View Full Version : F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/why-f-35-isnt-ready-war-48312
Why the F-35 Isn't Ready for War
.........The most important measure of an aircraft’s readiness for combat is the “fully mission capable” rate. This is the percentage of aircraft on hand that have fully functional, non-degraded vehicle systems (flight controls and engine), electronic mission systems (radar, electronic warfare systems, computers, etc.), and weapons employment capabilities—a particularly important measure for the F-35. The 2017 DOT&E report showed a 26 percent fully mission capable rate (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4377227-FY2017-DOT-amp-E-F35-Report.html#document/p18/a424928)across the entire F-35 fleet. Because the 2018 report makes no mention of this rate, it is impossible to know what the 2018 rate was.
The Navy document POGO obtained shows that the problem persists (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5766283-NAVAIR-Readiness-Charts-2016-2018.html): the Marines’ F-35B and the Navy’s F-35C variants posted even worse figures in 2018 than in the previous year. The F-35B’s fully mission capable rate fell from 23 percent in October 2017 to 12.9 percent in June 2018, while the F-35C plummeted from 12 percent in October 2016 to 0 percent in December 2017, then remained in the single digits through 2018.........
https://twitter.com/thedewline/status/1110579377086103552?s=21
golder
27th Mar 2019, 10:08
So nearly half the price of the F-16 too, at $26,000, the f-35 is $29,000 SAR..what a bargain the f-15x is at $14,500 :ok:
It just goes to show how cheap a paper plane is to fly. It might go up once they actually build it.
From the twitter link, 5th poster down,
Just This Once...
27th Mar 2019, 16:27
The link that compares the actual cost of running the USAF ageing F-16C/D fleet (and everything associated with it), whilst being thrashed on ops, against a 2012 prediction provided by LM for an unknown point in the future that excludes a brace of F-35 associated costs?
LM's latest prediction is equally slippery but the hapless optimism has been replaced by a vague prediction that it will take another 15 to 20 years to get the CPFH under control:
Lockheed expects F-35 flying costs will take time to come down - exec - Latest News (http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/lockheed-expects-f-35-flying-costs-will-take-time-to-come-down-exec-141511)
The latest F-15 is not a paper plane - it is in production and operational use, just not with the USAF.
RAFEngO74to09
28th Mar 2019, 01:43
2019 F-35A Demo Team practice at Luke AFB, AZ - nice !
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WOOmbMFA5A
golder
28th Mar 2019, 05:37
Cost is a U shape, costly at the beginning and the end. I noticed they aren't using a fly away cost per plane, it will be dearer than the current F-35A.
Did you read your link?
SAR has the cost per hour for the F-35A at $29k, Your link has an average across customers and models of $35k and $6k dearer than the SAR F-35A. With heading to an average $25k by 2025.
The f-15EX, still a paper plane and will be different to what is currently being built and fitted. I haven't seen that they have even locked in the specs or a fixed cost yet?
Adding the numbers you provided, Do you think they can get F-15EX flying for 50% less and between 14,5-17.5k per hour? Less than a FA-18ef. It really is a big ask.
"Lockheed (http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/search/Lockheed) Martin (http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/search/Martin) Vice President and General Manager F-35 (http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/search/F-35) Program Greg Ulmer said there was an effort to lower the cost (http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/search/cost) per flight hour to $25,000 by 2025 but further savings would take longer.
"Today it is different customer by customer but I think $35,000 per flying hour is a good number," he told Reuters in an interview at the Australian International Airshow.
"If we project that out based on the initiatives we have in place, we believe as we move out to the 2035-2040 timeframe we can get that cost (http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/search/cost) down to under what a fourth gen is today," in the range of $20,000-25,000 per flight hour.
Initiatives involved in lowering the cost (http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/search/cost) to $25,000 an hour include reducing the number of mechanics needed to support each plane, Ulmer said."
ricardian
29th Mar 2019, 11:17
F-35 software is vulnerable! (https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/03/28/f35_software_fail)
GlobalNav
29th Mar 2019, 15:07
I’m sure a whole cabal, somewhere in the Pentagon, has convinced themselves and others that we should invest in 60’s and 70’s technology, with later bandaids added, for mid-21st century AirPower. It worked for the B-52 and the C-135. So we get a very expensive, old but updated two seat fighter (a great airplane in its day), and then put only one crew member in it. WTF? Has Trump infected the Pentagon? Oh yeah, acting SecDef has a background in military air or...?
We paid a boatload to design and field a 5th gen stealth fighter with revolutionary capabilities, the marginal costs of which only drop with each new tail. So we prefer to spend another boatload on another airplane. Of course, Boeing needs the business, shares are dropping. And I just finished paying taxes, so I feel like ranting.
So we get a very expensive, old but updated two seat fighter (a great airplane in its day), and then put only one crew member in it. WTF? Hmmm. The F-15 was and remains a single-seat fighter.
The F-15E is a two seat bomber because of the increased workload, but modern weapon systems make a single seat multi-role version, as with the F-18E, more than practicable.
Umm, the latest version of the F-15 is based on the E model, which is a two seater and can perform both air-to-air and air-to-ground missions. USAF only wants to do air-to-air with theirs and so the second crewman is not needed. But taking the second seat out would add cost. So they're doing the smart thing and putting one pilot in a two seat airplane. And about that "old" technology patched together with "band aids"? It's at least as good as and in many ways better than any other non-stealth tactical jet out there. And for the specific intended role (long range missileer) it's significantly better than either stealth fighter. And about it being "expensive"? Not only is it cheaper to buy, but much more importantly it's way cheaper to operate than either stealth fighter. As for Boeing "needing" the business? Boeing is doing VERY well thank you selling airliners, Super Hornets, military trainer jets, aerial tankers, AWACS aircraft, Maritime patrol aircraft, a big drone, heavy lift helos, the world's premier attack helicopter (incidentally the same vintage as the F-15), JDAMS, missiles and other ordnance, satellites, etc, etc. And that does not even include their global aerospace support business which is also going gang busters. So no, this is in no way some kind of "bail out" of Boeing as you attempted to imply.
The f-15EX, still a paper plane and will be different to what is currently being built and fitted. I haven't seen that they have even locked in the specs or a fixed cost yet?Umm, no. The F-15EX will be largely based on the F-15SA, which has fly by wire, a new cockpit, a lighter yet stronger wing with two additional hardpoints, new computers, and lots lots more. The biggest difference will be putting in USAF spec datalinks and comms, and qualifying for new long range air-to-air missiles. So its costs are sufficiently well known that Boeing has offered a firm fixed price contract with a price well below what the F-35 is promised to cost after the next full rate production program. And since its flying now its flight hour costs are also known and are well below the F-35's flight hour costs.
So its costs are sufficiently well known that Boeing has offered a firm fixed price contract with a price well below what the F-35 is promised to cost after the next full rate production program. And since its flying now its flight hour costs are also known and are well below the F-35's flight hour costs.
Oh, so like the KC-46 then, bound to go swimmingly, no warning signs at all.
golder
30th Mar 2019, 02:59
Umm, no. The F-15EX will be largely based on the F-15SA, which has fly by wire, a new cockpit, a lighter yet stronger wing with two additional hardpoints, new computers, and lots lots more. The biggest difference will be putting in USAF spec datalinks and comms, and qualifying for new long range air-to-air missiles. So its costs are sufficiently well known that Boeing has offered a firm fixed price contract with a price well below what the F-35 is promised to cost after the next full rate production program. And since its flying now its flight hour costs are also known and are well below the F-35's flight hour costs.
I have nothing against Boeing being put on a life support drip and honing their skills in the fast jet market. I also think Boeing should have got a large chunk of the F-35. It's not healthy for LM to be top dog elephant.
Looking at the price of the fa-18 and the cost difference to the f-15. I doubt they will get it below the f-35. Even taking into account that the fa-18ef and f-15 are at an end of run, where a lot of non recurring costs have mostly been met. The FA-18EF with pods, is bumping at the F-35 cost now and I really doubt they can build a mission ready F-15EX for less than the FA-18EF. The numbers aren't adding up. Then add in that they are saying less than 50% of the CPFH of the F-35 and that comes in at around $13-15k and well below the FA-18EF. That is a big ask.
There was talk at the time of the F-15SA being speced to satisfy Israel. I think the SA is a shell that the US will need to build upon. There are going to be significant development costs. I haven't seen that they have locked in the specs. A fixed price already? They may take an initial loss, as they did on the tankers. Do you know what the cost is fixed at? I couldn't google it, other than it's less than the F-35 and therefore less than the mission ready FA-18EF.
FODPlod
30th Mar 2019, 08:55
Latest activity in Far East on Twitter:
Japan has stood up its first operational F-35 Joint Strike Fighter squadron.
Photos of first 2 F-35 stealth fighters for ROK Air Force
Asturias56
30th Mar 2019, 12:36
well it actually works - and it's cheaper than the F-35 which hasn't really been in serious combat ......
Nothing wrong with old technology - I'd guess an F-15 can still run rings around anything Russia or China have
AS for the military -industrial complex many argue the whole F-35 circus is just to keep LMA in business and has little to do with any real threat
Fleet to now be at least 144.....
AW&ST: http://aviationweek.com/defense/usaf-plans-fly-new-f-15-empty-back-seat
USAF Plans To Fly New F-15 With Empty Back Seat
Boeing (http://awin.aviationweek.com/OrganizationProfiles.aspx?orgId=12083)’s two-seat F-15EX (http://awin.aviationweek.com/ProgramProfileDetails.aspx?pgId=1098&pgName=Boeing+F-15) aircraft will be flown with an empty back seat by squadrons now flying single-seat F-15Cs, the U.S. Air Force confirms to Aerospace Daily. Although derived from an international version of the two-seat F-15E, the Air Force plans to acquire at least 144 F-15EX aircraft, including 80 over the next five years, to replace an aging fleet of mainly single-seat F-15Cs.
Boeing designed the F-15EX to operate in both the air superiority role of the single-seat F-15C and the fighter-bomber role of the F-15E. The latter includes a back-seat station for a weapon systems officer to manage the munitions and sensors for land attack while the pilot in the front seat concentrates on flying and air-to-air engagements. The F-15EX comes with two functional cockpits, but the pilot can manage air-to-air and air-to-ground missions alone in the front seat, the Air Force says. F-15EX aircraft delivered to squadrons now flying single-seat F-15Cs will not be staffed with an expanded cadre of weapon system officers, which would leave the back seat of the two-seater empty.
“Fighter squadrons that receive the F-15EX are projected to retain their current mission and crew composition,” an Air Force spokeswoman says in response to questions by Aerospace Daily. Although the role of former F-15C pilots flying F-15EXs would expand under the current plan, the Air Force does not expect an increase in training costs during or after the transition. “There should be no need to expand aircrew training requirements,” the spokeswoman says.
Boeing offered the Air Force a single-seat version of the F-15X for the F-15C replacement, which was designated as the F-15CX concept. The Air Force decided to buy only the two-seat F-15EX, which minimizes nonrecurring engineering costs.
The F-15EX is a straightforward derivative of the F-15QA ordered by the Qatari air force. It features a lightened wing, but still carries the same load of weapons and sensors as the F-15E. The F-15EX also includes other upgrades added since the Air Force last ordered the F-15E in 2001, including fly-by-wire flight controls, the Eagle Passive Active Warning Survivability System, the Advanced Display Core Processor II mission computer and a new cockpit with a large format display.
LowObservable
1st Apr 2019, 19:18
Looking at the price of the fa-18 and the cost difference to the f-15. I doubt they will get it below the f-35.
Why don't you look at the USAF budget docs and prove yourself wrong, rather than wasting everyone's time?
https://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/Portals/84/documents/FY20/PROCUREMENT/FY20_PB_3010_Aircraft_Vol-1.pdf?ver=2019-03-18-152821-713
The FA-18EF with pods, is bumping at the F-35 cost now
Why don't you look at the Navy budget docs and prove yourself wrong, rather than wasting everyone's time AGAIN?
https://www.secnav.navy.mil/fmc/fmb/Documents/20pres/APN_BA1-4_BOOK.pdf
pr00ne
1st Apr 2019, 23:04
RAFEngO74to09,
"2019 F-35A Demo Team practice at Luke AFB, AZ - nice !"
Nice indeed! Imagine when the B adds its Harrier style upping and downing and backwards and forwards to that, the RAF will have a rather impressive display item to show along side the Typhoon.
Thanks for posting.
Dated April 1st.....:O Nice photoshopped two seat version though........
https://theaviationist.com/2019/04/01/revealed-israels-top-secret-f-35f-jsmf/
Revealed: Israel’s Top Secret F-35F JSMF
Secret Two-Seat Variant Uses Additional Crewmember to Counter Anti-F-35 Social Media Posts.
Israel has unveiled their previously classified F-35F Nebekh Joint Social Media Fighter (JSMF). The new rear seat position in the two-seat F-35F Nebekh is occupied by the SMO or Social Media Officer. The modification is in response to threats to the F-35 in the social media space. Gen Hadir Uffani of the IDF told reporters, “The F-35’s primary threats exist in the social media space, so we have made a special variant of the Joint Strike Fighter to counter this threat in real-time.”
The SMO suite consists of integrated sensor fusion that monitors Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and Snapchat for flamers leveling criticism against the Joint Strike Fighter program. When critical social media posts from internet know-it-alls and trolls are detected, the system can respond in real-time by assigning a massive arsenal of cat memes to interdict the threat. The cat memes are stored in a special, low-observable internal hard drive in the aircraft’s stealthy weapons’ bay.
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1017x571/image_9922e8e4b158892df473b59e15ff3cfd06b35316.jpeg
SWBKCB
2nd Apr 2019, 09:38
Flight - "USA stops Lockheed Martin F-35 parts deliveries to Turkey" (http://proposed Carry Over items. These include any measures for which)
Wasn't Turkey supposed to be doing the heavy maintenance on European F-35's?
golder
2nd Apr 2019, 11:05
Looking at the price of the fa-18 and the cost difference to the f-15. I doubt they will get it below the f-35.
Why don't you look at the USAF budget docs and prove yourself wrong, rather than wasting everyone's time?
https://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/Portals/84/documents/FY20/PROCUREMENT/FY20_PB_3010_Aircraft_Vol-1.pdf?ver=2019-03-18-152821-713
The FA-18EF with pods, is bumping at the F-35 cost now
Why don't you look at the Navy budget docs and prove yourself wrong, rather than wasting everyone's time AGAIN?
https://www.secnav.navy.mil/fmc/fmb/Documents/20pres/APN_BA1-4_BOOK.pdf
If you have something specific you wish to share out of the 118 page doc. I'd be pleased.
Until then, this may help. It comes out to $83.6M per tail
"The Navy intends to spend about $9.2 billion to procure 110 Block III Super Hornets from FY19-FY23, budget documents show. "
https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/navy-league/2018/04/04/boeing-super-hornet-program-gets-second-life-through-future-sales-and-upgrades/
Lyneham Lad
2nd Apr 2019, 11:07
Flight - "USA stops Lockheed Martin F-35 parts deliveries to Turkey" (http://proposed Carry Over items. These include any measures for which)
Wasn't Turkey supposed to be doing the heavy maintenance on European F-35's?
A link to the Flight article that works... (https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usa-stops-lockheed-martin-f-35-parts-deliveries-to-t-457097/)
An article on the subject in today's The Times. (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/us-halts-f-35-jets-delivery-to-turkey-vg7lhq87m?shareToken=71175656224c2221361e84182a39b217)
ProPax
2nd Apr 2019, 12:42
Wasn't Turkey supposed to be doing the heavy maintenance on European F-35's?
They need something to maintain first. Turkey was supposed to produce quite a few parts for F-35. I'm sure there are a lot of American companies who can do that instead, but it'll take even more time and money. I don't think Pentagon want to wait longer or spend more.
And Pentagon is not the only organization that's been waiting for the F-35 for too long. UK built an entire aircraft carrier to use F-35's. Is it possible to requip it somehow for a different type?
That's a real disaster for the project. And considering the latest Markel speeches in Germany, it may be a huge disaster for the NATO, too. Not that anyone still needs it, but it's also true that nobody wants to be the one dismantling it.
Erdogan, however, is not short of choice of modern fighters. Apart from the obvious European choices - Rafale, Typhoon, oldie but goldie Tornado, Grippen-E - his good relationships with Russia also opens Su-35 for him. And that's the best choice by far - F-35 is not as much better as it is much more expensive - and Turkey can easily get their hands on French and Malaysian electronics Sukhoi uses for their export fighters. I'm not current on Turkey's relations with Israel, but if they are any good, Israel makes the best radars and they have plenty of experience installing them on Su-fighters.
Has Pentagon made the biggest mistake in its history?
hoodie
2nd Apr 2019, 14:24
USAF Plans To Fly New F-15 With Empty Back Seat
It's not empty. It's where R2-D2 goes.
Thrust Augmentation
2nd Apr 2019, 18:37
Secret Two-Seat Variant Uses Additional Crewmember to Counter Anti-F-35 Social Media Posts.
Pure Quality!
LowObservable
2nd Apr 2019, 20:20
If you have something specific you wish to share out of the 118 page doc. I'd be pleased.
And if you would demonstrate that you are not too thick, or too lazy, to search and analyze an entirely standard US budget document, your opinions might be worth taking seriously.
golder
2nd Apr 2019, 23:03
If you have something specific you wish to share out of the 118 page doc. I'd be pleased.
And if you would demonstrate that you are not too thick, or too lazy, to search and analyze an entirely standard US budget document, your opinions might be worth taking seriously.
You may note that I quoted from my link of one page, on the budget for the F/A-18. To put up a 118 page doc as a throw away, is without merit.
https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/navy-league/2018/04/04/boeing-super-hornet-program-gets-second-life-through-future-sales-and-upgrades/
Until then, this may help. It comes out to $83.6M per tail
"The Navy intends to spend about $9.2 billion to procure 110 Block III Super Hornets from FY19-FY23, budget documents show. "
It's also widely reported that in 2006 year dollars the F-15 costed out at about $100M,
F-15E $108 million [2006$]
F-15K $100 million [2006$]
ProPax
3rd Apr 2019, 01:51
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).
As a matter of fact Turkey has been a well-established industrial manufacturer long before your experience a decade ago. They have a huge composites industry that makes parts for Italian ship-builders. Maltese Falcon's masts were manufactured in Turkey. Their shipbuilding industry builds most of the world's largest fishing vessels. Even Norwegians prefer to build their ships in Turkey. Turkey also make more cars than Italy and sits right behind UK in those statistics. Turkish Airlines serves more countries than any other airline.
In other words, your view of Turkey may be slightly dated. By about a century, I'd say.
golder
3rd Apr 2019, 21:06
Not Shanahan's finest hour. So much for the 50% less CPFH.
Rep Matt Gaetz notes that apparently DOD provided him. Showing that F-15X would cost $27,000-$30,000 per hour. A 90-$100m F-15ex cost
The 6 minute video of testimony.
https://youtu.be/Yy5HCpwzPJ0
Lonewolf_50
4th Apr 2019, 03:24
In other words, your view of Turkey may be slightly dated. By about a century, I'd say. And you are wrong by about 70 years. My impressions were formed form 80's to 90's. If things have gotten better since, GREAT!
But with Erdogan being a likely cause of another brain drain, I would hedge my bets.
https://twitter.com/joedebrig/status/1113375376623964160?s=21
golder
4th Apr 2019, 08:11
I would guess both unit cost numbers are right. It's just depending what unit cost you are quoting.
https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1123x581/cost_definitions_8919c304d1b92e71e7dec5ce10eed690538e3955.jp g
ProPax
4th Apr 2019, 11:30
And you are wrong by about 70 years. My impressions were formed form 80's to 90's. If things have gotten better since, GREAT!
But with Erdogan being a likely cause of another brain drain, I would hedge my bets.
That's another Turkey strength. Turkish industry is very independent and actually dictates a lot of political decisions. In all honesty, I've never heard of brain drain from Turkey. Do you have some reading for me to do on that topic? I see that Turkey always forces a condition in all government contracts that young Turkish engineers work alongside foreign managers. Saw that at the mountain dams construction, but then again, I'm not claiming full knowledge of the field.
