F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Re: Strafing. Having been through quite a few intensive conference sessions on CAS and heard the A-10 presentations... I agree that the gun is low collateral damage, but it also has limitations.
The final gun firing decision starts quite a long way from the target (rounds are fired at about 1 km IIRC) at an angle that foreshortens the view on the range axis. In at least one Blue-on-Blue that was briefed, what the rounds hit was on the same line as the target (error in range, not in azimuth).
This was an A-10 discussion - and the A-10 is draggy with huge speedbrakes, so presumably can dive more steeply and slower (less foreshortening and more think time) than an FJ.
At the same time, very low yield PGMs are being developed, that can even be redirected if they have a laser component. Even gunships are going to these.
Something on which I don't know the final answer: During the gun discussions and up to critical design review, there was a debate about the gun angle. Fighter jocks like a little upward bias, strafers level or down. (Again, I believe this is why the F-15 gun is little use in A-G although I am ready to be corrected.)
Engines - I was told that the Gatling switch was a through-life cost issue. The GAU-22/A (it was said then) used rounds that were already in DoD. (Of course, more recently, there's been a move to a new round because the existing ammo doesn't cover the full range of targets.)
And remember that there is no gunsight at all until they get the helmet fixed...
WhiteOvies - It would be a new version, for sure, but none of the individual components needs to be redesigned completely. It would basically be an A with a forebody made of a mix of C and A components.
The final gun firing decision starts quite a long way from the target (rounds are fired at about 1 km IIRC) at an angle that foreshortens the view on the range axis. In at least one Blue-on-Blue that was briefed, what the rounds hit was on the same line as the target (error in range, not in azimuth).
This was an A-10 discussion - and the A-10 is draggy with huge speedbrakes, so presumably can dive more steeply and slower (less foreshortening and more think time) than an FJ.
At the same time, very low yield PGMs are being developed, that can even be redirected if they have a laser component. Even gunships are going to these.
Something on which I don't know the final answer: During the gun discussions and up to critical design review, there was a debate about the gun angle. Fighter jocks like a little upward bias, strafers level or down. (Again, I believe this is why the F-15 gun is little use in A-G although I am ready to be corrected.)
Engines - I was told that the Gatling switch was a through-life cost issue. The GAU-22/A (it was said then) used rounds that were already in DoD. (Of course, more recently, there's been a move to a new round because the existing ammo doesn't cover the full range of targets.)
And remember that there is no gunsight at all until they get the helmet fixed...
WhiteOvies - It would be a new version, for sure, but none of the individual components needs to be redesigned completely. It would basically be an A with a forebody made of a mix of C and A components.
Last edited by LowObservable; 30th Nov 2012 at 14:42.
But it seems so incongruous to use a modern fj with Cobhamesque ifr. Why not buy the full kit, kc-xxx included.
Remind me how big the Timmy hangar is at RAF Mount Pleasant - and the wingspan of the Wanderer?Modification / certification and training costs associated with fitting a heavy piece of LeMayesque irrelevance to the CC150T would be huge. It wouldn't even be possible on the CC-130H....
As for re-plumbing the F-35A to take a probe, anyone who believes
"It’s a relatively easy … doable change.”
!! Or has never studied the words of Miss M Rice-Davies.....
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LO,
You are quite right that any gun has limitations, but these can be alleviated nowadays. Also quite right that an air to ground gun is normally depressed below the line of flight (or you do as the Russians do and mount them in a pod and angle them downwards for the strafing run). Air to air guns are commonly mounted slightly elevated.
However, with modern flight controls it's now possible to do a much better job of hitting the target, if you go for an Integrated Fire and Flight Control (IFFC) system. Trialled by the USAF in the 70s, and fielded by the Swedes in the Viggen, so I was told. You can use EOTS as well as radar to give you a really good ballistic solution, with the IFFC handling a lot of the workload. Add that to clever flight controls that can adjust the angle of the fuselage for you and you can get some impressive Pk figures. You can certainly fire further out than 1km with a 27mm round, depending on how accurate you need to be.
As ever, it's the requirements - what do you want to do to what, at what range, under what conditions?
