F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

[ORAC]

What a mess they’ve got themselves into on this program - task national security and compromise of the F-35 against Russian SAW systems - or watch the price go up and the program slip, again.....

https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2018/07/23/jim-mattis-warns-congress-not-to-block-turkey-from-f-35-program/

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Jim Mattis is urging Congress not to bar Turkey from purchasing the Lockheed Martin F-35 (https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2018/05/25/turkey-threatens-retaliation-if-new-bill-stops-f-35-sale/), arguing that to do so would trigger an international “supply chain disruption” resulting in delays and higher costs for the $100 million aircraft.

“At this time, I oppose removal of Turkey from the F-35 program,” Mattis said in a letter to lawmakers negotiating over the 2019 National Defense Authorization Act (https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2018/07/11/giant-pentagon-policy-bill-kicks-off-closed-door-debate/). Turkey, a NATO ally who has invested $1.25 billion in the program since 2002, plans to buy 100 aircraft. “If the Turkish supply chain was disrupted today, it would result in an aircraft production break, delaying delivery of 50-75 F-35s, and would take approximately 18-24 months to re-source parts and recover.”

Pentagon plans call for acquiring a total of 2,456 F-35s. Allies are expected to purchase hundreds of additional F-35s, and eight nations, including Japan (https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/01/30/japan-base-welcomes-1st-deployed-f-35a-but-industry-hiccups-delay-fighters-supplies/), South Korea (https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/04/20/south-koreas-f-35-purchase-under-probe/), Denmark (https://www.defensenews.com/smr/nato-priorities/2018/06/12/denmarks-air-chief-on-standing-up-the-f-35-and-dealing-with-russia/) and Norway (https://www.defensenews.com/air/2017/11/06/norway-accepts-its-first-three-f-35s/), are cost-sharing partners in the program with the U.S.

The Senate’s defense policy and appropriations bills include language to delay sales of the jet to Turkey over its plans to buy the Russian S-400 air defense system and its detainment of American pastor Andrew Brunson.

[jindabyne]

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

That was not the opinion of all of those ex and current aviators around me in the Aviation Club at RIAT on the 13th. In comparison with Typhoon, Rafale and F18, it underperformed noticeably, leaving us very underwhelmed. The general view was we'll have to wait and see (obviously). Comments from F35 pilots at Marham that there are many outstanding features that cannot yet be revealed will hopefully transpire.

In 1999, when I was trying to seduce the RAAF with Typhoon, in Canberra, the F35 team appeared on scene, asserting that their product would be significantly cheaper than Typhoon, far less time to IOC, and with far superior 5th generation capability. The first two of these have proved to be false (even taking all of Eurofighter history into account), with the latter far from substantiated at this point. But, we are committed, along with the carriers, and I hope (with a little trepidation) that the confidence of the Marham aircrew will be justified.

[XR219]

What is the UK designation for the F35 - FA, GR, FGR etc?
A mystery, as far as I can make out!

If the RAF's own website (https://www.raf.mod.uk/aircraft/) is anything to go by, they seem to have given up on any kind of coherent designation system anyway; the aircraft types are listed using a random mixture of civvy, US and UK nomenclature, e.g. "Airbus H135 Juno", "Atlas (A400M)", "E-3D", "Leonardo GrandNew", "Texan T MK1", "Tornado GR4"...

[glad rag]

Jump jets,err, jump.
However with a flourish the mod have instantly increased the operational ability of the current F35b at Marham.

quote

The UK’s new F-35 multi role combat jets

well let's see these multi roles in action then.
.
.
.
.
meanwhile....Jump jets jump.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/f-35-jets-use-new-vertical-landing-pads-at-raf-marham-for-the-first-time

[KenV]

The UK’s new F-35 multi role combat jets.
well let's see these multi roles in action then.
Hmmmm. So far I've read accounts of the F-35 doing air-to-ground, air-to-air, and electronic reconnaissance missions in various exercises.
And I've heard accounts/rumors of Israeli F-35s doing air-to-ground, electronic recon and active jamming in combat.
I don't think there's anyone remotely credible that doubts that the F-35 is a multi-role platform. And that includes the B model.

[glad rag]

Hmmmm. So far I've read accounts of the F-35 doing air-to-ground, air-to-air, and electronic reconnaissance missions in various exercises.
And I've heard accounts/rumors of Israeli F-35s doing air-to-ground, electronic recon and active jamming in combat.
I don't think there's anyone remotely credible that doubts that the F-35 is a multi-role platform. And that includes the B model.

Of course KenV, of course, the 'ole strawman yet again...now where are your actual, hard, facts of operational multi role usage at this timeframe, not will be but right now, from the 300 or so F35 built and paid, for then??

USMC IOC debacle is really not a good place to go BTW..

[ORAC]

It would seem the IAF priority purchases for the next decade are CH-47/V-22 to Replace their CH-53s; KC-46 tankers........ and new model F-15s rather than F-35s......

https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-looks-at-massive-military-aircraft-purchase-from-us-firm-boeing/

https://www.snafu-solomon.com/2018/07/usaf-approached-boeing-about-building-f.html

[KenV]

Of course KenV, of course, the 'ole strawman yet again...now where are your actual, hard, facts of operational multi role usage at this timeframe, not will be but right now, from the 300 or so F35 built and paid, for then?? USMC IOC debacle is really not a good place to go BTW..Hmmmm. USAF declared F-35 IOC back in 2016, two years ago. Back then, USAF's declaration included the following "actual, hard, facts" regarding the capabiltiies of their F-35s: "capable of global deployment to provide basic close-air support, air interdiction, and limited suppression and destruction of enemy air defense missions." That's three roles right there. Each increment of software has brought and will bring additional capability.

And BTW, no one but you suggested anything about a strawman. You made that up. Further, not a single credible source anywhere has made the remotest suggestion that the F-35 is NOT a multi-role aircraft. So where are YOUR "actual, hard, facts" that the F-35 is single role. You have none because there are none.

[glad rag]

Hmmmm. USAF declared F-35 IOC back in 2016, two years ago. Back then, USAF's declaration included the following "actual, hard, facts" regarding the capabiltiies of their F-35s: "capable of global deployment to provide basic close-air support, air interdiction, and limited suppression and destruction of enemy air defense missions." That's three roles right there. Each increment of software has brought and will bring additional capability.

And BTW, no one but you suggested anything about a strawman. You made that up. Further, not a single credible source anywhere has made the remotest suggestion that the F-35 is NOT a multi-role aircraft. So where are YOUR "actual, hard, facts" that the F-35 is single role. You have none because there are none.

So getting back to my post, what operational multirole usage are the 300 odd completed F35's being used right now?

Can't really put it much simpler that that.

Hope this clarifies things in your mind.

[Rhino power]

According to Scramble Magazine's fb newsfeed, the next 5 F-35Bs for the RAF/RN are due this Tuesday...

Heads up RAF Marham !

The second batch of F-35Bs (five aircraft) is expected on Tuesday 31 July 2018. Of course weather conditions and availability for crossing the Atlantic are subject to this.

The time of arrival is unknown at this moment, but most probably around the same time (20:00 hrs LT) as the delivery in June 2018.

And an update from today... (29th)

Update F-35B delivery to RAF Marham !

Voyager tankers on their way to the USA for the F-35B delivery coming Tuesday. Aircraft involved are ZZ334 "Ascot 9301" and ZZ333 "Ascot 9302".

-RP

[Lonewolf_50]

So getting back to my post, what operational multirole usage are the 300 odd completed F35's being used right now? As we get older, forgetting things happens.
The F-35 was built to compete for the JSF requirement. The JSF requirement was separate from the F-22 (which was optimized for the fighter/air superiority role). Before the LM proposed vehicle won the competition, the JSF (which is what the F-35 is) was from It's Inception a multi role aircraft by the requirements document and by design (and of course that design required tradeoffs...). Attack and fighter roles required to be fulfilled, (and IMO optimized for neither ...).
You may also recall another multi role aircraft, the AV-8B, and various other versions of the Harrier. It was able to do air to air, but was it optimized for it? Hmm, I think not.

F-35 is by definition multirole from the first pencil mark on a clean sheet of paper at program inception. This is true regardless of how much personal hate you have for the program. Similarly, the F/A 18 of decades ago also had its haters: it had to replace the A-7 and the F-4 originally, and eventually the f-14. It was hardly optimized for the fleet defense role that F-14 was, but as a multi role aircraft it does well enough). The A-12 was supposed to replace the pure attack role of the A-6, but that died its own horrible death for its own reasons. That aircraft was optimized for attack/Strike, not as a fighter.

[KenV]

So getting back to my post, what operational multirole usage are the 300 odd completed F35's being used right now?Hilarious. Replace "F35's" with "Typhoon" or "Tornado" or "Rafale" and you'd have the same problem. Those are all multirole aircraft by design and capability. How they are being used at this moment says nothing about what they are designed to do and capable of.

We all understand you're an F-35 hater. We get that. But making the transparently specious claim that F-35 is not multirole destroys what little credibility remains.

[glad rag]

Hilarious. Replace "F35's" with "Typhoon" or "Tornado" or "Rafale" and you'd have the same problem. Those are all multirole aircraft by design and capability. How they are being used at this moment says nothing about what they are designed to do and capable of.

We all understand you're an F-35 hater. We get that. But making the transparently specious claim that F-35 is not multirole destroys what little credibility remains.

So you are unable to provide us with anything to back up your assumption that the number of +300 ? F35 so far delivered are operationally " multi role" and are in fact "delivering the goods" as we type.



"We all understand you're an F-35 hater."

Wrong. It's the LIES that I dislike.

[KenV]

Wrong. It's the LIES that I dislike."LIES"? Really? Coming from you, that's hilarious. I repeat, NO ONE remotely credible doubts that the F-35 is multi-role, just as no one remotely credible doubts that the F-15E and the F/A-18E/F are multi-role. Indeed F-35 just performed a CAS evaluation against the A-10 so that's yet one more role beyond the half dozen or more already identified.

[ACW342]

Count me out of the argy bargy above but an old British saying, "Jack of all trades, master of none" comes to mind in relation to multirole anything.

[sandiego89]

Most modern "fighters" are multirole. Just because they may not be masters at anything does not make them worthless. Are they good or very good at multiple things? Then that may be good enough. The F-4 really started the trend, and most will acknowledge it was not a master at anything, but was surely quite capable in many roles. Most others have followed this trend, F-16 (by the C), F-14 (eventually), Su-27, Mirage family, Rafale, Typhoon, F/A-18, Grippen. Even the F-22, which is a master at air-to-air got other roles.

glad rag: what operational multirole usage are the 300 odd completed F35's being used right now?


Glad Rag, combat is not required to demonstrate a capability. It can surely help validate a weapons system, but is not required. The F-35 has been conducting training, exercises and operational deployments as a "multi-role" aircraft and likely combat use by Israel. Do you desire more combat to prove something?

The Red Flag exercises are likely the most realistic exercises in the west, and while I am sure there is some hype in the headline and the article this article indicated that the F-35 conducted "strike" "air-to-air", "directed standoff weapons from B-1B heavy bombers" "air-superiority" "acted as a mini-AWACS", "destroyed five air to surface threats. in one sortie.."

https://theaviationist.com/2017/02/28/red-flag-confirmed-f-35-dominance-with-a-201-kill-ratio-u-s-air-force-says/

So Air-to-Air, Air-to ground, SEAD, ELINT.....I'd call that demonstrated multi-role.

[Turbine D]

KenV,
I repeat, NO ONE remotely credible doubts that the F-35 is multi-role, just as no one remotely credible doubts that the F-15E and the F/A-18E/F are multi-role. Indeed F-35 just performed a CAS evaluation against the A-10 so that's yet one more role beyond the half dozen or more already identified.
Of course it is multi-role, those in the military and Lockheed-Martin say that it is and they came up with three models to prove it is and together with the Pentagon, they moved the goalposts several times to make sure it is...

You must not be a believer in the Dwight D. Eisenhower speech in 1961 on the Military-Industrial Complex:
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite.

All the elements of the F-35 Program are contained in the above Eisenhower's speech.

“You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time."

[LowObservable]

Almost every fighter today is a bit multi-role. Even the MiG-31 can toss a Kinzhal at you.

As for the F-35, it was designed to a requirement that was described contemporaneously, by the program boss, as 70% A2G and 30% A2A. For instance, the customer didn't ask for supercruise, for an all-aspect IR AAM to be carried internally, or for superior air combat maneuverability to the F-16 or F/A-18.

There's also the question of how the aircraft is to be used. If, for instance, the Marines are to attempt an amphibious landing against an adversary with a couple of squadrons of Sukhois, they're going to go in with a CVN and its air wing. Six fighters in an MEU are simply not enough to do serious A2A and any A2G. It's been explained here (or in the carrier thread) that the RN plans to do fleet air defense with the T45. I don't hear much from the US Navy about the wonders of the F-35C in A2A.

This is nothing unusual: most operators of the F-15E and later variants task and train for A2G.

[Heathrow Harry]

Count me out of the argy bargy above but an old British saying, "Jack of all trades, master of none" comes to mind in relation to multirole anything.

No-one - not even the USA - can afford multiple state of the art designs at one time.......

we're well along the curve predicted by Norman Ralph Augustine..............

[Rhino power]

Well, just for Turkey, maybe, pending a revue...

No Stealth For You! (http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/22859/no-stealth-for-you-trump-signs-defense-bill-that-blocks-transfer-of-f-35s-to-turkey)

-RP

[Lonewolf_50]

Rhino, I have a vague memory from back in the 80's (even early 90's?) when some old USN frigates and some F-16's were held up (original destination Pakistan) due to a similar political mess.

And then eventually the hold on the transfer/sale was rescinded. Trump seems to be doing the same thing with this move. Note the "90 day review" thing ...

[Rhino power]

Rhino, I have a vague memory from back in the 80's (even early 90's?) when some old USN frigates and some F-16's were held up (original destination Pakistan) due to a similar political mess.
And then eventually the hold on the transfer/sale was rescinded
Pakistan never got those original F-16A/Bs, they went to straight to AMARG and sat there for years before eventually being issued to the USN/MARINES as adversary aircraft with NSAWC.
They did eventually get new F-16s though.

Note the "90 day review" thing ...

Yeah, I did actually mention that, if you re-read my original post... ;)

-RP

[Davef68]

Pakistan never got those original F-16A/Bs, they went to straight to AMARG and sat there for years before eventually being issued to the USN/MARINES as adversary aircraft with NSAWC.
They did eventually get new F-16s though.


They almost went to New Zealand before the then new Govt scrapped their fixed wing combat arm

[ORAC]

And Iran never got the 160 F-16s they had on order at al - or spares for their F-4s or F-14s. Whether Turkey does will depend on how it goes from here.

I do wonder if the cores and other sensitive paints of the US B-61 Bombs at Incirlik are still in place......

https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2017-11/news/us-nuclear-weapons-turkey-raise-alarm

[sharpend]

Just read this 'According toGuns.com, the F-35 cannon can only fire 55 rounds per second, but it must fire relatively slowly to conserve ammunition. That conservation is important for the F-35, as the plane can hold only a 220-round magazine. If fired at 55 rounds per second continuously, the F-35 would run out of ammunition within four seconds..

Don't think that is much cop.

[TEEEJ]

Just read this 'According toGuns.com, the F-35 cannon can only fire 55 rounds per second, but it must fire relatively slowly to conserve ammunition. That conservation is important for the F-35, as the plane can hold only a 220-round magazine. If fired at 55 rounds per second continuously, the F-35 would run out of ammunition within four seconds..

Don't think that is much cop.

Has the UK even funded the podded cannon for the F-35B?

[Darren_P]

Just read this 'According toGuns.com, the F-35 cannon can only fire 55 rounds per second, but it must fire relatively slowly to conserve ammunition. That conservation is important for the F-35, as the plane can hold only a 220-round magazine. If fired at 55 rounds per second continuously, the F-35 would run out of ammunition within four seconds..

Don't think that is much cop.

That’s the podded gun. The internal one fitted in the F-35A carries even fewer rounds.

[BEagle]

I gather that the MiG-29 only carries about 100 rounds. But the advent of highly accurate gun sights, plus the excellent combined IRSTS / laser ranger gives the aircraft the capability of a 'single round kill'.

No need these days to blatter away with 4 x 30mm Aden hoping that you might get some rounds near enough to the opposition to take it out.

[Rhino power]

I gather that the MiG-29 only carries about 100 rounds. But the advent of highly accurate gun sights, plus the excellent combined IRSTS / laser ranger gives the aircraft the capability of a 'single round kill'.

No need these days to blatter away with 4 x 30mm Aden hoping that you might get some rounds near enough to the opposition to take it out.

Salient points, Beagle, but, when you consider that the F-35A is intended as a CAS platform fit to replace the magnificent A-10, the F-35A's rather miserly 180 rounds of 25mm vs the A-10's, by comparison, somewhat extravagant maximum of 1,350 rounds of 30mm (types various), it certainly tells a tale insofar as combat persistence with troops in contact...

-RP

[Harley Quinn]

Has the UK even funded the podded cannon for the F-35B?
Don't ask awkward questions.


On second thoughts the pod may be funded, but not the gun and ammo if Typhoon is anything to go by.

[RAFEngO74to09]

I do wonder if the cores and other sensitive paints of the US B-61 Bombs at Incirlik are still in place......

I wouldn't worry about the B-61s at Incirlik - good luck trying to get one out of a WS3 ! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons_Storage_and_Security_System

[glad rag]

I wouldn't worry about the B-61s at Incirlik - good luck trying to get one out of a WS3 ! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons_Storage_and_Security_System

“Allah is enough”

https://technobb.com/100-inspirational-islamic-quotes-with-beautiful-images/?sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj7-J6Wiv_cAhWONcAKHQ0uD8sQ9QEwAHoECAoQBA

[orca]

Hi Beagle,

I have of course heard of various folk over the years whose ability to use the cannon effectively were simply amazing.

As the unelected voice of ‘the rest of us’ - even with a very accurate aiming group provided by the excellent APG-79 on the Super Hornet - I would humbly suggest that the ‘single shot kill’ with a cannon is never going to happen. A ‘single shot hit’ in anything other than a stable tail chase like scenario would (for the likes of me) be a miracle.

I think the ‘small number of hits managed out of a 100 round burst at fleeting target’ is probably more likely.

The approved technique is to recognise potential passage of target through ones HUD. Select gun. Trigger down. Make lame attempt at leading target. Over control a little. Watch target flash through. Release trigger. Watch tape later.

[Jackonicko]

The nine F-35Bs delivered to Marham don’t seem to have flown much - a few airshow flypasts and not much more. And yet they’re supposed to be working up to IOC by the year end. It can’t be that everyone’s in the sim cos those haven’t been delivered yet. Is it a UK MAA issue, or what?

[esa-aardvark]

Hello Jacko, I live near Marham, have not seen one yet.
Maybe they are so quiet that I don't look up ?