ProPax
4th Apr 2019, 11:50
Just thinking out loud. (Sorry for the political angle.) Pentagon is the party most dependent on Turkey to produce the F-35 components. But it's also the Pentagon that pushes the block on S-400. It looks strangely superficial and conflicting. You just don't push away the country that you depend on so much for a program. And S-400 is far from new. It can't be such a huge threat. If anything, Pentagon should be interested to see how it performs against its planes and work on countermeasures.
We know Erdogan is not a pushover and will likely react in some spectacularly explosive fashion. It's also very likely that Turkey leaving the program will delay the program even further and make it even more expensive which in turn will justify the Pentagon to pull the plug on the whole shebang. Can it be that some faction in the Pentagon are simply trying to get rid of the program this way?
Lockheed is a great innovator but their innovations are always so "ahead of its time" that they take decades (and a lot of money) to realize, and by the time they are flying, it's too late and nobody wants (or needs) the aircraft they produced, and the technology has stepped further forward making the aircraft irrelevant or even obsolete. I'm thinking about SR-71 - by the time it was ready to spy on the USSR, the latter already had MiG-25 and R-40 missiles; F-117 - even during the development it was quite clear that Soviet radars can easily track it (likely because it was based on the scientific research done by a Soviet scientist).
The F-35's "common platform" concept is of the same kind - looked amazing on paper but turned into a nightmare and limited the capabilities of all three variants. Moreover, it turned out that Lockheed didn't have and couldn't develop the vertical take-off design, so they had to invite Yakovlev's engineers who worked on Yak-141 to develop it and delegate the manufacturing to Rolls-Royce.
I know that Lockheed's "Skunk Works" is considered the most advanced engineering team but in my very humble opinion they are nothing more than a bunch of childish dreamers who are always trying to perform way beyond their engineering and technical abilities. Harsh?
Lonewolf_50
4th Apr 2019, 13:07
That's another Turkey strength. Turkish industry is very independent and actually dictates a lot of political decisions. In all honesty, I've never heard of brain drain from Turkey. Do you have some reading for me to do on that topic? I see that Turkey always forces a condition in all government contracts that young Turkish engineers work alongside foreign managers. Saw that at the mountain dams construction, but then again, I'm not claiming full knowledge of the field. In the last five or so years, and this is directly related to the "coup" and the reaction to it, the intelligensia in Turkey has come under political attack by Erdogan's government: educators, etc. This is the kind of thing that can (though may not) lead to a brain drain wherein that core of any modern / industrial society may begin to migrate. Has that happened to a damaging extent? Unclear at this time, and it hopefully won't.
We see a bit of the Venezuelan brain drain where I live, as people have arrived from there over the past five years. The Brain Drain coming out of Mexico and into Texas has been happening for decades. A good number of my neighbors and friends are either related to, or are, educated people (many of them are graduates of the university in Monterry) who cannot find opportunity in their home country. So they come here.
As to the "need" for Turkey to be part of the F-35: we have plenty of allies, and that "plan" preceded the Erdogan government showing up. If they become politically unreliable, a deal can be made with someone else. (I suspect that UK industry would not mind a plus up in terms of engineering/manitenance business, for one). What I think was the attraction of Turkey was cost/burdened hour, or the perception of lower labor costs.
I agree with you that the longer term plan for the F-35 has run into Erdogan's choosing to change course for Turkey, and the US reacting to that. Where I disagree is your implication that the Pentagon is acting in isolation. No, it isn't. This whole mess is a part of the political continuum. Politics never ends; there is no stop in play in politics.
As to the skunk works and the "one size fits all" - One Size Fits All was a Congressional Mandate. Pure Politics. Both Boeing and LM tried to make a one size fits all to meet that requirement. It's the F-111 all over again.
As to pushing the edge of the tech envelope and reaching the point of diminishing returns, that's the subject of a PhD dissertation, not a post on PPRuNe. ;)
ProPax
4th Apr 2019, 15:19
In the last five or so years, and this is directly related to the "coup" and the reaction to it, the intelligensia in Turkey has come under political attack by Erdogan's government: educators, etc. This is the kind of thing that can (though may not) lead to a brain drain wherein that core of any modern / industrial society may begin to migrate. Has that happened to a damaging extent? Unclear at this time, and it hopefully won't.
Erdogan didn't come from nowhere. Turkey or rather the Ottoman Empire was a powerful state in the Middle East. They fought twelve wars with Russia alone (6-3 to Russia with three ties). They crushed Syrians, Persians, Arabs, Brits. But after Attaturk reforms Turkey became more peaceful and many people thought that some other countries took advantage. So Erdogan's ideas of "more Turkey" were initially met with a lot of long-supressed patriotism. He later lost a lot of that support, particularly in scientific and legal communities. But I definitely don't see any brain drain from Turkey, other than the usual "better life" seekers.
We see a bit of the Venezuelan brain drain where I live, as people have arrived from there over the past five years. The Brain Drain coming out of Mexico and into Texas has been happening for decades. A good number of my neighbors and friends are either related to, or are, educated people (many of them are graduates of the university in Monterry) who cannot find opportunity in their home country. So they come here.
No idea where you live and I definitely can't say anything about Venezuela or Mexico. I suspect that political instability and drug wars respectively drive a lot of people out of the country. "And some of them are good people" (c). ;)
As to the "need" for Turkey to be part of the F-35: we have plenty of allies, and that "plan" preceded the Erdogan government showing up. If they become politically unreliable, a deal can be made with someone else. (I suspect that UK industry would not mind a plus up in terms of engineering/manitenance business, for one). What I think was the attraction of Turkey was cost/burdened hour, or the perception of lower labor costs.
Turkey is chepER not cheap. I'll use shipbuilding as an example again. Turkey is cheaper than, say, Germany or Norway, but much more technologically advanced than, for example, China or Poland. That's their strong part. I don't think, however, that they were chosen because of their cheaper labor. Turkey is the key partner in the NATO. Turkey leaves, and Germany will follow. And after that, keeping France and Spain will be nye on impossible. Again, maybe dismantling NATO is the purpose of these shenannigans, who knows.
You (I suppose you mean the US?) have other allies that can take over that work, but how much will it cost to transfer the production of something as complicated as the wingbox to another country? My guess is, hundreds of millions. Not to mention it will take a lot of time to get this done and reroute all logistics. It may push the program back years. I just don't think this project will survive such a blow.
I agree with you that the longer term plan for the F-35 has run into Erdogan's choosing to change course for Turkey, and the US reacting to that. Where I disagree is your implication that the Pentagon is acting in isolation. No, it isn't. This whole mess is a part of the political continuum. Politics never ends; there is no stop in play in politics.
I never said Pentagon is acting in isolation. On the contrary, Pentagon is trying to distance itself from the political aspects of their decision. But it seems that their goal is to bury this project. I don't think they want the F-35 anymore. They'd much rather redirect resources (and purchase power) towards unmanned fighters. I just don't see any other reason for this horns-in-the-ground standoff with S-400.
As to the skunk works and the "one size fits all" - One Size Fits All was a Congressional Mandate.
I didn't know that. My understanding was that Lockheed proposed this idea. Very interesting. If it was the Congressional Mandate, then it was a stupid one. One size fits all NEVER works. And if this same project is any indication, it would be much cheaper and faster to develop three different planes by three different manufacturers. They could've given the F-35A to Boeing, F-35B (is that the vertical liftoff?) to Lockheed, and F-35C to EADS+BAE. THAT would be a great political and technological move.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/02/world/europe/turkey-emigration-erdogan.html
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13434/turkey-brain-drain
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-42433668
https://www.dailysabah.com/turkey/2018/09/22/erdogan-asks-turkish-scientists-abroad-to-return-home
Erdoğan asks Turkish scientists abroad to return home
Lonewolf_50
4th Apr 2019, 20:59
I didn't know that. My understanding was that Lockheed proposed this idea. Very interesting. If it was the Congressional Mandate, then it was a stupid one. One size fits all NEVER works. This "joint" thing traces back to the comms and interoperatiblity snafus during Grenada, 1983. From that came Goldwater Nichols Act. But there was a heck of a lot more to it than that. Joint Doctrine became a bit thing in the 90's, and the "roles and missions" power play between all four services also ran into the "why can't we do it cheaper and generically to reduce cost." And so on. There were Joint Requirements Documents writtend for V22 in the 80's. (Won't go off topic on that either). And there is the perception that Joint will save money. (As above, so it was believed with F-111) The common platform requirement guaranteed that nothing would be optimized. That LM came up with some neat ideas that eventually had a lot do to with JSF hardly made F-35 As Is inevitable. Boeing could have won the bid, but didn't.
And I think I remember correctly that the loss of the A-12 (A-6 replacement) left the USN in a "we got no Stealth" mode that they had not planned on, which made getting on the band wagon with the stealthy "low cost" fighter an easier decision because that Roles and Missions debate was a huge motivator on "From the sea" strategy (read "fund me") posture in the 90's and the later versions of the martitime strat after that.
It's a real hairball.
As to Moving from Turkey to somewhere else: yeah, I'd expect to see a price increase.
As to Turkey being the "key" NATO ally. That's a reach. But they are certainly sitting in a decent piece of real estate at the moment.
But wait, other NATO allies have pulled people out, to include the Germans.
IMO, the Critical NATO ally in the Southern Region is, and remains, Italy.
Location, Location, Location.
ProPax
5th Apr 2019, 14:04
Erdoğan asks Turkish scientists abroad to return home
Thanks, ORAC, I will try to read all this as soon as I can.
ProPax
5th Apr 2019, 14:33
IMO, the Critical NATO ally in the Southern Region is, and remains, Italy.
As I started to read this sentence I had a sinking feeling in my stomach expecting you to shoot down my argument too easily. I honestly expected to see "Greece" at the end of this sentence. But ITALY!? The problems I see with Italy (in the NATO context) are:
1. Government corruption the depth and prevaence of which can only compete with that of Nigeria (and I'd be hard pressed to name the winner). Whatever money you give Italy to build anything will be stolen. Any dealings with Italy will by definition be plagued with endless "funds misapropriations". I have very limited information about corruption in Turkey but I haven't heard any horror stories, either.
2. (As a potential F-35 partner) Quality of work. Italians are world-notorious for shoddy workmanship. And it doesn't matter which area you touch, from rusting cars to 787 delaminating fuselages. Twenty people quit Scuderia Ferrari when Jean Todt banned Chainti bottles on workbenches in 1997. Turkey, on the other hand, are well-known for making good stuff. I heard good reviews of Renault Symbol and some Ford trucks they make.
3. Weak army. Italy is the only participant of WWII who lost to ALL opposing parties from Brits in Africa to Americans in Europe to Soviet and Yugoslavian partisans in the north. The latter, if I remember correctly, stole an object as large as Benito Mussoulini and later hanged him. I just don't remember ANY significant (or actually any) victories by Italian army. They managed to lose a battle in Africa in the absence of an opponent. Whereas Turkey, as I said earlier, has a long and victorious battle history. They were the ones who defeated the unbeatable Persians, Arabs, Crusaders, Russians, etc. I'm not a historian, so correct me if I'm wrong.
4. Location. THAT is Italy's weakest point, methinks. It is either too far from or too close to just about everything. It's too far from the Middle East and Africa to launch any serious fighter or bomber missions with anything smaller than B-52. But at the same time they are close enough for a naval attack or an air raid from the opposite side. Under the current INF Treaty, Italy is too far to launch a nuclear attack on the "potential opponents". However it can easily be reached by things like Tu-22M3 or Su-34.
It's geopolitical position is both advantageous and useless. On the one hand, it's well positioned to control the Mediterranean Sea, but on the other, the Mediterranean is controled by those who control the Dardanelles, the Suez Canal and Gibraltar, and that's NOT Italy.
Turkey, however, is positioned almost ideally having common borders with Syria and Iran (Or is it Iraq? Or both?) on one side, and with Greece, Armenia, and Russia on the other. Thus it also wins on location, location, location.
As a side note I can also add Italy's zero respect from the surrounding countries. It is valued as a tourist destination but hardly anything else. Turkey, on the other hand, is a force to be reckoned with, both within the region and internationally. The US southern offensive on Iraq didn't happen because Turkey said "No". Can you imagine Italy saying no to the US?
All-in-all, I believe Turkey is much more important to NATO and the US.
Lonewolf_50
5th Apr 2019, 20:22
Turkey, however, is positioned almost ideally having common borders with Syria and Iran (Or is it Iraq? Or both?) on one side, and with Greece, Armenia, and Russia on the other. Thus it also wins on location, location, location. If the assumption is that NATO is who wants to go to a fight in the Middle East. I am not convinced.
But no worries, two people can look at the same geostrategic situation and arrive at different conclusions. If one presumes that NATO is, in a unified sense, committed to going off to fight in the Middle East - Iran, Syria, Iraq, Israel, Lebanon, and so on, yeah, what you laid out makes sense and fits a perfectly TurkoCentric view of the Eastern Med.
Eastern Med.
The NATO Southern Region goes from the straits of Gibraltar to Istanbul. Not just the Eastern Med. ;)
I do not believe that NATO is so committed. (The US might, or might not be, depending upon which clown-of-the-week we have in the White House)
Aside:
I worked for a Turk for about 3 years in NATO. Good man, and I hope Erdogan's purges have not harmed him. Learned quite a bit from him about trying to see the world from a Turko Centric view. Enlightening, to say the least.
ProPax
7th Apr 2019, 09:28
If the assumption is that NATO is who wants to go to a fight in the Middle East. I am not convinced.
If the past 16 years of wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Egypt, and Yemen are any indication, I don't think it's an assumption. And it's no longer about wanting to go to war. I just don't think NATO, i.e. the US, have any choice. They try to "withdraw" but they get get drawn back into it, deeper each time. Their dear friends Saudi Arabia makes more enemies in the region every day and have now become a rogue state in everything but the official definition.
But no worries, two people can look at the same geostrategic situation and arrive at different conclusions. If one presumes that NATO is, in a unified sense, committed to going off to fight in the Middle East - Iran, Syria, Iraq, Israel, Lebanon, and so on, yeah, what you laid out makes sense and fits a perfectly TurkoCentric view of the Eastern Med.
Israel maybe not, they fight their own wars and love every minute of it. But other countries - very likely. NATO is already involved in Iraq and Syria; Egypt and Lybia will follow soon, likely to be joined by Nigeria and Sudan who also share the anti-Western sentiments. Just like Taliban, Al Qaeda and ISIS before them, this whole "Arab spring" will backfire tremendously on the US in the coming years, and NATO will be drawn in those wars. And while Turkey is not quite the ticket geographically, for those potential conflicts, it is a Muslim country that can mediate a lot of rough edges.
The NATO Southern Region goes from the straits of Gibraltar to Istanbul. Not just the Eastern Med. ;)
I do not believe that NATO is so committed. (The US might, or might not be, depending upon which clown-of-the-week we have in the White House)
True. But NATO is not about where they ARE, but from whom they are defending themselves. And that area is slightly different. Most of NATO potential enemies lie to the east and south-east of Europe. Turkey is the ideal (and very willing!) "buffer" between the NATO and the Orient. Losing it as a NATO partner will be devastating, because then Greece becomes the buffer, and I seriously doubt they are capable or willing to do that particular job. Losing Italy as a NATO partner means no good capuccino at NATO summits, quite an acceptable damage.
I worked for a Turk for about 3 years in NATO. Good man, and I hope Erdogan's purges have not harmed him. Learned quite a bit from him about trying to see the world from a Turko Centric view. Enlightening, to say the least.
Erdogan is not Pol Pot or Ronald Reagan, don't worry. I worked with Turks a few years ago. Didn't have any personal friendships but was pleased to see how hardworking and thorough they are. Turkish may be misled at the moment, but they are far from radical, and what they need right now is a boost to their pride, NOT being told what to do, which is exactly what Pentagon and the Hair Force One are doing. Turkey needs to be told loudly and publicly that they are the cherished and respected partner without whom nothing will work. This latest F-35 disaster (NOW we're back on topic!) will only drive them further away and deeper into the nationalist tempest.
Lonewolf_50
7th Apr 2019, 12:53
If the past 16 years of wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Egypt, and Yemen are any indication, I don't think it's an assumption.
The amount of support for those varies, and it seems to decrease (among the allies) as time goes on. That the US had a serious and public fracas with Turkey in re what was going on in Northern Syria, to the point that they pulled people out of the country, isn't a small thing. (Though such rifts can be healed if there is good will on both sides).
I just don't think NATO, i.e. the US, have any choice. They try to "withdraw" but they get get drawn back into it, deeper each time. I think it is very much choice since the decision to go into Iraq in 2003. The Germans and French chose to provide some support in Afghanistan, but not in Iraq. Each such situation will be colored by national interests, as does Aircraft Buying. (Hey, back on topic) The Germans are not buying the F-35; that recently became clear. You make the point that you think Turkey leaving NATO means Germany soon follows. Not sure how that works, but perhaps the Germans can underwrite the new Turkish fighter needs, rather than the Americans, when the German requirements and planning goes into full swing. That does not help NATO, though, in terms of commonality and support for operations with a common air frame. But we already deal with that and know how to.
Their dear friends Saudi Arabia With friends like those, who needs enemies? I was personally glad to see the Turkish response to that killing ...
. NATO is already involved in Iraq and Syria; Egypt and Lybia will follow soon,
Here we disagree. Libya has come and gone as a NATO operation and I disagree that NATO will go into Egypt. The desire to untangle / disengage in Syria is palpable but does fall afoul of the point you raised previously: hard to get out.
likely to be joined by Nigeria and Sudan who also share the anti-Western sentiments. Significantly different geostrategic situations, particularly Nigeria.
Just like Taliban, Al Qaeda and ISIS before them, this whole "Arab spring" will backfire tremendously on the US It already has. What began as support for it has cooled/faded.
in the coming years, and NATO will be drawn in those wars. Given the public response to both the Syria and Libya across NATO, I very much doubt it.
And while Turkey is not quite the ticket geographically, for those potential conflicts, it is a Muslim country that can mediate a lot of rough edges. Yes. the question here is the confidence, or lack there of, in the Erdogan regime's ability to play the honest broker. He's pissed away a lot of good will.
Turkey is the ideal (and very willing!) "buffer" between the NATO and the Orient. So Far. Mr Erdogan has demonstrated a Turkey First and Turkey as local regional leader platform (understandable if you look at the world from where he sits) which may or may not align with the broader NATO goals (whatever those may be). His cuddling up with Putin sends a powerfully negative signal.
Losing it as a NATO partner will be devastating, because then Greece becomes the buffer,
Yeah, that's a clear eyed take on it. Your underselling of Italy's position I'll simply disagree with.
This latest F-35 disaster (NOW we're back on topic!) will only drive them further away and deeper into the nationalist tempest. This latest F-35 kerfluffle is a symptom, not a cause.
As with the Israelis, who was really paying for the F-35's there? I remember some loan guarantees on an FMS contract from 20 years ago that underwrote the Turks 'buying' modern aircraft. They didn't have the money, so who was paying the bill? Washington.
As bloody expensive as the F-35 is, do you really think Turkey is playing cash and carry? I don't.
I'll guess at less NATO, not more, in Libya (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/us-pulls-troops-out-of-libya-amid-rise-in-violence/ar-BBVI4IM?ocid=spartanntp) soon unless the Italians and French decide that they have to go in.
Lyneham Lad
9th Apr 2019, 10:19
On UK Defence Journal (https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/british-f-35b-jets-to-deploy-to-cyprus/).
F-35B aircraft will head to Cyprus later this year for their first overseas deployment.
The UK currently owns 17 F-35B aircraft with the reformed 617 Sqn having arrived back in the UK last year.
Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson said:
“These formidable fighters are a national statement of our intent to protect ourselves and our allies from intensifying threats across the world.
This deployment marks an important milestone in this game-changing aircraft’s journey to becoming fully operational.”
ProPax
9th Apr 2019, 11:07
As with the Israelis, who was really paying for the F-35's there? I remember some loan guarantees on an FMS contract from 20 years ago that underwrote the Turks 'buying' modern aircraft. They didn't have the money, so who was paying the bill? Washington.
And here's where my favorite point arrives. Who the heck needs F-35 at all? Washington?
