the aircraft’s primary dogfighting weapons.

[Heathrow Harry]

"Whether it will live up to 'lavish promises’ or suffer shortfalls in 'anticipated capabilities’ might just be countered with... is it flying? Can it do a specific tasks that up till now was not possible? Is it a credible counter to similar type threats being developed by enemies?"

and of course - how many can we afford............. I don't think anyone thinks it won't see service but the numbers look like a lot less than originally hoped for......

https://www.pprune.org/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif https://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/quote.gif (https://www.pprune.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=10110270)

[Lyneham Lad]

On Flight Global (https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/raaf-takes-its-first-f-35as-with-block-3f-software-447463/)today.

Snip:-
The Royal Australian Air Force has taken delivery of three Lockheed Martin F-35A fighters at Luke AFB in Arizona.

The three aircraft are equipped with the type’s block 3F software, a more capable version than the 3I software installed in its first two examples, says Australia's defence minister Marise Payne.

“These latest aircraft are fitted with the program’s final software system, which unlocks the aircraft’s full war-fighting potential including weapons, mission systems and flight performance.”

She adds that Australia is the first international partner to accept jets with Block 3F software.

Any F-35Bs with Block 3F yet?

[pr00ne]

Bigpants,

Someone has already posted UN resolution 2249, not that the UK needs anything of the sort for the actions it and a good proportion of the rest of the West is taking daily over Syria and Iraq.

As to Trump and withdrawing from Syria, I think you may just be a little out of touch on that...

[Brat]

"Whether it will live up to 'lavish promises’ or suffer shortfalls in 'anticipated capabilities’ might just be countered with... is it flying? Can it do a specific tasks that up till now was not possible? Is it a credible counter to similar type threats being developed by enemies?"

and of course - how many can we afford............. I don't think anyone thinks it won't see service but the numbers look like a lot less than originally hoped for......

https://www.pprune.org/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif https://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/quote.gif (https://www.pprune.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=10110270)

Since we seem to have progressed beyond the title of this thread, one could then reply that however many it is, it will be better than none.

Some information on what it may mean to us.https://rusi.org/sites/default/files/20160201_whp_maximum_value_from_the_f-35_web.pdf

[ORAC]

Assume a couple of million an airframe. What the hell, what’s $400M in the F-35 program....

Defense Department halts F-35 deliveries amid repair bill disagreement with Lockheed (https://www.defensenews.com/breaking-news/2018/04/11/defense-department-halts-f-35-deliveries-amid-repair-bill-disagreement-with-lockheed/)

[glad rag]

Assume a couple of million an airframe. What the hell, what’s $400M in the F-35 program....

Defense Department halts F-35 deliveries amid repair bill disagreement with Lockheed (https://www.defensenews.com/breaking-news/2018/04/11/defense-department-halts-f-35-deliveries-amid-repair-bill-disagreement-with-lockheed/)

What a Shambles.