JSF and A400M at risk?
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What do "very small" and "significant" mean? In VL mode the main engine on the F-35B is producing some 15,700 pounds of thrust, while a Harrier's aft nozzles deliver about 12,000 pounds of thrust. (The fore-aft split is roughly equal.)
Lockheed claims a bigger number for vertical thrust (which should be larger than maximum dry thrust in level flight -- that's the benefit of the lift fan):
Hover–Pit Ground Tests Validate Propulsion System and Aircraft Response
FORT WORTH, Texas, April 23rd, 2009 --
The first F-35B short takeoff/vertical landing stealth fighter operates in vertical-landing mode on a special "hover pit" at Lockheed Martin in Fort Worth, Texas, during an April test.
...
The F-35B Lightning II short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) variant has demonstrated during testing that it produces excess vertical thrust – more than required to carry out its missions. The tests, conducted on a specially instrumented “hover pit,” also validated the performance of aircraft software, controls, thermal management, STOVL-system hardware and other systems.
“The performance level measured was absolutely exceptional,” said J.D. McFarlan, Lockheed Martin F-35 Air Vehicle lead. “We demonstrated 41,100 pounds of vertical thrust against our requirement of 40,550 pounds.This means we will deliver excellent margin for the vertical landing and short takeoff performance we’ve committed to our STOVL customers,” ...
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/press_releases/2009/090423ae_f-35-hover-pit-ground-tests.html
But the F135's overall pressure ratio is almost twice as high, which would point to a much higher jet velocity (which LockMart doesn't mention), the JSF nozzle is much closer to the ground, and the Harrier has two nozzles, several feet apart.
You need to clarify "overall pressure ratio." The lift fan's output is much cooler and at lower dynamic pressure than the exhaust from the aft nozzle. Yes. the F135 engine has a much larger expansion ratio than older engines such as the Harrier's.
Indeed, when the CONOPS starts to involve 3000-foot strips, 800-foot, 50000-ton ships and SRVLs, and your primary mission is CAS
Don't agree that the F-35B will be CAS only. See for example Table 2 above:
"Day 95 Withstand attacks by low-flying aircraft and missiles."
Lockheed claims a bigger number for vertical thrust (which should be larger than maximum dry thrust in level flight -- that's the benefit of the lift fan):
Hover–Pit Ground Tests Validate Propulsion System and Aircraft Response
FORT WORTH, Texas, April 23rd, 2009 --
The first F-35B short takeoff/vertical landing stealth fighter operates in vertical-landing mode on a special "hover pit" at Lockheed Martin in Fort Worth, Texas, during an April test.
...
The F-35B Lightning II short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) variant has demonstrated during testing that it produces excess vertical thrust – more than required to carry out its missions. The tests, conducted on a specially instrumented “hover pit,” also validated the performance of aircraft software, controls, thermal management, STOVL-system hardware and other systems.
“The performance level measured was absolutely exceptional,” said J.D. McFarlan, Lockheed Martin F-35 Air Vehicle lead. “We demonstrated 41,100 pounds of vertical thrust against our requirement of 40,550 pounds.This means we will deliver excellent margin for the vertical landing and short takeoff performance we’ve committed to our STOVL customers,” ...
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/press_releases/2009/090423ae_f-35-hover-pit-ground-tests.html
But the F135's overall pressure ratio is almost twice as high, which would point to a much higher jet velocity (which LockMart doesn't mention), the JSF nozzle is much closer to the ground, and the Harrier has two nozzles, several feet apart.
You need to clarify "overall pressure ratio." The lift fan's output is much cooler and at lower dynamic pressure than the exhaust from the aft nozzle. Yes. the F135 engine has a much larger expansion ratio than older engines such as the Harrier's.
Indeed, when the CONOPS starts to involve 3000-foot strips, 800-foot, 50000-ton ships and SRVLs, and your primary mission is CAS
Don't agree that the F-35B will be CAS only. See for example Table 2 above:
"Day 95 Withstand attacks by low-flying aircraft and missiles."