F-35 per se started in 2000. But it can easily be traced to a Joint Strike Fighter program which started in 1993!!! But even if we take the X-35 as a starting point, it's been 19 years since its inception. The technology has stepped so far forward that it is now possible to fly planes via a satellite while sitting in a shipping container somewhere in the wild west.
F-35 is, as close as makes no difference, obsolete. As usually, it took Lockheed too long to develop a fantasy concept. It has a pilot onboard which in today's world is considered Victorian. Recent UAV developments showed that the signal can be transmitted fast enough to even perform SOME evasive maneuvers and launch air-to-air missiles.
F-35 was made for the Big War, like a WWIII. It's designed to attack or repel a massive armada of enemy forces. Anything other than that, and it's useless. As with the F-22 it's "too valuable to...". F-22 started flying in 1997 but managed to avoid all conflicts where it could be useful - Yugoslavia, Iraq, Syria. Pentagon was worried that it could fall into enemy's hands and reveal its secrets. The same will happen to the F-35. It will be kept on friendly bases and guarded from any exposure.
Erdogan doesn't risk anything by losing F-35. Turkey, like no other country, knows what an old but thoroughly upgraded fighter is capable of. Their Israel-upgraded F-4 Terminator 2020 are still flying. Su-35S is a fifth-generation fighter in everything but "stealth". But "stealth" characteristics is hardly anything but a "selling point". The planes are still very well visible on the radars and enemy missiles can see them just as well. However, "stealth" reduces maneuverability and flight characteristics due to a certain shape the plane has to take.
Ergo, my humble opinion - this whole Turkey affair is little more than a badly made show. And my personal prediction - F-35 will soon be gone just like the F-22 was with a couple of hundred built.
Rhino power
9th Apr 2019, 12:44
It seems the JASDF may have lost an F-35...
https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2019/04/95fc3fd509dc-urgent-asdf-f-35-fighter-disappears-from-radar-over-pacific-govt.html
-RP
I was going to make a joke about radar contact being lost - but if no calls were made it seems something catastrophic. Let’s just hope the pilot got out.
Lonewolf_50
9th Apr 2019, 14:34
Someone started a separate thread on that; I suggest we use that to discuss this unfortunate incident. (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/620332-f-35-disappears-radar.html)
No matter the plane - be it Cessna 172 or F-35 - one eventually goes down. :(
ProPax
13th Apr 2019, 15:59
So to summarize, F-35 is not "stealth" for the foreign buyers with some saying it's worse than the 40-year-old F-16. Most of its advertized features, like the helmet vision toys, don't work. AND it falls out of the sky for no apparent reason. Who the heck still wants to buy a $100m thing that's worse than most of $30-50m things available in abundance on the market!?
Typhoondriver
13th Apr 2019, 19:51
Salute ProPax!
Where are the factual basis for :
The helmet is working very well or we would have had numerous crashes when the folks are doing things you have not thought of or can imagine. Have you seen the optical and other sensor systems that dwarf anything previous fighter/attack planes have? You can actually look thru the floor using that : helmet toy".
Makes it real easy to land on a small carrier like the Marines do. Awfully nice to "check six", ya think? The radar is an orderr of magnitude more capable than existing attack planes anyone has flying.
And then this
:
Where is that news breaking headline coming from?
This plane has had a lower crash/loss/whatever in its first few hundred thousands than we have seen since the F-106 in the 60's, and maybe the USAF A-7D in the 70's.
There is a lotta difference between "falling outta the sky" and "hitting the ground when you do not want to". The only in-flight loss of the F-35 was a Bee model that USMC flies and it had a fuel line failure. We had one takeoff motor failure here in Florida, no "crash", and USAF plus P&W motor folks figured out how to cure the problem.
And then,
Price is now less than the $100 million unit cost, and remember that military unit price includes "x" years of repairs, modifications, upgrades and the amortized amount that the whole program costed from concept to contract to testing to tooling up to all the training and such. Hell, even Boeing sold the 737 Max, with its fatal flaw, arguing that no additional training costs or such woukld be required of the buyers. Explain that to the families over 300 folks such as yourself, the " Professional passenger ", from your profile. Oh yeah, your small SUV would cost a million dollars if the company only made 1,000 of them and tacked on a percentage of the design, development and such of your cost. SO it's more a basic economis lesson than a political assertion.
++++++++++++++++++
I flew three planes within one year of when they were adopted by USAF ( although one was not declared "operational" for the military mission for another year). So my opinions of the F-35 safety record is not without a few thousand hours of experience.
And then.....
Flash.......................
First the purchase of new F-15EX to cover until the new PCA fighter comes into service in the 2030s. Now the F-16 fleet gets an upgrade to last until the same timeframe.
And the only place the money comes from is stretching out and reducing the F-35A buy.
https://defensemaven.io/warriormaven/air/air-force-f-16-gets-f-35-sensors-weapons-radar-uHz4bVom_EiIztCPrSWE0w/
golder
14th Apr 2019, 11:57
You shouldn't follow nonsense blogs. You might want to google it, but the aesa radar for the f-16 actually saves money on maintenance, over its time and pays for itself
ProPax
14th Apr 2019, 20:58
Where are the factual basis for
Oh, let's not get there. You didn't give any factual basis for anything you said, so let's keep it civil.
The helmet is working very well or we would have had numerous crashes when the folks are doing things you have not thought of or can imagine. Have you seen the optical and other sensor systems that dwarf anything previous fighter/attack planes have? You can actually look thru the floor using that : helmet toy".
You can. IF you are short enough and your head is far enough from the canopy to be able to actually move that helmet in that cockpit. One of the pilots complained that he could not use all those wonderful systems because he simply couldn't turn his head.
Makes it real easy to land on a small carrier like the Marines do. Awfully nice to "check six", ya think?
I think they did that even when the helmet wasn't operational. As a matter of fact they made NINETEEN vertical landings on USS Wasp AT SEA without that Nintendo gadget.
This plane has had a lower crash/loss/whatever in its first few hundred thousands than we have seen since the F-106 in the 60's, and maybe the USAF A-7D in the 70's.
Well, back then the loss of "only" 10% of a passenger plane issue made a good safety record. We now expect a bit more from our planes, don't we? And losing a plane two weeks after the first Japanese squadron was declared operational is a bit 1970-ish, don't ya think?
There is a lotta difference between "falling outta the sky" and "hitting the ground when you do not want to".
Really? What exactly is the difference? The result is still a "BOOM!".
I flew three planes within one year of when they were adopted by USAF ( although one was not declared "operational" for the military mission for another year). So my opinions of the F-35 safety record is not without a few thousand hours of experience.
In your own words, explain that to the family of the Japanese pilot who has likely lost his life in that plane.
If I told you that the F-35 looks like a small bird on basic air traffic control radar or various air defense radar systems. I would not be bragging. It is not completely invisible, but so small that it can be too close for you to react.
If you told me that, I would remind you that it is only true for the USAF planes. For the export ones, it's more like the same as F-16 and maybe a bit larger. And the "Level 1 partners" paid a lot of money for that program BEFORE they knew that. And quite a few air forces around the world have either dropped the plane completely or reduced the orders by A LOT.
The jet has a transponder for "peacetime" use when training and to allow civilian ground radar to "see" it.
As far as I know, ALL military planes have those, even the Tu-95. Because civilian ATC don't use primary radars but rather get the information from those transponders.
Otherwise, go to the military websites and see what the opposing pilot reports are when encountering the beast.
Would you be so kind as to point me to the right quote? The "opposing pilots" is who? Chinese? Russian? North Korean? I'd love to see what they say about the beast. :)
Oh yeah, go to other sites and see how much of a "dog" the thing is at an airshow. See:
OH, WOW! It banks almost as much as an A340!!! And gains altitude almost as fast! When the afterburner is on. COOL!
And now, this:
https://youtu.be/4EmHoRGm4_w
Check out the 2:25 mark and WEEP! :{ If you show that video to F-35, it won't stop running until its only engine stalls.
golder
15th Apr 2019, 04:50
A lot of words, Propax. I'll only correct your first point, re the f-16 pilot and seeing behind. You may find that the wide seat headrest, in an early block without EODS, that restricted his view. Let me know when they put mirrors on the Bow, like other aircraft :O
It was a nice video though. I'm unable to do an EM chart from a video, so I'll leave it to those that can. I'm not that good on flight departure and recovery. The SU does kinetic energy stunts well, as you pointed out at 2:25. One of the test pilots commented on the SU and it's airshow and how the f-35 wasn't designed for show. Perhaps it was sour grapes, perhaps not. I find both put on a good display.
Though both wouldn't like an IR missile at them, while doing their air show maneuvers. It's not that entertaining to have the announcer say that a f-35 is in the area and took out aircraft, but you can't see it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWji8AcOYGA
talking about a kinetic display
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZWsaJDc8PI
Bob Viking
15th Apr 2019, 05:20
I think it would be fair to say that your understanding of the roles and capabilities of the F35 fall a little short.
Clearly the SU35 is very manoeuverable and looks great at an air show but which would die first in a fight?
Anyone who judges the F35 by its manoeuverabity immediately demonstrates their own lack of understanding.
I realise your mind is already made up so I won’t waste my own time arguing.
Enjoy RIAT this year though. It promises to be quite a show.
BV
ProPax
15th Apr 2019, 09:55
Though both wouldn't like an IR missile at them, while doing their air show maneuvers.
I may be wrong but I always thought that those "stunts" are the missile evasion maneuvers. Correct me if I'm wrong. The missile can't maneuver fast enough to catch such a target.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWji8AcOYGA
Two things that don't impress me. One, it's a corporate marketing video with a lot of clever editing. And two, they're doing that at what looks like 5,000-6,000 meters altitude. And they are losing A LOT of it.
talking about a kinetic display
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQ5gmZ74YBY
No offense, but talk is cheap. I'm sure Su-35's designer can talk a lot about his creation.
ProPax
15th Apr 2019, 10:10
Clearly the SU35 is very manoeuverable and looks great at an air show but which would die first in a fight?
And you know the answer to that question? I don't. On paper and video F-35 looks like an inferior plane. Single-engine design is less reliable in combat that a double-engine. Su-35S is more agile allowing it to evade oncoming missiles. Its electronic suite is unknown. The rest is in the numerous comments sections on numerous websites.
Anyone who judges the F35 by its manoeuverabity immediately demonstrates their own lack of understanding.
Oh, please! A plane that was designed to rely on its electronic toys and long-range missiles hoping it'll never get closer that 100km to the adversaries. Did I get it right enough? The real question is, how long will it last in a real war when mechanics won't be able to use surgical scalpels in dust-free rooms to fine-tune its microchips?
I realise your mind is already made up so I won’t waste my own time arguing.
MY mind... right. :cool:
PS For everyone else's info, I don't want to start or join an argument about which plane is better. With so little reliable information it's just silly. I'd much rather prefer a sensible discussion without any symptoms of fanboyism. Yes, I do have my opinions and I'd like to have them tested by counter-arguments. But no, I don't think any plane is inherently "better" than any other.
Stuff
15th Apr 2019, 10:20
Su-35S is more agile allowing it to evade oncoming missiles.
That comment alone confirms what we've thought since you started posting. You know absolutely nothing about the subject.
golder
15th Apr 2019, 10:33
Propax, Proximity fuse, but we are getting way off topic for this thread now. I would encourage you to start a SU-35 thread.
Or if a MOD could move them please?
Bob Viking
15th Apr 2019, 13:16
...to avoid people who have no idea what they’re talking about, with regards to F35/SU35, this forum should be reserved for the guys and gals who operate or support the military hardware?
I’m sure there are plenty of other forums for fanboys to discuss the latest manoeuvres on Ace Combat 7 without spouting off on here.
Although that would have denied me the pleasure of watching a fanboy trying to tell Gums (ex USAF F jet operator) that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
Does that all sound a bit mean?
Soz.
BV
F-16GUY
15th Apr 2019, 13:58
I may be wrong but I always thought that those "stunts" are the missile evasion maneuvers. Correct me if I'm wrong. The missile can't maneuver fast enough to catch such a target.
You are very wrong. Do that in the air to counter a missile and you will die. The Flanker might be swopping ends and rolling very quickly, but it does so at a very slow speed while moving along the same path. Combine that with its enormous size, and its big hot engines, I would say that even an oldschool AIM-9 M/L type of missile would easily hit it.
By the way, and even further of topic, did you alp monkeys drop the Gripen NG so you could have a new fighter competition and select the F-35 like the rest of us? Those hornets can't fly on forever you know....
Steepclimb
15th Apr 2019, 17:10
...to avoid people who have no idea what they’re talking about, with regards to F35/SU35, this forum should be reserved for the guys and gals who operate or support the military hardware?
I’m sure there are plenty of other forums for fanboys to discuss the latest manoeuvres on Ace Combat 7 without spouting off on here.
Although that would have denied me the pleasure of watching a fanboy trying to tell Gums (ex USAF F jet operator) that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
Does that all sound a bit mean?
Soz.
BV
That idea gets trotted out on Pprune regularly over the years. But it's unenforceable. In any case the fantasists generally give themselves away. Like our friend above, by making daft statements which even a non military pilot like me knows is BS.
In any case he'll soon head back to YouTube or wherever he's gleaning his limited knowledge.
Salute!
One of the misconceptions the armchair pilots have is that a quick turn without a large turn radius is a good thing for defense. It is not.
As pointed out above,, if I am the pursuing jet and do not have enough room for a missile to arm, then the jet performing the "cobra" or whatever you call it becomes a strafing panel in the sky. Otherwise, most of us would let the bandit try to get some smash to get away but I have gone vertical to get arming time for my missile (the IR seeker type). Nice rudder turn as you see in the F-35 airshow videos. Then good tone on mt Lima or "X" and off it goes,
Gums...
Asturias56
16th Apr 2019, 15:00
I always thought the whole point of "stealth" was to avoid being anywhere near the need to get into a dog-fight......... to compare the F-35 (and I'm not a big fan) with the Su35 is a very bad case of apples and...... just about any fruit you care to mention
BEagle
16th Apr 2019, 15:53
Yo gums!
About the only useful purpose I can think of for the Russian jet's manoeuvre would be if it could assist nose-pointing to achieve a rather last ditch firing solution from the defensive. Otherwise - just so much snake bait as you describe!
I wonder what an old school PD / AIM-7E III would make of the Su-35's tumbling gyrations?
Archimedes
16th Apr 2019, 18:35
F-35 per se started in 2000. But it can easily be traced to a Joint Strike Fighter program which started in 1993!!! But even if we take the X-35 as a starting point, it's been 19 years since its inception. The technology has stepped so far forward that it is now possible to fly planes via a satellite while sitting in a shipping container somewhere in the wild west.
Whereas the Su-35 can be traced to the Sukhoi T10 of 1977...
F-35 is, as close as makes no difference, obsolete. As usually, it took Lockheed too long to develop a fantasy concept. It has a pilot onboard which in today's world is considered Victorian. Recent UAV developments showed that the signal can be transmitted fast enough to even perform SOME evasive maneuvers and launch air-to-air missiles.
Apart from the fact that China, Russia, the US, France, the UK and Japan are all looking at a future manned/unmanned mix. The only UAV to try launching missiles in combat against another aircraft was shot down. The work of Colin Willis (who will be known to many on here) based on his PhD thesis is instructive in terms of the potential and limitations of unmanned platforms in air combat (although as it's published by an academic press, it may well be as unaffordable as it is instructive).
F-35 was made for the Big War, like a WWIII. It's designed to attack or repel a massive armada of enemy forces. Anything other than that, and it's useless. As with the F-22 it's "too valuable to...". F-22 started flying in 1997 but managed to avoid all conflicts where it could be useful - Yugoslavia, Iraq, Syria. Pentagon was worried that it could fall into enemy's hands and reveal its secrets. The same will happen to the F-35. It will be kept on friendly bases and guarded from any exposure.
One of the key reasons that the F-22 didn't participate in operations over Yugoslavia might be that the Dayton Accords were signed ten years before the first F-22 entered front line service, while Allied Force ended more than five years before that occurred. The part of the Iraq war where the F-22's capabilities against air defences might have been hugely useful took place two years before the 1st FW became operational. And as the Iraqi AF didn't fly, it's a moot point.
The F-22 has been used over Syria, as googling 'F-22 Syria' will illustrate.
.......And my personal prediction - F-35 will soon be gone just like the F-22 was with a couple of hundred built.
This prediction will require some 180-200 airframes to be dismantled for spares for it to be realised.
Salute!
Yeah, BEagle..... the high AoA stuff is more for nose-pointing when offensive, and the F-35 as well as the F-22 demo routines show that as much as their great vertical capabilities.
As far as the Sparrow goes, the later ones were pretty good compared to ones my buddies used in 'nam. I feel the Skyflash verion would have done well in 1991, and not sure if the Tornado carried any on their missions.The local fighter wing at Eglin used to have a sign attached to their official one.at the gate. They had done very well in the Storm using the "M" model, and their humble sign stated "Largest distributor of Mig parts in Southwest Asia".
Gums sends...
Davef68
16th Apr 2019, 21:39
I do think that the American habit of labelling anything small and tactical a 'fighter' has been to the detriment of the F35, in terms of it's media image. I suspect we will see far more of them dropping bombs than carrying out A2A
Salute!
You are correct, Dave.
They should have labeled the F-35 as "A" for attack. About 30 years ago we started to use "F/A" for planes like the Hornet. But I really do not see any rationale to call the F-35 a fighter. And it will primarily be used in the attack role and prolly carry one Slammer for A2A, or maybe have all bombs and such while a wingman has two Slammers or Aim-9X.
The F-16.net forums on the F-35 are an excellent source of accurate info as well as opinions that many of us express.
I have only had two close up tours of the beast and talked with a few pilots. Being at the training base, I can watch them in the pattern and such, but have not seen a demo, as I think that is done by a Luke AFB pilot, and he did one helluva demo at Melbourne a week or so back to please the Aussies.
Gums sends..
BEagle
16th Apr 2019, 22:26
gums, neither the Tornado GR1 nor GR1A carried semi-active AAMs in Desert Storm. Just 9 lima. Whereas the RAF Tornado F3 carried Skyflash and 9L - but their only action was chasing Iraqi Mirage F1s in the early days of the war. The Iraqis bugged out at high Mach and couldn't be caught....
Attack is the mission; Air to Air is a contingency you plan for.
flighthappens
17th Apr 2019, 13:03
Attack is the mission; Air to Air is a contingency you plan for.
until you are tasked with OCA or DCA, both of which the F-35 is adept at performing?
OCA is a contingency plan for A-A when the mission is Attack.
DCA I’ll give you...and concur about the platform.
GlobalNav
17th Apr 2019, 18:18
I think it depends on the campaign. OCA might be the first phase, to make the way for attackers. Or SEAD might be the first phase, and certainly into-c-cubed
Salute!
From the Colonies, and with current doctrine, we look at OCA with lottsa SEAD for the first move unless on the defensive. And starting out on the defensive is one aspect of warfare we should prolly look at.
Pearl Harbor still rings in our old, poor ears.
If we are on the California or Virginia coast and meeting hordes of carrier-based somethings from some power nobody knows about, the F-35's will earn their keep due to the low number and basing of the Raptors. And then there's the horde of Vipers and Hornets to contend with. So it's the "protected" places associated with treaties and pacts that pose the problem. Great subject for its own thread, huh?
From this old warrior and Ops Plans weenie of the first F-16 wing, the allocation of assets depends upon the scenario. Number one is self defense. If there's an associated land battle, the goal is to achieve air supremacy over the beach head or border or whatever. As far back as Normandy, no Allied grunts had much to worry about from enema airpower.
My Israeli students had been thru Yom Kippur and one had been in the 1967 blitz. They can talk about protecting the grunts.
I gotta tellya that I like the F-35 for first day SEAD, with maybe a few flights loaded for bear with Slammers and IR missiles. Raptors would be neat, but there are too few, and those must be allocated to the highest priority of the overall situtuation.
Red Flag 19-1 stuff is interesting reading and you can hunt down stuff with a little effort. Raptors were downplayed, so the F-35 carried the load.
Gums sends...
LowObservable
17th Apr 2019, 20:03
How many times in this epic thread has someone gotten frustrated and demanded that the Military Aviation section be sealed off from the non-operational riff-raff, only to be reminded that any such action would be impracticable in an anonymous forum?