I saw the through life cost arguments made for the Gatling on the JSF - and the use of an existing round was a big factor. But that argument relied on not using the 27mm rounds already available and NATO cleared - unfortunately, the US gun and ammo firms were able to convince the F-35 team that the 27mm round 'would be a problem'. You are quite correct that they are now looking for a better 25mm round, a move that was entirely predictable 10 years ago. Actually, there is already one, the 25mm MultiPurpose (MP) round developed by Raufoss and licence built in the US. Equally predictably, using a round not designed in the US is a solution that seems not to find favour.
Best Regards as ever
Engines
You are quite right that any gun has limitations, but these can be alleviated nowadays. Also quite right that an air to ground gun is normally depressed below the line of flight (or you do as the Russians do and mount them in a pod and angle them downwards for the strafing run). Air to air guns are commonly mounted slightly elevated.
However, with modern flight controls it's now possible to do a much better job of hitting the target, if you go for an Integrated Fire and Flight Control (IFFC) system. Trialled by the USAF in the 70s, and fielded by the Swedes in the Viggen, so I was told. You can use EOTS as well as radar to give you a really good ballistic solution, with the IFFC handling a lot of the workload. Add that to clever flight controls that can adjust the angle of the fuselage for you and you can get some impressive Pk figures. You can certainly fire further out than 1km with a 27mm round, depending on how accurate you need to be.
As ever, it's the requirements - what do you want to do to what, at what range, under what conditions?
I saw the through life cost arguments made for the Gatling on the JSF - and the use of an existing round was a big factor. But that argument relied on not using the 27mm rounds already available and NATO cleared - unfortunately, the US gun and ammo firms were able to convince the F-35 team that the 27mm round 'would be a problem'. You are quite correct that they are now looking for a better 25mm round, a move that was entirely predictable 10 years ago. Actually, there is already one, the 25mm MultiPurpose (MP) round developed by Raufoss and licence built in the US. Equally predictably, using a round not designed in the US is a solution that seems not to find favour.
Best Regards as ever
Engines
Originally Posted by Engines
an air to ground gun is normally depressed below the line of flight
In reality and as you explain very well, on a reasonably modern airframe the middle of the road compromise works perfectly well for both roles.
Last edited by Courtney Mil; 30th Nov 2012 at 16:32.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GreenKnight:
Thanks for the link, I had not seen that before. Whilst apparently technically feasible, which I still wonder about personally, it is still going to cost someone an awful lot of money to do it. If Canada is worried about the cost now, I cannot see them findig extra funds to push this solution. Any design modification will then be along way downstream in the build process, adding years to any procurement. It would not be as easy as 'cut and shut' a C forward fuselage to an A centre fuselage section.
LO:
Obviously the B and C have a gunpod mounted on the centreline station, making things a bit easier for strafing (which is what the USMC wanted as they're used to a gunpod set up with their Harrier fleet).
Beagle: There is an interesting adaptation to the hangar doors out at Pax River where they have had to fit a P-8 into a P-3 hangar!
Thanks for the link, I had not seen that before. Whilst apparently technically feasible, which I still wonder about personally, it is still going to cost someone an awful lot of money to do it. If Canada is worried about the cost now, I cannot see them findig extra funds to push this solution. Any design modification will then be along way downstream in the build process, adding years to any procurement. It would not be as easy as 'cut and shut' a C forward fuselage to an A centre fuselage section.
LO:
Obviously the B and C have a gunpod mounted on the centreline station, making things a bit easier for strafing (which is what the USMC wanted as they're used to a gunpod set up with their Harrier fleet).
Beagle: There is an interesting adaptation to the hangar doors out at Pax River where they have had to fit a P-8 into a P-3 hangar!
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CM,
Thanks for the correction - absolutely right. The point I was (badly) trying to make is that these days combat aircraft with fully integrated flight and propulsion controls have a much better range of options for handling velocity vector and aircraft attitude so as to point a gun.
Interestingly, in the 1970s trials on F-15, the USAF used a standard 20mm Gatling fitted with a gimballed mounting that allowed very rapid application of gun barrel deflections of around 5 degrees. This allowed an 'inner loop' set of corrections to be applied to the ballistic solution without pointing the aircraft.
