F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Tm 74 - Let's just say that the MoD had painted itself into a corner in a way that makes these guys look like Einsteins.
Last edited by LowObservable; 6th Jun 2013 at 18:36.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Australian Federal Parliament House of Representatives Thursday, 16
May 2013
PARLIAMENTARY JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND
TRADE
Department of Defence annual report 2011-12 (Public)
May 2013
PARLIAMENTARY JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND
TRADE
Department of Defence annual report 2011-12 (Public)
LW - The C is 5500 lb heavier (OEW) than the A, even without an internal gun, and with its monster wing its acceleration is much slower than the A.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Short recollections throughout this thread! None of these figures applied in the seductive year of 2001 with Angus and John. Quite a difference. How things evolve!
I'll let you have the fun of looking at the f-111 price creep, but if you have trouble finding it
1965 Initial contract target price $2,067.2
Current contract target price $4,657.1
Government estimate of price at completion $5,344-o
australia placed order in 1963
@LO,
USN hasn't had any interest in the uprated engine for the SH, that's been offered for ages and they still don't, nor have they any interest in the proposed changes to the SH, or they would fund it
the wing issue of the f-35c was known since the wind tunnel tests, if it was a no-go they would have said so 10 years ago and handed it back to the engineers to come up with something else
Last edited by JSFfan; 6th Jun 2013 at 22:38.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lonewolf and others,
I've posted this before, but it might help to repeat it.
The JSF/F-35 programme was a US Department of Defense (DoD) response to a series of failed tactical aircraft programmes in the 1970s and 80s. (NATF, AX, A-12, etc.) The military (and their DoD technical advisors) came to the conclusion that as long as the USAF and USN were trying to buy large twin engined aircraft, the risks of weight growth, and associated cost growth, were just too great. The F-22 programme just served to underline the fact that even the USA could not afford to build large aircraft of this type.
The solution developed (within the DoD's OSD) was to force the next generation tactical aircraft to a single engined single seat configuration to constrain weight and therefore cost.
This policy was implemented via a series of steps which included the STOVL Strike Fighter (SSF) project for the USMC, CALF, JAST and on to JSF. The main technology enablers included a next generation engine (lighter and more fuel efficient) and fully networked mission systems with ab highly advanced sensor suite.
You can disagree with their reasoning, and point out where you might think they've gone wrong, but that's basically what happened. In this case, I don't think you can pin the blame on the politicians.
The USN, by the way, have consistently (since around 1997) declared their policy of buying Super Hornets until the F-35C comes along, and then operating a mixed force. And they've always said they'll flex numbers to fit the F-35C programme. In retrospect, they have done a good job a managing their tactical aircraft fleet (Incidentally, don't forget how many times the Super Hornet came under the spotlight with flight test issues)
The USMC will manage their AV-8B fleet as best they can (buying up the UK fleet helped them a lot) until F-35B comes along. It's later than they wanted, but they'll suck it up.
In my view, the USAF are in a bad corner as their F-15 and F-16 fleets are ageing fast and aren't going to last much longer. This doesn't get much reporting, but they've spent billions on two attempts to extend F-16 fatigue life with not much to show for it. They have already lost early F-15s to fatigue failures. Doesn't necessarily make them bad aircraft (I think they're great aircraft) but they are not getting any younger.
Hope this helps
Engines
I've posted this before, but it might help to repeat it.
The JSF/F-35 programme was a US Department of Defense (DoD) response to a series of failed tactical aircraft programmes in the 1970s and 80s. (NATF, AX, A-12, etc.) The military (and their DoD technical advisors) came to the conclusion that as long as the USAF and USN were trying to buy large twin engined aircraft, the risks of weight growth, and associated cost growth, were just too great. The F-22 programme just served to underline the fact that even the USA could not afford to build large aircraft of this type.
The solution developed (within the DoD's OSD) was to force the next generation tactical aircraft to a single engined single seat configuration to constrain weight and therefore cost.
