F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

[kbrockman]

IN FOCUS: Simulation seen as key to cost-effective military training (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/in-focus-simulation-seen-as-key-to-cost-effective-military-training-379182/)

Even the boys working with the F35 put some serious reservations when it comes to relying too much on simulation training;
"ACC has done several studies and evaluations of live and simulator training to determine the right mix of live and virtual training that maximises combat readiness while reducing training costs in today's fiscally constrained environment," says USAF major command. While the technology has great strengths in terms of procedural training and large-force employment exercises, it also has some serious accuracy limitations. "ACC also views most simulator training as a complement versus a replacement of live fly training due to the strengths of each training medium," says USAF.

....


Even with some level of motion, one major limitation of simulators is that they cannot replicate the physiological effects on the human body. Simulators cannot train student pilots on aspects of flight such as experiencing g-loading and the associated vestibular effects; nor can they replicate physiological exhaustion. A simulator is also unable to replicate the "feel" of an aircraft, such as airframe buffet cues.

"All of this is important in dogfighting - the feel of energy bleed and increasing buffet as you trade [airspeed] for nose position," says one senior USAF officer.

A senior USAF instructor pilot says he has never flown any simulator that has been able to model the flight dynamics of a fighter accurately - despite some of the latest simulators incorporating inflating g-suits, speakers for vibration and even moving plates in the seat.

For the US Navy, the problem is even more acute. There is no substitute for some of the specialised tasks naval aviators are required to carry out - such as carrier landings - which must be performed in a real aircraft.

....


There are, however, those who advocate increasing carrier qualification training in simulators to reduce naval aviators' required flight hours. "That makes us as flightcrew very nervous," Charles says.

Perhaps where the simulator is most lacking is that students are always consciously aware that there is no real danger. Another senior USAF pilot says: "You simply cannot replace the sight, sound, smell, g-forces and fear you experience when actually flying."

Charles concurs. "You can't put the fear of dying in the sim," he says. "You can't ever replicate the fact that if you get low at the boat that you will actually hit the boat."

For many younger pilots, "getting in the simulator is playing a very expensive video game", Charles says. "Now, there are folks who are very good in the sim, but do very poorly in the jet."

Charles says many young pilots are simply overwhelmed by having to operate the aircraft and its systems while simultaneously experiencing g-forces and other airborne environmental factors. "But on the other hand, there are some folks who do mediocre in the sim and get in the jet and they perform very well," he says.

....


During a real Red Flag exercise, for example, a flight lead for a four-ship of fighters might have to fly though bad weather and navigate to where he needs to go in suboptimal conditions. The pilot may also have to deal with snags with air traffic control and or administrative tasks, which happen as a matter of course during a regular flying day.

It may be necessary to deconflict from other airborne traffic or manage safety rules, or deal with issues such as an aircraft malfunction or bad radios. Charles cites situations where a USN flight lead might have to substitute a different pilot or aircraft for a certain task mid-flight as a result of unforeseen problems.

"There is friction in just getting to the fight that is not represented in the sim," the senior USAF pilot says. "There are pluses to the sim, but I still think that you need to have the majority of your training in the air."

[Willard Whyte]

you should use your computer more, that story is 2 mths old

F-35 uses lots of computers. That's going well.

[JSFfan]

CM, well aussies costed the f-35 @ 200 hr per year, how many flight hrs do you want?
Someone said they can only sit 4 in the sim at a time...each f-35 is it's own networked sim..pilots can also sit in the plane and connect to the onboard and offboard sim
as well as more effective flight training by using the plane connected to the sim whilst flying

the f-35 have the next generation sim, forget the 3rd and 4th gen sims...before you jump on the bandwagon and bag it, perhaps you should read a bit more about it
with your past experience you could research it and inform the forum

[Courtney Mil]

JSFfan, you're just being annoying now by commenting on things you haven't read properly. I said, they were stating that they could only provide 4 sim slots in a day, not that they could only "sit 4 in the sim at a time". I helped develop the wide area sim networking and mixing synthetic with live, but thanks for the enlightening refresher on it.

I'm fully aware of the capabilities of of the new generation of simulators, their fidelity and WAN capabilites. But if you read what we were discussing and you will understand that it's not relevant to your rantings.

As I said earlier, you do need to wind your neck in a bit.

[kbrockman]

General Bogdan, of all people.

Pentagon downplays comment on F-35 fighter jet cyber threat | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/25/us-lockheed-fighter-cyber-idUSBRE93O1HK20130425?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews)
(Reuters) - The Pentagon on Thursday downplayed a comment by one of its officials that he is not totally confident in the ability of the $396 billion F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, built by Lockheed Martin Corp, to survive a cyber attack.


...


Bogdan, an Air Force Lieutenant General, told a Senate Armed Services subcommittee that he was "not that confident" about security implemented by the companies that build the plane.

Bogdan said the Pentagon and the international partners recognized the responsibility they had for safeguarding technology on the fifth-generation stealth fighter.

He then added, "I'm a little less confident about industry partners to be quite honest with you ... I would tell you I'm not that confident outside the department."

[Brian Abraham]

Another Installment of ... F-35 Cost Per Flying Hour (http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3af5843809-1a12-42de-8d48-e4d13eac94d5)

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

...each f-35 is it's own networked sim..pilots can also sit in the plane and connect to the onboard and offboard sim as well as more effective flight training by using the plane connected to the sim whilst flying.

*sigh* Got a reference for this, or is this just speculation on your part? :hmm:

The ADF had all these grand theoretical plans of linking Wedgetail, HACTS, MRTT, ARH, & Aegis sims with Vigilare to conduct exercises, but is yet to do so. We've found that coordinating the sim availability is VERY difficult, and even if that can be done, the operational/actual training applications and opportunities are VERY limited!

[JSFfan]

*sigh*
New Pilot-Training Concept Adds Realism, Subtracts Costs for Lockheed Martin JSF... -- re> FORT WORTH, Texas, Aug. 17 /PRNewswire/ -- (http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/new-pilot-training-concept-adds-realism-subtracts-costs-for-lockheed-martin-jsf-program-72912037.html)

[NITRO104]

JSFfan,
I don't follow. What does the embedded training have to do with networking simulators and live assets that everybody has been talking about?

[JSFfan]

did the word embedded throw you and you jumped to post? read the whole page slowly and post again
a google will bring up more info too

[NITRO104]

Do you even understand what has been written in that article, you linked?

[JSFfan]

most of it, but it didn't include the simming in the f-35 while sitting on the ground, I got that elsewhere

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

most of it, but it didn't include the simming in the f-35 while sitting on the ground, I got that elsewhere

So, let me get this straight...

I asked for a reference to you claim that real aircraft (sitting on the ground) will be linked to sim domes, and you post a link to one that has nothing to do with what you wrote, which you say you got elsewhere... have I got that right?

:8:hmm::ugh::{

[SpazSinbad]

There are a few 'F-35 Simulators' with the FMS being the main VeryLargeOneInAbuilding. Perhaps 'JSFfan' was thinking about the last 'training aid' (for F-16s then F-35s likely) as seen below in the LastTextPost?

I was surprised by the negative comments about sim training for F-35 pilots from those pilots/instructors who have likely not flown any of the F-35 sims quoted in the 'kbrockman' article quotes earlier, however the good Tomassetti put me right.

Having 'hit the back end o'the boat' at night as some USNers like to put it - I would suggest that my many nights of FCLP (MADDLS) on RW 26 at NAS Nowra (which had a healthy downdraught in a deep gully off the threshold in the usually strong westerly winds at that time of the year) I had mucho respecto for said 'spud locker' at both locations. Nothing simulates the inkyblackmirrorbrightnohorizon first look off a CCA at 'the horror'. There was no simulator for any A4G work in the early 1970s.

Many years later in the early days of Windows 3.1 it was very 'enlightening' to bring my old flying days back using the woeful, inaccurate early MS Flight Simulator. Then Chris Mills via an Australian Personal Computer Magazine article introduced me to a wireframe DOS flight sim that wonderfully simulated ACM against an opponent. This simple sim had me experiencing all the fun and games of 'wot I brought to it' - even bobbing my head 'pulling simulated G'. I think any NavAv pilot will bring their experiences to any NavAv 'boat' simulator. T-45C pilots have their sim and initial CarQual then they may go to the S/Hornet sims and CarQuals, all the while adding their real experiences to their simulators. I still have a healthy respect for any non safe flight in any computer sim.

By all F-35 test pilot accounts the F-35 simulators (perhaps they may need to specify which ones) are very realistic - especially for the non VL people learning how to do same in the F-35B enabled sim, then in real life. Here come the quotes....

F-35 Embedded Training
http://ftp.rta.nato.int/public//PubFullText/RTO/MP%5CRTO-MP-HFM-169///MP-HFM-169-02.doc (http://ftp.rta.nato.int/public//PubFullText/RTO/MP%5CRTO-MP-HFM-169///MP-HFM-169-02.doc)

"ABSTRACT
The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of Embedded Training (ET) in the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). This paper will cover early ET concept development, the implementation of ET in JSF, now F-35 Lightning II, the pilot perspective of the ET training syllabus, and future development of F-35 ET. In the JSF concept development phase the training system solution included the deployable training device and added ET training capability built into the aircraft. ET was brought to the forefront with fighter pilots’ heavy involvement in extended periods of aircraft deployment to international theaters of war. During these periods fighter pilots were away from continuation training opportunities. In response, the JSF training system concept integrated the ET Virtual Training Model (VTM) in the synthetic training environments to support "anywhere/anytime" interactive combat training while in-flight.

The objective of F-35 ET is to enhance and maintain fighter pilot proficiency. ET is implemented by functionally partitioning the aircraft integrated core processor (ICP). ET consists of the VTM hosted in the ICP and the P5 Combat Training System (CTS) contained in P5 Internal Subsystem (IS). Both VT and P5 CTS provide brief and debrief capabilities.
From the pilot perspective, VT is an overlay of constructive simulation on the real world to provide an enhanced training environment to the pilot. VT mission planning data is inserted in the aircraft via the preloaded portable memory device (PMD). A coordinated data link distribution of VT provides synchronization between a four-ship flight of F-35 aircraft. Pilots may train to a coordinated attack against virtual targets with appropriate threat reactions and kill responses that are shared across participants. All participating aircraft follow the same realistic, virtual pre-planned training scenario. Following the event, the pilot takes the PMD back to off-board mission support for debriefing. The result is combat team training in live flight supplemented and enhanced by a virtual combat environment.....

...ET is becoming a key component of the total training system for the next generation of tactical aircraft. Over the expected life cycle of calendar years 2013 through 2057, the program savings could reach $2,976M...."
___________________

Dutch Space & NLR deliver F-35 Embedded Training System to LM 12 July 2012
http://www.asdnews.com/news-43894/Dutch_Space_and_NLR_deliver_F-35_Embedded_Training_System_to_LM.htm (http://www.asdnews.com/news-43894/Dutch_Space_and_NLR_deliver_F-35_Embedded_Training_System_to_LM.htm)
________

F-35 FMS Full Mission Simulator:
http://www.gizmag.com/f-35-full-mission-simulator/18442/ (http://www.gizmag.com/f-35-full-mission-simulator/18442/)
&
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/seoul-to-rely-on-simulators-to-evaluate-f-35-for-f-x-iii-contest-373006/ (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/seoul-to-rely-on-simulators-to-evaluate-f-35-for-f-x-iii-contest-373006/)
__________________

U.S. Government Refuses South Korean Flight Testing on F-35. F-15SE and Eurofighter Will Be Flight Tested For Competition While F-35 Tests Will Be Done On A Simulator June 7, 2012
http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2012/06/07/lockheed-martin-refuses-south-korean-flight-testing-on-f-35-f-15se-and-eurofighter-will-be-flight-tested-for-competition-while-f-35-tests-will-be-done-on-a-simulator/ (http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2012/06/07/lockheed-martin-refuses-south-korean-flight-testing-on-f-35-f-15se-and-eurofighter-will-be-flight-tested-for-competition-while-f-35-tests-will-be-done-on-a-simulator/)

"...Q: How can potential customers like Korea evaluate the F-35 capabilities? Answer: The F-35 has a classified, high-fidelity Manned Tactical Simulator that is used by the three U.S. services, eight partner nations and other potential operators to evaluate the F-35 and develop 5th Generation tactics. The simulator allows four F-35 aircraft to fly and operate together as they fight against complex airborne and ground-based threat systems. Air combat is evolving to depend more on stealth, sensors, sensor fusion and interoperable networks. So it is essential to evaluate advanced fighters using simulator systems that enable pilots to fly and fight together to defeat sophisticated threat systems. Pilots from the USAF, the USN, the USMC, and many international nations have extensively flown the high-fidelity simulator and verified it is the best tool to evaluate F-35 capabilities. All of the international nations who have selected and ordered the F-35 have evaluated its capabilities using the Manned Tactical Simulator.

Q: Can Korea fly the F-35? Answer: At this time the F-35 fleet is fully occupied with test, train-ing and delivery activities, so Korea will not be able to fly the aircraft. Potential customers like Korea have the opportunity for multiple pilots to fly the high-fidelity Manned Tactical Simulator similar to operations conducted by the U.S. Services and F-35 international partners & customers. In addition, potential customers can also fly the F-35 Handling Qualities Simulator which is a motion-based system that allows an assessment of F-35 handling / flying qualities and is the same simulator used by test pilots for their initial training. Potential customers may also have the opportunity to closely observe F-35 flight operations, discuss F-35 capabilities with USAF and Lockheed Martin test pilots, participate in pre-flight and post-flight pilot activities, and observe or participate in numerous types of maintenance activities."..."
___________________

F-35 INTEGRATED TRAINING CENTER BY SCOTT R. GOURLEY
http://www.nxtbook.com/faircount/F-35LightningII/JSFII/index.php#/136 (http://www.nxtbook.com/faircount/F-35LightningII/JSFII/index.php#/136)

"...Full Mission Simulators, which features a 360-degree dome. And we also have a Deployable Mission Rehearsal Trainer (DMRT), with two cockpits in a milvan. They are the exact same cockpits, exact same software, and exact same instructor/operators stations, except things have been ‘condensed.’ In other words, instead of having three or four screens at the instructor/ operator station, there is one; and instead of having a large 360-degree dome, it is a smaller dome with smaller field of view," she said.

"The DMRT helps because it can be deployed on a ship — a carrier or an LHD for any of the services or partner countries,"..."
________________________

Live Virtual Constructive technology set to revolutionize air combat training 13 Apr 2012 Dave Majumdar
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/live-virtual-constructive-technology-set-to-revolutionize-air-combat-training-370661/ (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/live-virtual-constructive-technology-set-to-revolutionize-air-combat-training-370661/)

"The US Air Force and Lockheed Martin are getting ready to demonstrate the first operational use of live virtual constructive (LVC) training technology on 26 April at Luke Air Force Base (AFB), Arizona.

The technology has the potential to revolutionize the way air forces train-particularly for aviators who will fly 5th generation machines like Lockheed's F-22 Raptor and F-35.

While currently USAF, US Navy and US Marine Corps pilots fly their aircraft against other friendly jets replicating enemy "bandits" such as the Russian Sukhoi Su-30 Flanker, often there are not enough adversaries for pilots to train against.

"There are not enough airborne resources that we can go fly and fight against that would give us the maximum training benefit for all the JP-8 [jet fuel] that we're burning," says Robert McCutchen, Lockheed's F-16 training expert at the Luke AFB Networked Training Centre. "To be able to go out and fly a four-ship against two adversaries doesn't really maximize your ability to employ that airplane as a four-ship."


LVC would offer that four-ship of real F-16 fighters the ability to fight against eight to 12 virtual bandits. Those computer-generated adversaries would show up on the F-16's sensors just like real enemy fighters and would have realistic flight characteristics, McCutchen says.

The adversaries would be managed by instructors who would control those virtual enemies and manage their tactics. They would also make sure the virtual adversaries do not get into visual range.

"We'll have individuals on the ground who will be manipulating and managing the scenario and making sure these computer-generated little guys stay outside the visual range of the live fighters," says the retired 5000+ hour F-16 weapons school graduate.

The addition of so many virtual enemy forces in the air and on the ground greatly increases the complexity of training missions.

"We'll be able to robust their scenarios," McCutchen says.

The limitation, of course, is that LVC cannot simulate a visual-range opponent. The targets are virtual, but it should still be a useful training tool.

This is especially true for the F-22, where Raptor units have a difficult time coaxing dissimilar fighter units to fly against them due to the lopsided nature of the training. The F-35, McCutchen says, will face similar problems of not having enough high-performance adversaries to train against.

"The F-35 is going to have the same problem and the LVC is going to be a way that the air force to going to move forward and make the technology mature through the F-16 so that we can help future F-35 pilots," he says...."

[JSFfan]

nice links spaz and the f-35 sims will be good with a dozen top air forces wanting them and with the cost R&D costs distributed it shouldn't be too bad

fox, my link addressed this part of what I said "more effective flight training by using the plane connected to the sim whilst flying".
I will get on google and find where they said that they will also sim from the f-35 whilst on the ground

[Courtney Mil]

Spaz,

Some good stuff there, thank you. It pretty much backs up what we have beenseeing thus far and demonstrates that they are making good use of the currenttechnologies and capabilities. Some cutting edge, but most not exactlynew.

That said, one of the very important issues here stems from a comment madeearlier regarding F-22 training and the difficulty in finding willingadversaries due to the lop-sided nature of the affiliation - a factor that wecould expect to be equally relevant for F-35 (at least it better be!). Also limitations on using 'the full capabilities' in public. A vital point here is that using one's own high tech platforms as live trainingadversaries has a lot of negative connotations. In other words, you probablywouldn't want to use, say, F-22 to go up against F-35 for reasons largelybeyond the scope of this forum. So the simulator becomes the obvious place totrain against potential adversaries, platforms other than one's own and theones that JSF should be designed to go against. All of that is well withincurrent simulator capabilities, including computer generated virtual adversaries.

