F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

[Lyneham Lad]

On Aviation Analysis Wing (http://www.aviationanalysis.net/2018/04/f-35-completes-developmental-flight-testing.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+AviationAnalysisWing+%28Aviation+Analys is+Wing%29):-

The F-35 program has accomplished the final developmental test flight of the System Development and Demonstration (SDD) phase of the program.

Since the first flight of AA-1 in 2006, the developmental flight test program has operated for more than 11 years mishap-free, conducting more than 9,200 sorties, accumulating over 17,000 flight hours, and executing more than 65,000 test points to verify the design, durability, software, sensors, weapons capability and performance for all three F-35 variants.

While SDD required flight test is now complete, F-35 flight testing continues in support of phased capability improvements and modernization of the F-35 air system.

The final SDD flight occurred April 11, 2018, at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md., when Navy test aircraft CF-2 completed a mission to collect loads data while carrying external 2,000-pound GBU-31 Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM) and AIM-9X Sidewinder heat-seeking missles.

From flight sciences to mission systems testing, the critical work completed by F-35 test teams cleared the way for the Block 3F capability to be delivered to the operational warfighter. More than a thousand SDD flight test engineers, maintainers, pilots and support personnel took the three variants of the F-35 to their full flight envelope to test aircraft performance and flying qualities.

[Bigpants]

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...

What caught my eye was this chaps....it does not clearly authorise states to use force.

Although Resolution 2249 (2015) on ISIS/Daesh in Syria and Iraq, passed on 20 November 2015, is about the use of force, it does not clearly authorise states to use force. It seems intended to have more political than legal impact, particularly in displaying a unanimity that had previously been notably lacking.

[Bigpants]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/revealed-uk-government-let-british-company-export-nerve-gas-chemicals-to-syria-8793642.html

[glad rag]

On Aviation Analysis Wing (http://www.aviationanalysis.net/2018/04/f-35-completes-developmental-flight-testing.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+AviationAnalysisWing+%28Aviation+Analys is+Wing%29):-

Was the initially deferred testing, the testing that lagged IOT [:oh:], or the testing that followed the weight reduction program [I might not have got those in the right order]?



So what happens about the Block 4 testing, the testing that's done after the processor redesign [ :hmm:] and software writing [:hmm::hmm::hmm:] to allow FULL employment of ALL capabilities [sic] of the aircraft in a FULL warfighting role? [their description not mine]



So testing isn't REALLY finished, is it.


:zzz:

[Heathrow Harry]

11 years and still not finished.....................

the Siege of Troy took less time......

[ORAC]

The F-35 Hits A Key Developmental Milestone, But With Watered-Down Requirements (http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/20087/the-f-35-hits-a-key-developmental-milestone-but-with-watered-down-requirements)

[glad rag]

The F-35 Hits A Key Developmental Milestone, But With Watered-Down Requirements (http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/20087/the-f-35-hits-a-key-developmental-milestone-but-with-watered-down-requirements)

Quote
the F-35 project is making real progress, the manner in which it has occurred is yet another example of official pronouncements employing obtuse and “technically correct” verbiage that can obscure the obvious and still significant issues that project faces. This only diminishes the impact of positive news that emerges since it is immediately bogged down in caveats and asterisks...

...including aircraft the Air Force and Marine Corps have already committed to combat operations without the benefit of independent IOT&E tests, could also lead to both embarrassment and more dangerous miscalculations in the future....

[Brat]

For the usual whinging nellies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=ppPuXi45Pw8

[glad rag]

Just back from delivering a political message in downtown Damascus?


What a colossal waste of money.

[Brat]

From your point of view!

[George K Lee]

Thanks for reminding all the whingeing nellies (funny how only one side in this debate acts like the South Park kids, minus the humor) how right we were in 2009 when we dismissed the promised 2012-13 IOC dates as the moonshine that they were.

Yes, some capability is close to being delivered - but much later, and at much higher cost, than it would have been if a few early mistakes had been avoided - I'm talking about the unquestioned assumption that CAIV and a highly common OML, and nothing else, would deliver the desired cost savings - and if developmental problems had been managed better.

But the real problem with such a long development cycle is... well, cast your mind back to 1994-95. How often did you think about China back then, if you weren't Neal Stephenson?

[golder]

What a Shambles.
Buyer halts further deliveries, till a resolution on a dispute is settled. Is this is the first procurement you have ever followed?

[ORAC]

Not sure if this makes it look better or worse. When you’re in a hole - stop digging......

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/04/13/f-35-delivery-pause-indicative-of-more-stringent-pentagon-standards-lord-says/

[sandiego89]

Not sure if this makes it look better or worse. When you’re in a hole - stop digging......

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/04/13/f-35-delivery-pause-indicative-of-more-stringent-pentagon-standards-lord-says/


Sounds like this should have been done several times during the program. Think there was so much pressure to field jets no one wanted more delays.


Now watch LM charge for storage.....

[George K Lee]

Meanwhile,,,

Pentagon Could Kill F-35 JPO, But Not Until 2035 | Defense content from Aviation Week (http://aviationweek.com/defense/pentagon-could-kill-f-35-jpo-not-until-2035)

"The Pentagon will gradually dissolve the JPO over a period of nearly two decades."

Wasn't that what the Sarlacc did?

[sandiego89]

Looks like Japan has completed their study, and......the B could work off the Japanese (not- a)carrier. Of course this would only be if asked to support US F-35B operations....

Izumo-Class Destroyers Deemed Fit to Carry F-35B Aircraft, If Remodeled (excerpt) (http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/192906/japan-says-its-ships-could-recover-us-f_35b-fighters.html)
Izumo-Class Destroyers Deemed Fit to Carry F-35B Aircraft, If Remodeled (excerpt)(Source: Yomiuri Shimbun; published April 28, 2018)The [Japanese] Defense Ministry released a report on Friday concluding that Izumo-class destroyers of the Maritime Self-Defense Force can handle takeoffs and landings of fighter aircraft, if remodeled.

The report positively evaluated the Izumo-class destroyers for their “high potential to improve aircraft operational capabilities.”

Izumo-class destroyers are the largest in the MSDF. The Izumo and Kaga destroyers, both currently in service, are under consideration to be remodeled into aircraft carriers by the MSDF.

The report, which was submitted on March 22, is based on an investigation the MSDF entrusted to Japan Marine United Corp., the company that manufactured the Izumo-class vessels.

According to the report, the company examined whether the most advanced stealth F-35B fighter aircraft, which are capable of making short take-offs and vertical landings, can be operated from the Izumo-class vessels. The report lists what needs to be remodeled and other necessities that would enable the aircraft to take off, land, refuel and hangar.

The investigation was conducted under the assumption that the purpose would be to provide logistic support to U.S. military aircraft. Aircraft maintenance work on the Izumo-class vessels was among the situations not envisaged.

The company also examined the possibility of operating unmanned aircraft with rotor blades or fixed wings.


(EDITOR’S NOTE: The Asahi Shimbun said that “the Defense Ministry's precondition for the study was to look into how the Izumo could be used to provide rear-line support to the U.S. military,” but not to operate F-35Bs on its own ships.
The company was asked to provide estimates for the cost and construction schedule if changes were made to allow U.S. F-35B stealth fighter jets to land vertically on the deck and to use elevators to transport aircraft to their hangars, it reported.)

-ends-

[ORAC]

The headline mentions ships - but the only programme mentioned in the article is the F-35.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/mod-is-billions-short-for-new-ships-and-jets-after-losing-control-of-costs-97hx79bgl

MoD is billions short for new ships and jets after losing control of costs

Britain’s defence chiefs have lost control of their budget and cannot afford to buy all the warships, jets and submarines they need, MPs warn today.

The public accounts committee says in a report that it is “highly sceptical” that a defence review, due to conclude in July, will fix a funding gap of up to £21 billion over the next decade while also equipping troops to counter new threats from cyber, chemical and electromagnetic warfare......

“How can you afford not to?” one official told a group of journalists at a briefing yesterday.... The official indicated concern about the UK’s ability to afford all 138 of the next generation of stealthy warplanes that the Ministry of Defence has said it plans to buy as part of a multibillion-pound US-led programme. “The [UK] government has a choice as to whether they are going to continue to fund their defence at the level at which they previously said it needed to be funded — 138,” the official said, referring to the 138 F-35 Lightning II jets......

The public accounts committee describes as unrealistic the MoD’s plan to purchase and support military equipment, including at least 48 of the F-35 jets, by 2027. Its report is published almost six years to the day since Philip Hammond, as defence secretary, said that the government had “resolved” a £38 billion hole in the defence budget.......

The MoD is also criticised for a lack of transparency on its financial position. The annual equipment plan was made public ten months after the period that it covers began. A particular mention is made of the cost of the Lockheed Martin F-35 programme, the most expensive and technologically advanced warplane in history. The MoD has refused to offer a price estimate for a single, combat-capable F-35 jet, including upgrades and spare parts, or how much the total programme will cost. The MPs say that they “frustratingly” received more information on cost from the F-35 joint programme office in the US than from the MoD........

[Not_a_boffin]

PAC plagiarises previous NAO report and elements of HCDC inquiries. Republishes as "new". Sigh....

[Heathrow Harry]

Conclusions and Link to full text of report at

https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/608737-public-accounts-committee-roasts-mod-again.html

Nothing terribly new but again reinforces the perception that the whole place is out of control

[George K Lee]

PAC plagiarises previous NAO report and elements of HCDC inquiries. Republishes as "new". Sigh....

This is a standard spin on bad news.

The first time the story appears, the official response is "don't worry, chaps, we're working on it".

A year later, it becomes apparent that the problem has not been fixed. And the response is "Why are you harping on that? It's old news."

Put it this way: if MoD has a robust plan to reach a fixed and affordable LCC for the F-35, it is well ahead of the US Air Force. Bully for the MoD if that's the case, but permit me to express some doubt.

[Brat]

Doubt George, about the F-35, it would seem to be your middle name, between P and S.

http://researchbriefings.files.parli...5/CBP-8175.pdf (http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8175/CBP-8175.pdf)

How much does one value protection.

[BEagle]

Do I hear that the UK now favours a mix of F-35B and F-35A? Perhaps with a number of Voyagers modified to include a boom (which would be savagely expensive) in order to be able to refuel not just the F-35A, but also the UK's C-17, RC-135, E-3D and P-8A?

[Party Animal]

Beagle, as I’m sure you already know, the E-3D has the ability to refuel using either boom or probe and drogue. On the other hand, the E-7 will be boom only!?.

Sorry, thread drift and now back to the future.... F35

[Frostchamber]

On the question of cost, the chart on page 5 of that briefing paper is quite an eye opener. It shows that in real terms, after removing the effects of normal inflation, defence spending in 2016-17 was broadly the same as it was in around 1990. Yet the difference in what that "buys" in terms of numbers of aircraft, ships, submarines and people is of a different order of magnitude. OK today's kit is far more high tech, but even so...

[chevvron]

First 4 due to be delivered to 617 Sqdn at Marham on 5 June.

[glad rag]

First 4 due to be delivered to 617 Sqdn at Marham on 5 June.

When they going on Ops?

[Stitchbitch]

When they going on Ops?

6th June? Or do they need the software upgrade..

[chevvron]

6th June? Or do they need the software upgrade..
Airframe numbers suggested as ZM145 - 148 incl.

[chopper2004]

My photos of both Luke's finest on display and of course the F-35A mock up (get a free baseball cap with German flag when you sit inside lol)
cheers

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/980/42115612871_799c440a70_k.jpg

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/949/28242481958_02be545c3b_k.jpg

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/951/41395138734_bf38c8b597_k.jpg
https://farm1.staticflickr.com/945/41215759085_6f2ca420de_k.jpg

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/950/42115417611_7deb705915_k.jpg

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/907/40308540730_cf8868005a_k.jpg

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/961/40308539310_a88703dd56_k.jpg

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/906/28242579958_2f78fbce5b_k.jpg

[chopper2004]

I also heard at ILA from various folk - that the marketing of the F-35 to likes of two NATO nations Belgium and Germany, takes into consideration the nuclear commitment. Typhoon is being marketed to the Belgian Air Component while 90 odd are on order as Tonka replacement for the Luftwaffe. I am led to believe that the F-35 can carry the bog standard US bucket of sunshine whereas the Typhoon has not been cleared for bucket of sunshine even here.

Please can anyone shed any light on this or am I hearing BS?

cheers

[Rhino power]

Typhoon is being marketed to the Belgian Air Component while 90 odd are on order as Tonka replacement for the Luftwaffe...

Typhoon has only been offered as a replacement for the Tornado thus far, not actually been ordered...

-RP

[ORAC]

The F-35A has not yet done any trials/clearance to carry the B61-12 nuclear bomb. These are scheduled to be performed sometime between 2020-2022, though there is an argument going on as to when they are required - based in their role and the retirement of the currently assigned users.

Based on the different airframes previously cleared for carriage, such as the Jaguar, The any such clearance is likely to be more difficult politically than aerodynamically - particularly since the range of the F-35A would limit the targets to any German based F-35As to countries such as Poland, Hungary or the Baltic states......

[sandiego89]

The F-35A has not yet done any trials/clearance to carry the B61-12 nuclear bomb. These are scheduled to be performed sometime between 2020-2022, though there is an argument going on as to when they are required - based in their role and the retirement of the currently assigned users.

Based on the different airframes previously cleared for carriage, such as the Jaguar, The any such clearance is likely to be more difficult politically than aerodynamically - particularly since the range of the F-35A would limit the targets to any German based F-35As to countries such as Poland, Hungary or the Baltic states......

Interesting. From reading the wiki page on the "mod-12" of the B-61 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B61_nuclear_bomb it sounds like the Mod-12 will be quite an improvement capability wise. I do not see range as a huge issue, as shorter range partner/sharing aircraft such as the F-16, A-7, Harrier, Jaguar, F-104, etc. have trained for the role for decades (granted the Tornado does have better range), but the added guidance kit and penetrating ability might be of interest. It also sounds like other aircraft such as the Typhoon will not be able to employ the -12, but the F-35 will.

[ORAC]

Historically the other aircraft, such as the Jaguar and F-104 only had to reach targets in East Germany acoross the IGB.

Targets are are a lot further east these days...

[Heathrow Harry]

Bit like the original Force de Frappe that could only nuke W Germany.....

[glad rag]

Britain to slash F-35 orders? Erm, no, scoffs Lockheed UK boss
"F-35 maker Lockheed Martin’s UK chief has breezily dismissed the idea of Britain cutting the number of jets it is buying from the US firm.

Speaking to the Press Association, Peter Ruddock said he was “respectful” of the Ministry of Defence’s financial situation, which happens to include a whopping great big black hole to the tune of £21bn (https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/05/11/mod_20bn_spending_plan_black_hole_pac/).

But he didn’t believe the MoD would reduce its planned F-35 order, on the grounds that without the full order, Britain’s two new Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers would be left in a sticky situation.

“I think what we have seen in terms of the analysis that we are privy to, is that when the MoD has looked at what capabilities they need in the future, the F-35 rates very highly on that list,” Ruddock, a retired RAF air marshal who is now chief exec of Lockheed Martin UK, told the "

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/05/14/lockheed_f35_uk_order_numbers/

[FODPlod]

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/05/14/lockheed_f35_uk_order_numbers/

The Register? Really? :oh:

[George K Lee]

FODPlod? Really? https://www.pprune.org/images/smilies2/eusa_silenced.gif

It's a bit of a vacuous denial from LM in any case, since nobody's being specific about which orders are under threat. I don't think anyone is thinking of the first 48, and there's no schedule (or contractual commitment) for the remaining 90.