[Jackonicko]

That’ll be it. Noted for its quietness the F-35. Silly me

[Rhino power]

http://www.nwfdailynews.com/news/20180822/update-f-35-spotted-nose-down-on-runway

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/08/22/f-35-landing-gear-collapses-after-in-flight-emergency/ (https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/08/22/f-35-landing-gear-collapses-after-in-flight-emergency/)

-RP

[Frostchamber]

The nine F-35Bs delivered to Marham don’t seem to have flown much - a few airshow flypasts and not much more.

Out of idle interest, what's your basis for saying that?

[LowObservable]

I should imagine that the Nikon Nerd Nation has Marham covered.

[Harley Quinn]

I should imagine that the Nikon Nerd Nation has Marham covered.
Oi, I resemble that remark.

Jackonicko does have a point though, I live nearby and get Tornado, F15, Apache, Osprey, the odd Tucano and Merlin. No sign of Lightning, nor have the spotter sites had anything.

Have we maybe used this year's allocation of petrol? Something has to fund that TG1 FRI

[Jackonicko]

Frosty:

Out of idle interest, what's your basis for saying that?

Well…..

We know (thanks to the Eastern Daily Press and Wing Commander Butcher, OC 617, that the first four jets did not turn a wheel between their arrival on 6 June and Thursday 28 June, when one flew the first sortie, to some fanfare.

My sources (sauces?) tell me they've flown 21 sorties since then - including a number of three-ships connected with the RAF100 flypast over London and Fairford, and the 617 flypast at Fairford. If true that doesn't leave many for the high tempo of training that we'd surely normally have expected in preparation for IOC in four months time, and the participation in Exercise Cobra Warrior and the ‘war week’ that are supposed to precede that.

I had thought that perhaps the pilots were busy practising all the tactics etc. that can't be flown in the real world in the synthetic environment, but of course the sims aren't up and running yet.

In the EDP interview, Wg Cdr Butcher was quoted as saying:

"But I know the aircraft took off and landed safely, and now we just need to see how the processes [that] are in place [work] now that we have done one flight.

“We need to make sure the engineers are going through the correct processes, we need to make sure the logistics and supply chain are there and in place to support us."

(I'd probably be accused of being unduly cynical if I was to opine that perhaps those are the kinds of things that are usually checked before a squadron moves into its permanent home?)

“And we need to make sure that any outstanding actions that may have come from this first flight are covered off. So it could still be a few more days before we fly again.”

Wg Cdr Butcher said the plan for the first flight was to “stay mainly local”, so that the systems could be checked, and the performance of the aircraft could be observed.

Asked why it has taken three weeks to get from the initial UK landing to the first flight, he said that “in big handfuls” acceptance checks on the jets have had to be carried out.

“We have had to move them across from the American electronic servers across to ours, and do all of the data checks and make sure all of the data is there from an airworthiness perspective, to then verify those and accept them on to the squadron,” he said.

"None of it is anything that we didn’t plan for in terms of contingency, so we have been working through those in a methodical fashion to make sure that we can get the jets into a serviceable state to take them flying in a safe manner.”

“We have had some bits of missing data during that transfer, so we have been working through that.

(I'd perhaps be accused of having a Cold War mindset if I asked whether this would have been avoided had a new RAF fighter spent a little time at Boscombe Down prior to the stand up of the first operational squadron?) But in the brave new world of today, perhaps, as Wing Commander Butcher told the EDP:

"But, this is all business as usual for us."

One wonders, perhaps, whether this is the consequence of the reported early partial (80%) availability of full ALIS functionality? Or whether the Anvil infrastructure programme isn't running a little late? Or whether the reports of the "Norfolk ploughman" accidentally digging up a major fibre optic spine with is JCB may be less fanciful than one would have hoped? Or perhaps whether bringing the jets over two months early to satisfy the Secretary of State's wish to have them in the flypast may have not had some unintended consequences?

All of that is half-baked speculation based on rumour and scuttlebutt, and I genuinely hope that there's a logical, rather less hysterical explanation. I wish that there had been a robust comms/press engagement strategy so that journos weren't left assuming the worst and asking damn fool questions. Maybe the truth is that with Marham not fully ready, and having supported the RAF100 events, someone thought quite sensibly that 617 deserved a bit of Block Leave in July and August, prior to what will, no doubt be a very busy period for the Squadron?

Or maybe it's an inevitable consequence of introducing what Air Chief Marshal Sir Stephen Hillier, the Chief of the Air Staff called “the most advanced and dynamic fighter jet” in RAF history, and one that represents an historic moment in British airpower, promising to “take the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy to a whole a new level of capability?”

[Frostchamber]

Cheers Jacko. I suspect the answers are all there in the latter part of your post, to differing degrees. They did some across early and I suspect some working to get stuff finished at Marham may have been less than thrilled at the news. There's a lot to sort out and maybe folk did get some leave too. None of that speculation as to causes sounds especially hysterical to me, nor yet especially alarming.

[glad rag]

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/how-the-us-marine-corps-bet-its-future-the-f-35-stealth-16712


some crossover there..

[phil9560]

It's a bit needy this aeroplane isn't it ?

[SASless]

Whoever dreamed up the notion of using the F-35 for CAS and binning the A-10 knows naught of CAS for sure!

The USAF Fighter Mafia is a very deep state evil thing!

[57mm]

With no Sims and little if any flying continuity, the first tour F35 pilots must be suffering. Still, plenty of SDOs and secondary duties to keep them occupied.....

[ORAC]

Check Out The Copious Amount Of Vapor Spilling Off This F-35A During Chicago Air Show - The Drive (http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/23136/check-out-the-copious-amount-of-vapor-spilling-off-this-f-35a-during-chicago-air-show)



https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmforum.com-vbulletin/1200x776/_q_60_url_https_3a_2f_2fs3_amazonaws_com_2fthe_drive_staging _2fmessage_editor_252f1535219806843_ddc121d_724b9da97052e452 7378e5623dcea1f2e3137893.jpg



https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmforum.com-vbulletin/1000x610/_q_60_url_https_3a_2f_2fs3_amazonaws_com_2fthe_drive_staging _2fmessage_editor_252f1535219827571_aaacdd11_2eea0e4fe59f47f 0d048cb48461a209526f96836.jpg

[ORAC]

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmforum.com-vbulletin/1200x758/dltx0zbxgaaqlht_a3f988933e6ed1306792a49f0e6a29c5e7b183dd.jpg

[glad rag]

Doing what it does best.

[Harley Quinn]

Doing what it does best.
Being an airshow attraction?

[KenV]

Doing what it does best.So yet one additional role for this multi-role aircraft?

[glad rag]

So yet one additional role for this multi-role aircraft?

On the idiot box "for sure"

[ORAC]

I thought they were testing a new visual stealth mode.....

[glad rag]

Joking aside, what will be the modus operandi of the RAF F35 fleet, purely night ops?

[ORAC]

I’m sure the locals will love the sound of the F135 in the circuit at 3AM....

[KenV]

Joking aside, what will be the modus operandi of the RAF F35 fleet, purely night ops?Seems very unlikely.

[glad rag]

In that case, ken, a change of colour (color) scheme would seem to be appropriate ..

[airsound]

Tony Osborne has a piece in today's Aerospace Daily & Defense Report reflecting a lot of what Jackonicko says at post #11541.
Questions Surround UK F-35 Month-Long Flying Break Defense content from Aviation Week (http://aviationweek.com/defense/questions-surround-uk-f-35-month-long-flying-break?NL=AW-05&Issue=AW-05_20180830_AW-05_915&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_1&utm_rid=CPEN1000001187552&utm_campaign=16255&utm_medium=email&elq2=7b76b48819304af5a8ea2050147a28ee)
He also poses questions about maintaining currency, whichcan be done in the high-fidelity simulators. But none of these are yet operational in the Integrated Training Center (ITC) being constructed at RAF Marham,.

airsound

[airsound]

And on the same day that the article above appears, the MoD announces British-armed F-35B Lightning jet takes to the skies
- referring to the first F-35B flight with MBDA ASRAAMs
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/british-armed-f-35b-lightning-jet-takes-to-the-skies

But it seems from the pictures that ASRAAMS can only be carried externally. Does that make MoD's reference to Britain's new stealth fighter a bit optimistic?

airsound

[ImageGear]

“We have had to move them across from the American electronic servers across to ours, and do all of the data checks and make sure all of the data is there from an airworthiness perspective, to then verify those and accept them on to the squadron,” he said.

"None of it is anything that we didn’t plan for in terms of contingency, so we have been working through those in a methodical fashion to make sure that we can get the jets into a serviceable state to take them flying in a safe manner.”

“We have had some bits of missing data during that transfer, so we have been working through that.

That couldn't be the unmentionable "shades of Chinook" code debacle coming back to haunt us, could it?

[Jackonicko]

They started flying again yesterday. Three pairs have been seen overhead Docking yesterday and today.
​​​​​​​

[TEEEJ]

And on the same day that the article above appears, the MoD announces - referring to the first F-35B flight with MBDA ASRAAMs
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/british-armed-f-35b-lightning-jet-takes-to-the-skies

But it seems from the pictures that ASRAAMS can only be carried externally. Does that make MoD's reference to a bit optimistic?

airsound

The option for internal ASRAAM carriage was dropped when the switch was made from F-35C to F-35B. The internal option was shown on some mock-ups for the F-35C.

https://u0v052dm9wl3gxo0y3lx0u44wz-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/F-35-Weapons-Integration-ASRAAM. (https://u0v052dm9wl3gxo0y3lx0u44wz-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/F-35-Weapons-Integration-ASRAAM.jpg)jpg

From

https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/uk-complex-weapons/advanced-short-range-air-air-missile-asraam/

[airsound]

Thanks TEEEJ
airsound

[glad rag]

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a22877042/navy-f35-helmet-bug/

"The solution involves swapping out the current helmet mounted displays and replacing them with organic, light emitting diodes (OLEDs)."

ROFL

[ORAC]

Would the damage to the F-18 relate solely to a spoked basket? Or does it imply that the basket damage was part of a larger event?

https://news.usni.org/2018/09/04/f-35c-damaged-36249

F-35C, Super Hornet Damaged During At-Sea Aerial Refueling

[BEagle]

A spoked drogue can cause parts of the probe or drogue to become detached, causing damage to the receiver. Some receivers are more prone to engine damage than others, by virtue of the relative positioning of the probe and engine intake(s).

A damaged drogue might cause hose instability; if the drogue detaches following the incident, hose flail may damage the tanker.

Having to divert to shore after your only engine has suffered damage must be somewhat thought provoking, particularly at night...

[hoodie]

The F-35C didn't divert onshore; it recovered to the Lincoln.

[ORAC]

I was presuming the F-35C made for the carrier as the nearest deck/runway since the level of reported damage must have given numerous warnings and vibration.

My uncertainty over the F-18 related to whether it diverted in case of a foul deck, a possible unretractable damaged trailing hose (though the pod could have been dropped if necessary) or if there was any damage caused to the aircraft surfaces itself.

[glad rag]

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/tornado-jets-strike-a-building-occupied-by-islamic-state-in-northern-iraq/

Interesting tallies in report but the question remains WHERE ARE THE F35 TORNADO REPLACEMENTS?

[Obi Wan Russell]

Well there's 9 of them in Norfolk...

[glad rag]

Well there's 9 of them in Norfolk...

Many, if not all, of the F35 proponents on this forum were unequivocal in their belief that these "aircraft" would be on operations soon, if not immediately, after delivery.

Some of us pointed out that all they would be doing is circuits, not that there's much choice in the matter :suspect: ..

..If it looks like a turd, flies like a turd, performs like a turd....etc

...If you think about it, and in no way belittling the dangers to crews/support on ops, you won't get much closer to shooting ducks in a barrel that exterminating IS from the air just now, compared to some of the more challenging scenarios...so what's stopping the RAF F35's from stepping up?

Well ? :}

[Rhino power]

Many, if not all, of the F35 proponents on this forum were unequivocal in their belief that these "aircraft" would be on operations soon, if not immediately, after delivery.

Some of us pointed out that all they would be doing is circuits, not that there's much choice in the matter :suspect: ..

..If it looks like a turd, flies like a turd, performs like a turd....etc

...If you think about it, and in no way belittling the dangers to crews/support on ops, you won't get much closer to shooting ducks in a barrel that exterminating IS from the air just now, compared to some of the more challenging scenarios...so what's stopping the RAF F35's from stepping up?

Well ? :}
Ffs, change the record!
The EF Typhoon entered service in 2004/5 and didn't see 'operations' until 2011, why aren't you squealing about that too?

-RP

[2805662]

Many, if not all, of the F35 proponents on this forum were unequivocal in their belief that these "aircraft" would be on operations soon, if not immediately, after delivery.

Some of us pointed out that all they would be doing is circuits, not that there's much choice in the matter :suspect: ..

..If it looks like a turd, flies like a turd, performs like a turd....etc

...If you think about it, and in no way belittling the dangers to crews/support on ops, you won't get much closer to shooting ducks in a barrel that exterminating IS from the air just now, compared to some of the more challenging scenarios...so what's stopping the RAF F35's from stepping up?

Well ? :}

Has the RAF declared IOC? Seems unreasonable to expect any deployment before such a declaration. No doubt you’d fashion that it some anti-F-35 argument about baseless risk-taking and putting the aircrew’s lives in danger.

[glad rag]

Has the RAF declared IOC? Seems unreasonable to expect any deployment before such a declaration. No doubt you’d fashion that it some anti-F-35 argument about baseless risk-taking and putting the aircrew’s lives in danger.





Oh nothing of the sort.

I can't wait, really I can't, for the RAF to move into the 5th and 6th gen LO game, the same sort of operational performance improvements that Typhoon supplied over the F3. That GR1 supplied over Bucc and Jag..

It will provide a quantum step forwards in the RAF's capabilities, albeit at fairly modest range.

However, receiving aircraft that, by LM's own admission, are sub par, and will require massive rework programs to match the offensive capabilities of current airframe[s], let alone surpass them, is stretching the story quite a bit...

I hope the RAF's F35B IOC delivers more substantial capabilities than the USMC's role playing one...especially when the aircraft is expected to perform LO missions, which I believe, was is the raison d'etre for this whole outlandish project..


https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/unready-war-americas-f-35-gets-bad-report-card-15092 (http://Gilmore’s report also reveal another bit of insight which the F-35 Joint Program Office does not readily admit—the development effort is deferring capabilities in an attempt to meet its schedule: “JSF follow-on development will integrate additional capabilities in Block 4, address deferrals from Block 3F to Block 4, and correct deficiencies discovered during Block 3F development and IOT&E.”)


"Gilmore’s report also reveal another bit of insight which the F-35 Joint Program Office does not readily admit—the development effort is deferring capabilities in an attempt to meet its schedule: “JSF follow-on development will integrate additional capabilities in Block 4, address deferrals from Block 3F to Block 4, and correct deficiencies discovered during Block 3F development and IOT&E.”"

[Harley Quinn]

WHERE ARE THE F35 TORNADO REPLACEMENTS?

My understanding was that short term Typhoon would make use of its new capabilities: SS and DMSB under Project Centurion?
To be honest Glad Rag you come across as a bit of a prat, until IOC and we'll beyond there's a lot to be done to understand how best to exploit a hugely complex machine

[KiloB]

Will someone please explain how the ‘35s can be completely hamstrung from operational use by currently available software when IAF are already using theirs on Ops? Where does their software come from?

[glad rag]

My understanding was that short term Typhoon would make use of its new capabilities: SS and DMSB under Project Centurion?
To be honest Glad Rag you come across as a bit of a prat, until IOC and we'll beyond there's a lot to be done to understand how best to exploit a hugely complex machine

Cheers!

You might find some of the following upsetting then.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/f-35-has-966-still-unresolved-design-flaws-30617

Officials in the F-35 Joint Program Office are making paper reclassifications of potentially life-threatening design flaws to make them appear less serious, likely in an attempt to prevent the $1.5-trillion program from blowing through another schedule deadline and budget cap.

The Center for Defense Information at the Project On Government Oversight obtained a document (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4741475-JSFPO-Deficiency-Review-Board-Minutes-04-June-2018.html) showing how F-35 officials are recategorizing—rather than fixing—major design flaws to be able to claim they have completed the program’s development phase without having to pay overruns for badly needed fixes.
bla blah bla
several of these flaws, like the lack of any means for a pilot to confirm a weapon’s target data before firing

So one must presume that will be, until roe are 're written to legitimise blue on blue, the reason they will be boring holes in the clouds (and displaying at airshows) until 2020 and beyond..

[Harley Quinn]

Cheers!

You might find some of the following upsetting then.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/f-35-has-966-still-unresolved-design-flaws-30617

Officials in the F-35 Joint Program Office are making paper reclassifications of potentially life-threatening design flaws to make them appear less serious, likely in an attempt to prevent the $1.5-trillion program from blowing through another schedule deadline and budget cap.

The Center for Defense Information at the Project On Government Oversight obtained a document (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4741475-JSFPO-Deficiency-Review-Board-Minutes-04-June-2018.html) showing how F-35 officials are recategorizing—rather than fixing—major design flaws to be able to claim they have completed the program’s development phase without having to pay overruns for badly needed fixes.
bla blah bla
several of these flaws, like the lack of any means for a pilot to confirm a weapon’s target data before firing

So one must presume that will be, until roe are 're written to legitimise blue on blue, the reason they will be boring holes in the clouds (and displaying at airshows) until 2020 and beyond..
Doesn't upset me in the least: Typhoon made, and makes a good airshow machine for a good few years too, but you can't deny it is now doing good stuff whenever it is asked to.
The critics at COGO are respected for their independence, and there is no doubt that there are problems, but if you can name an aircraft that seamlessly entered service anywhere in the world since 1945 without issues I'll be surprised This programme is seriously complex, and the three variants has made it more so.

[glad rag]

his programme is seriously complex, and the three variants has made it more so.

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

Quote..
"And the compromise didn’t result in a truly common design. It’s “almost like three separate production lines,” Bogdan said, according to (http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pages/2016/March%202016/March%2014%202016/All-For-One-and-All-for-All.aspx) Air Forcemagazine. A real joint fighter, the program boss said, is “hard” because each branch is adamant about its requirements. “You want what you want,” Bogdan said."

Bogdan declined to say whether the Pentagon’s next generation of fighters should be joint. But Lt. Gen. James Holmes, the Air Force’s deputy chief of staff for plans and requirements, said (http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/2016/02/12/sixth-gen-fighter-likely-wont-common-across-us-services-air-force-general-says/80308582/) in mid-February 2016 that the Navy and Air Force would probably design their next fighters separately."

No offence but if I may...

You need four new tyres [tires] for your car [sedan] you drop car in tyre [tire] shop, come back and pay for job. Than you discover the tyres [tires] have the wrong speed and load ratings making them a danger to both you and your family.

You wouldn't be very happy, would you.

But what if the trick was they told you that the tyres were incorrect, but you said that it's fine, and that later, once the correct tyres were available, you would come back and purchase some more...

Would that be a smart move? Yes or no?

{BTW F35 program has just bust $1 trillion. Whether that figure included the "tyre replacement" or not, well, that IS a pertinent question}


"Yet, we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisenhower%27s_farewell_address

[glad rag]

Will someone please explain how the ‘35s can be completely hamstrung from operational use by currently available software when IAF are already using theirs on Ops? Where does their software come from?