More accurate to say, perhaps, that the aft nozzle is running about 15,700 pounds. The remainder of the total 40000-some comes out of the roll ducts and the lift fan. The core is the hot bit and it loses some thrust (velocity) to drive the fan - overall the main engine is pushing out 19400 lbst in V mode versus 28000 in military level flight mode.
So in V mode the aft nozzle is almost a turbojet, but with a high OPR (that is, from the inlet to the exhaust). Now, that OPR may be reduced in V mode by the energy extracted on the turbine to drive the fan, which in effect slows the exhaust down.
The construction document cited on the Ares blog comes to one conclusion about this, Lockheed Martin another.
As for CONOPS - the principal Marine air mission has always been CAS. The Marines spent a lot of money on an AMRAAM capability for the AV-8B (and made them a lot heavier) but I don't know how much they even train in that regime today. And the Marine sea-based air wing lacks tanker, SEAD, EW and AEW&C support for taking on any serious air defenses or for supporting deep strike, and doesn't have the assets needed to defend the fleet while conducting offensive ops.
So in V mode the aft nozzle is almost a turbojet, but with a high OPR (that is, from the inlet to the exhaust). Now, that OPR may be reduced in V mode by the energy extracted on the turbine to drive the fan, which in effect slows the exhaust down.
The construction document cited on the Ares blog comes to one conclusion about this, Lockheed Martin another.
As for CONOPS - the principal Marine air mission has always been CAS. The Marines spent a lot of money on an AMRAAM capability for the AV-8B (and made them a lot heavier) but I don't know how much they even train in that regime today. And the Marine sea-based air wing lacks tanker, SEAD, EW and AEW&C support for taking on any serious air defenses or for supporting deep strike, and doesn't have the assets needed to defend the fleet while conducting offensive ops.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Marines spent a lot of money on an AMRAAM capability for the AV-8B (and made them a lot heavier) but I don't know how much they even train in that regime today.
If an AV8-B never shot anything down with an AIM-120, so what?
The F-35B is supposed to be a supersonic, multi-role fighter which can do things Harriers never could do. If you're interested in selling or buying more F-35B's, CAS-only for the F-35B is a counter-productive line of talk.
And the Marine sea-based air wing lacks tanker, SEAD, EW and AEW&C support for taking on any serious air defenses or for supporting deep strike, and doesn't have the assets needed to defend the fleet while conducting offensive ops.
But none of those deficiencies totally preclude an America-class ship from operating in the escort carrier role.
For that matter, the Navy's CVN aviation lacks sufficient tanker, and AEW&C suppoort. The Air Force is and will be providing more and more of those services for Naval air, whether the Navy Dept.'s tactical aircraft have lift fans or tail hooks.
The USMC is still a subset of the US Navy, right?
If an AV8-B never shot anything down with an AIM-120, so what?
The F-35B is supposed to be a supersonic, multi-role fighter which can do things Harriers never could do. If you're interested in selling or buying more F-35B's, CAS-only for the F-35B is a counter-productive line of talk.
And the Marine sea-based air wing lacks tanker, SEAD, EW and AEW&C support for taking on any serious air defenses or for supporting deep strike, and doesn't have the assets needed to defend the fleet while conducting offensive ops.
But none of those deficiencies totally preclude an America-class ship from operating in the escort carrier role.
For that matter, the Navy's CVN aviation lacks sufficient tanker, and AEW&C suppoort. The Air Force is and will be providing more and more of those services for Naval air, whether the Navy Dept.'s tactical aircraft have lift fans or tail hooks.
The USMC is still a subset of the US Navy, right?
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: I have a home where the Junglies roam.
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The Marines spent a lot of money on an AMRAAM capability for the AV-8B"
No, they didn't. They studied it and announced that it was going to be done. And Italy signed for the AV-8B+ on the back of the announced intention. Then the marines decided against the AIM-120 integration, and it never happened. So Italy never received the capability either. The AV-8B+ is perfectly capable of carrying an AMRAAM (pics of Italian and, I think, Spanish ones with inert rounds aren't that rare) but it's never been integrated and so can't be used. The Marines do no AIM-120 training for the AV-8B+ because they don't use it on that aircraft.