[langleybaston]

Is it just me, or is the F35 the ugliest brick ****-house cum dustcart that ever graced the skies?
Unlovely from every angle.

[Mil-26Man]

Targets are are a lot further east these days

There is aerial refuelling these days.

[George K Lee]

Is it just me, or is the F35 the ugliest brick ****-house cum dustcart that ever graced the skies?
Unlovely from every angle.

I have to admit that it's better looking than the runner-up. It's not an ugly as the Blackburn thing that lost to the Gannet, or most Blackburn designs until they miraculously pushed out the Bucc. It's more visually appealing than either of the Fleet Shadower candidates, or the Transavia AirTruk, or the Lockheed XFY-1 or the Convair XFV-1.

None of those represent a high bar...

[George K Lee]

There is aerial refuelling these days.

There are lean, fast, nasty things that like nothing better than a nice fat slow tanker these days too.

[Mil-26Man]

There are lean, fast, nasty things that like nothing better than a nice fat slow tanker these days too.

Ah, yes. Those much vaunted new Russian SAM systems that have completely shut down allied air operations over Syria.

[ORAC]

If the real threat is so low that you can send a civil airline based tanker without bang seats deep into enemy airspace - why do you need a stealth bomb truck in the first place?

[Mil-26Man]

If the real threat is so low that you can send a civil airline based tanker without bang seats deep into enemy airspace - why do you need a stealth bomb truck in the first place?

Not sure anyone has said that the tankers would need to fly "deep into enemy airspace", ever.

[ORAC]

So you’re back to dropping nukes on Poland, Hungary or the Baltic states then?

Alternatively, if you want to go bunker busting in any feasible enemy - then the targets are deep inside their territory outside the range of the F-35A without AAR well inside their airspace.

[ORAC]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/05/16/dogfight-uks-pledge-buy-american-fighter-jets-could-play-like/

Dogfight over UK's pledge to buy American fighter jets 'could play out like the Westland affair'

Theresa May is under pressure to row back on a multi-billion-pound deal to buy the new generation of US fighter jets in a row being likened to the Westland affair.

The British Government is committed to buying 138 F-35 fighter aircraft from US manufacturer Lockheed Martin. The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has so far bought 48 aircraft at a cost of £9.1 billion but is now reconsidering its pledge to buy a further 90 F-35s. Instead, the Telegraph understands it is looking at purchasing Eurofighter jets, made by a European consortium that includes the UK. The European manufactured jets are currently, on best estimates, about half the price of an F-35.

Gavin Williamson, the Defence Secretary, is publishing a defence review in July, which may cast doubt on the affordability of the further 90 F-35 Lightning II aircraft, the most expensive but technically advanced fighter jet in history. (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/03/18/inside-the-f-35-lightning-ii---the-invisible-fighter-jet/) He has also launched a Combat Aircraft Industrial Strategy, due to report in the summer, which is set to decide the balance of future spending on jet fighters - and whether the UK goes for a predominantly European fighter, despite Brexit, or a US-developed jet.

The simmering row has been likened to the Westland helicopter furore that blighted Margaret Thatcher’s government, and forced the resignation of the then defence secretary, Michael Heseltine, who insisted the UK should pick the British-made helicopter over a US model.

The purchase of the extra F-35s is expected to be raised by Donald Trump when the US president meets Mrs May during his visit to Britain next month. But Mr Williamson is understood to favour an option that would ensure the viability of a joint European jet fighter business until 2050 at least. The Prime Minister will come under pressure to pick a side.......

The MoD made a commitment to buy 138 F-35s in its Strategic Defence and Security Review of 2015. The MoD is currently negotiating with the Joint Program Office, the US department in charge of contracts, over the cost of the Lockheed Martin built aircraft.

The Conservative MP Mark Francois, a former defence minister, and a member of the defence select committee, said: “We are sceptical about the viability of all 138 aircraft, which is what we are theoretically committed to. Unless Lockheed Martin can bring the cost down, the F-35 will suck up other funds for other programmes in the defence budget. If the costs continue as they are that will have a serious knock-on effect to the rest of the defence spending programme.” He added: “The MoD are looking again at the costs of the F-35. The question remains from aircraft 49 onwards how many of these are you going to end up buying and the MoD is looking at that at the moment.”........

In a possible indication of MoD thinking, it has emerged that the UK Government has been lobbying its Belgian counterparts to buy the Eurofighter in preference to the F-35. The F-35 is the most technologically advanced aircraft on the marketIn a joint letter, co-signed by the British, German, Italian and Spanish ambassadors, they urged the Belgian government to commit to the Eurofighter Typhoon. “We believe that our European offer to Belgium, through Eurofighter Typhoon, is the best solution to meet the country’s immediate and long-term defence, security and industrial needs,” wrote the ambassadors including Britain’s Alison Rose, adding: “Almost every Euro spent on Eurofighter remains in Europe across a broad European supply chain involving more than 400 companies and 100,000 jobs.”

Tim Ripley, aerospace expert at Jane’s Defence Weekly, said: “It’s shaping up to be a grand stand-off, a transatlantic dog-fight, the defence-industrial saga of the summer and a Westland-esque moment for the British Aerospace industry.” Mr Ripley said that the Defence Secretary was “reputedly dead keen on the European plane”, which had prompted him to launch the Combat Aircraft Strategy.

An MoD spokesman said it was too soon to speculate on the outcome of the review. The spokesman said: “The F-35 programme remains on track and within budget, providing a game-changing capability for our Armed Forces. We continue to drive down costs with every purchase and remain committed to purchasing 138 F-35 Lightning aircraft while British industry benefits from an order book of over 3,000 jets.”

[Davef68]

Not sure anyone has said that the tankers would need to fly "deep into enemy airspace", ever.

Th USAF are/were considering it

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-commander-wants-technological-leap-to-kc-z-ta-429534/

and the US Navy is looking at similar for the MQ25

[Mil-26Man]

Th USAF are/were considering it

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-commander-wants-technological-leap-to-kc-z-ta-429534/

and the US Navy is looking at similar for the MQ25

Yes, I'm not sure I buy that Davef68. Seems to me that Boeing is looking for a differentiator to the A330 MRTT, and this is what they have come up with to justify the USAF's U-turn. Can't see the USAF ever flying a KC-46A in contested airspace. As for the MQ-25, that's less about fielding a tanker and more about finding a mission (any mission) that allows them to develop the unmanned platform they really want for strike and ISR.

So you’re back to dropping nukes on Poland, Hungary or the Baltic states then?

Why would the F-35 need to drop its ordnance directly over where it has tanked? That's not how tanking works, but you already know that.

[Frostchamber]

"Committed to 138" may mean different things to different people in this context. I have also seen 138 referred to as an "ambition" and although the MoD has said it "remains committed" to 138, I don't think there's any contractual commitment to that many.

it's been suggested that the long term plan was for an establishment of 4 front line squadrons of F35s. If true, you don't need 138 for that. I suspect that the words "over the life of the programme" were key. 80-90 airframes would allow 4 front line sqns and reserves, rotating airframes in and out of the front line etc, so the plan might have been to follow these up with a very late order for late model examples to replace the originals, to equip the second half of the life of the carriers. Under that scenario we would never have more than 80-odd at any given time. I could equally be completely wrong about that, but the numbers and timeframes do sort of fit.

If the approach firms up to be one of F35s for the carriers only, the question becomes one of how many you need for that. Views on here will doubtless differ. I'd argue that 4 sqns would be the minimum to support sustained deployments, and especially if we want to hold out the possibility of deploying both carriers concurrently in extremis. For its part, on the other hand, the RAF might argue that 2 sqns of Bs for the carriers is just fine, thank you very much, and please give us something else in addition based on land.

If we do end up with 4 sqns of Bs, a further question is whether that leaves any room to fund anything additional concurrently, if previous plans were only for a top up buy of late model Bs as replacements.

If we end up with a Typhoon-versus F35A decision presumably there are pros and cons for both. I'm guessing the F35A would shade it as the airframe of choice for land-based ground attack - but how far does project centurion narrow the gap? Whereas late model Typhoons with AESA would presumably shade it for air to air. But then is the Typhoon really a better bet for UK industry and employment? It might be, but then the UK builds 15% by value of every F35 built - which adds up to the value equivalent of 400 or so full aircraft if current plans are followed through.

This one could run and run...too many variables....

[Heathrow Harry]

"Committed to 138" may mean different things to different people in this context. I have also seen 138 referred to as an "ambition" and although the MoD has said it "remains committed" to 138, I don't think there's any contractual commitment to that many.

it's been suggested that the long term plan was for an establishment of 4 front line squadrons of F35s. If true, you don't need 138 for that. I suspect that the words "over the life of the programme" were key. 80-90 airframes would allow 4 front line sqns and reserves, rotating airframes in and out of the front line etc, so the plan might have been to follow these up with a very late order for late model examples to replace the originals, to equip the second half of the life of the carriers. Under that scenario we would never have more than 80-odd at any given time. I could equally be completely wrong about that, but the numbers and timeframes do sort of fit.

If the approach firms up to be one of F35s for the carriers only, the question becomes one of how many you need for that. Views on here will doubtless differ. I'd argue that 4 sqns would be the minimum to support sustained deployments, and especially if we want to hold out the possibility of deploying both carriers concurrently in extremis. For its part, on the other hand, the RAF might argue that 2 sqns of Bs for the carriers is just fine, thank you very much, and please give us something else in addition based on land.

If we do end up with 4 sqns of Bs, a further question is whether that leaves any room to fund anything additional concurrently, if previous plans were only for a top up buy of late model Bs as replacements.

If we end up with a Typhoon-versus F35A decision presumably there are pros and cons for both. I'm guessing the F35A would shade it as the airframe of choice for land-based ground attack - but how far does project centurion narrow the gap? Whereas late model Typhoons with AESA would presumably shade it for air to air. But then is the Typhoon really a better bet for UK industry and employment? It might be, but then the UK builds 15% by value of every F35 built - which adds up to the value equivalent of 400 or so full aircraft if current plans are followed through.

This one could run and run...too many variables....

Ahhh so we have a hierarchy ...

Firm Order
Negotiating
Committed
Planned
Ambition
Aspiration
Deferral
Cancellation

[2805662]

Ahhh so we have a hierarchy ...

Firm Order
Negotiating
Committed
Planned
Ambition
Aspiration
Deferral
Cancellation

Isn’t that a progression?

[Lonewolf_50]

Why would the F-35 need to drop its ordnance directly over where it has tanked? That's not how tanking works, but you already know that. I had a real education dropped into my lap when I had to deal with it for real in sustained ops. All those things I thought I knew .... uh, I didn't. Good to learn, though. In a non permissive environment, the tanking puzzle is critical to get right. I would expect that any number of CONOPS documents have been drawn up, and probably a few tested out a Nellis at the very least.

Edited out incorrect assumption. (oops)

[George K Lee]

First of all, the US ambassador is really called Woody Johnson? Sounds like a co-star in one of Ms Daniels' movies.

Second, here's Boeing's shill on the KC-46: It also will be certified and equipped to fly pretty much anywhere, including into contested air space. (http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/boeings-kc-46-next-gen-tanker-will-set-global-standard-aerial-refueling-forbes/) We all know that is tosh, but Boeing is paying to have it said. (PS Mr Mil - I wasn't talking about GBAD.)

Third, the support for Typhoon in Belgium is really telling. That's not just planting leaks in the Torygraph in hopes of pressuring LM into a better deal (and the UK is pretty insignificant there, compared to the Pentagon). That's "we want to keep Typhoon going because we may end up needing to buy more".

[Not_a_boffin]

Third, the support for Typhoon in Belgium is really telling. That's not just planting leaks in the Torygraph in hopes of pressuring LM into a better deal (and the UK is pretty insignificant there, compared to the Pentagon). That's "we want to keep Typhoon going because we may end up needing to buy more".

An alternate interpretation might just be that as one of the four members of NETMA and also responsible in partnership with the other three nations for sales, the UK is just trying to demonstrate that being a good European doesn't end with Brexit. Given that Eurofighter sales are at least as important to Warton (and RR) as F35 - the UK can't not support a Eurofighter bid, even if BAES stands to benefit from an F35 win as well.

[Heathrow Harry]

Isn’t that a progression?


;) to true..............

[Lonewolf_50]

Second, here's Boeing's shill on the KC-46: It also will be certified and equipped to fly pretty much anywhere, including into contested air space. (http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/boeings-kc-46-next-gen-tanker-will-set-global-standard-aerial-refueling-forbes/) We all know that is tosh, I am sure it can fly in contested air space: the enemy needs targets too. :p ('Cos, y'know, the stealth planes are invisible)

[KenV]

Second, here's Boeing's shill on the KC-46: It also will be certified and equipped to fly pretty much anywhere, including into contested air space. (http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/boeings-kc-46-next-gen-tanker-will-set-global-standard-aerial-refueling-forbes/) We all know that is tosh, but Boeing is paying to have it said. (PS Mr Mil - I wasn't talking about GBAD.)Guess it depend on the definition of "contested". Here's what the shill had in mind with regard to that: "Eighth, the Air Force's future tankers must be highly survivable, even when supporting operations in so-called anti-access/area denial environments. That entails being equipped with radar and infrared countermeasures that can defeat attackers, being hardened against the electromagnetic pulse generated by nuclear bursts, and being able to operate safely at night. The flight deck is even armored. As a result, KC-46 will be able to operate in environments where few tankers have gone in the past." So apparently not into any and all contested environments, but into more contested environments than today's tankers.

[Lonewolf_50]

Guess it depend on the definition of "contested". Here's what the shill had in mind with regard to that: "Eighth, the Air Force's future tankers must be highly survivable, even when supporting operations in so-called anti-access/area denial environments. That entails being equipped with radar and infrared countermeasures that can defeat attackers, being hardened against the electromagnetic pulse generated by nuclear bursts, and being able to operate safely at night. The flight deck is even armored. As a result, KC-46 will be able to operate in environments where few tankers have gone in the past." So apparently not into any and all contested environments, but into more contested environments than today's tankers. We'll know if they've gone too far by that great big flaming fireball in the sky.
Ops(O) puts down coffee cup and sighs.

"Hmm, that area was more contested than we thought it would be, general ... "
So you’re back to dropping nukes on Poland, Hungary or the Baltic states then?
I am not sure how you arrive at that. NATO tends to forward deploy these days. *scratching head* You just named some NATO allies.
Alternatively, if you want to go bunker busting in any feasible enemy - then the targets are deep inside their territory outside the range of the F-35A without AAR well inside their airspace. As I look at the order of battle, I find that the F-35 isn't the only aircraft, and that at least one aircraft, B-2, can handle that sort of mission if you are the USAF. If not, then ... what, is that the problem? The RAF can't be all things to all people?

[ORAC]

We are discussing the possible role for German F-35As, if they bought them. The Germans are not renowned for showing eagerness to deploy armed aircraft - at least since 1945. Hence the assumption must be they would only ever be utilised in the role against an attack against NATO by Russia.

The weapon storage locations and their handling also strongly strongly suggest that they would only ever be employed in extremist from their home bases - which implies against enemy forces advancing through the Baltic states, Hungary or Poland - and from time and other constraints probably the latter. seeing as the B61-12 is optimised for attacks against bunkers I have to question what sort of target they would conceivably be employed against.