This policy was implemented via a series of steps which included the STOVL Strike Fighter (SSF) project for the USMC, CALF, JAST and on to JSF. The main technology enablers included a next generation engine (lighter and more fuel efficient) and fully networked mission systems with ab highly advanced sensor suite.
You can disagree with their reasoning, and point out where you might think they've gone wrong, but that's basically what happened. In this case, I don't think you can pin the blame on the politicians.
The USN, by the way, have consistently (since around 1997) declared their policy of buying Super Hornets until the F-35C comes along, and then operating a mixed force. And they've always said they'll flex numbers to fit the F-35C programme. In retrospect, they have done a good job a managing their tactical aircraft fleet (Incidentally, don't forget how many times the Super Hornet came under the spotlight with flight test issues)
The USMC will manage their AV-8B fleet as best they can (buying up the UK fleet helped them a lot) until F-35B comes along. It's later than they wanted, but they'll suck it up.
In my view, the USAF are in a bad corner as their F-15 and F-16 fleets are ageing fast and aren't going to last much longer. This doesn't get much reporting, but they've spent billions on two attempts to extend F-16 fatigue life with not much to show for it. They have already lost early F-15s to fatigue failures. Doesn't necessarily make them bad aircraft (I think they're great aircraft) but they are not getting any younger.
Hope this helps
Engines
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
came to the conclusion that as long as the USAF and USN were trying to buy large twin engined aircraft, the risks of weight growth, and associated cost growth, were just too great.
gr
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,581
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
-35A completes 1st in-flight missile [AIM-120] launch
F-35A completes 1st in-flight missile launch 06 Jun 2013
F-35A completes 1st in-flight missile launch
CAPTION: "An F-35A conventional take-off and landing aircraft completed the first in-flight missile launch of an AIM-120 over the Point Mugu Sea test range on June 5, 2013. (Courtesy F-35 Program Office)"
http://www.af.mil/shared/media/photo...-FJ123-001.jpg (3.5Mb)
Click thumbnail for edited photo:
"6/6/2013 - EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. (AFNS) -- An F-35A conventional takeoff and landing aircraft completed the first in-flight missile launch of an AIM-120 over the Point Mugu Sea Test Range, June 5.
It was the first launch where the F-35 and AIM-120 demonstrated a successful launch-to-eject communications sequence and fired the rocket motor after launch -- paving the way for targeted launches in support of the Block 2B fleet release capability later this year...."
It was the first launch where the F-35 and AIM-120 demonstrated a successful launch-to-eject communications sequence and fired the rocket motor after launch -- paving the way for targeted launches in support of the Block 2B fleet release capability later this year...."
CAPTION: "An F-35A conventional take-off and landing aircraft completed the first in-flight missile launch of an AIM-120 over the Point Mugu Sea test range on June 5, 2013. (Courtesy F-35 Program Office)"
http://www.af.mil/shared/media/photo...-FJ123-001.jpg (3.5Mb)
Click thumbnail for edited photo:
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
glad rag, the hornet ab price doubled
I'll let you have the fun of looking at the f-111 price creep, but if you have trouble finding it
U.S. GENERAL accounting office GAO 1973
1965 Initial contract target price $2,067.2
Current contract target price $4,657.1
Government estimate of price at completion $5,344-o
australia placed order in 1963
the 70% f-35 increase is a bargain compared to past efforts that australia has bought
why don't you have a look at the UK f-4 and let us know how that went?
I'll let you have the fun of looking at the f-111 price creep, but if you have trouble finding it
U.S. GENERAL accounting office GAO 1973
1965 Initial contract target price $2,067.2
Current contract target price $4,657.1
Government estimate of price at completion $5,344-o
australia placed order in 1963
the 70% f-35 increase is a bargain compared to past efforts that australia has bought
why don't you have a look at the UK f-4 and let us know how that went?
Last edited by JSFfan; 6th Jun 2013 at 23:17.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In 1963, the US Air Force estimated -the unit cost of the F-111a to be $3.57 million.