Similarly, the fidelity of the modelling of flight characteristics is easilygood enough today to introduce pilots to aircraft handling and a lot of keyevents - in truth, we've been doing that for a long time now to very goodeffect. Indeed, flight modelling is so good it can also allow pilots toexperience regimes of the flight envelope that would be prohibited in liveflight.

All of that accepted, there remains the issue of establishing where the'floor' (as LO called it) is positioned. And the concern I was raising earlierremains; regardless of how many flight hours (live, not synthetic) nations havebudgeted for, there will always be pressure to try to save money by transferringmore hours to the simulators. Whilst I fully support the maximum use ofsynthetic training devices, I would always caution against over-blown claimsthat we can make simulators so realistic that they can fully take the place oflive flying.

[PhilipG]

I do agree that a lot of training can be done in a sim, the issue for me is how accurate is the sim? I say this particularly for the F35 when the previously advertised performance envelope changes, we all know the realignments... If a sim had been developed for the initial hoped for performance envelope how certain can anyone be that it has been adjusted to reflect the actual performance of any of the F35 variants. Thinking that I assume an early F35C simulator would enable arrested carrier landings... Carts and Horses comes a bit to mind.

[Courtney Mil]

Good point, Philip. Fortunately it's a reasonably simple matter to alter parameters in the sim software. However, that all depends on the manufaturer being up-front about the performance figures, obviously. And that, with the best will in the world, can be influenced by the intended use of the simulation. Probably enough detail for the public domain.

Addendum: sorry, I missed out your second point. Yes, arrested landings are a simple matter and landing on is a good example of a key event that sims are quite good at. They are also a prime example of the biggest differences between live and synthetic. The sim generates a surprising level of pucker factor, but nowhere near what the aircraft can give you. I've done it in the sim a fair bit, but I would never imagine I could even attempt in for real.

[SpazSinbad]

For 'PhillipG' about F-35 FMS accuracy this quote (and there are many others including test pilot quotes) should suffice... [now I see there is some 'hiccup' about simulating arrests onboard in an F-35C sim?] BAE in WHACKworth, UK, or where ever, was simulating these things during the 'cats n'flaps' era but now is back to SRVLing nicely. A great deal of effort has gone into making the F-35C easy to deck land - with JPALS an individual arrest wire can be targeted for automatic landings. Plus there has been work on making the control/control surfaces make more effective timely adjustments for better glideslope control at Opt AoA. The hook is under development whilst the interim hook changes have proved successful.

Lockheed Martin Delivers First F-35 Full Mission Simulator to Eglin Air Force Base

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/press_releases/2011/04182011JSF-FMS.html

"..."JSF training technology brings a revolutionary new capability to the joint services," said Col. Arthur Tomassetti, 33rd Fighter Wing Vice Commander. "The smooth surface, high-resolution dome is a dramatic improvement over legacy fighter simulators. The high visual acuity and utilization of a significant amount of real aircraft parts and source code will allow us to train a wide variety of mission tasks previously not accomplished in simulators. The F-35 FMS [Full Mission Simulator] will be our primary pilot training device, and we are anxious to start putting it to good use."

In all F-35 simulators, actual aircraft software is used to give pilots the most realistic experience and allow software upgrades in step with the F-35 development...."
_______________________

Director, Operational Test and Evaluation | F-35A Joint Strike Fighter
Readiness for Training Operational Utility Evaluation Feb 2013

http://pogoarchives.org/straus/ote-info-memo-20130215.pdf

“...Full Mission Simulators (FMS) are excellent; however, some deficiencies were noted with minor impacts on training.

The Full Mission Simulator (FMS) environment, including the contractor instructors and instructor workstations, was effective in training the students in the syllabus events and preparing them for flight, although correction of minor deficiencies would improve training effectiveness. Comments from the pilots and observations indicated that the simulator was an excellent training device, with higher fidelity than simulators used for training in legacy fighter aircraft. One of the four primary student pilots stated that it was “one of the best parts of the whole program.” However, the following three issues with the simulator training were identified by the student pilots, which adversely affected the effectiveness of the simulator....

...During end-of-course interviews, each student pilot stated that the simulators adequately prepared them for the flying training portion of the syllabus....”
____________________

Eglin’s F-35 flight simulators integral part of pilot training By LAUREN SAGE REINLIE 16 Feb 2013

Eglin?s F-35 flight simulators integral part of pilot training (VIDEO) - Top Story - Northwest Florida Daily News (http://www.nwfdailynews.com/military/top-story/eglin-s-f-35-flight-simulators-integral-part-of-pilot-training-1.96767)

"...The rooms that house Eglin’s four simulators are classified and not open to the public or the media. Lockheed Martin, the company that produces them, declined to disclose its dimensions, the specifications of the computer system that runs it or the cost. Representatives said the information was sensitive, technical data.

The pilots who have used the simulators, though, testified to their staggering size and scope while in a classroom at Eglin recently.

They compared using the simulators to going on a theme park ride or hopping aboard the Battlestar Galactica — the pilot is immersed in another world. The pilots said they are an invaluable tool in learning to fly the military’s newest fighter jet.

“I’m positive I’m not the only pilot in this room that has forgotten he is in a simulator,” said Marine Maj. Michael Rountree, one of the first certified F-35 pilots and an instructor at the school. “You don’t even remember that you’re not moving. The way things move around you in that 360-degree globe, it feels like you’re flying and you just forget.”...

...Another groundbreaking aspect of the simulator is how dynamic it is. Instructors sit at a control consul outside and manipulate a host of conditions, from the environment to how the plane is functioning, Wilder said. An instructor can make the simulator mimic different malfunctions or emergencies until the student learns how to respond correctly so the jet can be landed safely....

...The simulator also can allow pilots to practice refueling in the air, landing on an aircraft carrier, evading missile fire from other aircraft or the ground and flying in formation.

Two simulators also can link together. Pilots in one will see when the pilot in the other lowers his landing gear....

...Wilder, who was an F-16 pilot in the Air Force for 16 years before moving to Lockheed to develop the F-35, said no simulator he’s ever seen has offered that level of detail.

“That’s Disney World kind of stuff,” he said. “You just don’t do that in military simulators anywhere to that kind of fidelity, but that’s the detail they’ve gone with us. That’s amazing to me.”..."

[Courtney Mil]

Spaz, a lot of text just for the few pieces you've highlighted. All of the blocks in bold apply equally to all modern FMS and has done for many years.

[PhilipG]

Thank you Spaz.
I am sure that experience of the sim is fantastic, like going to a theme park etc. My point was I suppose concurrent development, we know that it has not been proven that an F35C can land on a carrier however it can in the sim, also when in C mode does the sim have the transonic issues that have been highlighted recently.
If the sim was set up to enable training for pilots in an as previously advertised F35, it would seem to me to rather dangerous to use the sim for actual training when the actual performance may not be as advertised.
I suppose I am saying that in a sim you may well be able to do a certain manoeuvre whilst in real life this may not be possible and indeed could result in a catastrophic failure. An after accident interview when the pilot says well I have done that 100 times in the sim but the first time I tried it in a real F35 s**t happened and we have now written off one of our fleet of 48 at a cost of £XXXXX.
I would have thought that tactics and combat training in a sim cannot really be relied upon until the performance envelope of the actual F35 has been established and replicated in the sim software.

[t43562]

Just a question - but hasn't the SAAF already used virtual "enemies" with their Hawk 120s? I think it's called Link ZA.

[Courtney Mil]

Again, a very good point, Philip. And do remember that its performance (and systems) have already been modelled for the earlier evaluations. And most of that was before the changes you so rightly point out. From a training sim perspective, the fidelity will obviously be at its best when the full, actual flight envelope is completely understood. It may well be that the acuracy is already very tight, but we'll only really know when the whole programme is fully mature.

[ImageGear]

Not significantly exposed to Mil simulation so no claim to any high ground.

However, given the current push towards component miniaturisation and associated hardware cost reduction, and the requirement to keep current while away from base, could taking a Sim on the road as an air transportable package be realistic in todays cost limited environment. Networking multiple elements is not a significant problem, with packages being rotated in or out for upgrade/maintenance, etc.

There are other significant advantages which might apply with a little thought.

Imagegear

[Courtney Mil]

Just a question - but hasn't the SAAF already used virtual "enemies" with their Hawk 120s? I think it's called Link ZA.

Indeed. As I was saying, virtual and man-in-the-loop synthetic adersaries are nothing new.

[SpazSinbad]

'Courtney Mil' if old simulators were good then the F-35s by all accounts are better. No? Anyway here are some details about the FMS that escaped me earlier. Apologies if ye all are bored.... The bolded text answers the question (again) about transportable sims (which will be on USN flat deck ships - perhaps on CVFs? Dunno).

Military Flight Simulators Today 10 Aug 2010

Military Flight Simulators Today | Halldale (http://halldale.com/insidesnt/military-flight-simulators-today)

“...F-35 JSF Simulators... ...The prime contractor for the F-35 training system is Lockheed Martin Simulation, Training and Support (LM-STS). The Lockheed Martin plant at Akron is inte-grating the pilot trainers. Training system programme manager JoAnne Puglisi says that the first hardware is already arriving. Lockheed Martin Akron has previously made some fighter simulators including for the F‑15 and F‑16. The F-35 system will include Full Mission Simulators (FMS), Deployable Mission Rehearsal Trainers (DMRT) and Computer Based Training (CBT), backed by courseware and a training management system (TMS). An Integrated Training Centre (ITC) will be established at Eglin Air Force Base in NW Florida for all three F-35 variants. Other ITCs will be in Australia, Turkey and the UK, and maybe in other countries. Training at Eglin is scheduled to start in February 2010 for the F‑35A and October 2010 for the F‑35B STOVL variant. About 80 percent of the training syllabus will be common to all variants. At Eglin, there will be 10 Full Mission Simulators and 6 maintenance training devices, plus classrooms and a training system support centre. The FMS will have a SEOS 360 degree 2-metre diameter dome display with 25 liquid‑crystal‑on‑silicon (LCoS) projectors. Image generation will be from 23 Rockwell Collins EPX channels. Simulator-to-aircraft sortie ratio is planned to be 1:1 with longer sorties on the simulators, so simulator time will be more than aircraft time (after all, it's a lot cheaper!). The less-complex DMRT design has two cockpits with smaller visual displays and is mounted in a container that can be easily transported from site to site. Maintenance trainers are an integral part of the overall training system and the UK company EDM is building the first ejection seat and weapons loading trainers. Turning to the F‑35 aircraft itself, it is to have embedded simulation and will have the US military P5 range-less GPS-based combat training system....”

[SpazSinbad]

For some CHEAP THRILLS....

Case Study: A.C.E.S. Flight Simulation & Lockheed Martin’s Prepar3D®

http://www.prepar3d.com/2011/06/14/a-c-e-s-flight-simulation-and-lockheed-martins-prepar3d/

“If you ask Mike Pohl at A.C.E.S. Flight Simulation if he thought it would be possible "to deliver a con-vincing flight simulation using one projector and computer 20 years ago, he would have said, “no way”....”

A.C.E.S. SURROUND VIEW FLIGHT SIMULATOR

A.C.E.S. SURROUND VIEW FLIGHT SIMULATOR - YouTube

Get your sim carrier landing kicks here:

A.C.E.S. Prepar3D sim Carrier Land

A.C.E.S. Prepar3D sim Carrier Land - YouTube

[JSFfan]

PhilipG (http://www.pprune.org/members/353099-philipg) AFAIK the test pilots test and note any querks for the pilots flight manual and the sim would be based on that..wouldn't it CM?

[Courtney Mil]

Isn't that great, Spaz? I remember doing some work on an earlier version of that with Silicon Graphics. Big toys! Of course, it needed a lot more than a PC to do it then.

JSFfan,

Ideally, yes, they'd be constantly refining it as they go along. However, version control and associated issues means that there will be some lag in the simulator software load as they won't be doing rewrites too often - rather they'll save up a load of changes and have controlled periodic re-issues. The updates will also include changes to the aircraft code and new integration clearances.

[kbrockman]

The JSF crowd here make it sound as if this Virtual training module which is used in the F35 is a groundbreaking new technology unique to the F35.
Maybe they should first figure out why it was exactly the Dutch (Fokker/NLR) who got the contract to implement this feature.

It is a very useful thing to have, something most airforces using HMDS-type systems will be able to use in the next decade.
One of the first is going to be the new NG Gripen and Rafale (and any other EADS related product BTW).

[LowObservable]

A lot of good points... One aspect that needs to be underscored is that the JSF program is highly insular, having been underway under tight security (at least as regards things like stealth/EMCON and sensor fusion) for 16+ years and operating under the conviction that US technology in general and the F-35 in particular far outclasses the rest of the world.

There was a presenter a couple of years ago at an international conference from the F-35 datalink world. I asked him a couple of questions about how their approach differed from Sweden's and he looked at me as if I was talking about Tibet's Mach 4 bomber program.

What they don't get (a lot of the time) is that just because some JSF widget is new to the US, it's not necessarily unique.

Meanwhile, Gen Bogdan needs a new spokesman. From the story cited by KBrockman...

"The F-35 is no more or less vulnerable to known cyber threats than legacy aircraft were during their initial development and early production," spokesman Joe DellaVedova said when asked about a comment by Christopher Bodgan, the F-35 program manager, to lawmakers on Wednesday.

Pentagon downplays comment on F-35 fighter jet cyber threat | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/25/us-lockheed-fighter-cyber-idUSBRE93O1HK20130425?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews)

As the kiddies say these days, LOL WUT?

Cyber threats to the F-16 and F-15? Who knew?

[SpazSinbad]

Some more points about what drives the FMS, fidelity of same for training (when linked), some carrier landing future possiblities and whatnots.

IN FOCUS: Simulation seen as key to cost-effective military training Dave Majumdar 26 Nov 2012

IN FOCUS: Simulation seen as key to cost-effective military training (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/in-focus-simulation-seen-as-key-to-cost-effective-military-training-379182/)

"...Later simulators are much better, and provide some excellent capabilities not just for procedural training but also for weapons employment. The latest US military simulators for the F-35 use the same software as the actual jet, Tomassetti says. That means that, theoretically, everything in the simulator should match what the real aircraft does.

Discussing the graphics offered by the F-35 simulator, Tomassetti notes that a student will be able to pick out the difference between different classes of armoured vehicles visually in the simulator. Visual representations have traditionally been a major limitation for flight simulators, particularly at close ranges and for terrain.

But even the state-of-the art F-35 simulator does not move, and certain factors such as flight-control response times cannot necessarily be modelled with 100% fidelity. “How the airplane flies in the sim is the best we can do without having a real airplane attached,” Tomassetti says. “But even that level of effort that went into making that level of fidelity, is much more than we’ve had in other airplane programmes.”..."
_____________

The Weaponization of the F-35

The Weaponization of the F-35 | SLDInfo (http://www.sldinfo.com/whitepapers/the-weaponization-of-the-f-35/)

"...The simulator is so easy to fly in STOVL mode that we can teach non-pilots in about 5 minutes to do this safely. The test pilots have told me the simulator is too hard compared to the real airplane!” says Mike Skaff, principal engineer for the F-35’s pilot vehicle interface....”
_____________

F-35 Lightning II Dec 2010

Joint Combat Aircraft (http://www.raf.mod.uk/no1group/news/index.cfm?storyid=F76F2756-5056-A318-A890A52ECF37C3F5)

"...Interestingly the JCA Force is planned to achieve a 50:50 live fly / simulator balance, meaning half a pilot’s training will be in simulators. This is a major advance from the training provided on older aircraft, so a large part of the team’s work goes into ensuring the UK is equipped to achieve this. Not only will Full Mission Simulators be situated at the MOB but Deployable Mission Rehearsal Trainers will allow simulator work to be continued wherever the JCA Force is deployed."
_________________

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=5469848

“...[USAF Secretary Michael Donley] also said the service would buy 16 F-35 simulators, which, among other things, will save fuel. "In the Joint Strike Fighter program, it is forecast that up to 50 percent of pilot training will be accomplished through simulators," he said.”
__________________

Future and current developments in 'cats n'flaps carrier landing land'....

Tailored to Trap Frank Colucci 01 Dec 2012

Avionics Magazine :: Tailored to Trap (http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/military/Tailored-to-Trap_77964.html)

"F-35C control laws give Navy pilots Integrated Direct Lift Control for easier carrier landings, & they open the door for future landing aids...."
______________

Oh No! Not another video? At least it is a BRitOne...

How to land on an aircraft carrier without jump jets 19 Jun 2011

How to land on an aircraft carrier without jump jets - YouTube

&
Some BritTEXT at ‘desider’ Vol.44 Jan 2012

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/33820/desider_44_Jan2012.pdf

"All Hands On Deck!" Kinda irrelevant now the UK reverts to F-35Bs
__________________

Simulator Brings New Level Of Realism to F-35 Training By DAVE MAJUMDAR 28 Nov 2011

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=8383536&c=FEA&s=SPE

"Moreover, the simulation is highly realistic because not only does the F-35 FMS use the real aircraft’s Operational Flight Program (OFP), but it also uses all the actual computer models from the aircraft’s sensor manufacturers and integrates that data.

“We are using their simulation models in the simulator,” Puglisi said. “A lot of trainers just used the OFPs.”

From the pilot’s perspective, the FMS flies just like a real F-35, Smith said. “The airplane runs an ownship kinematic model while it’s flying; that’s how it knows where in space it is,” he said. “The sim uses that exact aero-model.”

The result is that “it flies identical” to the real jet, Smith said. Additionally, it has the same engine model as the real plane.

“To the max extent possible, they put the real software that’s in the jet in the sim,” he said....

...But the realism extends beyond the aircraft and its subsystems. The F-35 FMS can replicate the tactical environment that a pilot and his wingmen would face in combat. The sims also can be linked, and pilots can experience flying in a multiship environment against a vast array of air and surface threats, Smith said.

The only situations that operational pilots might be afforded similar tactical training in real life is at large-force exercises like the Red Flag war games in Nevada.