It's a fact that development of combat aircraft gun fire control systems in the West has just about stalled over the last 30 years or so. If you look at the sensors now available (e.g. radars that work very reliably down to around 300 yards, excellent high definition EOTS) then add these to modern mission systems computing capability and stir in modern flight controls, then gun systems should be achieving very, very much higher values of Phit than before.
And they are. But not on fixed wing aircraft, but on attack helicopters. The AH-64D gun fire control is an extremely capable system. It's my view that, for all sorts of good reasons, the fixed wing community in the UK have given gun systems a really good ignoring for some while now. Again just my view, but we can't go on engaging the guy in a ditch with an AK-47, or a soft skinned vehicle with a £300K bomb or a £500K Brimstone. The economics will beat us.
Best Regards as ever to all those doing what they have to with what they've got - the lot of every soldier since the start of time
Engines
Thanks for the correction - absolutely right. The point I was (badly) trying to make is that these days combat aircraft with fully integrated flight and propulsion controls have a much better range of options for handling velocity vector and aircraft attitude so as to point a gun.
Interestingly, in the 1970s trials on F-15, the USAF used a standard 20mm Gatling fitted with a gimballed mounting that allowed very rapid application of gun barrel deflections of around 5 degrees. This allowed an 'inner loop' set of corrections to be applied to the ballistic solution without pointing the aircraft.
It's a fact that development of combat aircraft gun fire control systems in the West has just about stalled over the last 30 years or so. If you look at the sensors now available (e.g. radars that work very reliably down to around 300 yards, excellent high definition EOTS) then add these to modern mission systems computing capability and stir in modern flight controls, then gun systems should be achieving very, very much higher values of Phit than before.
And they are. But not on fixed wing aircraft, but on attack helicopters. The AH-64D gun fire control is an extremely capable system. It's my view that, for all sorts of good reasons, the fixed wing community in the UK have given gun systems a really good ignoring for some while now. Again just my view, but we can't go on engaging the guy in a ditch with an AK-47, or a soft skinned vehicle with a £300K bomb or a £500K Brimstone. The economics will beat us.
Best Regards as ever to all those doing what they have to with what they've got - the lot of every soldier since the start of time
Engines
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: .
Posts: 2,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
this report from yesterday seems to have passed you all by
DOD, Lockheed Martin Agree to More F-35s
"WASHINGTON, Nov. 30, 2012 – DOD and Lockheed Martin have reached an agreement in principle to manufacture 32 F-35 Lightning II joint strike fighter jets, Pentagon Press Secretary George E. Little said today.
The jets are part of Low-Rate Initial Production batch 5 -- the fifth production lot of the aircraft. Unit-cost data will be made available once the contracts are finalized and signed, Little said.
“Production costs are decreasing and I appreciate everyone’s commitment to this important negotiation process,” said Navy Vice Adm. Dave Venlet, the F-35 program executive officer.
The agreement also covers the costs of manufacturing support equipment, flight test instrumentation and additional mission equipment, he added.
“It was a tough negotiation,” Little said, “and we’re pleased that we’ve reached an agreement.”
According to a news release from the F-35 program office, Lockheed Martin will produce 22 F-35A conventional take-off and landing variants for the Air Force, three F-35B short takeoff/vertical landing variants for the Marine Corps and seven F-35C carrier variants for the Navy.
Aircraft production was started in December 2011 under a previously authorized undefinitized contract action, the release said. Undefinitized contract actions authorize contractors to begin work before reaching a final agreement on contract terms.
The agreement sets the program to move forward according to improved business timelines, Little said. “It’s good for all nations that are partnered with us in this important effort for our future national security.”
DOD, Lockheed Martin Agree to More F-35s
"WASHINGTON, Nov. 30, 2012 – DOD and Lockheed Martin have reached an agreement in principle to manufacture 32 F-35 Lightning II joint strike fighter jets, Pentagon Press Secretary George E. Little said today.