Google

Israeli F35 to avoid contract limitations on maintenance and software for a start..

and no I don't blame them one bit..in fact it's quite admirable.

[chopper2004]

Air Force Magazine (http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pages/2018/September%202018/US-F-35-Used-in-Combat-for-first-Time-Afghanistan-Airstrike.aspx)

[insty66]

Another step forwards here (https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/first-f-35-jets-land-on-hms-queen-elizabeth/)

[ricardian]

F35 crashes in USA, pilot ejects safely (https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/cutting-edge-35-stealth-fighter-crashes-south-carolina/story?id=58152917)

[taxydual]

And then this

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6220249/First-Royal-Navy-pilot-land-F-35B-HMS-Queen-Elizabeth-tells-incredible-story.html

[Training Risky]

Is our Capability Holiday over as of today? Or from FOC?!

[ORAC]

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/10/02/f-35-upgrade-plan-awaiting-approval-from-top-pentagon-acquisition-exec/

F-35 upgrade plan awaiting approval from top Pentagon acquisition exec

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon’s acquisition executive is set to weigh in on the F-35’s modernization plan in the coming weeks, the F-35 program executive officer said Oct 1.

An update of the F-35’s acquisition strategy, which spells out the F-35’s Block 4 modernization plan and describes the agile software approach (https://www.defensenews.com/smr/defense-news-conference/2017/09/06/f-35-program-office-floats-new-agile-acquisition-strategy/) that the department intends to use to incrementally upgrade the jet, is sitting on the desk of Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment Ellen Lord, Vice Adm. Mat Winter told reporters during a roundtable.

Winter characterized the document as going through the “final administrative engagements with her staff and the [Office of the Secretary of Defense] staff,” with Lord’s approval expected “within the next couple weeks,” he said. The Navy and Air Force acquisition executives — James Geurts and Will Roper, respectively — have already approved the plan.

Although Winter did not provide details on the revised strategy, it is anticipated to contain new cost estimates for Block 4 modernization (https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/03/08/new-f-35-modernization-plan-could-come-with-hefty-16b-price-tag/) driven by the new agile software approach, which the F-35 joint program office terms Continuous Capability Development and Delivery or C2D2......

This more intensive software development effort may also boost the cost of follow-on modernization. During a March hearing, Winter acknowledged that U.S. and international customers could pay up to $16 billion for Block 4 modernisation — a figure that includes $10.8 billion for development and $5.4 billion for procurement of upgrades to the F-35 between fiscal years 2018 through 2024. However, he also stressed that this was an initial estimate, and that a more solid assessment would be provided to Lord with the revised acquisition strategy........

The first Block 4 capabilities are set to be delivered in April, Winter said, but about 22 modifications will require the F-35 to undergo a set of computing system upgrades called Tech Refresh 3. Those “TR 3” modifications include a new integrated core processor, memory system and panoramic cockpit display.

The Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps currently plan to upgrade all of their F-35s to TR3 in the 2020s, although that could change due to operational or fiscal constraints, Winter noted.

It is still unknown whether all operational F-35s will be converted to the Block 4 version, but that decision could also affect the cost of the follow-on modernization program..........

[chopper2004]

The word on the street is the F-35 has been selected by the Belgiums over the Eurofighter Typhoon.

https://theaviationist.com/2018/10/22/belgium-reportedly-chooses-f-35-stealth-jets-over-eurofighter-typhoons-to-replace-its-aging-f-16s/

cheers

[ORAC]

https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2018/10/25/some-f-35s-grounded-again-for-new-round-of-inspections/Some F-35s grounded again for new round of inspections


WASHINGTON — The F-35 Joint Program Office temporarily has halted flight operations for a number of F-35s with higher flight hours after finding two new parts that will require inspection on older models of the jets.

A spokesman for the F-35 JPO, who confirmed the issue exclusively to Defense News and Marine Corps Times, declined to detail exactly how many jets may possibly be grounded as a result of the inspections. However, one source close to the program said that only a couple dozen F-35Bs meet the criteria where an operational pause would be necessary. “The joint government and industry technical team has completed their assessment of the fuel supply tubes within the Pratt & Whitney engine on F-35 aircraft,” the F-35 Joint Program Office announced in a statement. “In addition to the previously identified failed tube, the analysis has identified two additional fuel supply tubes that require inspection.” Some of the older engines with higher flight hours may require additional fuel tube replacements.

“While the two additional fuel tubes have not failed, engineering data collected during the ongoing investigation established the requirement for a time-phased inspection based on engine flight hours,” the Joint Program Office said in an emailed statement. “The procedure to inspect and replace can be done by flightline maintenance without removing the engine.” F-35s that have not reached the “inspection requirements” are continuing normal flight operations, according to the Joint Program Office. A source close to the program said the two additional tubes currently being inspected are made by the same supplier and using the same method as the initial tube that was found to be faulty and resulted in a fleet wide grounding this month.

Because the Marine Corps' F-35B short takeoff and vertical landing jets are subject to different stresses than the other models, only B models that have reached a certain number of flight hours will be grounded for inspections. F-35A conventional takeoff and landing aircraft and F-35C carrier takeoff and landing jets, however, will have tubes replaced as part of normal phased maintenance.

The Marine Corps air station out of Beaufort, South Carolina, told Marine Corps Times that its F-35Bs are cleared to fly. “We are conducting our inspections of all our aircraft, per the JPO statement,” Lt. Sam Stephenson, a Marine spokesperson for the 2nd Marine Aircraft Wing, said in an emailed statement. There are also F-35Bs embarked (https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2018/10/24/heavy-seas-damage-navy-ship-near-iceland/) with the 13th Marine Expeditionary Unit, or MEU, aboard the Wasp-class amphibious assault ship Essex. The 13th MEU is currently operating in the U.S. Central Command area of operations.

Lockheed Martin, the prime contractor for the F-35 air vehicle, referred questions to the JPO and to Pratt & Whitney. “We’re continuing to work with Pratt and Whitney, the F-35 Joint Program Office, the U.S. Services and our international customers to minimize impact to the fleet," the company said in a statement. "Pratt and Whitney builds the F135 engine and contracts directly with the F-35 Joint Program Office — and they can best address technical questions related to the engine.”.......

[glad rag]

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/why-f-35s-%E2%80%98combat-debut%E2%80%99-was-big-waste-time-34717

[Lonewolf_50]

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/why-f-35s-%E2%80%98combat-debut%E2%80%99-was-big-waste-time-34717
I can answer part of the question in that article.
They used the F-35 for a strike mission for the same reason that we sometimes used a B-1 for CAS (not the ground commander's first choice, to be sure, they wanted all A-10's all the time) in Afghanistan.
That's who was on the ATO that day. Given a few interesting days dealing with a similar problem with weapons caches in remote areas in underground locations (over a decade ago) a Predator cant carry a big enough bomb to do what needed doing, as the author suggested.
The article cited 500 lb and 1000 (or 2k) lb bombs as what was delivered: GBU 12 and GBU 32.
Reaper can carry the GBU 12, pred can't. Not sure if a Reaper was available that day.
Are you, or is the author? Did you write that day's ATO?

Beyond the other consideration -- those aircraft are deployed, now let's get some use out of them! -- I will go along with any suspicion that someone, somewhere, further up the chain or command was likely sending inquiries and messages down the chain along the lines of "get one of our new planes a mission, and go blow something up!" I've seen stuff like that IRL too.

[KenV]

They used the F-35 for a strike mission for the same reason that we sometimes used a B-1 for CAS (not the ground commander's first choice, to be sure, they wanted all A-10's all the time) in Afghanistan.If memory serves they even used the B-2 stealth bomber for drop bombs on stinking guys in caves in Tora Bora Afghanistan, which flew there from CONUS the long way around. Not the most efficient use of assets, but a great way to prove an operational concept for a new weapon system in a real world environment. On the other hand the Russians deployed a few very early build Su-57s (formerly T-50 and PAK FA) to Syria apparently to see how they'd perform in a real world deployed combat environment. War isn't about cost effectiveness.

Separately, these cost arguments have been going on literally for decades. Remember the broohahah when during the Reagan years USN used A-6s to bomb targets in Lebanon when the USS New Jersey and her 16 inch guns were offshore and well within range? And the finger wagging when F-15 pilots used expensive AMRAAM missiles to shoot down aircraft when they were within range to use much cheaper Sidewinders? This is no different and equally stoopid.

[Lyneham Lad]

Snip from article on Flight Global:- (https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/f-35b-connects-with-uss-wasps-anti-cruise-missile-d-453285/?cmpid=NLC%7CFGFG%7CFGFIN-2018-1106-GLOB&sfid=70120000000taAh)
For the first time a US Marine Corps F-35B made a Link 16 connection with the USS Wasp’s Ship Self Defense System (SSDS), allowing the stealth fighter to securely share digital tactical data with the US Navy vessel and surrounding support fleet, information that could be used for defense against an air attack.

Sharing data from the F-35B’s sensors with the SSDS, hardware and software that coordinates defensive missiles, decoys and electronic warfare weapons on board surface ships, would allow the USN more situational awareness of incoming missiles. Anti-ship cruise missiles flying at sub-sonic and supersonic speeds just above the surface of the ocean pose one of the greatest threats to vessels.

[glad rag]

That's a great use for the F35.

But how can it be stealthy when it is emitting?

[KenV]

That's a great use for the F35. But how can it be stealthy when it is emitting?Does it need to be stealthy when on a fleet defense mission as a sensor platform?

[glad rag]

Does it need to be stealthy when on a fleet defense mission as a sensor platform?
are there any current or future platform that could do the same mission?

BTW in case you missed it...

https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/615127-china-shows-off-first-quantum-radar-prototype.html

[glad rag]

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/memo-troubled-15-trillion-f-35-program-has-another-big-problem-35867

"Robert Behler, the director of operational test and evaluation, is delaying IOT&E until the program addresses several software issues. Behler writes that operational testing cannot begin until the program updates versions of the F-35’s operating software, mission-data files, Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS), and testing range infrastructure software.

While it is not clear from the memo which specific problems remain to be resolved, previous testing reports found “key technical deficiencies in the ability of the F-35 to employ the AIM-120 weapons (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4377227-FY2017-DOT-amp-E-F35-Report.html#document/p15/a405524)” (the principle air-to-air missile) and an “uncharacterized bias toward long and right (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4377227-FY2017-DOT-amp-E-F35-Report.html#document/p13/a405512) of the target” when pilots fire the aircraft’s cannon, resulting in them “consistently missing ground targets during strafe testing (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4377227-FY2017-DOT-amp-E-F35-Report.html#document/p4/a405513).”

Q. Does amraam fit in the truncated F35b weapon bays?

A. Only as ballast.

glad sends..... ;)

[SpazSinbad]

Same story first appeared here on 12 Sep 2018: https://www.pogo.org/investigation/2018/09/exclusive-f-35-program-facing-another-setback/

Testing due to start in a coupla days - things must be fixed OR we find out soon enough.
"...Edwards AFB, California, the F-35 will begin initial operational test and evaluation (IOT&E) on November 13 [2018]. Its successful completion will allow the F-35 to enter full-rate production. The Joint Strike Fighter Operational Test Team (JOTT) approved the move on September 23 and the approval of the under-secretary of defense followed on October 2." COMBAT Aircraft Magazine December 2018 Vol.19 No.12

[glad rag]

Same story first appeared here on 12 Sep 2018: https://www.pogo.org/investigation/2018/09/exclusive-f-35-program-facing-another-setback/

Testing due to start in a coupla days - things must be fixed OR we find out soon enough.

Red handed as they say...

https://www.pogo.org/investigation/2018/08/f-35-program-cutting-corners-to-complete-development/

" It comes on the heels of the revelation (https://www.pogo.org/investigation/2018/08/f-35-program-cutting-corners-to-complete-development/), reported first by POGO, that program officials have been trying to make it appear as though the program has completed the development phase, by altering paperwork to reclassify potentially life-threatening design flaws to give the appearance of progress rather than actually fixing them."

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4567706-F-35-Affordability-Strategy.html

"It seems that much of that work is being ignored in the name of political expediency and protecting F-35 funding."

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/605x122/f35_test_1a8b89b449e4f5ef889589cbedc694b73fd63ad2.jpg

etc, etc.

[SpazSinbad]

Lots of things have likely changed in the meantime - we don't know how. In regard to the other thread I found this quote from the cited POGO article interesting:
"...Testers have also identified an issue with the arresting hook on the Air Force’s F-35A conventional takeoff variant. The F-35A, like other Air Force aircraft (https://theaviationist.com/2012/03/24/desert-tailhook-landing/), is equipped with a single-use tailhook for emergency-landing situations when the pilot suspects a braking failure. Testing on the F-35A’s tailhook began in 2016 (https://www.businessinsider.com/f-35a-begins-tailhook-testing-2016-5). Testing engineers found that the arresting hook is causing damage to the aircraft due to “up-swing.” (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4741475-JSFPO-Deficiency-Review-Board-Minutes-04-June-2018.html#document/p6/a446284) They originally rated this a Category I “Medium” deficiency. At this meeting, the deputy director of engineering, this time with the concurrence of the testing sites, downgraded the deficiency to Category II “High,” with instructions to study the maintenance- and replacement-cost data to better define the difference between “major damage” and “non-major damage”—but without actually proposing any fixes to the problem...."
I would have thought making the arrest OK was paramount whilst IF some damage was caused by UP SWING then so be it - AIRCRAFT/CREW saved.

As for 'recategorising aircraft faults': my favourite story from my past is 'as a new Delmar Venom pilot at NAS Nowra' in 1969 being taken around the Sea Venom by our VC-724 Squadron AEO Air Engineering Officer as he pointed out all the airframe 'deficiencies' including bent boom and elevator cracks - so help me god. Yep the thing flew oddly & care was taken to stay within the DELMAR Venom limitations but thankfully that aircraft was retired TOOT SWEET.

[ORAC]

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/11/09/italy-signals-slowdown-on-f-35-orders/

Italy signals slowdown on F-35 orders

ROME — Italy will stretch out the order of F-35 fighter jets, buying six or seven of the aircraft in the next five years instead of the previously planned 10 jets, a government source told Defense News. The decision follows a review of the program by Italy’s populist government, which took office in June and is mulling defense spending cuts to pay for social welfare programs and cover tax cuts.

The source said the plan did not envisage a reduction in orders, merely a slowdown of intake, which would leave the decision of the total F-35 purchase to a future government. Previous governments planned to buy 60 F-35As and 30 F-35Bs for a total of 90 aircraft. The new government will focus on spending plans over its five-year mandate and not beyond, the source said, adding that discussions are underway with the U.S. about the change in schedule.

The decision on the slowdown keeps with Italian policy on the F-35 set out by Defence Minister Elisabetta Trenta (https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2018/06/29/italys-new-defense-minister-commits-to-f-35-butts-heads-with-france/) after she took office in June. “What I would like to do is lighten the load, since we have other spending commitments in Europe. We will try to stretch out deliveries instead of cutting the order, which would reduce offsets and mean penalties,” she told Defense News at the time.

Italy has taken delivery of 10 F-35As and one F-35B. Two of the "A" models as well as the "B" model are being used for training in the U.S., while eight "A" models are now based at the Italian Air Force’s base in Amendola, southern Italy.......

[KenV]

are there any current or future platform that could do the same mission?Current or future? Sure!! In the future they'll have a starship in orbit with sensors that can detect a gnat approaching the carrier battle group. But on a more serious note, the F-35 currently has a suite of sensors unique to that aircraft and now it can share that sensor data with the battle group. No other aircraft can currently do what F-35 does in the arena of passive detection. When the Block 3 Super Hornets arrive they'll have an upgraded sensor suite that may (or may not) do everything the F-35 does. (The final block 3 configuration is not yet defined.)

[ORAC]

But on a more serious note, the F-35 currently has a suite of sensors unique to that aircraft Unique is certainly a suitable word. Antiques have a certain rarity value......

Hence Raytheon having the contract to replace the current suite WEF 2023. Which raises, yet again, the issue of the obsolescence of the current aircraft being delivered - and whether they can be upgraded or will need to be replaced.

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/lockheed-martin-selects-raytheon-to-deliver-next-generation-f-35-sensor-system-300665689.html

https://youtu.be/ETxmCCsMoD0

[glad rag]

More B models ordered.

:ugh:

[Lyneham Lad]

Another box ticked. (https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/f-35a-drops-gbu-49-precision-bomb-for-first-time-in-453766/) (On Flight Global)

The Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II dropped a GBU-49 precision bomb for the first time in combat training at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida.

The test on 7 November was conducted by the US Air Force 388th Fighter Wing’s 34th Fighter Squadron, which is stationed at Hill AFB, Utah. The GBU-49 is made by Raytheon. It is a converted “dumb” bomb that uses a laser and GPS to be guided to its target. The precision weapon can be used in a variety of weather conditions, against moving or stationary targets.

“Like any new weapon, what we learned, and what we will learn as we continue to train with the GBU-49, will directly impact our tactics and will make the F-35A even more lethal,” says Lt Col Matthew Johnston.

https://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getasset.aspx?itemid=75320

F-35A dropping GBU-49

US Air Force

USAF F-35A pilots had been training to drop the GBU-49 in flight simulators at Hill AFB, but plan to use continued live training to refine their tactics and techniques. Weapons crews, maintainers, and pilots were assessed on their ability to build, load, and drop the weapons during the combat training, says the service.

The USAF says further training on the Utah Test and Training Range with live and inert GBU-49s will begin soon. Hill AFB is scheduled to be home to three F-35 fighter squadrons with a total of 78 aircraft by the end of 2019, says the service.

The first combat training drop of the GBU-49 from the F-35A comes as the Department of Defense granted Lockheed Martin an $83.1 million contract on 15 November to make the aircraft dual capable – able to launch conventional or nuclear weapons – by February 2024.

[airsound]

UK MoD says:
MOD awarding a £160m contract to Kier VolkerFitzpatrick to build a F-35 flight simulator, maintenance unit, new hangars and storage facilities at RAF Lakenheath. This will ready the Suffolk airbase for two squadrons of US F-35s,
https://modmedia.blog.gov.uk/2018/11/20/defence-in-the-media-tuesday-20-november-2018/

Since this is a US base, and these facilities are for USAF aircraft, I have to wonder why the UK MoD is paying for it. Yes I know it's called RAF Lakenheath, but that's just a treaty thing - all USAF bases in UK are called RAF Whatever. Doesn't mean we have to pay for them. Or are we just sucking up to POTUS?

airsound

[glad rag]

UK MoD says:

https://modmedia.blog.gov.uk/2018/11/20/defence-in-the-media-tuesday-20-november-2018/

Since this is a US base, and these facilities are for USAF aircraft, I have to wonder why the UK MoD is paying for it. Yes I know it's called RAF Lakenheath, but that's just a treaty thing - all USAF bases in UK are called RAF Whatever. Doesn't mean we have to pay for them. Or are we just sucking up to POTUS?

airsound
More likely the mod is paying from funding received from NATO surely.