In the unlikely event event they were targeted against a site deeper in Russian territory they would require AAR far beyond the FEBA.

In such circumstances it would also suggest a scramble in such extremis that a planned COMAO with advance fighter sweep, EW, C4I, AAR supper would not be possible. If it was possible then then tankers would be on orbits at least 150nm short of the FEBA behind protective EW and fighter CAPS with the bombers interleaved with other tanking assets so they couldn’t be spotted - and would then have to fly an indirect route clear of other formations to prevent their being accidentally engaged at the same time as other assets. So let us presume a route of at least 200nm before crossing the FEBA.

The F-35A combat radius is 590nm - allowing a penetration beyond the FEBA with a safe return of about 400nm - which wouldn’t reach the Russian border which is about 800nm. One way they couldn’t reach Moscow.

Which reminds me of the rumour that that that the range of the Tornado GR1 was designed to prevent the GAF being able to reach Moscow on a one way trip......

if you search there there has been a multi-year argument that the B61 is a bomb with no role in the modern era. The latest mods may give it a justifiable role - but not carried by a Tornado, Typhoon or F-35 - except to force their Belgian and German governments to make a nuclear commitment which will never be conceivably be employed.

I suppose they could bomb the sh*t out of Kaliningrad.....

[glad rag]

5162



Which reminds me of the rumour that that that the range of the Tornado GR1 was designed to prevent the GAF being able to reach Moscow on a one way trip......

[tdracer]

Second, here's Boeing's shill on the KC-46: It also will be certified and equipped to fly pretty much anywhere, including into contested air space. (http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/boeings-kc-46-next-gen-tanker-will-set-global-standard-aerial-refueling-forbes/) We all know that is tosh, but Boeing is paying to have it said. (PS Mr Mil - I wasn't talking about GBAD.)
".
As others have noted, it depends on how you define 'contested', but I can attest to the KC-46 being designed to be able to withstand some battle damage. For example, those wire separation requirements that tripped up Boeing so badly were related to ballistic penetration - holes of a certain diameter were not allowed to take out redundant systems.

[ORAC]

Glad-rag. I am aware that the GAF subsequently procured buddy-refuelling for the Tornado, and the Eurofighter. A lot of water under the bridge since the MRCA was designed. And it was a tongue in check comment - along the lines of NATO being designed to keep the Russians out, the Americans in... and the Germans down...

The Israelis are reportedly developing stealth conformal tanks for their F-35As - reportedly. There has been no mention of a F-35 buddy pack as far as I am aware. It would, of course, total ruin the stealth profile and give away both aircraft, the price of the F-35 also makes using one for the role somewhat expensive. That does not mean that they could not be accompanied by another tactical tanker, the GAF could use a Eurofighter in the same way as the USN will continue to use the F-18 until the MQ-25 arrives in the fleet. Assuming, that is, they funded the fitting of a probe to the F-35A or bought the F-35C.....

Interesting that stealth is not a requirement for the MQ-25, the requirement being to carry the same Chobham refuelling pod as on the F-18 for commonality.

[emitex]

Thought it was 'Dave'?

The Air Force's Elite Weapons School Has Given The F-35 A New Nickname (http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/20914/the-f-35-has-a-new-nickname-given-to-it-by-the-usafs-most-elite-pilots)

[ORAC]

No vote, or single choice, for aircraft nicknames - and the drivers usually prefer a nicer one than the drivers of other fleets give them - though they sometimes adopt them out of perverse pride. I doubt it was the drivers who nicknamed the B-52 the Buff, the F-15E the Mudhen or the F-18 the Plastic Bug.

[Heathrow Harry]

Agreed- the "management", PR types and policitians prefer uplifting sound-bite names like "panther" whereas those who fly them and fly with them seem to prefer something a little more... descriptive??????

[George K Lee]

Of course, we know the reason for the official name, as explained (at 1:10) by the inimitable Penelope Keith...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-0lz0PIsDo

[glad rag]

Oooo that's going to get BLM on their case!!

[A_Van]

......
except to force their Belgian and German governments to make a nuclear commitment which will never be conceivably be employed.

I suppose they could bomb the sh*t out of Kaliningrad.....

Easy, easy .... Are you sure your last sentence was necessary?
Fortunately those folks seem to have enough brains and do not want to start the fire understanding what would happen to them in minutes.

[ORAC]

Easy, easy .... Are you sure your last sentence was necessary?

To demonstrate the farce of envisioning a role for the B61-12 for any future use of GAF Eurofighters or F-35As - yes......

[Onceapilot]

Which reminds me of the rumour that that that the range of the Tornado GR1 was designed to prevent the GAF being able to reach Moscow on a one way trip......


Why post this rubbish?

OAP

[Rhino power]

People's opinion of the F-35 notwithstanding, this is some nice footage of a Dutch F-35A wazzing about, I mean it even banks as if to turn! :8
www.youtube.com/watch?v=EW9_e-Uxo9g&feature=share

-RP

[glad rag]

Last time I saw something like that in the highlands it was a harrier!

Oh yeah..................:ok: the worlds most expensive harrier :D :rolleyes:

PS Nice weather :\

[George K Lee]

Someone just stepped on his own Woody Johnson... (https://www.forces.net/news/us-ambassador-urges-uk-spend-more-defence)

Less NHS, more F-35s. Holy ****, dude.

Comments already being enthusiastically re-reported by RT and Sputnik.

[glad rag]

Someone just stepped on his own Woody Johnson... (https://www.forces.net/news/us-ambassador-urges-uk-spend-more-defence)

Less NHS, more F-35s. Holy ****, dude.

Comments already being enthusiastically re-reported by RT and Sputnik.



"Mr Johnson also described the F-35 Lightning programme, which Britain has a 25 per cent stake in, as "very, very interesting".

That is correct.

[Brat]

Someone just stepped on his own Woody Johnson... (https://www.forces.net/news/us-ambassador-urges-uk-spend-more-defence)

Less NHS, more F-35s. Holy ****, dude.

Comments already being enthusiastically re-reported by RT and Sputnik.
Your interpretation.

​​​​​​​Not sure that that is what he said.

[glad rag]

As others have noted, it depends on how you define 'contested', but I can attest to the KC-46 being designed to be able to withstand some battle damage. For example, those wire separation requirements that tripped up Boeing so badly were related to ballistic penetration - holes of a certain diameter were not allowed to take out redundant systems.


The soviets nee Russians have a demonstrated ability to take out Boeings...


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MH17_Missile_Impact.webm

[Rhino power]

House lawmaker introduces bill to halt F-35 sale to Turkey (http://thehill.com/policy/defense/388241-house-lawmaker-introduces-bill-to-halt-f-35-sale-to-turkey)

-RP

[2805662]

The soviets nee Russians have a demonstrated ability to take out Boeings...


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MH17_Missile_Impact.webm


Thought the Russians disputed responsibility for that one....

[Wokkafans]

Usual caveats apply :

"The F-35 just made its combat debut"


https://www.defensenews.com/breaking-news/2018/05/22/the-f-35-just-made-its-combat-debut/#.WwQDi1Dy1gI.twitter

[Buster15]

"Mr Johnson also described the F-35 Lightning programme, which Britain has a 25 per cent stake in, as "very, very interesting".

That is correct.

25%. Are you sure. Seems high given we are told that UK aerospace industry gets 15% of each sale. Not sure if this applies to F35 with the LiftFan or is a generic figure.

[pr00ne]

Buster15,

Seeing as in addition to the manufacturing bit we have a large number of design folk on the project spread around airframe, engine and systems, 25% overall seems a about right.

[ORAC]

https://www.stripes.com/news/us/navy-s-top-dollar-stealth-fighter-may-not-go-the-distance-1.528359

HASC: F-35C lacks the range to strike enemy targets

WASHINGTON (Tribune News Service) — The Navy’s newest fighter jet, the stealthy F-35C, may not have the range it needs to strike enemy targets, the House Armed Services Committee said in a new report, raising troubling questions about whether the multibillion-dollar program is already outpaced by threats. And critics say the Navy fighter — part of the Joint Strike Fighter initiative, the most expensive weapons program in history — may actually have been out of date years ago.

The committee’s conclusion, buried in the 606-page report on the fiscal 2019 defense authorization bill, is confirmation from lawmakers who support the jet program that the aircraft carrier-based version of the F-35 may not have enough effective range without refueling to function well in likely future wars. “While the introduction of the F-35C will significantly expand stealth capabilities, the F-35C could require increased range to address necessary targets,” the report states.

The reason, experts say, is that the aircraft carriers from which the F-35Cs would operate may be required to sail too far away from enemies to avoid their increasingly long-range missiles.

The committee does not want to stop buying F-35Cs, but instead wants to start also buying new sorts of warplanes. “After billions of dollars have been spent on the F-35C, but before the first aircraft are ready to deploy, lawmakers are already looking at the next carrier-based aircraft,” said Bryan Clark, a former Navy strategist now at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

Dan Grazier, of the Project on Government Oversight, said the House directive “highlights just how poorly conceived the Joint Strike Fighter program has been from the very beginning.” “The issue of anti-ship cruise missiles is not a new one,” he said. “The complexity of the F-35 program has dragged out the design process to nearly 20 years, which means we are not keeping pace with emerging threats.”.......

The fact that the F-35C’s limited radius may reduce its operational utility has received little public attention. Radius is less of an issue for the Air Force because the service has long-range bombers and can reserve F-35As for shorter-range missions, Clark said. For the Marine Corps, the F-35B is a significant upgrade over the AV-8B Harriers now in the fleet.

The committee’s report directs the Navy secretary to brief the Armed Services panels by January 2019 on options, including manned and unmanned aircraft that would “expand the strike range of a carrier air wing in a contested environment.” That could include “developing a stealth tanker capability, improved engine technology or to develop and procure a strike capability that is purposely built to strike at increased range.”........

[Buster15]

People's opinion of the F-35 notwithstanding, this is some nice footage of a Dutch F-35A wazzing about, I mean it even banks as if to turn! :8
www.youtube.com/watch?v=EW9_e-Uxo9g&feature=share (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EW9_e-Uxo9g&feature=share)

-RP

Of course it looks impressive until you notice that in almost every pass it was in reheat. I have watched many similar video of Typhoon or Tornado and they are similarly impressive while in dry power.
A stealth fighter in reheat now that makes sense.....

[Rhino power]

Of course it looks impressive until you notice that in almost every pass it was in reheat. I have watched many similar video of Typhoon or Tornado and they are similarly impressive while in dry power.
A stealth fighter in reheat now that makes sense.....

What an odd comment!

-RP

[Lonewolf_50]

may not have enough effective range without refueling to function well in likely future wars. Hmm. Since current doctrine includes the use of air to air refueling, and has for about 50 years, I am not sure what this statement is intended to convey. My guess is that the seeds are being sown to fund a more robust organic air to air refueling capability, which has been a bit of a running sore since the KA-6 family of tankers were retired. (Memory is not helping, but I think the S-3B did refueling for some years ... ) ...

[ORAC]

Funding for a stealthy follow on to the MQ-25 Stingray (which LM is already pushing) and for development funding for the F/A-XX.

[glad rag]

What an odd comment!

-RP
https://www.defencetalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/f-35-flir-radar-stealth-detection.jpg

[Rhino power]

https://www.defencetalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/f-35-flir-radar-stealth-detection.jpg

And your point is?

-RP

[glad rag]

Thought the Russians disputed responsibility for that one....

Really??

rhyd875Qtlg

[ORAC]

http://www.defensenews.com/congress/2018/05/25/turkey-threatens-retaliation-if-new-bill-stops-f-35-sale/

Turkey threatens retaliation if new bill stops F-35 sale

[ORAC]

Reference IR detection.....

How the Navy's New Block III Super Hornet Could Crush China's J-20 or Russia's Su-57 | The National Interest Blog (http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/how-the-navys-new-block-iii-super-hornet-could-crush-chinas-25964)

Sounds good against a single target, it as soon as you get multiple targets with the same signature you get multiple false locations. Vague relocation that the old UKADGE passive radar detection system had all sorts of ways to eliminate them (for electronic jammers, not IR) using hyperbolic lays etc - but there were always dozens of them when it was exercised.

[Brat]

http://www.defensenews.com/congress/2018/05/25/turkey-threatens-retaliation-if-new-bill-stops-f-35-sale/

Turkey threatens retaliation if new bill stops F-35 sale
If Turkey’s recent actions are anything to go by they have already committed to buying the Russian missile system despite warning that this might jeopardise the F-35 deal.

If they are that dismissive about valid US/NATO/F-35 Consortium security concerns, then they are simply displaying exactly why they should not be allowed access.

[t43562]

If Turkey’s recent actions are anything to go by they have already committed to buying the Russian missile system despite warning that this might jeopardise the F-35 deal.If they are that dismissive about valid US/NATO/F-35 Consortium security concerns, then they are simply displaying exactly why they should not be allowed access.Their attitude in general, when they can't get what they want from the west, is to cuddle up to the east and vice versa. They trade one side off against the other so they don't have to be anyone's poodle. On the F-35 it's the Americans who need to sell them much more, I think (but I admit I'm no expert), than Turkey needs to buy them.

[Brat]

And a legitimate tactic to use in bargaining, this however to be balanced against the legitimate concerns of the consortium who propose buying the F-35 which has to be also taken into consideration.

Britain has doubts about servicing it’s F-35’s outside UK ie in Turkey. Israel will certainly have concerns with Turkish F-35’s as their relationship with Turkey has had its ups and downs, though they have quite sensibly obtained rights to distance/isolate themselves to a degree from parts of the program.

Turkey’s actions as a NATO ally have in the past raised concerns with NATO, their recent purchase of the Russian missile system unprecedented in the NATO partnership quite apart from their differences with the US.

There would be many who feel that the need to sell to Turkey has been in doubt for a while and that it should be stopped. It has been an ‘interesting' development that is quite rapidly approaching crunch time.

Which way it will go is anyone’s guess as it has been a very fluid situation with regard to Erdogan and whether his own people will put up with his particular dreams of power, national alliances, and, shaping of the thinking and policies of the Turkish Military which has been so drastically culled of any Western leaning command structure.

[George K Lee]

Given events in Italy, statements in the UK, and Easter Eggs in the PB19, the program can ill afford to wave goodbye to 100 sales.

A certain desperation is also evident when an LM-compensated consultant is comparing advocacy of European aircraft in Germany to treason: (https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2018/04/26/modernizing_natos_nuclear_capabilities_113373.html)

Taking a leaf from Vladimir Putin’s playbook, some in Europe’s aerospace and defense industry have warned of dire consequences should Germany break with recent practice and acquire a limited number of F-35s to fulfill its commitments under NATO’s nuclear-sharing agreement.

Goure's link goes to this story. (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-airshow-fighter/german-defense-ministry-gets-bids-for-tornado-fighter-jet-replacement-idUSKBN1HV16O)

Airbus defense chief Dirk Hoke told German newspaper Die Welt am Sonntag this weekend that a decision to buy the F-35 would kill off plans by France and Germany to develop a new European fighter. “As soon as Germany becomes an F-35 nation, all cooperation with France on combat jet issues will die,” Hoke told the paper.

[glad rag]

Gouré supports American arms sales to other countries, as a method of controlling them.[5] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Gour%C3%A9#cite_note-5)


"Because it controls the flow of spare parts and the technology to upgrade U.S. systems, Washington can also influence local politics," Goure observed.

"In World War II, the United States earned the title of the Arsenal of Democracy. Since that time the continued use of the title has been justified by the way the United States has employed targeted arms sales to support and influence friends and allies around the world."