The jets are part of Low-Rate Initial Production batch 5 -- the fifth production lot of the aircraft. Unit-cost data will be made available once the contracts are finalized and signed, Little said.
“Production costs are decreasing and I appreciate everyone’s commitment to this important negotiation process,” said Navy Vice Adm. Dave Venlet, the F-35 program executive officer.
The agreement also covers the costs of manufacturing support equipment, flight test instrumentation and additional mission equipment, he added.
“It was a tough negotiation,” Little said, “and we’re pleased that we’ve reached an agreement.”
According to a news release from the F-35 program office, Lockheed Martin will produce 22 F-35A conventional take-off and landing variants for the Air Force, three F-35B short takeoff/vertical landing variants for the Marine Corps and seven F-35C carrier variants for the Navy.
Aircraft production was started in December 2011 under a previously authorized undefinitized contract action, the release said. Undefinitized contract actions authorize contractors to begin work before reaching a final agreement on contract terms.
The agreement sets the program to move forward according to improved business timelines, Little said. “It’s good for all nations that are partnered with us in this important effort for our future national security.”
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 52
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LRIP5 and 6
Milo,
The fact that LM and the DoD came to an agreement on LRIP5 and are litterally forcing LRIP6 through the pipeline to get it signed before the end of 2012 is in no way indicative of the succes or good evolution of the JSF program, between LM and the DoD there have never been more problems and ill feelings than exist today, mostly because of this JSF debacle.
However both of them fully realize that 2013 is comming and the Budget Control Act of 2011 will go into full effect which could have severe consequences all throughout the defense organization.
Everything they sign and get before january 1st 2013 is considered outside of the reach of this control act, if they would get away with it they would have signed all production lots, costs and consequences be damned.
Preparing for Sequestration and Budget Cuts - Government Contracts Issue Update - Wiley Rein LLP
The fact that LM and the DoD came to an agreement on LRIP5 and are litterally forcing LRIP6 through the pipeline to get it signed before the end of 2012 is in no way indicative of the succes or good evolution of the JSF program, between LM and the DoD there have never been more problems and ill feelings than exist today, mostly because of this JSF debacle.
However both of them fully realize that 2013 is comming and the Budget Control Act of 2011 will go into full effect which could have severe consequences all throughout the defense organization.
Everything they sign and get before january 1st 2013 is considered outside of the reach of this control act, if they would get away with it they would have signed all production lots, costs and consequences be damned.
Preparing for Sequestration and Budget Cuts - Government Contracts Issue Update - Wiley Rein LLP
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Internal politics saying stuff means nothing, all partners are still committed. The eurocanards, f18 systems are only good as a first day till 2025, some say going by Libya, without US support, euro systems are up against it to even do first day now.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
that's not really the aircraft - its the numbers and the backup & support systems that make the Europeans hardly effective
A JSF without refueling, intelligence and recce support will be no better than a Typhoon or a Rafale TBH - and there will be even fewer of them due to the extortionate cost
A JSF without refueling, intelligence and recce support will be no better than a Typhoon or a Rafale TBH - and there will be even fewer of them due to the extortionate cost
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
agree with your first point, I said the euro systems and meant 1st day non-fighter and the ongoing support platforms, which gave the fighters good access
There is an ongoing misunderstanding with the price of the f-35. Australia still holds the price of full rate production of $75m URF and $130m full procurement, although LM is aiming for full production 2012 yr $'s of $67m urf.
The F-35b should come in around $100m full production URF 2012 yr $'s
There is an ongoing misunderstanding with the price of the f-35. Australia still holds the price of full rate production of $75m URF and $130m full procurement, although LM is aiming for full production 2012 yr $'s of $67m urf.
The F-35b should come in around $100m full production URF 2012 yr $'s
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is an ongoing misunderstanding with the price of the f-35. Australia still holds the price of full rate production of $75m URF and $130m full procurement, although LM is aiming for full production 2012 yr $'s of $67m urf.