No, they didn't. They studied it and announced that it was going to be done. And Italy signed for the AV-8B+ on the back of the announced intention. Then the marines decided against the AIM-120 integration, and it never happened. So Italy never received the capability either. The AV-8B+ is perfectly capable of carrying an AMRAAM (pics of Italian and, I think, Spanish ones with inert rounds aren't that rare) but it's never been integrated and so can't be used. The Marines do no AIM-120 training for the AV-8B+ because they don't use it on that aircraft.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Wenatchee, WA
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LO,
If you or Mr S have taken offense that's too bad. I'm afraid I sit in flight briefs almost every day where one of the first things mentioned is the flight number for that airframe. So I know his facts are inaccurate. Maybe that's why my front porch isn't clogged with lawyers.
I get the impression that a lot of people are missing the point of the F-35. To my mind the reason so many countries and Services want the airplane isn't really for the stealth, or the basing flexibility. Those are very nice-to-haves most days of the week (admittedly they're essential for some such as a SEAD day). The thing that F-35 brings to any/every role that you chose to operate it in though is the sensor suite and the information & awareness it gives the pilot.
I'm sure there are many CAS pilots out there who'd leap at the chance to take a Skyraider in low over Nacho Grande again, into flak so thick you can walk on it. Or an A-10. If we're doing that, I'd fancy my chances in a good old WWII Hawker Typhoon with a load of rockets myself (with sharks' teeth painted on the front of course). But CAS has evolved somewhat and the platform with the best sensors is king (which is why the mighty AV-8Bs were so popular in OIF - because of their Litening II). F-35 has an unparalleled suite of sensors built in, so I reckon it's going to be a pretty popular CAS airplane - it will have a true (i.e. not exaggerated, like many of the current claims are) day/night/through-the-weather capability to prosecute tactical targets.
Good points about the Filthistan runway. Of course the -B will be able to operate off very short strips and bits of road, which is a fine capability to have up your sleeve. But when you come to set up a FARP for real, it's much easier if there are some facilities, even poor quality ones, already in place - taxiways, an ATC tower, some hangars (even ones with holes in them), buildings to live and work in, water supply, power etc. If the runway is really poor, it'll still be a good base to throw your AM2 matting down on, which will save you a lot of work. Which is why I mentioned the 3-6000ft airfields.
Regards,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly
If you or Mr S have taken offense that's too bad. I'm afraid I sit in flight briefs almost every day where one of the first things mentioned is the flight number for that airframe. So I know his facts are inaccurate. Maybe that's why my front porch isn't clogged with lawyers.
I get the impression that a lot of people are missing the point of the F-35. To my mind the reason so many countries and Services want the airplane isn't really for the stealth, or the basing flexibility. Those are very nice-to-haves most days of the week (admittedly they're essential for some such as a SEAD day). The thing that F-35 brings to any/every role that you chose to operate it in though is the sensor suite and the information & awareness it gives the pilot.
I'm sure there are many CAS pilots out there who'd leap at the chance to take a Skyraider in low over Nacho Grande again, into flak so thick you can walk on it. Or an A-10. If we're doing that, I'd fancy my chances in a good old WWII Hawker Typhoon with a load of rockets myself (with sharks' teeth painted on the front of course). But CAS has evolved somewhat and the platform with the best sensors is king (which is why the mighty AV-8Bs were so popular in OIF - because of their Litening II). F-35 has an unparalleled suite of sensors built in, so I reckon it's going to be a pretty popular CAS airplane - it will have a true (i.e. not exaggerated, like many of the current claims are) day/night/through-the-weather capability to prosecute tactical targets.
Good points about the Filthistan runway. Of course the -B will be able to operate off very short strips and bits of road, which is a fine capability to have up your sleeve. But when you come to set up a FARP for real, it's much easier if there are some facilities, even poor quality ones, already in place - taxiways, an ATC tower, some hangars (even ones with holes in them), buildings to live and work in, water supply, power etc. If the runway is really poor, it'll still be a good base to throw your AM2 matting down on, which will save you a lot of work. Which is why I mentioned the 3-6000ft airfields.