Ref http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2011/02/22/Gulf-holds-arms-expo-as-Mideast-erupts/UPI-84581298409611/

[Brat]

Arms sales of certain weapons to certain allies.

LM and the US can ill afford to give away cutting edge secrets when there is a serious risk of them compromising a major defence system of every other member of the F-35 consortium.

[KenV]

Airbus defense chief Dirk Hoke told German newspaper Die Welt am Sonntag this weekend that a decision to buy the F-35 would kill off plans by France and Germany to develop a new European fighter. “As soon as Germany becomes an F-35 nation, all cooperation with France on combat jet issues will die,” Hoke told the paper.A "cooperation" that is much more imaginary than real. If such cooperation actually existed, Rafale would not exist and Typhoon would look quite different than it now is.

[Heathrow Harry]

I see the Israelis have leaked pics of an F 35 over Lebanon....

[ORAC]

I don’t see why apart from PR - they have been flying F-16s and F-15s over Beirut with impunity for over 30 years......

[George K Lee]

Ken - There is an early Dassault-Airbus relationship on a future combat aircraft, post-Typhoon/Rafale.

[KenV]

Ken - There is an early Dassault-Airbus relationship on a future combat aircraft, post-Typhoon/Rafale.I'm aware of that. There was also an "early relationship" when the concept for Typhoon was being developed. That turned from "cooperation" into direct competition. This will likely (almost certainly?) be no different.

[Brat]

Doesn’t bode well for the Franco/German option for a German F-35 replacement. But then the German forces are in a little bit of a state of disarray.

France which was a ‘victor’ in the last war, quite logically is in a better position, and their front line equipment is in a bit better shape...but...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12/16/ground-force-half-frances-military-planes-unfit-fly/

[KenV]

How the Navy's New Block III Super Hornet Could Crush China's J-20 or Russia's Su-57 The National Interest Blog (http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/how-the-navys-new-block-iii-super-hornet-could-crush-chinas-25964)Sounds good against a single target, it as soon as you get multiple targets with the same signature you get multiple false locations. Vague relocation that the old UKADGE passive radar detection system had all sorts of ways to eliminate them (for electronic jammers, not IR) using hyperbolic lays etc - but there were always dozens of them when it was exercised.Boeing/Navy just did a sensor fusion test of the new block III sensor, datalink, processing, and display suite. The results were, according to the Navy pilots, "eye watering". And this is the first iteration with significant improvements expected before it goes into full production.
LINK (https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-fa-18ef-demonstrates-sensor-fusion-448849/)

[Brat]

Given events in Italy, statements in the UK, and Easter Eggs in the PB19, the program can ill afford to wave goodbye to 100 sales...

Given Turkey’s present economic situation one does wonder if Turkey is in a position to buy 100 F-35’s?
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/967131/europe-banks-crisis-turkey-lira-crashing-us-dollar-recep-tayyip-erdoga

[glad rag]

Given Turkey’s present economic situation one does wonder if Turkey is in a position to buy 100 F-35’s?
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/967131/europe-banks-crisis-turkey-lira-crashing-us-dollar-recep-tayyip-erdoga

As of 2013, €998,000,000 from the EU should have helped...

[Brat]

A good point, if a rather sore one.

[t43562]

As of 2013, €998,000,000 from the EU should have helped...
Fine, take some of the 3.4 million Syrian refugees then perhaps, if you think all those frightened racists back home would put up with it.

[glad rag]

Fine, take some of the 3.4 million Syrian refugees then perhaps, if you think all those frightened racists back home would put up with it.


Really?

Pawns in Erdoğans hand more like....

[Heathrow Harry]

Really?

Pawns in Erdoğans hand more like....

All he has to do is to let them transit/leave Turkey for Europe and you'll see some REAL costs

[glad rag]

All he has to do is to let them transit/leave Turkey for Europe and you'll see some REAL costs
Oh no we won't. ;)

[Heathrow Harry]

Oh no we won't. ;)

when a few thousand people turn up at the Greek border what are you going to do ?

Shoot them??

Anyway this thread is drifting........

[Brat]

Well the thread was about the cancellation of the F-35 and what would happen then, which, doesn’t appear to be happening. What is presently of interest is will Turkey’s F-25’s be cancelled?

With a total estimated intended run of around 3K, a 100 of them is not an F-35 killer, and may in fact save the US money, as one isn’t quite sure how Turkey was going to pay for them anyway. In earlier times they many probably have counted upon US military largesse, but that might just be a bit of an ask these days.

[Heathrow Harry]

doubt they'll build 3000 TBH too expensive............... and very late

[George K Lee]

They're going to build at least 3800 of them (2443 for the US, 600 for the partners and 800 FMS).

That's what it says here (https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2018/05/29/lockheed-martin-f-35-fighter-poised-to-become-one-of-americas-biggest-exports/#212d40a74d54), and to paraphrase the Bard, Dr Thompson is an honourable man.

After all, he was the one who assured us in November 2009 (http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/four-reasons-for-confidence-in-the-f-35/) that everything was going just tickety-:mad:ing-boo. And shucks, he had it pretty well right. Aside from the program office director getting canned two months later and the fact that it took more than three years before anyone could commit to an IOC date. Details, details.

The important point is that one must not underestimate the value of a paper commitment to a certain quantity of airplanes, because an irritating provision of Nunn-McCurdy is that it considers that naughty ol' PAUC.

So you might think that LM is sending Herr Doktor out to big up the production numbers and protect the PAUC estimate. But that's impossible, for Dr Thompson (as noted above) is an honourable man.

[GeeRam]

Wasn't the rumour that the first 4 were due to arrive at Marham today............or was that just wishful thinking and spin, like most things related to this aircraft :E

[FODPlod]

Wasn't the rumour that the first 4 were due to arrive at Marham today............or was that just wishful thinking and spin, like most things related to this aircraft :E
As opposed to the opinionated ignorance some on here regurgitate from the Daily Mail and similarly 'reliable' sources? :D

[ORAC]

Maybe they have and nobody saw them? :ooh:

[TEEEJ]

Wasn't the rumour that the first 4 were due to arrive at Marham today............or was that just wishful thinking and spin, like most things related to this aircraft :E

Rumour is that weather issues US side has delayed the departure. RAF Marham have released the following.

https://twitter.com/RAFMarhamMedia/status/1003941135797161984

Well done RAF Marham and the local landowners for arranging the following for people to view the arrival.

https://twitter.com/RAFMarhamMedia/status/1003627006641221632

[Nige321]

From UKDJ...
Due to bad weather, the expected arrival of the first British F-35Bs to the UK today has been cancelled. They will arrive at the earliest opportunity and remain two months ahead of schedule.Rightfully, the RAF want to ensure optimal conditions for the flight, and safety remains paramount. Tomorrow remains a possibility.Obviously these aircraft can fly in bad weather but given there's no operational imperative to do so, they're not taking the risk with the lives of those involved for a photo-op. This is standard practice with all types unless on operations, risking crew and equipment when not required would be foolish. Let's not forget the risk bad weather adds to aerial refuelling. If you still think this is terrible, we might suggest you strap yourself in and give flying them over a go.

[airsound]

RAF is tweeting decision is based flight safety - trails require fit sea states and diversions - these are not available today, but may be tomorrow...

airsound

[glad rag]

From UKDJ...

Highly defensive article written to stifle debate.

Anyway, who is providing the AAR?

[airsound]

glad rag Anyway, who is providing the AAR?

RAF Voyagers

airsound

[KenV]

Highly defensive article written to stifle debate.What a fascinatingly conspiratorial turn of phrase....."written to stifle debate."

[ORAC]

Read those last few words in the context of identified, potential life-threatening, category 1 deficiencies.......

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-05/key-f-35-defects-must-be-fixed-before-full-production-gao-says

F-35 Defects Must Be Fixed Before Full-Production, GAO Says

The Defense Department office that oversees the F-35 program was criticized by a government watchdog for its plans to delay fixing critical deficiencies on the fighter until after a decision to start full-rate production is made -- a move that won’t come before October 2019.

The F-35 -- the world’s most expensive weapons program -- had 966 “open deficiencies” as of January, the Government Accountability Office said in an annual report released Tuesday. Of those, at least 180 “will not be resolved before full-rate production” under the Pentagon office’s current plans, according to the report. The production decision would commit the U.S. to building 77 or more of the Lockheed Martin Corp. (https://www.bloomberg.com/quote/LMT:US) aircraft per year over the next 12 years, up from 70 this year. Output would peak at 105 aircraft in 2023 at an annual cost of $13.4 billion and stay at that rate for six years. That makes it imperative for the Pentagon to fix the deficiencies before a decision about production -- the most profitable phase for Lockheed -- is made, the report said.

Over the past year, the Pentagon “has made progress in completing the F-35 development program,” GAO said. “However, in its rush to cross the finish line, the program has made some decisions that are likely to affect aircraft performance and reliability and maintainability for years to come.” The GAO report broke down the shortfalls into two categories: Category 1 deficiencies are defined as “those that could jeopardize safety, security, or another critical requirement,” while Category 2 deficiencies “are those that could impede or constrain successful mission accomplishment.” The report cited 111 Category 1 and 855 Category 2 deficiencies........

F-35 program office spokesman Joe DellaVedova said via email that, as with past GAO assessments, this one was completed with the office’s “full cooperation and unfettered access to information. There were no surprises in the report and the items mentioned are well known,” he said.

“The program already has actions in work for the GAO’s recommendations to address deficiencies and identify steps to meet reliability and maintainability requirements,” he said. Officials expect the F-35 Program “to resolve all critical deficiencies prior to entering” combat testing “with either a fix,” a service-approved work around “or a formal acceptance of the deficiency,” he added

[Nige321]

They are on their way...
https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/34502250_1167705420039205_6890184680264433664_o.jpg?_nc_cat= 0&_nc_eui2=AeFcuatpa6RdaGw5tGzSfj12HOcA3GF8Agu2f9ZQi8VhpYfyOoS 1t9XYOZFrsK5MknG7_-3fPU2JrxehHs8qOUUbViWu1OuVAmvGwgnFjxEq0w&oh=285761362b117923265d4a73ce825f82&oe=5B84DDD6 (https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/34502250_1167705420039205_6890184680264433664_o.jpg?_nc_cat= 0&_nc_eui2=AeFcuatpa6RdaGw5tGzSfj12HOcA3GF8Agu2f9ZQi8VhpYfyOoS 1t9XYOZFrsK5MknG7_-3fPU2JrxehHs8qOUUbViWu1OuVAmvGwgnFjxEq0w&oh=285761362b117923265d4a73ce825f82&oe=5B84DDD6)

[BEagle]

Indeed they are - heck of a long trip!

From what I could see, the first Voyager RRR9101 brought them up the Eastern US seaboard from Charleston, before handing over to a pair of Voyagers from Gander for the pond crossing (an 'interesting' RV) on the southern route as a 6-ship cell, whilst RRR9101 landed at Gander.

Currently at 18:40Z just approaching Yeovil, but it looks like the Voyagers have now split formation - RRR9103 is at F180, but RRR9102 is passing F120.

[Wokkafans]

Live feed from Anglia TV

https://www.facebook.com/itvanglia/videos/2415583081789095/

[chopper2004]

Here are my attempts at tonights arrival in sunny deepest Nortolk, starting off with Benson's finest lol :)

cheers

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1722/27759410287_1ccb5a8ab5_k.jpg

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1724/41727849675_0d7e34b528_k.jpg

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1758/41727851295_1280b8cf84_k.jpg

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1726/41727850495_45edc1fdb4_k.jpg

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1735/28754976818_183173f140_k.jpg

[ORAC]

Is that somebody shouting Dave! Dave! at the end?.........

https://youtu.be/WbHbj5_zRSw

[Dan Gerous]

Good morning Dave.

[Lord Riot]

Nice to see a new type in service. Hopefully we'll see a return of a couple more of our famous old fighter squadrons - or won't we be allowed to adorn their expensive fancy grey paint with red & white checks or tiger stripes?

Are they actually any good? Apart from being stealthy and a bit faster, what do they do that a Harrier GR.9A couldn't? I assume it's all about the electric wizardry?

I still miss the days when we had Harriers, Jags, Buccs, real Lightnings and Phantoms! I guess just two FJ types is as good as it'll ever be now.

[BEagle]

After the trail up the eastern seaboard and RV south of Newfoundland, presumably it took 2 Voyagers and such a southerly pond hop because the F-35B has such a small fuel capacity that a single hose plan across the pond with a single Voyager would have been impossible?

12-15 refuelling brackets for each F-35B from MCAS Beaufort to Marham, according to press reports...

[JagRigger]

I wonder how much downwash / jetblast there was for the spotters on the fenceline ?

[Bob Viking]

Would it be possible if, just for a day or two, we revel in the fact that our forces have just taken delivery (well we’ve had them for a while but you know what I mean) of our first batch of the worlds most advanced air platform?

I expect normal service will resume shortly and I know it has its detractors but let’s puff out our chests a bit and just be happy for once.

A big well done to the guys that brought them over.

BV

[GeeRam]

12-15 refuelling brackets for each F-35B from MCAS Beaufort to Marham, according to press reports...

:eek:
No wonder they wanted to name it Lightning.......!

[glad rag]

Would it be possible if, just for a day or two, we revel in the fact that our forces have just taken delivery (well we’ve had them for a while but you know what I mean) of our first batch of the worlds most advanced air platform?

I expect normal service will resume shortly and I know it has its detractors but let’s puff out our chests a bit and just be happy for once.

A big well done to the guys that brought them over.

BV
Yes good to see them safely on the ground.

[sandiego89]

Well a quick calculation shows 4,000 plus miles on the shortest great circle route, but I imagine the actual route was longer. So dragging 4 single engine jets across the pond from South Carolina USA indeed deserves well done. Not sure if a single Voyager could have done the second phase fuel offload wise, but always nice to have multiple tankers for the long overwater portions- also allows one tanker to divert with a diverting fighter and let the rest of the flight carry on.

Agree with Bob, a good time for some happy news.

[Lyneham Lad]

Thanks to the link in post #11378 I was able to watch the coverage of their arrival whilst continuing to enjoy Spanish sunshine. :) One of the aspects of their arrival that struck me was the sheer length of the shut-down procedure - is that the norm for the F-35B? Anyway, well done to all involved!

[Jobza Guddun]

One of the aspects of their arrival that struck me was the sheer length of the shut-down procedure - is that the norm for the F-35B? Anyway, well done to all involved!

Probably had to wait for the latest updates to install....

[Wander00]

Waiting for the in-flight movie to finish....hat, coat

Well done all

[hulahoop7]

Did they all do a rolling vertical landing?

[ORAC]

Watch the video at #11380 above.

[Airbubba]

http://twitter.com/R_Wall/status/1004624946184769536

The F-35 rollout in the UK is unhurried... ;)

[Frostchamber]

Not a ferry tank in sight but. And presumably the frequent top ups and southabout route close to the Azores partly reflected the need to be able to divert in the event of a mishap as well as chasing the best weather and sea states.

[Heathrow Harry]

Not a ferry tank in sight but. And presumably the frequent top ups and southabout route close to the Azores partly reflected the need to be able to divert in the event of a mishap as well as chasing the best weather and sea states.
so THAT'S what those things. Are that someone dropped in a local field......

[hulahoop7]

Perhaps they didn’t want the party ruined by being bounced by an SU.

