Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Suspicion breeds confidence
One of the problems with running Ark or Illustrious on is that certain bits of them that were only fitted at the last refit need to be removed to complete both CVFs. Invincible has none of these, so I suspect we'll see Ark going one year before QE and Illustrious one year before PoW.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Umm, where did I put the Garmin?
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GreenKnight121:
Thats actually one of the Older graphics of CVT and the design has changed somewhat. Lateset release image is this one; (Warning .pdf), Link
Thats actually one of the Older graphics of CVT and the design has changed somewhat. Lateset release image is this one; (Warning .pdf), Link
Engines,
A thoughtful post. One comment: the B has more wing than a Harrier but it also at least 2x as heavy on approach and (relative to the Harrier II) has a faster, thinner wing with smaller flaps. How does that affect lift at low speed?
A thoughtful post. One comment: the B has more wing than a Harrier but it also at least 2x as heavy on approach and (relative to the Harrier II) has a faster, thinner wing with smaller flaps. How does that affect lift at low speed?
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LO,
The B has LOTS more wing (about 3X) and a lot more flap, as well as a Leading Edge device. It can also use all its control surfaces to get maximum lift at desired speeds, thanks to its integrated control system. (on a Harrier, integration of wing lift, propulsive thrust and attitude is done via pilot skill).
PBA,
If the aircraft lands in a semi jet-borne mode, the propulsion system should already be spooled up - in any case, response of the system has to be fast to provide the vertical hover control required. Don't forget that the Harrier's Pegasus was, for many years, the biggest and most powerful dry engine in any military aircraft, and also has the fastest throttle response - due to brilliant british engineers....same breed of guys now working on JSF.
Best Regards as ever,
Engines
The B has LOTS more wing (about 3X) and a lot more flap, as well as a Leading Edge device. It can also use all its control surfaces to get maximum lift at desired speeds, thanks to its integrated control system. (on a Harrier, integration of wing lift, propulsive thrust and attitude is done via pilot skill).
PBA,
If the aircraft lands in a semi jet-borne mode, the propulsion system should already be spooled up - in any case, response of the system has to be fast to provide the vertical hover control required. Don't forget that the Harrier's Pegasus was, for many years, the biggest and most powerful dry engine in any military aircraft, and also has the fastest throttle response - due to brilliant british engineers....same breed of guys now working on JSF.
Best Regards as ever,
Engines
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Oxenfforrdde
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engines
Thanks for illuminating a fascinating discussion.
Just a small query, I've just read Dave Morgan's excellent ''Hostile Skies'', (obviously) about his F. I. air war.
He actually mention doing ( if i rem correctly ! ) doing the first srvl, but also I believe he also says about being able to use 18 degrees forward nozzle.
Is this specific to the Shar maybe ?
(edit)
Aha ! Thanks John Farley, should have read Engines post more carefully, re; partial nozzle braking
Just a small query, I've just read Dave Morgan's excellent ''Hostile Skies'', (obviously) about his F. I. air war.
He actually mention doing ( if i rem correctly ! ) doing the first srvl, but also I believe he also says about being able to use 18 degrees forward nozzle.
Is this specific to the Shar maybe ?
(edit)
Aha ! Thanks John Farley, should have read Engines post more carefully, re; partial nozzle braking
Last edited by Tyres O'Flaherty; 27th Dec 2008 at 19:40.
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is this specific to the Shar maybe ?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(on a Harrier, integration of wing lift, propulsive thrust and attitude is done via pilot skill).
On the early marks yes, but of course I stand to be corrected.
On the early marks yes, but of course I stand to be corrected.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glad rag,
What I meant here (sorry for not being clearer) is that control of the propulsion system on Harriers, via the throttle and nozzle control lever, is essentially separated from the aircraft's attitude control via the control column. These three 'inceptors' are managed by the pilot to carry out safe recoveries, at a cost of high workload. Interestingly, recoveries to ships were the drivers for the changes to the Sea Harrier cockpit and also the improved lateral reaction controls, or so I have been told.
F-35B is a totally different animal. The flight control system will automate many of the functions described above and leave the pilot with a much lower workload - this should lead to safer and more accurate recoveries.
JF, thank you for the correction on the value of the braking stop.