“You’ll be able to run that environment in the simulator,” Smith said. “Having the FMS here at Eglin, you’ll be able to link them and go out and fly a two-ship, four-ship, eight-ship [mission], whatever the mission calls for, to me is one of the key cornerstones of efficiency when it comes to flying training.”..."

[SpazSinbad]

The only way to 'fly high all the way, coming down at the ramp.... for a rampstrike'.

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/FlyingHigh2.jpg:original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/FlyingHigh2.jpg.html)

High All The Way Rampstrike Animation - YouTube

[JSFfan]

One aspect that needs to be underscored is that the JSF program is highly insular, having been underway under tight security (at least as regards things like stealth/EMCON and sensor fusion) for 16+ years and operating under the conviction that US technology in general and the F-35 in particular far outclasses the rest of the world.

what a load of tripe, the f-35 is the most uninsular plane on the planet with 9 nations embedded in the programme adding their tech

[LowObservable]

Spaz - Note that one of the pieces you cite begins with:

By the end of the System Development and Demonstration (SDD) phase, the F-35 will be capable of carrying almost every legacy weapon that is carried by an F-16.

Which I think is on the verge of being badly out of date, since it looks as if all that the SDD will have time and money to do (cf the new boss mantra, "no more time and no more money") will be Block 3I with JDAM, LGB and AIM-120.

Otherwise, I don't see anything that is qualitatively different from the evolution of simulation and live virtual constructive training elsewhere. The case that it will reduce hours is unproven.

The alternative is that better simulation enables more effective training in the same number of hours flown today, which may be necessary (1) because of the sensor/processing/network attributes of modern fighters, not just the JSF, and (2) because generally smaller force numbers demand more multi-role pilots, not just multi-role aircraft.

That is, you replace SEAD F-16CJs, deep-strike F-15Es, air-superiority F-15C/Ds and CAS A-10s with F-35s. Will those aircraft will be in dedicated deep strike, SEAD, CAS or AS units? To do this would be to squander multi-role potential, but to do otherwise will be a formidable training task.

[JSFfan]

The case that it will reduce hours is unproven.
it's being proven as we speak, the 50% sim and 50% flight training is happening now

[Courtney Mil]

50/50 is relatively easy to acheive now, with low student loading and a fast sim build-up at Eglin (their plan for 10 FMSs! :eek:). It will be much more difficult to achieve that ratio at, for example, squadron level. Augmentation with DMRTs will help, but the training value obviously decreases with the sophistication of the training device.

[Courtney Mil]

The model for demand for simulators in F-35 has already been laid out for the US by F-22. Of course, the lack of two seat trainers for both types will front-load OCU courses where the FMS will need to provide all the pre-solo stuff as well as all the academics phase systems, procedures and emergency training. So it's important to remember that the 50% is not an even spread across the course, nor between OCU and front-line flying.

It's important to understand the requirements there, I think.

[kbrockman]

Maybe it also has something to do with the fact that only the sim has the block 3F software, most of the mission and the full flight envelope can only be flown in the sim because of the limits that exist up until now for the active fleet.

Your 50/50 quote is not an indication of succes ,it's rather a sign of necessity coming from immaturity level of the whole program (even today after so many years).

[kbrockman]

As a comparison with another stealth program, the F22 (like explained by CM) only flew 160hrs/perplane in 2012, a considerable amount of the training is done on F16's.

Also interesting to compare flighcost (yr2012)
F15 vs F16 = 42,000$ vs 22,500$ two-engined vs 1 engined (same type F100) MTOW about 80% more for f15

F15 vs F22 = 42,000$ vs 68,000$ = +60%(F22 also promised to be cheaper BTW)

So where do you think the F35 will come given the fact that it is in the same weightcategory than the F15, has the F22 engine type with a lot of upgrades and also at least the same level of complexity increase than the F22 was over the F15.

I would suggest a number close to 35,000 is very conservative, 40,000+ might well be closer to the trueth.

[JSFfan]

australia say the f-35 is costed to be about the same as our hornet, which according to janes is $21k for our f-35a, the SH fleet of 24 planes is costing $24k.

UK will be higher because they run the f-35b

this cost per hour is looking like the argument between flyaway, procurement and acquisition costs etc, it all depends on what's being counted in what group

[kbrockman]

That's the beauty of promisses, you can make up pretty much any number.
After a couple of years of operational use , the trueth comes out .
All of the US stealth programs have missed the promissed numbers by a very wide margin up until today.

Knowing the level of complexity and the issues that exist up until today, the F35 is following pretty much the same route.
There is a famous quote by Benjamin Franklin;
Only a fool does the same thing and expects different results.
That pretty much sums it up for the F35.

Edit;
I'm using the numbers provided by the USAF,
they basically use 2 numbers: Operational CPFH and Ownership CPFH, for aircraft in full operational use in sufficient numbers, there is only a small difference between these 2 numbers.
ex;
-F16C 22,315 Operational CPFH
-F16C 22,514 Ownership CPFH

[JSFfan]

well the USAF and CAPE have costed the f-35a at $24k, as per the statement to the dutch
this is not a JPO or LM or GAO or SAR or USN or USMC cost

of course in the big picture if you add the capability and survivability, even if the f-35 was twice the price, it would still be 'cheap'

[kbrockman]

well the USAF and CAPE have costed the f-35a at $24k, as per the statement to the dutch

They have done no such thing, the numbers will only be given in may, General Bogdan is not the USAF, the acquisition departement of the Pentagon stated that they don't subscribe to GEN BOGDAN's low number.
Also it's a promise, an estimate, something they've been doing time and time again and they always miss the marker with an incredible wide margin.

of course in the big picture if you add the capability and survivability, even if the f-35 was twice the price, it would still be 'cheap'

Nonsense, and I'm being very polite.

[JSFfan]

F-35A costs 10% more to operate than F-16 - The DEW Line (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2013/04/f-35a-cost-10-more-to-operate.html)
"This data was derived in cooperation with the US Air Force and the Department of Defense Cost Assessment & Program Evaluation Office (CAPE). Comparable baseline assumptions were used to evaluate relative operational costs between F-35 and legacy aircraft."


re capability and survivability
Nonsense, and I'm being very polite. you may feel that the increased capability and survivability isn't worth a dollar amount and I guess you argue the same between the f-15 and the f-22..I strongly disagree

[Courtney Mil]

Whilst you appear to make a good point, JSFfan, I think you need to read kbrock's post a little more carefully. I would like to think you're right, but it's quite plain to see that you're somewhat seduced by the more optomistic figures. As we have discussed here before, it's a little early to be quoting ANY operating costs as set in concrete just now - EVERY project before this one has shown us that.

We shall get closer to an answer next month, but that will still not remove doubt. You don't need to worry too much about it as this is about cost for now, not capability, which is a different issue.

Ask yourself - not us, please - why nations are still holding off. I commend Kbrock's words to you. A purely defensive "it's great and we know how it's going to turn out" response isn't appropiate in this case. Not for quite a while yet.

On a personal note, I suspect it will be OK, but that doesn't mean any of us know that yet. And those of us that have been involved in mant previous programmes have learnt that the hard way.

[JSFfan]

there are a lot of nonsense numbers around, gripen for $7k is one of them
we will find out f-35 firm numbers in 2020 for my liking
my personal costing that I like is a total..lifetime everything in a now year cost
for the SH and f-35 it is a rough guess of $70k per hr

other than everyone has money problems (GFC) I don't think countries are holding off on cost, that's just an internal politicking by a few countries..I foresee no one not buying the f-35 regardless of who is in power at the time

the ones that have bipartisan support..it's about when is block 3, will it resemble what's written on the tin and can our legacy planes last that long
for australia we need the marine block 4 to cover our main missions

[SpazSinbad]

Government Asks Parliament for Authority to Ordering First Six Aircraft in the Main Contract
(Source: Norwegian Ministry of Defence; issued April 26, 2013)
(Issued in Norwegian only; unofficial translation by defense-aerospace.com)

Government Asks Parliament for Authority to Ordering First Six Aircraft in the Main Contract (http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/144594/norway-mod-seeks-approval-to-order-six-f_35s.html)

"...the government is also now asking for other parts of the contract, aside from the actual aircraft, including weapons integration, training, simulators, braking parachutes and more....

...- The government now goes to Parliament for the authority to order the first six aircraft in the main contract, with four to be delivered in Norway in 2017."

[JSFfan]

spaz it looks like their costing was as good as australia's our costings have been stable too
"• .. Overall Norwegian cost estimates have been stable since 2008. "

[kbrockman]

my personal costing that I like is a total..lifetime everything in a now year cost


Very pro US Norwegian government put the total cost (2010 dollars) for a 30 year 7900hrs/year operation at 40 billion$ for their 52 F35A's
This comes down to an average of 168500$ total ownership cost per hour.

If we can conclude one thing it is that over the years the cost estimates only evolved upward, in the direction of where our Norwegian friends estimated they would be in the first place.

[JSFfan]

sounds like they have the gate guard, lawn mowing costs and pensions in that too, I don't think my everything is the same as their everything

[Biggus]

Maybe not, but they've actually owned, flown, maintained and paid for a FJ fleet for quite a few years - have you?

[Courtney Mil]

Oh, come on, JSFfan. Your answer to my post you was

there are a lot of nonsense numbers around, gripen for $7k is one of them we will find out f-35 firm numbers in 2020 for my liking
my personal costing that I like is a total..lifetime everything in a now year cost
for the SH and f-35 it is a rough guess of $70k per hr

No one was talking about Grippen or Hornet. Those numbers are irrelevant to this. Trying to discredit what you see as opposition doesn't change the facts or the unknowns about JSF. And it's not a problem to have unknowns at this stage. What is a problem is irrational assertions about how great it is and will be before we know. Your personal costing (based on whatever you wish it to be) is actually as valid as anyone's else at this stage- i.e. a (hopefully) close estimate, based on the best information available (I can assure you that none of us here have even half the available information). As you suggest, we may know more in 2020. It's simply too early now.

I suggest you drop the vehement arguments about costs for now. You simply do not know, and why should you?

[JSFfan]

hey, I'm not the one who's having a dummy spit because the swiss from memory has the gripen at $24 and Bogdan has the f-16 and f-35 around the same price

I don't care if it's 20 or 40k..it is what it is and is about the same as the eurocanards, f-16/18 4th gens
On a capability basis alone, I would choose the f-35 even if the f-35 was twice the price, which it isn't

[Courtney Mil]

And now just say what any of that has to do with what I just posted.

[SpazSinbad]

Gen. Bogdan opines about more potential F-35 sales (rumour has it that Singapore is interested in the F-35B).

F-35 office sees improved relations with contractor 26 Apr 2013 Aaron Mehta

http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20130426/NEWS/304260013 (page 3)

"...Adding partners can help bring down costs, and both Singapore and South Korea have shown interest in purchasing the plane, which could lead to a boost in orders that will force down unit costs in the future. Singapore has shown “tremendous interest” in the JSF, according to Bogdan. “They are quite enthused about the airplane. I believe by this summer we will hear” if they will be purchasing. Similarly, South Korea should have a decision for their fighter replacement program by June , and said he is “cautiously optimistic” the country will pick the F-35....”

[JSFfan]

he said the f-16 and f-35a, apple to apple comparison is about the same price 21/24k..I accept this because it is similar to what janes said it was costed at by australia and I assume they are using a similar costing measure.
Calling BS on it isn't productive unless there is better apple to apple data used. So far no one has provided that and it's just been unfounded dribble

[NITRO104]

F-35A costs 10% more to operate than F-16 - The DEW Line (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2013/04/f-35a-cost-10-more-to-operate.html)
"This data was derived in cooperation with the US Air Force and the Department of Defense Cost Assessment & Program Evaluation Office (CAPE). Comparable baseline assumptions were used to evaluate relative operational costs between F-35 and legacy aircraft."
Yet again, you fail to understand.
The first issue here is that the F-35 comes within 10% of the F-16's cost in a specific set of conditions (A'stan, Libya, Russia, China?), so this is a kind of a cost/effectiveness amalgam, presented through $.
If we assume the F-35 is more capable than an F-16 as announced, then the JSF's actual flight hour is even costlier, by the magnitude of difference in capability and may well land where GAO and kbrockman said.
The second issue is that most nonUS operators that are supposed to field the F-35 will be mostly operating them in a low-threat and consequently high-cost environment, so it's difficult to justify JSF's procurement for those operators.

Although valiant, your efforts to 'defend' the JSF are misplaced, since no one's battling the JSF where you think they do.

I don't care if it's 20 or 40k..
Obviously, but you must allow others to care, since at some point in life everyone needs to stop bringing their laundry to their moms and start taking care for themselves.

[JSFfan]

I put up the costs of the f-16 as per the dutch, it was ~26k per hr, so his 21k wasn't far off theirs and dearer than his f-35 number

with your capability logic, but if you use capability the f-35 is much cheaper than the f-16
air forces assess the f-35 and others with their needs, they say they need the f-35

the GAO uses SAR numbers and SAR has said their cost is dearer than 24k but less than their 32k cost last year. SAR will be released soon.

this cost per hour seems to follow a....depends what's counted....apple to apple comparisons are always nice

[Courtney Mil]

JSFfan,

How long have you been trotting out the same cost estimates now? Over and over again. We've all seen tham now, thank you very much.

[Biggus]

First of all, before anyone bites my head off, I'll admit that my knowledge of the F-35 is no more than passing, and I can't be bothered to read 2100 odd posts.....

Having said that, regarding Gen Bogdan comments quoted in post 2084, specifically:

"Adding partners can help bring down costs,........., which could lead to a boost in orders that will force down unit costs in future...."

I thought that F-35 production for the US alone was originally in the region of 2,500. An order of say 30 JSF for Singapore and 60 for South Korea therefore represents an overall increase in sales of less than 4%!!

While no doubt having two more nations buy the aircraft adds to its prestige and reputation, I don't see how an increase in production of less 4% will produce any significant ecnomies of scale and reduce unit costs??? Let alone any requirement for offsets, setting up local production lines, etc - good for the host nation, but no doubt adding to overall costs!!

[Courtney Mil]

I can't fault your logic there, Biggus. But I suspect you may now face a bombardment of spurious figures that will categorically prove that you are completely wrong. What you have done here is the JSF equivalent of doubting the existence of God. Of course, it doesn't really matter anyway because it's already such excellent value for money that further savings are really not necessary.

[NITRO104]

but if you use capability the f-35 is much cheaper than the f-16
The 10% cost difference per flight hour IS based on a comparable capability and it wasn't me who used that metrics, but Gen.Bogdan.
Please read what you intend to quote in support of your claims, before you do so.

[JSFfan]

sorry mate, the 10% isn't on capability..it's simply on cost comparison

Biggus (http://www.pprune.org/members/21052-biggus) he is talking about annual build numbers in the ramp up years till 2020 I think he said, I gave the example of turkey shifting 2 units out of a build year and the remainder went up $1m each
the more planes they build for a given year...the cheaper they are.

[NITRO104]

sorry mate, the 10% isn't on capability..it's simply on cost comparison
"Comparable baseline assumptions were used to evaluate relative operational costs between F-35 and legacy aircraft."Do I really need to call the
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a7/Batman_Lee.png/250px-Batman_Lee.png

[JSFfan]

operational costs aren't capability

[Biggus]

Ah...

That might make sense, thanks. Although if I was a foreign nation buying JSF I'd want the aircraft to be as mature as possible when I got them, so wouldn't be looking to buy in the early ramp up years anyway......

Also, by definition, the General's comments don't apply to the programme as a whole then, just in some very specific years? You can't have it both ways....

[JSFfan]

yep..that's what their bitching about...no one wants a fleet of the early ones..just enough for training till peak production is reached...catch 22

[NITRO104]

JSFfan,
I'm gonna avoid the trap CM finds himself often in :}, but I do wonder one thing.
Why do you keep typing all sorts of letters and then pressing the Enter key?

[ITman]

Singapore has ordered more F-15's the latest variant rather than F-35's.

[JSFfan]

Spore has ordered a dozen as a gap filler

NITRO104, I bet that felt better than saying you were mistaken:ok:

[Just This Once...]

This thread would have been much better without JSFfan. He does not meet the spirit of this forum and I fear the moderation policy is far too light. One poster should not put everyone else from having an educated debate.

[Lonewolf_50]

It does not appear that the US is going to cancel F-35 any time soon.

So who is? :confused:

[PhilipG]

I can see a number of European countries either again reducing their F35 buy or cancel their buy. What this would do to the economics of the USA's purchase levels and the timing of the purchase is unclear. It would certainly increase the USA's unit cost, however measured.

[Heathrow Harry]

I suspect most of the customer base will walk but no-one wants to be first

Normally it's the Canadians or the Europeans who see sense first when they realise the total cost of trying to emulate the USAF

[JSFfan]

Lonewolf_50 (http://www.pprune.org/members/307224-lonewolf_50) I can't see anyone canceling..reluctance to buy too many LRIP's..extending the years that they buy over..reducing numbers..but as well as existing euro there may be at least another 3 to join.. Greece, Finland and Belgium.
cast your mind back to all the doom and gloom about f-16 sales..tall poppy syndrome

[HalloweenJack]

and again JSFfan , which branch of the military have you served or are serving in?

[kbrockman]

Greece simply won't have the money.
Finland usually stretches its assets as far as possible, a bit like the Swiss who also seem to get the most mileage out of their military equipment.
As far as Belgium goes, at this moment in time it can go all ways, fact is that the budget won't allow for any more than a token fighter jet airforce if we go for the F35.

I would sooner put my money on Poland, I think that would be the best bet as a possible future F35 client.

Even the Norwegians, who are beyond the definition of rich have trouble funding this jet,
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2013/04/26/world/europe/26reuters-norway-f35.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0
Oil-rich Norway is stretching out its purchase of 52 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters from Lockheed Martin, the Defense Ministry said on Friday, a move that will nudge up the total cost but reduce the annual burden on the defense budget.

The country is about to place firm orders for six of the fighter planes and will extend the timeframe for the purchase of all 52 from four years to eight years, the ministry said.



