JSF and A400M at risk?
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 76
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The news was in the papers here in Germany the other day, as if someone is floating the idea ahead of giving the A400M the chop.
I think the basic problem is that this is a fixed-cost contract that will not see additional funds coming from the governments involved. You know how usually "fixed-cost" means anything but that? Well, this time the purses are staying firmly shut but Airbus seems to be not in the mood to have to eat the losses.
There seems to be a perfect get-out clause if the first aircraft doesn't fly soon, when it is nowhere close to being flown and that might be that!
I guess it will be good news for Boeing and Lockheed-Martin, tears on the pillow for the Airbus military division but much of this could have been foretold from the original A400M design spec with these big, turbo-prop engines. I seem to remember reading something about that when it was launched, anyway!
I think the basic problem is that this is a fixed-cost contract that will not see additional funds coming from the governments involved. You know how usually "fixed-cost" means anything but that? Well, this time the purses are staying firmly shut but Airbus seems to be not in the mood to have to eat the losses.
There seems to be a perfect get-out clause if the first aircraft doesn't fly soon, when it is nowhere close to being flown and that might be that!
I guess it will be good news for Boeing and Lockheed-Martin, tears on the pillow for the Airbus military division but much of this could have been foretold from the original A400M design spec with these big, turbo-prop engines. I seem to remember reading something about that when it was launched, anyway!
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
If they can't get the A400 right starting with a clean sheet, what chance the FSTA?
The process of building a military transport aircraft from scratch is (at least in my humble opinion) surely a much more complex task than converting an existing type to carry out the AAR role, a conversion that has been done before on many aircraft types including the type being offered under the FSTA contract.
The issue with FSTA is not the technology, its the politics and the funding.
Of course don't yet that stop you banging that tied old Boeing drum (interestingly the one company who seem to be having a little trouble with their airliner to AAR aircraft conversions).
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If anything, this will be good for FSTA. Airbus could cut a deal to provide more A330's in pax fit and AAR (we are short of both remember) in exchange for the nations axe-ing A-400M and EADS will have to bite the bullet on development costs. EADS will take ahit, but not go bust.
Only losers will be Rolls who are getting a good bite of the cherry with export deals being arranged with the chinese courtesy of the UK government anyway, together with any smaller component producers etc.
But who knows? They may get the first one flying and we may fly it yet! I do hope so, all projects have developmental issues and A400m promised t be a great aircraft.
Having More C130J/C-17 woulnt be a bad investment either mind...
Only losers will be Rolls who are getting a good bite of the cherry with export deals being arranged with the chinese courtesy of the UK government anyway, together with any smaller component producers etc.
But who knows? They may get the first one flying and we may fly it yet! I do hope so, all projects have developmental issues and A400m promised t be a great aircraft.
Having More C130J/C-17 woulnt be a bad investment either mind...
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Dre's mum's house
Posts: 1,432
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the Defence Committee's report:
Perhaps that and the report in the Times that the Govt may have to use £2Bn of taxpayer's money to rescue PFI schemes doesn't bode well for the FSTA either.
The Report also considers what appears to be a worsening situation in the airbridge carrying troops and materiel between UK and the operational theatres. The Committee was concerned to learn last year that the A400M transport aircraft programme had been delayed by 15 months, requiring an extension of the ageing Hercules C-130K aircraft fleet. Mr Arbuthnot commented, “It is extremely serious that the A400M transport aircraft programme is now running two years late and further delays cannot be ruled out. The Government must set out its most up-to-date thinking on the options available and say whether it considers that there is a real risk that the entire A400M project might be so delayed that abandonment would be preferable.”
Slightly off topic, but.......
I guess no-one has told PMA and the MR2/MRA4 force about this?!?!?! 
Along with a mixture of rotary, ISTAR, AT and AAR crews to provide the mix of operational expertise that the A400M would need.
I believe this was to avoid old fleets taking old habits onto new platforms.