Regards,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Second Airbus Military A400M runs all four engines 19:25 GMT, March 18, 2010
The second Airbus Military A400M, known as MSN2, has run all four of its Europrop International (EPI) TP400 turboprop engines in a series of trials after being handed over for flight test.
The aircraft is expected to taxi for the first time shortly and to make its maiden flight from Seville, Spain in a few weeks, joining MSN1 in the sky.
MSN2 will remain based at Seville during the flight-test campaign.
A video of the engine-run can be seen at Video Gallery
The second Airbus Military A400M, known as MSN2, has run all four of its Europrop International (EPI) TP400 turboprop engines in a series of trials after being handed over for flight test.
The aircraft is expected to taxi for the first time shortly and to make its maiden flight from Seville, Spain in a few weeks, joining MSN1 in the sky.
MSN2 will remain based at Seville during the flight-test campaign.
A video of the engine-run can be seen at Video Gallery
Dmanton - Oh dear, they are even more FUBARed than I thought. So they equipped their own fleet and those of their allies with a 500-pound paperweight. Marvellous, bloody marvellous.
SSSETOWTF
Absolutely correct about the direction of CAS in terms of avionics and sensors - and if you look at the Super Hornet it's heading fast in that direction and will cost much less than an F-35B: $80 m versus $125 m (minimal) for acquisition, and $17k/hour versus $31k/hour in operations.
Really doing CAS through-the-weather? That's going to be a bomb-on-coordinate operation, possibly with ground designated laser terminal guidance. Moving targets through the weather? Really tough but the Rhino will get there before the F-35B in my opinion.
And I have my doubts as to whether stealth and supersonic speed (which together account for the F-22-like price tag for the B) are of any more applicability for CAS than the Mod 1 Fireguard, Chocolate.
Absolutely correct about the direction of CAS in terms of avionics and sensors - and if you look at the Super Hornet it's heading fast in that direction and will cost much less than an F-35B: $80 m versus $125 m (minimal) for acquisition, and $17k/hour versus $31k/hour in operations.
Really doing CAS through-the-weather? That's going to be a bomb-on-coordinate operation, possibly with ground designated laser terminal guidance. Moving targets through the weather? Really tough but the Rhino will get there before the F-35B in my opinion.
And I have my doubts as to whether stealth and supersonic speed (which together account for the F-22-like price tag for the B) are of any more applicability for CAS than the Mod 1 Fireguard, Chocolate.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Back of beyond!
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LO
You're wrong, so wrong. We've moved on
Really doing CAS through-the-weather? That's going to be a bomb-on-coordinate operation, possibly with ground designated laser terminal guidance.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You gain on the swings of less training but lose on the roundabouts of maintenance, with a lot of mechanical bits
"Swings and roundabouts" is English English, LO. It's not an American idiom.
"Swings and roundabouts" is English English, LO. It's not an American idiom.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by LowObservable
Dmanton - Oh dear, they are even more FUBARed than I thought. So they equipped their own fleet and those of their allies with a 500-pound paperweight. Marvellous, bloody marvellous.
The APG-65 is much, much more than the "AMRAAM-only" radar you seem to think it is!
In A-A mode, its look-down/shoot-down capabilities are great for finding targets against surface clutter (both water & land), allowing the pilot to find enemy aircraft & set the aircraft up for a better AIM-9 shot. It also features complete search track and automatic acquisition modes such as high pulse repetition frequency (PRF) velocity search, high/medium PRF range-while-search, single target track, and a track-while-scan mode that tracks 10 targets simultaneously and displays eight targets.
This increases air-air capability of the "-B+" even if AMRAAM isn't carried.
Then there are the A-G modes... which are the main reason the USMC wanted to install them...
For air-to-surface operations, the medium-range synthetic aperture radar provides Doppler beam sharpened sector and patch mapping, "real beam" ground mapping modes, as well as fixed and moving ground target track, air-to-surface ranging, terrain avoidance, and precision velocity update functions, and the radar features a sea surface search mode with clutter suppression.