10.65 billion$ in 2013 value means close to 205 million per copy.

[HalloweenJack]

something for those who might have missed it:


Flying the Flanker - The DEW Line (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2013/04/flying-the-flanker.html)

since the talk of supercruise:

Slowing the Flanker down after almost 25 minutes of supersonic flight also showed interesting results. "I take it out of burner and I'm just at mil power and the speed dropped down to--I was still supersonic,"

[LowObservable]

In the basic plan, the JSF international partners are due to buy 730 jets.

100 are already gone due to cutbacks in Italy, Canada, Netherlands &c. (It's actually 104 but I am giving credit for the Noggies, who have upped their order.)

Of the remaining 630, about 300 are at risk. This includes the UK's aircraft beyond the initial 48, Italy being broke, the Netherlands arguing among themselves &c.

Moreover, the plan was for the international partners to buy heavily near the start of production (in the "program of record" they buy most of their jets by 2020). Now that the loyal Noggies have stretched their buy through 2024, others will follow suit.

Some of this is made up for by Japan (42) and the aircraft provided to Israel by the US taxpayer, but not all. Korea may well go F-15SE.

In the US, the USAF is unlikely to afford the planned buy rate but is not being allowed to say so, while the USN CV community is ambivalent at best to JSF, believing that Hornet/Growler upgrades offer a far better return on investment for the next decade. (Consider that manned deep strike, where stealth is most valuable, is not as crucial for the Navy as for the AF, and besides they have Tomahawks for that.)

The death spiral is very much a possibility.

[JSFfan]

kbrockman (http://www.pprune.org/members/111172-kbrockman) I'm not saying they will buy this year..after a poor start it took 10 years for the f-16 after IOC and yes Poland and Spain could be buyers too

Norway went a year earlier than planned for their package buy of LRIPs ..funny that even in LRIP it seems cheaper than the typhoon package sale to Oman

[Courtney Mil]

A serious question with an open hand. JSFfan, what is your reason for your obvious fanaticism for this jet.? The rest of us are quite open about who we are, where we stand and why.

Who are you?

Why your fanatical devotion to the F-35?

[Just This Once...]

Gets paid for it?

[Courtney Mil]

If so, soon to be fired for hardening everyone else's position against the wonder jet.

So, JSFfan, this has gone on long enough.

Who are you?

Why your fanatical devotion to the F-35?

[t43562]

Works for Boeing?

[Courtney Mil]

No, all his ideas come from the internet and he displays a clear lack of understanding of aviation and procurement. Await an answer.

[SpazSinbad]

'LowObservable' has left out the potential Singaporean buy of perhaps 12? F-35Bs?

In Focus: Singapore steps up deterrent capabilities Greg Waldron, Flight International, February 1, 2012

IN FOCUS: Singapore steps up deterrent capabilities (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/in-focus-singapore-steps-up-deterrent-capabilities-367582/)

"...Sources say Singapore could also be interested in the F-35B, the type's short take-off and vertical landing variant...."

Is Not Enough: Reflections on China’s Military Trajectory and the U.S. Pivot 25 Nov 2012
Richard D. Fisher, Jr. | Senior Fellow, International Assessment and Strategy Center

http://www.strategycenter.net/docLib/20121125_FisherLessisNotEnough112512.pdf

"...For Singapore, widely expected to buy the F-35 and Taiwan, which has also signaled its interest, the F-35B offers 5th generation performance plus tactical concealment advantages, as it could also be employed from the protective cover of U.S. naval formations with carriers or LHD size ships...."

Singapore looks to ties that bind 06 Apr 2013 SEAH CHIANG NEE

Singapore looks to ties that bind - Opinion | The Star Online (http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2013/4/6/focus/12933031&sec=focus)

F-35 office sees improved relations with contractor 26 Apr 2013 Aaron Mehta
　
http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20130426/NEWS/304260013 (http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20130426/NEWS/304260013) (page 3)
　
"...Adding partners can help bring down costs, and both Singapore and South Korea have shown interest in purchasing the plane, which could lead to a boost in orders that will force down unit costs in the future. Singapore has shown "tremendous interest" in the JSF, according to Bogdan. "They are quite enthused about the airplane. I believe by this summer we will hear" if they will be purchasing. Similarly, South Korea should have a decision for their fighter replacement program by June , and said he is "cautiously optimistic" the country will pick the F-35...."
_______________

Have searched for Sea Gripen here, not sure if this undated detailed info has been posted earlier (unsurprisingly these details were news to me but so are a lot of things).

SEA GRIPEN: FORCE MULTIPLIER FOR THE INDIAN NAVY (IN) Apr? 2013?
Tony Ogilvy MBE AFC, General Manager, Aeronautics Head of Sea Gripen Design Centre, Saab UK

Sea Gripen: Force Multiplier For The Indian Navy (IN) (http://www.saabgroup.com/en/Markets/Saab-India/About-Saab-India/Saab-in-Focus/Sea-Gripen-Force-Multiplier-For-The-Indian-Navy-IN1/)

“...The design phase was completed in August 2012, and with a customer in support of this programme the next step will be the production of test vehicle(s) for proof of concept and deck launch & recovery work.

With a catapult launch Sea Gripen will be able to operate to its maximum takeoff weight of 16.5 tonnes, which will provide navies with Gripen EF performance and capability from a carrier base. Without catapult assist-ance, we are working on further methods to increase takeoff payload. Saab anticipates that Sea Gripen will offer a very capable payload performance from a 200 metre deck run, and 14 degree ramp exit.

The Sea Gripen is an ideal replacement for existing fleets, countries which will return to carrier based operations, and potential emerging aircraft carrier nations. [b]Its footprint will allow it to operate from all existing carriers in service, and fit on every lift in operation worldwide.

Sea Gripen is the new-generation carrier-based fighter option for the future. With all the capabilities of the Gripen EF, it will be the most technologically advanced fighter aircraft in the world for embarked operations.”

[Easy Street]

The notion that Spain and/or Greece might spend $bns on a 5th-gen stealth fighter, with no prospect of significant workshare, is utterly implausible given the state of both nations' finances now and for the foreseeable future. Even the vague 'threat' from the Turks against the Greeks gets nowhere near pushing it high enough up their national spending priority list. Plus, if I was German, I would be mightily annoyed that countries surviving on piles of my hard-earned cash were spending it on highly-advanced, predominantly US-built military equipment! It simply won't happen.

[Courtney Mil]

Easy Street, absolutely. Countries that don't even know how they're going to pay their own employees next month, let alone fund the most expensive aircraft so far. Ain't going to happen. I doubt the Euro Zone deal for their bail-outs will include the phrase, "go ahead with your new mega defence purchase, we'll help you fund it if you run out of the money we give you."

[Turbine D]

JSFfan
you should use your computer more, that story is 2 mths old
Whether the story is 2 months old, 2 weeks old or 2 days old is irrelevant, you missed the point completely. Perhaps you are unaware of the political atmosphere here in the US, being soooo far away, down under. You concentrate on the technical upside of the F-35 program, ignoring the political side that is fraught with potential showstoppers. Presently, the US Congress is on recess and they have yet to take up the budget of the US government going forward. Believe it or not, the F-35 is going to be part of this process and there isn't much good program news to believe it will float through the process untouched, no matter what you think. You saw what happened to the F-22 program and realism would indicate a reduction in spending for the F-35 program at a minimum.

Comparisons of the F-35 program to the F-16 program of yesteryear is fruitless from an acquisition cost point of view (everyone understands the F-35 is very much more expensive program) or whether the F-16 program had a tough sled (it did) for foreign countries to buy into the program. Perhaps you are not well acquainted with the layout of the Pentagon. On one floor there was a group that promotes sales overseas. On another floor there was a group that discourages sales overseas to protect advanced technology, paid for by American taxpayers. For sometime, the discouraging group ruled the roost and delays of sales resulted. I visited there and saw how it worked. It will be no different this time around for the F-35 when it comes to technology exportation.

So you stick to publishing the Lockheed promo material and from time to time I will bring the realism into the conversation apart from the technical virtues of the F-35 Lightning, whatever they might be, or not...

TD

[Courtney Mil]

Turbine D,

Thank you, Sir. Sound realism.

[Rhino power]

Standby for Tubine D's post to be completely ignored by JSFfan, and more endless bilge on how utterly splendid the entire F-35 program is, always has been and always will be, right up until its ****canned! ;)

-RP

[Courtney Mil]

Do you have a link for that, RP?

[Rhino power]

I'm fresh out of links CM, but I'm sure one or 5,000 will be along shortly... :ok:

-RP

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

...10.65 billion$ in 2013 value means close to 205 million per copy.
:eek:

I note how quick all the doomsayers have been to denounce silly statements by JSFfan and others (regardless of merit), but no one (like LO who I KNOW knows better) has bothered to counter this ridiculous comment.

I guess it's only wrong if it doesn't fit in to your view of the world... :=

[JSFfan]

LO, who knows what the total number will be and we can speculate all day..I'm more concerned with when is block 3 and how many per year in the ramp up from 2015 till 2020..it's how many a year that counts for the price partners pay

CM, nothing has changed no matter how many times it is asked, as I have said before, I'm still only a pleb with the same public access most have. ..I just don't subscribe to the fantasy that the f-35 will be canceled and there will be a rush for eurocanard or boeing orders

Turbine, I don't know how many times they need to say there are 3 procurement priorities..the f-35, subs and a long range bomber..the annual hat in hand to the congress for their budget is par for the course

fox...I'm always happy to be shown as wrong and when I make a mistake I freely admit it
no one challenges things against the f-35 very often..if they look into it..norway has said their first 6 are dear because of lrip all the other stuff they need spread over only a few frames..
Korea will pay more because of FMS fees and they have been quoted $180m in a package deal
for reference the gripen and super hornet package are about $150m ea and the Omar typhoon package seems to be well over $200m and already dearer than the f-35

[NITRO104]

Based on that logic, lets work out a per unit cost of a Eurofighter, or a Rafale as well then...
A valid question.
According to French Senate and UK's NAO, the Rafale's unit cost in France is about $200m, while the EF costs UK about $170m per unit, both figures including R&D (PAUC).
Granted, UK's cost is not the whole Eurofighter bill since Germany, Italy and Spain are sharing R&D expenses, but that's what partnerships are for and something JSF partners like Norway are supposed to be exempt from, which suggests the JSF is even costlier.

[glad rag]

All this talk of levels of costing had me thinking...Has the GR4 fleet been paid for?

[Romulus]

In order to try and get the conversation back to its interesting former self here's something for your consideration.

Game Changer: The F-35 and the Pacific | The Diplomat (http://thediplomat.com/2013/04/25/game-changer-the-f-35-and-the-pacific/3/?all=true)

Given "The Diplomat" focusses on Asia and that's where the next large hotspots of contention (as opposed to walkovers) are likely to be I have often found them to be a very well researched with well considered opinion pieces.

Others may disagree.

[Heathrow Harry]

the author is a well known spokesman for the military -industrial complex......... not likely to bite the hand that feeds him

[Romulus]

the author is a well known spokesman for the military -industrial complex......... not likely to bite the hand that feeds him

But what of the content.

The concept of distributed airpower and associated tactics must follow from some very interesting assumptions, primarily that direct air-to-air combat is not expected.

[PhilipG]

Surely there are some endurance issues, or are the Pacific F35s refuelled by stealth tankers?

[JSFfan]

According to French Senate and UK's NAO, the Rafale's unit cost in France is about $200m, while the EF costs UK about $170m per unit, both figures including R&D (PAUC).
Granted, UK's cost is not the whole Eurofighter bill since Germany, Italy and Spain are sharing R&D expenses, but that's what partnerships are for and something JSF partners like Norway are supposed to be exempt from, which suggests the JSF is even costlier. what year dollar?
SAR 2012 has the 2012 year dollar for average all (A,B,C) PAUC @ $134.5M
the other partners will be less because the USA is eating most of the R&D
why don't you look and see what is in the Norway 6 plane buy because I saw it said the unit cost of the plane is about $125m

so it looks like the f-35 is cheaper to me, no matter which way people want to measure it

[HalloweenJack]

no the USA is offloading as much R&D cost as it can to other countries - you ignore the cost breaches which can and will shut the programme down - remember Comanche?


Singapore are likely to go for the `stealth` F15 (as will RoSK as well); why? as the R&D cost has already been `spread around`. The saudi `SA` version is proving the FBW system (and extra outer wing hardpoint) , the AESA radar is already being used by Saudi and Singapore , so that effectively leaves the CBW (in testing for 2 years now) the stealth paint and cantered rear fins.


costs will be roughly 66% less than the F35.

[JSFfan]

Romulus, (http://www.pprune.org/members/167088-romulus)
The system concept will fall on deaf ears, they really don't want to know

@HalloweenJack (http://www.pprune.org/members/227595-halloweenjack)
of course you have a link to show your claim that a f-15 is less than a f-35

[Biggus]

Once again I hesitate to put my head into the buzz saw that is this thread, however....

Without getting into great arguments about 2008 $ vs 2002 DM, etc, surely the cost of purchasing an aircraft is actually fairly irrelevant for the nation buying it, what matters is the overall costs of ownership over the life of the fleet (I don't want to argue about $ per flight hour either).

I once visited a UK aircraft manufacturer and was told that they made almost no money on selling an aircraft, where they made their money was in the costs they charged for supporting it over the next 25-30 years. It's not inconceivable that a manufacturer/nation would actually sell their aircraft at a loss, simply to achieve the sale and the long term follow on support.

I certainly remember reading many years ago that the French, in the days of the Mirage III, virtually gave the aircraft away, but then charged an arm and a leg to support it.....

I'll get back in my box now.....

[HalloweenJack]

Are you saying that an aircraft , that's been in production for 20 years will cost more than a brand new still in development??

http://asw.newpacificinstitute.org/?p=11207

F15K cost $100mil inc spares and support - the SE will costs similar.

The FBW system has been paid for by Saudi Arabia for the F15SA ; the CBW are being designed by KAI (http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1499) so its of interest for RoSK to support its own industries by going with the `SE` variant.

And the Japan discussions placed the F35 @ $238mil per unit.

Support its own industry and get more ` bang for your buck` -RoSK and Singapore both IMO will go for the F15SE.

Israel will likely get the `bolt on ` CBW as well.

[Courtney Mil]

FA18,

The (10.65 billion$ in 2013 value means close to 205 million per copy) figure seems very difficult to explain. I tried all sorts of maths on it to see if I could work out what they meant by that figure, based on the estimated $m90 figure being used in Canberra at the moment. It's way too high for the unit cost and doesn't add up to the estimated total lifetime cost (itro £1 trillion for 50 years according to the USN?). Given the Aus dollar to US dollar exchange rate at the moment, it doesn't make much difference which you use. It's either a complete red herring or somebody's quoting a figure without telling us what it really means. But there are so many figures out there, it's hard to know who will pay what. For example, if Singapore is to pay $9 billion for 71 jets, they would come in at over £126 million each.

On cost per hour, the Pentagon's acquisition cheif (is that Kendall?) sees the cost per hour coming down from £31.9 thousand reported to last year's SAR, but not as much as Bogden is claiming - the Pantagon doesn't seem to be happy with the Company's new metrics. I think that's about as much as we can assume for now. I hope it's nearer the cost of the legacy jets than last year's estimates - we'll hear more next month.

Classification remains a big issue and is muddying the waters concerning costs. Some hope may be on the horizon there too:

“Adding insult to injury, the JSF program office classified all documents as “U.S. only,” which upset partner nations. Even if they are all buying the same aircraft, each country has its own air-worthiness qualification processes and other administrative procedures that require they have access to the aircraft’s technical data. JSF officials are working to re-classify the documentation, Bogdan said.”

[Courtney Mil]

I just don't subscribe to the fantasy that the f-35 will be canceled and there will be a rush for eurocanard or boeing orders

Neither do I. But at the same time, I'm not blindly taken in by the costs of ownership or some of the claims about capability. It would be odd, however, if people didn't speculate about it here, especially given the title of the thread.

[kbrockman]

From the horses mouth;

- A major leap forward in our procurement of the F-35 - regjeringen.no (http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/fd/press-centre/Press-releases/2013/--a-major-leap-forward-in-our-procuremen.html?id=724737)
- Norway will acquire up to 52 F-35 combat aircraft to ensure that its future Armed Forces will be able to perform its missions in the best way possible.

- The Norwegian acquisition is estimated to cost NOK 62.6 billion (adjusted real 2013-value.) The overall Norwegian cost estimates have been stable since 2008.

- The first four F-35s that are to be used for the training of Norwegian personnel were approved by the Norwegian Parliament in 2011. Of these four, the first two will be delivered in the United States in 2015 and the last two in 2016.


62.6 billion Krone = 10.68 billion$
10.68/52 = 205.4million per copy (okay , I was off by 400,000$)

[Courtney Mil]

I see that, Kbrock. I was just trying to correlate that figure with some of the other, so called, unit prices.

[NITRO104]

what year dollar?
It doesn't matter, since Congress proposed the new (Zager-Evans) law for regulating program budgeting and FY/constant dollars calculation, which, if approved is supposed to remain in power until 2525??
(must be a type error, but there you go)

[LowObservable]

FA-18 - I stopped trying to compare fighter prices based on package-deal prices years ago, because deals are so different - mostly, it depends what support is included and for how long, or whether it's an initial buy or a top-up (cf $3.7 billion for 12+12 Hornet/Growler for Oz).

After all, the Noggies told their voters in late 2008 that the F-35s would cost them $52 million each. What's Norwegian for "Psych!"

Biggus - You're right, of course. And let's not forget that support in the digital area includes new software releases. Even some A320 operators grumbled about that, but on a fighter with SLOC in the millions it gets really expensive.

Romulus - Anyone who uses "Game Changer" in a headline is full of :mad:.

Laird's "think" tank, SLD, lists LockMart as its Gold Sponsor. You can still be on someone's payroll and make sense, of course, but my issue with SLD's stuff is that they write about JSF capabilities as if they existed today, and ignore the idea that others may counter them asymmetrically, or emulate them on different platforms.