I believe this was to avoid old fleets taking old habits onto new platforms.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: London
Age: 69
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry if this has been posted on another thread - I picked it up off another board :
F-35 Air Combat Skills Analyzed
Aviation Week's DTI | Andy Nativi | March 06, 2009
This article first appeared in Aviation Week & Space Technology,
The F-35's ability to win an air-to-air engagement is drawing increased attention as the U.S. military and industry's focus includes expanding the Joint Strike Fighter's customer base beyond the core purchasing nations.
For years, prime contractor Lockheed Martin
seemed content to promote the F-35's "strike fighter" capabilities, if only to avoid competing against its other major fighter program, the F-22 Raptor. But with the F-22 not exportable, Lockheed Martin seems keen to talk up the F-35's air combat skills to bolster its chances for new foreign military sales -- namely, to Japan, Turkey and Greece.
The contractor tells Aviation Week that the JSF's combination of stealth, multisensor situational awareness, advanced pilot-machine interface and basic aeromechanical performance make it a credible fighter aircraft, too. That is key to several other customers, who cannot afford the so-called high-low fighter mix on which the U.S., U.K. and Italian air forces are planning.
But Lockheed Martin is focusing largely on the beyond-visual-range fight, with ranges greater than 18 naut. mi. that executives say will represent 62% of all aerial combat. Another 31% of engagements would fall into the 8-18-naut.-mi. transition range, and just 7% of fighting would be close-in combat where the airframe is stressed the most.
Lockheed Martin says it ran the F-35 through the Pentagon's TAC Brawler simulation for air combat systems analysis, using what would be the "ideal" air combat configuration, taking the conventional-takeoff-and-landing F-35A, the only model designed to perform full 9g maneuvers.
The aircraft can also reach a 55-deg. angle of attack in trimmed flight, while most fighters, excluding the F/A-18, are limited to 30 deg. The exact performance of the current F-35A configuration -- also known as the 240-4 -- are classified. But a similar earlier standard (240-3) was credited with a maximum speed of Mach 1.67; acceleration from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2 at 30,000 ft. in 61 sec.; a top turning speed of 370 kt. at 9g and 15,000 ft.; and a sustained turn capability of 4.95g at Mach 0.8 and 15,000 ft. Moreover, an aircraft with those performance figures would carry two beyond-visual-range AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (Amraams) in the internal weapons bay.
Yet, such performance numbers appear to leave the F-35 short of the kind of air-to-air capabilities provided by other combat aircraft, such as the Russian Su-30MKI or the European Typhoon. And even Lockheed Martin test pilots concede that the F-35 -- although offering very high initial acceleration due to its powerful 42,000-lb.-thrust F135 engine -- could start losing advantage at higher speed and altitude. This might be partly due to the aircraft's large frontal area, which is designed to allow internal weapons carriage -- meaning in a traditional quick-reaction intercept role, the F-35 may not be able to match rivals.
Nevertheless, Brawler modeling showed the F-35 could achieve a loss-exchange ratio better than 400% against its nearest "competitor," according to Lockheed Martin executives. They demur about naming the competitor, but their comparison charts indicate it is the Sukhoi Su-30 or Typhoon.
That engagement ratio comes from the combination of F-35 characteristics, executives argue, including stealth, the performance of the APG-81 active electronically scanned array radar, sensor fusion using data links and the 360-deg. situational awareness afforded by the distributed aperture system of infrared and electro-optical sensors and electronic support measures.
In the meantime, and without discussing specific performance characteristics, Italian air force fighter pilots involved with the F-35 program tell Aviation Week that the aircraft's performance falls "between the F-16 and the F/A-18 in terms of flight envelope -- and is actually closer to the F/A-18, considering its high angle of attack and slow-speed maneuvering capabilities."
The F-35A, with an air-to-air mission takeoff weight of 49,540 lb., has a thrust-to-weight ratio of 0.85 and a wing loading of 110 lb. per sq. ft. -- not ideal for a dog-fighter. The F135 engine delivers 42,000 lb. thrust, and industry officials suggest that an F-35 entering an air-to-air engagement with 40% -- or more than 7,275 lb. -- of internal fuel will have a thrust-to-weight ratio of 1.09 and a wing loading of 83 lb. per sq. ft. Those figures describe an agile, albeit not top-end, fighter.