Best regards
Engines
What I meant here (sorry for not being clearer) is that control of the propulsion system on Harriers, via the throttle and nozzle control lever, is essentially separated from the aircraft's attitude control via the control column. These three 'inceptors' are managed by the pilot to carry out safe recoveries, at a cost of high workload. Interestingly, recoveries to ships were the drivers for the changes to the Sea Harrier cockpit and also the improved lateral reaction controls, or so I have been told.
F-35B is a totally different animal. The flight control system will automate many of the functions described above and leave the pilot with a much lower workload - this should lead to safer and more accurate recoveries.
JF, thank you for the correction on the value of the braking stop.
Best regards
Engines
Navaleye...
In post 2025 you stated that certain 'bits' of the current CVSs are due to go on the new carriers. Can you say what 'bits' you are refering to, or does OPSEC come into it?
If it is the CIWSs, e.g Phalanx and Goalkeeper, doesn't that mean they will be at least 10-15 years old when they go on the new ships? Or will they have been upgraded so often by them they will be like Triggers broom?
In post 2025 you stated that certain 'bits' of the current CVSs are due to go on the new carriers. Can you say what 'bits' you are refering to, or does OPSEC come into it?
If it is the CIWSs, e.g Phalanx and Goalkeeper, doesn't that mean they will be at least 10-15 years old when they go on the new ships? Or will they have been upgraded so often by them they will be like Triggers broom?
Suspicion breeds confidence
Biggus,
Doubtless the Phalanx will come off and be upgraded to Block 1b standard. Some of the new comms and navigation equipment fitted to the CVS is slated for CVF.
Doubtless the Phalanx will come off and be upgraded to Block 1b standard. Some of the new comms and navigation equipment fitted to the CVS is slated for CVF.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sevenoaks, Kent, UK
Age: 36
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AW&ST
JSF News 2 - Stealth Questions Raised
Posted by Bill Sweetman at 1/7/2009 7:30 AM CST
The Air Power Australia team have produced an unprecedented report which asserts that the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is much less stealthy than the F-22 - and in fact is comparable in radar cross-section (RCS), under some circumstances, to a conventional fighter in clean condition. APA's updated surveys of modern Russian radars - which are most likely to form the basis of the threat systems that it would encounter from the late 2010s onwards - have set the scene for this analysis.
The report is unprecedented because it's the first "civilian" use of radar scattering models to take a first-order look at an aircraft's RCS. It was the development of computer-based RCS models that opened the way to the development of stealth in the 1970s: the theory of scattering was well known but was too hard to apply to a 3-D shape without those tools.
The APA analysis will no doubt be countered by the JSF team in several ways. They'll argue that the APA team has an agenda. They will argue that the analysis is too crude to reflect reality; that anything it does show is not operationally relevant; and that the true picture is much more complex and (of course) secret.
The APA team does have an open agenda (as does the JSF team) but that does not mean that their data is bad.
The analysis is crude insofar as it doesn't make any detailed estimates of the effects of radar absorbent material (RAM). On the other hand, the doctrine laid down by Stealth pioneer Denys Overholser still stands: the four most important aspects of stealth are shape, shape, shape and materials.
On the other hand, the APA analysis is a lot more detailed than the cartoon representations in Lockheed Martin briefings. And more realistic than the claims of total invisibility made on JSF's behalf.
The APA team also makes the point that the F-35 doesn't look as much like an F-22 (or the X-35) as you might think. Those two aircraft both reflected a refined version of the F-117 shape - they are basically faceted designs, although they incorporate large radius curves and the lines between facets are smoothed. But the F-35 has acquired some very conventional-airplane-shaped lumps and bumps around its underside, not to mention the hideous wart that covers the gun on the F-35A. It's enough to raise questions.
Of course, it's possible to argue that the F-35 meets its stealth requirements (which may or not be the same for all F-35s), and that it will be stealthy enough to survive - combined with situational awareness and tactics.
But that in turn depends on what the requirements are, and what threats it was designed against. (That's why stealth air vehicles are as diverse as they are, from the DarkStar to the AGM-129, while submarines look pretty much the same.) In the design of the F-22, for example, features such as 2-D nozzles, edges swept at 42 degrees, and high-altitude, high-speed flight were required to address that threat set.
More recently, the Northrop Grumman X-47B and Boeing X-45C designs have clearly been aimed at all-aspect, wideband stealth - although that's particularly important for an unmanned vehicle, which may not be as flexible in its response to a pop-up threat.