[ORAC]

iIRC they are indeed RAF bases, which is why they have an RAF station commander, currently Sqn Ldr Jerry Neild, the USAF being, officially, lodger units. Hence the MoD will award the contract - who supplies the cash to pay the bills is a separate matter.

https://www.lakenheath.af.mil/About-Us/Biographies/Display/Article/297506/squadron-leader-jerry-neild/

[ORAC]

Depends how you read it. Rather than see it as the IAF supplementing the F-35 with new F-15s, I read it as the IAF agreeing to continue trickle buying F-35s as the cost of being allowed to buy a new generation of F-15s.

Interesting about the aircraft capability as well. For decades the suspicion in the Arab world was that the aircrfatbthey were sold were always inferior to the model of the same aircraft supplied to Israel - here it would appear the IAF is playing catch-up.

https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-5409130,00.html

IAF to supplement F-35 stealth jets with upgraded F-15 IA

The new F-15 IA was chosen by the IDF and Israel Air Force (IAF) as the new fighter jet to be acquired over the next decade, according to an official announcement Saturday. The purchase has already been approved by the government, and the first of the aircraft is expected to arrive in Israel as soon as 2023. In the meantime, the IAF will continue purchasing stealth attack aircrafts.

The F-15 IA performance, considered to be superior to the older F-15 aircraft—which has been in IAF use since 1998—is what swayed the decision. Indeed, the new F-15 can fly longer distances, has higher survivability, more advanced avionic systems, and a much better ordnance-carrying capacity. The jet can carry up to 13 tons of explosives—a capability unmatched by any other attack aircraft.

In the field of air-to-air warfare, the F-15 IA plane is capable of carrying 11 missiles, in addition to 28 heavy, smart bombs for ground targets. In addition, the aircraft has the capability to carry all the weapons at the IAF’s disposal, including unique Israeli-made missiles, laser and electro-optical systems, and more.

The plane was built by Boeing for the air forces of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, and initially the United States Air Force (USAF), through which the IAF purchased the planes, pressed Israel not to request to purchase the jets. This is because the Americans had an interest in continuing the development of the stealth F-35 line, which have been acquired by the US military's air and naval forces.

In the past year the USAF has begun to take an interest in the new F-15 IA plane, which gave Israel the green light to enter negotiations for its purchase. It seems as though the Americans have agreed to supply Israel with the new plane on condition that it will continue purchasing the F-35 stealth attack aircrafts.

The IAF emphasized that the new F-15 will not completely replace the F-35 stealth fighter, but is intended to reinforce the systems currently in place to enhance the range of capabilities to an optimal position vis-à-vis its missions—from Iran to Gaza.

According to a document presented by the IDF to outgoing Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman recently, the IAF intends to complete the purchase of the third stealth squadron at a lower rate—with up to three planes a year. Once the third squadron is complete, approximately in 10 years time, the IAF will have at least 75 F-35 stealth aircraft at its disposal.......

[Davef68]

Depends how you read it. Rather than see it as the IAF supplementing the F-35 with new F-15s, I read it as the IAF agreeing to continue trickle buying F-35s as the cost of being allowed to buy a new generation of F-15s.


Apples and Oranges surely - two different roles? Replacement of the older IAF strike Eagles

[Lyneham Lad]

On Flight Global (https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/massive-f-35-deal-covers-production-into-2023-453656/?cmpid=NLC%7CFGFG%7CFGFDN-2018-1121-GLOBnews&sfid=70120000000taAm)

Snip:-
Lockheed Martin has won a $22.7 billion contract to supply 255 F-35 Lightning II fighters for the three branches of the US armed services and international operators.

The contract covers 106 F-35s for the USA, comprising 64 F-35As for the air force, 26 F-35Bs for the marines, and 16 F-35Cs for the navy, a US Department of Defense contract announcement states.

In addition, 71 F-35As and 18 F-35Bs will go to international programme participants, and 60 F-35As to customers under the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) process.

[ORAC]

Yep, nothing like going into full scale multi-year contracts when you are still in the middle of testing and trials and critical defects still to be fixed.

[TEEEJ]

jgiTTiokYQs

[PEI_3721]

Some professional filming, but discounting quips of ‘same way …’, Balbo, or the real Lightning’s diamond 16 or 28 ship launch within 2 mins, what was the message in the video?
Does this take us back to page 1 of the thread; what’s this aircraft for; followed by 11500+ responses attempting to explain this; a ‘void of confusion’ (stealth confusion).

Smart sensors, but sensors can be to other aircraft, fusion - smart comms, which could also be fitted to other aircraft. On board intelligence and management, why put all of the expensive brains in the front line whereas with data link the real smarts could be elsewhere.
Longer range weapons - other aircraft. So this leaves ‘stealth’; what for, when, where, and how long will it be effective.
Is a 32 ship ‘walk’ about to answer these questions; I doubt it, so what other purpose was there?

[Harley Quinn]

Is a 32 ship ‘walk’ about to answer these questions; I doubt it, so what other purpose was there?


Because they felt the need to demonstrate that they could?

Still a fugly jet though

[KenV]

Smart sensors, but sensors can be to other aircraft, fusion - smart comms, which could also be fitted to other aircraft. On board intelligence and management, why put all of the expensive brains in the front line whereas with data link the real smarts could be elsewhere.
you can add lotsa new tech to old aircraft, but it's usually a lot harder than it looks. Take the Typhoon. AESA radars have been around for well over a decade and after years and years of testing, the Typhoon fleet has yet to get it. Super Hornet Block 3 is in the works and it does not have everything in terms of sensors and systems that F-35 already has. As for onboard processing vs off board processing, doing the processing on board tremendously reduces the datalink bandwidth required to transmit raw sensor data. The price of computing continues to go down so it makes sense to process locally, while no matter how many very very expensive secure transponders they put in orbit, we never have enough bandwidth to go around. Further, processing locally means the pilot is able to act on the data immediately and independent of ground support. And further still, it means the pilot can turn off his datalink as necessary to preserve/enhance stealth.


Longer range weapons - other aircraft. So this leaves ‘stealth’; what for, when, where, and how long will it be effective.Is a 32 ship ‘walk’ about to answer these questions; I doubt it, so what other purpose was there?What purpose? Usually the purpose of such exercises, especially the first time they are done, is not to answer questions but to enable planners to ask the right questions so as to develop the best tactics and procedures to best employ the available assets. Later exercises will wring out the tactics and (hopefully) answer more questions than they raise.

And BTW, one of the reasons for a huge exercise like this is not to test the aircraft or even the flight crews, but to test the maintainers and the logistics infrastructure. If a mass launch is required, can the maintainers and the logistics tail provide enough airframes all at once to satisfy such a massive surge requirement. Once they're satisfied the logistics can handle such a massive surge, the next step will be to see if the armorers can handle such a massive surge. It's one thing to launch dozens of fully fueled full mission capable aircraft at once. It's another to launch get them all fully armed. Learn to walk before you try to run.

[glad rag]

you can add lotsa new tech to old aircraft, but it's usually a lot harder than it looks. Take the Typhoon. AESA radars have been around for well over a decade and after years and years of testing, the Typhoon fleet has yet to get it. Super Hornet Block 3 is in the works and it does not have everything in terms of sensors and systems that F-35 already has. As for onboard processing vs off board processing, doing the processing on board tremendously reduces the datalink bandwidth required to transmit raw sensor data. The price of computing continues to go down so it makes sense to process locally, while no matter how many very very expensive secure transponders they put in orbit, we never have enough bandwidth to go around. Further, processing locally means the pilot is able to act on the data immediately and independent of ground support. And further still, it means the pilot can turn off his datalink as necessary to preserve/enhance stealth.

What purpose? Usually the purpose of such exercises, especially the first time they are done, is not to answer questions but to enable planners to ask the right questions so as to develop the best tactics and procedures to best employ the available assets. Later exercises will wring out the tactics and (hopefully) answer more questions than they raise.

And BTW, one of the reasons for a huge exercise like this is not to test the aircraft or even the flight crews, but to test the maintainers and the logistics infrastructure. If a mass launch is required, can the maintainers and the logistics tail provide enough airframes all at once to satisfy such a massive surge requirement. Once they're satisfied the logistics can handle such a massive surge, the next step will be to see if the armorers can handle such a massive surge. It's one thing to launch dozens of fully fueled full mission capable aircraft at once. It's another to launch get them all fully armed. Learn to walk before you try to run.




"all fully armed"

Nice one..

[SpazSinbad]

Japan Set to Procure F-35B STOVL Aircraft for JMSDF Izumo-class 'helicopter destroyer' 26 Nov 2018

https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2018/november-2018-navy-naval-defense-news/6689-japan-set-to-procure-f-35b-stovl-aircraft-for-jmsdf-izumo-class-helicopter-destroyer.html

[Lonewolf_50]

jgiTTiokYQs
That video is a bloody pain in the butt to listen to: they can't be bothered to use a human being to narrate; they had a robot voice "reading" the text from a prepared script.
Dear USAF: that video production was bush league, guys and gals. You can do better.

[RAFEngO74to09]

UK F-35B - 17 Sqn Edwards AFB, CA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKOnbMUWy6U

[Lonewolf_50]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKOnbMUWy6U Thank you, a professionally produced video. Interesting that the speaker has flown both F-22 and F-35B.

[SpazSinbad]

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/976x628/izumoskijumpf_35bmodelcompilation_b66a0088c8c9b9b9f581af5322 33166585143921.jpg
Death spiral: https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-Relations/Japan-to-order-100-more-F-35-fighters-from-US

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yLlnuyRsAk

[Less Hair]

Now let's wait for those japanese Ospreys. Their "cruiser" is sized for them already.

[Engines]

If I might offer a couple of thoughts here.

If the Japanese go for this, it's a big deal, militarily and politically. Militarily, it's not the first time that a navy has taken a ship originally designed for helicopters only and decided to put a STOVL aircraft on it. However, it would be the first time that any such conversion would involve the F-35B, and that aircraft's capabilities make this significant. The potential ability to launch high-end strike missions from the sea, as well as provide much enhanced air defence capability around a deployed fleet, appear to be a Japanese response to the Chinese Navy's drive to field a maritime air capability, and possibly a signal to North Korea as well.

Politically, this is a big one. China has fired fairly stern verbal warning shots across Japan's bow last year about any such conversion of the Izumo, and I'd expect more to follow in the coming days. It will also be interesting to see how the North Koreans respond, as well as the US.

I noted that the pictures that Spaz kindly posted up show a ski-jump. This would be the first use of this for the F-35B apart from the UK. It will be really interesting to see where the Japanese go to for the data to design their ski jump. I'd normally expect them to go to the USN and Pax River, but the UK now has some seriously up to date expertise in integrating this aircraft on to ships, plus some really Gucci approach and landing aids ideas. Interesting times, as they say out East.

Best Regards as ever too all those making advanced STOVL work at sea,

Engines

[Just This Once...]

One thinks Japan had this in mind when they specified a whole host of F-35B-friendly design features for this ship... just in case.

[Engines]

JTO,

Good link here to an February this year setting out the Japanese approach to the Izumo design.

Officials Admit Japan's 'Helicopter Destroyers' Were Also Designed For Jets - The Drive (http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/18855/officials-admit-japans-helicopter-destroyers-were-also-designed-for-jets)

Looks like they took a sensible approach to sizing of lifts, deck strength, hangar deck head clearance, aviation fuel capacity etc. If they got these about right, getting F-35B on board will, be a simpler job. Putting the ski jump on would be an extremely smart move.

Best Regards as ever to those taking the tough decisions,

Engines

[airsound]

Lonewolf, I looked at what you said about the USAF Elephant Walk video:That video is a bloody pain in the butt to listen to: they can't be bothered to use a human being to narrate; they had a robot voice "reading" the text from a prepared script.Dear USAF: that video production was bush league, guys and gals. You can do better.but I hadn't bothered to actually listen to it.

Now I have, and, as a broadcaster and occasional voice-over person, I do so agree. I'm horrified that any professional PR person/film producer could let such arrant aural crap be associated with what should be a reasonably interesting record of a significant story. In fact I found it hard to believe. But there it was, many egregious examples of nonsense pronunciation and inflection - each of which made the subject matter harder to understand .

How depressing. i hope you have more influence with USAF than I (zero)!

airsound

[Lonewolf_50]

Lonewolf, I looked at what you said about the USAF Elephant Walk video
I hope you have more influence with USAF than I (zero)! Given that they didn't listen much to me when I was active duty, Navy (though they did take a few suggestions about our joint pilot training on board one time), I'd say I match your influence precisely. :ok:
I am so used to the USAF PR machine much better polished; it really struck me how lame that was.
*shrugs*
I guess someone got an award for innovative use of technology. :p

[Courtney Mil]

No. I don't care - not my country - not my navy - not my problem. You figure it out. I'm sure you want to.

That's unusual. It's never stopped you before.

[SpazSinbad]

:-) My MOTHER was disappointed in the same manner because I rejected the RAAF to join the RAN and THEN.... slope off to the FLEET AIR ARM! Meanwhile

HMS Queen Elizabeth, F-35B trials, finale
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yO2-zMxlMXU

[SpazSinbad]

F-35 Lightning II Pax River ITF - F-35B HMS Queen Elizabeth First Of Class Flight Trials [1080p]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OF4cHtHQR8s

[SpazSinbad]

Joint Force F-35Bs with US & French jets Exercise 'Point Blank'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kms1rp__vA4

[steamchicken]

There's something weirdly low-drama about the FOC video despite the music. The F-35s just purr up the ski jump remarkably slowly and fly away. They hovertaxi or SRVL in and shut down. It's all very British. Even the helo looks kind of inelegant by comparison, thrashing around and making a racket.

[halloweene]

you can add lotsa new tech to old aircraft, but it's usually a lot harder than it looks. Take the Typhoon. AESA radars have been around for well over a decade and after years and years of testing, the Typhoon fleet has yet to get it. Super Hornet Block 3 is in the works and it does not have everything in terms of sensors and systems that F-35 already has. As for onboard processing vs off board processing, doing the processing on board tremendously reduces the datalink bandwidth required to transmit raw sensor data. The price of computing continues to go down so it makes sense to process locally, while no matter how many very very expensive secure transponders they put in orbit, we never have enough bandwidth to go around. Further, processing locally means the pilot is able to act on the data immediately and independent of ground support. And further still, it means the pilot can turn off his datalink as necessary to preserve/enhance stealth.

What purpose? Usually the purpose of such exercises, especially the first time they are done, is not to answer questions but to enable planners to ask the right questions so as to develop the best tactics and procedures to best employ the available assets. Later exercises will wring out the tactics and (hopefully) answer more questions than they raise.

And BTW, one of the reasons for a huge exercise like this is not to test the aircraft or even the flight crews, but to test the maintainers and the logistics infrastructure. If a mass launch is required, can the maintainers and the logistics tail provide enough airframes all at once to satisfy such a massive surge requirement. Once they're satisfied the logistics can handle such a massive surge, the next step will be to see if the armorers can handle such a massive surge. It's one thing to launch dozens of fully fueled full mission capable aircraft at once. It's another to launch get them all fully armed. Learn to walk before you try to run.



In fact they showed they couldn' as there was an abort...

[ORAC]

Plan 4, taxi 3, launch 2..... and then try and find frame or diversions for the last bird after the other has an airborne abort......

[ORAC]

https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-Relations/Japan-to-order-100-more-F-35-fighters-from-US

Japan to order 100 more F-35 fighters from US

TOKYO -- Japan is preparing to order another 100 F-35 stealth fighter jets from the U.S. to replace some of its aging F-15s, according to sources.

The plan can be considered a response to China's military buildup, as well as a nod to U.S. President Donald Trump's call for Tokyo to buy more American defense equipment. Japan already intended to procure 42 of the new fighters. A single F-35 costs more than 10 billion yen ($88.1 million), meaning the additional order would exceed 1 trillion yen.

Japan's government plans to approve the purchase when it adopts new National Defense Program Guidelines at a cabinet meeting in mid-December. It will also include the F-35 order in its medium-term defense program, which covers fiscal 2019 to fiscal 2023. The government wants to obtain 42 F-35s as successors to its F-4s by fiscal 2024.

The 42 fighters Japan originally planned to buy are all F-35As, a conventional takeoff and landing variant. The additional 100 planes would include both the F-35A and F-35B, which is capable of short takeoffs and vertical landings.

At present, Japan deploys about 200 F-15s, roughly half of which cannot be upgraded. The Defense Ministry wants to replace the planes that cannot be upgraded with the 100 F-35s, while enhancing and retaining the remaining F-15s.

To accommodate the F-35Bs, the government intends to revamp the Maritime Self-Defense Force's JS Izumo helicopter carrier to host the fighters.......

[SpazSinbad]

"Shouting"? That is rich. Just explaining why I'm not interested in your SPECIFIC UK question above. Q: 11622
'gladrag' asked: "...Now spaz, can you remind us what the UK spend on F35 will cost including the rework to bring 78% of the fleet up to phase 4 post 2022 production standard."
Why the other chap chimed in beats me. SAD. I'm not interested in UK specific bollocks.

[Lonewolf_50]

Poms versus Aussies: beer bottles at dawn
I'll get the popcorn.
On topic, Glad to see the Japanese go All In.

[MPN11]

....
On topic, Glad to see the Japanese go All In.
Tora! Tora! Tora!

At least the JSDF can afford to "replace the [F-15] planes that cannot be upgraded with the 100 F-35s". Further comparisons are invidious.

[Timelord]

Best wishes to everybody in the Lightning Force who has to overcome this divisive sh1t.

Amen to that!

[Lyneham Lad]

Another step forward...
F-35 Approved To Start Formal Initial Operational Test And Evaluation (http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-approved-start-formal-initial-operational-test-and-evaluation?NL=AW-05&Issue=AW-05_20181205_AW-05_91&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_2&utm_rid=CPEN1000003474208&utm_campaign=17655&utm_medium=email&elq2=1496f3206d7644bb87f4019649974516). (AviationWeek)

Lockheed Martin (http://awin.aviationweek.com/OrganizationProfiles.aspx?orgId=27191)’s F-35 (http://awin.aviationweek.com/ProgramProfileDetails.aspx?pgId=613&pgName=Lockheed+Martin+F-35+JSF) is set to begin later this month a long series of operational test and evaluation flights needed to prove the program is ready to enter full-rate production in fiscal year 2020, the Joint Program Office (JPO) confirmed to Aerospace DAILY Dec. 4. The approval ends a 16-month delay to the start of the formal initial operational test and evaluation (IOT&E) program, although the JPO launched a series of “pre-IOT&E” events earlier this year. “Formal (IOT&E) will start later this month,” a JPO spokesman said.

The new timing matches a prediction made nearly two years ago by Michael Gilmore, who was then the military’s director for the office of test and evaluation. In his final report to Congress in January 2017, Gilmore predicted that IOT&E would not begin until the F-35 meets unspecified readiness criteria at the end of 2018. At the time, IOT&E was scheduled to start in August 2017.

Until August 2018, the JPO had set Sept. 15 as the target for entering IOT&E. But Gilmore’s successor, Robert Behler, decided on Aug. 24 that formal testing wouldn’t start until Lockheed delivered a new software block dubbed “30R02.” That memo, which was disclosed by the Project on Government Oversight, said the software should be delivered by late November.

