F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

[NutLoose]

The RAF have a contingency plan in force and testing is under way at a secret Wiltshire base that will both satisfy the Ex Harrier pilots and F-35 doubters

Flying bike Jan tleskac - YouTube

[SpazSinbad]

Weeza Doomed

'NutLoose' I won't watch your video above if you do not watch this one.

Paris Air Show 2013: Sukhoi Su-35S

"Published on Jun 16, 2013
Sukhoi's Su-35S made its debut at the 2013 Paris air show and with exceptional maneuverability, the fighter is set to be the star of the show."

Paris Air Show 2013: Sukhoi Su-35S - YouTube

[Killface]

........................Ha

[JSFfan]

“Turbo” Tomassetti Reflects on the Future of the F-35

Vimeo

[Eclectic]

Surely the argument for the Sukhoi SU-35S is less than that for a Eurocanard with thrust vectoring and updated avionics.

If/when the F35 is cancelled or fails to deliver we would be forced to cat and trap our carrier. Folding wing updated Typhoons would be nice but would involve the MoD and BAe. Which makes Rafael or Superhornet a better option. But would we buy a major off the shelf French weapon system?

The F18 was first introduced in 1983. Although it has evolved it is still largely a 30 year old platform. The SU-27 is a similar age. Typhoon is a full two decades more modern.

[orca]

And that sort of ill informed comparison is exactly my point (well, one of them)...the Super Hornet is continually tarred with the brush of being something old that has been upgraded - not true in the slightest. The difference between Rhino and Hornet is staggering, and isn't limited to size and some square intakes.

We don't, by way of fair comparison, take the EAP as the original Typhoon now do we?

[LowObservable]

In some ways the Su-35 is like the JAS 39E - the outside looks the same but the inside is very different. It would be interesting to know how many original Su-27 parts are in there, and my guess would be "not very many".

But if you have a good design and your fighter requirements don't call for higher speeds, greater range and payload, or anything that would drive you to a new platform, why not?

Obviously if you want stealth, you change the platform. But as we're seeing it's difficult. Just how difficult, we are seeing as we speak, as DOT&E Gilmore prepares to unload on the JSF before the Senate.

[t43562]

It's interesting to note the argument about "people with baggage" who need to "learn and accept the new technology." I have seen that argument used often to silence critics of new software which turns out to be a steaming heap of manure in the end anyhow. The implication is also usually made that new users will not have this baggage and will therefore accept the substandard product as being "good". This is like religions trying to brainwash children.

I have been on both sides of the issue and I'm well aware of how people who don't use something themselves every day think they know all about what it should be and how people that do are perhaps not aware of what new things are possible. My conclusion is that critical thinking and experimentation are required all the time and that when you cease to use evidence and cease to mistrust unproven claims and resort to any sort of social pressure it's a sign that your product is crap.

[MSOCS]

We don't, by way of fair comparison, take the EAP as the original Typhoon now do we?

But you could in that particular example....it hasn't really improved!

[Killface]

JAS 39E - the outside looks the same but the inside is very different.

I have yet to see a production JAS-39E, the F was canceled and the Sea Gripen is a wet dream, so I guess I will take your word for it.

how many original Su-27 parts are in there, and my guess would be "not very many".

Whatever they put in there now has added thousands of pounds, I know that much.

[MSOCS]

The Sea Gripen is as much of a wet dream as a 'Sea Typhoon' and many underestimate the re-design and cost required on the current platform to make it a carrier platform. Furthermore, neither would be ready to replace F-35B or C on the QEC ships.

The only real options that are out there are SH and Rafale if you want to minimise the sticker shock of losing F-35 at this stage.

Folding wing updated Typhoons would be nice but would involve the MoD and BAe. Which makes Rafael or Superhornet a better option. But would we buy a major off the shelf French weapon system?

Yes, this Government would entertain buying a French OTS weapon system! They declared as much in SDSR 10.

[orca]

I think we would have to involve the MoD at some point.

[MSOCS]

thereby removing any possibility of reaching an agreement!

[JSFfan]

In some ways the Su-35 is like the JAS 39E - the outside looks the same but the inside is very different. It would be interesting to know how many original Su-27 parts are in there, and my guess would be "not very many".