This last especially gives the Italians & Spanish a much better ASuW capability than previously.
Note that all these features ARE active & used in the radar-equipped Harrier IIs... so it is hardly the dead weight you so ignorantly label it.
Using the APG-65 also saved a lot of money over installing new radars (or developing a special version of an existing radar)... they were used systems that had been removed from the USN/USMC F/A-18A/Cs during their upgrade to the APG-73.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Navy Times: Critics: Time to bail on Navy JSF
Is it the beginning of the end for the Navy’s F-35C?
A steady string of bad news for the Joint Strike Fighter program — which includes the Navy’s carrier variant — has some observers suggesting the service abandon its plans to purchase more than 300 of the fifth-generation jets to fill out the future fighter fleet.
The alternative: Continue buying F/A-18E/F Super Hornets from Boeing that have been on carrier decks for almost a decade.
“I think the Navy needs to walk away from the F-35C based on affordability concerns and continue with the Super Hornet,” said one congressional aide who spoke on condition of anonymity because the matter is still being intensely debated on Capitol Hill.
Navy support for the F-35C suffered in mid-March, when Navy Secretary Ray Mabus said the service is open to buying more Super Hornets. The Navy had planned to stop buying Super Hornets in 2013 with the intention of replenishing the fighter fleet with JSFs starting in 2014.
Is it the beginning of the end for the Navy’s F-35C?
A steady string of bad news for the Joint Strike Fighter program — which includes the Navy’s carrier variant — has some observers suggesting the service abandon its plans to purchase more than 300 of the fifth-generation jets to fill out the future fighter fleet.
The alternative: Continue buying F/A-18E/F Super Hornets from Boeing that have been on carrier decks for almost a decade.
“I think the Navy needs to walk away from the F-35C based on affordability concerns and continue with the Super Hornet,” said one congressional aide who spoke on condition of anonymity because the matter is still being intensely debated on Capitol Hill.
Navy support for the F-35C suffered in mid-March, when Navy Secretary Ray Mabus said the service is open to buying more Super Hornets. The Navy had planned to stop buying Super Hornets in 2013 with the intention of replenishing the fighter fleet with JSFs starting in 2014.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In A-A mode, its look-down/shoot-down capabilities are great for finding targets against surface clutter (both water & land), allowing the pilot to find enemy aircraft & set the aircraft up for a better AIM-9 shot. It also features complete search track and automatic acquisition modes such as high pulse repetition frequency (PRF) velocity search, high/medium PRF range-while-search, single target track, and a track-while-scan mode that tracks 10 targets simultaneously and displays eight targets.
This increases air-air capability of the "-B+" even if AMRAAM isn't carried.
Then there are the A-G modes... which are the main reason the USMC wanted to install them...
For air-to-surface operations, the medium-range synthetic aperture radar provides Doppler beam sharpened sector and patch mapping, "real beam" ground mapping modes, as well as fixed and moving ground target track, air-to-surface ranging, terrain avoidance, and precision velocity update functions, and the radar features a sea surface search mode with clutter suppression.
This increases air-air capability of the "-B+" even if AMRAAM isn't carried.
Then there are the A-G modes... which are the main reason the USMC wanted to install them...
For air-to-surface operations, the medium-range synthetic aperture radar provides Doppler beam sharpened sector and patch mapping, "real beam" ground mapping modes, as well as fixed and moving ground target track, air-to-surface ranging, terrain avoidance, and precision velocity update functions, and the radar features a sea surface search mode with clutter suppression.
There must be more targeting methods available, perhaps like the Typhoon.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Kinda knocks the fabled and ludicrously expensive stealth qualities into a top hat when it lights up though.
The size of the intakes on any mark of Harrier, with the large fan blades inside, give them a radar signature about the size of the side of a barn.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Forward Observer: Kill The F-35?