Still, one key feature, Lockheed Martin executives stress, is the very low observability designed into the JSF. Whereas the F-35 would carry its weapons internally, the Typhoon, Su-30, Saab Gripen or Dassault Rafale carry their missiles externally, thus increasing their radar signatures and degrading their on-paper air-to-air performance. The F-35 also accommodates more internal fuel, 8.3 tons, giving it greater endurance potential without external fuel tanks that would affect radar signatures.
Nevertheless, the F-35 may have notable weaknesses for pure air-to-air combat. For one, it is not designed to conduct engagements in a high-speed, high-altitude, sustained turning environment. Its high-speed cornering capability should help it to dodge an adversary's beyond-visual-range missiles, though, particularly if German and U.K. air-to-air simulations on the kill probability of modern medium-range air-to-air missiles are accurate.
Those figures are part of the rationale for countries pursuing the ramjet-powered MBDA Meteor missile to supplant Amraams. Yet even in the Amraam world, Typhoons may have an edge over the F-35, since they could launch the missile at higher speed. Sukhoi Su-30s and the future T-50 are also being designed to maximize air-to-air missile performance that way.
Finally, while Lockheed Martin touts F-35 stealth as an advantage, it has its drawbacks, as well. The aircraft's payload is limited as long as it wants to preserve its low-observable signature through internal carriage. That means having only four AIM-120s at its disposal. A study now underway could boost that total to six Amraams. Other weapons, including infrared-guided air-to-air missiles, would be carried externally, with plans for a "stealthy" JSF adaptation using a low-signature pylon design. Still, the radar signature would increase, as would drag, further reducing the F-35's potential.
It is not clear how critical such perceived shortcomings truly are. Some pilots argue that in a dogfight, the air-to-air missile has more to do with the engagement's outcome than does the aircraft.
==============================
F-35 Air Combat Skills Analyzed
Aviation Week's DTI | Andy Nativi | March 06, 2009
This article first appeared in Aviation Week & Space Technology,
The F-35's ability to win an air-to-air engagement is drawing increased attention as the U.S. military and industry's focus includes expanding the Joint Strike Fighter's customer base beyond the core purchasing nations.
For years, prime contractor Lockheed Martin
seemed content to promote the F-35's "strike fighter" capabilities, if only to avoid competing against its other major fighter program, the F-22 Raptor. But with the F-22 not exportable, Lockheed Martin seems keen to talk up the F-35's air combat skills to bolster its chances for new foreign military sales -- namely, to Japan, Turkey and Greece.The contractor tells Aviation Week that the JSF's combination of stealth, multisensor situational awareness, advanced pilot-machine interface and basic aeromechanical performance make it a credible fighter aircraft, too. That is key to several other customers, who cannot afford the so-called high-low fighter mix on which the U.S., U.K. and Italian air forces are planning.
But Lockheed Martin is focusing largely on the beyond-visual-range fight, with ranges greater than 18 naut. mi. that executives say will represent 62% of all aerial combat. Another 31% of engagements would fall into the 8-18-naut.-mi. transition range, and just 7% of fighting would be close-in combat where the airframe is stressed the most.
Lockheed Martin says it ran the F-35 through the Pentagon's
TAC Brawler simulation for air combat systems analysis, using what would be the "ideal" air combat configuration, taking the conventional-takeoff-and-landing F-35A, the only model designed to perform full 9g maneuvers.The aircraft can also reach a 55-deg. angle of attack in trimmed flight, while most fighters, excluding the F/A-18, are limited to 30 deg. The exact performance of the current F-35A configuration -- also known as the 240-4 -- are classified. But a similar earlier standard (240-3) was credited with a maximum speed of Mach 1.67; acceleration from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.2 at 30,000 ft. in 61 sec.; a top turning speed of 370 kt. at 9g and 15,000 ft.; and a sustained turn capability of 4.95g at Mach 0.8 and 15,000 ft. Moreover, an aircraft with those performance figures would carry two beyond-visual-range AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (Amraams) in the internal weapons bay.