Anyway, let's be clear about one thing. A bunch of professional operators, tacticians and engineers in Russia decided that it was worth doubling down on the Su-27's already world-leading agility to create the Su-35, and their bosses decided that it was worth spending a lot of Euros to demonstrate that to potential customers. If you want to call them uninformed fanboys, go and do it to their face, tovarich. New Russian words, you will learn.
What I have heard from the Russians (and not only from Russians) is that they don't intend or expect to be detected, tracked, engaged and killed by the F-35 before they ever see it. The fundamental problem with stealth in A2A is that BVR is a game played with a :mad:ing big searchlight, and making that searchlight simultaneously functional and undetectable is not :mad:ing easy. Since we started into addressing this problem (about the time the USAF decided to bet hard on LO for ATF, in 1985), the radar-shiny side of the combat equation has (1) gotten less shiny by an order of magnitude, (2) become much, much better at detecting signals, (3) become much, much better at jamming, and (4) incorporated ways to detect a missile launch.
At the same time, F-35 is shooting weapons that, excellent as they are, are designed to fit an F-16 tip rail. Quoted max range figures are often based on co-altitude against a non-maneuvering target. Anything other than that chops the range down. Fanboy nonsense? No, it's why Meteor exists.
The Russians accordingly don't believe that the battle will be decided before the merge. Also, remember that a flying display may demonstrate capability, without necessarily using real maneuvers. The game is energy and controllability.
I was at Farnborough in 1992 when one of the early super-Sukhois was showing off. A very well known retired fighter general was dismissive: ":mad:-all use in combat." Except his view was not shared with the USAF and USN, who went into panic mode developing HMDs and the AIM-9X. One wonders what has changed today.
At last - someone who knows why Meteor exists!
Bob Viking
18th Apr 2019, 03:23
I have no idea of your background but you appear pretty knowledgeable about the subject.
My previous suggestion, since it appears your initial paragraph was directed at me, was not directed at people with knowledge and understanding. It was directed at an individual who said that the SU35 is better than an F35 because it can do the cobra manoeuvre and could therefore ‘dodge’ missiles because of it. Thereby indicating a fundamental lack of appreciation of the role and capabilities of the F35 and indeed of all matters related to fighter combat.
Even with your most empathetic head on, surely you can see that comments like that add nothing to the debate.
There is lots of information on the F35 in the public domain. Those that wish to ridicule it are perfectly at liberty to do their own research.
Just because somebody calls me out on a public forum and asks what makes the F35 so special it doesn’t suddenly make it my responsibility to educate them.
If people want to believe that F35 is a lame duck then fine. But at least have the decency to do some actual research first, before posting uninformed drivel on a, supposedly, ‘professional’ site.
I’m sure the SU35 wins against the F35 on the latest PlayStation game but that doesn’t make it real. And it doesn’t constitute a basis for real world opinion.
An uncharacteristically grumpy post from me but c’est la vie, comrade.
BV
golder
18th Apr 2019, 09:28
Originally Posted by ProPax https://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.pprune.org/showthread.php?p=10447896#post10447896)
Su-35S is more agile allowing it to evade oncoming missiles.
That comment alone confirms what we've thought since you started posting. You know absolutely nothing about the subject.
Propax get ideas like these from the like of Bill Sweetman and co, Here's Bill professing that the SU was designed to counter stealth and will be dodging all the AIM-120, Meteors and SM-6 to get WVR. Obviously following the AIM-120 and Meteor trail back to the f-22 and f-35s. Where upon it will do a cobra and decimate the airwing. It's rubbish like this from clueless clowns that feeds the nonsense, when the SU-35 was released in 2013. Obviously the SU-57 is the hero now, just as soon as they can get a squadron of them in the air.:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=7&v=ddQ-OoUraqs
LowObservable
18th Apr 2019, 13:54
Golder -
Is it, then, your considered and doubtless expert opinion that reduced RCS, missile-launch alerts, jamming and agility, on the defender's side, have no operationally relevant effect on the Pk-at-range of the attacking aircraft/AAM combination?
Do you also believe the logically inevitable conclusion that follows from the above: That the people who spec'd Meteor for improved Pk-at-range, relative to AMRAAM, to cope with an accurately predicted Super-Sukhoi threat had inferior understanding of the problem to your good self?
As F-35 critics are quick to remind us (because we don’t already know - obvs) any decrease in RCS or increase in jamming and agility only reduces the Pk if it out paces the threat. So in the case of the Super Sukhoi they may have done marvellous things but the attackers’ Pk may have still increased over time.
wrt to Meteor and indeed any system - you can spec whatever you want...it’s what you actually get in your hands that matters and I would love to see how a URD specifies Pk...
LowObservable
18th Apr 2019, 15:12
BV -
I understand your reaction, but as we see there are incoherent and unqualified people on both sides of the debate, and people like myself who may have limited formal qualifications but have nonetheless tracked the relevant issues for many years.
Let us never forget the name of Sir John Clerk of Eldin, whose work on naval tactics influenced Nelson and others, despite the fact that, as far as we know, he never set foot on a ship. (By the way, his great-great-nephew was James Clerk Maxwell, whose work was fundamental to the design of the F-35.)
The important thing is to not get locked into one position or the other and to avoid being fixated on any given system or solution, to the point where (as we've seen with JSF) people seem to be saying "it's an awesome WVR jet" one week and "we have stealth and fusion, who needs WVR?", the next.
And while the original Cobra wasn't a missile-evasion maneuver, it was seen by many as a credible tactic to convert a disadvantageous position into an advantageous one - and even though the post-Cobra trajectory was predictable, it was important that the MiG-29 and Su-27 could do it with much less risk of departure than Western 4-gen types: a good example of how "air-show stunts" can represent real capabilities.
Salute!
Good admission, LO. I salute you.
there are incoherent and unqualified people on both sides of the debate, and people like myself who may have limited formal qualifications but have nonetheless tracked the relevant issues for many years.
So we get expert opinion from someone doing a lotta "literature research/review" as most of us here did that have an advbanced degree when getting ready for our thesis whether we ever flew a Piper Cub or F-16 or F-18 or Typhoon or Rafale or Mig 29 or..... Hell. What do they know?
I would rather value an opinion from someone who has yanked and banked in more than one fighter, and has actually been shot at, shot up and shot down.
Make no mistake. My opinion of the Sukhoi lineage is high. As with the French, those Russians know how to build and fly very pretty planes. Ditto for those from the Mig Bureau over the years, and I have many friends/students that encountered the 17, 19 and 21 varieties in combat - some U.S., some Israeli, some from...... Not going to get into the user qualifications of some nations flying the various planes, but look at the Mig-29 Fulcrum kills in the Storm versus the F-15 and F-18 and F-16 losses.
I would always consider the combination of pilot skill, system knowledge and aircraft performance before trashing one plane over the other. And then there's the supporting cast as we had in a few combat scenarios over the last 40 years.
Anyway, I wanna see one of those uber Sukhoi jets over here in the U.S. at an airshow.
Lastly, I am trying to find the hundreds of orders for the Su 35 and 57 by nations all over the world. Ditto for the Typhoon and Gripen and Rafale and Mirage 2000 a decade or so ago. Hmmmm...
Gotta cook dinner now.
Gums sends...
LowObservable
18th Apr 2019, 23:33
The MiG-29 was indeed pretty hopeless in DS. But as we learned in subsequent years (and as better informed sources knew), the bog-standard MiG-29 was, from the avionics and HMI standard, a typical Soviet ground-controlled interceptor. Since we kneecapped the C2 at H-plus-a-sneeze, it was thereafter remarkably useless, because Blue had an operational picture and Red did not.
The Su-35 and parallel Chinese upgrades are different animals, and the campaign (particularly in WestPac) will be even more different.
golder
19th Apr 2019, 05:15
I don't know where the disagreement is LO? I assume like Sweetman, that you agree the 5th gen system is going to get first look, first shoot on the SU-35. F22/F-35 have the SA of the battlespace and the SU is at a loss. You also say there is the Meteor, as an example of a BVR missile that is going on the F-35. You do disagree with Sweetman's opinion, that the SU will dodge all the Meteor/AIM-120D and other missiles and get WVR. Is it daytime or night time, are we offensive or defensive?? It really was a big ask. They could also have off-board missiles from other platforms both air and on surface, like the SM-6 available in the battlespace.
I know the RAAF said some years ago. That they had the SU covered with the FA-18F system, because of radar and the AIM-120C7 etc. So I'm not too concerned with the F-35. With more advanced missiles and the system Jericho etc.
What is available says the AIM-120D is a viable BVR missile. Australia must think so, we are buying 450 at A$1.6B of the AIM-120D. If the Meteor pans out, we do buy European missiles too. The ASRAAM for example.
An example of what is said on military sites on the AIM-120D
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/a-great-day-for-engines-raytheon-sees-an-amraam-boost-the-tucano-flies-in-the-middle-east-040010/
Pentagon documents confirm the use of smaller system components; with an upgraded radar antenna, receiver & signal processor; GPS-aided mid-course navigation; an improved datalink; and new software algorithms. The new hardware and software offers improved jamming resistance, better operation in conjunction with modern AESA radars, and an improved high-angle off-boresight “seeker cone,” in order to give the missile a larger no-escape zone. Less-publicized improvements reportedly include a dual-pulse rocket motor, for up to 50% more range and better near-target maneuvering.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-22/lockheed-s-costly-f-35-to-be-billions-costlier-pentagon-finds
Lockheed's Costly F-35 to Be Billions Costlier, Pentagon Finds
Lockheed Martin Corp’s F-35 jet, the world’s costliest weapons program, just got even costlier.
The estimated total price for research and procurement has increased by $22 billion in current dollars adjusted for inflation, according to the Pentagon’s latest annual cost assessment of major projects. The estimate for operating and supporting the fleet of fighters over more than six decades grew by almost $73 billion to $1.196 trillion.
The increase to $428.4 billion from $406.2 billion in acquisition costs, about a 5.5 percent increase, isn’t due to poor performance, delays or excessive costs for labor or materials, according to the Defense Department’s latest Selected Acquisition Report sent to Congress last week and obtained by Bloomberg News. Instead, the increase reflects for the first time the current cost estimates for a major set of upgrades planned in coming “Block 4” modifications, according to the report.....
weemonkey
23rd Apr 2019, 09:07
What is the longest ranged Russian/ Chinese AAM?
Despite the "development" of off platform data linked targeting, there is the weak link in the chain, the command aircraft, be it sentry type or looking glass. [if you are thinking ground based CCC forget it the russians have already said they WILL use tac nukes to pave the way]
When you are facing numbers of X magnitude greater than your own load outs then your critical asset is doomed.
What was the flag when the F3 det had their own personal "in to the valley" charge to eliminate the command ac?
With beam riders too. :ok:
SamYeager
23rd Apr 2019, 10:18
Tip of the iceberg?
Upgrade costs money shock! Our full report on pages 3, 4 and 5 details shock revelation that upgrades aren't free! :rolleyes:
weemonkey
23rd Apr 2019, 12:04
But they aren't UPGRADES are they.
They are REBUILDS to meet operational requirements that, at present, the aircraft do not meet.
BEagle
23rd Apr 2019, 16:20
Which rather reminds me of the Aussie comment to an Airbus suit, who'd proposed that customers should pay for an 'enhanced' Mission Planning System for the A330MRTT:
"How do you enhance something that doesn't bloody work?"
Still doesn't....so I hear.
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/04/25/government-watchdog-finds-more-problems-with-f-35s-spare-parts-pipeline/
Government watchdog finds more problems with F-35’s spare parts pipeline
WASHINGTON — Only about half of the F-35s worldwide were ready to fly (https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/02/27/with-months-left-on-the-clock-us-air-force-sprints-toward-readiness-goal/) during an eight-month period in 2018, with the wait for spare parts keeping jets on the ground (https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/06/01/some-of-the-oldest-f-35s-on-the-globe-are-forced-to-sit-and-wait-for-upgrades/)nearly 30 percent of the time, according to a new report by the Government Accountability Office.
Over the past several years, the Defense Department has sought to improve mission capable rates by making improvements to the way it and F-35 contractor Lockheed Martin order, stockpile and repair spare parts. However, GAO’s findings imply that the situation may have gotten worse (https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/03/08/key-piece-of-f-35-logistics-system-unusable-by-us-air-force-students-instructor-pilots/).
The GAO’s report, released April 25, investigated how spare parts shortages impacted F-35 availability and mission capable rates in 2018, with most data gathered between a May and November sustainment contract period.
“In 2017, we reported that DOD was experiencing sustainment challenges that were reducing warfighter readiness, including delays of 6 years in standing up repair capabilities for F-35 parts at its depots and significant spare parts shortages that were preventing the F-35 fleet from flying about 20 percent of the time,” GAO said in the report.
“According to prime contractor data, from May through November 2018, F-35 aircraft across the fleet were unable to fly 29.7 percent of the time due to spare parts shortages,” it said. “Specifically, the F-35 supply chain does not have enough spare parts available to keep aircraft flying enough of the time necessary to meet warfighter requirements.”........
t43562
26th Apr 2019, 08:29
Attack with Missiles - Bundeswehr
Perhaps this clip about the use of AAMs is slightly helpful to all of us riffraff who shouldn't be opining but do want to learn.
Salute!
Anybody here that did not deploy a new plane before all the logistic “tail” was in place will understand. And having three variations does not help for some aspects of each plane. So I recall my experience with the A-37 Dragonfly when sent to Vietnam for operational testing.
At Bien Hoa in 1967, we had zilch logistic support because all the planes were T-37 shells with beefed up gear, spars, hard points, new engines, etc. So little of the trainer stuff worked. First thing our clever wrenchbenders and maintenance officer did was write home and ask Mom to send a Sears catalog!!
We soon had Craftsman tool kits, various power tools that could run off of our power carts, and Radio Flyer children wagons. Wagons hooked up to bycycles and hauled tools, parts and even engines to the flight line. Still laughing.
Fast forward 12 years to Hill AFB and first F-16’s. Even tho we were at the logistics HQ for the plane, we lowly operating units did not have all the neat stuff. So deja vu one more time. Use Fm 209 and go to local Sears or maybe Ace Hardware and get a Craftsman wrench set and while there get a ladder. And still,laughing thinking about it.
Gums recalls......
weemonkey
26th Apr 2019, 16:27
Salute!
Anybody here that did not deploy a new plane before all the logistic “tail” was in place will understand. And having three variations does not help for some aspects of each plane. So I recall my experience with the A-37 Dragonfly when sent to Vietnam for operational testing.
At Bien Hoa in 1967, we had zilch logistic support because all the planes were T-37 shells with beefed up gear, spars, hard points, new engines, etc. So little of the trainer stuff worked. First thing our clever wrenchbenders and maintenance officer did was write home and ask Mom to send a Sears catalog!!
We soon had Craftsman tool kits, various power tools that could run off of our power carts, and Radio Flyer children wagons. Wagons hooked up to bycycles and hauled tools, parts and even engines to the flight line. Still laughing.
Fast forward 12 years to Hill AFB and first F-16’s. Even tho we were at the logistics HQ for the plane, we lowly operating units did not have all the neat stuff. So deja vu one more time. Use Fm 209 and go to local Sears or maybe Ace Hardware and get a Craftsman wrench set and while there get a ladder. And still,laughing thinking about it.
Gums recalls......
it was the same when Tornado entered service, although the Luftwaffe had spent the most on spares, the UK were the rob kings of the Tornado!
https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/695x401/06eb7e38b301857704e07efc2030beee22af40ba5059fb8417ae8f7a1db5 5c15_05d9ad285917fd778e3c0ae7090c1ce9b6182a90.png
Salute!
Thanks, ORAC. I am not upset with those numbers.
We would have to look at the criteria for all the levels of "capability", huh?
For example, in a very simnple plane like the A-37, we would report 80% or a bit higher as fully mission capable. We would have been 100%, but our X-band beacon used for blind bombing was missing or inop. That doofer was tracked by a ground unit and was like a GCA. Some dude gave us left right and then "pickle" - Combat Sky Spot ( which we called Combat Sky Dump). A great war story surrounds Lima Site 85, which had one of the ground stations and allowed dumps over Hanoi when wx was piss poor. A "company" helo got an A2A kill on a AN2 there!!
Another unit on our plane that kept us from FMC was a broken encryption doofer -KY-28 or 38. We only used it for SAR when up in North VietNam where bad guys heard everything we ever said.
So the F-35 numbers look about right for this stage.
Gums sends...
Could spend an age picking that diagram apart. If we were to take the world famous Harrier and it’s servicability that was the envy of all other types...if you totted up the total in the U.K. - including those with BAE, ETPS, FJTS, in upgrade to the big donk etc I think you got into the mid 70s. About half that amount were fragged to Cottesmore. So that would be a AVA of 50%, wouldn’t it? So 50% AVA would seem quite good.
How do you measure time for the other two metrics? Days? Hours? If it flies once is that a day serviceable? If it does the morning go and falls over in the afternoon does that mean a bad day or a 50% day? If a squadron with 12 jets managed a 4 turn 4 turn 2 in the day and a night wave of 4 - (quite reasonable) what would that mean for ‘time serviceable’?
Engines
27th Apr 2019, 09:24
Perhaps I could follow the leads of Gums and Orca and offer a few thoughts that may generate some thought on an important but seldom understood topic - military aircraft utilisation.
Managing fleets of military aircraft should not be an incredibly difficult task. As long as you have a clear and stable set of mission requirements, a well understood set of mission configurations, and a disciplined and structured approach to modifications, you should be able to achieve good levels of availability. Assuming, of course, well organised support systems and a stable production configuration.
Sadly, these conditions often don’t apply.
F-35 availability is being hit by early instability in its production configuration plus a seriously badly managed avionics software development programme. But that will improve. I agree with Gums and Orca that the figures being presented here aren’t atypical for the early years of a combat aircraft fleet.
What might surprise many people are the seriously bad levels of availability of many modern combat aircraft fleets and the main reason why they are so bad - really poor fleet management in service.
In my direct experience, many UK aircraft fleets have been decimated by poor management of in service configuration, mainly by indiscriminate application of in service modifications. Put simply, if you keep applying ‘mission essential’ mods to various groups of aircraft in a fleet, you can VERY quickly get to the point where you can only generate very low numbers of aircraft for ops. This phenomenon is called ‘fleets within fleets’ and has gone on for years in the UK. The main driver (and I choose these words carefully) is the desire of senior aircrew officers to get ‘new kit’ coupled with an unwillingness to engage with their engineers who are trying to manage the fleets being modified.
This is has been a largely unreported issue in the UK, mainly due to a general lack of understanding or even agreement around terms like ‘availability’, ‘readiness’, ‘serviceability’, ‘capability’, ‘mission ready’ and so forth. That has allowed the issue to evade scrutiny. I personally watched staff officers preparing replies to Parliamentary Questions on fleet availability that were perilously close to outright lies.
How bad are the numbers? My best guess is that no more than 20 to 25 percent of the UK’s main military aircraft fleets could be put in the air in a fully combat ready configuration at any one time. That’s averaged over some fleets that could do better and some that can’t even get to that. For my part, I think it’s an unreported scandal and should be investigated. Thoughts, anyone?
Best regards as ever to all those professional and dedicated service personnel working hard to meet the task,
Engines
Just This Once...
27th Apr 2019, 11:31
One of the real-world availability issues that is almost unique to the F-35 is the planned reliance on synthetic training, with remarkably sparse actual in-air training. Whilst this provides cost benefits and the ability to train in a more classified environment it does present combat availability challenges, some of which are reflected in the comments above.
Clearly on operations a squadron needs a squadron's worth of combat ready aircraft with the honed maintenance, weapon loading, logistics and the support teams behind them. Back in the Cold War sortie generation rates were drawn from specific exercises and fleet experience. Quite simply, we trained as we fought when it came to maintenance, weapons, logistics and support.
With the aircrew element tripping the light fantastic in the networked simulator just how do you gain realistic experience and data for everything else?