The worst argument against APA, though, is that of secrecy. Implemented on an experimental airplane 30 years ago, stealth is no longer covered by Arthur C. Clarke's principle that "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Competitors and potential adversaries around the world have assuredly run F-35 models in simulations, in RCS chambers and on open ranges. So if APA has got their models wrong, it probably wouldn't compromise security to explain why.
JSF News 2 - Stealth Questions Raised
Posted by Bill Sweetman at 1/7/2009 7:30 AM CST
The Air Power Australia team have produced an unprecedented report which asserts that the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is much less stealthy than the F-22 - and in fact is comparable in radar cross-section (RCS), under some circumstances, to a conventional fighter in clean condition. APA's updated surveys of modern Russian radars - which are most likely to form the basis of the threat systems that it would encounter from the late 2010s onwards - have set the scene for this analysis.
The report is unprecedented because it's the first "civilian" use of radar scattering models to take a first-order look at an aircraft's RCS. It was the development of computer-based RCS models that opened the way to the development of stealth in the 1970s: the theory of scattering was well known but was too hard to apply to a 3-D shape without those tools.
The APA analysis will no doubt be countered by the JSF team in several ways. They'll argue that the APA team has an agenda. They will argue that the analysis is too crude to reflect reality; that anything it does show is not operationally relevant; and that the true picture is much more complex and (of course) secret.
The APA team does have an open agenda (as does the JSF team) but that does not mean that their data is bad.
The analysis is crude insofar as it doesn't make any detailed estimates of the effects of radar absorbent material (RAM). On the other hand, the doctrine laid down by Stealth pioneer Denys Overholser still stands: the four most important aspects of stealth are shape, shape, shape and materials.
On the other hand, the APA analysis is a lot more detailed than the cartoon representations in Lockheed Martin briefings. And more realistic than the claims of total invisibility made on JSF's behalf.
The APA team also makes the point that the F-35 doesn't look as much like an F-22 (or the X-35) as you might think. Those two aircraft both reflected a refined version of the F-117 shape - they are basically faceted designs, although they incorporate large radius curves and the lines between facets are smoothed. But the F-35 has acquired some very conventional-airplane-shaped lumps and bumps around its underside, not to mention the hideous wart that covers the gun on the F-35A. It's enough to raise questions.
Of course, it's possible to argue that the F-35 meets its stealth requirements (which may or not be the same for all F-35s), and that it will be stealthy enough to survive - combined with situational awareness and tactics.
But that in turn depends on what the requirements are, and what threats it was designed against. (That's why stealth air vehicles are as diverse as they are, from the DarkStar to the AGM-129, while submarines look pretty much the same.) In the design of the F-22, for example, features such as 2-D nozzles, edges swept at 42 degrees, and high-altitude, high-speed flight were required to address that threat set.
More recently, the Northrop Grumman X-47B and Boeing X-45C designs have clearly been aimed at all-aspect, wideband stealth - although that's particularly important for an unmanned vehicle, which may not be as flexible in its response to a pop-up threat.
The worst argument against APA, though, is that of secrecy. Implemented on an experimental airplane 30 years ago, stealth is no longer covered by Arthur C. Clarke's principle that "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Competitors and potential adversaries around the world have assuredly run F-35 models in simulations, in RCS chambers and on open ranges. So if APA has got their models wrong, it probably wouldn't compromise security to explain why.
Thoughts?
Thread Starter
A few more orders for CVF this week. Good to see some good news for Appledore (a local yard).
£50m for steelwork for bow sections of the two carriers, to be carried out at Babcock's Appledore Shipyard in Devon, sustaining some 150 jobs at peak production;
Galley equipment, £3.4m, Kempsafe Ltd (Southampton);
Modular cabins and wet spaces, £23m, McGill Services Ltd, sustaining about 40 jobs at peak production (Billingham, County Durham);
Furniture to be installed throughout the ships, £4.4m, McGill Services Ltd;
Windows, £1.3m, Tex Special Projects Ltd (Ipswich);
Doors and hatches, £3.9m, McGeoch Marine Ltd (Inchinnan, Renfrewshire);
Aircraft electrical supplies equipment, £4m, Ultra Electronics PMES (Rugeley, Staffs).
It is coming together, albeit slowly!