Yet, such performance numbers appear to leave the F-35 short of the kind of air-to-air capabilities provided by other combat aircraft, such as the Russian Su-30MKI or the European Typhoon. And even Lockheed Martin test pilots concede that the F-35 -- although offering very high initial acceleration due to its powerful 42,000-lb.-thrust F135 engine -- could start losing advantage at higher speed and altitude. This might be partly due to the aircraft's large frontal area, which is designed to allow internal weapons carriage -- meaning in a traditional quick-reaction intercept role, the F-35 may not be able to match rivals.
Nevertheless, Brawler modeling showed the F-35 could achieve a loss-exchange ratio better than 400% against its nearest "competitor," according to Lockheed Martin executives. They demur about naming the competitor, but their comparison charts indicate it is the Sukhoi Su-30 or Typhoon.
That engagement ratio comes from the combination of F-35 characteristics, executives argue, including stealth, the performance of the APG-81 active electronically scanned array radar, sensor fusion using data links and the 360-deg. situational awareness afforded by the distributed aperture system of infrared and electro-optical sensors and electronic support measures.
In the meantime, and without discussing specific performance characteristics, Italian air force fighter pilots involved with the F-35 program tell Aviation Week that the aircraft's performance falls "between the F-16 and the F/A-18 in terms of flight envelope -- and is actually closer to the F/A-18, considering its high angle of attack and slow-speed maneuvering capabilities."
The F-35A, with an air-to-air mission takeoff weight of 49,540 lb., has a thrust-to-weight ratio of 0.85 and a wing loading of 110 lb. per sq. ft. -- not ideal for a dog-fighter. The F135 engine delivers 42,000 lb. thrust, and industry officials suggest that an F-35 entering an air-to-air engagement with 40% -- or more than 7,275 lb. -- of internal fuel will have a thrust-to-weight ratio of 1.09 and a wing loading of 83 lb. per sq. ft. Those figures describe an agile, albeit not top-end, fighter.
Still, one key feature, Lockheed Martin executives stress, is the very low observability designed into the JSF. Whereas the F-35 would carry its weapons internally, the Typhoon, Su-30, Saab Gripen or Dassault Rafale carry their missiles externally, thus increasing their radar signatures and degrading their on-paper air-to-air performance. The F-35 also accommodates more internal fuel, 8.3 tons, giving it greater endurance potential without external fuel tanks that would affect radar signatures.
Nevertheless, the F-35 may have notable weaknesses for pure air-to-air combat. For one, it is not designed to conduct engagements in a high-speed, high-altitude, sustained turning environment. Its high-speed cornering capability should help it to dodge an adversary's beyond-visual-range missiles, though, particularly if German and U.K. air-to-air simulations on the kill probability of modern medium-range air-to-air missiles are accurate.
Those figures are part of the rationale for countries pursuing the ramjet-powered MBDA Meteor missile to supplant Amraams. Yet even in the Amraam world, Typhoons may have an edge over the F-35, since they could launch the missile at higher speed. Sukhoi Su-30s and the future T-50 are also being designed to maximize air-to-air missile performance that way.
Finally, while Lockheed Martin touts F-35 stealth as an advantage, it has its drawbacks, as well. The aircraft's payload is limited as long as it wants to preserve its low-observable signature through internal carriage. That means having only four AIM-120s at its disposal. A study now underway could boost that total to six Amraams. Other weapons, including infrared-guided air-to-air missiles, would be carried externally, with plans for a "stealthy" JSF adaptation using a low-signature pylon design. Still, the radar signature would increase, as would drag, further reducing the F-35's potential.
It is not clear how critical such perceived shortcomings truly are. Some pilots argue that in a dogfight, the air-to-air missile has more to do with the engagement's outcome than does the aircraft.