The RAF/RN are looking to operate just a handful of real sorties in any given week. If a real tail number has not been utilised for a couple of weeks how do you measure its serviceability - do you simply count the days not used as 'serviceable' if it was ok on the last flight? If you crew-in to that jet and it fails and you switch to another aircraft just how do you record the previous history - was it really serviceable for the last couple of weeks, but not tested, or was it 'serviceable' on the basis that nobody had actually tried. If a squadron's worth of support personnel can be utilised to launch a pair of F-35s can you really turn 4/4/2 for 10 days+ with your sister squadrons doing the same?
Even for typical FJ ops the switch from peacetime requirements and manning to actual surge ops can be dramatic. In peacetime trades such as armourers have little to do and are often manned below a rather parsimonious set level. Switch to a large-scale shooting war and we run these guys to the ground. Same thing will happen in other pinch-point trades and large-scale ops cannot rob personnel from other squadrons as they will share the same commitment and pressures. Not every war is timetabled months in advance with just 1 of X squadrons deployed on a set rotation.
The long-term effect on maintainers with 'little to do' has a deleterious effect on currency, competency and any meaningful level of on-the-job-training. I can think of one current ME type that was deployed on ops for years without ever needing an engine removal since first manufacture. When the inevitable day came the engine guys had zero experience and zero confidence in undertaking the task. Thankfully RR and a civilian company were brought in to help with the engine change in the UK. With the F-35 the lack of flying hours will reduce the experience of all those who will be leaned on when synthetic is switched for real operations. Equally live ops may be the first time we stress components over a short timescale and there will be discoveries and new arisings that have just not been anticipated.
A reliance on synthetic training is a gamble and I argued long and hard that a platform had to be tested and mature at all levels before parking most of the fleet and heading for the (aircrew) simulators and hoping for the best. I lost the debate.
downsizer
27th Apr 2019, 12:10
In my direct experience, many UK aircraft fleets have been decimated by poor management of in service configuration, mainly by indiscriminate application of in service modifications. Put simply, if you keep applying ‘mission essential’ mods to various groups of aircraft in a fleet, you can VERY quickly get to the point where you can only generate very low numbers of aircraft for ops. This phenomenon is called ‘fleets within fleets’ and has gone on for years in the UK. The main driver (and I choose these words carefully) is the desire of senior aircrew officers to get ‘new kit’ coupled with an unwillingness to engage with their engineers who are trying to manage the fleets being modified.
I would have to disagree with the bolded bit, IME the driver is cost. For instance we are buying 8 sets of HMCS and that's it. So any mods can only be applied on X number of frames. If we properly funded TES kit, we wouldn't end up with fleets within fleets.
Engines
27th Apr 2019, 12:16
I’d like to respond to JTO’s really thoughtful post. Firstly, I absolutely agree that there is no substitute whatever for practicing ‘real world ops’ flying rates.
The issue, as he so well points out, is what ‘real world ops’ levels of flying are. Staffs can plan and assume all they like, but those plans and assumptions will almost always be way off. That doesn’t make the staffs bad people - it just makes them human.
F-35 does pose some interesting challenges in that many of its expected missions and tactics can only feasibly be rehearsed in a simulator, unless you have access to some seriously high end adversaries, ranges and threat simulators.
But as JTO so rightly says, not flying at near full rates means that key aspects don’t get tested. Weapon loading teams are one area. I’d add embarked ops. You simply won’t get that large and complex ‘system of systems’ working effectively unless it’s exercised at or near full rate. But there’s more. More flying generates better serviceability.
Here’s my experience, for what it’s worth. In 1982, I was an engineer officer on a 9 aircraft ASW squadron in a CVS. We were set up, manned and equipped to fly a ‘ripple 3’ for about 14 days.
In the event we flew a ripple three for around 71 days, plus another 3 or 4 lines during the day. Weapons were loaded and unloaded for almost all the ripple sorties. Most of the ripple sorties involved active dipping using a 1960s era sonar. Our main radios were 1950s technology. Our flying rates over those 71 days were about three times maximum normal peacetime rates.
Our serviceability levels, measured in terms of when aircraft successfully completed a ripple sortie, were somewhere above 85%. The main reason we achieved those amazing figures was not shutting the aircraft down between sorties. Hot refuels and hot crew changes kept the aircraft serviceable.
So, if I were in charge for a day, I’d instruct all FJ units to plan their sorties as ‘double bubbles’ separated by a hot refuel and hot practice rearm or dearm. In my view that would almost certainly raise availability by 30%.
Thoughts, anyone?
Best regards as ever to all those juggling the flypros to meet the training needs,
Engines
Timelord
27th Apr 2019, 13:10
Thoughts?
Certainly in the latter days of the Tornado Force they were making a lot of use of the hot pits.
The substitution of simulator training for real is certainly more complex than the bean counters and sim companies would have you believe. As JTO points out it does not exercise the whole chain, but even for the aircrew the whole sequence has to be completed for the sim to come close to being equivalent. By that I mean that to replace real flying, the sim exercise should include the boring bits: plan, brief, dress, start up, taxi, take off, transit, AAR etc etc. On the other hand, to practice specific skills the sim ability to reposition, hot start, reload etc is very useful. That sort of sortie however, is nothing like real flying and should not be claimed to be equivalent.
Hi Engines,
Great insight as ever. During my time with the USN we went through the pits all the time to hot refuel before a hot crew change - although we did it with the port donk shut down - can you FOD shield an intake on F-35 to do the same?
Just This Once...
27th Apr 2019, 17:40
Getting a second mission programed into an F-35 is (currently) not a quick task. Swapping a pilot with the engine running would be an event. My knowledge is not current but unless things have changed the ladder door had to be shut with the engine running due to the proximity of the intake:
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/964x685/article_2594439_1cbe758900000578_223_964x685_3e48b24efd78d1a 9edabb903066c9b1ad1c9bb6e.jpg
Engines
27th Apr 2019, 21:39
Orca,
Thanks for replying.
No, you can’t do a hot pilot swap on F-35. The USMC did look at whether it was possible for aircrew to exit and enter the aircraft by climbing along the wing and entering the cockpit from aft. Not a goer.
However, the aircraft definitely can be refuelled and rearmed engine running.
Hope this helps, best regards as ever to all those working out how to get the most out of the aircraft,
Engines
tdracer
28th Apr 2019, 00:46
Engines, I don't disagree with anything in your posts. Pretty much every modern military aircraft has had issues during 'the early years'.
However, I can't recall another program where "the early years" have gone on for so long. We're looking at a program that was initially launched 27 years ago, with down select to the Lock-Mart design in 2001.
Maybe I'm turning into a cynical old man, but the F-35 program has already lasted longer than some successful military aircraft have gone from cradle to grave, and we're still in the early years?
Back when I was in college, I remember reading a somewhat sarcastic editorial in Aviation Week. It said something along the line of, at the current rate of progression, by the year 2000 the a new military aircraft would be able to go Mach 10, pull 20g's, and defeat any adversary with ease. Oh, and the entire annual USA defense budget would be required to buy one aircraft...
Engines
28th Apr 2019, 02:50
TDRacer,
i thought it might help if I replied to your post.
I’m not sure that it’s 27 years since the programme started, it’s 18 since the SDD contract was awarded in 2001. You can certainly trace the programme’s origins back to CALF and the JSF effort, but those were technology demonstration efforts, effectively pre-prototypes.
If you looked at, say, Typhoon, you could make the UK’s EAP the start point and get to a not dissimilar timeframe. My opinion ( and that’s all it is) is that combat jet design is getting harder and harder as time goes on, and the risks involved are not easing.
F-35 is a very, very advanced jet. The STOVL variant is especially advanced, and there were significant risks that had to be overcome in the SDD phase. That took time. And, as I’ve posted before, some incredibly talented Brits working the issues.
On the other hand, as I’ve also posted a number of times, the F-35 programme has suffered serious delays that were avoidable. My take is that there were three main areas where LM screwed up. (There were others)
First one was a absurdly over optimistic programme that assumed that advanced CAD would ensure that everything would be right first time and allow a far shorter development schedule. This placed severe pressure on the early design stage and led to:
Number two - really poor structural design of the airframe, which led to a severe overrun in weight. This is unforgivable in any combat aircraft, but simply lethal for s powered lift aircraft like the F-35B. By the time LM were told that they had a problem, all the variant designs were grotesquely heavy. The redesign added around two years to the programme.
(I should note that both F-22 and Typhoon also had serious weight issues during their development phases).
Number three was a poorly designed and again over optimistic mission systems integration effort. The DOD knew that this area wasn’t LM’s strong suit, but the ‘winner takes all’ policy for the competition gave them the job. By any standard, they’ve made a poor fist of it. The decision to have only one Systems Integration Lab (jointly made by LM and the customers) was an especially poor one, as it has caused serious bottlenecks in software development and testing.
My estimate is that had LM got these areas right, the programme would have been about 18 months to two years faster.
Hope this helps a bit. Best regards as ever to all those who have given their talent and hard work to make the aircraft what it is.
Engines
https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/698748.pdf
GAO Report April 2019.
superplum
30th Apr 2019, 08:46
However, the aircraft definitely can be refuelled and rearmed engine running.
Engines
Really? That goes against basic weapons safety principles that we all know and love! It was never permitted during Cold War OTR's. How would they achieve (eg) power-off no-volts checks and the like?
:eek:
Bob Viking
30th Apr 2019, 08:58
I could be wrong and I know this will sound facetious and also bear in mind I do not know the correct answer, neither do I know the processes involved in loading weapons onto an aircraft (I know how to drop them though) but it is possible that technology has moved on since the Cold War. Maybe LM have devised a way to do it with engines running? This is the 21st century after all.
Standing by to be corrected.
BV
F-35B Hot Pit Refueling and Rearming
https://youtu.be/iEbaq1kxjJE
Engines
30th Apr 2019, 11:28
Super,
Perhaps I can help here. ‘Hot’ weapon loads (and unloads) are perfectly safe as long as you have:
1. A properly designed and properly installed Master Arming Safety Switch
2. An aircraft layout that allows the weapons to be safely brought in under the aircraft
3. Weapons that are fully tested and cleared for the RF environment around a running aircraft (and for the wider RF environment - not a given on a flight deck)
4. Properly trained and experienced personnel for both day and night conditions
The RN have been doing ‘hot’ loads on helicopters for well over 40 years. Not so frequently on fixed wing, as the Sea Harrier was not an easy aircraft to get the weapons under without getting to close to either air intakes or the exhausts.
F-35 had a firm requirement for ‘hot’ loads right from the outset. The geometry of the weapons bay doors was adjusted a number of times to get all the right clearances, and some ingenious weapons loading kit was devised. Note that at sea almost all F-35 weapons are hoisted into the bays and on to the pylons, as opposed to bring ‘pressed up’ by a weapons loader.
Hope this helps.
Best regards as ever to the people doing the hot liads on a dark wet night on the deck,
Engines
Salute!
The older folks must also know that the MIL-STD-1760 and NATO equivalent for the weapon stations is not like the previous planes.
The store stations have remote interface units that are controlled via a mux bus. So they can cut off all power, control signals and so forth to the station. In the old days, with fixed/dedicated signals and power, some interfaces were powered/active as long as the aircraft electrical system was hot. e.g. the AIM-9 needed volts to keep the seeker head spinning ( note the cover they put on before you shut down - it had magnets in it to keep the head from beating itself to death as it spun down) , the Harpoon needed some volts for whatever, and so forth.
Funny, but the cannon might be the hardest thing to service. And the solid state electronics don't need to warm up like the old things I learned on in the 60's and 70's. I would also be nervous in those weapon bays without a very strong bar to keep the doors open, heh heh.
Gums sends...
NutLoose
8th May 2019, 12:07
US looking at blocking sales of the F-35 to Turkey if they buy Russian s-400, and as of April after months of warnings, the U.S.stopped delivery of F-35 parts to Turkey in retaliation for Ankara’s decision to move ahead with the S-400.
Errr.... Are they not the ones that will overhaul the RAF engines?
https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2019/05/03/lawmakers-offer-bill-to-block-f-35-for-turkey/
Rhino power
8th May 2019, 14:29
US looking at blocking sales of the F-35 to Turkey if they buy Russian s-400, and as of April after months of warnings, the U.S.stopped delivery of F-35 parts to Turkey in retaliation for Ankara’s decision to move ahead with the S-400.
Errr.... Are they not the ones that will overhaul the RAF engines?
Norway and the Netherlands also have/will have engine overhaul depots, so shouldn't be an issue...
-RP
weemonkey
9th May 2019, 22:59
.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-07/williamtown-joint-strike-fighters-susceptible-to-corrosion/11085220?pfmredir=sm&fbclid=IwAR3YmEn4CtnjrMZPRmrVhqFSyIJeVrkTzjpn9pgBE6kXJT8WgwE _Oz2-pUY
.machinedesign.com/what039s-inside/aluminum-forgings-alcoa-help-joint-strike-fighter-lose-pounds
Yep. Wrong metal used to replace "the" major bulkhead after titanium was too heavy.
Do not wish to incur further wrath of the mod so you may have to adapt above to work. maybe.
tootlepip, and merry groundings; bring back THE FIN.
Now we know the answer to the question of whether it is feasible, or cost effective, to upgrade early batch F-35s to a combat capable condition. The USAF, at least, isn’t going to waste the money.
Hell of an expensive Aggressor unit mind you.......
https://www.nellis.af.mil/News/Article/1843738/air-force-to-reactivate-aggressor-squadron-for-f-35-training/
https://theaviationist.com/2019/05/07/f-35a-explodes-in-new-usaf-video-promoting-teamwork-is-the-messaging-off/
F-35A “Explodes” in New USAF Video Promoting Teamwork......
https://youtu.be/DCkqKfHfJLA
weemonkey
10th May 2019, 08:38
Salute!
Thanks, ORAC. I am not upset with those numbers.
We would have to look at the criteria for all the levels of "capability", huh?
For example, in a very simnple plane like the A-37, we would report 80% or a bit higher as fully mission capable. We would have been 100%, but our X-band beacon used for blind bombing was missing or inop. That doofer was tracked by a ground unit and was like a GCA. Some dude gave us left right and then "pickle" - Combat Sky Spot ( which we called Combat Sky Dump). A great war story surrounds Lima Site 85, which had one of the ground stations and allowed dumps over Hanoi when wx was piss poor. A "company" helo got an A2A kill on a AN2 there!!
Another unit on our plane that kept us from FMC was a broken encryption doofer -KY-28 or 38. We only used it for SAR when up in North VietNam where bad guys heard everything we ever said.
So the F-35 numbers look about right for this stage.
Gums sends...
"Production of the F-35 began in 2007 while development was in its early stages and before developmental flight testing had started. As a result of this concurrent development, the 357 aircraft delivered through 2018 will need retrofits to fix deficiencies and design issues found during testing.9 The program’s total estimated cost of concurrency is $1.4 billion.10 The program office plans for over 500 aircraft to be procured by the time operational testing is completed. Until operational testing is complete, there is a risk that additional problems with the aircraft may be identified. As a result, the concurrency costs of retrofitting delivered aircraft could increase.."
Page 6 of GAO report ...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-20/f-35-spare-parts-funding-at-risk-as-pentagon-seeks-data-rights
F-35 Spare Parts Funding at Risk as Pentagon Seeks Data Rights
The House panel that approves defense spending intends to withhold half of next year’s funding for F-35 spare parts until the Pentagon and Lockheed Martin Corp. (https://www.bloomberg.com/quote/LMT:US) agree on the sale of technical data for spare parts to improve the tracking of items and allow purchases from other suppliers.
Struggling to resolve spare parts shortages and bottlenecks for the fighter plane worldwide, the Defense Department this month requested that Lockheed offer a proposal to sell it cost and technical data rights to the parts. That would give the Pentagon the ability to seek its own suppliers for parts or even produce some at its maintenance depots. But the panel said the department has yet to hear back from Lockheed, the No. 1 U.S. defense contractor.
With the issue unresolved, the House Appropriations Defense subcommittee said it will only allow spending of $364 million of $728 million requested for Navy and Marine Corps jet parts in fiscal year 2020 until the Pentagon has “received an adequate cost proposal” from Lockheed.
“I assume Lockheed Martin will fight this as consensus growth expectations for the company include a healthy increase in revenues from sustaining the F-35 fleet,” said Byron Callan, a defense analyst with Capital Alpha Partners. “If the government gets data rights they can compete spares and software or do some of this at their own depots and software labs.”...........
Air Force Magazine (http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pages/2019/May%202019/House-Appropriators-Scrutinize-Air-Force-Fighter-Plans.aspx?fbclid=IwAR2Z7WbpWcJnnu_dcRjNul7MTSduIWjBlWNL2ZDi KYTCic7s48ru59qPpBk)
House Appropriators Scrutinize Air Force Fighter Plans
........ “The plan that has been submitted to the committee requests 48 F-35A aircraft in fiscal year 2020 and every year thereafter through 2024, a reduction of 30 aircraft compared to the 2017 Selected Acquisition Report profile for the F-35 program.” When 18 F-15EXs are added to the mix each year, total fighter procurement would grow to only 66 jets annually—still six short of where the service says it needs to be.
“The Department of Defense, and the Air Force in particular, have sent conflicting and confusing signals with respect to the F-35 program,” appropriators continued. “The fiscal year 2020 request repeats a pattern of shifting aircraft quantities to future years, reducing the planned procurement from 84 to 78. Further, the Air Force submitted a fiscal year 2020 budget request that flattens F-35A procurement at 48 aircraft per year through the future years defense program despite the F-35A program of record remaining stable at 1,763 aircraft.”
Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein said in February the service can’t afford its 72-jet goal. Air Force acquisition chief Will Roper also noted in early May the F-35 buy plan shrinks over the next few years “in order to align the procurement timeline with capability development and reduce retrofit costs.........
RAFEngO74to09
21st May 2019, 17:07
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y93Vn633z-M
weemonkey
22nd May 2019, 05:58
Doesn't Marham look desolate....
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/big-f-35-flaw-wont-be-easy-fix-60672
The Big F-35 Flaw That Won't Be Easy to Fix
“.........Unfortunately, this process is hampered by a crippling shortage of thousands of spare parts, as described in a new report by the Government Accountability Office (https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/698693.pdf). The shortfall has left only half of the brand-new stealth fighters in mission-capable condition, forcing operational F-35 units to cannibalize aircraft as they wait weeks for replacement parts to be delivered. For several years, the Pentagon has attempted to address the shortage, but according to the GAO, these incoherent measures have so far failed to keep up with the increasing pace of new airframe production.........
Another problem afflicting spare part distributions is that F-35 parts are built and used by operators across Europe and Asia, but those parts are reportedly being routed through the United States instead of being deposited to depots in regional hubs. This inefficiency is resulting in overseas F-35 operators having to wait over ten days on average to receive replacement parts, with 28 percent of parts having yet to arrive after thirty days. This will likely to lead to complaints with foreign F-35 operators further confused by clashing protocols over who gets spare parts first based on “business rules” versus operational priorities.
Eventually, a more dispersed network of regional supply depots is intended to alleviate this logistical bind, but the effort to stand up those depots with the necessary parts is reportedly three to five years behind schedule.
Furthermore, the GAO reports claims that although the Pentagon spent $2 billion on F-35 parts since 2016 (including $960 million in 2018 alone), it has no unified accountability as to what that money was spent on, how many parts were acquired, and where those parts are currently located. Only a single program official had been dedicated to parts accounting, and December 2018 a spare parts database had yet to be populated with any data..........”
pr00ne
3rd Jun 2019, 21:29
weemonkey,
Marham has ALWAYS looked desolate. It wasn't called El Adem with grass for nothing.
LehMehh
3rd Jun 2019, 21:57
Japan is buying 107 F-35 stealth fighter jets and Poland is considering buying 32 F-35 fighter jets. F-35 has been a success as the business.
weemonkey
3rd Jun 2019, 22:05
"Put this away will you Jeeves."
"Sure thing Piles"
FODPlod
4th Jun 2019, 11:31
Latest news about production and flying hours:
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/400th-f-35-delivered-as-fleet-passes-200000-flight-hours/
Still wondering when it will be cancelled.
weemonkey
4th Jun 2019, 15:47
And how many of that 400 will be forming the backbone of the largest aggressor sqn to be ever formed. ;)
etudiant
4th Jun 2019, 19:19
Still think it looks a pig, fat and lumpy.