The newly approved timeline means a compressed schedule to complete IOT&E and fix any discrepancies before a planned full-rate production decision by the end of 2019.

The F-35 has been declared operated since 2015 and deployed in combat by the Israeli Air Force (http://awin.aviationweek.com/OrganizationProfiles.aspx?orgId=28672) and the U.S. Marine Corps (http://awin.aviationweek.com/OrganizationProfiles.aspx?orgId=23395), but its operational effectiveness and suitability has not yet been thoroughly vetted by the military’s operational test community. The tests will focus on a wide range of criteria, including previous reports by Behler’s office about deficiencies with deploying weapons, such as the Raytheon (http://awin.aviationweek.com/OrganizationProfiles.aspx?orgId=14579) AIM-120 Amraam.

[abdunbar]

Why is the F-35 so expensive? It would be an interesting exercise to determine the precise reasons for the F-35 high cost. I propose that a very high percentage of the cost is development which includes graft and inefficiency caused by the contractor manipulating production to try and make the contract non cancelable. The US government and other buyers have paid for the development in spades. They should take possession of the designs and rebid it. At this point a head to head competition could take place between the F-35 and other choices such as a Super Harrier or Super F-18 or Super Rafale.

[orca]

What constitutes a very high percentage?
How can a manufacturer manipulate production whilst in development?
Who would bid against the incumbent who already has a production line?
How would a state take someone’s IP without risking every other manufacturer ever doing business with them again?
Hasn’t Belgium just run a head to head that the F-35 won?

[t43562]

Why is the F-35 so expensive? It would be an interesting exercise to determine the precise reasons for the F-35 high cost. I propose that a very high percentage of the cost is development which includes graft and inefficiency caused by the contractor manipulating production to try and make the contract non cancelable. The US government and other buyers have paid for the development in spades. They should take possession of the designs and rebid it. At this point a head to head competition could take place between the F-35 and other choices such as a Super Harrier or Super F-18 or Super Rafale.

I don't know anything about aircraft but in my experience of projects in general the cost overrun is because the whole effort is trying to please too many people. But if you don't please enough people, you'll never get the money. So its' just a fact of life.

[weemonkey]

Something in the news about stealth coatings wearing out every flight...

[Speedywheels]

Something in the news about stealth coatings wearing out every flight...

I read the same and instantly dismissed the content. The coating integrity would only be an issue if it was mission critical. As the aircraft are only currently being operated as the squadrons and crews work up, I just don't buy it.

[weemonkey]

I read the same and instantly dismissed the content. The coating integrity would only be an issue if it was mission critical. As the aircraft are only currently being operated as the squadrons and crews work up, I just don't buy it.

Well somebody does!

An RAF source told the Sunday Express: “This situation obviously has to be rectified before the plane enters operational service”.

They said Mr Williamson and RAF chief Air Chief Marshal Sir Stephen Hillier had always been aware of the problem.



"Another company spokesman said: “Stealth maintenance on the F-35 is proving to be a significant success. It requires less maintenance and…is easier, more affordable and faster to repair compared to previous low-observable aircraft”.

"But Air Commodore Andrew Lambert, a former RAF director of defence studies, said: “Lockheed Martin says it’s better now, but it takes just one scratch to give the fighter jet the same radar profile as a 747, the you may as well not be bothering”.



Still I wouldn't worry too much, they wont ever be fighting anyone important.

[Timelord]

Well somebody does!

An RAF source told the Sunday Express: “This situation obviously has to be rectified before the plane enters operational service”.

They said Mr Williamson and RAF chief Air Chief Marshal Sir Stephen Hillier had always been aware of the problem.




"But Air Commodore Andrew Lambert, a former RAF director of defence studies, said: “Lockheed Martin says it’s better now, but it takes just one scratch to give the fighter jet the same radar profile as a 747, the you may as well not be bothering”.



.

I’m not sure that can be taken too seriously. If it had no coating at all it still would not have the RCS of a 747.

[orca]

Whilst this chap may have more relevant experience in his CV can I suggest that Dir of Studies has no relevance whatsoever in the field of LO maintenance?

[KenV]

"Another company spokesman said: “Stealth maintenance on the F-35 is proving to be a significant success. It requires less maintenance and…is easier, more affordable and faster to repair compared to previous low-observable aircraft”.

Stealth maintenance was what killed previous attempts to put stealth aircraft on carriers. It was just not doable on a carrier. USN accepted the F-35 largely based on the great improvement in robustness of the stealth coating, and the maintainability of those coatings.

"But Air Commodore Andrew Lambert, a former RAF director of defence studies, said: “Lockheed Martin says it’s better now, but it takes just one scratch to give the fighter jet the same radar profile as a 747, the you may as well not be bothering”.This sounds more like jest/hyperbole than fact. With no coatings at all the F-35 has a far smaller RCS than a 747.

[orca]

Anyone who uses the phrase ‘fighter jet’ probably jumps the queue for instant dismissal!😉

[flyinkiwi]

Surprised you haven't posted this already, Spaz. RAAF F-35A's arrive at RAAF Base Williamtown.

https://youtu.be/evFgFjFcj90
https://youtu.be/KBtLikmm5DA

[NutLoose]

F-35 flypast..... 35 of them!

https://theaviationist.com/2018/11/22/check-out-these-cool-videos-of-the-largest-f-35-formation-ever/

[Lonewolf_50]

NutLoose, you are about three weeks late (https://www.pprune.org/showthread.php?p=10316755)to that show.

[Lyneham Lad]

The Japanese cabinet has approved a plan to add an additional 105 Lockheed Martin F-35s to its planned fleet of 42 examples, potentially making it the world’s second largest F-35 operator.

In a press briefing, the chief cabinet secretary Yoshihide Suga confirmed that the country’s Medium Term Defence Program has been approved by the cabinet.

Of Tokyo’s eventual F-35 fleet of 147 examples, it is likely that 107 will be conventional take-off and landing F-35As, while 40 will be short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) F-35Bs. Flight Fleets Analyzer shows that a fleet of this size would make Tokyo the second largest operator of the F-35 type after the United States, and putting it ahead of the United Kingdom.

Full article on Flight Global (https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/tokyo-set-to-become-second-biggest-f-35-operator-454503/?cmpid=NLC%7CFGFG%7CFGFIN-2018-1218-GLOB&sfid=70120000000taAh)

[ORAC]

Already covered in detail on the Japanese Carrier thread.

https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/520820-new-japanese-carrier-5.html

[weemonkey]

Perhaps they have found a new use for whale oil.

[KG86]

As they say in Ireland, "Whale Oil Beef Hooked"

[Lyneham Lad]

As they say in Ireland, "Whale Oil Beef Hooked"

:D (took a couple of seconds...)

[golder]

Well somebody does!

An RAF source told the Sunday Express: “This situation obviously has to be rectified before the plane enters operational service”.

They said Mr Williamson and RAF chief Air Chief Marshal Sir Stephen Hillier had always been aware of the problem.



"Another company spokesman said: “Stealth maintenance on the F-35 is proving to be a significant success. It requires less maintenance and…is easier, more affordable and faster to repair compared to previous low-observable aircraft”.

"But Air Commodore Andrew Lambert, a former RAF director of defence studies, said: “Lockheed Martin says it’s better now, but it takes just one scratch to give the fighter jet the same radar profile as a 747, the you may as well not be bothering”.



Still I wouldn't worry too much, they wont ever be fighting anyone important.

I would have to go digging, but some may recall the test where there was deliberately, significant damage done to the wing in several places. There was a picture and description, showing what was done. It still met it's RCS requirements.

I think they may be referring to the IR spray coat? I haven't really gone into it a lot. I would assume there may be an additional final protective coat, for the IR coating.

[Turbine D]

Interesting read:

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/introducing-5-worst-us-fighter-jets-all-time-and-yes-f-35-made-list-39807

[ORAC]

I see the USAF has found a role for their early F-35As. Saves the cost of working out how to upgrade them for I suppose.

Will they bother to keep the stealth skin up to scratch? And security iterating away from home base at air shows will doubtless be an issue, as will dragging a mobile ALIS around.

Then in there is the cost - the first $1B+ display team?

Alert 5 » USAF F-35 Demo Team to make N. American debut at Melbourne Air & Space Show - Military Aviation News (http://alert5.com/2018/12/30/usaf-f-35-demo-team-to-make-n-american-debut-at-melbourne-air-space-show/)

USAF F-35 Demo Team to make N. American debut at Melbourne Air & Space Show

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x2000/f_35_demo_patch_final_5b62e0912567fee60ad568537451d53ab2983f 09.jpg

[Bing]

Then in there is the cost - the first $1B+ display team?

Pretty sure it's just one aircraft, and even the first F-35s weren't that expensive. Like the A-10 demo team https://www.facebook.com/A10DemoTeam/

[weemonkey]

Pretty sure it's just one aircraft, and even the first F-35s weren't that expensive. Like the A-10 demo team https://www.facebook.com/A10DemoTeam/

Hohohoho.

Anyway the F35 has the same need for stealth coatings as it has for spares, according to some....

[airsound]

Forces Network reporting Defence Secretary's announcement of UK F-35 operational readiness
The British military now has nine F-35B Lightning jets ready to be deployed on operations, the Defence Secretary has confirmed.Gavin Williamson also announced an upgrade to the UK's Typhoon fleet during a visit to unveil a new F-35 hangar.
Together, the F-35B and Typhoon will form part of the UK's combat air fleet, interoperability which the RAF says has been tested in operational trials.
https://www.forces.net/news/britain-has-nine-f-35b-aircraft-ready-combat?utm_source=Forces+Network+Newsletter&utm_campaign=97eca04e42-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_01_10_04_32&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_25712c5f6f-97eca04e42-440992797

airsound

[A_Van]

Uneasy times may arrive for F-35 if Patrick Shanahan becomes the SoD. As a Boeing guy he definitely dislikes all the LockMart-made stuff...

[Harley Quinn]

Uneasy times may arrive for F-35 if Patrick Shanahan becomes the SoD. As a Boeing guy he definitely dislikes all the LockMart-made stuff...

Surely that should disqualify him on grounds of conflict of interest?

[Rhino power]

“If it had gone to Boeing, it would be done much better,” Shanahan said, according to the former official.

Clearly he hasn't followed (or more likely, chosen to ignore) Boeing's stellar performance on the KC-46 programme then...

-RP

[Jackonicko]

I was at the IOC declaration announcement on Thursday, Airsound, and it was most illuminating! One heard some interesting exchanges. I particularly liked this one.

Journo: I’d really congratulate you on arresting the decline in fast jet squadron numbers, but under current plans will we have sufficient mass? With a resurgent Russian threat, and looking back at the force size and structure that we had during the Cold War, we look embarrassingly small – smaller than the Turkish air force – what can we do about that? You’re providing us with great kit, but are you providing us with enough of it?

GW: I think that’s a very interesting question. And I think that you asked it brilliantly well by mentioning……., by highlighting that contrast. I think that there is a real issue that we need to grapple with in terms of increasing mass and increasing lethality, in terms of what we do in terms of all our armed forces, and not just in relation to the Royal Air Force. I think that is one of the challenges that we have, and that is why we are looking at how we can generate more in terms of squadron numbers and it’s also how we need to look at how we improve the whole range of capabilities, because actually, sometimes using the F-35 is not going to be the most appropriate or the most cost-efficient type of fighter to be using in certain conflict zones where there is going to be no real peer-peer threat, and then we need to be looking at how we may be generate some thinking of how we…… – whether it’s through Reaper or Protector, ….. how we actually create those capabilities, so we are matching the type of strike capability with the type of threat.

Journo: Perhaps we need a light attack aircraft, sir? GW: That’s an interesting idea, but I’m always interested to hear interesting questions!

As he left, GW grabbed the journo’s shoulder and said in his ear, loudly enough for those close to hear:

GW: I totally agree with you! I mean, I really want more squadrons!

[SASless]

GW: I totally agree with you! I mean, I really want more squadrons!

So why all the double talk in his on the record responses?

Do the feckers have neither brains or backbone?

Now I understand that speaking ill of the Official Talking Points is injurious to one's career prospects but sometimes waiting and praying one rises to the top tiers of the Totem Pole and thus be able to possibly effect some good change (other than In one's pay packet)....sometimes speaking truth to power is the right thing to do.

[Jackonicko]

There's a few things about GW that I don't much like, but I can't fault him for his genuine boyish enthusiasm, nor, indeed, for his absolute commitment to fighting tooth and nail for defence.

[airsound]

As you say, Jackonicko, most illuminating - thank you.

Several papers followed up on the Forces Network report the next day - but, with apologies for the length of this - one of the more thoughtful commentaries came from Howard Wheeldon. As ever, he takes a very optimistic view, but he is always knowledgable and full of insight.
Secretary of State for Defence Gavin Williamson confirm(ed) that not only had the UK’s F-35 Lightning Joint Strike Fighter passed the important Initial Operating Capability (IOC) milestone but also that the £425 million ‘Project Centurion’ upgrade programme had been completed by BAE Systems and its partners on time and on budget. …..

‘Project Centurion’ of which I have previously written in terms of its crucial importance is the enabler programme that allows Royal Air Force Typhoon aircraft to carry a much larger suite of complex weapon capability including Meteor beyond visual range missile, the deep strike cruise missile system known as Storm Shadow together with the precision guided attack Brimstone missile system. That this very difficult yet crucial programme has been completed on time and on budget is I am sure music to the ears not just for the Royal Air Force and the MOD but also for all of us that have a vested interest in UK air power capability.

Steve Worsnip, BAE Systems F-35 Support Director, said of UK F-35 having reached IOC, that this “is a proud moment for BAE Systems and that working alongside our partners at Lockheed Martin, MBDA, Raytheon we have been able to integrate the first weapons in the form of ASRAAM and Paveway 1V”. Of course, there is more work to do in the future but for UK F-35 IOC to have been achieved on target is a wonderful measure of success.

Achieving Initial Operating Capability is a vital component part of any defence programme. I almost regard IOC as being akin to self-regulation and may be best interpreted as meaning that a set of important challenges have been completed to the satisfaction of the whole force user or in other words, that ALL objectives set have been met, the aircraft is combat ready in order to deter, deny and defeat threats and challenges it has been designed for. That is not to suggest that there may not be more challenges ahead of course but it does say that UK F-35 Lightning is now more than a nice looking shiny military airplane - it is one that should now be regarded as true defence capability in its own right

Completion and success of ‘Project Centurion’ is of equal if not, timing wise, even more important. What the announcement confirms is that over the past three years in respect of complex weapon firing capability Royal Air Force Typhoon FGR4 aircraft have been transformed so that they are now able deliver firepower that is everything and more that the brilliant Panavia Tornado GR4 capability that it will shortly replace currently delivers.

BAE Systems and the various partner companies involved such as MBDA and Leonardo are to be congratulated for having done a brilliant and complicated job of work in order to complete a programme that had been too long delayed by past governments.

Typhoon FGR4 already carried a range of complex weapon capability such as the Raytheon UK built Paveway 1V precision guided bomb (plus Enhanced Paveway 2) and in the air-to-air role the infrared guided Advanced Short Range Air to Air (ASRAAM) missile, and radar guided beyond visual range Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air (AMRAAM) missile but until now it has been forced to play second fiddle to the excellence of Tornado GR4. It goes without saying that I welcome completion of this hugely complex programme which, with its its larger payload and increased agility and range, will allow Typhoon to operate in concert with F-35 ‘Lighting’ interacting and exploiting synergy of 4th and 5th generation combat aircraft. With Typhoon and F-35 Lightning the UK can be considered in respect of air power capability with what it needs to counter the variety of evolving threats that we now see in the global environment.

Chief of the Air Staff Air Chief Marshal Sir Stephen Hillier is rightly proud to have seen both the huge ‘Project Centurion’ Typhoon complex weapon upgrade programme and the target of F-35 Lightning ‘Initial Operating Capability’ (IOC) having been reached on his watch. That UK F-35 Lightning aircraft of which nine aircraft are currently based at RAF Marham, these aircraft currently armed with Paveway precision-guided bombs and ASRAM and AMRAAM air-to-air missile capability will eventually, as part of the ongoing development programme, be able to carry and deliver Meteor, SPEAR Cap 3 [medium-range, air-to-surface missile], Paveway 4 Mk3, Paveway 4 tactical penetrator and Block 6 ASRAAM will make this formidable capability.

……

I do believe that in respect of F-35 the MOD needs to provide clarity in respect of future intentions with regard to future F-35 purchases over and beyond the 16 aircraft already delivered and the total 35 aircraft that the UK has either already taken delivery of or that are now on order. It is all well and good the MOD constantly reminding us that the intention is to acquire 138 F-35 aircraft over the programme lifetime but as I told Andrew Chuter at Defense News yesterday in respect future planned mix of F-35A and B variants that are in my view required to ensure a credible F-25 force “They [MOD] need to set out a clear strategy, as opposed to mere definition of intent, in respect of required capacity in numbers and requirement for both the 'A' and 'B' variants. How many U.K.-owned 'B' variants do we really need for carrier strike, and will we see U.S. Marine Corps aircraft permanently based on U.K. carriers”.

airsound

[Jackonicko]

You may notice in the papers and online news sites that some of those present were clearly under the impression that GW had implied that the IOC declaration had opened the way to deploying the aircraft for use on Shader, and that the newly 'combat ready' aircraft would be sent to Akrotiri to participate in Operation Shader, flying missions against Daesh in Iraq and Syria.

That was very much not my impression.

It is true that Gavin Williamson did say: "I won't go into specifics on where they're going to be deployed but this is a fighting aircraft that is there to be used and to keep Britain safe.”

But Williamson also said that “it is important to make sure that you are using the right airframes for the right types of conflict, and at the moment we have got an excellent tool, for operations over Iraq and Syria, in Tornado and Typhoon. Sometimes using the F-35 is not going to be the most appropriate or the most cost-efficient type of fighter to be using in certain conflict zones where there is going to be no real peer-peer threat, and we need to match the type of strike capability we use with the type of threat.”

It’s nice that Howard Wheeldon is upbeat about everything, but the skeptical journo in me would ask a number of questions. I don’t pretend to know any of the answers.

Previous IOC declarations have been defined in terms of having a squadron (or more) capable of carrying out a particular defined role at least as well as the precursor aircraft type. The cynic might suggest that the F-35 IOC definition seems less challenging?

How useful the F-35 would be on Shader, with PWIV as its sole air-to-ground weapon, with no gun, no direct fire weapon, and no LGB capability? Would EOTS give as good an ISTAR capability as even the Litening 3 pod?

And how badly do the RAF really want to put an F-35 in the S-400 MEZ in the Middle East and let the Russians soak up its various signatures?

With all possible respect to a very fine group of aviators, I admit to also wondering how 'trained' the aircrew really are on their new mount. It’s been reported that they've dropped one bomb between them at Aberporth (notwithstanding the fact that 17 have dropped more in the States, including a five-bomb drop). They don’t seem to have flown much, while the simulators apparently still aren't up and running in the UK. So how combat ready can they be? How much of a proper pairs lead/four ship lead work up can anyone have done? How expert on the F-35 can the Squadron QWI actually be?