£50m for steelwork for bow sections of the two carriers, to be carried out at Babcock's Appledore Shipyard in Devon, sustaining some 150 jobs at peak production;
Galley equipment, £3.4m, Kempsafe Ltd (Southampton);
Modular cabins and wet spaces, £23m, McGill Services Ltd, sustaining about 40 jobs at peak production (Billingham, County Durham);
Furniture to be installed throughout the ships, £4.4m, McGill Services Ltd;
Windows, £1.3m, Tex Special Projects Ltd (Ipswich);
Doors and hatches, £3.9m, McGeoch Marine Ltd (Inchinnan, Renfrewshire);
Aircraft electrical supplies equipment, £4m, Ultra Electronics PMES (Rugeley, Staffs).
It is coming together, albeit slowly!
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That so-called APA team doesn't know the details of the F-35 design and concept of operation, nor do I think they have any real expertise in state of the art radar performance analysis.
How many military radars does Australia design and build?
..,. More querulous Karlo Kopp Krapp from the Wizards of Oz.
How many military radars does Australia design and build?
..,. More querulous Karlo Kopp Krapp from the Wizards of Oz.
Karlo Kopp Krapp
JSF defenders are so, so easily reduced to abuse.
Of course everyone's perspective would be different if they could see the results from full-scale, hi-fi RCS pole testing - which was apparently last performed in 2001 on a model that was five major configuration changes ago.
Hey, it's gonna work. The modelling and simulation say so.
JSF defenders are so, so easily reduced to abuse.
Of course everyone's perspective would be different if they could see the results from full-scale, hi-fi RCS pole testing - which was apparently last performed in 2001 on a model that was five major configuration changes ago.
Hey, it's gonna work. The modelling and simulation say so.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: London
Age: 69
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry if this has been posted before ;
(I like the editor's comment ; "........... It is vexing that M.G. Davis only acknowledged these higher prices on the eve of leaving his position as JSF program manager." )
(Source: U.S Department of State; issued January 16, 2009)
WASHINGTON --- Decisions about the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and F-22 Raptor aircraft programs are expected early in President-elect Barack Obama's administration.
The F-35 program manager said yesterday he sees strong support for the F-35 from the services, allied partners and, so far, on Capitol Hill.
Based on initial indications and inquiries from Obama's transition team, Air Force Maj. Gen. Charles R. Davis said he's confident the F-35 program begun during the Clinton administration will continue, even if budget restraints force scale-backs. Davis made the comments here as keynote speaker at a Brookings Institution forum, "The Joint Strike Fighter and Beyond."
"Support throughout what appears to be three administrations has been relatively consistent," he said. "As of yet, we see no reason that that support is going to change. There is nobody on Capitol Hill who has said they want to cancel the Joint Strike Fighter."
That doesn't mean, he acknowledged, that the program to develop the next-generation strike aircraft weapon system for the Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and allied countries might not get scaled back.
Davis conceded he gets many questions about the F-35's cost -- expected to be $80 million to $90 million, depending on the variant -- and delivery schedule. And if fewer aircraft are built, each will cost even more. (Emphasis added-Ed.]
"We lose two airplanes in our [fiscal 2009] appropriation, and every other one of the airplanes being bought in that year goes up $3 million," he said.
Another consideration, he said, is the cost of maintaining the aging legacy fleets the F-35 would replace if production is cut.
Earlier yesterday, William Lynn, Obama's deputy defense secretary nominee, told the Senate Armed Services Committee it would be "very difficult" for the Defense Department to keep all its weapons systems development programs on track in tight budget times.
Lynn said at his confirmation hearing he'll push for a speedy Quadrennial Defense Review to set priorities through fiscal 2015, and expects the tactical aviation force modernization issue to play heavily in those considerations.
In written responses submitted to the committee, Lynn recognized the capabilities of both the F-22 and F-35 aircraft -- particularly when considered together.
"The F-22 is the most advanced tactical fighter in the world and, when combined with the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, will provide the nation with the most capable mix of fifth-generation aircraft available for the foreseeable future," he said.
The F-22, to replace the legacy F-15 fleet, brings "tremendous capability" and is a critical element of the department's overall tactical aircraft force structure, Lynn said. The F-35, on the other hand, "will provide the foundation for the department's tactical air force structure."
The F-35 is the first aircraft to be developed within the Defense Department to meet the needs of three services, with three variants being developed simultaneously.