==============================
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F-35
I wouldn't like to be the JSF pilot trying to dodge something like an AMRAAM; I was on the first European trials of the weapon ( Sea Harrier ) and it's a 'hittile' rather than missile relying on proximity fusing, as the Sidewinder etc are.
It's also extremely resistant to countermeasures, the concensus being that if one knows such a thing is coming your way, reach for the yellow & black handle...
It would be surprising if Eastern manufacturers haven't got a similarly capable weapon, they certainly manage magnificent aircraft & ejection seats.
It's also extremely resistant to countermeasures, the concensus being that if one knows such a thing is coming your way, reach for the yellow & black handle...
It would be surprising if Eastern manufacturers haven't got a similarly capable weapon, they certainly manage magnificent aircraft & ejection seats.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
... much of this could have been foretold from the original A400M design spec with these big, turbo-prop engines....
What is wrong in principle with big turboprop engines? Please explain.
And even Lockheed Martin test pilots concede that the F-35 -- although offering very high initial acceleration due to its powerful 42,000-lb.-thrust F135 engine -- could start losing advantage at higher speed and altitude. This might be partly due to the aircraft's large frontal area, which is designed to allow internal weapons carriage --
That is contradictory and illogical. If drag due to large frontal area were a problem, the aircraft would be slow to accelerate at lower altitude. At higher, stratospheric altitude, flate plate or profile drag is less and less of a problem.
Furthermore, this alleged "large frontal area" may be providing more lift than drag. An aircraft such as the F-35 is a blended wing and lifting body design.
...meaning in a traditional quick-reaction intercept role, the F-35 may not be able to match rivals....
Which quick reaction role? Define that.
The F-35A, with an air-to-air mission takeoff weight of 49,540 lb., has a thrust-to-weight ratio of 0.85 ...
Your source for that ratio?
... and a wing loading of 110 lb. per sq. ft. -- not ideal for a dog-fighter.
You don't know what the F-35's wing loading really is. No, you can't calculate the wing loading of a blended wing and lifting body aircraft by taking the wingspan and chord and some guesstimated coefficient of lift and applying Oswalds's efficiency factor, and then dividing assumed weight by the effective lifting area you have erroneously and ineffectively calculated.
The wing loading is actually lower than 110lb./ft^2, because the F-35 gets significant lift from its central body, as I said above. Look, the F-35 is optimized for best performance below about 30,000 feet, as is its predecessor, the F-16. This means that the aircraft needs somewhat heavier wing loading for less drag in thicker, lower altitude air. Heavier wing loading is also needed to allow pull-up or turning maneuvers at high g rates in denser air, or else the wing roots and box structure will have to be made stronger and therefore heavier.
What do you think an F-16's wing loading is when configured for air to air combat? Would you say that the F-16 has not been ideal for a dogfighter during the past thirty years? Nobody's fighter plan is ideal for all altitudes and all missions
I'm not saying that the F-16's design is perfect. The F-16 has a pitch-up problem at certain airspeeds.
However, wing loading is something the designers of the F-16 and F-35 understood very well. The designers chose the wing loading for these two aircraft quite intentionally and for a good reason, which is that these two aircraft are optimized for flight at lower altitude. Nobody's fighter plane performs equally well at stratospheric as well as lower altitudes
What is wrong in principle with big turboprop engines? Please explain.
And even Lockheed Martin test pilots concede that the F-35 -- although offering very high initial acceleration due to its powerful 42,000-lb.-thrust F135 engine -- could start losing advantage at higher speed and altitude. This might be partly due to the aircraft's large frontal area, which is designed to allow internal weapons carriage --
That is contradictory and illogical. If drag due to large frontal area were a problem, the aircraft would be slow to accelerate at lower altitude. At higher, stratospheric altitude, flate plate or profile drag is less and less of a problem.
Furthermore, this alleged "large frontal area" may be providing more lift than drag. An aircraft such as the F-35 is a blended wing and lifting body design.