Could an overseas deployment possibly be more than show-boating at this juncture?

And some of the engineers and support folk privately expressed real doubt that the aircraft would be going anywhere imminently, as there simply aren't the support staff to support meaningful deployments.

And in the light of the USMC experience with its first deployment one might ask how deployable the UK version of ALIS might be? How deployable is the LO repair capability?

And what will be the implications of the need to send aircraft to Cameri for depth maintenance? What are the limits on what the RAF and UK industry are allowed to do to these aircraft, and what effect will this have?

And what about mission data…..?

Is this IOC declaration not the start of a process, in other words, rather than the end?

[orca]

Jacko old chap can you help me out - did you mean ‘no LGB’ or is that a typo? If it has PW4 it has an LGB doesn’t it?

[Jackonicko]

While PWIV is a dual mode I'm not sure that all of the laser guidance modes are available with F-35/EOTS. In particular the capability against moving targets. I think this issue was outlined in the last US DOT&E report.

[SASless]

"I won't go into specifics on where they're going to be deployed but this is a fighting aircraft that is there to be used and to keep Britain safe.”

The French must be shifting into panic mode upon hearing.that bit of news.

[weemonkey]

The French must be shifting into panic mode upon hearing.that bit of news.

jings, a yank that does proper sarcasm!

[Asturias56]

"sometimes using the F-35 is not going to be the most appropriate or the most cost-efficient type of fighter to be using in certain conflict zones where there is going to be no real peer-peer threat"

where has the RAF fought since 1983 that HAS had a peer-to peer threat? Seems to me you'd have been better off with a lot more but less capable fighters rather than hi-end aircraft for a war that never happened............

[PEI_3721]

Asturias, a reasonable point, but a more flexible aircraft, opposed to lesser capable aircraft would be a better description; but either should be cheaper than … .

Whilst the lesser capable option might be able to carry most of the new weapons and defensive aids, these will add cost; the major driver is situation and context.
In the F35 instance, the RAF might be better off, but the Navy appears to be running the ‘ship’.

[FODPlod]

"sometimes using the F-35 is not going to be the most appropriate or the most cost-efficient type of fighter to be using in certain conflict zones where there is going to be no real peer-peer threat"

where has the RAF fought since 1983 that HAS had a peer-to peer threat? Seems to me you'd have been better off with a lot more but less capable fighters rather than hi-end aircraft for a war that never happened............
Level playing fields are all well and good but, when fighting a non-peer adversary to the death, I’d have no qualms about possessing an overwhelming technical advantage. If this means I am also on a par with, or better than, a peer adversary should the need arise unexpectedly, then all the better.

[Bing]

Level playing fields are all well and good but

There's a 50/50 chance you'll lose!

[Jackonicko]

Peer-peer is often shorthand for peer or near-peer, and we've quite properly chosen to treat a number of adversaries as near-peer since 1983, including Yugoslavia/Serbia and Iraq.

And in those 36 years we were necessarily squaring off against the USSR and its Warpac allies (very much peer/near-peer) until the early 1990s.

Since about 2010 or so we've seen a resurgent Russia representing an increasingly serious and potentially existential threat. Russia has modernised its nuclear arsenal and has built facilities for nuclear weapons in Kaliningrad (Iskander-M cruise missiles, in contravention of INF). During the early months of the Trump administration, Russia reportedly told Defense Secretary Jim Mattis of its willingness to use nuclear weapons under certain conditions. Russia has invaded the Crimea, threatened the Baltic States, and committed murder on UK soil using chemical weapons and poisons. That Russian threat is growing.

And then you could look at what an expansionist China is doing in the South China Sea - and elsewhere.

Can we really assume that the relatively benign situation between 1992 and 2010 will continue? Would it not be the height of irresponsibility to fail to prepare for a slightly worse case scenario?

[A_Van]

Since about 2010 or so we've seen a resurgent Russia representing an increasingly serious and potentially existential threat.



May I please suggest that your free your mind from blind hatred (russophobia) and think calmly.

Since dismissing of the WarPac NATO has extended its boards eastbound so that St-Petersbourg is just an artillery shot away. Naive Gorby was fooled by his western friends.. And even later, Russia (led by drunk Yeltsin) was only dropping its bases and presense abroad.

Russia has modernised its nuclear arsenal and has built facilities for nuclear weapons in Kaliningrad (Iskander-M cruise missiles, in contravention of INF).



Do you really have a military background? Telling such obviously erroneous things....Iskander is not a cruise missile system, it's a ballistic one. And totally withing the range as specified in INF. Second, there is no need to build "facilities" for this complex, it's mobile. And it is just a pale shadow of the complexes that were eliminated in accordance with INF.

On the other side, it was US that unilaterally withdrew from ant-ballistic missile treaty in 2001. And started deploying anti-missile infrastructure in Europe. Now Russia has to answer and is answering.

During the early months of the Trump administration, Russia reportedly told Defense Secretary Jim Mattis of its willingness to use nuclear weapons under certain conditions.


Can you provide an exact verified quote? Any country that has nukes would use them under "certain" conditions. E.g., when it faces a massive strike that represents "existential threat" as you put it.


Russia has invaded the Crimea,



Total nonsense. Crimea separated from Ukraine under referendum. And with no casualties in total contrast with what NATO did with Serbia when cutting out part of its territory and establishing a psuedo-state of Kosovo.


threatened the Baltic States,


Proof link/qoute, please.


and committed murder on UK soil using chemical weapons and poisons.


British politicians shout about that, no real proof. The same as for MH-17, BTW, for which there is a clear evidance that Ukrainian SAM did that.




And then you could look at what an expansionist China is doing in the South China Sea - and elsewhere.


And what is your concern?

[TEEEJ]

The same as for MH-17, BTW, for which there is a clear evidance that Ukrainian SAM did that.

A_Van, Consider that the Russian Ministry of Defence spokesmen made a classic blunder during that last MH17 briefing? They had a pre-prepared statement for the Buks that they captured in Crimea, but did they simply forget about the ex-Ukrainian Buks captured in Georgia during 2008? Consider that the Russian 53rd actually had that missile in their inventory? Yes despite your claims in the following thread those Buk-M1s were still very much in Russian service. No doubt you will still be parroting the Russian MoD claim that the TELAR footage is all "faked by computer graphics experts". :rolleyes:

https://www.pprune.org/10251498-post2771.html

[weemonkey]

A_Van, Consider that the Russian Ministry of Defence spokesmen made a classic blunder during that last MH17 briefing? They had a pre-prepared statement for the Buks that they captured in Crimea, but did they simply forget about the ex-Ukrainian Buks captured in Georgia during 2008? Consider that the Russian 53rd actually had that missile in their inventory? Yes despite your claims in the following thread those Buk-M1s were still very much in Russian service. No doubt you will still be parroting the Russian MoD claim that the TELAR footage is all "faked by computer graphics experts". :rolleyes:

https://www.pprune.org/10251498-post2771.html

55 Savushkina Street, recognise it A (i)van?

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1023x575/55_savushkina_street_f4a1b3c31bdca9e45a2c1179756b21d9dc9ce5d 6.jpg

[Jackonicko]

May I please suggest that your free your mind from blind hatred (russophobia) and think calmly.

Since dismissing of the WarPac NATO has extended its boards eastbound so that St-Petersbourg is just an artillery shot away. Naive Gorby was fooled by his western friends.. And even later, Russia (led by drunk Yeltsin) was only dropping its bases and presense abroad.

I'm perfectly calm, thanks, and don't have any hatred of Russia or the Russians, though I think that your President is a corrupt, foolish, boastful and dangerous charlatan, and that Russia deserves a leader who more accurately reflects its many fine characteristics. The NATO nations are all democracies, and as such present no direct threat to Russia, though I can see that the desire of Poland and the Baltic states must seem to some Russian minds like ingratitude, and it must seem as though NATO's borders suddenly seem closer. But unless and until Russia or Belarus unanimously and overwhelmingly want to suddenly embrace Western values and join the party, NATO will never try to absorb or assimilate the Rodina. With respect, you need to look at NATO a little less hysterically, a little more calmly, and with much less suspicion, fear and paranoia.

Russia has frequently expanded through offensive military action (Georgia, Crimea, etc.) and has often maintained its grip on nations who wanted freedom from the old Soviet yoke. East Germany, Hungary, Czechoslovakia. I can't think of a single instance of NATO doing the same. Ever.

Do you really have a military background? Telling such obviously erroneous things....Iskander is not a cruise missile system, it's a ballistic one. And totally withing the range as specified in INF.

A slip of the keyboard finger, Van, old chap, wrt to 'cruise missile', but INF range - that's debateable.

On the other side, it was US that unilaterally withdrew from ant-ballistic missile treaty in 2001. And started deploying anti-missile infrastructure in Europe. Now Russia has to answer and is answering.

Anti missile defences are inherently defensive.

Can you provide an exact verified quote?

Google is your friend, Van.

Total nonsense. Crimea separated from Ukraine under referendum.

That so-called referendum followed Russia's military intervention and forced annexation, and was entirely illegitimate, as the UN General Assembly affirmed.

And with no casualties in total contrast with what NATO did with Serbia when cutting out part of its territory and establishing a psuedo-state of Kosovo.

Hardly. Kosovo was formed or 'established' in 1990-1992 when it declared itself a sovereign and independent state in September 1992, following Milosovic's ruthless intimidation and cultural oppression of the ethnic Albanian populationand his deliberate restriction of Kosovo's special autonomous status within Serbia. 113 UN member states (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_Kosovo) recognise Kosovo, and only cynical Russian opposition prevented NATO's peacekeeping operation being able to gain the formal backing of a UNSC resolution.

The UN Security Council passed UN Security Council Resolution 1244 on 10 June 1999, placing Kosovo under transitional UN administration (UNMIK) with autonomy within the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.



International negotiations began in 2006 to determine the final status of Kosovo, but Russia frustrated attempts to agree a draft resolution calling for 'supervised independence' for the province.



A declaration of independence by Kosovar Albanian leaders followed the end of the Serbian presidential elections in February 2008.

Serbia and its ally Russia may not recognize this, but the bulk of the civilized world does, and it’s entirely in keeping with democratic principles and self-determination. The International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion held that Kosovo's declaration of independence was not in violation either of international law, which do not prohibit unilateral declarations of independence.

Proof link/qoute, please.

Google is your friend, Van.

British politicians shout about that, no real proof. The same as for MH-17, BTW, for which there is a clear evidance that Ukrainian SAM did that.

The assasination of Litvinenko using Polonium and the attempted assassination of the Skripals by Novichok has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Russia's attempts to deny and obfuscate are disgraceful, and you should be ashamed of yourself for repeating this nonsense. The evidence on MH-17 is also pretty clear, if you take off your blinkers.

And what is your concern?

That totalitarian China represents a growing threat to its neighbours, and to international order.

[Buster15]

I'm perfectly calm, thanks, and don't have any hatred of Russia or the Russians, though I think that your President is a corrupt, foolish, boastful and dangerous charlatan, and that Russia deserves a leader who more accurately reflects its many fine characteristics. The NATO nations are all democracies, and as such present no direct threat to Russia, though I can see that the desire of Poland and the Baltic states must seem to some Russian minds like ingratitude, and it must seem as though NATO's borders suddenly seem closer. But unless and until Russia or Belarus unanimously and overwhelmingly want to suddenly embrace Western values and join the party, NATO will never try to absorb or assimilate the Rodina. With respect, you need to look at NATO a little less hysterically, a little more calmly, and with much less suspicion, fear and paranoia.

Russia has frequently expanded through offensive military action (Georgia, Crimea, etc.) and has often maintained its grip on nations who wanted freedom from the old Soviet yoke. East Germany, Hungary, Czechoslovakia. I can't think of a single instance of NATO doing the same. Ever.



A slip of the keyboard finger, Van, old chap, wrt to 'cruise missile', but INF range - that's debateable.



Anti missile defences are inherently defensive.



Google is your friend, Van.



That so-called referendum followed Russia's military intervention and forced annexation, and was entirely illegitimate, as the UN General Assembly affirmed.



Hardly. Kosovo was formed or 'established' in 1990-1992 when it declared itself a sovereign and independent state in September 1992, following Milosovic's ruthless intimidation and cultural oppression of the ethnic Albanian populationand his deliberate restriction of Kosovo's special autonomous status within Serbia. 113 UN member states (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_Kosovo) recognise Kosovo, and only cynical Russian opposition prevented NATO's peacekeeping operation being able to gain the formal backing of a UNSC resolution.

The UN Security Council passed UN Security Council Resolution 1244 on 10 June 1999, placing Kosovo under transitional UN administration (UNMIK) with autonomy within the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.



International negotiations began in 2006 to determine the final status of Kosovo, but Russia frustrated attempts to agree a draft resolution calling for 'supervised independence' for the province.



A declaration of independence by Kosovar Albanian leaders followed the end of the Serbian presidential elections in February 2008.

Serbia and its ally Russia may not recognize this, but the bulk of the civilized world does, and it’s entirely in keeping with democratic principles and self-determination. The International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion held that Kosovo's declaration of independence was not in violation either of international law, which do not prohibit unilateral declarations of independence.



Google is your friend, Van.



The assasination of Litvinenko using Polonium and the attempted assassination of the Skripals by Novichok has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Russia's attempts to deny and obfuscate are disgraceful, and you should be ashamed of yourself for repeating this nonsense. The evidence on MH-17 is also pretty clear, if you take off your blinkers.



That totalitarian China represents a growing threat to its neighbours, and to international order.

Hell of a history lesson.
But. What has all this got to do with F35.
Are you suggesting that it is going to change the world.

[Lonewolf_50]

Level playing fields are
for idiots.
Military professionals of all kinds understand this. Prepare the battlefield for your advantage.
One enters into a war with the intent of winning, not with the intent of "finding out who wins." Is isn't sport. It's intramural homicide.

[SASless]

NATO......over aggressive?

Now by golly that is a new one!

[LowObservable]

Picking up on an earlier comment... Shanahan has recused himself from issues involving Boeing as DepSecDef. However, that means that as acting SecDef, he's hands-off with the single biggest procurement program by far, and he has his opinions about that...

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/09/defense-patrick-shanahan-boeing-pentagon-1064203

That leaves the authority with USD (AT&L) Ellen Lord, but the problem is that she has to contend with the service chiefs.

I must say that I find it amusing that the usually voluble F-35 fankiddy community is silent about the SecDef's reported remarks....

[ORAC]

Singapore has selected the F-35 to replace its F-16s, at least in a trial basis.......

https://www.defensenews.com/global/asia-pacific/2019/01/18/singapore-wants-the-f-35-to-replace-its-f-16s/

MELBOURNE, Australia — The Lockheed-Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter appears to have secured another export success, with Singapore announcing that it has identified the type “as the most suitable replacement” for the Republic of Singapore Air Force’s fleet of F-16s.

In an announcement on Friday, Singapore’s defense ministry said that it made the decision following the completion of a technical evaluation conducted together with the Southeast Asian island nation’s Defence Science and Technology Agency. It added that “the technical evaluation also concluded that the RSAF should first purchase a small number of F-35 JSFs for a full evaluation of their capabilities and suitability before deciding on a full fleet.”

According to the ministry, Singapore will next discuss details with relevant parties in the United States before confirming its decision to acquire the F-35. Singapore’s defense minister Ng Eng Hen added that this process is expected to take “nine to 12 months.” The deal would almost certainly be through the United States Foreign Military Sales program.

Ng had previously said that the F-16s will start to be retired around 2030, although neither he nor the ministry’s announcement indicated how many F-35s will initially be acquired. Also not revealed was the variants that Singapore would buy. A ministry spokesperson declined to provide further details when asked by Defense News.........

[Asturias56]

Makes sense - they have to have to go for a Qualitative rather than a quantitative advantage, they can't man a vast fleet and they have both the money and the technical skills to operate and maintain advanced aircraft

[Bing]

Makes sense - they have to have to go for a Qualitative rather than a quantitative advantage, they can't man a vast fleet and they have both the money and the technical skills to operate and maintain advanced aircraft

They seem to try for both! Certainly when compared to their nearest neighbours, Singapore has 40 F-15s and 60 F-16s compared to Malaysia's 18 Su-30s and 8 F/A-18s or Indonesia's 16 Flankers and 25 F-16s.

[Asturias56]

I guess when you have larger armies on either side you go for air power- 300,000 in the Indonesian Army - tho that is a VERY variable quality organisation

The Singapore Navy could probably take on anyone locally as well

But probably they just need someone to flick a switch in an office off Orchard Road and switch off electricity and fry every computer outside Singapore for a couple of thousand kms - they study the Israeli's carefully and I'm sure have similar IT skills.......................

[Bing]

That wouldn't surprise me in the slightest! Working there last century they seemed to have studied all the mistakes from 1942 and didn't plan on repeating them.

[Lyneham Lad]

In Flight Global (https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/opinion-can-f-35-hit-programme-targets-in-2019-455120/):-


As years go, 2018 was about as good as it gets when casting a historical eye at the various trials and tribulations which have affected - and at times afflicted - the Lockheed Martin F-35 over the past decade or so.

First Israel, then the US Marine Corps used the fifth-generation type in anger for the first time, striking ground targets in the Middle East. Then, as the year drew to a close, Italy and the UK each declared reaching initial operational capability with the fighter. A protracted, 11-year system development and demonstration phase was at last wrapped up, and successful landing trials were also conducted aboard the Royal Navy aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth.

Potential order boosts were hinted at by existing recipients Japan and the Netherlands, and Belgium also opted to advance discussions to buy the A-model jet as a successor for its long-serving Lockheed F-16s. All good news for a programme which will stand or fall on the volume and longevity of its production run.

There were of course setbacks, including a brief suspension of deliveries to the US Air Force amid a dispute over corrosion repair costs, a first-ever crash, involving a USMC F-35B, and the heating up of a simmering spat with Turkey over Ankara's parallel procurement of the Lightning II and Russian-made surface-to-air missile systems. Still to be resolved, this issue could impact Washington's plans to deliver an eventual 100 new aircraft to its NATO ally.

Meanwhile, a record 91 deliveries were also made, from Fort Worth in Texas and national final assembly and check-out lines in Italy and Japan: an impressive rise from the 66 examples transferred in 2018 and 46 the year before. Unit prices also continued to fall, as promised.

https://www.flightglobal.com/assets/getasset.aspx?itemid=75896

US Air Force

The challenge now facing Lockheed is to repeat this achievement as output jumps by a further 40%, to at least 130 aircraft during 2019.

After eight years of production deliveries, the coming 12 months will provide the sternest test yet for Lockheed, its manufacturing partners BAE Systems and Northrop Grumman, and countless other companies throughout its sprawling supply chain for the Lightning II. Success should keep the programme on a path to delivering an $80 million F-35A from 2020, but any fresh turbulence could deter additional prospective buyers, and offer encouragement to rival producers such as Boeing, Dassault, Eurofighter and Saab.