It will replace the legacy F-16 aircraft for the Air Force and the F/A-18 and AV-8 aircraft for the Navy and Marine Corps, as well as numerous legacy aircraft for the international partners participating in the F-35 program, Lynn told the Senate committee.
So the big question, he said, is determining the appropriate mix between the two aircraft. "If confirmed, I would expect this to be a key issue for the early strategy and program-budget reviews that the department will conduct over the next few months," he said.
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has made no secret of his interest in reaching a decision and moving forward. During a June visit to Langley Air Force Base, Va., he told airmen at Air Combat Command the new administration will have to determine the proper balance between the two aircraft.
"End the debate, make a decision and move on," Gates said. "'Start getting stuff built' is just so important.'"
Gates told the airmen he had allocated enough money to keep the F-22 production lines open so the next administration could make its decision. He did not know at the time that he would be part of that decision-making process.
Davis told the Brooking Institution audience yesterday, "support from all three services has never been stronger" for the F-35 program.
The Marine Corps, slated to receive the "B" variant that has a vertical-lift capability, has been "the most vocal, avid and fervent customer," Davis said. The Marine Corps leadership expects the F-35 to become "the most effective air platform they have ever had," he said. "Looking at their history of how they have used airplanes, that is quite a bold statement."
Similarly, the Navy, to receive the aircraft's "C" variant designed for carrier launches, "has never been more supportive of the program," Davis said. He noted that the Navy has been "fighting aggressively" to keep its aircraft carriers fully outfitted.
In addition, the Air Force recognizes the need for a complementary mix of aircraft to meet its mission requirements, he said. Its "A" variant of the F-35 will provide conventional take-off and landing capabilities.
Meanwhile, nine partner nations continue to support the program, with other countries considering signing on, too, Davis said. The F-35 program represents the first time in military procurement history that the United States has partnered with another nation to build an aircraft from the ground up.
"We believe that the coalition that was put in place when they signed up for this program is probably stronger than ever now," Davis said.
This partnership, he said, brings the concept of coalition integration to a whole new level. In addition to funding and developing the F-35 together, the partners plan to use a single system to sustain it -- sharing spares and repair capabilities to reduce costs.
"There is something very unique that Joint Strike Fighter offers that other programs I have seen do not," he said.
The big challenge for now, Davis said, is to take advantage of the latest manufacturing processes to get the production line moving ahead.
"Even the manufacturing lines for some of our newest fighters, the F-22, started in the late '80s and early '90s," he said. "We have progressed almost two decades in manufacturing technology, but we have never really tried it out on a full-scale program."
(EDITOR'S NOTE: This is the first official acknowledgement from either the Pentagon or prime contractor Lockheed Martin that JSF unit costs are higher than the $50-$60 million previously admitted. It is vexing that M.G. Davis only acknowledged these higher prices on the eve of leaving his position as JSF program manager.)
http://www.defense-aerosp...client/modele.pl?session=
dae.44293325.1232411617.MK8Mnn8AAAEAADUfwk4AAAAQ&prod=101452 &modele=release
.
(I like the editor's comment ; "........... It is vexing that M.G. Davis only acknowledged these higher prices on the eve of leaving his position as JSF program manager." )
(Source: U.S Department of State; issued January 16, 2009)
WASHINGTON --- Decisions about the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and F-22 Raptor aircraft programs are expected early in President-elect Barack Obama's administration.
The F-35 program manager said yesterday he sees strong support for the F-35 from the services, allied partners and, so far, on Capitol Hill.
Based on initial indications and inquiries from Obama's transition team, Air Force Maj. Gen. Charles R. Davis said he's confident the F-35 program begun during the Clinton administration will continue, even if budget restraints force scale-backs. Davis made the comments here as keynote speaker at a Brookings Institution forum, "The Joint Strike Fighter and Beyond."
"Support throughout what appears to be three administrations has been relatively consistent," he said. "As of yet, we see no reason that that support is going to change. There is nobody on Capitol Hill who has said they want to cancel the Joint Strike Fighter."
That doesn't mean, he acknowledged, that the program to develop the next-generation strike aircraft weapon system for the Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and allied countries might not get scaled back.
Davis conceded he gets many questions about the F-35's cost -- expected to be $80 million to $90 million, depending on the variant -- and delivery schedule. And if fewer aircraft are built, each will cost even more. (Emphasis added-Ed.]