At 1969 the US Air Force's unit cost estimate was $13.2 million
just a tad of a price rise
bizarre is people suggesting that the f-35 is some how unique in its price and time
At 1969 the US Air Force's unit cost estimate was $13.2 million
just a tad of a price rise
bizarre is people suggesting that the f-35 is some how unique in its price and time
Last edited by JSFfan; 6th Jun 2013 at 23:41.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by kbrockman
...the avionics on the latest SH are at least equal to the F35...
Originally Posted by JSFfanboy
...Janes said the aussies costed the 24 SH at $24k and the 75 f-35 at $21k per hour...
The F-35s will be in service far longer and, as such, they will require a higher degree of uniformed support and warehousing etc. Although more expensive to set up than the Super Hornet 'turn-key' arrangement, this should work out cheaper over the life of type.
A more accurate comparision would be with the classic Hornet due to a similar number to be operated and an anticipated similar life of type period.
Originally Posted by JSFfanboy
...the price hasn't doubled yet, like it did with the fa-18ab...
Last edited by FoxtrotAlpha18; 7th Jun 2013 at 05:07.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 52
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whatever the F35 turns out to be, the Norwegian (Kongsberg) JSM certainly promisses to be a very potent weapon.
150Nm range.
PICTURES: Why Norway wants the Joint Strike Missile - The DEW Line
150Nm range.
PICTURES: Why Norway wants the Joint Strike Missile - The DEW Line
Engines - That's pretty close to how it happened, with a few caveats.
Anyone who thought that simply mandating single-seat/single-engine would automatically constrain costs was being simplistic. There was a hope that the JSF would be in the Classic Hornet weight bracket but it went out of the window pretty quickly, with the result that the aircraft is in the Super H class, nudging up against the F-15.
Of the technology enablers, the lighter-engine bit did not pan out and networking could be built into any platform. However, a very important enabler was the "every weapon a precision weapon" concept of JDAM, which was well under way by 1996. This was what allowed the operators to accept a basic two-bomb internal load (down from 12 klb in the A-12, about 6-8 klb in AX and 4 bombs in A/F-X).
Also, while F-35B is sold as maintaining the Marines' sea-based air and their ability to operate off any 3,000 foot stretch of runway that has a 100-foot-square slab of continuously reinforced refractory concrete next to it, it's actually replacing the F/A-18 Classics first.
Anyone who thought that simply mandating single-seat/single-engine would automatically constrain costs was being simplistic. There was a hope that the JSF would be in the Classic Hornet weight bracket but it went out of the window pretty quickly, with the result that the aircraft is in the Super H class, nudging up against the F-15.
Of the technology enablers, the lighter-engine bit did not pan out and networking could be built into any platform. However, a very important enabler was the "every weapon a precision weapon" concept of JDAM, which was well under way by 1996. This was what allowed the operators to accept a basic two-bomb internal load (down from 12 klb in the A-12, about 6-8 klb in AX and 4 bombs in A/F-X).
Also, while F-35B is sold as maintaining the Marines' sea-based air and their ability to operate off any 3,000 foot stretch of runway that has a 100-foot-square slab of continuously reinforced refractory concrete next to it, it's actually replacing the F/A-18 Classics first.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glad, LO,
Thanks for coming back - perhaps a short response can help.
Glad, what I didn't make clear was that the 'weight growth' I was referring to was the 'Design To' weight - that's the target weight for the concept you've arrived at. The problem the DoD faced was that these weights were going up all the time as the desired aircraft got bigger and more complex. The F-22 is a decent example of that problem.
By contrast, the 'weight growth' problem with the F-35 was more to do with a failure to keep close enough to the 'design to' weight - and it took the USN weight experts to tell LM that the aircraft was badly overweight.
LO, I agree that the 'single engined single seat will cut costs' argument might appear simplistic, but I'm probably guilty of expressing the DoD's thought process in a simplistic way. They had done a fair bit (actually a hell of a lot) of work that underpinned their conclusion that any twin engined aircraft the USAF or USN came up with would be too big ever to be affordable. The single engined concept was made possible by advancing technology (i.e. F135) that allowed an aircraft of the desired weight with a single engine.