...meaning in a traditional quick-reaction intercept role, the F-35 may not be able to match rivals....
Which quick reaction role? Define that.
The F-35A, with an air-to-air mission takeoff weight of 49,540 lb., has a thrust-to-weight ratio of 0.85 ...
Your source for that ratio?
... and a wing loading of 110 lb. per sq. ft. -- not ideal for a dog-fighter.
You don't know what the F-35's wing loading really is. No, you can't calculate the wing loading of a blended wing and lifting body aircraft by taking the wingspan and chord and some guesstimated coefficient of lift and applying Oswalds's efficiency factor, and then dividing assumed weight by the effective lifting area you have erroneously and ineffectively calculated.
The wing loading is actually lower than 110lb./ft^2, because the F-35 gets significant lift from its central body, as I said above. Look, the F-35 is optimized for best performance below about 30,000 feet, as is its predecessor, the F-16. This means that the aircraft needs somewhat heavier wing loading for less drag in thicker, lower altitude air. Heavier wing loading is also needed to allow pull-up or turning maneuvers at high g rates in denser air, or else the wing roots and box structure will have to be made stronger and therefore heavier.
What do you think an F-16's wing loading is when configured for air to air combat? Would you say that the F-16 has not been ideal for a dogfighter during the past thirty years? Nobody's fighter plan is ideal for all altitudes and all missions
I'm not saying that the F-16's design is perfect. The F-16 has a pitch-up problem at certain airspeeds.
However, wing loading is something the designers of the F-16 and F-35 understood very well. The designers chose the wing loading for these two aircraft quite intentionally and for a good reason, which is that these two aircraft are optimized for flight at lower altitude. Nobody's fighter plane performs equally well at stratospheric as well as lower altitudes
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
GAO calls rush to field F-35 strike-fighter not 'prudent'
The Department of Defense's $1 trillion-plus plan to build and deliver multiple versions of the Joint Strike Force (JSF) aircraft to multiple customers is behind schedule, over budget, and upside down, according to a report from the Government Accounting Office (PDF).
Upside down because the military is accelerating procurement of operational aircraft before it has even taken delivery of test units, according to the non-partisan GAO. "Procuring large numbers of production jets while still working to deliver test jets and mature manufacturing processes does not seem prudent," the report states.
The JSF program, personified by the F-35 Lighting II, is a joint international venture led by the United States and the United Kingdom. The report calls this the DOD's most complex and ambitious aircraft acquisition and the linchpin of the military's plan to modernize its tactical air forces.
Chronic manufacturing inefficiencies, parts problems, design changes, and a steep learning curve have slowed delivery of test aircraft, according to the watchdog agency, even as DOD wants to ramp up production of line aircraft. Speeding up the delivery of 169 aircraft by 2015 will require billions in additional funding, "magnifying the financial risk to the government" and adding years to the development schedule, according to the GAO.
Contractors say they'll have the problems fixed and all the test aircraft delivered by next year. But by that time, the DOD plans to have already purchased 62 operational aircraft, according to the report. As currently configured, the DOD is at liberty to spend $57 billion on 360 aircraft, even before it completes flight testing. The contractor has extended the manufacturing schedule three times.
In 2007, the DOD decided to cut back on test aircraft and flight tests and rely instead on "state-of-the-art simulation labs, a flying test bed, and desk studies to verify nearly 83 percent of JSF capabilities." Ground testing to this extent is not a proven substitute for actual test flights, the report warns.
The single-seat, single-engine multi-role strike fighter has something for everyone. It does stealth, air-to-air, close air support, tactical bombing, and air defense missions. It can take off and land on conventional runways, do short takeoff and vertical-landing, or land on a carrier. The project features a mixed bag of contractors as well, with Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and BAE Systems leading an international team of suppliers and manufacturers.
The Department of Defense's $1 trillion-plus plan to build and deliver multiple versions of the Joint Strike Force (JSF) aircraft to multiple customers is behind schedule, over budget, and upside down, according to a report from the Government Accounting Office (PDF).