The F-35b should come in around $100m full production URF 2012 yr $'s
The F-35b should come in around $100m full production URF 2012 yr $'s
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
perhaps the SAR will have more weight with you, they have over bid every LRIP so far and it has come in cheaper
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae...-3-29-2012.pdf
Page 62 page 65
TY (then year) US dollars for the combined F-35 A,B,C buy to year 2037
The Program Acquisition Unit Cost (PAUC) inc. engine = $161 M
The Procurement Unit Cost (APUC) inc. engine = $137.4 M
BY2012 (base year)
$M US dollars for the combined F-35 A,B,C buy
The Program Acquisition Unit Cost (PAUC) inc. engine = $134.5 M
The Procurement Unit Cost (APUC) inc. engine = $109.1 M
As per
Page 61, F-35 Aircraft Unit Cost Report Page 64 F-35 Engine Unit Cost Report
Average F-35 price over the total buy
F-35 A Unit Recurring Flyaway (URF) Cost inc. engine = $78.7 M
(This is close enough to the 2008 yr $'s of $75m DMO estimate for me, although the Aussie average URF will be slightly less because we are buying in specific years. As per page 39 and 54 (RF/60=URF) for year 2018, the F-35A is $72.5 M URF in BY2012$.)
Average F-35B Unit Recurring Flyaway (URF) Cost inc. engine = $106.5 M
Average F-35C Unit Recurring Flyaway (URF) Cost inc. engine = $87 M
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae...-3-29-2012.pdf
Page 62 page 65
TY (then year) US dollars for the combined F-35 A,B,C buy to year 2037
The Program Acquisition Unit Cost (PAUC) inc. engine = $161 M
The Procurement Unit Cost (APUC) inc. engine = $137.4 M
BY2012 (base year)
$M US dollars for the combined F-35 A,B,C buy
The Program Acquisition Unit Cost (PAUC) inc. engine = $134.5 M
The Procurement Unit Cost (APUC) inc. engine = $109.1 M
As per
Page 61, F-35 Aircraft Unit Cost Report Page 64 F-35 Engine Unit Cost Report
Average F-35 price over the total buy
F-35 A Unit Recurring Flyaway (URF) Cost inc. engine = $78.7 M
(This is close enough to the 2008 yr $'s of $75m DMO estimate for me, although the Aussie average URF will be slightly less because we are buying in specific years. As per page 39 and 54 (RF/60=URF) for year 2018, the F-35A is $72.5 M URF in BY2012$.)
Average F-35B Unit Recurring Flyaway (URF) Cost inc. engine = $106.5 M
Average F-35C Unit Recurring Flyaway (URF) Cost inc. engine = $87 M
Last edited by JSFfan; 4th Dec 2012 at 13:33.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
As of December 31, 2011.....
Joint Strike Fighter restructuring continued throughout 2011 and into 2012, adding to cost and schedule. The new program baseline projects total acquisition costs of $395.7 billion, an increase of $117.2 billion (42 percent) from the prior 2007 baseline.......
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
have a look at the GAO and you will find they quote and use the SAR/dod costings, there was a shift from 2002 yr dollars to 2012 years dollars and there were other unrelated to the actual f-35 cost increases during those years that is a large reason for the rise
Last edited by JSFfan; 4th Dec 2012 at 16:16.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ORAC, did you note that page 21 and 22 of the SAR gives the $$395.7 billion that the GOA uses?
As I said their is general misunderstanding of the f-35 costings and the Average F-35B Unit Recurring Flyaway (URF) BY2012 Cost inc. engine = $106.5 M is the correct number from SAR. Although as I said LM believes it can get it lower.
Also like Australia, the UK will be buying FRP in specific years and so will pay less than the average price in those years
@FoxtrotAlpha18, this is the second time you have posted simply to have a shot at me, do us both a favour and put me on your ignore list
As I said their is general misunderstanding of the f-35 costings and the Average F-35B Unit Recurring Flyaway (URF) BY2012 Cost inc. engine = $106.5 M is the correct number from SAR. Although as I said LM believes it can get it lower.
Also like Australia, the UK will be buying FRP in specific years and so will pay less than the average price in those years
@FoxtrotAlpha18, this is the second time you have posted simply to have a shot at me, do us both a favour and put me on your ignore list
Last edited by JSFfan; 5th Dec 2012 at 00:34.