Really is the Curtiss P 40 of our day, not great, but profitable.
Do not believe a future conflict would last long enough to generate a Mustang or a Tempest.
subsonicsubic
5th Jun 2019, 14:04
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9HqVXGRJL0
Never saw one clip of Typhoons, F15s or Tornados flying the Mach Loop at speed with the burners plugged in.
Alchad
5th Jun 2019, 17:21
Never saw one clip of Typhoons, F15s or Tornados flying the Mach Loop at speed with the burners plugged in.
One of my retirement hobbies is low level Aviation photography and living near to the Mach Loop I've spent quite a bit of time sitting on the side of a hill waiting for a fast jet to appear round the corner. Occasionally if the pilots spotted photographers they might plug in the burners for a few seconds to give us that special shot, but there was an unwritten code that "what happened in the Loop stayed in the Loop" and such shots were rarely published. With the advent of Facebook the Loop became much more popular and the code started to be ignored so you can probably find burner shots if you Google.
As I said, burners were only normally plugged in for a few seconds while they were near the photographers, although there was one rather special occasion when a pilot on his "fini" Tornado flight was supposed to have done the entire Loop on burners - certainly for the 1/3rd of the Loop that was in my field of view at least😀
I was fortunate to be at Rainbow when the above video was taken. It was actually a photo shoot by the Dutch F35 323 TES Squadron based at Edwards AF base and received quite a bit of publicity in the aviation press, couldn't see the RAF doing that with one of their F35's in the Loop!
sandiego89
5th Jun 2019, 17:25
Latest news about production and flying hours:
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/400th-f-35-delivered-as-fleet-passes-200000-flight-hours/
Still wondering when it will be cancelled.
Some interesting nuggets in there: ".....The production total is comprised of 283 F-35A, 87 F-35B and 30 F-35C deliveries. The 200,000 flight hours includes all F-35s in the fleet comprised of developmental test jets, training, operational, U.S. and international aircraft. Among the three variants, approximately 125,850 hours were flown by the F-35A, 52,410 hours by the F-35B and 22,630 by the F-35C...."
Seems like the C's are flying a lot. With 22,000+ hours on 30 airframes....
Rhino power
5th Jun 2019, 22:56
Never saw one clip of Typhoons, F15s or Tornados flying the Mach Loop at speed with the burners plugged in.
So? What's your point?
-RP
weemonkey
5th Jun 2019, 23:01
Never saw one clip of Typhoons, F15s or Tornados flying the Mach Loop at speed with the burners plugged in.
Nice shots!!
Notice how the flight refueling receptacle markings make a pretty good aiming point!!!
Just This Once...
6th Jun 2019, 09:24
Putting the nice round pipper over the nice round helmet is our usual preference.
Rhino power
8th Jun 2019, 07:30
U.S. to stop training Turkish F-35 pilots because of S400 deal... (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-turkey-f35-exclusive/u-s-to-stop-training-turkish-f-35-pilots-because-of-russia-deal-sources-idUSKCN1T802O)
-RP
Dominator2
8th Jun 2019, 07:58
Obviously not filmed in Death Valley as it is a National Park with NO flying below 3000ft agl. There are, however, some great shots.
Even in the Tornado, if the burners were selected for 30+ seconds at low level the speed would end up at 600+ish kts.
Putting the nice round pipper over the nice round helmet is our usual preference
I thought that it was between the eyes!
Crosspost from Turkey thread.
https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/581618-turkey-coup-9.html#post10489140
Lyneham Lad
11th Jun 2019, 11:34
Article on Flight Global. (https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/analysis-turkey-ban-to-wipe-out-20-of-f-35-sales-i-458816/)
Extract from the article:-
In total, European nations have committed to a 478-aircraft programme of record for the F-35 by 2030. Removing Turkey’s 100-aircraft programme from the count wipes out more than a fifth of Lockheed Martin’s future orders in the region over the next decade. The country is tied with Australia as the fourth-largest buyer of the F-35, behind the USA, Japan and the UK.
Turkish troubles come as Europe’s other two big F-35 customers, Italy and the UK, could go back on their purchase promises. Italy, which has already reduced its F-35 order once, from 131 to 90 aircraft, is governed by a coalition government that includes the Five Star Movement, a political party which has threatened to reduce funding for F-35 purchases. The UK is committed to buying 138 aircraft as part of its programme of record, though its ambitions to develop a notional sixth-generation fighter, via BAE Systems’ Tempest concept, could cut into its commitment.
On the flip side, Lockheed Martin is fielding the F-35 in active procurement competitions in countries such as Switzerland and Finland. Poland and Greece have publicly expressed interest in buying the stealth fighter, while Romania and Spain are prospective buyers, too, said Vice Admiral Mathias Winter, executive officer of the F-35 Joint Program Office, in an April hearing before the House Armed Services Committee.
Though it set 31 July deadline for Turkey to give up acquiring the S-400, the US Defense Department (DoD) is already taking steps to remove the country from the F-35 programme, including banning Turkey from the annual F-35 Chief Executive Officer Roundtable on 12 June and updating the programme's governing documents without Ankara’s participation. Even so, the Pentagon is keeping the door cracked to allow Turkey to re-enter the Joint Strike Fighter programme.
“None of the steps we are taking are irreversible,” says Lord. “If Turkey chooses to forgo delivery of the S-400, we look forward to restoring normal program activity.”
AnglianAV8R
12th Jun 2019, 13:10
The Pentagon is battling the clock to fix serious, unreported F-35 problemshttps://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/06/12/the-pentagon-is-battling-the-clock-to-fix-serious-unreported-f-35-problems/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ebb-%206-12&utm_term=Editorial%20-%20Early%20Bird%20Brief
Lyneham Lad
12th Jun 2019, 13:15
Will there ever be 'full-rate' production?
Flight Global article. (https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/pentagon-lockheed-in-34-billion-f-35-deal-458821/?cmpid=NLC%7CFGFG%7CFGFDN-2019-0612-GLOBnews&sfid=70120000000taAm)
In what is billed as the largest procurement contract in the history of the Department of Defense (DoD), Lockheed Martin and the Pentagon reached a $34 billion “handshake agreement” for hundreds of F-35 Lightning II stealth fighters.
The agreement covers the purchase of 478 F-35 aircraft over low-rate initial production lots 12, 13 and 14. The Joint Program Office and Lockheed Martin are negotiating on the final details of the contract, which would cover aircraft delivered to the USA, as well as development partners in the Joint Strike Fighter programme and Foreign Military Sales customers.
“When the statutory certification is completed, we will be able to formally announce the final Unit Recurring Flyaway (URF) prices for each variant in each lot,” Ellen Lord, under secretary of defense for acquisition and sustainment, says on 10 June. “Until that time, I am proud to state that this agreement has achieved an estimated 8.8% savings from lot 11 to lot 12 F-35As, and an approximate average of 15% URF reduction across all variants from lot 11 to lot 14. This framework estimates the delivery of an F-35A for less than $80 million in lot 13, one year earlier than planned.”
The DoD plans for lot 12 to have 157 aircraft, an 11% increase from the prior lot, which is in production throughout 2019. The agreement for 478 aircraft over lots 12, 13 and 14 would nearly equal the total number of F-35s contracted in all prior lots: 501 aircraft.
Lockheed Martin is ramping up production to meet what it expects to be growing demand for its signature stealth fighter. The company sees worldwide sales of the fighter possibly reaching 4,600 units over the course of its lifecycle.
melmothtw
12th Jun 2019, 14:11
...but there was an unwritten code that "what happened in the Loop stayed in the Loop" and such shots were rarely published.
Can I ask why such shots were taken in the first place, if not to be seen by others?
melmothtw
12th Jun 2019, 14:12
Will there ever be 'full-rate' production?
Flight Global article. (https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/pentagon-lockheed-in-34-billion-f-35-deal-458821/?cmpid=NLC%7CFGFG%7CFGFDN-2019-0612-GLOBnews&sfid=70120000000taAm)
Yes, in Lot 15.
neilf92
12th Jun 2019, 21:49
Can I ask why such shots were taken in the first place, if not to be seen by others?
Because not everyone who photographs jets needs the kudos of splashing the pics all over the internet . If you invest the time and effort to get yourself right time right place you're entitled to take whatever shots you want and keep them for your own satisfaction or to share with a few friends in private . "Chacun a son gout "
melmothtw
13th Jun 2019, 07:07
...keep them for your own satisfaction or to share with a few friends in private
Is that even legal? Ho hum.
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/06/12/supersonic-speeds-could-cause-big-problems-for-the-f-35s-stealth-coating/
Supersonic speeds could cause big problems for the F-35′s stealth coating
WASHINGTON — At extremely high altitudes, the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps’ versions of the F-35 jet can only fly at supersonic speeds for short bursts of time before there is a risk of structural damage and loss of stealth capability, a problem that may make it impossible for the Navy’s F-35C to conduct supersonic intercepts.
The Defense Department does not intend to field a fix for the problem, which influences not only the F-35’s airframe and the low-observable coating that keeps it stealthy, but also the myriad antennas located on the back of the plane that are currently vulnerable to damage, according to documents exclusively obtained by Defense News.
The F-35 Joint Program Office has classified the issues for the "B" and "C" models as separate category 1 deficiencies, indicating in one document that the problem presents a challenge to accomplishing one of the key missions of the fighter jet. In this scale, category 1 represents the most serious type of deficiency........
The link below leads to a long list of articles posted yesterday explicating various issues. I’ve chosen just one to post separately to give an example......
http://www.defensenews.com/smr/hidden-troubles-f35/
The Hidden Troubles of the F-35
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/06/12/the-marine-corps-no-1-priority-for-the-f-35-involves-a-rough-landing-in-hot-environments/
The Marine Corps’ ‘No. 1 priority’ for the F-35 involves a rough landing in hot environments
WASHINGTON — It was a hot day aboard the amphibious assault ship Essex (https://www.defensenews.com/news/your-military/2018/09/27/f-35-flies-first-combat-mission-in-afghanistan/) when a pilot brought his F-35B in for what is known as a “mode four” flight operation, where the jet enters hover mode near a landing spot, slides over to the target area and then vertically lands onto the ship (https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/singapore-airshow/2018/02/09/marine-f-35-pilots-preparing-for-first-ever-hover-landings-aboard-an-amphibious-ship/).
It’s a key part of the F-35B’s short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing capability, known as STOVL. And normally, everything in a “mode four” landing goes smoothly. But on this day, when the pilot triggered the thrust to slow his descent, something went wrong. The engine, working hard on a day that temperatures cracked 90 degrees Fahrenheit while trying to lift a plane that was heavier than most returning to base, wouldn’t generate the needed thrust for a safe, ideal landing.
The pilot got the plane down, but was shaken enough by the situation to write up an incident report that would eventually be marked as “high” concern by the F-35 program office. “May result in unanticipated and uncontrolled sink, leading to hard landing or potential ejection/loss of aircraft, particularly in the presence of HGI [hot gas ingestion],” reads a summary of the issue, which was obtained by Defense News as part of a cache of “for official use only” documents that detail major concerns with the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.....
The issue seems to stem from two factors: the heat, and the fact that much of the testing for the “mode four” maneuver was done with planes that were lighter, as they weren’t armed with heavy stores of weaponry. Feedback from the Marine Corps highlighted that while the average engine should not see this issue until around 750 flight hours, “several engines are at/near the point of concern,” and that number will continue to grow with the extended use of older planes.........
Winter said engineers have identified an issue in the design of the control software that the pilot uses to generate demand for thrust from the propulsion system.
“There’s no redesign of the engine [necessary]. The engine is doing what the engine is supposed to do,” Winter emphasized, before acknowledging that in addition to the software fix, the program office has worked with Honeywell to change how the company calibrates the throttle valve on the engine. “We’ve identified the software fix for the control system, the calibration fix to the throttle valve and some near-term fleet actions that could be taken for very hot days to ensure that the pilot gets the performance he or she needs on those hot days,” he said.
That software fix will be a rolling target, as the first increment of the software release is due in June, followed by another at the end of this year or early next year. “We’ve given them tighter tolerances to tune them more precisely, so that when it goes on the engine it’s no longer not giving the command the way it’s supposed to be,” Winter explained. “It wasn’t tuned correctly for this high-demand phase of flight. Now, we fixed that. That’s fixed. The software is going in to make sure that the pilot can command that thrust and understand the heat and the loading.”
Those fixes won’t be cheap, and when asked who would pay for them, Winter was blunt, saying it is his office’s belief the thrust issue is a “design deficiency” that merits “consideration” from industry. “In this case it doesn’t matter that the design was done back in 2002, it’s still pragmatistic, so you owe consideration because we’re fixing it right now,” Winter said of industry..........
FODPlod
14th Jun 2019, 07:14
Yet again demonstrating how extremes of temperature can severely affect man and machine, as Napoleon and the Wehrmacht found to their cost in Russia and ‘hot & heavy’ fixed wing (esp STOVL) and rotary aircraft have experienced in more recent operations.
I wouldn’t call 32C extreme - but it does reveal the extremely low thrust margin available in the F135 engine for STOVL landings. Temperatures in the Gulf can reach and exceed 50C.
GeeRam
14th Jun 2019, 07:44
The link below leads to a long list of articles posted yesterday explicating various issues. I’ve chosen just one to post separately to give an example......
http://www.defensenews.com/smr/hidden-troubles-f35/
The Hidden Troubles of the F-35
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/06/12/the-marine-corps-no-1-priority-for-the-f-35-involves-a-rough-landing-in-hot-environments/
The Marine Corps’ ‘No. 1 priority’ for the F-35 involves a rough landing in hot environments
WASHINGTON — It was a hot day aboard the amphibious assault ship Essex (https://www.defensenews.com/news/your-military/2018/09/27/f-35-flies-first-combat-mission-in-afghanistan/) when a pilot brought his F-35B in for what is known as a “mode four” flight operation, where the jet enters hover mode near a landing spot, slides over to the target area and then vertically lands onto the ship (https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/singapore-airshow/2018/02/09/marine-f-35-pilots-preparing-for-first-ever-hover-landings-aboard-an-amphibious-ship/).
It’s a key part of the F-35B’s short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing capability, known as STOVL. And normally, everything in a “mode four” landing goes smoothly. But on this day, when the pilot triggered the thrust to slow his descent, something went wrong. The engine, working hard on a day that temperatures cracked 90 degrees Fahrenheit while trying to lift a plane that was heavier than most returning to base, wouldn’t generate the needed thrust for a safe, ideal landing.
The pilot got the plane down, but was shaken enough by the situation to write up an incident report that would eventually be marked as “high” concern by the F-35 program office. “May result in unanticipated and uncontrolled sink, leading to hard landing or potential ejection/loss of aircraft, particularly in the presence of HGI [hot gas ingestion],” reads a summary of the issue, which was obtained by Defense News as part of a cache of “for official use only” documents that detail major concerns with the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.....
The issue seems to stem from two factors: the heat, and the fact that much of the testing for the “mode four” maneuver was done with planes that were lighter, as they weren’t armed with heavy stores of weaponry. Feedback from the Marine Corps highlighted that while the average engine should not see this issue until around 750 flight hours, “several engines are at/near the point of concern,” and that number will continue to grow with the extended use of older planes.........
Winter said engineers have identified an issue in the design of the control software that the pilot uses to generate demand for thrust from the propulsion system.
“There’s no redesign of the engine [necessary]. The engine is doing what the engine is supposed to do,” Winter emphasized, before acknowledging that in addition to the software fix, the program office has worked with Honeywell to change how the company calibrates the throttle valve on the engine. “We’ve identified the software fix for the control system, the calibration fix to the throttle valve and some near-term fleet actions that could be taken for very hot days to ensure that the pilot gets the performance he or she needs on those hot days,” he said.
That software fix will be a rolling target, as the first increment of the software release is due in June, followed by another at the end of this year or early next year. “We’ve given them tighter tolerances to tune them more precisely, so that when it goes on the engine it’s no longer not giving the command the way it’s supposed to be,” Winter explained. “It wasn’t tuned correctly for this high-demand phase of flight. Now, we fixed that. That’s fixed. The software is going in to make sure that the pilot can command that thrust and understand the heat and the loading.”
Those fixes won’t be cheap, and when asked who would pay for them, Winter was blunt, saying it is his office’s belief the thrust issue is a “design deficiency” that merits “consideration” from industry. “In this case it doesn’t matter that the design was done back in 2002, it’s still pragmatistic, so you owe consideration because we’re fixing it right now,” Winter said of industry..........
Err.........I maybe being a bit thick here, but isn't this 'problem' why UK is going down the SRVL route for B ops.....??
melmothtw
14th Jun 2019, 13:47
Err.........I maybe being a bit thick here, but isn't this 'problem' why UK is going down the SRVL route for B ops.....??
As far as I am aware, SRVL was intended to enhance the aircraft's performance rather than to mitigate any problems.
Two's in
14th Jun 2019, 14:14
and the fact that much of the testing for the “mode four” maneuver was done with planes that were lighter, as they weren’t armed with heavy stores of weaponry.
I had no idea you could perform trials and Release to Service testing in a more benign environment than is likely to be encountered by operational users. Must be a new thing...
Mogwi
14th Jun 2019, 17:14
A quick shufti at the JPT gauge should sort that problem; JPT too high - burn some gas off. In the old days the duty pilot would calculate the max VL fuel weight for the worst engine and post it on the board. Individual pilots would then confirm their own limits on the VSTOL computer (wizz-wheel).
A free-air hover can be attained at a greater gross weight than a VL. SRVL increases the bring-back weight by allowing the wing to develop some lift (a bit) and reducing hot gas recirculation into the intake close to the deck.
Can't be that difficult.
mog
BTW, 37 years ago today the Falkland Islands were liberated, thanks in no small measure to the Sea Harrier. BZ guys.
tdracer
14th Jun 2019, 18:15
Educated guess here, but it sounds to me like it the engine became EGT limited and cut back thrust unexpectedly.
Assuming that's correct (or at least close), the 'fix' would be easy - get rid of EGT limiting except during starting. We did that in the commercial world 35 years ago, assuming that the pilot is in a better position to judge if they need to exceed the EGT limit for safety reasons than the FADEC was.
weemonkey
15th Jun 2019, 13:27
I had no idea you could perform trials and Release to Service testing in a more benign environment than is likely to be encountered by operational users. Must be a new thing...
"the fact that much of the testing for the “mode four” maneuver was done with planes that were lighter, as they weren’t armed with heavy stores of weaponry. "
I believe there was a large amount of crowing about the skips ability to return to deck with unexpended ordinance..
FODPlod
15th Jun 2019, 13:41
"the fact that much of the testing for the “mode four” maneuver was done with planes that were lighter, as they weren’t armed with heavy stores of weaponry. "
I believe there was a large amount of crowing about the skips ability to return to deck with unexpended ordinance..
Yes. That's when SRVL (Shipborne Rolling Vertical Landing) would come into its own rather than a purely vertical landing. By the sound of it, this trial was conducted using the latter.
Turbine D
15th Jun 2019, 16:03
Originally posted by tdracer
Educated guess here, but it sounds to me like it the engine became EGT limited and cut back thrust unexpectedly.
I'm not sure about the turbine temperature control architecture used on F135 engines, but in some other military engines like the F101 or F110, EGT isn't used to control turbine temperature upper limits. In military engines, there is less turbine temperature margins when operating on a normal fan speed schedule. To protect the high pressure turbine from excessive over temperature the control system incorporates a turbine blade temperature limiting function known as T4B. A dedicated optical infrared pyrometer is used to measure the temperature of the HPT turbine blade. This signal is fed to the electronic control which reduces core fuel flow to limit the turbine temperature. T4B anticipation logic is built in to prevent excessive overshoots during power bursts.
tdracer
16th Jun 2019, 04:14
I'm not sure about the turbine temperature control architecture used on F135 engines, but in some other military engines like the F101 or F110, EGT isn't used to control turbine temperature upper limits. In military engines, there is less turbine temperature margins when operating on a normal fan speed schedule. To protect the high pressure turbine from excessive over temperature the control system incorporates a turbine blade temperature limiting function known as T4B. A dedicated optical infrared pyrometer is used to measure the temperature of the HPT turbine blade. This signal is fed to the electronic control which reduces core fuel flow to limit the turbine temperature. T4B anticipation logic is built in to prevent excessive overshoots during power bursts.