When the jet gets into service it may do some of these B2FB things and built a self-forming combat network, but it is far more probable that these capabilities will emerge gradually during the first decade of operations. Look at Super Hornet to see the real-world evolution of a multi-role information-intense platform.

Other things I have never seen SLD address:

How does JSF network with other platforms? The entire "Z-axis" theory (which SLD bangs on about on a Proustian scale) rests on this, but even in 2030 at least half the fighters anywhere will be jets in service today. They probably will have high-rate broadcast-type datalinks, but the problem is that a stealth jet neither wants nor needs any datalink that is not LPI, which inherently means pencil beams and consequent limits on number of users.

They talk about JSF as replacing ISR assets and providing a persistent ISR capability, battlespace awareness, Aegis targeting &c. How the :mad: do you do that with a jet that has two (B) or three (A/C) hours' endurance, tops?

What happens when the adversary sees all this magic and decides to flood the world with RF noise?

There's more than that, of course - like advocating hardened aircraft shelters in WestPac, despite the fact that precision-guided ballistic missiles are entirely feasible (I believe that the PLA successfully ripped off the Pershing 2 guidance system). And so on...

[Courtney Mil]

How does JSF network with other platforms?

Same as F-22 does. Or doesn't.

[kbrockman]

F35 is getting MADL, F22 doesn't (yet) get it.
Northrop's MADL waveform completes flight testing on F-35 aircraft - Airforce Technology (http://www.airforce-technology.com/news/newsnorthrops-mald-waveform-completes-flight-testing-on-f-35-aircraft)
Northrop's MADL waveform completes flight testing on F-35 aircraft
24 April 2013

[LowObservable]

F-22 & B-2 MADL integration was being planned but got kicked down the road a couple of years ago - because of money, and probably also because it was recognized that the sky was not going to be full of F-35s in 2015. The idea was to fit the stealth jets with MADL and then have a standoff. high-altitude gateway linking them to the rest of the world.

And then there's the RUMINT that the U.S. has done the B-2 radar trick on MADL - putting it smack-dab in a frequency band that has been flogged off for future satellite HDTV. Woopsers.

[Courtney Mil]

The question being, how does it network with other platforms. It doesn't. It might, but not without a gateway.

[SpazSinbad]

F-35 networking: Link 16; Net; VMF (Variable Message Format) + MADL to other F-35s

Joint Tactical Data Enterprise Services (TDES) Migration Plan (JTMP) 2009

http://idlsoc.com/Documents/Symposiums/IDLS2009/Day2/D2_MAIN_US_TDES_Migration_Panel_Moderator_David_Nark_Narkevi cius_OASD(NII).pdf (5.4Mb)

Click thumbnail http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/th_F-35netDataLinks.gif (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/F-35netDataLinks.gif.html)

[Courtney Mil]

You think JSF will be transmitting on Link 16 when it's trying to be stealthy? If so, why invent MADL?

[SpazSinbad]

'Courtney Mil' asked: "How does JSF network with other platforms?
Same as F-22 does. Or doesn't."
&
'Courtney Mil' asked: "The question being, how does it network with other platforms. It doesn't. It might, but not without a gateway."

Answer provided. 'Stealth Networking' not mentioned in questions.

[Courtney Mil]

Yeah. Directional antennae and broad spectrum. I refer the honourable gentleman to the F-22.

Broad spectrum doesn't truly equate to LPI any more. After all, if (for example) the little box next to your computer can do it, so can a radio.

[peter we]

and again JSFfan , which branch of the military have you served or are serving in?

JSFfan has stated (in this thread, about a month ago) that he is neither involved with the military or the aerospace industry and he only an 'interested party'.

[LowObservable]

The issue with the F-35 (and with the F-22 once it gets L-16 transmit, due in 2014 with Increment 3.2A) is that you are on the network (outside your four-ship) or stealthy, but not both at the same time.

And as you move towards the next stage in net-centric, where instead of broadcasting all the time, every node transmits on demand (for instance, a "search" goes out for anyone whose sensors were on a given set of coordinates in the past few hours) the problem gets more interesting.

A networked stealth aircraft is like a ninja with Tourette's.

[Lonewolf_50]

A networked stealth aircraft is like a ninja with Tourette's.

Well played, sir. :D

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

stopped trying to compare fighter prices based on package-deal prices years ago, because deals are so different - mostly, it depends what support is included and for how long, or whether it's an initial buy or a top-up (cf $3.7 billion for 12+12 Hornet/Growler for Oz).

Sure, as have I...but what you DO know is that you don't arrive at a unit cost by dividing the total program cost by the number of airframes, and yet you chose not to challenge that statement.

CM - Speaking from an Australian perspective, the following items are all included in our AIR6000 budget...

All of our fighter bases except Amberley require major refurbishment in order to be able to accommodate a new fighter, whether it be F-35, Super Hornet or whatever. This includes new wing & squadron HQs, hangars, maintenance facilities, warehouses, training facilities, associated ramps and taxiways, weapons stores etc at Williamtown and Tindal which are permanent bases, as well as Townsville, Learmonth, Curtin and Sherger which are austere bases. This is expected to cost several billion.

There are also simulators and other aircrew and maintenance synthetic training devices which will cost several hundred million.

There is the initial basing & training in the US at Eglin or (more likely) Luke AFB for our first few aircraft and crews, and maintenance training at Eglin - several hundred million more.

On top of this is the usual tech pubs, initial spares holdings, initial training, initial weapons stocks, delivery and ferry costs, and everything else that goes with a fleet of up to 100 (but more likely 70-80) new fighters.

The AIR6000 budget is about A$16bn, and confidence is high that we can come in within this figure. So using the logic of others that extrapolates to $160m per aircraft, but will more likely be $90-$100m per aircraft when all other costs are figured in.

Lets say, worse case scenario (and leaving the much greater capability of the F-35 aside), if an F-35 costs $20 million more than a Gripen, or $10 million more than a Super Hornet (which is about right), then the initial cost difference for 80-100 aircraft is a small percentage of the overall amount you will spend up front, let alone over the life of type of the aircraft.

[LowObservable]

FA - "and yet you chose not to challenge that statement."

Really, you're beginning to sound like my ex. You don't want to do that.

Good luck with your plans. However, the comment

"and $10 million more than a Super Hornet (which is about right)"

is a bit optimistic. You get close to that with a 2023 delivery, based on everything going to plan and a 200/year production rate which, for various reasons, ain't gonna happen in the timespan of the Oz requirement. You can look up the projections in the Oz buy years for yourself in the SAR and compare them to the URFC and APUC for the SH.

[JSFfan]

http://www.dod.gov/pubs/foi/logistics_material_readiness/acq_bud_fin/SARs/DEC%202011%20SAR/F%20A-18E%20F%20-%20SAR%20-%2031%20DEC%202011.pdf
page 17 line 2012 for year 2012 dollars
the SH is $66.6m plus FLIR pod, HMD, night googles and probably another few things I'm unaware of

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae/articles/communiques/F-35Dec11FinalSAR-3-29-2012.pdf
for 2012 year dollars page 39 and 54 line 2018 then add together
the f-35 for 2018 is $72.5m including FLIR and IRST along with EODAS and HMD

$72.5 - $66.6 = $5.9m ..lets round it off to $6m even without adding the costs of the pods. helmet and googles etc to the SH

going by SAR the ramp up drops the price in 2018 to... f-35 is $6m dearer than the SH and both the JPO and LM say they can get the f-35 price lower

please check my maths

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

JSFfan...just...just...:ugh: :{*sigh*

Firstly, Super Hornet doesn't come with IRST, plus that's a two year old report of what is probably three year old information.

Secondly, It was widely reported that PEO GEN Bogdan told Australian media at the Avalon Airshow on February 28 that he expects an MYP F-35A to ballpark around US$92m including engine. Information given to Australian program officials and decision makers on the same visit mirrors this number.

I realise this is a long way from the ~$50m numbers being bandied around in the early days, but it's also a lot less than some of the numbers being thrown about by the doomsayers too.

Regardless of what Boeing says, you won't get much change out of US$83m for an FMS F/A-18F including EO/IR pod, tanks, pylons, LAUs, RWR etc.

But as I and others have already stated, we need to stop looking at the unit cost and look instead at the project cost. e.g...

http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2013/Korea_13-10.pdf & http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2013/Australia_13-05.pdf

Look at what these proposals include...you can see that the Korean F-35As won't cost $180m each any more than the Australian Super Hornets will cost $154m each. PLUS, Australia already has Super Hornet infrastructure and training devices & syllabus in place, whereas the Koreans are starting their F-35 fleet from scratch.

[JSFfan]

the new/planned IRST fuel pod, the reason I used the plural term pods and they are the latest SAR

the ~$83m f-35 is a then year dollar URF of 2020 IIRC, it is stated in the cost report just recently done for the AU gov, LINK is on this thread somewhere and our total acquisition was around $139m

if you looked...both the SH and F-35 is in unit recurring flyaway URF and not a 'delivered' price to australia

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

The IRST pod has not been ordered and (LO may know more), may not even be funded for acquisition by the Navy yet.

my guess is he used the average of the A, B and C to get the $93m

No, I can assure you it was for the F-35A!

[JSFfan]

ok, if you don't like the IRST pod I'll remove it, heck even thouigh I haven't seen the ADF/gov mention $93m I'll remove that too, though he has just told the dutch the 2012Y$ urf is 75m and the 2020y$ urf is 85m..so his 93m doesnt fit

it still doesnt change the 2012$ URF SAR of SH $66.6m and the f-35A of $73.5m

but you should look up the aussie cost report for "the ~$83m f-35 is a then year dollar URF of 2020 IIRC, it is stated in the cost report just recently done for the AU gov, LINK is on this thread somewhere and our total acquisition was around $139m"

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CDgQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.anao.gov.au%2F~%2Fmedia%2FFiles%2FAudit %2520Reports%2F2012%25202013%2FAudit%2520Report%25206%2F2012 13%2520Audit%2520Report%2520No%25206%2520OCRed.pdf&ei=xgF-UbLBJ-T_iAfGioHIDw&usg=AFQjCNE_xDhgw4g--qhk4vjk2prXZE86wg&bvm=bv.45645796,d.aGc&cad=rja

I looked it up, procurement $123.6m, aquisition is $134.1M then year dollars or $83.4 million in 2019Y$ URF or $73.5m in 2012Y$ URF

Amounts (then-year US$)
Under JSF SDD MoU
JSF development
Australian unique requirements
Project costs and purchase of 100 F-35A aircraft (as
at February 2012), subject to government approval $12 362 million
Estimated shared costs (as at December 2011)
—Production
—Sustainment
—Follow-on development
Partner Reprogramming Laboratory
Total $13 210.62 million -$.62m plus $200m = $13 410.00 or $134.1m ea

[ImageGear]

This week two UK pilots flew two UK jets for their first UK national syllabus check — with the formation flying being part of that check..

Not looking very terminal from here..

[Courtney Mil]

Not very terminal? You mean the Link 16 Terminal?

[JSFfan]

Battery terminal?

[Bastardeux]

if an F-35 costs $20 million more than a Gripen, or $10 million more than a Super Hornet (which is about right)

I call bullsh*t.

[JSFfan]

fox can answer for himself, but why don't you show why it is bull****? you won't look so silly
I showed the SH and F-35 on the last page

[HalloweenJack]

I also showed the price offered to japan - $205 million each.

[Bastardeux]

Why? Because the US paid 2013$21 billion for 210 aircraft back in 2000, with said bells and whistles included. And the most recent contract for 182 F18/EA18 came in at 2013$16 billion, again with said bells and whistles included.

Meanwhile, Norway buys 6 aircraft for $2.2 billion and are expected to shell out 5 times that to get a measely 50

[ImageGear]

Not very terminal? You mean the Link 16 Terminal?

Nope - Terminal as in end of life :E

[JSFfan]

japan is setting up their own production line..dear isn't it
or are you talking about a small lrip buy and a lot of the ancillery for the total fleet spead over a few frames, like norway?
a number by itself means nothing...it's like the 100m for a f-15..what price is that? I think it might be a flyaway

did you notice I gave a full explanation with credable links on the last page?

[Courtney Mil]

It's usual Japanese practice. They did the same with the F-15s - built them all themselves under licence. IIRC the licence for each airframe was about the same as the price of an F-15. It kept Misubishi in work for a few years.

[JSFfan]

Bastardeux (http://www.pprune.org/members/381064-bastardeux), I put up the SAR fa-18ef costings link on the last page, the 2012$ is $66.6m and the 2012$ is $73.5m both in URF also from the SAR I put up for the F-35

Looking at the SAR it seems your "182 F18/EA18 came in at 2013$16 billion" or $88m is a combined PUC.. just to help your argument, the fa-18ef PUC is less and $84M a PUC for the f-35a $96m for year 2018... both in 2012 Y$

on a URF the difference is $6m
on a PUC for the difference is $12m

please show me where I am wrong if you disagree or accept that is the SAR price

CM, yes japan is funny, definitely need to see the spread sheet to see what the game is

[Turbine D]

US Government Accountability Office
GAO Report: See Pgs. 69-70 for F-22, Pgs. 71-72 for F-35

The GAO Report on major defense acquisitions is prepared for the US Congress and the various Congressional Defense Committees, thereby providing guidance as to the program and cost statuses. I am sure an update will be provided as the budget process begins later this summer.

http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/653379.pdf

In addition:
Institute For Defense Analysis Report:
See Pg. ES-13 F-35 Areas of Weakness
See Pg. ES-25 F-35 General Info.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a519883.pdf

There is a McKinsey Defense report that basically says the same as the above report. They also mention the fact the F-15 and F-16 development programs took 6 years each to complete, the F-22 development program, 20 years and the F-35 Development program 12 years so far but perhaps on track to equal the F-22 program.

TD

[JSFfan]

I can see the point you're trying to make, if you look at the timeline and reports of the f-16, it's a brave call to say it was "development took 6 years to complete"

[LowObservable]

The F-16/JSF comparison is illuminating.

Demonstrator contracts were issued in 1972 for the F-16 and 1996 for the JSF - so we are now at D+16.5 for JSF, which would be some time in 1988 for the F-16.

By that time the F-16 had been successfully used in air-to-air and air-to-ground operations. The first major upgrade model (Block 25) had been developed, deployed and completed its production run. The alternate engine was in production for the Block 30/32 and the first precision-night-strike-capable Block 40s were being delivered.

Ah ha, say the JSF supporters, the JSF will have precision strike at IOC! But the difference is that LANTIRN was new technology back then, while the JSF doesn't offer much if anything on the offensive end (weapons and sensors) that isn't already in the field.

[JSFfan]

Ah yes, the old build it now and we'll fix it later

smsgtmac wrote
For instance I did note the Block 10s were when the F-16 became nominally ‘useful’ militarily. I’ve described it elsewhere as a WVR “knife-fighter”. It is just that the first ‘full’ capabilities, the ones the AF as an institution wanted all along, came with the Block 30/32.

Oddly, though FSD was turned on in ’75, as late as 1977 there were still NO formal requirements that had been finalized. From the April GAO report "Status of the F-16 Aircraft Program. PSAD-77-41" (which BTW also expresses concerns over F-16 'vulnerability' and other seemingly familiar concerns):

Quote:
In January 1975, the Air Force selected a derivative of the General Dynamics prototype to be the Air Combat Fighter or the F-16. On January 13, 1975, the Air Force awarded a F-16 full-scale development contract to General Dynamics. At that time, the using command, Tactical Air Command, had no specific requirement (Required Operational Capability (ROC)) for the lightweight fighter aircraft…

…Although the Secretary of Defense signed the Memorandum of Understanding and the preliminary contracts, he has not signed the F-16 Decision Coordinating Paper (DCP) which becomes an agreement between the Air the Force and the Office of Secretary of Defense for program cost, schedule and performance goals, and thresholds. As of January 31, 1977, the Air Force has prepared three drafts of DCP 143 for the F-16 aircraft program. The latest DCP draft, dated May 18, 1976, is being reviewed by the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Although an F-16 DCP has not been signed, the draft version is used as a source document for program management.

But within the same document, the GAO does note the 'planned' armament and mission:

Quote:
Air-to-air mission armament
The F-16 air-to-air armament consists of the 20--mm M61A1 cannon and up to six AIM-9J/L Sidewinder missiles. The Sidewinder is a short range infrared guided missile. In anticipation of the development of a new, more effective radar missile, the Air Force has directed the F-16 contractor to provide the space, weight, power, and cooling provisions necessary for such incorporation.

Air-to-surface mission armament
The F-16 air-to-surface armament includes the Maverick missile, a close air support antiarmor weapon. It will also carry a variety of guided and unguided bombs and will be certified to carry nuclear weapons. Currently, the Air Force considers the F-16's mission mix to be 50 percent air-to-air and 50 percent air-to-surface
.

And even later, the report gets more specific as to what TAC was preparing to levy as requirements:

Quote:
POTENTIAL NEW REQUIREMENTS
The Tactical Air Command did not have a ROC prepared for the F-16 when full-scale development was started in January 1975. The Tactical Air Command's ROC document for the F-16 is still being reviewed by Headquarters USAF. We are unable to comment on the reasonableness of the requirement, however, because Headquarters USAF denied us access to the document.
Tactical Air Command officials stated that the F-16 needs the following equipment to enhance its mission effectiveness or to reduce life cycle costs: an internal rather than a podded external electronic countermeasures set, a Joint Tactical Information Distribution System terminal, a new beyond-visual range air-to-air missile, an engine diagnostic system, a global positioning system receiver, and a video tape recorder..


Farther down in the details that followed, the GAO mentions the expected need for a radar upgrade to replace the original one:

Quote:
New beyond-visual-range missile
Tactical Air Command in conjunction with the Navy has developed a Joint Service Operational Requirement (JSOR) for a lightweight, beyond visual range missile that can be carried in the F-16, F-15, F-18, and F-14.
SPO officials said incorporation of a radar missile in the F-16 would probably require a modification of the F-16 radar and the stores management system, incorporation of missile interface units, and new pylons.