But if you have a good design and your fighter requirements don't call for higher speeds, greater range and payload, or anything that would drive you to a new platform, why not?

Obviously if you want stealth, you change the platform. But as we're seeing it's difficult. Just how difficult, we are seeing as we speak, as DOT&E Gilmore prepares to unload on the JSF before the Senate.

LO, I wouldn't take too much notice of that clown sweetman's ideas, even though it's amusing for some
Stealth completely obsolete according to Bill|F-35|Forum :: F-16.net

I'm pretty sure the PAK-FA indicates russia is wanting more and driving them to a new platform

[SpazSinbad]

Gilmore Testimony SASC 19 Jun 2013 excerpts

Some items of 'obvious' interest to me are excerpted below from - plenty more in the 107Kb PDF at URL...

DR. J. MICHAEL GILMORE, DIRECTOR, OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE; BEFORE THE SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEFENSE 19 Jun 2013

"...The program has also dedicated 42 flights to investigating deficiencies in the helmet mounted display system. Seven aircraft from all three variants flew test missions from October 2012 through May 2013 to investigate jitter in the helmet mounted display system, night vision camera acuity, latency in the Distributed Aperture System projection, and light leakage onto the helmet display under low-light conditions. Although some progress has been achieved, results of these tests have been mixed according to comments from the test pilots. Testing could not be completed within the full operational flight envelope evaluating mission-related tasks, as the full combat flight envelope has not been released. Filters for reducing the effects of jitter have been helpful, but have introduced instability, or “swimming,” of the projected symbology. Night vision acuity was assessed as not acceptable with the current night vision camera, but may be improved with the ISIE-11 camera under consideration by the program. Latency with the Distributed Aperture System projection has improved from earlier versions of software, but has not yet been tested in operationally representative scenarios. Light leakage onto the helmet display may be addressed with fine-tuning adjustments of the symbology brightness - a process pilots will have to accomplish as ambient and background levels of light change. Although not an objective of the dedicated testing, alignment and “double vision” problems have also been identified by pilots and were noted in my report earlier this year on the F-35A Ready for Training Operational Utility Evaluation (OUE). Whether the progress achieved in resolving the problems discussed immediately above has been adequate will likely not be known with confidence until the Block 2B operational evaluation is conducted in 2015...."

_____________________________

"...Ship Integration
The program plans to conduct the second set of ship trials with two F-35B test aircraft in August 2013. Test objectives for this deployment include conducting night operations, carrying stores, evaluating the carrier landing system, and expanding the take-off and vertical landing envelope for varying wind-over-deck conditions and for a broader range of aircraft weight and center of gravity conditions. Flying qualities with an updated version of control software, based on data taken during the first deployment, will be assessed. Two SDD test aircraft will be operated by program test pilots during the test. Minimal changes to USS Wasp are anticipated, as this will be the second deployment to the ship. Some restrictions to the electromagnetic environment on the ship may be necessary as a result of the electromagnetic environmental effects testing on the aircraft. The logistics support environment will not be representative of fleet operations; rather, it will be similar to that used in the first ship trials in 2011 that employed workarounds to reach back to land-based systems and personnel as necessary to sustain operations.

The test center also plans to train additional test pilots to be qualified in STOVL operations for the deployment, and for conducting land-based work-up maneuvers...."

_____________________________

"...The program intends to conduct the first set of carrier-based ship trials with two F-35C test aircraft in the summer of 2014. The prerequisite activity with the aircraft leading up to the sea-borne trials is extensive. The new arresting hook system – which has yet to start the planned verification, structural, or durability testing – will have to be installed on both aircraft, and shore-based roll-in testing and hook engagement testing completed with one aircraft, which will compose approximately six months of testing. An improved nose landing gear drag brace, required for catapult launches, will also be a part of the pre-deployment set of modifications. Both aircraft will need to undergo electromagnetic environmental effects testing prior to deployment. For the carrier, the Department of the Navy is working integration issues that will need to be resolved prior to the first operational deployment, but will not necessarily be solved prior to the first set of ship trials. Examples of integration issues include storage of the lithium-ion batteries on the carrier, resupplying engines while underway, and integration of the autonomic logistics information system. Some initial noise and thermal effects testing have been completed at land-based test facilities, and will be a part of the test activity during the first ship trial period. Modifications of the jet blast deflector system on the carrier may be necessary prior to the ship-borne trials to ensure adequate cooling of the deflector during JSF operations...."

http://elpdefensenews.********.com.a...ent-needs.html PDF download 107Kb
OR
Eric Palmer blog: Senate testimony--F-35 development needs more money-time

[LowObservable]

It seems we are witnessing what "too big to fail" means.