"We lose two airplanes in our [fiscal 2009] appropriation, and every other one of the airplanes being bought in that year goes up $3 million," he said.
Another consideration, he said, is the cost of maintaining the aging legacy fleets the F-35 would replace if production is cut.
Earlier yesterday, William Lynn, Obama's deputy defense secretary nominee, told the Senate Armed Services Committee it would be "very difficult" for the Defense Department to keep all its weapons systems development programs on track in tight budget times.
Lynn said at his confirmation hearing he'll push for a speedy Quadrennial Defense Review to set priorities through fiscal 2015, and expects the tactical aviation force modernization issue to play heavily in those considerations.
In written responses submitted to the committee, Lynn recognized the capabilities of both the F-22 and F-35 aircraft -- particularly when considered together.
"The F-22 is the most advanced tactical fighter in the world and, when combined with the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, will provide the nation with the most capable mix of fifth-generation aircraft available for the foreseeable future," he said.
The F-22, to replace the legacy F-15 fleet, brings "tremendous capability" and is a critical element of the department's overall tactical aircraft force structure, Lynn said. The F-35, on the other hand, "will provide the foundation for the department's tactical air force structure."
The F-35 is the first aircraft to be developed within the Defense Department to meet the needs of three services, with three variants being developed simultaneously.
It will replace the legacy F-16 aircraft for the Air Force and the F/A-18 and AV-8 aircraft for the Navy and Marine Corps, as well as numerous legacy aircraft for the international partners participating in the F-35 program, Lynn told the Senate committee.
So the big question, he said, is determining the appropriate mix between the two aircraft. "If confirmed, I would expect this to be a key issue for the early strategy and program-budget reviews that the department will conduct over the next few months," he said.
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has made no secret of his interest in reaching a decision and moving forward. During a June visit to Langley Air Force Base, Va., he told airmen at Air Combat Command the new administration will have to determine the proper balance between the two aircraft.
"End the debate, make a decision and move on," Gates said. "'Start getting stuff built' is just so important.'"
Gates told the airmen he had allocated enough money to keep the F-22 production lines open so the next administration could make its decision. He did not know at the time that he would be part of that decision-making process.
Davis told the Brooking Institution audience yesterday, "support from all three services has never been stronger" for the F-35 program.
The Marine Corps, slated to receive the "B" variant that has a vertical-lift capability, has been "the most vocal, avid and fervent customer," Davis said. The Marine Corps leadership expects the F-35 to become "the most effective air platform they have ever had," he said. "Looking at their history of how they have used airplanes, that is quite a bold statement."
Similarly, the Navy, to receive the aircraft's "C" variant designed for carrier launches, "has never been more supportive of the program," Davis said. He noted that the Navy has been "fighting aggressively" to keep its aircraft carriers fully outfitted.
In addition, the Air Force recognizes the need for a complementary mix of aircraft to meet its mission requirements, he said. Its "A" variant of the F-35 will provide conventional take-off and landing capabilities.
Meanwhile, nine partner nations continue to support the program, with other countries considering signing on, too, Davis said. The F-35 program represents the first time in military procurement history that the United States has partnered with another nation to build an aircraft from the ground up.
"We believe that the coalition that was put in place when they signed up for this program is probably stronger than ever now," Davis said.
This partnership, he said, brings the concept of coalition integration to a whole new level. In addition to funding and developing the F-35 together, the partners plan to use a single system to sustain it -- sharing spares and repair capabilities to reduce costs.
"There is something very unique that Joint Strike Fighter offers that other programs I have seen do not," he said.
The big challenge for now, Davis said, is to take advantage of the latest manufacturing processes to get the production line moving ahead.
"Even the manufacturing lines for some of our newest fighters, the F-22, started in the late '80s and early '90s," he said. "We have progressed almost two decades in manufacturing technology, but we have never really tried it out on a full-scale program."
(EDITOR'S NOTE: This is the first official acknowledgement from either the Pentagon or prime contractor Lockheed Martin that JSF unit costs are higher than the $50-$60 million previously admitted. It is vexing that M.G. Davis only acknowledged these higher prices on the eve of leaving his position as JSF program manager.)
http://www.defense-aerosp...client/modele.pl?session=
dae.44293325.1232411617.MK8Mnn8AAAEAADUfwk4AAAAQ&prod=101452 &modele=release
.