So while the program proceeded into FSD without any real requirements (a lesson for the future?) much of the capabilities sought with the first official requirements list would not come until the Block 30/32.

What is most interesting to me about the F-16 birth and development is how the popular myth of an AF command structure being “dragged to the altar” to buy the F-16 was created in the process. It was really a case of the AF leadership at the highest levels deciding to pursue the LWF the AF wanted (versus the one that had been pushed by the LWF Mafia and was at the time dead in the water) to complement the F-15, because the AF could get more bang for the buck with a ‘high-low’ fleet than they would have gotten with an all F-15 force. Young-uns never hear about how the high-low mix was designed to replace the F-4s because we couldn’t replace the F-4s one for one with all F-15s. As the F-4 was a Fighter-Bomber, and as the F-15 development team’s initial creed was ‘not a pound for air-to-ground’, why would any reasonable person declare the F-16 should not have had air-to-mud capability from the start? The simpler-cheaper, maneuverability ‘uber alles’ crowd has been crowing from the time the F-16’s Configuration Control Committee (that was working on what the AF wanted to put in the requirements mentioned above) was formed under Gen. Alton Slay (the ‘mafia’ disparagingly called it the Configuration Add-On Committee) down to the present day.
The LWF Mafia didn’t get the plane THEY wanted, and woe be unto those who might question their original vision as being desirable. Yet they struggle mightily when asked to account for the incredible success of the planes they’ve denigrated over the years (they usually discount the opposition).

I hate stretched development timelines as well, but the Customer is getting what they want. They want lower annual costs to fit within annual budgets that increase costs and schedule overall.

[HalloweenJack]

where the heck did you imagine japan are making an F35 production line?


Japan?s Next Fighters, From F-X Competition to F-35 Buys (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/f22-raptors-to-japan-01909/)

they are buying them like everyone else!

[Courtney Mil]

Well, the bit that said,

Media reports aren’t completely precise, but they seem to suggest that Japanese F-35As could eventually fly with up to 40% Japanese manufactured content. Reports and documents indicate that Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. will be involved in work on aircraft bodies, Mitsubishi Electric Corp. on mission-related avionics, and IHI Corp. on engines.

Seems to suggest a sort of halfway house.

[LowObservable]

I thought someone might quote Sgt Walt.

Given the combat use and extensive frontline deployment of the F-16A, the argument that the 30/32 was the first full-capability jet is a bit like claiming that the Spitfire IX was the first "real" Spitfire. Yes, the USAF did have improvements and add-ons planned early on, but that's simply common sense - and many of the As are still flying with upgrades.

Elsewhere, Sgt Walt argues that the reference F-16 program start date should be the first flight of the YF, but that the equivalent for the JSF is the first flight of AA-1 in 2006 - which makes the JSF program has been as fast as the F-16... Utterly ludicrous. He baffles the kiddies with the usual but makes no sense at all if you know the first thing about history.

[Rhino power]

If this 'halfway house' actually happens, it will be interesting to see which parts of the airframe Mitsubishi actually produces, I'm assuming the BAE Systems production allocation is ring fenced?

-RP

[JSFfan]

HalloweenJack (http://www.pprune.org/members/227595-halloweenjack), can you do me a favour and google what you want to say first, it will save me correcting you and save us both a lot of time..split hairs if you want to production/assembly line

LM may throw some stuff for their frames or subcontract some longer stuff, they are also looking at some Euro stuff...I think the partners will dummy spit if contracts are awarded, but they can subcontract I suppose

[LowObservable]

RP - As far as I know, yes. BAE/RR have a higher status than subs and most of their work is too complex to be realistically reallocated at this point.

In cases such as Israel, LockMart has, so far, sold off its own share of the work (or it may be planning to transfer work from Italy).

In the past, Japan has been willing to pay the costs of doing work in Japan, even where it is duplicative, and in any case has been prohibited under its constitution from building parts for export. However, they are in the process of amending this law, presumably so they can compete for F-35 work.

It's pretty much impossible to tell in Japan whether the government subsidizes this sort of thing, and how much. However, it is likely that Japan and other FMS nations will be extracting direct offsets from LMT, which will eventually reduce the workshare available to Tier 2/3 partner nation industries. The latter will continue to fight one another on a best-value basis for a shrinking piece of the pie. What was it that PT Barnum said?

[Courtney Mil]

it will save me correcting you and save us both a lot of time.

Mate, you're getting all up yourself again. Ease of a little if you please and allow some credit for people's knowledge. It doesn't all come from Google. OK?

[JSFfan]

jsffan said "japan is setting up their own production line"
HalloweenJack (http://www.pprune.org/members/227595-halloweenjack) said "where the heck did you imagine japan are making an F35 production line?"

instead of calling BS, a simple google would have told him and I suggested he fact check in future..

[Courtney Mil]

Mate, "he said...." You're not defending your family honour or anything. It's just a discussion. Keep it that way.

[Rhino power]

LO, thanks for the reply re: BAES production allocation.

-RP

[SpazSinbad]

Will the UK buy whatever 'EW pod' the USMC develop for their F-35Bs?

Beyond F-35: Rep. Forbes & Adm. Greenert on Cyber, Drones & Carriers
29 Apr 2013 Sydney J. Freedberg Jr.

Beyond F-35: Rep. Forbes & Adm. Greenert on Cyber, Drones & Carriers (http://defense.aol.com/2013/04/29/beyond-f-35-rep-forbes-and-adm-greenert-on-cyber-drones-and-carr/)

"...Jamming, Cyber, and the Great Convergence...
..."It's out of Schlitz," Gen. James Amos, the Marine Corps Commandant, said of the Prowler in testimony to the House Armed Services Committee. In the near term, as Prowlers retire, the Marines are adding ground-based electronic warfare systems to help fill the gap, he said, "but I think the real replacement for us is the F-35B." The Marines will develop an electronic warfare pod to augment their F-35s, Amos said, but even without such additional equipment -- just using the plane's standard built-in systems -- an F-35B "has about, probably, 85 percent" of the capability of the latest Prowler.

The problem with that plan is that the Marines retire their last Prowler in 2019, while the F-35B squadrons are still building up.

"As we look forward to the F-35 coming into the inventory, there are a lot of capabilities we'll be able to leverage... to offset the sundowning of the Prowlers," said Marine Lt. Gen. Richard Tryon, Amos's deputy commandant for plans, policies, and operations, at the Navy League's Sea-Air-Space Symposium earlier this month...."

[Lonewolf_50]

The Marines will develop an electronic warfare pod to augment their F-35s, Amos said, but even without such additional equipment -- just using the plane's standard built-in systems -- an F-35B "has about, probably, 85 percent" of the capability of the latest Prowler.

Sorry, I am not buying that line. Smells of fish, that one does.


Some capability similar to Growler? (F-18G) OK, I'll bite, but I am still skeptical.

[Courtney Mil]

EW for JSF? Surely some here have been assuring us all that the STEALTH fighter was the only thing that would do day one missions because it is the only stealthily option. Now we're going to need EW as well to get it through, what was it all about?

Devil's advocate, but it's question that someone needs to answer.

Oh, by the way. For those that haven't been involved, the first guy I'd like to shoot down is the one emiting all the RF - the jammer. That's why the Soviets made theirs really powerful so that they could stand off. Putting the EW emitter on your supposedly stealth guy who is in the thick of it is like wearing a huge great neon sign saying, "Shoot me!"

[LowObservable]

I should think that the F-35 may in future (when it works in service) have some good receive (ESM) capability. However, what use it makes of it will depend on automation and be limited by the frequency and aspect coverage of whatever active devices it may have.

But Amos has to sell this capability, because eventually you have to ask: where is it that I need a stealthy, supersonic aircraft, but I don't need EA and AEW?

Moreover, developing a stealth-compatible escort-jammer pod won't be cheap, but I suppose the Marines will, as usual, thcream and thcream and thcream until the Navy is told to fund it.

[JSFfan]

85% capability, I didn't see barrage jammer mentioned..it's time you jumped to 5th gen thinking CM
any high RF like barrage jamming will be offboard on UAV's and MALD-J

as we talked last time on this subject, the marines may need the pod till the ew is mature from block 3F or I speculate that it may be a coms jammer for CAS that may or may not be in a later block

there was also an interview that gave it another 15%
http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Documents/2012/November%202012/1112fighter.pdf
O’Bryan certainly couldn’t go into the subject of the fighter’s EW/EA suite in any detail, or the way it might coordinate with specialized aircraft such as the E-3 Airborne Warning and Control System, RC-135 Rivet Joint, E-8 JSTARS, or EA-18G Growler jammer aircraft.

He did say, however, that F-35 requirements call for it to go into battle with “no support whatever” from these systems.
“I don’t know a pilot alive who wouldn’t want whatever support he can get,” O’Bryan acknowledged. “But the requirements that we were given to build the airplane didn’t have any support functions built in.
In other words, we had to find the target, ... penetrate the anti-access [defenses], ... ID the target, and ... destroy it by ourselves.

Asked about the Air Force’s plans,
O’Bryan answered with several rhetorical
questions: “Are they investing
in a big jammer fleet? Are they buying
[EA-18G] Growlers?” Then he said,
“There’s a capability here.”
O’Bryan went on to say that the electronic
warfare capability on the F-35A
“is as good as, or better than, [that of
the] fourth generation airplanes specifically
built for that purpose.” The
F-35’s “sensitivity” and processing
power—a great deal of it automated—
coupled with the sensor fusion of
internal and offboard systems, give the
pilot unprecedented situational awareness
as well as the ability to detect,
locate, and target specific systems that
need to be disrupted.
When it comes to electronic combat,
the F-35A will make possible a new
operational concept, O’Bryan said.
The goal is not to simply suppress
enemy air defenses. The goal will be
to destroy them.





Oh remember the Liberal parliamentarian Jensen who was using the APA rubbish slagging the f-35 and how Labour and the ADF are fools?

well the liberal defense guy Senator Johnston, has made a statement..slagging Labour for delaying the order
"Senator Johnston gave strong support to the beleaguered Joint Strike Fighter, which has suffered schedule and cost blowouts, and criticised the government for delaying its purchase decisions in relation to the plane. "It's a vital major project and a great feather in (former defence minister) Robert Hill's cap for having this strategic foresight more than 10 years ago," he said.

[Finnpog]

That would be Lockheed Martin Vice President Stephen O'Bryan that you are quoting then JSFFan who says, and I confesss that I paraphase here, "JSF is the best thing since sliced bread".

Neutral? Unbiased? O'Rly?

[JSFfan]

yeah...never trust a prime..they all lie..listen but verify, evaluate and verify, retest and verify again
what about Gen. James Amos, the Marine Corps Commandant? is he a LM stooge too?
what about the other dozen nations and forces, are their guys on the take?

the only one you can trust is the maker of your favourite plane :ok:

[PhilipG]

JSFFan With all your undoubted knowledge of the subject could you please lay out in a cogent manner the differences between the EW suites that are presently installed on such aircraft as the Rafale and the proposed suite of tools that will be when all goes to plan on the F35 after the Block 3 updates.
It would be interesting to see how much more advanced the F35 will be, according to you, than present 4.5 generation aircraft.
I seem to remember seeing somewhere that in principle there is no reason that the F35 suites could not be retrofitted on a "legacy" air frame, which I suppose would level the playing field on day two of a war when there is good layered air defense. Do you agree?

[JSFfan]

I take it as it is written and seeing most of it is classified, why would I know?
perhaps you can enlighten me?

LO said "Moreover, developing a stealth-compatible escort-jammer pod won't be cheap, but I suppose the Marines will, as usual, thcream and thcream and thcream until the Navy is told to fund it."

nar sorry, google reckons it's a coms, sniffer and jammer pod for their harriers and early block 2b

[PhilipG]

JSFfan are you saying that the USMC to get their first F35B squadrons up to IOC standard are developing a EW pod, hopefully to be internally carried, as the standard F35 systems that should be better than it will not be ready till Block 3. One does have to think is this good value for money, or am I missing a trick here?

[Courtney Mil]

Then, if you don't know, JSFfan, why this?

I didn't see barrage jammer mentioned..it's time you jumped to 5th gen thinking CM



Oh, and I didn't mention barrage either.

[SpazSinbad]

Perhaps an upgraded 'Intrepid Tiger II' will be carried by USMC F-35Bs?

Yuma hosts first flight for new electronic warfare system09 April 2012
Marine Corps Air Station Yuma Story by Lance Cpl. Sean Dennison

DVIDS - News - Yuma hosts first flight for new electronic warfare system (http://www.dvidshub.net/news/86489/yuma-hosts-first-flight-new-electronic-warfare-system#.UFclVK6WxiU)

“Intrepid Tiger II, a government-built system whose ground work began in 2008, is meant to expand the circumference of electronic warfare capabilities. The pod will provide AV-8B Harriers with an electronic attack capability, expanding their utility on the modern battlefield and paving the way for the Marine Air-Ground Task Force electronic warfare concept that will replace the Prowlers....

...The new pod’s strength lies in its versatility, being controlled by either airborne pilots or ground radio operators. First Radio Battalion, based in Camp Pendleton, Calif., is the first ground-based unit trained to use Intrepid Tiger II.... ...Radio operators can assume control of the pod depending on ground activity if the situation does not cover pilots’ mission preplanning. “This is our first foray into a network centric, system of systems with electronic war-fare capabilities,” said Maj. William Maples, the Headquarters Marine Corps Harrier weapons system requirement officer and a native of Murfreesboro, Tenn. “We’re excited to see the effect it will have to unify combatant commanders in Operation Enduring Freedom.”... ...As Harriers are used primarily for providing close-air support to ground troops, the Harrier community already has an established rap-port with their land-based brethren....

...Harriers also already deploy with Marine Expeditionary Units, making them ideal for the first platform to use the pod. Plans are in the works to bestow Intrepid Tiger II on other platforms, including F/A-18 Hornets, rotary-wing aircraft & unmanned aerial vehicles. The variety of platforms is important, as the Prowlers, Hornets & Harriers slowly make way for the Joint Strike Fighter program....

...“The most important part of this asset is it’s organic to the Corps,” added 1st Lt. David Miller, a 1st Radio Battalion and a native of Chilliocothe, Ohio, noting that ground troops now have a Corps-exclusive electronic warfare capability....”

[ihg]

..what about the other dozen nations and forces, are their guys on the take?...

Well, LM sales definitely showed superb skills to "address" people the "right way" in the past...

How they "convinced" European Air Forces and others to buy the more or less useless F-104 by the bucketload (some 900! to the Germans) is legendary!

:E

[PhilipG]

Spaz, Possibly JSFfan is thinking of Intrepid Tiger II, to your knowledge can it fit internally in an F35B and if so what weapon station does it take over?
Thinking that the internal load carrying capacity of the B is less than the others and mounting it on the wing would not be too stealthy.
Also if JSFfan is talking about the Tiger II does this mean that the USMC Block 2b planes are going to have USMC specific software, to enable the pilot to use the Tiger II? Also how is it going to communicate with the main systems on the plane? I might of missed a Death by Powerpoint but have not seen one that shows a hard point wired for EW pods, anyone able to enlighten us?

[SpazSinbad]

'PhilipG', My guess will be that 'Intrepid Tiger III' will be fitted inside a stealthy TERMA pod similar to the stealthy gunpod (made by TERMA) mentioned earlier on this thread? How the pod will be wired (on F-35B centreline station) is beyond my guesstimation ability. Perhaps the Israeli F-35i method will be used along with other common interface gubbins. That is all I could guess. Here is a pic of the present 'Intrepid Tiger II' in 2012:

http://d1.static.dvidshub.net/media/thumbs/photos/1204/556595/450x299_q75.jpg

CAPTION: "Personnel assemble the Intrepid Tiger II electronic warfare pod at MCAS Yuma, March 26 [2012]."

http://d1.static.dvidshub.net/media/thumbs/photos/1204/556595/450x299_q75.jpg

[JSFfan]

other than spaz, no one mentioned the name but it is the Tiger II. There is a little bit on google about it
ALQ-231 Intrepid Tiger Pod | NAVAIR - U.S. Navy Naval Air Systems Command - Navy and Marine Corps Aviation Research, Development, Acquisition, Test and Evaluation (http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.displayPlatform&key=C826F431-C46E-4231-9C21-5C5BE59B02F3)

we'll see if the UK buys it for $600k or if the capability is in their IOC block

[LowObservable]

Intrepid Tiger is a neat capability, but should not be oversold as a full-bore "Prowler in a can" kind of system.

Airborne Electronic Attack Efforts Gain Momentum (http://www.aviationweek.com/awmobile/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_06_04_2012_p64-458484.xml&p=2)

It's a comms intercept/jammer with a strictly tactical role - jamming IED controllers and such things. Takes a lot more power to deal with air defenses. Also, I can't think of anything less stealthy than a gadget that transmits on command from the ground. Now that's like a Ninja carrying a cellphone with the ringtone set to MAX.

[JSFfan]

I guess you missed my answer to you

Quote:
LO said "Moreover, developing a stealth-compatible escort-jammer pod won't be cheap, but I suppose the Marines will, as usual, thcream and thcream and thcream until the Navy is told to fund it."

nar sorry, google reckons it's a coms, sniffer and jammer pod for their harriers and early block 2b

[ORAC]

'PhilipG', My guess will be that 'Intrepid Tiger III' will be fitted inside a stealthy TERMA pod similar to the stealthy gunpod (made by TERMA).........) is beyond my guesstimation ability.

F-35 MULTI MISSION POD ON DISPLAY (http://www.terma.com/press/news-2012/f-35-multi-mission-pod-on-display/)

Farnborough International Airshow 2012 – On display at the Terma stand C26 in Hall 2 is the F-35 Multi Mission Pod built using the very latest composite technology for extra strength and light weight. The pod is designed for versions of the F-35 with requirements for external stores.

http://www.terma.com/media/199994/img_8360_464.png

In 2004, Terma won the contract to design, develop, qualify, and produce F-35 Gun Pods for the F-35B and F-35C in partnership with General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products, a business unit of General Dynamics.