Outside the three US services, which our data shows have a combined 264 F-35s in active use, nine other nations have now taken delivery of the type, boosting the global inventory beyond 350. While the Lightning II has at times polarised opinion and perhaps still has more than its fair share of detractors, it is rapidly growing in not only capability, but also operational relevance to the countries which have invested so heavily in it.

Lockheed's ability to keep the programme on target has never been more important.

[Lyneham Lad]

Another Flight Global article on the F-35. (https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/analysis-f-35-production-ready-to-soar-in-2019-455123/)

Brief snip from the article:-
Production of the F-35 Lightning II is on course to make its latest rate rise this year, after Lockheed Martin met its contractual target to deliver 91 of the fifth-generation fighter during 2018.

Detailing last year's delivery total, Lockheed says a combined 54 aircraft were handed over to the US Air Force, US Marine Corps and US Navy, while 21 went to partner nations. The remaining 16 were shipped to Foreign Military Sales (FMS) programme customers.

Lockheed has hailed its achievement of the 2018 delivery target as "demonstrating the F-35 enterprise's ability to ramp up to full-rate production". "Year-over-year, we have increased production, lowered costs, reduced build time, and improved quality and on-time deliveries," notes Greg Ulmer, the company's general manager of the F-35 programme.

[LowObservable]

"Year-over-year, we have increased production, lowered costs, reduced build time, and improved quality and on-time deliveries," notes Greg Ulmer, the company's general manager of the F-35 programme.

You want a cookie for that? These are all things that an LRIP process was invented to address.

[LowObservable]

Apparently, "recusal" doesn't mean you don't let your views be known....

In his first press conference since assuming the role of acting secretary of defense, Shanahan called concerns about him favoring Boeing "just noise."

"I am biased towards performance," he said. "I am biased towards giving the taxpayer their money's worth. The F-35, unequivocally I can say, has a lot of opportunity for more performance."

https://www.investors.com/news/secretary-of-defense-shanahan-boeing-bias-lockheed-f35-troops-colombia/

[ORAC]

I presume our F-35Bs will have the same airframe lives???????

https://about.bgov.com/blog/stagnant-f-35-reliability-means-fewer-available-jets-pentagon/

(Bloomberg) — Durability testing data indicates service-life of initial F-35B short-takeoff-vertical landing jets bought by Marine Corps “is well under” expected service life of 8,000 fleet hours; “may be as low as 2,100″ hours Pentagon test office says in 2018 annual report obtained by Bloomberg that’s scheduled for release this week. That means some jets expected to start hitting service life limit in 2026.

Furthermore, there’s no “improving trend in” aircraft availability to fly training or combat missions as it’s remained “flat” over the past 3 years.

Details come a day after Defense Sec. Pat Shanahan told reporters the F-35 “has a lot of opportunity for more performance.”

Interim reliability and field maintenance metrics to meeting planned 80% goal not being met, test office director Robert Behler says in new assessment as improvements “are still not translating into improved availability”.

Current fleet performance “well below” that benchmark.
Cybersecurity testing of aircraft in 2018 showed some previous vulnerabilities “still have not been remedied,”assessment says.
Amount of time needed to repair aircraft and return to flying status “has changed little” in last year; remains “higher than” rate needed to indicate progress as aircraft fleet numbers and flying hours increase, assessment says.
Computerized maintenance tool known as “ALIS” doesn’t “yet perform as intended,” as some data and functions deficiencies “have a significant effect on aircraft availability” and launching flights.
Maintenance personnel, pilots “must deal with pervasive problems with data integrity, completeness on a daily basis,” tester says.
Testing through September of Air Force model gun intended for air-to-ground attack indicates accuracy “unacceptable,” DoD tester says.

[Just This Once...]

Well on a brighter note, if any F-35B pilot ever achieves 2000hrs they can probably be given an aircraft rather than a badge.

[dragartist]

Really stupid spotter type question:
Saw a single F35 flying just north of Corby today.
Appeared to have the u/c down. Just appeared odd quite a long way from any airfield.
I guess the nearest is Wittering but this is in the other direction.
Any clues?
Apart from me going to Spec Savers! It was the younger chap I was with who noted.

[Buster15]

I presume our F-35Bs will have the same airframe lives???????

https://about.bgov.com/blog/stagnant-f-35-reliability-means-fewer-available-jets-pentagon/

(Bloomberg) — Durability testing data indicates service-life of initial F-35B short-takeoff-vertical landing jets bought by Marine Corps “is well under” expected service life of 8,000 fleet hours; “may be as low as 2,100″ hours Pentagon test office says in 2018 annual report obtained by Bloomberg that’s scheduled for release this week. That means some jets expected to start hitting service life limit in 2026.

Furthermore, there’s no “improving trend in” aircraft availability to fly training or combat missions as it’s remained “flat” over the past 3 years.

Details come a day after Defense Sec. Pat Shanahan told reporters the F-35 “has a lot of opportunity for more performance.”

Interim reliability and field maintenance metrics to meeting planned 80% goal not being met, test office director Robert Behler says in new assessment as improvements “are still not translating into improved availability”.

Current fleet performance “well below” that benchmark.
Cybersecurity testing of aircraft in 2018 showed some previous vulnerabilities “still have not been remedied,”assessment says.
Amount of time needed to repair aircraft and return to flying status “has changed little” in last year; remains “higher than” rate needed to indicate progress as aircraft fleet numbers and flying hours increase, assessment says.
Computerized maintenance tool known as “ALIS” doesn’t “yet perform as intended,” as some data and functions deficiencies “have a significant effect on aircraft availability” and launching flights.
Maintenance personnel, pilots “must deal with pervasive problems with data integrity, completeness on a daily basis,” tester says.
Testing through September of Air Force model gun intended for air-to-ground attack indicates accuracy “unacceptable,” DoD tester says.




​​​​​​Well no wonder it is selling so well.
Just remember. It is 5th Generation and it is stealthy.

[ORAC]

https://www.ft.com/content/cb0f12dc-2599-11e9-b329-c7e6ceb5ffdf

Germany opts against buying American F-35 stealth fighter

Berlin cuts options for replacing Tornado fleet down to Eurofighter or US F-18

The German defence ministry has decided not to buy the F-35 stealth fighter as a replacement for the country’s ageing Tornado fleet, and is instead looking at acquiring either more Eurofighters from Airbus or the Boeing (http://markets.ft.com/data/equities/tearsheet/summary?s=BBG000BCSST7)-made F-18.

A final decision has yet to be made, defence officials said in Berlin on Thursday evening, but the ministry has now effectively narrowed down the choice from four planes to two. Aside from the Eurofighter, the F-35 and the F-18, Germany had initially also considered the F-15 as a possible Tornado replacement. Both the F-35, made by Lockheed Martin (http://markets.ft.com/data/equities/tearsheet/summary?s=BBG000C1BW00), and the F-15, also made by Boeing, have now dropped out of the race.

The German defence ministry will now seek more precise information regarding the two remaining planes from Boeing and from Airbus, officials said.

The decision to narrow down the choice to the Eurofighter and the F-18 reflects careful political calculations (https://www.ft.com/content/34a7a78e-15cf-11e9-a581-4ff78404524e) — and the desire in Berlin to balance competing demands from two of its closest allies: the US and France. A move to replace at least part of the Tornado fleet with an American-made plane would be certain to please the US government, which has long clamoured for Germany to raise its defence spending (https://www.ft.com/content/5d79501a-f3e5-11e8-ae55-df4bf40f9d0d) and lobbied hard in favour of a US jet.

France, on the other hand, is understood to have argued strongly against a German acquisition of the F-35, which is widely seen as the most advanced of the four jets on offer and could have served German military needs for years to come. According to defence analysts, buying the older F-18 poses much less of a threat to Franco-German plans to build a super-modern next-generation “Future Combat Air System” after 2035.

It is still possible that the German defence ministry will decide to shun the F-18 and buy only the Eurofighter. That is the solution favoured by key members of parliament, especially those from the Social Democratic party, the junior partner in Angela Merkel’s coalition government. But such a move would raise immediate questions over Germany’s ability to participate in Nato’s “nuclear-sharing” arrangement, whereby US nuclear weapons are kept on European bases, ready for deployment by European planes. In the case of Germany, that task is currently performed by Tornado planes, which means any replacement needs to be technically capable as well as certified by the US to carry American nuclear warheads.

Some analysts doubt the Eurofighter could win that certification before the 85-strong Tornado fleet is phased out, a process that is expected to start in 2025. In the case of the F-18, there are no such doubts.

[chopper2004]

https://www.ft.com/content/cb0f12dc-2599-11e9-b329-c7e6ceb5ffdf

Germany opts against buying American F-35 stealth fighter

Berlin cuts options for replacing Tornado fleet down to Eurofighter or US F-18

The German defence ministry has decided not to buy the F-35 stealth fighter as a replacement for the country’s ageing Tornado fleet, and is instead looking at acquiring either more Eurofighters from Airbus or the Boeing (http://markets.ft.com/data/equities/tearsheet/summary?s=BBG000BCSST7)-made F-18.

A final decision has yet to be made, defence officials said in Berlin on Thursday evening, but the ministry has now effectively narrowed down the choice from four planes to two. Aside from the Eurofighter, the F-35 and the F-18, Germany had initially also considered the F-15 as a possible Tornado replacement. Both the F-35, made by Lockheed Martin (http://markets.ft.com/data/equities/tearsheet/summary?s=BBG000C1BW00), and the F-15, also made by Boeing, have now dropped out of the race.

The German defence ministry will now seek more precise information regarding the two remaining planes from Boeing and from Airbus, officials said.

The decision to narrow down the choice to the Eurofighter and the F-18 reflects careful political calculations (https://www.ft.com/content/34a7a78e-15cf-11e9-a581-4ff78404524e) — and the desire in Berlin to balance competing demands from two of its closest allies: the US and France. A move to replace at least part of the Tornado fleet with an American-made plane would be certain to please the US government, which has long clamoured for Germany to raise its defence spending (https://www.ft.com/content/5d79501a-f3e5-11e8-ae55-df4bf40f9d0d) and lobbied hard in favour of a US jet.

France, on the other hand, is understood to have argued strongly against a German acquisition of the F-35, which is widely seen as the most advanced of the four jets on offer and could have served German military needs for years to come. According to defence analysts, buying the older F-18 poses much less of a threat to Franco-German plans to build a super-modern next-generation “Future Combat Air System” after 2035.

It is still possible that the German defence ministry will decide to shun the F-18 and buy only the Eurofighter. That is the solution favoured by key members of parliament, especially those from the Social Democratic party, the junior partner in Angela Merkel’s coalition government. But such a move would raise immediate questions over Germany’s ability to participate in Nato’s “nuclear-sharing” arrangement, whereby US nuclear weapons are kept on European bases, ready for deployment by European planes. In the case of Germany, that task is currently performed by Tornado planes, which means any replacement needs to be technically capable as well as certified by the US to carry American nuclear warheads.

Some analysts doubt the Eurofighter could win that certification before the 85-strong Tornado fleet is phased out, a process that is expected to start in 2025. In the case of the F-18, there are no such doubts.













Did hear s rumour from buddy in USAFE , (not substantiated) either a Super Horent or Growler was doing the rounds in Germany post ILA. As in Luftwaffe crews experiencing / evaluating the -18.

Laughingly at ILA 2018 there wasn’t F/A-18E and EA-18G on static (my photo below).


https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1504/7bae56c2_793a_4147_8199_7ada12a54e84_a631424b70c35fc270da9aa e259ffb5f9ec40785.jpeg

also think Boeing pitching the F-15E as well for the Luftwaffe ?

At ILA we discussed NATO nuclear commitment et al especially with Belgium 🇧🇪 et voila soon afterrwards they picked the F-35. Figured 🇩🇪 be next in line to be the bride.

Cheers

[ORAC]

https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2019/01/31/germany-officially-knocks-f-35-out-of-competition-to-replace-tornado/

Germany officially knocks F-35 out of competition to replace Tornado

COLOGNE, Germany ― Germany’s Ministry of Defence has officially ruled out the F-35 joint strike fighter (https://www.defensenews.com/industry/2018/04/26/lockheed-tries-to-steer-clear-of-german-f-35-politics/) as a choice to replace its aging Tornado fleet, Defense News has learned. An official from the ministry confirmed that the F-35 is not a finalist (https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2018/04/23/lockheed-us-air-force-mount-f-35-sales-pitch-at-berlin-air-show/) in the competition, which seeks a replacement for the 90-jet fleet. The news was first reported by German site AugenGeradeaus......

However, the decision leaves open the question of certification for nuclear weapons. The Typhoon is not certified to carry the American-made nuclear bombs that Germany, as part of its strategic posture, is supposed to be able to carry on its jets......

Before the German MoD confirmed that the F-35 was officially out of the running, Reuters (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-military-fighter/social-democrats-put-brakes-on-german-fighter-jet-replacement-idUSKCN1PP2DM)on Thursday reported that the ministry was considering splitting the buy between the Typhoon and either the F-35 or Super Hornet. Ordering both the Typhoon and an American aircraft would make it easier to continue carrying out the NATO nuclear mission, while also lending support to the European industrial base. However, it could complicate logistics, adding more expense and forcing the German air force to maintain two supply chains.

It is worth noting that despite complaints about the cost of keeping the ageing Tornados flying, keeping around a certain number of them always has been considered a painful, but not impossible, proposition among some defense experts. That is especially the case for the nuclear mission.

“There does not have to be a nuclear Tornado replacement,” Karl-Heinz Kamp, president of the Federal Academy for Security Policy, a government think tank, told Defense News last August (https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/08/17/could-us-politics-impact-germanys-next-atomic-warplane/). He noted that any German government is acutely averse to the publicity surrounding Berlin’s would-be atomic bombers. “That’s why they will keep flying the Tornados, despite the price tag and despite having asked about a Eurofighter nuclear certification in Washington,” Kamp predicted at the time......

[weemonkey]

​​​​​​Well no wonder it is selling so well.
Just remember. It is 5th Generation and it is stealthy.

Indeed! Capabilities that allow previous flight profiles/skill sets to be consigned to the dustbin of obsolescence.

[LowObservable]

The German move is not surprising. An F-35 buy would be damaging to domestic industry, with little remaining industrial participation to be had, and politically speaking the US brand is not in favor these days, even if Tariff Man has backed away from his threats for now. Nor is it a good time to promote the importance of the nuclear sharing program, as INF comes apart. A ministerial-level pronouncement removes the F-35 hot potato from the source selection process.

[cheifofdefence]

The just released Pentagon's OT&E report for 2018 suggests that the service life of F35B may be as low as 2100 hrs in addition to highlighting ongoing reliability, cyber vulnerability and ALIS issues.

[weemonkey]

Some really interesting things in there indeed, well aside from the outstanding F35 airframe life; sorry when was it meant to remain in service until again?

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/723x825/ote_8f76423457033adcaab79f46ced9f42c38d97a54.jpg

etc,etc,etc..

[golder]

The just released Pentagon's OT&E report for 2018 suggests that the service life of F35B may be as low as 2100 hrs in addition to highlighting ongoing reliability, cyber vulnerability and ALIS issues.
It might make more sense about the early production faults, repairs and modifications. When read as a whole
"Assessment - For all variants, this testing has led to discoveries requiring repairs and modifications to production designs, some as late as Lot 12 aircraft, and retrofits to fielded aircraft.

- Based on durability testing, the service life of early-production F-35B aircraft is well under the expected service life of 8,000 flight hours, and may be as low as 2,100 flight hours. Fleet F-35B aircraft are expected to start reaching their service life limit in CY26, based on design usage. The JPO will continue to use Individual Aircraft Tracking (IAT) of actual usage to help the Services project changes in timing for required repairs and modifications, and aid in Fleet Life Management.

- For the F-35C, expected service life will be determined from the durability and damage tolerance analysis following tear down."

[Lyneham Lad]

More work for Sealand. (http://aviationweek.com/defense/second-round-f-35-maintenance-work-contracted)

On Aviation Week:-

Having secured the lion’s share of the first round of contracts, British industry has also grabbed a significant proportion of work in the second, British government officials have confirmed. This will lead to the creation of additional jobs at Sealand Support Services Limited (SSSL), the joint venture established between BAE Systems (http://awin.aviationweek.com/OrganizationProfiles.aspx?orgId=25464) Northrop Grumman (http://awin.aviationweek.com/OrganizationProfiles.aspx?orgId=30826)and the Defense Electronics and Components Agency (DECA). It will carry out the component repair work at its facility in Sealand, Wales, to support European operators of the aircraft.

The MRO work is due to start at Sealand in 2021. The additional work is said to be worth around £500 million ($643.6 million).

[ORAC]

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/f-35-set-receive-deadliest-and-most-expensive-software-patch-history-44742

The F-35 is Set to Receive the Deadliest (and Most Expensive) Software Patch in History

.......”An earlier GAO cost estimate of $3.9 billion for Block 4 implementation was revealed to have quadrupled to $16 billion in hearing in March 2018: $10.8 billion for development and testing, and $5.4 billion for procurement of the upgrades. And according to an analysis (http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/feature/5/191396/cost-of-f_35-block-4-upgrade-quadruples-but-may-not-suffice.html)on Defense-Aerospace, even $16 billion is likely inadequate.

Meanwhile, though the Pentagon has begun outlaying hundreds of millions of dollars in contracts for Block 4 development, it doesn’t have the funding to pay for it all—even though foreign F-35 partners are on the hook to pay $3.7 billion in development costs, whether or not they procure Block 4.

The programs costs several times exceed the threshold for designation as a “Major Defense Acquisition Program,” leading the Government Accountability Office recommended that Block 4 be peeled off into a separate MDAP. However, the F-35’s Joint Program Office objected, not wanting to disrupt its management of the F-35. A Congressional vote in 2017 affirmed the JPO’s position.

Block 4, which also goes by the name Continuous Capability Development and Delivery (C2D2), will take place in four six-month phases numbered 4.1 through 4.4 with some development occurring concurrently—an approach which has caused problems in the F-35. For example, many software upgrades are predicated on hardware that is itself still under development, meaning integration difficulties are likely to impose delays.........”

[weemonkey]

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/f-35-set-receive-deadliest-and-most-expensive-software-patch-history-44742

The F-35 is Set to Receive the Deadliest (and Most Expensive) Software Patch in History

.......”An earlier GAO cost estimate of $3.9 billion for Block 4 implementation was revealed to have quadrupled to $16 billion in hearing in March 2018: $10.8 billion for development and testing, and $5.4 billion for procurement of the upgrades. And according to an analysis (http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/feature/5/191396/cost-of-f_35-block-4-upgrade-quadruples-but-may-not-suffice.html)on Defense-Aerospace, even $16 billion is likely inadequate.

Meanwhile, though the Pentagon has begun outlaying hundreds of millions of dollars in contracts for Block 4 development, it doesn’t have the funding to pay for it all—even though foreign F-35 partners are on the hook to pay $3.7 billion in development costs, whether or not they procure Block 4.

The programs costs several times exceed the threshold for designation as a “Major Defense Acquisition Program,” leading the Government Accountability Office recommended that Block 4 be peeled off into a separate MDAP. However, the F-35’s Joint Program Office objected, not wanting to disrupt its management of the F-35. A Congressional vote in 2017 affirmed the JPO’s position.