It means that instead of making the painful admission that the contractor signed up to do something that they could not, and that the customer failed to control the deviation of reality from the promise, DoD will spend any amount and sacrifice any capability to drag the program over a hastily repainted finish line.

[kbrockman]

Like the F117, F22 and B2 before, reality will catch up with the F35

Cost of F35 can come down 50%, the way of achieving this might be a bit
controversial according to this testimony before the Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee.
F-35 Rollout: Halving the Procurement Could Save $5B | Brookings Institution

Editor's Note: In testimony before the Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, Michael O'Hanlon gave recommendations for alternatives to the planned F-35 roll out. A supporter of the program, O'Hanlon believes the planned buy of 2,500 planes could be cut in half, saving at least $5 billion annually in production costs.
...
n other words, while I am a supporter of the program, I am also a critic about the scale of the planned procurement. Even as drones have become much more effective, even as precision-guided ordnance has become devastatingly accurate, and even as real-time surveillance and information grids have evolved rapidly, plans for modernizing manned combat systems have remained essentially at previous quantitative levels.

All together, the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps still plan to buy nearly 2,500 F-35 combat jets at a total acquisition price of more than $300 billion in constant 2013 dollars. Production is just beginning at low rates, with the big ramp-up expected in the next few years. The Pentagon will spend about $15 billion annually on the plane starting in mid-decade. Three-fourths of the projected funds are yet to be spent. The Pentagon’s independent cost assessment office believes the average unit procurement price could be 15 to 20 percent higher than official estimates, exceeding $115 million per plane in 2013 dollars. And once purchased, the same office estimates that the F-35 will also cost one-third more to operate in real terms than planes like the F-16 and F-18 that it is replacing.

.....

It is important to acknowledge some strengths of the F-35, though, and to challenge some common criticisms. Some have opposed the Marine Corps variant of the plane (the F-35B), with its extra engine as needed for short or vertical take offs and landings. But in fact, that variant has value for an era in which airfields are increasingly vulnerable to precision ordnance of the types that countries such as Iran and China are fielding. The United States needs enough F-35Bs to be able to populate bases nearest potential combat zones, such as the Gulf states (for scenarios involving Iran) and Okinawa (in regard to China). As Marine Corps Commandant General James Amos has noted, there are ten times as many 3,000 foot runways in the world adequate for such short-takeoff jets as there are 8,0000 foot runways suitable for conventional aircraft—and the Marines can lay down an expeditionary 3,000 foot runway in a matter of days in other places.[3]

An alternative concept for F-35 production could be as follows:

Purchase a total of 1,250 instead of 2,500.
Leave the Marine Corps plan largely as is, scaling back only by 10 to 20 percent to account more fully for the proven capacity of unmanned aerial vehicles to carry out some missions previously handled by manned aircraft.
Cancel the Navy variant (the F-35C), with its relatively limited range compared with likely needs—buying more F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets in the meantime while committing more firmly to development of a longer-range unmanned carrier-capable attack aircraft. [4] The X-47B unmanned system, which completed demonstration tests on a carrier in 2012, is scheduled to conduct flight operations from an aircraft carrier in 2013, so this capability is progressing.[5]
Reduce Air Force numbers, currently expected to exceed 1,700 F-35 planes, by almost half.

Of the 800 planes that the Air Force was counting on, but would not get under this approach, the difference can be made up in the following ways. First, cut back 200 planes by eliminating two tactical fighter wings. Second, view the 200 large combat-capable unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) currently owned by the Air Force, together with the 300 or more on the way, as viable replacements for some manned fighter planes. The Air Force is buying the equivalent of five wings of large UAVs; perhaps it could transform two manned combat wings into unmanned combat aircraft wings as a result.[6] For the remaining planes, employ further purchases of F-16 jets and refurbishments of existing F-16s to make up the difference as needed.[7]

This approach will produce net savings of some $60 billion in Air Force aircraft purchase costs. The F-16 option is still available since the production line is currently making aircraft for Morocco and Oman among others, but it may not remain open for more than a couple years, so this option could have to be exercised fairly promptly to make economic sense.[8] Additional savings in the Marine Corps and Navy will add up to another $20 billion to $25 billion.