A fully certified expert on warplanes and their weapons who has filled top Pentagon jobs in both Democratic and Republican administrations would order the Air Force and Navy to modernize their shrinking and aging air arms with F-16 fighter bombers and F-18 Es and Fs, respectively, rather than spend additional millions on trying to fix the trouble-plagued F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
But Thomas Christie, whose last Pentagon job was director of weapons testing and evaluation for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, told me in recommending cancellation of the F-35 that "it's not going to happen" even though it should.
The kind of politics that wastes taxpayers' dollars will win out, Christie predicted in a voice of resignation, if not disgust. He said government leaders will keep the F-35 JSF alive no matter how sick it gets so they will have something to show for all the money they spent on it......
A fully certified expert on warplanes and their weapons who has filled top Pentagon jobs in both Democratic and Republican administrations would order the Air Force and Navy to modernize their shrinking and aging air arms with F-16 fighter bombers and F-18 Es and Fs, respectively, rather than spend additional millions on trying to fix the trouble-plagued F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
But Thomas Christie, whose last Pentagon job was director of weapons testing and evaluation for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, told me in recommending cancellation of the F-35 that "it's not going to happen" even though it should.
The kind of politics that wastes taxpayers' dollars will win out, Christie predicted in a voice of resignation, if not disgust. He said government leaders will keep the F-35 JSF alive no matter how sick it gets so they will have something to show for all the money they spent on it......
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
AWST (Ares): JSF - The GAO Weighs In
The good news for the JSF program in the March 20 Government Accountability Office report – combined with the other numbers released in March – is that the program is no longer at risk of failure.
The bad news is that it has already failed.
The strategic goal of JSF was to repeal Augustine’s Law XVI and enable the customers to replace existing fleets approximately one-for-one, while increasing the capability of each aircraft.
The path to this goal was to use commonality to reach high production quantities, supporting high production rates and thereby containing procurement costs. At the same time, new technology was intended to reduce operating costs. The core doctrine was "cost as an independent variable" and the key function of the four-year X-plane program was to define a joint set of requirements that could be met at a low, fixed cost.
It’s now clear that the strategic goal is out of reach. Even if today’s base-2010 average procurement unit costs ($106+ million for the F-35A and $127+ million for the B/C) are attained, the customers cannot afford planned production rates. Current USAF fighter funding – comprising, today, R&D and LRIP for the F-35 – will support 48 jets per year instead of the 80 required to recapitalize the force. Operational costs are predicted to exceed those of earlier fighters, in some cases by large margins.
There will also be a spiral effect as the lower rates result in higher unit costs, and this has not yet been modelled. Its severity will also depend on factors yet to be quantified, such as how international partners respond to the cost increases.
So the plan has failed - as did the previous plan to replace air combat fleets en masse with stealth aircraft, started in the mid-1980s...........
The good news for the JSF program in the March 20 Government Accountability Office report – combined with the other numbers released in March – is that the program is no longer at risk of failure.
The bad news is that it has already failed.
The strategic goal of JSF was to repeal Augustine’s Law XVI and enable the customers to replace existing fleets approximately one-for-one, while increasing the capability of each aircraft.
The path to this goal was to use commonality to reach high production quantities, supporting high production rates and thereby containing procurement costs. At the same time, new technology was intended to reduce operating costs. The core doctrine was "cost as an independent variable" and the key function of the four-year X-plane program was to define a joint set of requirements that could be met at a low, fixed cost.
It’s now clear that the strategic goal is out of reach. Even if today’s base-2010 average procurement unit costs ($106+ million for the F-35A and $127+ million for the B/C) are attained, the customers cannot afford planned production rates. Current USAF fighter funding – comprising, today, R&D and LRIP for the F-35 – will support 48 jets per year instead of the 80 required to recapitalize the force. Operational costs are predicted to exceed those of earlier fighters, in some cases by large margins.
There will also be a spiral effect as the lower rates result in higher unit costs, and this has not yet been modelled. Its severity will also depend on factors yet to be quantified, such as how international partners respond to the cost increases.
So the plan has failed - as did the previous plan to replace air combat fleets en masse with stealth aircraft, started in the mid-1980s...........