Block 4, which also goes by the name Continuous Capability Development and Delivery (C2D2), will take place in four six-month phases numbered 4.1 through 4.4 with some development occurring concurrently—an approach which has caused problems in the F-35. For example, many software upgrades are predicated on hardware that is itself still under development, meaning integration difficulties are likely to impose delays.........”



I find it difficult to comprehend the logic for "spending money" on software for hardware that hasn't been tested or certified and in some cases apparently doesn't even exist.

How mental is that.

[golder]

The upgrade plan was software every 2 years and hardware every 4, through the life of the F-35.
When the development price rose, the MOU had fixed investment from the partners and wasn't of a great concern, as the US stood the increase.. The software cost upgrades are another story and as far as I remember and unless it has been changed. The MOU has the software cost, divided by the number of tails you have. This rise affects all the partners equally as much per tail, as the US

[Just This Once...]

My recollections may be out of date, but in addition to golder's post above, the software upgrades were per-tail even if you didn't want or need the change and even encompassed software 'features' that you may really really want but are 'locked-out' from using if you are a non-US customer.

There was a solid foundation for this plan as it reduces whole-life costs by keeping a common standard. We (the UK) have had a nasty habit of skipping block upgrades and painting ourselves into an expensive corner or dead-end somewhere down the line. Programs with a more locked-in cycle (eg C-17) have delivered more capability at less long-term cost.

It is a bit galling to have to pay for something you are prevented from using and irritating to the extreme when capabilities you were expecting at ISD are kicked down the road and become something you have to pay for again as an 'upgrade'. Nobody had a better idea though.

Block 4 will be the first real peek at the shape of things to come. When you look at the money required for later blocks you could be in the situation where a cash-strapped minor F-35A user just cannot absorb the cost bulge and trades aircraft for a smaller bill. For countries that split their orders with a minor buy first and a well-meaning intent to purchase more F-35s later can find that a major depth servicing bill + block airframe changes + major software block update that also necessitates a weapons update / weapons buy, can make one heck of a bow-wave.

Anyone who questions the development and production costs of this aircraft is either naive or easily distracted by the cost growth. In the scheme of this program these genuinely jaw-dropping costs are dwarfed by the schizophrenic elephant in the room clutching the F-35 through-life costs with his manipulative long nose.

European tactical air is under serious threat without a shot being fired.

[golder]

Yes, it's per tail whether you want the group upgrade or not. In general terms the partners get together and decide on upgrades through the JPO. I don't know how much the FMS have to say. I would think the US has the last word.
This is separate to the self funding of the integration of a weapon system etc. That the payer has control of sales and costs. An example being the Meteor or ASRAAM or the Israeli plug n play EW

I'm going to need a link to the partners paying for software they are locked out of. I think that may fall under the old 'kill switch' and degraded stealth myths.

I'm pretty sure the foibles of the US procurement system was known to everyone, before they signed up. It would also include the recent and future FMS buyers. This isn't the first rodeo with the US system.

[LowObservable]

JTO is right.

Block 4/C2D2 is going to be entertaining as the international customer governments (whose F-35 project offices have been singing them the company song for years) turn over the MAKE GENERAL REPAIRS ON ALL YOUR HOUSES card, and find out that they have to pay for not only the new processors, but the new EO-DAS, the new EOTS, new CNI, the new... whatever. Because eventually the S/W that rides on the TR3 will expect to see that new H/W. Not to mention the updates to the US-domiciled, US-controlled reprogramming labs that they've paid for.

By the way, this is not a bug but a feature.

[golder]

AFAIK, it is a per tail cost and is right. The block 4 JPO software/hardware is available to all users. What is in question is the "the partners paying for software they are locked out of". It needs to be confirmed from a reliable source, or it's just a myth.

Reprogramming labs are individually determined by the user for their area of operations, for what is needed and done at that nations cost. UK, AU and CA have a joint funded lab programme.
http://www.australiandefence.com.au/defence/air/the-forecast-is-for-lightning
In the US a software reprogramming laboratory is also under construction, which will support JSF aircraft from Australia, Canada (should Canada eventually purchase the F-35) and the UK. Known as the ACURL (Australia, Canada, UK Reprogramming Laboratory), the facility is adjacent to a similar USRL (for the US Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps) and NIRL (for Norway and Italy). A further reprogramming laboratory will support the remaining partner nations and FMS customers at NAS Point Mugu in California.

“We have Australians operating at Eglin right now, albeit in temporary facilities, learning how the various reprogramming tools work and at Lockheed Martin in Fort Worth, they are building the tools that will be installed in our laboratory next year,” AVM Gordon explained.

Defence has recently signed contracts with SRC Australia to produce data sets for operational missions for the F-35 and to help deliver the Ghosthawk mission support system, which will be used to produce trusted mission data sets.

“Ghosthawk is a tool that will allow Air Force and the ADF to manage its intelligence mission data, and support the generation of the mission data files that each of the platforms will need to operate,” AVM Gordon added. “In particular, it will allow us to feed mission data to the ACURL.”

Read more at http://www.australiandefence.com.au/defence/air/the-forecast-is-for-lightning#rK12mtBOHrzQBxB3.99

[Just This Once...]

Golder, I don't play the 'provide me a link to prove it' game as you are free to ignore or disregard what I have written. I don't mind as you don't know me; those on the forum who do will have already judged my experience, background and integrity.

If you are genuinely interested as to how this situation has come to pass and why F-35 is not unique in this regard you could read the US export laws on 'significant military equipment' that exist to ensure the US will retain their technological advantage. Where the US has a desire to export 'significant military equipment' to other nations and Congress consents then it has to put in place mitigation systems (eg interposer), locked-down LRUs and/or encrypted databuses and physical inspections of exported equipment and US-directed security arrangements.

No fairies will die if you don't believe me.

[weemonkey]

"No fairies will die if you don't believe me"

No, but AV's will be suiciding when posted to Zeeland! :}

[golder]

It's okay, I'll take it as your opinion, I thought you had it as a fact. I'm sure the partners would air their displeasure, if it was the case.

It seems that you are using one thing to suggest another. The US exported at the time, superior F-15 to Singapore and also have exported superior F-16s. It doesn't nullify your US quotes. The US does maintain its power advantage and you are right that no faires died

[ORAC]

https://www.pprune.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=10394432

Trump signs bill blocking transfer of F-35 fighter jets to Turkey

U.S. President Donald Trump on Friday signed a spending bill that blocks the transfer of the country's F-35 new generation fighter jets to Turkey.

According to spending bill (https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hjres31/BILLS-116hjres31enr.pdf)signed by Trump on Friday, delivery of the jets to Turkey will be blocked until the U.S. Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense submit an update to the report regarding the purchase of Turkey of the S–400 missile defense system from the Russian Federation.

In earlier report to the Congress in late November, Pentagon said (https://fas.org/man/eprint/dod-turkey.pdf)Turkey’s purchase of the Russian S-400 missile systems could result in Ankara’s potential expulsion from the F-35 program, as well as affecting its acquisition of other weapons including Boeing Co.'s CH-47F Chinook helicopter and Lockheed’s F-16 fighter and UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters.

On Monday, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan confirmed the purchase and stated that there was no turning back from receiving the S-400 air defense systems from Russia in 2019........

[Asturias56]

Now is that wise? Gives Mr Putin a big opening ..........................

[Harley Quinn]

And wasn't Turkey going to be a maintenance hub?

[weemonkey]

Now is that wise? Gives Mr Putin a big opening ..........................

In that case it gives the EU an even bigger headache. :)

[Asturias56]

I don't think Defence is an Eu priority

For NATO and the USA a less than enthusiastic Turkey is a serious problem - effectively they can relax transit conditions through to/from the Black Sea, it opens up the whole eastern flank of Greece, Bulgaria and Romania and worst of all it makes for a less friendly country into the Mid-East mix

And remember Turkey is a BIG player - same population as Iran and almost certainly a lot more effective military

[ORAC]

Turkey was allowed to resume control of the Bosporus in 1936 under the terms of the Montreux Convention. They cannot vary or waive the current conditions except under prescribed conditions.

They could, of course, abrogate the Convention. But, then again, any one can breach an international treaty, and accepted the consequences.

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

[Lonewolf_50]

And wasn't Turkey going to be a maintenance hub? For whom? About the last place I'd go when I heard "we'll do our maintenance here" if all of my NATO allies are an option is .. Turkey. Who came up with this brilliant plan? (Granted, my experience is more than a decade old, so perhaps some things have changed culturally).

[Rhino power]

And wasn't Turkey going to be a maintenance hub?[QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Lonewolf_50;10396943]For whom?

I believe Turkey was planned to have been the Engine overhaul hub for European F-35 operators? Someone will no doubt be along shortly with the definitive answer...

-RP

[ORAC]

Plus Norway, plus the Netherlands....

Establishment of Engine Depot for F-35 (http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/189635/norway-to-establish-mro-depot-for-f_35-engines.html)

[Bigpants]

If the F35 Flying Pig is so great why have the USAAF just requested money to buy advance F15s?

Has the UK/MOD has been sold a ludicrously expensive herd of pigs which further needs two white elephants from which to launch them?

The Military Industrial Complex is our worst enemy not Russia or China. The latter have found ways of projecting power via the belt and road initiative which make Carrier Groups and F35s look irrelevant.

[hoodie]

I can't see why the Belt and Road initiative makes carrier groups irrelevant. The world will still have shipping and political geography.

No doubt the Chinese feel the same, given their recent development of carrier groups.

The USAAF hasn't existed since 1947.

[Lyneham Lad]

Another box ticked. From Flight Global (https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-navy-declares-ioc-for-lockheed-martin-f-35c-456223/?cmpid=NLC%7CFGFG%7CFGFDN-2019-0306-GLOBnews&sfid=70120000000taAm):-

The US Navy declared the Lockheed Martin F-35C Lightning II, the aircraft carrier-capable variant of the stealth fighter, to have achieved Initial Operational Capability (IOC) on 28 February.

The declaration comes shortly after the USN’s first F-35C squadron, Strike Fighter Squadron 147, completed aircraft carrier qualifications aboard USS Carl Vinson and received a Safe-For-Flight Operations Certification, the service said. The US Air Force declared IOC for its conventional-takeoff and landing F-35A in 2016 and the US Marine Corps’ short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing F-35B was declared IOC in 2015 – meaning all US variants are now operational.

[Mil-26Man]

If the F35 Flying Pig is so great why have the USAAF just requested money to buy advance F15s?

I don't think the USAF has requested the F-15X at all, I think it is being requested for them by lawmakers who may or may not represent areas such as St Louis (no connection, of course).

Has the UK/MOD has been sold a ludicrously expensive herd of pigs which further needs two white elephants from which to launch them?

Cause and effect - the F-35 doesn't need the two carriers to launch them, the two carriers need the F-35 to be launched from them. If we want fixed-wing carrier aviation and don't have the resources or inclination for conventional 'cat and traps', then the F-35B is the only game in town whether you like it or not.

[ORAC]

F-15X request was added by the Office of the Secretary of Defence ((OSD).

[KenV]

If the F35 Flying Pig is so great why have the USAAF just requested money to buy advance F15s?At least partially for the same reason USN continues to buy Super Hornets. It provides a capability not matched by the F-35 and working together, they provide a greater capability than either alone. The F-35 is optimized for the air-to-ground role. The F-15 for the air-to-air role. The F-35 and F-15X both have long range passive air-to-air sensors. But the F-35 can only carry AMRAAM internally. Longer range weapons need to be carried externally, compromising stealth. So for the long range air-to-air mission the F-35 is no more stealthy than the F-15X. But the F-15X can carry far more long range missiles than F-35. F-15X is also based on the F-15E platform, which has two seats. There are advantages to having a second guy in the jet for some of these complex long range air to air missions. Plus, they are (allegedly) cheaper. Indeed Boeing has stated they will sign a firm fixed price contract for F-15X with a unit price well below the lowest unit price predicted/promised for F-35. With nearly 50 years experience building the F-15, Boeing has figured out how to get a lot of cost out of the process.

[t43562]

https://www.mro-network.com/maintenance-repair-overhaul/hangars-future-will-have-much-different-needs?NL=AW-05&Issue=AW-05_20190308_AW-05_628&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_4&utm_rid=CPEN1000001204273&utm_campaign=18688&utm_medium=email&elq2=fb3853e2f2fe4f2c9b56298bcc40bc30



A few quotes from the article:

Rather than the 400-Hz AC electrical ground power used by generations of aircraft, the F-35 uses 270-volt DC power. Its systems, including its electrically powered flight controls, require more power than previous fighters.“The F-35 is a very smart aircraft,” says Bryan Bullerdick, CEO of North Carolina-based design and equipment supplier B GSE Group, which has worked on most of the extant F-35 hangars. He explains that if the power provided to the F-35 is not the perfect voltage, amperage or harmonics, the aircraft will not turn on when the ground crew needs to perform functional checks. Centralized electric power systems with long, sensitive supply cables do not work. Not only is such cabling a vulnerable obstacle, the DC current it provides degrades over distances.

Accordingly, in each F-35 hangar work is done above service pits—under-floor spaces from which electric power, cooling and other services are provided at the aircraft, obviating the need to run cables from remote inverters/converters.


...and...

Cooling is another issue. The F-35’s multiple electronic systems generate significant heat. During maintenance, the fighter requires preconditioned air (PCA) cooling at just the right temperature. The air must be very dry at a higher pressure than standard commercial PCA. Sending cool air from specialized high-pressure air conditioners through an underground trunk line which is ducted off to individual service pits is one way to ensure proper cooling.


I am ignorant but it doesn't sound very expeditionary.

[weemonkey]

https://www.mro-network.com/maintenance-repair-overhaul/hangars-future-will-have-much-different-needs?NL=AW-05&Issue=AW-05_20190308_AW-05_628&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_4&utm_rid=CPEN1000001204273&utm_campaign=18688&utm_medium=email&elq2=fb3853e2f2fe4f2c9b56298bcc40bc30



A few quotes from the article:



...and...



I am ignorant but it doesn't sound very expeditionary.

I do believe that all the fuel trucks have been modified now though...:ok:

[ORAC]

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/03/08/key-piece-of-f-35-logistics-system-unusable-by-us-air-force-students-instructor-pilots/

Key piece of F-35 logistics system unusable by US Air Force students, instructor pilots

[pr00ne]

Government sourced software not working properly shock!

[drustsonoferp]

Government sourced software not working properly shock!
Government sourced? I thought ALIS camp from Lockheed, and was mostly COTS Maintenix, with some degree of change from Lockheed and no longer maintained nor supported by the OEM.

[Lyneham Lad]

From an article on Flight Global (https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/japanese-f-35s-get-powerful-anti-ship-capability-456580/):-

Kongsberg has entered into a deal with Tokyo to supply its Joint Strike Missile (JSM) for use by the Japan Air Self-Defense Force (JASDF).

The Norwegian company disclosed the deal in a statement, but said that neither it nor the Japanese government are disclosing the number of weapons or the value of the contract. The timing of deliveries was also not discussed.

“The international [Lockheed Martin] F-35 user consortium is showing great interest in the JSM and Kongsberg is very proud to have been selected by Japan to provide the JSM for their F-35 fleet,” says Eirik Lie, President, Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace.

“This is a major milestone for the JSM program, entering into the production phase.”

The F-35 can carry two JSMs internally. At the Japan Aerospace show in 2016, the company told FlightGlobal that the weapon can also be adapted to serve aboard the Kawasaki P-1 maritime patrol/anti-submarine warfare aircraft.

[ORAC]

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/03/15/dod-inspector-general-slams-f-35-program-office-for-allowing-lockheed-to-manage-government-property/

DoD inspector general slams F-35 program office for allowing Lockheed to manage government property

WASHINGTON — The F-35 Joint Program Office (https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2019/03/05/top-us-general-in-europe-dont-give-turkey-f-35-if-they-buy-russian-system/) has not adequately tracked government property leant or leased to Lockheed Martin and its subcontractors (https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/02/27/how-the-us-air-forces-kessel-run-team-plans-to-solve-one-of-the-f-35-programs-biggest-headaches/), an oversight that a new investigation by the Defense Department’s inspector general said could impact readiness. (https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/air-warfare-symposium/2019/02/27/congressional-supporters-stand-ready-to-protect-f-35-from-f-15x-budget-threats/)

Building the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter requires the use of government property such as materiel, special tooling like molds used to form the jet’s structure and unique test equipment (https://www.defensenews.com/2018/12/07/after-a-couple-months-delay-the-f-35-moves-into-operational-tests/). Over the lifespan of the program, the F-35 JPO has not followed the mandated procedures used to manage government-furnished property, or GFP, and instead depended on Lockheed and its subcontractors (https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/farnborough/2018/07/10/4-ways-lockheeds-new-f-35-head-wants-to-fix-the-fighter-jet-program/) to keep track of such equipment, stated a DoD IG report released Friday.

“As a result, the DoD does not know the actual value of the F‑35 property and does not have an independent record to verify the contractor‑valued government property of $2.1 billion for the F‑35 program,” the report said. “Without accurate records, the F‑35 Program officials have no visibility over the property and have no metrics to hold the prime contractor accountable for how it manages government property.

“The lack of asset visibility restricts the DoD’s ability to conduct the necessary checks and balances that ensure the prime contractor is managing and spending F‑35 Program funds in the government’s best interest and could impact the DoD’s ability to meet its operational readiness goals for the F‑35 aircraft.”..........

[FODPlod]

DoD inspector general slams F-35 program office for allowing Lockheed to manage government property

WASHINGTON — The F-35 Joint Program Office (https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2019/03/05/top-us-general-in-europe-dont-give-turkey-f-35-if-they-buy-russian-system/) has not adequately tracked government property leant or leased to Lockheed Martin and its subcontractors (https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/02/27/how-the-us-air-forces-kessel-run-team-plans-to-solve-one-of-the-f-35-programs-biggest-headaches/), an oversight that a new investigation by the Defense Department’s inspector general said could impact readiness. (https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/air-warfare-symposium/2019/02/27/congressional-supporters-stand-ready-to-protect-f-35-from-f-15x-budget-threats/)..Good job nothing like that could ever happen in the UK:

Ministry of Defence loses 5,000 high tech radios worth £184 million (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/8617234/Ministry-of-Defence-loses-5000-high-tech-radios-worth-184-million.html)
The Ministry of Defence cannot account for more than £6 billion of taxpayer-funded spending and its accounts are so chaotic they cannot be signed off by auditors, a report by MPs warns today...

[ORAC]

https://twitter.com/acapaccio/status/1107695447244791808?s=21

[Lonewolf_50]

ORAC, while that is of interest (to me anyway) those numbers (in terms of actuals rather than forecast) will likely change every year.

[typerated]

I wonder if someone is looking round Salmesbury and Warton to see if they still have EE Lightning Jigs?

Just needs an AESA radar and wiring for Meteor :)

[pr00ne]

typerated,

And a new airframe and engines...

[typerated]

typerated,

And a new airframe and engines...


Dont spoil it :)

[golder]

If only the AF actually wanted the F-15EX. Instead of it being pushed by the appointed Boeing guy.