LO, not sure I quite understand your reference to a 3000 foot runway and the special concrete for the F-35B. The aircraft can operate off a 1,500 foot runway with the specified load for that mission, and the special concrete is for a specific VTOL training pad. There are a number of techniques that can significantly reduce the thermal footprint of the B, including a creeping landing. (JF may be able to help here - I think that this was a technique used on Mexepads in the 60s). However, happy to be corrected. And the F-35B's replacing the AV-8Bs first, as far as I understand the programme.
Best Regards as ever to those who have to do the hard sums for real,
Engines
Thanks for coming back - perhaps a short response can help.
Glad, what I didn't make clear was that the 'weight growth' I was referring to was the 'Design To' weight - that's the target weight for the concept you've arrived at. The problem the DoD faced was that these weights were going up all the time as the desired aircraft got bigger and more complex. The F-22 is a decent example of that problem.
By contrast, the 'weight growth' problem with the F-35 was more to do with a failure to keep close enough to the 'design to' weight - and it took the USN weight experts to tell LM that the aircraft was badly overweight.
LO, I agree that the 'single engined single seat will cut costs' argument might appear simplistic, but I'm probably guilty of expressing the DoD's thought process in a simplistic way. They had done a fair bit (actually a hell of a lot) of work that underpinned their conclusion that any twin engined aircraft the USAF or USN came up with would be too big ever to be affordable. The single engined concept was made possible by advancing technology (i.e. F135) that allowed an aircraft of the desired weight with a single engine.
LO, not sure I quite understand your reference to a 3000 foot runway and the special concrete for the F-35B. The aircraft can operate off a 1,500 foot runway with the specified load for that mission, and the special concrete is for a specific VTOL training pad. There are a number of techniques that can significantly reduce the thermal footprint of the B, including a creeping landing. (JF may be able to help here - I think that this was a technique used on Mexepads in the 60s). However, happy to be corrected. And the F-35B's replacing the AV-8Bs first, as far as I understand the programme.
Best Regards as ever to those who have to do the hard sums for real,
Engines
If you look at the program from a meta perspective, B was also hoped to feed (and up production runs) the "not quite a carrier" carrier fleets of folks like UK, Italy ... et al, (I'd need to check on Spain, can't recall if they've gone for a similar capability) who have carrier borne aircraft but no catapults.
Engines, I appreciate your technical perspective on that, but will suggest to you that the "If it's Joint it must be better" attitude did indeed originate on Capitol Hill. As previously noted, JPATS/T-6 Texas II is one such goat rope.
Joint Acquisition in selected sectors is actually a good idea. Beans, boots, common comms suites, and more all benefit from economies of scale and reduced duplication.
Enough on my personal peeve, the services adapted to the Political Requirement (Congress writes the cheques) because they had to. A whole lot of kicking and screaming went on internally, not all of it for public dissemination.
Engines, I appreciate your technical perspective on that, but will suggest to you that the "If it's Joint it must be better" attitude did indeed originate on Capitol Hill. As previously noted, JPATS/T-6 Texas II is one such goat rope.
Joint Acquisition in selected sectors is actually a good idea. Beans, boots, common comms suites, and more all benefit from economies of scale and reduced duplication.
Enough on my personal peeve, the services adapted to the Political Requirement (Congress writes the cheques) because they had to. A whole lot of kicking and screaming went on internally, not all of it for public dissemination.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 7th Jun 2013 at 16:27.
Engines - The Marine Corps always talks about 3000 foot runways, which does seem long for a STOVL - but I suspect that they have realized that they are not always going to be able to operate without an airborne logistics line provided by KC-130s, particularly in hybrid-warfare situations where land routes will be targeted by insurgents.
As for creeping and rolling VLs: I await the demonstration of true improvised-base ops with great interest.
As for creeping and rolling VLs: I await the demonstration of true improvised-base ops with great interest.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
but will suggest to you that the "If it's Joint it must be better" attitude did indeed originate on Capitol Hill