The F-35 Pod is a full monocoque composite structure in carbon fiber. It passed engineering test and qualification and has flown on the F-35 in February 2012 and is currently in the LRIP production phase.

The F-35 Pod Enclosure will provide real estate on the F-35, which can be used to expand the F-35 Special Mission functionality, by allowing the F-35 to fly Next Generation EW and ISR systems, such as Jammers and EO sensors.........

[glad rag]

OK, give us clue, how much will THAT cost?

[Lonewolf_50]

Intrepid Tiger is a neat capability, but should not be oversold as a full-bore "Prowler in a can" kind of system.
What LowObservable said. :ok:

[LowObservable]

GR - The pod's cheap enough, maybe under a megabuck in quantity. Designing the stuff to fit inside it (and not blow the signature through the roof or shake itself to bits on VL) probably starts at a few hundred mill. Making sure that it doesn't get into a snit with any of the other umpteen million lines of code in the air and ground system is probably ten digits.

[Courtney Mil]

It would be quite valid to add a few extra costs to the design of any aircraft that makes deficits in the original design. Be that a gun pod because the airframe lacks a gun, a jamming pod because someone realises it needs more active EW, exteranl tanks because it lacks the range for the ops we require or targeting pods, wide spectrum EO or whatever.

We've been here with almost every previous platform; bolt-on goodies to do the job. But, of course you can't easily do bolt-on goodies to a stealth platform. If you want an example, look at the EO window under JSF's chin and the radome and then discuss the requirement for their narrow band apatures and what that means in operations terms.

[glad rag]

The F-35 Pod is a full monocoque composite structure in carbon fiber. It passed engineering test and qualification OK. Once again, how much will a hollow "monocoque composite structure in carbon fiber" as detailed, actually cost us?

Forget all the operational flim, flam CM.

This program, from what we all have available, fell out of cost control a long, long time ago.

[Courtney Mil]

Oh. So how about something to lower our spirits a bit?:cool:

[ColdCollation]

"This program, from what we all have available, fell out of cost control a long, long time ago."

Oh, I don't know. I imagine LM are very happy with it.

[SpazSinbad]

UK set to procure first F-35 Lightning II squadron 01 May 2013 By Gareth Jennings

UK set to procure first F-35 Lightning II squadron (http://www.janes.com/products/janes/defence-security-report.aspx?ID=1065978652)

"The UK is expected to obtain authority to procure its first squadron of Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)/Joint Combat Aircraft (JCA) before the end of 2013, IHS Jane's was told on 18 April.

Speaking at BAE Systems' Warton production facility in Lancashire, Craig Smith, the head of F-35 Sustainment Programme Development UK/EU, said that military officials with industry support are working on the Main Gate 4 approval process for the procurement of an additional 14 F-35Bs to stand up the UK's first squadron in 2016.

"Main Gate 4 is being worked on right now, and should be submitted to the Treasury later in 2013," he said. "Another 14 aircraft will be ordered to stand up 'Squadron A' [the Ministry of Defence has yet to assign a unit designation] in 2016, with support to run through to 2020."...

...With three UK F-35B aircraft already delivered, a contract for the fourth is expected in the coming months...."

[Bastardeux]

Presumably 'squadron A' will be the OCU? That's quite a big OCU for such a small number on the frontline, isn't it?

[LowObservable]

Bastardeux - To some extent, since the jets will still be Block 2A/3I standard, so no external stores (no ASRAAM, no gun) and some flight envelope limitations. I suspect that they will be working some CONOPS and CVF integration.

[Not_a_boffin]

You'd hope there would be 700L IFTU before you stand up a full squadron :E

Or 700D......

[melmothtw]

Presumably 'squadron A' will be the OCU? That's quite a big OCU for such a small number on the frontline, isn't it?



Reading the full story, the plan is that, in 2014, BK-1, BK-2, and BK-4 will stand up as 17 (Fighter) Squadron at Edwards AFB for OT&E duties.

In 2016, 'Squadron A' will be stood up, comprising the 14 F-35Bs currently being approved plus BK-3. This unit will initially be located at Beaufort Pilot Training Center at Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Beaufort, South Carolina.

In April 2018, 'Squadron A' will transfer its aircraft and personnel back to RAF Marham in Norfolk as the UK's inaugural F-35B unit, and in December 2018 the UK will declare initial operating capability - land (IOC - Land) for its F-35B force. 17 (F) Sqn will remain at Edwards AFB.

An operational conversion unit is expected to be stood up at RAF Marham in 2019.

[Heathrow Harry]

Anyone checked with the Chancellor of the Exchequer recently?????//

[Bastardeux]

So the OEU will be permanently based in California??

I'm surprised at how long it's going to be before the OCU is back in the UK...and this is all assuming that the US's fiscal problems are all sorted and don't cause any further delays in the programme (I'll exclude technical delays), which is looking pretty unlikely!

The "we'll be able to deploy fixed wing carrier ops again by 2020" looks extremely tight...

[melmothtw]

So the OEU will be permanently based in California??



It would appear so, but this would seem to make sense given that it allows the 'squadron' (not sure 3 aircraft officially constitutes a squadron) to directly tap into the knowledge-base being worked up by the US and international fleets that will also be based there.

The OCU is for new pilots transitioning onto the aircraft. By 2019 the UK will already have a trained cadre of pilots flying with Sqn A, so there shouldn't be any problems with initial carrier integration. And I'm guessing the RAF/RN will still be passing pilots through the Eglin training pipeline prior to the OCU being stood up.

[FODPlod]

Anyone checked with the Chancellor of the Exchequer recently?????//

He says he can only afford to spend £720,000,000,000 this year (link (http://cdn.hm-treasury.gov.uk/budget2013_complete.pdf#10)). Not a penny more.

[Biggus]

I don't know much about UK procurement procedures, but when BAE say "working on the Main Gate 4 approval process", before we even consider technical or manufacturing issues, what scope is there for this to sit in ministerial/Treasury "in trays" for months awaiting someone with the gonads to actually make a decision, or a good time to announce one?



Given that the schedule is already tight, and there are inevitable unexpected delays/issues in all such programmes, I would say that the chances of "deploying fixed wing carrier ops again by 2020" are about zero!!! Which isn't to say there won't be pretty pictures of a few aircraft on a boat and some politician making an inaccurate statement for the media....

[melmothtw]

deploying fixed wing carrier ops again by 2020" are about zero


It depends what you mean by "ops". No one has suggested that the UK will be able to send the QE carriers and F-35Bs to war in 2020, but given the current state-of-play of both programmes I would say it is in entirely feasible that both should be in UK service by then (the SDSR of 2015 notwithstanding).

[Bastardeux]

The OCU is for new pilots transitioning onto the aircraft.

Jesus, I thought it was for people to bum around :E

No seriously though, 'squadron A' returning to the UK in December '18 and an OCU standing up in Marham in '19 reads to me like 'squadron A' and the OCU are going to be the same thing. Yes there will be a cadre of pilots capable of landing on an aircraft carrier, but if the OCU is only being stood up in 2019, then I get a distinct impression there won't be nearly enough aircraft on the frontline by 2020 to 'do' fixed wing carrier ops.

I appreciate the pilots and the planes will both be capable of landing on a boat, but as biggus has alluded to, that is very different to being able to sustain a fixed wing carrier deployment!

[melmothtw]

As told in the Jane's story, Sqn A and the OCU are two seperate units.

Sqn A is the first operational unit, comprising 15 aircraft. The numbers for the OCU have not yet been disclosed.

Again, what do you mean when you say "do" fixed wing carrier ops? If you're saying 'go to war', then I agree that the UK will not be in a position to this in 2020 (but then, no one ever said they would be).

If you mean 'begin the process of integrating the F-35B onto the QE carriers" (the MoD's stated position for 2020), then as things stand it is probable that there will be enough aircraft and trained pilots (and, indeed, a carrier) to do so.

[Lonewolf_50]

Just a comment on the procurement process:

It is now 2013. If IOC is to be 2019, you could have fought and won WW II in that time, with a few months left over for celebration ... :eek:

Ugh. :uhoh:

[Bastardeux]

How about the time taken from the beginning of the jsf programme to IOC being enough to win WW1, have a depression and then win WW2...

Ah.

[Lowe Flieger]

U.K. Looks Ahead To F-35 Carrier Ops (http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_04_29_2013_p35-572845.xml)

According to this Aviation Week item, ...The U.K. wants to be able to deliver an initial operating capability from land bases toward the end of 2018 and a full capability, including carrier operations by 2023.... I guess these milestones are still aspirational and represent the earliest dates they might be achieved. With another 10 years plus to run, and at least two more administrations, there remains a very wide range of possible outcomes.

LF

[PhilipG]

Is it sensible for the UK to be buying planes now? I ask this as in my understanding, any planes purchased now will have to be returned to LM to have the spars that crack replaced, to say nothing of the software updates etc. The UK has funded LM for some of the development as a Tier 1 partner, could the UK not simply lease some planes from LM till fit for as previously promised war fighting planes started coming off the line?
This way the UK implicitly pays less per plane, not LRIP rates, it also does not take on the contingent liability that the LRIP planes carry as they have to be updated etc.
Just a thought...

[eaglemmoomin]

Full rate production is intended to start in 2015 as I recall. The buy of fourteen being planned I would expect to be in that or in one of the later LRIP's.

[SpazSinbad]

U.K. Counts on Marines to Keep Fighter Plane on Track 02 May 2013 By Julian E. Barnes

U.K. Counts on Marines to Keep Fighter Plane on Track - Washington Wire - WSJ (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/05/02/u-k-counts-on-marines-to-keep-fighter-plane-on-track/)

"One of the Marine Corps favorite saying is “Every Marine, a rifleman.” A new twist, heard with increasing frequency in Washington, is “Every Marine, a lobbyist.”

It’s those qualities of the Corps that U.K. Defense Secretary Philip Hammond said he is counting on to keep a key fighter plane on track.

Mr. Hammond is visiting Washington, in part to talk about progress on the Joint Strike Fighter. Both the British and the U.S. Marines have pinned the future of their air power on the F-35B, the version of the Joint Strike Fighter that can land vertically and take off short runways....

...Mr. Hammond said the fierceness of that support is what gives him confidence the program will continue.

“Given the Marines need for it and given the level of support the Marine Corps has on the Hill, I think the F-35B is the probably the safest part of the program. And that is very reassuring to us,” Mr. Hammond told a small gathering of reporters at the British Embassy Thursday...."

[glad rag]

“Given the Marines need for it and given the level of support the Marine Corps has on the Hill, I think the F-35B is the probably the safest part of the program. And that is very reassuring to us,”

Indeed, as a Level one partner, this is indeed "reassuring".

[Heathrow Harry]

we'll probably try to avoid being the first to cancel as we need US support if we are replacing Trident etc etc.

[LowObservable]

Hammond's comments are what we call a "Kinsley gaffe".

Very true, but it is not very good to realize that Britain's largest non-nuclear defense program depends on the Marines' powerful (but widely and deeply loathed) lobbying machine.

The problem with that machine is that while the Marines earn respect as an elite infantry force, the lobbying has been in support of high-tech toys that cost too much for what they deliver relative to national strategic goals (V-22, EFV, F-35B) and that are spec'd for an amphibious forced-entry doctrine that has not been used in 60 years, and is probably as relevant today as cavalry tactics in 1914.

[Not_a_boffin]

high-tech toys that cost too much for what they deliver relative to national strategic goals (V-22, EFV, F-35B) and that are spec'd for an amphibious forced-entry doctrine that has not been used in 60 years

Not entirely true. Certainly EFV and V22 (and SSC for that matter) are more about being able to cross a 20-30nm sea gap quickly, not so much for "forced-entry" a la Overlord or Okinawa but to increase the chance of evading detection.

Given that USMC offer the ONLY ability to sustainably insert ground forces without being invited in, it's not a capability you throw away lightly. Particularly in a Pacific theatre where the contentious bits all appear to be continguous to the sea.

[LowObservable]

"but to increase the chance of evading detection."

In an era of cheap UAVs, thermal imagers smaller than a family size packet of teabags, and briefcase-sized SAR/ISAR, the chance of a task force centered on a 50000 ton ship evading detection by standing off 30 nm or so is indeed increased, according to the following formula:

square root of :mad:-all > cube root of :mad:-all

[Not_a_boffin]

Possibly. But then again, UAV cheap or not have never operated in an environment where a capable opponent is actively trying to counter them either.....

[eaglemmoomin]

Hammond's comments are what we call a "Kinsley gaffe".

Very true, but it is not very good to realize that Britain's largest non-nuclear defense program depends on the Marines' powerful (but widely and deeply loathed) lobbying machine.

The problem with that machine is that while the Marines earn respect as an elite infantry force, the lobbying has been in support of high-tech toys that cost too much for what they deliver relative to national strategic goals (V-22, EFV, F-35B) and that are spec'd for an amphibious forced-entry doctrine that has not been used in 60 years, and is probably as relevant today as cavalry tactics in 1914.

LO I think that's a bit weak as an argument. Who really cares if the USMC ability to lobby is 'hated' the US Army, USN, the USAF, industry and political parties are all at it, seems to be the grease that oils Congress. Lots of people hate the fact that we have nuclear weapons does that mean that realistically we'll cancel successor and the reactor development work. I don't think so.

Obama is pivoting his forces to face China in a huge area dominated by the ocean and very distributed geography, the Marine corp is his amphibious expeditionary arm. Seems to me that the entire USMC strategy that you are dismissing is mightily appropo in contradiction to the 'second land army' that they have become in the preceding decades. A usage that will only drop as Obama attempts to disengage from the 'War on Terror'.

They are spending an inordinate amount of time practising 'speedy' long distance transits and manoeuver from the air and sea based approach exercises.

[FODPlod]

In an era of cheap UAVs, thermal imagers smaller than a family size packet of teabags, and briefcase-sized SAR/ISAR...

Just out of interest, how do the radar cross-section, aerodynamics and resilience of a family size packet of teabags or, indeed, something the size and shape of a briefcase compare with those of a cricket ball capable of travelling at Mach 3?

[Bastardeux]

That's all true, but still doesn't really clarify why the marines require an aircraft that is supposedly able to do everything instead of a cheap close air support aircraft, when they are going to have top cover from the world's second biggest air force, and quite probably the world's biggest.

[LowObservable]

EM - I tend to go with Andrew Krepinevich's opinion that an Army/Marine landing on the coast of China would rate a paragraph on page D17 of the China Daily.

N-a-B - True as it applies to Reaper/Predator types, over land. Even for such aircraft it is not quite as applicable over water, because the airborne sensor can out-range any defense except an AEW + fighter combo. And as sensors and electronics get smaller, I can find big metal things at sea, if not at oceanic range, with swarms of very small UAVs (think ScanEagles or Integrators) that are hard to detect and hit.

FodPlod - Pass that tip on to the Cubs' talent scouts, will you? Or if you're talking about missile defenses, they are capable but (see above) the adversary could run you out of rounds pretty fast.

Bastardeux - The Marines want to marmelize Colin Powell, or whoever it was that came up with the "so why does the Navy's army have its own air force?" line.

Of course there's no good answer to that question: there is a justification for a CAS asset on the amphibs (which won't be the F-35 until Block n, where n>4) but not for a supersonic stealth aircraft, because there is no conceivable scenario where you do need a supersonic stealth aircraft but don't need AEW, EA and (most likely) deeper magazine and fuel storage than an LHA/LHD gives you.

And I say that because I have never seen such a scenario outlined, not even when I asked the question directly to Jim Amos.

[Not_a_boffin]

N-a-B - True as it applies to Reaper/Predator types, over land. Even for such aircraft it is not quite as applicable over water, because the airborne sensor can out-range any defense except an AEW + fighter combo. And as sensors and electronics get smaller, I can find big metal things at sea, if not at oceanic range, with swarms of very small UAVs (think ScanEagles or Integrators) that are hard to detect and hit.

Indeed. But that's not the vulnerability I'd be going after.....

[eaglemmoomin]

I'd be looking at the data links personally.

[Lonewolf_50]

The problem with that machine is that while the Marines earn respect as an elite infantry force, the lobbying has been in support of high-tech toys that cost too much for what they deliver relative to national strategic goals (V-22, EFV, F-35B) and that are spec'd for an amphibious forced-entry doctrine that has not been used in 60 years, and is probably as relevant today as cavalry tactics in 1914.
With warmest regards, LO, your opinion on the USMC is as out of date as the opinions in the 1947 Defense Review. Projecting power "from the sea" (yes, a cheesey cliche) has continued to evolve, and is different from what it was sixty years ago.
Tarawa isn't happening again any time soon.

When I was first in the Navy, LSTs were still around, as were lots of LSD's and LPDs.

The LPD has evolved, and the LST'a and LSD's are no longer in the OOB.

No question on cost growth, but your understanding of the USMC's roles and missions niche has not kept up to date.

Cheers.

[Easy Street]

On the subject of the USMC, it will be interesting to see whether ownership of a shiny fleet of F35B forces them to contribute more to the ATO outside the Marine AO in any future operation. During several months' operations both over Iraq and Afghanistan, I cannot think of a single occasion when I saw a USMC AV-8B or F-18 supporting anything outside their area [yes, they do support non-USMC troops, but I've only ever seen them inside the USMC AO. I know that the Prowlers are shared a bit more freely].

Zealous guardianship of the F35B task lines will be a very hard position for them to maintain if the LO capabilities are needed in another part of a theatre of operations, especially if their own battle area could be supported by non-LO platforms (perhaps the USN?). The turf wars won't stop even when the thing is in service.

[glad rag]

Possibly. But then again, UAV cheap or not have never operated in an environment where a capable opponent is actively trying to counter them either.....

"Damn thems another UAV gone down, glad there still warranted...":hmm:

[SpazSinbad]

Philip Hammond Unsure About F-35 Order 3rd May 2013 Sky News

Philip Hammond Unsure About F-35 Order | LBC (http://www.lbc.co.uk/philip-hammond-unsure-about-f-35-order-71510)

"...Defence Secretary Philip Hammond has given the clearest indication yet that the UK may not now buy all the jets it had planned.