[The Oberon]

Any chance of a fly past appearance tomorrow??

[glad rag]

https://www.airforcetimes.com/industry/techwatch/2018/04/25/marines-3-d-print-replacement-parts-for-f-35-unmanned-ground-vehicle/

“WASHINGTON ― A U.S. Marine Corps pilot has successfully flown an F-35B Lightning II with a 3-D printed part. The Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 121 used 3-D printing (https://www.defensenews.com/smr/equipping-the-warfighter/2017/09/11/marine-corps-looks-to-3-d-printing-to-make-spare-parts-downrange/) to replace a worn bumper on the landing gear of the fighter jet.

As a commander, my most important commodity is time,” according to Marine Corps Lt. Col. Richard Rusnok, the squadron’s commanding officer.

“Although our supply personnel and logisticians do an outstanding job getting us parts, being able to rapidly make our own parts is a huge advantage.”

[BEagle]

USMC true to form: Improvise, adapt and overcome! Oorah!

:ok:

[Heathrow Harry]

That didn't stop us getting the Buccaneer, did it?

Sad thing is the RAF could have ordered years before - it was pretty much forced on them as the only option at the end

[Brat]

It was very good to see them arrive.

A Typhoon /F-35 combo will make a pretty potent package.
https://world.eurofighter.com/articles/interoperability-the-heart-of-new-mix

[pr00ne]

Heathrow Harry,

Except for the fact that the Buccaneer came nowhere near meeting the specification, so would have failed all the procurement requirements in the competition, so the RAF couldn't have "ordered them years before" owing to totally failing to meet, just as a few examples;
1. Mach 2+ at altitude.
2. Supersonic dash at low level over target
3. Rough field capability.

[Heathrow Harry]

Heathrow Harry,

Except for the fact that the Buccaneer came nowhere near meeting the specification, so would have failed all the procurement requirements in the competition, so the RAF couldn't have "ordered them years before" owing to totally failing to meet, just as a few examples;
1. Mach 2+ at altitude.
2. Supersonic dash at low level over target
3. Rough field capability.

Indeed - but as they were happy to have them later the spec was clearly somewhat over ambitious in terms of affordability................ v similar to the US B-70 ... you reach for the stars but the bean counters can raise all sorts of road -blocks

PS why in on earth did we need rough field capability AND Mach 2+ AND supersonic lo dash??? Surprised they didn't add in 24 loiter capability and ASW as well....................

[airsound]

Excellent upsum by Tony Osborne in Aviation Week of last week's arrival. His piece includes good official pictures. If you scroll through the pics, you get different bits of the article as well.
Photo Gallery: British F-35s Are Now Calling Britain Home Aviation Week (http://aviationweek.com/defense/british-f-35s-are-now-calling-britain-home?NL=AW-05&Issue=AW-05_20180611_AW-05_65&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_1&utm_rid=CPEN1000001187552&utm_campaign=15177&utm_medium=email&elq2=004d0a1fc5774902aecedafe23b06d82#slide-0-field_images-1803951)

airsound

[pr00ne]

Heathrow Harry,

No idea, but that’s what the blue suited winged wonder VSO’s of their day demanded.
I have heard it said, somewhat mischievously, that those specific requirements were in the spec to make damn sure the Buccaneer could not qualify!

[NutLoose]

The requirements were eventually made official in November 1956 with General Operational Requirement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operational_Requirement) 339 (GOR.339), which was issued to various aircraft manufacturers in March 1957.[16] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAC_TSR-2#cite_note-flight_oct_1969-17)
[17] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAC_TSR-2#cite_note-18) This requirement was exceptionally ambitious for the technology of the day, requiring a supersonic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersonic) all-weather aircraft that could deliver nuclear weapons (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon) over a long range, operate at high level at Mach 2+ or low level at Mach 1.2, with STOL (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOL) or possible VTOL (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VTOL) performance.[14] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAC_TSR-2#cite_note-wynn_503-15)
[18] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAC_TSR-2#cite_note-Thornborough_p._6-19) The latter requirement was a side-effect of common battle plans from the 1950s, which suggested that nuclear strikes in the opening stages of war would damage most runways and airbases, meaning that aircraft would need to take off from "rough fields" such as disused Second World War airfields, or even sufficiently flat and open areas of land.[19] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAC_TSR-2#cite_note-20) Specifically, the requirement included:[18] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAC_TSR-2#cite_note-Thornborough_p._6-19)

Delivery of tactical nuclear weapons at low level in all weathers, by day and night
Photo-reconnaissance at medium level (day) and low level (day and night)
Electronic reconnaissance in all weathers
Delivery of tactical nuclear weapons day and night at medium altitudes using blind bombing if necessary
Delivery of conventional bombs and rockets

Low level was stated to be under 1,000 ft (300 m) with an expected attack speed at sea level of Mach 0.95. The operational range was to be 1,000 nmi (1,200 mi; 1,900 km) operating off runways of no more than 3,000 ft (910 m).[20] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAC_TSR-2#cite_note-Thornborough_p._5-21) The TSR-2 was able to operate at 200 ft (60 m) above the ground at speeds of Mach 1.1;[21] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAC_TSR-2#cite_note-22) its range allowed it to operate strategically in addition to tactical scenarios.[22] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAC_TSR-2#cite_note-23)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAC_TSR-2

Except for the fact that the Buccaneer came nowhere near meeting the specification, so would have failed all the procurement requirements in the competition, so the RAF couldn't have "ordered them years before" owing to totally failing to meet, just as a few examples;
1. Mach 2+ at altitude.
2. Supersonic dash at low level over target
3. Rough field capability.

Oddly enough, one aircraft came close and we cancelled that.... TSR2 See top quote and link

[Heathrow Harry]

Thanks Nut... tbh I doubt we could achieve that spec today....... of course TSR2 never had the chance to show if it could meet the spec

ah well back to the hideous f 35...

[Frostchamber]

Thanks Nut... tbh I doubt we could achieve that spec today....... of course TSR2 never had the chance to show if it could meet the spec

ah well back to the hideous f 35...

ISTR it was having to meet the spec that in part did for TSR2 - not least the rough field requirement, where the resultant odd undercarriage arrangement was a source of problems.

[ORAC]

USN orders yet another 18 F/A-18E/F.......

June 11 (UPI) -- Pentagon officials have announced a new modified contract with Boeing for the manufacture and delivery of F/A-18 Super Hornet variants.

The contract, from Naval Air Systems Command and announced on Friday, is valued at more than $862.2 million and enables Boeing to provide 15 F/A-18E and three F/A-18F aircraft for the U.S. Navy, according to the Defense Department.

Work on the contract will occur in multiple locations across the United States, as well as Canada, and is expected to be complete in June 2020.

The total cumulative value of the contract will be obligated to Boeing at time of award -- the funds will be allocated from Navy fiscal 2018 aircraft procurement funds, the Pentagon said. None of the obligated funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year.

[KenV]

USN orders yet another 18 F/A-18E/F.......The contract, from Naval Air Systems Command and announced on Friday, is valued at more than $862.2 million and enables Boeing to provide 15 F/A-18E and three F/A-18F aircraft for the U.S. Navy, according to the Defense Department.

Wow! That's only 47.8 million per Super Hornet. I'm guessing the engines are a separate contract with GE.

[ORAC]

KenV, same price as the last lot they ordered in 2017. These contracts are modifications/additions to the last multi-year buy authorised for the F-18, hence the same price. Not sure if, or how many, more can continue to be added to the same contract - though I am sure Boeing won’t object.

.....”In a separate contract released on Sept. 13 (http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/186775/boeing-wins-%24676m-super-hornet-order.html), the Pentagon announced that the US Navy will actually paying $676.6 million for six F/A-18E and eight F/A-18F aircraft, or $48.3 million each for the Lot 41 aircraft it is buying in this financial year”....

[Heathrow Harry]

Presumably Mr. B makes a profit at that price?

If they sold them overseas at the same price they'd seriously cut into the F 35 market..

[Brat]

Meanwhile for all the pissers, moaners, and 'what will we do when it’s cancelled' crowd, the numbers of F-35’s delivered has now reached 300. And, as its numbers go up exponentially with time, it should go further up the scale quite quickly.

The price of an F-35A has reduced more than 60 percent from the first contract, labor by about 75 percent over the last five years and production span time about 20 percent since 2015.
300th F-35 delivered, costs falling towards 'same levels as current fighters' (https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/300th-f-35-delivered-costs-falling-towards-same-levels-as-current-fighters/)

From the beginning the F-35 program had eight partner countries that helped pay for development. These are now slated to purchase over 600. Israel, Japan and South Korea came on board before development was completed. This is not taking into account the F-35’s that will go the the US Air Force, USMC and the US Navy.

800 planes are expected to be bought by other countries through the Foreign Military Sales program with potential customers including Belgium, Finland, Germany, Singapore, Spain, Switzerland, India and United Arab Emirates.

Over the long term, other major air forces that consider themselves potential US allies will want an aircraft as survivable, versatile, cost-effective, and, as capable of working closer with U.S. air power than any other competing aircraft.

[2805662]

Presumably Mr. B makes a profit at that price?

If they sold them overseas at the same price they'd seriously cut into the F 35 market..

If they’re sold under FMS, that is what the end user would pay, plus the US Government administration fee. How? For FMS sales, Boeing’s customer is the US Navy.

[ORAC]

Not so - especially politics over the F-35 come into play. Which is one reason why Canada ended up buying used F-18s from Australia rather than new....

Canada Charged Six Times As Much As US Navy for Super Hornets (http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/feature/5/186776/canada-charged-six-times-as-much-as-us-navy-for-super-hornets.html)

[ORAC]

The Times: Scientist held amid fears of Chinese plot to steal secrets of F-35B jet

A British scientist who held a senior position at Rolls-Royce has been arrested amid fears that the Chinese government tried to steal secrets about the RAF’s new £100 million stealth fighter jet.

Bryn Jones, the company’s former chief combustion technologist, was held after MI5 learnt that classified defence information may have been leaked to Beijing, according to The Sun. The scientist, 73, was questioned in connection with the alleged plot on Tuesday after a sting by officers from Scotland Yard’s SO15 counterterrorism command. He was detained at his home in Derbyshire on suspicion of breaching the Official Secrets Act, according to the newspaper.

A Metropolitan Police spokesman said: “At approximately 14.25 on Tuesday officers arrested a man in Derbyshire as part of an investigation under the Official Secrets Act. The man, who is in his 70s and worked within private industry, has been taken to a police station in Derbyshire where he remains in custody. We are not prepared to discuss further at this stage given the nature of the investigation”.

The offices of a West Midlands company linked to Professor Jones, a married father of five, were also searched during the police operation, which is said to centre on fears over Rolls-Royce’s top-secret work on the F-35B jet.......

Professor Jones, who has been married to Dorothy, 75, for 49 years, describes himself as a visiting professor in gas turbine combustion at the Aeronautical University of Xian, central China.

After leaving Manchester Grammar School in 1963, he studied mechanical engineering at the city’s university. On graduating in 1968 he started a job in Rolls-Royce’s combustion engineering section and stayed in the role for 28 years. In 1996 he became chief of combustion technology acquisition, which involved “assessing military and civil product needs”. Four years later he was made chief combustion technologist. Professor Jones is thought to have left Rolls-Royce in 2003 and launched a consultancy firm. It is understood that he would have had to have signed the Official Secrets Act because of the nature of his work at Rolls-Royce.

Police were seen carrying boxes away from his £400,000 four-bedroom home in Derbyshire, a 20-minute drive away from Rolls-Royce’s HQ. He now works as a combustion engineer for Bladon Jets in Coventry........

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6523806/brit-arrested-china-plot-steal-raf-stealth-fighter-jet-secrets/

[ORAC]

Fleets within fleets - and not yet out of testing......

https://www.snafu-solomon.com/2018/06/the-warzone-talks-f-35-eots-upgrades.html

[George K Lee]

That's an interesting story about the Prof. It reflects the degree to which China was not considered a technological threat in 2003 - I would assume that, today, one's NDA would proscribe running off to be a professor at a Chinese technical university. From the same era...

https://www.cfmaeroengines.com/press-articles/cfm56-7b-engine-training-now-available-in-china/

We'll see how the story unfolds, but given his RR role in "technology acquisition" one wonders whether the US may have raised the alarm concerning the UK's compilation and curation of their data. (Remember RR was on the GE F136 program, not the F135.)

I'm actually sceptical about China's ability to emulate Western engine technology (one area where developments have lagged predictions).

[George K Lee]

I'm not sure why F-35 fans need to preface all their thrice recycled PR pablum positive program news with insults. A Trumpish inferiority complex, no doubt.

That said, it's been the whiners who have, so far, correctly predicted the delays and increased costs of the program. We'll see how that plays out as the RAF gets intimately familiar with the system's demands, and gets the bill for the mandatory C2D2 upgrade package. And we'll see how long it takes to get to 800 FMS sales. Maybe North Korea will be added to the list now.

Jet engines whine, and they are powerful and essential to aerospace and defense...

[Lonewolf_50]

Hmm, still not cancelled.
Now, F-35's delivered to the UK. If we do a modest review of the history, we will note whence the majority of the complaining posters are from since about post 1 of this thread (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/424953-f-35-cancelled-then-what.html#post5886440). (My "ya gotta be kiddin' me" response in re the two years to sort out the tail hook pales in comparison to the other noise still being heard ... )

So, ladies and gentlemen, now that it is not only not cancelled, but delivered (albeit late and at a price to make one's eyes bug out) might I ask one of you to start a new thread?
Something like
"F-35: now what?"
or
"F-35: Pissing and Moaning because we can"
or
"F-35: What won't they think of next?"
or
"F-35: What software version are we on now?"
or
"F-35: Why do the Israelis get to drop bombs with them and all we get is another IOC forecast?"

or something like that.
Cancelled is, as shown by current events, now utterly overcome by events.

[Heathrow Harry]

Hmm, still not cancelled.
Now, F-35's delivered to the UK. If we do a modest review of the history, we will note whence the majority of the complaining posters are from since about post 1 of this thread (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/424953-f-35-cancelled-then-what.html#post5886440). (My "ya gotta be kiddin' me" response in re the two years to sort out the tail hook pales in comparison to the other noise still being heard ... )

So, ladies and gentlemen, now that it is not only not cancelled, but delivered (albeit late and at a price to make one's eyes bug out) might I ask one of you to start a new thread?
Something like
"F-35: now what?"
or
"F-35: Pissing and Moaning because we can"
or
"F-35: What won't they think of next?"
or
"F-35: What software version are we on now?"
or
"F-35: Why do the Israelis get to drop bombs with them and all we get is another IOC forecast?"

or something like that.
Cancelled is, as shown by current events, now utterly overcome by events.

Certainly not going to be cancelled but totally unloved...................

[glad rag]

F-35: What software version are we on now?"
or
"F-35: Why do the Israelis get to drop bombs with them and all we get is another IOC forecast?"



and the answers are?

[George K Lee]

"Albeit late and at a price to make one's eyes bug out"....

True, but perhaps an understatement. This is no ordinary PITA combo of delays and overruns, because the world's largest air force has bet everything on the program's performance. And lost.

As Dave Deptula and others repeat often, the USAF's operational fighter force is now the oldest in its history, by an increasing margin. This would not be the case if F-35 had met its 2009 schedule and procurement cost, let alone its 2001 numbers. The AF has not reached its nominal replacement rate (based on 1900 fighters and a 30-year lifetime). And there is little money available to update F-15s and F-16s to anything near the standards of current production fighters without cutting further into F-35.