Upside down because the military is accelerating procurement of operational aircraft before it has even taken delivery of test units, according to the non-partisan GAO. "Procuring large numbers of production jets while still working to deliver test jets and mature manufacturing processes does not seem prudent," the report states.
The JSF program, personified by the F-35 Lighting II, is a joint international venture led by the United States and the United Kingdom. The report calls this the DOD's most complex and ambitious aircraft acquisition and the linchpin of the military's plan to modernize its tactical air forces.
Chronic manufacturing inefficiencies, parts problems, design changes, and a steep learning curve have slowed delivery of test aircraft, according to the watchdog agency, even as DOD wants to ramp up production of line aircraft. Speeding up the delivery of 169 aircraft by 2015 will require billions in additional funding, "magnifying the financial risk to the government" and adding years to the development schedule, according to the GAO.
Contractors say they'll have the problems fixed and all the test aircraft delivered by next year. But by that time, the DOD plans to have already purchased 62 operational aircraft, according to the report. As currently configured, the DOD is at liberty to spend $57 billion on 360 aircraft, even before it completes flight testing. The contractor has extended the manufacturing schedule three times.
In 2007, the DOD decided to cut back on test aircraft and flight tests and rely instead on "state-of-the-art simulation labs, a flying test bed, and desk studies to verify nearly 83 percent of JSF capabilities." Ground testing to this extent is not a proven substitute for actual test flights, the report warns.
The single-seat, single-engine multi-role strike fighter has something for everyone. It does stealth, air-to-air, close air support, tactical bombing, and air defense missions. It can take off and land on conventional runways, do short takeoff and vertical-landing, or land on a carrier. The project features a mixed bag of contractors as well, with Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and BAE Systems leading an international team of suppliers and manufacturers.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Boeing unveils upgraded F-15 Silent Eagle with fifth-generation features
Boeing today unveiled a new F-15 prototype aimed at the international market with such "fifth-generation" add-ons as radar absorbent coatings, internal weapons carriage and integrated digital avionics, plus featuring a distinctive V-tail.
Boeing today unveiled a new F-15 prototype aimed at the international market with such "fifth-generation" add-ons as radar absorbent coatings, internal weapons carriage and integrated digital avionics, plus featuring a distinctive V-tail.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Jerusalem Post: IAF mulling purchase of 'stealthy' F-15s
Facing soaring costs and American opposition to the integration of Israeli systems into the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the Israel Air Force is reviewing specifications of a new and advanced model of the F-15 Eagle, which is claimed to have enhanced stealth capabilities.
Boeing unveiled the F-15 Silent Eagle (F-15SE), a new configuration of the F-15 which has undergone improvements and modifications that, according to media reports, give the plane a stealth capability that is effective in evading radars on enemy aircraft, but not ground-based radar systems. Improvements in stealth include coatings and treatments to the aircraft as well as a new design for the conformal fuel tanks that allows them to carry weapons rather than fuel.
Israel operates several squadrons of F-15s, including one of 25 F-15Is, the aircraft with the longest range in the IAF.
The Silent Eagle will be capable of carrying internally air-to-air missiles, as well as air-to-ground weapons such as the Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) and Small Diameter Bomb (SDB).
Defense Ministry Director-General Pinchas Buhris was scheduled to travel to the United States on Monday for talks at the Pentagon about the F-35.......
Israel's interest in the new F-15SE stems from a number of considerations, but primarily from expected delays in the delivery of the JSF as well as the Pentagon's opposition to Israel's request to install Israeli-made systems in the aircraft, which is under development by Lockheed Martin.
While Israel decided last year to purchase the F-35, if political disagreements over the integration of systems continued, officials said it was possible interest in the newly-modified F-15SE would increase.
The Jerusalem Post first reported on the US opposition in February. In addition, the price of the F-35 is expected to pass the $100 million mark and would only arrive in Israel - if a deal is signed in the coming months - in 2014. According to media reports, the new F-15SE will cost less and could arrive in Israel as early as 2011.