GE tried to use that pyrometer trick on the GE90-94B - didn't work as well in the commercial environment as it did on the military and they went back to a thermocouple based system on the GE90-115B (and GEnx). However my point remains, pulling back thrust to protect turbine temps caused us big problems in commercial (it didn't help that Pratt had a POS wire harness that would short and indicate very high EGT causing the control to pull back thrust during takeoff). So we did away with EGT limiting except during autostart - counting on the pilot to pull back power if there was an exceedance and it wasn't an emergency.
Vendee
16th Jun 2019, 15:04
The RB199 in the Tornado was one of the first to use optical pyrometers to record and control EGT. They were more accurate than conventional downstream thermocouples but they were much higher maintenance because of the tendency to soot up. They were supposed to be cleaned every 25 hrs, calibrated every 50 hours and performance tested every 100 hrs. The 25 hr cleans were frequently "cuffed off" but you can see why such a regime would be prohibitive for civilian applications. I've not really kept up with the civilian engine sector over the past 15 years and I'd be interested to know if any modern civvy turbofan uses pyrometers.
tdracer
17th Jun 2019, 18:45
I've not really kept up with the civilian engine sector over the past 15 years and I'd be interested to know if any modern civvy turbofan uses pyrometers.
Not 100% positive about this, but I believe GE still uses the pyrometer system on the GE90-94B - not bothering to retrofit to the -1115B style EGT. Granted I don't think the GE90-94B is still in production having be superseded by the -115B.
The GE90-94B was a pretty lousy engine out of the box (unreliable and high maintenance), but matured very nicely providing the basis for the -115B.
Rhino power
17th Jun 2019, 22:36
Some nice footage from the cockpit of an F-35A during a display over Miami Beach during the Hyundai Air & Sea Show May 26, 2019.
F-35 from the cockpit
Imagegear
18th Jun 2019, 05:31
Just an uninformed comment but I would assume from looking at the video that an override to the control software permits a robust pull to the wrong edge of the buffet, not to mention the pedal turn. Perhaps it's just a result of the camera being set on a flexible mounting.
IG
golder
20th Jun 2019, 06:28
If it was a solid mount, you wouldn't see any movement, other than the pilot. So there is a bit of both. There is some buffet apparent, airflow boundary layer, laminar flow and all that stuff. The video seems to make it out to be a lot more than it actually is.
Finningley Boy
20th Jun 2019, 15:08
https://www.defensenews.com/smr/hidden-troubles-f35/2019/06/12/when-us-navy-and-marine-f-35-pilots-most-need-performance-the-aircraft-becomes-erratic/
See (https://www.defensenews.com/smr/hidden-troubles-f35/2019/06/12/when-us-navy-and-marine-f-35-pilots-most-need-performance-the-aircraft-becomes-erratic/) the info on the link above, not very reassuring regarding Bs and Cs.
Best regards,
FB
airsound
20th Jun 2019, 15:47
In that video - thanks Rhino power, btw, I enjoyed it - but why is the pilot using both hands on the stick at one stage? Anyone know?
airsound
Just This Once...
20th Jun 2019, 16:50
Presumably to push the aircraft outside the normal control law limits and hold the pitch and roll at that level for the pedal turn.
Just a shame if you operate the F35B........
http://aviationweek.com/defense/lockheed-martin-proposes-40-fuel-capacity-upgrade-f-35a
Lockheed Martin Proposes 40% Fuel Capacity Upgrade for F-35A
Lockheed Martin (http://awin.aviationweek.com/OrganizationProfiles.aspx?orgId=27191) has started engineering studies focused on substantially extending the range of the F-35A (http://awin.aviationweek.com/ProgramProfileDetails.aspx?pgId=613&pgName=Lockheed+Martin+F-35+JSF) by increasing the total onboard fuel capacity by 40% and improving the aircraft’s fuel efficiency, Aviation Week has learned.
The studies would resurrect a long-abandoned plan to install external fuel tanks under the wings of the conventional takeoff-and-landing variant. The range-extension study also could benefit from proposed propulsion improvements, such as Pratt & Whitney’s Growth Option upgrade offer for the F135 (http://awin.aviationweek.com/ProgramProfileDetails.aspx?pgId=625&pgName=Pratt+Whitney+F135) engine........
Not all customers wanted to rely on the range provided by internal fuel capacity alone, though. When the U.S. State Department (http://awin.aviationweek.com/OrganizationProfiles.aspx?orgId=15127) approved the Israeli export configuration in 2011, the F-35I included external fuel tanks. But the impact on the cost and schedule for the aircraft forced Israeli officials to defer the requirement.
Nonetheless, work continued on the project within Israel’s aircraft industry. In April, Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) and Elbit Systems’ Cyclone subsidiary confirmed that they had completed initial design studies on different fuel tank designs. IAI studied a conformal fuel tank design, while Cyclone examined a design for a 600-gal. external fuel tank. The latter would likely help preserve the F-35I’s stealthy profile on radar.
Lockheed confirms that it is now engaged in a study about the option for a 600-gal. fuel tank and a wing pylon that can be jettisoned. The tank is designed to be integrated on the inboard stations—3 and 9—on each wing, the company says. Although the pilot can restore the F-35A’s stealth signature to radar by jettisoning the tank and pylon, it is not clear how the radar cross-section is affected with the equipment attached to the wing.
Given that the 18,500-lb. internal fuel capacity of the F-35A is equivalent to 3,000 gal., adding two 600-gal. external tanks on an F-35A would raise overall fuel volume onboard to 4,200 gal., or 25,700 lb. That still falls short of the 35,500-lb. capacity for an F-15E configured for a ferry flight but should dramatically increase the single-engine fighter’s endurance.
“While exact ranges depend on mission profiles, our studies show a significant increase in both range and loiter time—or mission persistence,” a Lockheed spokesman says.
So far, the company has completed feasibility studies and conducted initial analysis, as well as early design of the range-extension upgrades. The industry-funded work was done in advance of an approved customer requirement, but Lockheed plans to present the range extension as a candidate upgrade through the Continuous Capability, Development and Delivery framework for the F-35’s follow-on modernization program, also known as Block 4.
The remaining work required includes detailed design and qualification of the fuel tank and pylon, as well as software integration, flight testing and airworthiness certification, Lockheed says.
sandiego89
21st Jun 2019, 14:13
Wow, 600 gallon tank on each side, that's the same size as the big F-4 Phantom centerline tank.
I can think of a few scenarios where Israel and other users might find these handy.
As for the "it is not clear how the radar cross-section is affected with the equipment attached to the wing..." I have an idea.
About the same size as the Tornado 2250L underwing tanks.
https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/259x194/image_b901eeb73700408e2e6d6c847e1a088b2438bf39.jpeg
fantom
21st Jun 2019, 15:24
In that video - thanks Rhino power, btw, I enjoyed it - but why is the pilot using both hands on the stick at one stage? Anyone know?
airsound
During the F4 conversion course, we were taught to roll the aircraft under very high 'G' using rudder only. Robinson Loop ? We had to use both hands on the control column to avoid ANY aileron input which would have resulted in a flick. Irrelevant, possibly but I would not want you to miss out on my vast knowledge base.
BEagle
21st Jun 2019, 15:27
[…] adding two 600-gal. external tanks on an F-35A […]
I'll be that'll have the test pilots queuing up to do the asymmetric stores jettison trials.
Bob Viking
25th Jun 2019, 02:31
UK stealth fighter jets join fight against Islamic State https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48745027
Used on Ops already. Not bad for a jet that we’ve only had in the UK for a few months.
BV
Just over a year. Tempus fugit.....
Bob Viking
25th Jun 2019, 05:18
Twelve months can still be classed as a ‘few’ in my book. 😉
Time does indeed fly.
BV
jolihokistix
25th Jun 2019, 08:47
The not-so-subliminal message of the BBC's clip above is quite different from the claimed objective of 'going after IS remnants'.
weemonkey
25th Jun 2019, 23:46
She added: "It obviously has some incredible capabilities which are really putting us in the lead."
Excellent. Heart warming that IS is proving to be a real test of it's capabilities.
tdracer
26th Jun 2019, 20:54
External tanks on pylons would obviously be highly adverse to the radar signature - but properly designed conformal tanks could have a minimal impact.
I wonder if it would be practical to design conformal tanks that could be jettisoned if combat was imminent?
TEEEJ
28th Jun 2019, 13:02
U.S. Air Force F-35A Lightning IIs, center, lead a formation of Israeli Air Force F-35I, right, and Royal Air Force F-35B, left, during Exercise Tri-Lightning over the Eastern Mediterranean Sea, June 25, 2019. Tri-Lightning is a defensive counter air exercise involving the U.S., U.K. and Israel. The exercise is designed to improve interoperability and coordination in air operations among the U.S. and its partners. (U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Keifer Bowes)
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1088x696/190625_f_zd147_0196_0ce19e86596c0f89929d423f53a09deb42034814 .jpg
https://www.afcent.af.mil/News/article/1886852/
JFZ90
28th Jun 2019, 18:04
Can someone please point me to a balanced article on F35?
I see a lot of bashing about stealth, costs and snags, but little with an overall balanced view.
I’m wondering at $100m a pop this is not much more than an F18E now (and when in full prod), but has proper LO which can be maintained, has brilliant SA and sensor suite. Do the speed and agility compromises need to be seen in that context? Would anyone really want an F18 instead? Also from a Uk perspective we make the back end (?) so much of our £bn investment will be seen again in Salmesbury? etc. through the 3000 production run.
I realise it is not all roses but struggle to find articles that bring out some of these positives.
PS What would you - today - rather go and drop some paveway with - Typhoon/F18 or F35?
has brilliant SA and sensor suite. Do the speed and agility compromises need to be seen in that context? Would anyone really want an F18 instead?
The sensor suite is old, because of the protracted delay, and far from modern standards and already contracted to be replaced, the same or better is already planned for other airframes. Yes. Ask the USN......
Ohhh! And the new Ford class carriers won’t be able to operate them till their mid life updates....
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/navy-disaster-why-wont-americas-new-aircraft-carriers-have-f-35s-64051
weemonkey
28th Jun 2019, 20:01
Can someone please point me to a balanced article on F35?
Post 11858 refers.
weemonkey
28th Jun 2019, 20:10
The sensor suite is old, because of the protracted delay, and far from modern standards and already contracted to be replaced, the same or better is already planned for other airframes. Yes. Ask the USN......
Ohhh! And the new Ford class carriers won’t be able to operate them till their mid life updates....
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/navy-disaster-why-wont-americas-new-aircraft-carriers-have-f-35s-64051
Same old same old. RAF Typhoon targeting [lightning 5?] pods 3+ gen ahead of geriatric F35 standard fit. No Raptor pod, uplinking, brite cloud etc, etc.
Yeah everything's good. :}
tdracer
28th Jun 2019, 21:57
The sensor suite is old, because of the protracted delay, and far from modern standards and already contracted to be replaced, the same or better is already planned for other airframes. Yes. Ask the USN......
Ohhh! And the new Ford class carriers won’t be able to operate them till their mid life updates....
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/navy-disaster-why-wont-americas-new-aircraft-carriers-have-f-35s-64051
OK, what's different about the F35 that the Ford class can't handle them? The linked article is strangely silent on what that might be.
weemonkey
28th Jun 2019, 23:11
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1088x696/190625_f_zd147_0196_0ce19e86596c0f89929d423f53a09deb42034814 .jpg
https://www.afcent.af.mil/News/article/1886852/
So just what is the inverted time limitation on the '135 engine. ;) Nice shot indeed.
JFZ90
29th Jun 2019, 10:15
Post 11858 refers.
Many thanks.
I guess the UK NAO might shed some light, but I’ve never found the NAO very balanced - too busy trying to find some issue, blow it out if proportion and big themselves up as having found something and provided direction and hence saved the day. As a result they often fail to comment on positives or see the bigger picture.
Is the GAO similar?
weemonkey
29th Jun 2019, 12:12
This may help.
https://wordhistories.net/2016/12/28/silk-purse-sows-ear/
JFZ90
29th Jun 2019, 13:25
This may help.
https://wordhistories.net/2016/12/28/silk-purse-sows-ear/
Is it really so simple to mock?
What would have been the alternative? If you ignore the vstol variant for a moment and focussed on what you needed to replace F16 and F18 etc. Would their replacements have been very different to F35?
Or would the requirements driving stealth, SA sensors and networking etc. have resulted in very similar - if not the same - technical risks and delays that F35 saw? But possibly duplicated in two very expensive programmes?
And if you argue to just upgrade F16 and F18 instead, you can’t bolt on stealth so you’re abandoning that as a requirement?
Is the cost of stealth a price worth paying?
I assume no one is pretending a stealthy pure F16 (and parallel programmes for F18 etc) would have been any cheaper than F35?
weemonkey
29th Jun 2019, 15:17
Is it really so simple to mock?
What would have been the alternative? If you ignore the vstol variant for a moment and focussed on what you needed to replace F16 and F18 etc. Would their replacements have been very different to F35?
Or would the requirements driving stealth, SA sensors and networking etc. have resulted in very similar - if not the same - technical risks and delays that F35 saw? But possibly duplicated in two very expensive programmes?
And if you argue to just upgrade F16 and F18 instead, you can’t bolt on stealth so you’re abandoning that as a requirement?
Is the cost of stealth a price worth paying?
I assume no one is pretending a stealthy pure F16 (and parallel programmes for F18 etc) would have been any cheaper than F35?
I guess if you don't want to read the facts presented in the annual NAO report[s] and internally digest the failings, or read this thread, that's up to you.
Cheers.:}
Asturias56
30th Jun 2019, 06:56
"I guess the UK NAO might shed some light, but I’ve never found the NAO very balanced - too busy trying to find some issue, blow it out if proportion and big themselves up as having found something and provided direction and hence saved the day. As a result they often fail to comment on positives or see the bigger picture. "
Care to list some positives from recent UK military procurement?
They are the National AUDIT Office - it's their job to find out what is over budget, where the money is short and where illogical optimism rules - and heaven knows they're not short of examples............
Can you point me to the part of the NAO reports that deal with the actual threat?
JFZ90
30th Jun 2019, 15:55
The belief that the NAO reports can be relied upon is touching but I’m sure many understand why they usually fail to provide a balanced view. Surprised this is not a more widely held view.
mike1964
1st Jul 2019, 00:09
Out of curiosity, why is the UK roundel only on the port wing? The only other time I recall that happening was on camouflaged heavy aircraft (e.g. Beverley, Victor, C130 etc) in the 1960s/1970s. Never understood the reason for that either...
Asturias56
1st Jul 2019, 06:48
The belief that the NAO reports can be relied upon is touching but I’m sure many understand why they usually fail to provide a balanced view. Surprised this is not a more widely held view.
JFZ, perhaps if you could give us an illustration of what you see as a a "balanced view" it might help us understand your viewpoint?
Asturias56
1st Jul 2019, 06:49
Out of curiosity, why is the UK roundel only on the port wing? The only other time I recall that happening was on camouflaged heavy aircraft (e.g. Beverley, Victor, C130 etc) in the 1960s/1970s. Never understood the reason for that either...
Cost saving!!!! Every little helps in these troubled times!!! :ok:
mike1964
1st Jul 2019, 10:35
Cost saving!!!! Every little helps in these troubled times!!! :ok: Never thought of that. Obviously correct
JFZ, perhaps if you could give us an illustration of what you see as a a "balanced view" it might help us understand your viewpoint?
I hinted at it in my email - e.g. is a balanced view being taken of the cost and difficulty of an LO solution, and how that difficulty could have been seen three times in three bespoke aircraft etc.
And to what extent is the LO worth it? Looking at open source info, if it’s a “metal marble”, then is it useful to have an aircraft costing £100m that is detected/tracked at a range of tens of Km if they other side are lucky, vs a £80m F18 which is seen & tracked and shot down by the same systems at 200+km. Of course its more complex but you rarely see articles recognising the benefits of LO.
Other questions are could it have been done quicker and cheaper through better mgt, or are the signs there that de-risking was comprehensive enough whilst never likely to capture & remove every dev problem in such a bold project, and broadly it does do what it should. It’s no F111B with flaws that would drive cancellation for instance. I suspect they possibly did overlap dev and prod too much, but who is to say what is right - wait too long and obsolescence is an even bigger challenge.
My request is simply based on the fact that a google pulls up loads of what I suspect are pretty ill informed castigations of F35, with stuff about EO tracking and stealth not working etc. It’s simplistic drivel quite often and obviously not so simple.
I read the latest GAO report and found it quite amusing - they sound quite like the NAO! :) Their recommendation to delay the latest development investment in batch 4 in case its takes longer than expected is a particular gem. When you look at the meat of their concern it can sound like they are not practitioners. You can almost see the eyebrows raising as the DoD wrote its response.....
I have no experience of the F35 programme so could be completely mistaken of course.
Bob Viking
1st Jul 2019, 18:01
There is more to the F35 than it ‘simply’ being an LO fighter.
The sensors and other clever wiggly-amps are what really set it apart.
Now, I am not the person to discuss those capabilities on here but there must be something on google to highlight what I am talking about.
BV
There is more to the F35 than it ‘simply’ being an LO fighter.
The sensors and other clever wiggly-amps are what really set it apart.
Now, I am not the person to discuss those capabilities on here but there must be something on google to highlight what I am talking about.
BV
I’m sure thats the case Bob, I touched on the SA aspects too. I’ve heard the radar and ew suite are quite something.
I’d have thought there would be something balanced out there - and felt sure the contributors here would know if there was.
I’ve already parked the GAO - their focus is actually quite narrow it seems. Shame.
sandiego89
1st Jul 2019, 19:30
Out of curiosity, why is the UK roundel only on the port wing? The only other time I recall that happening was on camouflaged heavy aircraft (e.g. Beverley, Victor, C130 etc) in the 1960s/1970s. Never understood the reason for that either...
Single roundel on port upper wing surface, and single on starboard under surface is actually quite common to modern jets, especially NATO, and especially with modern gray low visibility schemes. Not just a F-35 thing, you will see some RAF Tornados and Typhoons in this scheme with only a port upper wing roundel- but not all depending on the date of the scheme, role, special commemorative schemes, etc. Port upper and starboard lower is a US standard and perhaps a NATO standard for tactical jets- results may vary- not all follow the practice.
Note the Israeli F-35's in the formation above have roundels on both wings. Non-NATO countries seem to have a mix single/both wing roundels.
BEagle
1st Jul 2019, 19:42
Some of what I've been informed by careless whispers about the F-35B is pretty amazing. No, I will not explain further.
However its 6000kg fuel load isn't exactly generous.
But will the UK buy the F-35A rather than more F-35Bs? If so, will the tankers be modified or the F-35As? Either option will be rather pricey...
melmothtw
1st Jul 2019, 19:49
You have to suspect that any F-35A buy will be the tipping point for modifying the Voyagers, and that the expense of this will be factored into the procurement. Of course, that would require some joined-up thinking.
Timelord
2nd Jul 2019, 09:09
Or buy the C model. Already probe equipped, more internal fuel and may prove useful if we ever modify the QEs to conventional carriers.
More fuel, but a bigger wing and more drag, ending up with a much longer transonic acceleration, lower thrust to weight ratio and no greater range than the F-35A. That’s before you add in that it won’t benefit from the proposed conformal tanks etc being looked at by LM for the F-35A.
Thats before you consider the total planned production run of the F-35C is about 320, assuming the USN doesn’t cut its order, as opposed to several thousand planned F-35As, meaning the cost of spares and support will be even more eye watering than the A or B.
Timelord
2nd Jul 2019, 09:39
Complicated innit?
melmothtw
2nd Jul 2019, 09:57
That’s before you add in that it won’t benefit from the proposed conformal tanks etc being looked at by LM for the F-35A.
Is that confirmed? I haven't seen any official announcement that the CFTs are for the A only. On the same subject, do we know if the drop tanks are for all variants (LM seem to be of the opinion that the B is plumbed and wired for them, despite claims on here that this was all stripped out some time ago to save weight).