Meanwhile, as F-35s get delivered, but are not at a stage where the units can accept pilots fresh out of T-38s, the operational-but-not-deployed squadrons remaining can't produce enough qualified fighter pilots, and the AF is looking at a three-digit buy of armed trainers, which it will then be stuck with for many years.

[SamYeager]

Hmm, still not cancelled.
Now, F-35's delivered to the UK. If we do a modest review of the history, we will note whence the majority of the complaining posters are from since about post 1 of this thread (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/424953-f-35-cancelled-then-what.html#post5886440). (My "ya gotta be kiddin' me" response in re the two years to sort out the tail hook pales in comparison to the other noise still being heard ... )

So, ladies and gentlemen, now that it is not only not cancelled, but delivered (albeit late and at a price to make one's eyes bug out) might I ask one of you to start a new thread?


Any chance the moderator can be asked to rename the thread or is that a no no on this forum?

[ORAC]

If you look at the first post the original subject was as to what would be the consequences of the UK cancelling it’s F-35 order due to defence cuts - not the entire program being cancelled.

I would suggest that while the original tranche of 48 seem secure, the question of whether the entire planned purchase of around 140 will occur is still moot - particularly since the present defence minister seems to be leaning towards additional Typhoon, presumably for the same defence review/cost reasons.

The title would therefore still seem apt - if parochial......

[Rhino power]

First European built F-35 for the RNLAF begins assembly (https://theaviationist.com/2018/06/16/work-on-the-first-european-built-f-35-for-the-netherlands-starts-at-cameri-faco-in-italy/)

-RP

[glad rag]

First European built F-35 for the RNLAF begins assembly (https://theaviationist.com/2018/06/16/work-on-the-first-european-built-f-35-for-the-netherlands-starts-at-cameri-faco-in-italy/)

-RP


"sniggers"

[Brat]

I'm not sure why F-35 fans need to preface all their thrice recycled PR pablum positive program news with insults. A Trumpish inferiority complex, no doubt.

That said, it's been the whiners who have, so far, correctly predicted the delays and increased costs of the program. We'll see how that plays out as the RAF gets intimately familiar with the system's demands, and gets the bill for the mandatory C2D2 upgrade package. And we'll see how long it takes to get to 800 FMS sales. Maybe North Korea will be added to the list now.

Jet engines whine, and they are powerful and essential to aerospace and defense...

George, your post above is nothing BUT a huge insulting whinge and whine.

[George K Lee]

Seriously, Brat - I'm making the assertion that those who have held negative views of the program (the same goes for GAO, DOT&E and the Joint Estimating Team) have consistently been correct in predicting schedule and cost problems. Dispute that with facts if you can. (You can't.)

I don't believe, for example, that any program advocate predicted that the USAF would have trouble getting to 80/year. Or that the first step in Block 4 - however it is defined now - would be fixing stuff left over from Block 3.

[T28B]

Any chance the moderator can be asked to rename the thread or is that a no no on this forum?
There's no point in doing that, Sam.
This long running discussion began in 2010 and is aptly named for its intended purpose.
It's got over 11,000 posts. If you've followed the discussion here on PPRuNe as various concerns came to light on this ever-so-controversial aircraft, I think you'll find some nuggets of pure gold in and around the rants and piss taking.

[George K Lee]

Indeed, T28B. I took the time to skim some early pages the other day. The thread started after the US program director, Mike Heinz, had been fired ("Heinz Gets Canned" as some evilminded headline writer put it) and just as the MoD began its lurch towards cats and traps, with Boeing quietly pushing the Super Hornet. The new program boss was in the process of defenestrating most of the senior management and it would take another three years before anyone could commit to a schedule or a budget. I suspect from that evidence that the picture on the inside was worse than the most avid naysayer could imagine.

[Jackonicko]

Hmm, still not cancelled.
Now, F-35's delivered to the UK. If we do a modest review of the history, we will note whence the majority of the complaining posters are from since about post 1 of this thread (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/424953-f-35-cancelled-then-what.html#post5886440).

Well he may not have posted on PPRuNe, AFAIK, but…..

The Pentagon's own Director of OT&E - a retired USAF Major General, a respected and highly experienced TP has said:

"​​​​​​​The operational suitability of the F-35 fleet remains below requirements and is dependent on work-arounds that would not meet Service expectations in combat situations.”

This is not the conclusion of some jaded and cynical journalist, conditioned to expect the worst after living with the trials and tribulations of what has been a difficult, troubled and much delayed programme for most of his adult life. Nor has it originated from the F-35’s competitors. This is the judgement of the Pentagon’s own head of Operational Test and Evaluation – a high official with an unequalled view of the F-35 development, test and evaluation programme, and the senior advisor to the Secretary of Defense on operational and live fire test and evaluation of Department of Defense weapon systems.

Nor is Behler out of step with his predecessor, Dr. Michael Gilmore, who judged that “the operational suitability of all variants continues to be less than desired by the Services."

Last year, Gilmore concluded that “if used in combat, the F-35 aircraft will need support to locate and avoid modern threat ground radars, acquire targets, and engage formations of enemy fighter aircraft due to unresolved performance deficiencies and limited weapons carriage availability.”

The fact that they've delivered a handful to the UK proves nothing. It doesn't even answer the many criticisms levelled at the aircraft in the Times, by the NAO, or by the House of Commons Defence Committee in their paper.

​​​​​​​https://www.facebook.com/aerospaceanalysis/posts/906982352841257

[Jackonicko]

Or indeed at aerospaceanalysis/posts/906982352841257 on Facebook…..
​​​​​​​

[NineEighteen]

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.seacoastonline.com/news/20180618/f-35-fighter-jets-make-stop-at-pease%3ftemplate=ampart

It’s my understanding that these four were on their way to Israeli AF.

[Rhino power]

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.seacoastonline.com/news/20180618/f-35-fighter-jets-make-stop-at-pease%3ftemplate=ampart

It’s my understanding that these four were on their way to Israeli AF.

Your link is dodgy, at least according to my browser... (opera)

-RP

[NineEighteen]

Interesting. It worked on my phone but not in my Mac :confused: (Just to clarify, this is Portsmouth, New Hampshire, USA)

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmforum.com-vbulletin/600x379/ar_180619425_e1230c00838e74085f9e7a81cbd74a996509fd46.jpg

PORTSMOUTH -- Four of what appeared to be the newest models of the Air Force's F-35 fighter jets made a stop at the Portsmouth International Airport at Pease on Monday.

The newest jets represent the fifth generation of the Air Force fighters, according to Lockheed Martin's website, which manufactures the fighters.

Pease crash and rescue firefighters could be seen around the plane late Monday afternoon, which was sitting at Runway 34 near the Pease Golf Course.

A large group of onlookers stopped to get a look at the fighters.

Bruce Cultrera, the owner of Seacoast Helicopters, said he viewed two of the F-35s located in a hangar close to his, and another was on the runway.

"And they're all brand new," Cultrera said late Monday afternoon.

The F-35 Lightning II, as the new generation of fighters are called, combine "advanced stealth with fighter speed and agility, fully fused sensor information, network-enabled operations and advanced sustainment," according to the Lockheed Martin website.

[img]blob:https://www.pprune.org/5c91aefd-9e2d-4ddb-bf47-7f017b5bf207

Source: seacoastonline dot com

[Jackonicko]

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmforum.com-vbulletin/2000x1600/f_35b_ski_us_navy_8f657f1694e66f07d7189f1493075a097c9f928e.j pg

​​​​​​​This picture raised a few questions in my mind

What current inventory weapons are currently cleared on the UK F-35B apart from Paveway IV? Has the UK acquired any of the weapons currently used by US F-35s? Is ASRAAM still cleared for external carriage only (eg in non-stealthy configuration)? Does the UK have any examples of the right variant of AMRAAM for internal carriage? When will the gun pod be available, and has the UK acquired any?

[BEagle]

Jackonicko, the answers to most of your queries are probably classified.

By the way, please PM me so that I can give you the address to which I'd like you to return my VC10K3 'secondary role' slides.

[Turbine D]

Brat,
George, your post above is nothing BUT a huge insulting whinge and whine.
I think you are having trouble identifying successful aircraft programs from not so successful aircraft programs. Successful programs deliver excellent products as advertised and on time. Not so successful programs deliver marginal products late.

From history for example, there were two successful programs that developed aircraft in a timely manner and maintained their technological advantages against adversaries of their day.

The P-51 Mustang was designed in 1940 and 102 days later the first aircraft flew. By 1943, it was flying bomber escort missions over Germany and in early 1944 was flying combat missions. Over 15,000 were produced at a unit cost of $50,985 in 1945 $$$s. It was used in the early stages of the Korean War which started in 1950, until the F-86 took over. This is a definition of a successful program. Had the P-51 been developed on the F-35 timeline, it wouldn’t have been ready for combat until after the Korean War was over besides being obsoleted by the F-86 Sabre.

In 1945, design of what was to become the F-86 commenced. The first flight occurred in 1947 and the USAF had them in inventory starting in 1949 and early 1950. It became the primary combat fighter in the Korean War. 9,800 F-86 combat jets were produced at a typical unit cost of $219,460. It was the first American aircraft to have swept wings, an axial-flow J47 jet engine and the ability to break the sound barrier. Had the F-86 been developed on the F-35 timeline, it might have been good to go for the Vietnam War. These were two successful programs that developed aircraft in a timely manner, maintaining their technological advantages against adversaries of their day, there were others as well.

The F-16 & F-15 programs are good examples of more modern day successful programs. Sadly, the F-35 program is not a successful program, much like the F-111 program wasn’t that resulted in only 563 of all the variants being built and none for the USN that was one half the original program intent.

Whatever the numerous technological advantages being claimed for the F-35 some have been compromised by excessive time to the marketplace, e.g., real combat readiness with all the bells and whistles working as they should be. Excessive time always indicates excessive costs, failure to have had a robust risk management program to sort out a reliable technology path and a meaningful timeline forward.

It certainly is interesting to see four new F-35 aircraft sitting in the UK supposedly on the way to Israel, gifted by the US to Israel. The US gives a military support package to Israel that provides an average of $3.8 billion a year over the next decade, already the largest recipient of American aid, including financing for missile defense systems that defend against rockets fired by nearby adversary groups. Under a previous 10-year agreement that expires in 2018, the United States provided about $3 billion a year, but lately Congress has added up to $500 million a year for missile defense. Also, the Israelis can now use some of the money provided to buy military items from their own military industries, something that wasn't permitted in past agreements. The Israelis will no doubt put some of this money to use improving the capability of their new F-35s. They are extremely good at improvement technologies and they will accomplish it at a speed far greater than LM could or will. The Israeli Air Force will have the most advance F-35s long before anyone else and we might see how good they perform in actual combat...

[George K Lee]

JN - Threshold Block 3 weapons for the B remain AIM-120C AMRAAM (internal), AIM-9X/ASRAAM (external), 2k JDAM (internal) and 500lb Paveway (either). According to Defense News, the UK jets will use the remaining ASRAAM current versions until they are replaced by the CAMM-based CSP in 2022. As long as the current inventory of AMRAAMs includes C-models, they will fit. I have no idea whether the UK is buying gun pods.

[glad rag]

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmforum.com-vbulletin/2000x1600/f_35b_ski_us_navy_8f657f1694e66f07d7189f1493075a097c9f928e.j pg

This picture raised a few questions in my mind

What current inventory weapons are currently cleared on the UK F-35B apart from Paveway IV? Has the UK acquired any of the weapons currently used by US F-35s? Is ASRAAM still cleared for external carriage only (eg in non-stealthy configuration)? Does the UK have any examples of the right variant of AMRAAM for internal carriage? When will the gun pod be available, and has the UK acquired any?

Great shot. So many things to stop VL, doors how many? engine nozzle, even more doors, a part time lift fan and drive system, and then the usual stuff that fecks up, UC flaps etc etc..

Weapons, 4 bombs and SRAAM.

Hmm..internal carriage on the "B" Hmmmmm it's gone very quiet on that over the last year or so, well apart from AMRAAM fails to provide confidence in it's operation and the $52,000,000 Contract for the development and INTEGRATION of the SDB.:hmm:

Who'd have thought it.# 1

Oh and..

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmforum.com-vbulletin/700x350/gfyhvmd_ee5a060e48ed2f1101e048f59bc40387514e7e2b.jpg

Lockheed Martin Selects Raytheon To Deliver Next Generation F-35 Sensor System

The Raytheon-built DAS will be integrated into F-35 aircraft starting with Lot 15 aircraft, expected to begin deliveries in 2023.

Who'd have thought it # 2...

[Lyneham Lad]

(Flight Global (https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/lockheed-martin-to-deliver-first-f-35a-to-turkey-nex-449486/))

Lockheed Martin plans to formally deliver an F-35A Lighting II to Turkey in a ceremony in Fort Worth, Texas on 21 June, despite protests by US lawmakers and diplomats.

The F-35A will remain in the USA until Turkish pilots are trained to operate the aircraft, upon which time it will be flown to Turkey.

However, US representatives and senators have objected to Turkey receiving the state-of-the-art stealth fighter after the country signed a contract with Russia to buy the Almaz-Antey S-400 Triumf system, one of the most advanced surface-to-air missile systems on the export market. It's advertised by Rosoboronexport with an "anti-stealth range" up to 81nm (150km).

Lawmakers and State Department officials have also complained about what they say is Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s disregard for the rule of law, diminishment of individual freedoms, consolidation of power and strategic decisions out of line with US interests.

Separate efforts within the US Senate and House of Representatives are underway to block the transfer of the aircraft to Turkey unless the country declines to purchase the S-400 anti-aircraft system and changes its other policies.

Erdoğan seemed to up the ante when he reportedly announced in an interview on Turkish 24 TV that he had reached out to Russian President Vladimir Putin with a proposal for Turkey to jointly produce the S-500 anti-aircraft missile system with Russia. The S-500 announcement was made on the same day, 14 June 2018, that Lockheed announced the rollout ceremony of the F-35.

Turkey, a NATO ally and partner in fighting ISIS, has ordered a total of 100 conventional take-off and landing F-35As. The first batch of 14 are already purchased. A total of 30 F-35As are scheduled for delivery to the Turkish Air Force by the end of 2022.

For its part, Lockheed has tried to avoid the controversy and billed the upcoming ceremony as routine.

“The F-35 program traditionally hosts a ceremony to recognise every US and international customers’ first aircraft,” said Lockheed. “The roll out ceremony for Turkey’s first F-35 aircraft is scheduled for June 21. The aircraft will then ferry to Luke Air Force Base, Arizona, where Turkish pilots will join the F-35A training pool.”

It is not clear when Turkey might be able to move its F-35s from Luke AFB, Arizona to within its borders. Questions about that timeline emailed to the F-35 Joint Programme Office were not answered.

The Royal Air Force received its initial four F-35Bs at RAF Marham in Norfolk, Britain on 6 June some six years after that country formally was delivered its first aircraft. For its part, the Israeli Air Force landed its initial two F-35Is on home soil in December 2016 about five months after the formal rollout ceremony.

[George K Lee]

GR - The improvements come too late for many...

Fully 74% of Export F-35s Delivered Until 2023 Are Obsolete (http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/feature/5/194043/fully-74-of-export-f_35s-delivered-until-2024-are-obsolete.html)

Now, I'd haggle over the word "obsolete". But more than a few Ms Of D are going to draw this card...