Average annual savings from this alternative approach to F-35 production might be $5 billion. Over time up to another $2 billion a year or so in savings would be achievable in operating accounts from the sum total of all these changes in tactical aircraft. These savings will not kick in right away, since it is important to get the F-35 production line working efficiently to keep unit costs in check. More of the savings will accrue in the 2020s.

[kbrockman]

This was an interesting quote indeed.....

Originally Posted by Spaszinbad

DR. J. MICHAEL GILMORE, DIRECTOR, OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE; BEFORE THE SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEFENSE 19 Jun 2013

"...The program has also dedicated 42 flights to investigating deficiencies in the helmet mounted display system. Seven aircraft from all three variants flew test missions from October 2012 through May 2013 to investigate jitter in the helmet mounted display system, night vision camera acuity, latency in the Distributed Aperture System projection, and light leakage onto the helmet display under low-light conditions. Although some progress has been achieved, results of these tests have been mixed according to comments from the test pilots. Testing could not be completed within the full operational flight envelope evaluating mission-related tasks, as the full combat flight envelope has not been released. Filters for reducing the effects of jitter have been helpful, but have introduced instability, or “swimming,” of the projected symbology. Night vision acuity was assessed as not acceptable with the current night vision camera, but may be improved with the ISIE-11 camera under consideration by the program. Latency with the Distributed Aperture System projection has improved from earlier versions of software, but has not yet been tested in operationally representative scenarios. Light leakage onto the helmet display may be addressed with fine-tuning adjustments of the symbology brightness - a process pilots will have to accomplish as ambient and background levels of light change. Although not an objective of the dedicated testing, alignment and “double vision” problems have also been identified by pilots and were noted in my report earlier this year on the F-35A Ready for Training Operational Utility Evaluation (OUE). Whether the progress achieved in resolving the problems discussed immediately above has been adequate will likely not be known with confidence until the Block 2B operational evaluation is conducted in 2015...."
_____________________________

....but he also said some other very interesting things,...
F35 program may be unaffordable, auditor says | The Center for Public Integrity

Originally Posted by J. MICHAEL GILMORE before the panel

the Pentagon’s chief weapons tester, warned that the fighter’s costs are climbing – not shrinking as they typically do once production begins -- as officials scramble to fix problems cropping up during flight tests of planes already delivered by the manufacturer, Lockheed Martin Corp. The “most challenging portions” of the testing have not yet begun, he said.

“We haven’t actually tested any combat capability,” Gilmore told senators, adding that there may not be enough time or money for full testing of these crucial capabilities in 2018, as scheduled.

Gilmore warned that F-35 may suffer further delays due to the budget sequester. “Reduced funding for test resources and infrastructure while the F-35 is under development . . . will likely add to the pressure to either extend [the design and development phase] or accept reductions in capability,” he said.

He blamed the high cost of making design and production changes on “concurrency,” the practice of buying planes even as they are undergoing testing. “Production in this program started before there was any flight testing at all, which was unprecedented in the history of aircraft development programs,” Gilmore said. “That’s about as concurrent as you can get – that’s pretty much 100 percent concurrency. Obviously that’s a bad thing.

“We need to have more rigorous developmental testing. We need to let that testing proceed before we make production decisions,” he added.

....and finally to support LowObservable's assessment.

Durbin asked “if any alternative is being considered for a less costly fighter.” He was told the country could not afford to start from scratch.

“I don’t believe we have any alternative but to make the program work,” Gilmore said.

[JSFfan]

The partners already know there is a high probability that there is going to be a 3f slip, that's why the f-35a is going IOC in block 3i.

[John Farley]

Some have opposed the Marine Corps variant of the plane (the F-35B), with its extra engine as needed for short or vertical take offs and landings

Nuff said really.