Speaking exclusively to Sky News, Mr Hammond pledged that the first 48 aircraft on order at a cost of around £100m each would be bought to service the new Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers from 2020.

But he would not commit to a further 90 planes, which had originally been proposed.

He said: "It's dependent on politics, money and the state of the world, but it's also dependent on what is not yet clearly known, what the mix between manned fighter jets and unmanned aircraft is going to be."

Mr Hammond said there were two trains of thought, one suggesting an 80/20 split of manned to unmanned aircraft in future, the other suggesting the exact opposite.

He said the final decision would determine how many manned F-35s the UK could buy....
...it will be another five years before the first squadron, based at RAF Marham, is set up on UK soil.

In the meantime 17 squadron will be the first UK unit to fly the F-35B out of Edwards Air Force base in California from next year...."

[FB11]

Nice Sky News clip on their website of the boys doing their stuff at Eglin although I am not sure that "it's better than working for a living..." was one of the MOD approved lines to take.

Philip Hammond Unsure About F-35 Order (http://news.sky.com/story/1086720/philip-hammond-unsure-about-f-35-order)

Back to your media training CD Frankie.

And our SofS stating that the first 48 are for operations on and from the carrier Which of course isn't what he actually said. It was sound distortion. He actually said: "the first 48 will be bought to replace the Tornado and operate from land bases, not the carriers".

Ho ho ho.

[SpazSinbad]

VIDEO: The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter: the jet 'that almost flies itself' 04 May 2013

Video: The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter: the jet 'that almost flies itself' - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/10037800/The-F-35-Joint-Strike-Fighter-the-jet-that-almost-flies-itself.html)

"Squadron Leader Frankie Buchler, currently testing Britain's new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter in the US, speaks to the Telegraph about the jet "that looks out for its pilot"...."

"...At the American military’s Patuxent River naval air base in Maryland, the Telegraph spoke to Squadron Leader Frankie Buchler, who will one day train British pilots on how to fly the aircraft, about his experiences of flying the new jet."

[Courtney Mil]

Um, yes. One or two interesting remarks there. On balance I say hats off to Frankie and keep up the good work.

[Just This Once...]

I think he came across really well.

:ok:

[Jacks Down]

Yes, but he didn't exactly strengthen the case for flying pay though did he?!

[Courtney Mil]

I guess the secret was bound to get out one day.

[SpazSinbad]

Yep the secret is out....

NAVAIR: X-47B Completes First Shore-Based Arrested Landing

NAVAIR: X-47B Completes First Shore-Based Arrested Landing - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CxWTqHiy3RM)

"Published on May 5, 2013
The X-47B Unmanned Combat Air System (UCAS) demonstrator completes its first shore-based arrested landing at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md. May 4."

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/NAVAIR_X-47BCompletesFirstShore-BasedArrestedLandingED.png~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/NAVAIR_X-47BCompletesFirstShore-BasedArrestedLandingED.png.html)

[Courtney Mil]

I think the robot needs to be careful about using the brakes whilst being pulled back in something that short.

[PhilipG]

At least the Robot catches the wire as can be seen in the video, is there a video of the F35C catching the wire yet?:ouch:

[SpazSinbad]

For 'PhilipG': Yeah it is always easy to fake:

F-35C Arrest SloMo Orig NOW 1-8slow Again HiDef - YouTube

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

[Courtney Mil]

Oh dear. I hadn't realized that vid was a fake. Now I know.

[LowObservable]

That was the test series where the F-35C scored five out of eight, causing Gen. Bogdan to remark to the media: "And if anyone tries to tell you that's good, it's not."

The X-47B goes for first cat shot next week, and if it goes well they may try a landing out of Pax while the carrier is still out there and available.

[SpazSinbad]

I wonder why this thread even cares about the F-35C arrest situation but whatever. The tests earlier were carried out with an interim redesigned hook mouth (looking more like an A-4 hook rather than original Hornet design). The snubber to stop excessive bounce was not in place at that interim test time. The full deal redesign tests will be whenever. I could provide more info and links but it seems that is irrelevant on this F-35B thread.

[Rhino power]

Spaz, where does it say its an 'F-35B only' thread? I thought the thread title inferred all versions were up for discussion...

-RP :)

[kilomikedelta]

The title implied. Spaz inferred (I think incorrectly).

[JSFfan]

I don't know, given the the production of the f-35 with at worst another slip before IOC..it's probably time to change the title of the thread to "sad, silly old men"

[kilomikedelta]

JSFfan:


Perhaps you should reflect on the 'sad' and 'silly'.

[SpazSinbad]

I'll imagine that this news is relevant from about beginning of this year?

STRIKE TEST NEWS Air Test and Evaluation Squadron 23 Newsletter 2012 Issue

http://www.navair.navy.mil/nawcad/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.download&id=670 (PDF 2.1Mb)

"...MISSION SYSTEMS AIRCRAFT... [page 24]
...CF-3 returned to Patuxent River after completing final finishes in Fort Worth in early March [2012] and continues to perform F-35C mission systems testing, as well as ship suitability events. Initial catapult tests have been executed on standard steam systems as well as EMALS. A tailhook dynamics evaluation was conducted while performing cable roll-overs and roll-in arrestments at NAS Patuxent River and NAES Lakehurst. A new hook point design was validated at speeds up to 100 knots, trapping on each attempt....

With a new hook snubber (to prevent bounce) yet to be installed/tested etc. with flyin arrests (some done already with the interim hook as noted earlier).
____________________

Lt General Christopher C. Bogdan Program Executive Officer F-35 SASC Written Testimony 24 Apr 2013

http://www.armed-services.senate.gov/statemnt/2013/04%20April/Bogdan_04-24-13.pdf (180Kb)

"....During land-based ship suitability testing in 2011, the F-35C tailhook did not catch the arresting wire at a rate considered to be acceptable. A Critical Design Review was completed in February 2013 on a redesigned arresting hook system and modeling and simulation involving the redesigned hook showed a marked improvement in performance. Ground test of this newly redesigned hook is scheduled at Lakehurst, NJ in the 4th Quarter of 2013, followed by aircraft carrier qualifications in 3rd Quarter of 2014. Although work remains to be done, I am confident this new hook will meet our needs...."

[SpazSinbad]

Probably relevant to youse F-35B SRVLs requirement?
STRIKE TEST NEWS Air Test and Evaluation Squadron 23 Newsletter 2012 Issue

http://www.navair.navy.mil/nawcad/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.download&id=670 (PDF 2.1Mb)

"...F-35B (STOVL) FLIGHT SCIENCES AIRCRAFT
For each variant, Flight Sciences aircraft specifically go after flight test data requirements that would not be available in a production configuration. Each aircraft has a unique set of instrumentation that has been incorporated throughout the airframe, making them truly one-of-a kind. They were the first to roll off the production line in Fort Worth, and each one is critical to the completion of the flight test program. The Flight Science jets do not have full sensor suites installed and do not run the block software that provides warfighting capabilities for the jet. Recent lines of testing are defined below for each aircraft. The BF-1 team completed loads testing of the new Auxiliary Air Inlet (AAI) door configuration in January 2012 with positive results. BF-1 has continued loads testing with unflared slow landings in STOVL mode...."

[SpazSinbad]

From post http://www.pprune.org/7818942-post2194.html about Intrepid Tiger II here is some more info...

STRIKE TEST NEWS Air Test and Evaluation Squadron 23 Newsletter 2012 Issue

http://www.navair.navy.mil/nawcad/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.download&id=670 (PDF 2.1Mb)

UPCOMING PROJECTS... (page 8)
"...The USMC has asked for integration of the Intrepid Tiger II (IT II) Pod on their F/A-18C/D aircraft. The IT II Pod is a tactical communications jammer used to provide offensive and defensive airborne electronic combat mission support. This system is designed to be operational on many military fixed-wing aircraft. VX-23 expects to conduct ground and flight test to clear the IT II Pod for carriage on stations 2 and 8 on the Hornet beginning in the fall of 2012."

[SpazSinbad]

Paddles monthly April 2013 APARTS Revival LCDR Stan “Pleber” Hanley

http://hrana.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/PaddlesMonthlyApril2013.pdf (0.7Mb)

"...the data is being used to analyze the hook skip bolter rate for the fleet to compare with the future capability of the Joint Strike Fighter. It's something good to talk about over beer...."

[LowObservable]

That last post is interesting. If you follow the link, it looks like the Navy is trying to rebuild a lost database of carrier approaches (passes) to find out how often its aircraft bolter because the hook skips (hits deck and bounces over the wire).

Is the goal to say "Look, the F-35 is not perfect, but neither is anything else"?

[Lonewolf_50]

LO, I think someone decided to use some data to support research into identifying whether or not there is a problem, rather than guess at it. What that may lead to is a need to look at tail hook system design from a blank sheet of paper if something in the analysis crops up.

The comments made in the previous posts suggest that the tail hook has to be tailored to the aircraft, and by that I mean the entire system.

[John Farley]

Is the goal to say "Look, the F-35 is not perfect, but neither is anything else"?

LO - could be of course. But it also could be to produce a rod to beat LM with to ensure they fix it.

My understanding is that hook/main gear geometry plays a very important part in hook beviour during touchdown. Because of the F-35 layout and stealth needs the fore and aft distance between the hook and the mainwheels is clearly less than recent USN service types.

[SpazSinbad]

I'll guess this graphic is to scale from...

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Concurrency Quick Look Review 29 Nov 2011

http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/274217/dod-quick-look-ahern-report.pdf (18.3Mb)

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewerAlbum/th_HookLocF-35_X-47B_F-18_F-14.gif (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewerAlbum/HookLocF-35_X-47B_F-18_F-14.gif.html)

[LowObservable]

Yes, all known factors. There are slow-mo videos out there of what happens to the wire as the mainwheels pass over it, distort and flatten it, and as it then tries to return to the straight cross-deck alignment while the springs in the deck raise it back up. This is all supposed to happen between the wheels and the hook reaching the wire.

Short of designing some sort of tricky folding/telescoping hook to move the hook point back, or redesigning the back end of the F-35 to mount the whole thing further back, the attempted cure has been to lower the apex of the hook point (the better to slide it under the wire, pick the wire up and guide it into the throat) while keeping the hook as close to the deck as possible with changed damper settings.

However, you can't stiffen the damper up too much or you force the jet's tail up if the hook hits the deck, and get into a nasty snit with the FCS, not to mention showering sparks off the deck; and a pointy hook that nails the wire dead-on can shred it, which is also bad.

I'm sure they'll get it all sorted out...

[SpazSinbad]

"...Showering sparks off the deck..."? OOOOOWAAAHHH. OhMyGollyGosh. Youse'll have to wear eye protection and dark glasses on deck at night especially.

The A4G hook radius had to be unsharpened at times (so as to not damage dem wires).

Some info from a 2012 PDF about MADL (iMADL) in future....

Core Avionics Master Plan 2012 Appendix A-1

http://www.navair.navy.mil/pma209/_Documents/CAMP_2012_Final.pdf (3.3Mb)

Onboard Tactical Data Fusion (JSF). (2014) The F-35B Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is planned to be delivered with increased automated sensor data fusion, which is a key feature of fifth generation fighter aircraft. Most sensors are managed independently and operators select specific modes of system information display. The JSF will incorporate a fusion server that performs closed-loop sensor tasking to present combined system level track information. The track will still be presented with similar key tactical parameters (location, velocity vector, affiliation and identification), but the solution will be derived from a combination of all available sensor system inputs. Fused contributions from multiple sensor systems, including Electronic Warfare (EW), Radar, IFF, electro-optical, distributed aperture, as well as tactical data from networks such as Link 16 and Multi-function Advanced Data-link (MADL), will present a higher fidelity, higher confidence solution....

...I. Line of Sight (LOS) Information Exchange....
...Digitally aided Close Air Support (DaCAS) baseline implementation (2014). In Dec 2009 the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) approved the Joint Fires Executive Steering Groups objective to digitally interconnect Joint Terminal Attack Controller (JTAC) and Joint Fires Observer (JFO) systems with CAS platforms. The JROC endorsed the Variable Messaging Format (VMF) over CNR as the near term LOS CAS standard protocol, and directed the Joint Forces Command (JFCOM) DaCAS Change Control Board to define a common implementation of the appropriate standards (Block 1) by the end of 2010. Block 1 defines a link layer protocol (MIL-STD 188-220 Rev D Chg1), a message header standard (MIL-STD 47001D), and the VMF message standard (MIL-STD 6017B). CAS mission aircraft must configure for VMF Rev D Chg 1....

....E. Anti-Access Tactical Data Link. Anti Access refers to operations in regions with a threat level high enough to require Low Observable (LO) platforms.

1. Current capabilities. (none). [2015: LPI/LPD Data Link].
Naval Aviation currently will not have a 5th generation Low Probability of Intercept (LPI) or Low Probability of Detection (LPD) data link until 2015.

2. Funded Enhancements and Potential Pursuits.
Anti-Access Tactical Data Link (Multi-function Advanced Data Link – MADL). (2015) MADL is a Ku Band, short/medium range, directional, dynamic, LPI/LPD IP link being developed by the F-35B/C Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program. It will be the unique LO data link, designed only for the F-35 as an intra-flight data link within the Anti-Access Region. It will operate as a linear network ("daisy chain”) architecture optimized for a limited number of nodes.

Stealth Interoperability (iMADL) (2018) MADL is proposed to be reengineered to work as an inter-flight LO data link within Anti-Access region and be also integrated on the F-22 and B-2...."

[SpazSinbad]

Eglin receives first upgraded F-35 By LAUREN SAGE REINLIE / Daily News 07 May 2013

NWF Daily News (http://m.nwfdailynews.com/military/top-story/eglin-receives-first-upgraded-f-35-1.139037)

"EGLIN AFB — A brand new F-35 with additional capabilities landed Monday afternoon....

...The Air Force’s 58th Fighter Squadron at Eglin Air Force Base is set to receive an additional 13 of the new F-35s, known as Block 2 aircraft, by the end of the year....

...The F-35 is the military’s newest stealth fighter jet. Students from all military branches who are learning to fly the plane go through the schoolhouse at Eglin, including some from international services.

Eglin’s first Block 2 jet includes some improvements over the first batches of planes. The F-35 is still in development stages and the actual flight training has been limited by the lack of capability in the early versions.

While a few of the improvements are related to design, the biggest difference is the new software, Kloos said.

Pilots for the first time will be able to begin using the state-of-the-art distributed aperture system, a series of six sensors embedded in the skin of the F-35 that provides a complete spherical view around the jet, day or night....

...The image will be displayed in the cockpit for now, but eventually should be available inside the pilot’s helmet.

The Block 2 jet is still restricted from certain maneuvers, including flying at night, aerobatics, taking off or landing in formation and flying during certain weather events or at certain speeds. Additional capabilities should arrive with new versions of the jet and software updates that already are in the pipeline....

...The Navy contingent at Eglin should receive its first two F-35s, which will also be Block 2 capable, by the end of the month...."

Probably best read in entiretititty at the jump.

[JSFfan]

"...Showering sparks off the deck..."? OOOOOWAAAHHH. OhMyGollyGosh. Youse'll have to wear eye protection and dark glasses on deck at night especially.
not to mention the flack jacket for the showering shards of metal..like a daisy cutter across the deck.
It's a hard choice between that and the f-35b's spalling concrete, anti-runway weapon.. along withbuckling decks and immolating deck crew ... an area denial weapon where ever it lands

[SpazSinbad]

Some badly behaved, feeling trampled upon wired videos for youse delectation...

Arrestor Wire Trample Behaviour HD at one/8th Speed

Arrestor Wire Trample Behaviour HD at one/8th Speed - YouTube

__________________________________

Arrestor Wire Arrest 1/8th speed

Arrestor Wire Arrest 1/8th speed - YouTube

[SpazSinbad]

Troubles with hooks/flaps? Don't believe it. It can be easily faked....

Paddles monthly May 2013
Half-Flap Rhino Brad “Barf” Byers

http://hrana.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/PaddlesMonthlyMay2013.pdf

"...The question is, can we, and more importantly should we, make half-flaps the standard configuration for Rhinos during CV operations?...

...That said, the old adage applies, “there is no free lunch.” The consensus during carrier suitability testing was that there is a slight improvement to handling characteristics at half-flaps (it’s worth noting that, historically, it doesn’t get much easier than landing a Rhino on the boat)....

...To reiterate an earlier statistic, a half-flap Rhino will hit the arresting gear 8 kts faster than a full-flap Rhino, a 7% increase in arresting gear loads and a FLE impact to the arresting gear. With the bulk of our Air Wings now being comprised of Rhinos, this is not a moot point. There are other potential consequences that are worth investigating in addition to arresting gear FLE issues. A Rhino recently taxied out of the LA, following an arrested landing, with its hook point dangling by the hook-point bolt at one end. One end of the hook-point bolt had sheared off completely. This example is the most dramatic of several recent HAZREPS highlighting Rhino hook-point issues. Airframe FLE is also a concern that must be evaluated.

From a layman’s perspective, there could be several causes for these hook point issues. Rhinos selecting burner in the wires, a 480 standard single-weight setting (this shouldn’t be the issue), or (drum roll please) pilots selecting half-flaps on their own after hearing Paddles announce the winds. You heard that right. I recently heard a rumor that some pilots are hearing the winds call and selecting the flap setting that they prefer. This is a serious safety concern that needs Paddles’ immediate attention. If you have individuals in your Air Wing who think it’s OK to select their flap setting based on your winds call, you need to put an end to that yesterday...."

There is an issue with F-35C performing better in FCLP with half flap rather than full flap at moment (an ongoing testing item as I understand).

[glad rag]

So what is the difference between VLO and LO then?

[Stuff]

From another forum (http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-14849.html)

LO -10~-15 dbsm or less
VLO -25~-30 dbsm or less

But no source for these numbers.