Asturias56
2nd Jul 2019, 11:30
I hinted at it in my email - e.g. is a balanced view being taken of the cost and difficulty of an LO solution, and how that difficulty could have been seen three times in three bespoke aircraft etc.
And to what extent is the LO worth it? Looking at open source info, if it’s a “metal marble”, then is it useful to have an aircraft costing £100m that is detected/tracked at a range of tens of Km if they other side are lucky, vs a £80m F18 which is seen & tracked and shot down by the same systems at 200+km. Of course its more complex but you rarely see articles recognising the benefits of LO.
Other questions are could it have been done quicker and cheaper through better mgt, or are the signs there that de-risking was comprehensive enough whilst never likely to capture & remove every dev problem in such a bold project, and broadly it does do what it should. It’s no F111B with flaws that would drive cancellation for instance. I suspect they possibly did overlap dev and prod too much, but who is to say what is right - wait too long and obsolescence is an even bigger challenge.
My request is simply based on the fact that a google pulls up loads of what I suspect are pretty ill informed castigations of F35, with stuff about EO tracking and stealth not working etc. It’s simplistic drivel quite often and obviously not so simple.
I read the latest GAO report and found it quite amusing - they sound quite like the NAO! :) Their recommendation to delay the latest development investment in batch 4 in case its takes longer than expected is a particular gem. When you look at the meat of their concern it can sound like they are not practitioners. You can almost see the eyebrows raising as the DoD wrote its response.....
I have no experience of the F35 programme so could be completely mistaken of course.
Thanks - a very reasoned response. I suspect they are focused on outcomes, especially financial ones... it might take a great deal of time to investigate the swamp of procurement decisions and trade offs ..........
Asturias56
2nd Jul 2019, 11:32
Some of what I've been informed by careless whispers about the F-35B is pretty amazing. No, I will not explain further.
However its 6000kg fuel load isn't exactly generous.
But will the UK buy the F-35A rather than more F-35Bs? If so, will the tankers be modified or the F-35As? Either option will be rather pricey...
OOoooooh - you naughty, naughty TEASE beagle..... :p
More fuel, but a bigger wing and more drag, ending up with a much longer transonic acceleration, lower thrust to weight ratio and no greater range than the F-35A. That’s before you add in that it won’t benefit from the proposed conformal tanks etc being looked at by LM for the F-35A.
Thats before you consider the total planned production run of the F-35C is about 320, assuming the USN doesn’t cut its order, as opposed to several thousand planned F-35As, meaning the cost of spares and support will be even more eye watering than the A or B.
Tricky. The F35C is the best looking variant - does that carry any weight? :)
Is it a totally crazy non-starter to put the probe into an F35A?
Do the A and C really have the same Combat Radius?
Is it a totally crazy non-starter to put the probe into an F35A? IIRC LM say the refuelling probe space has been left vacant on the F-35A and one can be fitted without major modification.
The costs of doing so, and the associated trials, would not be cheap - or shared.
Do the A and C really have the same Combat Radius?
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-35-specs.htm
kiwi grey
3rd Jul 2019, 03:04
That's before you consider the total planned production run of the F-35C is about 320, assuming the USN doesn’t cut its order, as opposed to several thousand planned F-35As, meaning the cost of spares and support will be even more eye watering than the A or B.
Since the USN never really wanted a single-engine airframe for carrier operations, it wouldn't surprise me at all if they bought significantly less than 320. Maybe enough for one squadron in each active Carrier Air Group, plus a training/OCU squadron (or perhaps one on each coast?), plus some attrition spares. Somewhere between 200 and 225, perhaps. Possibly buy some extra F-35Bs for the Marines to partly compensate LM, but buy more FA-18E/F Block 3 to keep airframe numbers up until whatever the Next Generation looks like arrives, which may well be un-crewed or optionally-crewed
Just my $0.02
melmothtw
3rd Jul 2019, 04:43
Since the USN never really wanted a single-engine airframe for carrier operations,
Do you have any evidence for that, or is that just the perceived wisdom?
The USN has operated many types of single-engined airframes at a time when engines were a lot less reliable than the F135.
Bob Viking
3rd Jul 2019, 05:01
I know I have discussed this issue before on a different thread but I think there is some legacy thinking with regards to the safety implications of single engine aircraft.
Taking an example from the USAF produces an example of what I mean. In 2017 the USAF had 7 engine related class A mishaps (incidents costing >$1M and resulting in serious injury/death) on the F15 and none on the F16.
Statistical anomaly? Maybe. Small sample size? Definitely. However, it goes some way to illustrating my point. Sometimes having two engines just increases the chances of a mishap. Since they are very close neighbours, one can easily damage the other.
When your one engine can produce 43000lb thrust in burner and has been highly engineered then I think the old idea that two is better than one is not necessarily true any more.
So, maybe the USN doesn’t like single engined jets and God knows they have a lot more clever people than I working on the problem but things are not always as they seem.
BV
ORAC,
Those appear to be requirements that could have either not been achieved, been achieved or exceeded by a margin - which could be small or significant.
Im sure we agree that the result could also be modelled, actually achieved or achieved whilst subject to real world constraints such as landing allowance and div fuel - for those of that persuasion.
Anyone know what the actual answer is?
BVRAAM
4th Jul 2019, 02:35
Some of what I've been informed by careless whispers about the F-35B is pretty amazing. No, I will not explain further.
However its 6000kg fuel load isn't exactly generous.
But will the UK buy the F-35A rather than more F-35Bs? If so, will the tankers be modified or the F-35As? Either option will be rather pricey...
So some of those with enhanced DV Clearances have broken the law...
That's reassuring. Not.
RAFEngO74to09
17th Jul 2019, 16:36
207 Sqn - the UK Lightning OCU - arriving at RAF Marham - marking the end of the UK training operation in the USA at MCAS Beaufort, SC:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXCDnoKPHgY
airsound
17th Jul 2019, 18:18
Thanks for that RAFEng! So, conventional landings - without all those strange hatches open - will be the norm for arrivals at Marham?
airsound
etudiant
17th Jul 2019, 21:40
Thanks for that RAFEng! So, conventional landings - without all those strange hatches open - will be the norm for arrivals at Marham?
airsound
VTOL is expensive and to be avoided when possible. So conventional other than the proficiency exercises.
Rhino power
17th Jul 2019, 22:20
VTOL is expensive and to be avoided when possible. So conventional other than the proficiency exercises.
F-35B doesn't do VTOL operationally (well the VT part at least...), it's a STOVL jet, not VTOL, and SRVLs are just as likely as VLs too, for obvious reasons...
-RP
Cross post from Turkey thread - Turkey formally kicked out of F-35 program.
https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/581618-turkey-coup-10.html#post10521516
Davef68
18th Jul 2019, 13:05
The first batch all seemed to always do landings with the barn door open, even rolling landings
peter we
20th Jul 2019, 17:41
meaning the cost of spares and support will be even more eye watering than the A or B.
This obsession with the CUURENT operating cost of the F-35. The V-22 costs twice as much per hour as a F-35. You don't hear any complaints about that.
weemonkey
20th Jul 2019, 21:15
This obsession with the CUURENT operating cost of the F-35. The V-22 costs twice as much per hour as a F-35. You don't hear any complaints about that.
Good pooint.
How many V-22's are planned for UKAF?
Noone.
Now back to the melting appendages, hypoxia and software costs...
Geordie_Expat
21st Jul 2019, 13:36
Since when did the RAF become the UKAF ?
Lyneham Lad
24th Jul 2019, 10:05
From an article on Breaking Defense (https://breakingdefense.com/2019/07/f-35-canopy-new-glue-new-supplier-may-boost-readiness/?utm_campaign=Breaking%20News&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=74960908&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-85KV5feDQZEyonlQ7XsiEr0kWwqNGDbHgOYFqKB9O4fBEMa15vfxtlnGfaOW TZnuvsjJdWbdWvtur6WQOuTIgGrH4V6g&_hsmi=74960908):-
Newer A, B and C Variant aircraft are averaging greater than 60 percent mission capable rates, with some units consistently at or above 70 percent.The government office that runs the F-35 program says the plane should meet the mandated readiness rate of 80 percent (https://breakingdefense.com/tag/80-percent-aircraft-readiness/) by 2020 if the problems with the plane’s canopies and spare parts shortages can be fixed.
As we reported last week, the presumptive Defense Secretary, Mark Esper, said in his written answers (https://breakingdefense.com/2019/07/esper-f-35-wont-hit-80-readiness-cites-stealth-parts/) to the Senate Armed Services Committee that the F-35 would notmeet the 80 percent readiness rate because, primarily, of problems with the canopies. Here’s a shortened version of the email exchange I had with Brandi Schiff, the F-35 program spokeswoman:
Q1.) What are the problems with the cockpit transparencies?
A1.) The primary source of unserviceable canopies is transparency coating delamination. Delamination occurs when the surface coatings on the canopy separate from the base transparency. Though this condition occurs through normal use, several transparencies have delaminated unexpectedly after only a couple hundred flight hours of use. This issue does not impact the airworthiness of the canopy or aircraft.
The problem is the delamination — that is, the coating peeling away from the plane’s surface — affects the F-35’s stealth characteristics, which may mean the plane’s radar cross section is affected.
Click the link for the rest of the article.
BVRAAM
25th Jul 2019, 00:38
F-35B doesn't do VTOL operationally (well the VT part at least...), it's a STOVL jet, not VTOL, and SRVLs are just as likely as VLs too, for obvious reasons...
-RP
It's both?
golder
25th Jul 2019, 06:48
It does do a Vertical Take Off. Weight fuel/weapons are the issues to stop it being used offensively. It could be used to hop a short distance and the many reasons why that could be useful.
NutLoose
27th Jul 2019, 14:32
So stealthy until you use reheat that blisters the stealth coating..
However, the documents obtained by Defense News reported that heat from afterburner exhaust caused an F-35B to experience "bubbling and blistering" of its radar-absorbent materials (RAM) and of its horizontal tail surfaces and boom. Heat damage also "compromised the structural integrity" of the horizontal tail and boom of an F-35C. Sensitive sensors buried inside the skin of the rear tail surfaces could also have proven susceptible to damage.
Since the incident, the Marines have instituted a policy requiring F-35B pilots not to engage afterburners for more than eighty seconds cumulatively at Mach 1.3, or forty seconds at Mach 1.4. Navy F-35C pilots have fifty seconds at Mach 1.3 to ration.To "reset" the afterburner allowance, they must then allow three minutes non-afterburning flight for the tail area to cool down to avert damage.Though looser restrictions on safe afterburner usage exist for other jets, the document apparently acknowledges the restrictions imposed on the F-35B and C are "not practical/observable in operationally relevant scenarios."
After all, a pilot in a combat situation would likely struggle to count exactly how many seconds the afterburners have been cumulatively engaged while attempting to manage the many other tasks demanding his or her attention.An F-35 pilot might still choose to exceed afterburner limits during an urgent combat scenario, accepting the risk that the plane might sustain "degradation of [stealth], damage to antennas, and/or significant horizontal tail damage." However, this could then result in the jet being removed from operations while it awaits depot-level maintenance, which could be especially problematic for carrier-based squadrons.
https://taskandpurpose.com/f35-afterburners-stealth-tech-problem
https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2019/08/01/italy-navy-air-force-debate-where-to-base-f-35bs/
Italy Navy, Air Force debate where to base F-35Bs
Lyneham Lad
2nd Aug 2019, 16:19
Well, the Israelis seem to be getting on with putting their F-35I's to use. From an article in Breaking Defense (https://breakingdefense.com/2019/07/is-israel-flying-f-35s-in-iraq-to-hit-iranian-missile-shipments/?utm_campaign=Breaking%20Defense%20Air%20&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=75300838&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8V_mWR847ATlthP5TO9fiV36DrNC90t0PVuWgUW7H9o7c6DXoMKZPbeWSI0H Wsk2UYfRDNK-3vW-7se9amfhfYpnV-Mg&_hsmi=75300838)
Reports are emerging of Israeli strikes (https://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Israel-expanding-attacks-against-Iranians-in-Syria-and-Iraq-report-597128) inside Iraq targeting Iranian ballistic missile shipments. If true, the reported F-35Is missions targeting two Iranian bases would represent a sharp escalation of Israeli attacks on Iranian forces operating in the region, and mark the first Israeli strikes in Iraq since the bold 1981 bombing that destroyed Saddam Hussein’s nascent nuclear program.
India Four Two
20th Aug 2019, 01:24
I’ve just seen this picture on another forum.
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1334x750/c8e49543_9ddd_447c_a693_73317fd41ee7_f4930f945f606de8be17436 df0f6437dccf2351a.png
Try to ignore the fatuous headline. I’m interested to know what happens if metric-speaking rescuers cut closer than 76.2mm to the canopy frame?
rattman
20th Aug 2019, 02:30
Try to ignore the fatuous headline. I’m interested to know what happens if metric-speaking rescuers cut closer than 76.2mm to the canopy frame?
Complete stab in the dark but explosive charges to either separate the canopy on shatter it in case of ejection
airsound
26th Aug 2019, 13:28
defense-aerospace.com passes on this mildly hairy tale from Air Combat Command's safety magazine, about a revealing series of system failures in one F-35A sortie from Hill AFB Utah.
Keeping Cool Over Salt Lake (http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/205343/usaf-pilot%E2%80%99s-story-reveals-multiple-f_35-failings-in-single-sortie.html)
airsound
sandiego89
26th Aug 2019, 15:07
Complete stab in the dark but explosive charges to either separate the canopy on shatter it in case of ejection
Rattman has it about right. Explosive cord to shatter/separate the clear part of the canopy very near the frame. You can just see it in the photo above as the whiteish colored seal around the frame and better in this link:
https://www.luke.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1499082/luke-egress-airmen-reduce-f-35-canopy-shaped-charge-replacement-time-by-120-hou/
Reminds me of the, sweaty, F-22 pilot that got to see the emergency cutting procedure up close....
Pilot trapped in F-22 cockpit after canopy failure (http://www.f-16.net/f-22-news-article1768.html)
TEEEJ
30th Aug 2019, 15:51
For the first time, UK F-35 Lightning jets have been conducting integration flying training with the B-2 Spirit stealth bombers of the United States Air Force as part of their deployment to RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire, UK.
https://www.raf.mod.uk/raf-beta/assets/File/38GpPO-OFFICIAL-20190829-191-283.jpg
From
https://www.raf.mod.uk/news/articles/uk-f-35-lightning-jets-train-with-usaf-stealth-bomber/
So Shanwick do the coastal tourist route for visiting USAF like LATCC used to do then?
weemonkey
30th Aug 2019, 16:26
https://www.raf.mod.uk/raf-beta/assets/File/38GpPO-OFFICIAL-20190829-191-283.jpg
From
https://www.raf.mod.uk/news/articles/uk-f-35-lightning-jets-train-with-usaf-stealth-bomber/
nice pr image. Interesting piece of coastal erosion there, mid shot..
andrewn
30th Aug 2019, 17:33
So Shanwick do the coastal tourist route for visiting USAF like LATCC used to do then?
Swanwick Mil - stupid name if ever there was one. Presumably, yes, the Dover Tour as our American friends liked to call it back in the days of frequent USAFE weekend cross country's to their many UK bases at the time.
Good to see a tradition continue :)
pr00ne
31st Aug 2019, 14:20
Swanwick Mil - stupid name if ever there was one. Presumably, yes, the Dover Tour as our American friends liked to call it back in the days of frequent USAFE weekend cross country's to their many UK bases at the time.
Good to see a tradition continue :)
Yeah, real stupid name, I mean, just because they are based at Swanwick and are military...
Turbine D
1st Sep 2019, 23:40
Just goes to show how the USAF tried in vain to insist the F-35 was the superior replacement for the Warthog when it was nothing but BS.
A-10 re-winging completed, will keep Warthog in the air until late 2030s
By: Stephen Losey August 13, 2019
Lt. Col. Ryan Richardson, 514th Flight Test Squadron commander and A-10 test pilot, rolls out after landing following a functional check flight on an A-10 Thunderbolt II at Hill Air Force Base, Utah, July 25, 2019. The aircraft is from the Moody Air Force Base, Ga., and was the last of 173 A-10s to receive new wings under the Enhanced Wing Assembly program to extend the flying service life of the fleet. (Alex R. Lloyd/Air Force)
The Air Force said Monday that it has finished installing new wings on the last of 173 A-10 Thunderbolt IIs.
The re-winging of the venerable attack aircraft, popularly known as the Warthog, is expected to allow it to keep flying until the late 2030s, Air Force Materiel Command said in a release.
The upgraded wings should last for up to 10,000 flight hours without requiring a depot inspection, AFMC said. And they have an improved, newly designed wire harness to make the wings easier to remove, and lessen the chance of damaging the wing during the removal process.
These aircraft account for about 61 percent of the Air Force’s roughly 282 Warthogs. Boeing received a $1.1 billion contract in 2007 to build replacement wings at its Macon, Georgia, plant, and work began in 2011.
The 571st Aircraft Maintenance Squadron at the Ogden Air Logistics Complex at Hill Air Force Base in Utah handled re-winging for 162 A-10s, the bulk of the project. The final A-10 was also re-winged at Ogden.
Osan Air Base in South Korea replaced the wings for the other 11 aircraft.
chopper2004
27th Sep 2019, 09:04
Attended AirPower in my other neck of the woods earlier this month and first time I’ve seen AMI F-35A... so here are my photos of rain swept Zeltweg.
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/960x720/c490947b_5854_4780_8716_93e62a6b0422_f29dc24a28d3bbbef6cc2b7 c6756e215ab52dc7e.jpeg
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/960x720/0469eb54_44eb_4bf1_878e_27e6213cd4b3_c592d2f1b7085ed5c04d544 5b09c7f6bc174893f.jpeg
https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/960x720/fc968e61_2e68_4f65_9667_27bb01ca642c_42614972456e33de461301b 129ec1fb09a047d6a.jpeg
Cheers
chopper2004
27th Sep 2019, 09:06
https://ac.nato.int/archive/2019/italy-first-ally-to-deploy-f35-fighter-aircraft-to-nato-mission-in-iceland-
The Keflavik NATO air policing mission is carried out first time by F-35A in Icelandic airspace tis the Aeronautica Italiana Militare.
cheers
weemonkey
27th Sep 2019, 18:14
https://ac.nato.int/archive/2019/italy-first-ally-to-deploy-f35-fighter-aircraft-to-nato-mission-in-iceland-
The Keflavik mission is carried out first time by F-35A in Thai China Sae tis the Aeronautica Italiana Militare.
cheers
Isn't the whole point of lightning is it arrives and disappears from almost nowhere...
Well I hope the Italian detachmen5 goes well - and they have effective cold weather immersion suits.
”The deployment will be supported by one of Italy’s Boeing KC-767 (http://awin.aviationweek.com/ProgramProfileDetails.aspx?pgId=1136&pgName=Boeing+767) tanker aircraft, a C-130J (http://awin.aviationweek.com/ProgramProfileDetails.aspx?pgId=610&pgName=Lockheed+Martin+C-130J) airlifter, and a P-72 maritime patrol derivative of the ATR-72 (http://awin.aviationweek.com/ProgramProfileDetails.aspx?pgId=1133&pgName=ATR+72) providing cover in the event of an ejection over water.”.....
I feel sorry for the guy after a write up like this. Has a problem, sorts it, lands - end of. It used to just be called the “right stuff”.
Think they’ll write him up for a medal?
https://www.luke.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1980570/pilots-quick-thinking-resolves-in-flight-emergency/
Stitchbitch
9th Oct 2019, 06:03
ORAC the pilot flight equipment (cold water immersion garment and thermal protection liner) would keep the ejectee snug, but I’d imagine you’d still want to get into a raft or be rescued fairly rapidly.
Harley Quinn
9th Oct 2019, 06:54
I feel sorry for the guy after a write up like this. Has a problem, sorts it, lands - end of. It used to just be called the “right stuff”.
Think they’ll write him up for a medal?
https://www.luke.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1980570/pilots-quick-thinking-resolves-in-flight-emergency/
I'm afraid that link is coming up with the dreaded 404 message.
Moved it.
https://www.luke.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1983893/pilots-quick-thinking-resolves-in-flight-emergency/