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmforum.com-vbulletin/400x230/image_1ee7b3f6211bc299bf1cd59d060b65cdeaa42c0d.jpg

[Brat]

Turbine D.
I'm not sure why F-35 fans need to preface all their thrice recycled PR pablum positive program news with insults. A Trumpish inferiority complex, no doubt.

@ Turbine D Brat I think you are having trouble identifying successful aircraft programs from not so successful aircraft programs. Successful programs deliver excellent products as advertised and on time. Not so successful programs deliver marginal products late.

My comment was about George’s accusation of those who think more positively of the F-35 than others, of being insulting, when he himself starts with an insult...not about my ability to spot successful/unsuccessful program.

Your less than interesting following post then irrelevant to the point being made, though in conclusion, conceding the possibility of the Adir achieving some form of success.

George’s negativity is remarkably similar to that of Pierre Sprey's.

[2805662]

“Part time lift fan”....glad rag, using that kind of language, you may as well call it “part time undercarriage”.

[ORAC]

https://youtu.be/_s_Q5CI7p5M

[ORAC]

Lyneham_Lad,

Turkey to receive F-35s? Not according to today’s Times. What’s the truth if this?

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/us-blocks-sale-of-f-35-fighter-jets-as-tensions-with-turkey-rise-qpws8khzm

US blocks sale of F-35 fighter jets as tensions with Turkey rise

Turkey has been blocked from receiving the F-35 stealth fighter jet from the US amid increasingly fractious relations between the two Nato allies.........

A draft of the annual National Defence Authorisation Act (NDAA), which includes an amendment temporarily blocking Turkey from buying any weapons, was endorsed by the US Senate this week. Under the act, Turkey is barred from receiving any major defence equipment from the US until James Mattis, the defence secretary, has presented a report on the state of relations between the countries....

Turkey had planned to buy 100 of the planes, which have been developed under a joint Nato programme in which it is a participant. The first two had been due to be delivered tomorrow for testing and training but are likely to be delayed.

If the NDAA bill is signed off by President Trump, it would be the first time that the US has slapped an effective arms embargo on Turkey since Ankara sent troops to Cyprus in 1974.

Binali Yildirim, the Turkish prime minister, said that the Senate’s move was unfortunate and “against the soul of strategic partnerships”. He added: “Turkey is not without alternatives.”......

[Bigpants]

So probably a stupid question but re the picture above of an F35 leaping into the air loaded with external stores....is it stealthy and what range in that config without AAR?

I am guessing no, not stealthy and a range of just beyond that of a Harrier GR3?

[Lyneham Lad]

Lyneham_Lad,

Turkey to receive F-35s? Not according to today’s Times. What’s the truth if this?

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/us-blocks-sale-of-f-35-fighter-jets-as-tensions-with-turkey-rise-qpws8khzm

US blocks sale of F-35 fighter jets as tensions with Turkey rise

Turkey has been blocked from receiving the F-35 stealth fighter jet from the US amid increasingly fractious relations between the two Nato allies.........

A draft of the annual National Defence Authorisation Act (NDAA), which includes an amendment temporarily blocking Turkey from buying any weapons, was endorsed by the US Senate this week. Under the act, Turkey is barred from receiving any major defence equipment from the US until James Mattis, the defence secretary, has presented a report on the state of relations between the countries....

Turkey had planned to buy 100 of the planes, which have been developed under a joint Nato programme in which it is a participant. The first two had been due to be delivered tomorrow for testing and training but are likely to be delayed.

If the NDAA bill is signed off by President Trump, it would be the first time that the US has slapped an effective arms embargo on Turkey since Ankara sent troops to Cyprus in 1974.

Binali Yildirim, the Turkish prime minister, said that the Senate’s move was unfortunate and “against the soul of strategic partnerships”. He added: “Turkey is not without alternatives.”......



I read The Times article earlier this morning - it essentially is just another report on the efforts to block the deliveries. The Flight Global article does include the sentence:-
Separate efforts within the US Senate and House of Representatives are underway to block the transfer of the aircraft to Turkey unless the country declines to purchase the S-400 anti-aircraft system and changes its other policies.

[ORAC]

The answer will be if they are delivered or not.

[George K Lee]

George’s negativity is remarkably similar to that of Pierre Sprey's.

Thanks for the compliment.

BP - Your observation is correct. The corner reflectors in that configuration are innumerable. As for range: hard to tell, but the F-35B has about the same clean fuel fraction as most contemporary FJs (0.3) and you'll look for a long time before you see any of those contemporaries hauling that kind of external load without some external fuel to provide a useful range.

[glad rag]

“Part time lift fan”....glad rag, using that kind of language, you may as well call it “part time undercarriage”.

fair point. However does that imply that the B cannot land in the conventional sense?

[Jackonicko]

So probably a stupid question but re the picture above of an F35 leaping into the air loaded with external stores....is it stealthy and what range in that config without AAR?

I am guessing no, not stealthy and a range of just beyond that of a Harrier GR3?

​​​​​​​I think that your 'guesses' are definitely correct - that configuration is not stealthy, and the range of the F-35B without AAR in any configuration is relatively modest…..

[Jackonicko]

JN - Threshold Block 3 weapons for the B remain AIM-120C AMRAAM (internal), AIM-9X/ASRAAM (external), 2k JDAM (internal) and 500lb Paveway (either). According to Defense News, the UK jets will use the remaining ASRAAM current versions until they are replaced by the CAMM-based CSP in 2022. As long as the current inventory of AMRAAMs includes C-models, they will fit. I have no idea whether the UK is buying gun pods.

2,000-lb JDAM? Does the UK have any? And do 2,000-lb class weapons fit in the F-35B's internal bays?

[Brat]

George you are welcome.

The delivery of F-35’s has indeed been an elephant in the room for some time. While Turkey, by it’s geographical position has been an important element in NATO strategy, its performance as a NATO/Western ally however has been rather less than satisfactory, and more recently under Erdogan somewhat contentious. The animosity between Turkey and Greece, another NATO partner, has always been present.

The coup engineered or not certainly gave Erdogan a well seized opportunity to purge his armed forces of any Western leaning leadership, which it fortuitously seems for him, was a Gulanist trait.
Turkey?s Post-Coup Purge and Erdogan?s Private Army ? Foreign Policy (http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/07/13/turkeys-post-coup-purge-and-erdogans-private-army-sadat-perincek-gulen/)

His treatment of his internal opponents has been carried out in the finest traditions of Turkish human and civil rights. A tradition well established through out the history of the Ottaman Empire and more recently, in the countrywide treatment of the Armenian minority which the Turks still refuse to admit was genocide.

The recent move to the S-400 seems to have confirmed that fitting in with NATO is not a Turkish priority, and the move to a more hardline Islamic alignment hardly bodes well with their aggressive pursuit of EU membership.

The continuing security of a cutting edge major western weapon system that is to be in the forefront of a number of countries, if it were to be operated by Turkey is of serious concern to many, hence the ongoing question of will it won’t it be released to them, and certainly of keen interest.

[George K Lee]

JN - You're right. 1000 lb JDAM internal on the F-35B.

[Lonewolf_50]

Binali Yildirim, the Turkish prime minister, said that the Senate’s move was unfortunate and “against the soul of strategic partnerships”. He added: “Turkey is not without alternatives.”...... I will now raise the red BS flag on the noise expelled by Binali Yildirim; I recall how Turkey "buys" aircraft from the US and others. They don't have the money to afford it, but somehow someone in Washington (or in a few other places) is able to arrange "loan guarantees" for the Turks to buy the equipment on credit. Oh wait, all of a sudden now the foreign companies selling the aircraft have to arrange for offsets (buying stuff from Turkey) for the aircraft sales to go forward. Seen it a few decades ago when I got exposed to the nitty-gritty of Foreign Military Sales, and a few variations on that theme.

You weren't buying them in the first place, Binali of Bluster: someone wasn't just co signing your loan, there were other financial shenanigans going on. :p

[Brat]

As for Turbine D’s comments of a ‘successful’ program and then wittering on about historic aircraft I wonder why mention was not made upon the ‘success’ of contemporary competing programs.

Russia’s F-35 competitor that was to have been co-developed with India. Hardly a resounding success there. The Indian’s have pulled out, how many are flying?

Japan, a military industrial and scientific leader, has backed off their own 5th Gen Fighter development, the Mitsubishi X-2, and have chosen to go with the F-35.

Germany and France, well they continue talking about theirs.

Turkey is developing one how is that going, if well, why want the F-35?

China does have a 5th Gen program, and is producing the JC-20 and FC-31, but only with derivative powerplants that are not producing the desired thrust.

The design engineering, development, technology advances and integration of systems in the F-35 is beyond the financial ability of any single G7 nation but has been made available to a number of allied Air Forces through a massive ‘successful' collaborative effort of various partners and many would judge it a successful program in any number of ways.

[Rhino power]

The design engineering, development, technology advances and integration of systems in the F-35 is beyond the financial ability of any single G7 nation but has been made available to a number of allied Air Forces through a massive ‘successful', seemingly endless and ongoing hoovering up of obscenely vast quantities of defence budgets and time...

There you go, fixed that for you... ;)

-RP

[Brat]

No doubt in whose camp you are then, but then, if you had made any reasoned response to the points raised about the cost, and success of competing programs, rather then the rather fatuous editing, it might not have seemed such a simpleton’s response.

Probably better sticking to the beer, probably very knowledgeable about that.

[Turbine D]

Brat,
The design engineering, development, technology advances and integration of systems in the F-35 is beyond the financial ability of any single G7 nation but has been made available to a number of allied Air Forces through a massive ‘successful' collaborative effort of various partners and many would judge it a successful program in any number of ways.
You need to come around from the dark side of the moon. The US had all the financial wherewithal to do the total F-35 just as we had to do the total F-22, just as we had to do the total B-2 bomber and just as we will have to do whatever else comes down the pike that is technologically sensitive. The next US Defense spending budget will be over three quarters of a trillion $$$s.

The reason why we search out partners for some programs is mainly to reduce the purchasing price in the long run for the USAF, USN and USMC for that particular program. It's called "Lets Make A Deal!" I know because I helped with some of the F-16 efforts long ago in this respect. The reason we don't search out partners for some programs is because of proprietary technology protections reasons. For the F-35 program putting it into simple words that you wrote, the establishment of the massive collaborative effort of various partners was to suck you in to buying the aircraft and reduce the price to our military users, don't know if you are English or not but thanks for your contributions if you are. If you don't believe this, watch what happens if Canada backs out and buys FA-18s from Boeing instead, probably a good deal for both of them. But I don't think they will be making partner parts for the F-35 if that's their final decision.

[Brat]

Brat,

You need to come around from the dark side of the moon. The US had all the financial wherewithal to do the total F-35 just as we had to do the total F-22, just as we had to do the total B-2 bomber and just as we will have to do whatever else comes down the pike that is technologically sensitive. ...

And just where have I intimated otherwise???

You do keep on bringing up these tangents that have little relevance to the ongoing discussion.

However since you mention partners, I think there are one or two aspects that the UK has brought to the F-35 table in order to be a tier1 partner.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/british-f-35/

[glad rag]

Brat,

You need to come around from the dark side of the moon. The US had all the financial wherewithal to do the total F-35 just as we had to do the total F-22, just as we had to do the total B-2 bomber and just as we will have to do whatever else comes down the pike that is technologically sensitive. The next US Defense spending budget will be over three quarters of a trillion $$$s.

The reason why we search out partners for some programs is mainly to reduce the purchasing price in the long run for the USAF, USN and USMC for that particular program. It's called "Lets Make A Deal!" I know because I helped with some of the F-16 efforts long ago in this respect. The reason we don't search out partners for some programs is because of proprietary technology protections reasons. For the F-35 program putting it into simple words that you wrote, the establishment of the massive collaborative effort of various partners was to suck you in to buying the aircraft and reduce the price to our military users, don't know if you are English or not but thanks for your contributions if you are. If you don't believe this, watch what happens if Canada backs out and buys FA-18s from Boeing instead, probably a good deal for both of them. But I don't think they will be making partner parts for the F-35 if that's their final decision.

Excellent post.

However good luck finding a vendor to manufacture those partner parts at the same price, :p

[glad rag]

And just where have I intimated otherwise???

You do keep on bringing up these tangents that have little relevance to the ongoing discussion.

However since you mention partners, I think there are one or two aspects that the UK has brought to the F-35 table in order to be a tier1 partner.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/british-f-35/

Remind us what tier one partner is having massive production facility job cuts right at this moment, that's what F35 brings to the table!

Just when Typhoon finally becomes fully multi role too.:ugh:

Who'd have thought it, # 3. :hmm:

[Brat]

Remind us what tier one partner is having massive production facility job cuts right at this moment, that's what F35 brings to the table!

Just when Typhoon finally becomes fully multi role too.:ugh:

Who'd have thought it, # 3. :hmm:
Could you please elaborate.

[Turbine D]

Original posting by Brat:
And just where have I intimated otherwise???
Why don't we start here:
Original posting by Brat:
The design engineering, development, technology advances and integration of systems in the F-35 is beyond the financial ability of any single G7 nation
My suggestion to you is to stop insulting every poster that happens to disagree with your outlook and often faulty conclusions as to the topics being discussed. I am very familiar with how your diversion tactic and shying from responding from genuine debating issues occurs. Do you think for one moment that the technological resources in the US couldn't develop and produce whatever Tier 1 supplier provided, no matter the country? If so and if you do, you are still on the dark side of the moon. Even at that, I am disappointed that one of our major defense suppliers sold you a bill of goods that for the long run will cause significant financial support problems, in other words, affording the costs of sustainability over time. ;)
.

[Brat]

You are indeed correct, and I at fault, Trump has not quite yet left the G7.

And yes, the US is indeed a major economic power, capable of many things, however, would you care to comment on the angled flight deck, landing mirrors on carriers, the F-35B’s vertical lift system, and why the USMC bought Harriers, before you get too carried away with US omnipotence and total capability.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_LiftSystem

What qualifies a tier 1 supplier? Care to comment.

The ‘Bill of Goods’ you are so dismissive off appears to been vetted by a number of very much more qualified people than your good self, and approved for purchase by a number of airforces, experience I venture you do not possess.

A large number of senior pilots from various airforces, qualified on the latest front line fighters, have been involved in the acceptance of and integration of the F-35 into those various airforces, and not many have been complaining about being sold a 'Bill of Goods’

Every poster insulted? Don’t think so, your sensitivity aside. Three have certainly been disagreed with. Your suggestions, along with your posts, appear regretfully, to fall short of the authority you appear to credit, and present them.

[George K Lee]

My suggestion to you is to stop insulting every poster that happens to disagree with your outlook

Good idea in theory, but how's the man going to sustain his virility?

Many would judge it a successful program in any number of ways.

As the snowy owl says, O rly? Pray, what are the measures of program success?

On time and on budget? Hmm, looks and smells like it pooed the bed in those areas.

Delivered capability as promised? That seems to be a question of how much of C2D2 is spent on fixing things that were supposed to be delivered at Block 3. The fact that Block 4/C2D2 is still undefined says a lot.

[Brat]

Good idea in theory, but how's the man going to sustain his virility?

George, George, as an insulter supremo yourself your virility, by your own yardstick is indeed in question.

[/QUOTE] the snowy owl says, O rly? Pray, what are the measures of program success?[/QUOTE]
Obviously some facets beyond any comprehension of yours. Snowy owl?? Really? What have you been sipping?