There is also an option to upgrade existing F-15s to the Silent Eagle model at a much lower cost. The US Air National Guard is also considering upgrading existing aircraft instead of purchasing new fifth-generation planes like the JSF and the F-22.
Facing soaring costs and American opposition to the integration of Israeli systems into the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the Israel Air Force is reviewing specifications of a new and advanced model of the F-15 Eagle, which is claimed to have enhanced stealth capabilities.
Boeing unveiled the F-15 Silent Eagle (F-15SE), a new configuration of the F-15 which has undergone improvements and modifications that, according to media reports, give the plane a stealth capability that is effective in evading radars on enemy aircraft, but not ground-based radar systems. Improvements in stealth include coatings and treatments to the aircraft as well as a new design for the conformal fuel tanks that allows them to carry weapons rather than fuel.
Israel operates several squadrons of F-15s, including one of 25 F-15Is, the aircraft with the longest range in the IAF.
The Silent Eagle will be capable of carrying internally air-to-air missiles, as well as air-to-ground weapons such as the Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) and Small Diameter Bomb (SDB).
Defense Ministry Director-General Pinchas Buhris was scheduled to travel to the United States on Monday for talks at the Pentagon about the F-35.......
Israel's interest in the new F-15SE stems from a number of considerations, but primarily from expected delays in the delivery of the JSF as well as the Pentagon's opposition to Israel's request to install Israeli-made systems in the aircraft, which is under development by Lockheed Martin.
While Israel decided last year to purchase the F-35, if political disagreements over the integration of systems continued, officials said it was possible interest in the newly-modified F-15SE would increase.
The Jerusalem Post first reported on the US opposition in February. In addition, the price of the F-35 is expected to pass the $100 million mark and would only arrive in Israel - if a deal is signed in the coming months - in 2014. According to media reports, the new F-15SE will cost less and could arrive in Israel as early as 2011.
There is also an option to upgrade existing F-15s to the Silent Eagle model at a much lower cost. The US Air National Guard is also considering upgrading existing aircraft instead of purchasing new fifth-generation planes like the JSF and the F-22.
If by that childish 'Microsoft Flight Simulator' 
spotter-geek appellation 'Dave B', you're referring to the F-35B, I think you'll find that it's a STOVL aeroplane, not a CTOL aeroplane such as the F-15.
However, the F-15 has had the benefit of many years of constant development, whereas the F-35 is at the beginning of its service life. So the new F-15SE is likely to be an exceptional aeroplane.
spotter-geek appellation 'Dave B', you're referring to the F-35B, I think you'll find that it's a STOVL aeroplane, not a CTOL aeroplane such as the F-15.However, the F-15 has had the benefit of many years of constant development, whereas the F-35 is at the beginning of its service life. So the new F-15SE is likely to be an exceptional aeroplane.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh, dear, BEagle... it seems your memory has gone rather dotty.
As you well know, but seem to have forgotten, "Dave" is this board's own created nickname for F-35... with "Dave B" corresponding to F-35B.
It is widely used here, and has nothing to do with any simulator, nor with "spotters".
Do see a Doctor about those memory lapses, dear chap... it might be a sign of something serious.
As you well know, but seem to have forgotten, "Dave" is this board's own created nickname for F-35... with "Dave B" corresponding to F-35B.
It is widely used here, and has nothing to do with any simulator, nor with "spotters".
Do see a Doctor about those memory lapses, dear chap... it might be a sign of something serious.
"Dave" is this board's own created nickname for F-35... with "Dave B" corresponding to F-35B.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Only by the wannabees who infest this site."
Bit harsh BEagle.... IIRC, this was the consensus of those who contributed to the long debate on F-35B vs F-35C, many of whom were very knowledgable indeed. I believe that "Dave" was considered "banter"......
S41
Bit harsh BEagle.... IIRC, this was the consensus of those who contributed to the long debate on F-35B vs F-35C, many of whom were very knowledgable indeed. I believe that "Dave" was considered "banter"......
S41