[/QUOTE] time and on budget? Hmm, looks and smells like it pooed the bed in those areas.[/QUOTE]
Where have I at any time claimed that? I have never disputed that the program is over budget and late, and your scatological preferences, just a little distasteful.

[/QUOTE] capability as promised? That seems to be a question of how much of C2D2 is spent on fixing things that were supposed to be delivered at Block 3. The fact that Block 4/C2D2 is still undefined says a lot.[/QUOTE]
Undisputed by me George, I have simply pointed out that like Sprey, you have ignored successes and focussed on failures, losing sight of the overall program, which, at the moment appears to be ahead of any comparable program of a similar nature, and continue to act rather like a Chinese troll.

[Turbine D]

Original postings by Brat:
And yes, the US is indeed a major economic power, capable of many things, however, would you care to comment on the angled flight deck, landing mirrors on carriers, the F-35B’s vertical lift system, and why the USMC bought Harriers, before you get too carried away with US omnipotence and total capability.
The USMC bought Harriers because they were available at the time and were cheap to procure, glad you had them available, the US didn't have to spend $$$s to develop a competing aircraft. If angled flight decks were such a wonderful idea, why are two new UK carriers being built without them? We in the US think angled flight decks with catapult and trap capabilities along with landing mirrors are the best for major carriers, good borrowed ideas, and you?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_LiftSystem
When you become as mature in age as I am you will find there isn't much that didn't exist before your time, note the date, 1973:
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19730013203.pdf
What qualifies a tier 1 supplier? Care to comment.
There are three levels of international participation. The levels generally reflect the financial stake in the program, the amount of technology transfer and subcontracts open for bid by national companies, and the order in which countries can obtain production aircraft. The United Kingdom is the sole “ Level 1” partner, contributing US$2.5 billion, which was about 10% of the planned development costs. Since that time, your contribution is less than 10% because the development cost have risen substantially. However, thank you for your contribution that earned you a "Level 1" status, I really hope all works out for you. BTW, noting four F-35s were in the UK this week, but on the way to Israel, did you all get first dibs on more than the first 4 F-35Bs as a "Level 1 contributor? Israel is a "Level 3" contributor and I recognize they aren't buying F-35Bs which are more complex than the A version.
A large number of senior pilots from various airforces, qualified on the latest front line fighters, have been involved in the acceptance of and integration of the F-35 into those various airforces, and not many have been complaining about being sold a 'Bill of Goods’
We will see once they have their full contingent of F-35s, and see the readiness availability along with the cost of maintaining them, something LM didn't advertise much in their sales promotions when compared to the superb technical capabilities of the aircraft that remain unfulfilled .
The ‘Bill of Goods’ you are so dismissive off appears to been vetted by a number of very much more qualified people than your good self, and approved for purchase by a number of airforces, experience I venture you do not possess.
There is much personal pride at stake when placing an early stamp of approval on a product. Such was the case with the F111, it was the cat's meow of its day, eventually it all faded away. Pilots don't make procurement decisions, politicians, civilians and high ranking officers do, many of which should be retired before any decisions are reached. Pilots are left to confirm the procurement decisions if they want to advance or stay employed in the military.
Your suggestions, along with your posts, appear regretfully, to fall short of the authority you appear to credit, and present them.
Nice to see you've moved your usual zinger to the end of your post instead of your opening line, a show of marginal progress... :ok:

[ORAC]

https://www.snafu-solomon.com/2018/06/f-35-mistake-jets-to-be-built-till.html

[Brat]

A progress Turbine D, that sadly, entertaining as it has been for me, will cease from my side.

There are differing opinions on the program which everyone is entitled to, and has, with their own take on the relative merits or failures of the program.

Despite the title of the thread the aircraft seems to be entering service and it seems that history will be left to tell whether or not it lived up to expectation.

[George K Lee]

History will be left to tell whether or not it lived up to expectation....

No need for that. The facts are proven, and the program has fallen far short of what was promised.
https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmforum.com-vbulletin/1056x816/slzzpfuakagvftnnlune_7453dedc4ed8e9e93038118ce232dbd0e6fbf4b b.jpg

[Rhino power]

...noting four F-35s were in the UK this week, but on the way to Israel...

A small point of order, the 4 F-35As supposedly en route to Israel were NOT in the UK...

-RP

[Turbine D]

Originally Posted by Rhino power
A small point of order, the 4 F-35As supposedly en route to Israel were NOT in the UK...
Sorry about that, my error, they were in Portsmouth New Hampshire, hadn't left the US, misread the story.

[FODPlod]

History will be left to tell whether or not it lived up to expectation....

No need for that. The facts are proven, and the program has fallen far short of what was promised.
It’s not 2013 any more.

Over 300 F-35s built to date (compared to 164 Rafales, 195 F-22s and 247 JAS 39 Gripens).

F-35 delivered so far to USA, UK, Netherlands, Australia, Israel, Italy, Norway and South Korea.

F-35 achieved over 120,000 flying hours to date with no crashes or loss of life.

QNLZ conducting F-35B trials this year.

[ORAC]

Over 300 F-35s built to date (compared to 164 Rafales, 195 F-22s and 247 JAS 39 Gripens).


I refer you to my post #11473 above......

[glad rag]

Over 300 F-35s built to date (compared to 164 Rafales, 195 F-22s and 247 JAS 39 Gripens).

F-35 delivered so far to USA, UK, Netherlands, Australia, Israel, Italy, Norway and South Korea.



https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmforum.com-vbulletin/640x590/f_35_2bdeliveries_2bto_2b2024_90a11440f058744dbc285fe3207874 7e6fb00f81.jpg


Basically 73% of our fleet will be useless for their intended purpose. Which leads to the obvious question, just what IS their purpose???

Out~standing.

[FODPlod]

Basically 73% of our fleet will be useless for their intended purpose. Which leads to the obvious question, just what IS their purpose???

Out~standing.

Congratulations. You’ve provided one of the most succinct examples of falsely situating the appreciation I’ve ever read.

I refer you to my post #11473 above......

No post seen. Just some isolated URL with no supporting text such as I avoid opening on principle.

[George K Lee]

Plod,

First of all, you might want to address GR's point (based on the data assembled by di Briganti (http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/feature/5/194043/fully-74-of-export-f_35s-delivered-until-2024-are-obsolete.html) - the link is quite safe): Most of the UK's initial 48 aircraft will need substantial upgrade work to reach what was once referred to as Block 4 standard. The cost of this work has not been defined. Separately, the USAF has made it clear that the central element of this upgrade, the new TR3 integrated core processor, will be required for future upgrades.

Second, the fact that a lot of aircraft have been built and that none of them have crashed doesn't mean the program has been successful. If you go back to 1996, when the first big contracts were signed, or 2001, when the EMD contract was issued, the declared objective (and the business plan) was to replace a wide range of US and partner fighters one-for-one with 3,000+ stealthy airplanes by the early 2020s, while holding procurement costs to F-16/18 levels and reducing operational costs. This target has been missed.

That's why the USAF is struggling with an aging fleet and the UK is trying to figure out whether it can (or wants to) afford more than the 48 aircraft needed (at a bare minimum) to equip the carriers. This would be a non-problem if the 2001 targets for cost and schedule had been met; and not too bad of a problem had the 2009 schedule been met.

[ORAC]

https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2018/06/21/the-corps-has-lost-its-first-f-35/

The Marine Corps has lost its first F-35

An F-35B that erupted (https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2017/12/09/marine-corps-investigation-faults-f-35-program-after-in-flight-fire/) into flames caused by a faulty bracket nearly two years ago has been struck by the Marine Corps, making it the first loss of an F-35 for the Corps.

The Corps made the determination that the costs to repair the costly high-tech fighter would not be worth the return on investment. However, the Marines have not put out an official strike message for the F-35B (https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2018/04/03/marines-set-more-milestones-with-f-35b/) because the Corps has not decided whether the aircraft will be used as a trainer for maintenance or a museum centerpiece.

“With the specific F-35B involved in this discussion, the Marine Corps’ cost-benefit analysis determined the repair costs would not yield a sufficient ROI [return on investment] to justify the expenses,” Capt. Christopher Harrison, a Marine spokesman, told Marine Corps Times. “The decision was made to strike the F-35B; however, there has not yet been a strike message as the disposition decision has not yet been made.”.........

[glad rag]

"new TR3 integrated core processor"

Ahh it has a name now.

Has design work started ?

What about the coding then??

And let's not forget about the testing.

How can it be said that the upgrades will be in place for production in 2023 (5 years or so) when the core element is just a figment on a power point slide.....


Who'd have thought it, #4

[Brat]

So at the date of the fire, around 120 aircraft operating and ten years into the program the first aircraft is a write-off.

F/A-18 lost ten aircraft to crashes and fires, and possibly 40 F-16’s in the first ten years of flight.

Seems like a fairly reasonable safety record for the F-35.

[George K Lee]

So at the date of the fire, around 120 aircraft operating and ten years into the program the first aircraft is a write-off.

Incorrect. 2014 engine fire at Eglin. ("f-35 engine fire 2014" only gets 23 million Google hits, so it's pretty obscure.)

F/A-18 lost ten aircraft to crashes and fires, and possibly 40 F-16’s in the first ten years of flight.

In the same era, all aviation accident rates were higher than they are today. The F-35's record is good, but so far is hard to distinguish in a meaningful way from its contemporaries.

Please continue to take cheap shots, but at least try to make some sense rather than wasting oxygen.

[Wander00]

Will that be the biggest military write off in history, if it is actually written off

[Heathrow Harry]

Mr Lee is correct - the F-35 programme has been remarkably safe to date

I suspect partly because most of the flying has been done by test pilots operating to carefully planned sorties and incremental performance goals and not front-line squadrons but even so it is an achievement.

[ORAC]

Will that be the biggest military write off in history, if it is actually written off In real terms I doubt it equates to writing off the entire Valiant bomber fleet - or for the USAF the loss of one of the two XB-70 Valkyrie bomber prototypes.

[FODPlod]

Will that be the biggest military write off in history, if it is actually written off
Hardly. The B-2 Spirit that crashed on the runway shortly after takeoff from Andersen Air Force Base in Guam in 2008 was written off for $1.4bn but there's at least one example much closer to home:

Nimrod destruction cost taxpayer £3.4bn as MoD ignored 'cost implications', MPs say (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9072073/Nimrod-destruction-cost-taxpayer-3.4bn-as-MoD-ignored-cost-implications-MPs-say.html)

[Heathrow Harry]

Big difference between W/O a single airframe (eg B-2) in a continuing programme/deployment and a whole programme (Nimrod, TSR-2 etc etc)

[FODPlod]

Big difference between W/O a single airframe (eg B-2) in a continuing programme/deployment and a whole programme (Nimrod, TSR-2 etc etc)
Agreed but still a defence budget military 'write-off' of eye-watering proportions.

[ORAC]

https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-military/2018/07/02/no-decision-on-turkeys-future-f-35-program-pentagon-says/

With their F-35 program in limbo, Turkish pilots begin training in US

Turkish pilots and maintainers have arrived at Luke Air Force Base in Arizona to begin training on their first two F-35 fighter aircraft ― but the jets themselves will remain in U.S. custody (https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2018/05/25/turkey-threatens-retaliation-if-new-bill-stops-f-35-sale/) for at least the next year, the Pentagon said Monday.

The jets were flown by Lockheed Martin last week to the Arizona base, which is home to the F-35 international partner training program. Turkey’s pilots (https://www.defensenews.com/industry/2018/05/24/is-the-us-out-as-turkeys-top-western-arms-dealer/) will likely take their first flight in them in about a month, after they complete some initial classroom and simulator training, said Air Force Lt. Col. Mike Andrews, a Pentagon spokesman. Completion of full pilot training, which is a condition of Turkey assuming custody of the jets takes between one to two years, Andrews said.

But Turkey may not get the jets even after training is complete. The Senate passed language in its version of the 2019 defense authorization bill that would block the jets’ sale to Turkey based on U.S. concerns over Turkey’s purchase of a Russian S-400 long-range air and missile defense system. (https://www.defensenews.com/land/2017/10/25/nato-official-turkey-faces-consequences-if-purchase-of-s-400-completed/) The House would still need to agree to the language in the final version of the bill.

Both options, to transfer the jet or block it, have potential negative consequences. If Turkey obtains custody, it could lead to Russia gaining sensitive technical information about the aircraft through the S-400 system. If the F-35 transfer is blocked, it could agitate the NATO ally to the point that use of Turkey’s Incirlik Air Base is restricted. The U.S. has depended on Incirlik to conduct its air campaign against the Islamic State in Syria.

“Following established agreements, the U.S. government maintains custody of the aircraft until custody is transferred to the partner,” said Army Col. Rob Manning, a Pentagon spokesman. “The U.S. government has not made a determination on Turkey’s future participation in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program.”........

[Vortex_Generator]

What is the UK designation for the F35 - FA, GR, FGR etc?

[glad rag]

What is the UK designation for the F35 - FA, GR, FGR etc?

F35b-FUBAR.

[ORAC]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-italy-defence-f35/italy-says-wont-buy-more-f-35-fighter-jets-may-cut-existing-order-idUSKBN1JW28M

Italy says won't buy more F-35 fighter jets, may cut existing order

ROME (Reuters) - Italy will not buy more Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 fighter jets and is considering whether to stick to the order to which it is already committed, Defence Minister Elisabetta Trenta said on Friday.

Trenta comes from the anti-establishment 5-Star Movement which has always been critical of NATO member Italy’s order for 90 of the planes, saying the money could be better spent to boost welfare and help the sluggish economy. “We won’t buy any more F-35s,” Trenta said in a television interview with private broadcaster La 7. “We are assessing what to do regarding the contracts already in place.”

She spelled out several reasons to be cautious, saying that “strong financial penalties” could mean that “scrapping the order could cost us more than maintaining it.” She also cited benefits in terms of technology and research in Italy linked to the planes, as well as jobs that would be lost. However, Trenta said she saw merit in stretching out the purchases in order to free up resources for investments in European defense projects.

Some 5-Star officials said last year that Italy should cancel the order for the fighters altogether, but Trenta made clear she had reservations about this. “No one is hiding the fact we have always been critical ... In view of the existing contracts signed by the previous government, we are carrying out a careful assessment that exclusively considers the national interest,” she said.....

[Rhino power]

Quite a lively display put on by the F-35A at RIAT today...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdhGjqSA2ls

-RP

[glad rag]

Thanks Rhino that was a good looksie esp 02:52 ->..

meanwhile back in the real world..

Ch6EksiEWXM

[sandiego89]

Lasers anyone? Cue Dr. Evil...

F-35 Engine Upgrade Would Enable Directed Energy Weapons | Farnborough Airshow 2018 content from Aviation Week (http://aviationweek.com/farnborough-airshow-2018/f-35-engine-upgrade-would-enable-directed-energy-weapons)

Between the buzzwords in the article like a P&W president saying "“We have widened the aperture and are looking at adaptive elements across the engine,” a few interesting tidbits about potential power improvements with modifications for a "drop in" engine. More benefits could be done with external mods. Also talk of introducing a third stream for performance improvements. Seems they are wringing more out the donk and revising the already planned engine mods that were "Offered as a cost-neutral upgrade"!

[ORAC]

If you thought cancelling the F136 saved money, just wait for the prices for the prices for the proposed upgrades to the F135.

It should also also be pointed out that one of the major problems already has heat dissipation. The laws of thermodynamics hold true and if you add more power you also produce more heat - and the only rema8njng way to lose it is to throw it out the back.....