F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

[kbrockman]

Originally Posted by 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.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting your comment but I don't think they where
criticizing the B-version, if anything they where actually endorsing it

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.

and

Leave the Marine Corps plan largely as is,

Which seems like they have a rather favourable view of the B as opposed to what they propose should have to happen with the C and a substantial reduction for the USAF's A.

Also this is a think-tank interviewed by the senate committee, only one of the possible solutions that could be used to manage total program costs.
the reason I posted it is just to show that, like with the F117-B2 and F22, it still is very much a possibility that we will never see the preset volumes produced, not for the US DOD, and most of its customers.
Slashing the totals produced by 50% (maybe even more) is far from impossible.

[JSFfan]

no, he means your first linked story was rubbish, look at the citations and dates, let alone he thinks the f-35b has 2 engines
Michael O'Hanlon submission wanted the f-35c canceled and buy all shornets, he and boeing think that, no one important to the programme does

[kbrockman]

Originally Posted by JSFfan

no, he means your first linked story was rubbish, look at the citations and dates, let alone he thinks the f-35b has 2 engines

The "rubbish story" is actually a report about the senate hearings yesterday june 19th 2013, somehow that seems rather current to me.
Also you're being daft with your 2 engines comment, anybody with half a brain clearly understand the comments as it relates to the F35B which does have the vertical lift turbine which they define as a second engine.
It might be a somewhat poetic and broad interpretation of the definition engine but I hardly think that all involved don't know exactly what was meant here.

[JSFfan]

perhaps if you read the story again, look at the bottom of the page, 2011 and 2012 links
F-35 Rollout: Halving the Procurement Could Save $5B | Brookings Institution

and he can't do maths, it was going up 50% from his quoted link
Exclusive: U.S. sees lifetime cost of F-35 fighter at $1.45 trillion | Reuters

[kbrockman]

Originally Posted by JSFfan

perhaps if you read the story again, look at the bottom of the page, 2011 and 2012 links
F-35 Rollout: Halving the Procurement Could Save $5B | Brookings Institution

So Hanlon wasn't testifying yesterday?
Strange, the senate certainly seemed to be under the impression they where talking to him.

[Killface]

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.

So its like the Super Hornet that Bill Sweetman trashed:

-Bill Sweetman, Just How Super is the F/A-18E/F?, Interavia Business & Technology, April 1, 2000-

-The Navy and Boeing have intensified a propaganda campaign. Unfortunately, the campaign is likely to damage their credibility in the long term, because it focuses on a few basic statements which don't mean anything like as much as the casual reader is meant to think.

For example: "The airplane meets all its key performance parameters." This is true. In 1998 -- as it became clear that the Super Hornet was slower, and less agile at transonic speeds than the C/D -- the Navy issued an "administrative clarification" which declared that speed, acceleration and sustained turn rate were not, and had never been, Key Performance Parameters (KPP) for the Super Hornet. Apparently, some misguided people thought that those were important attributes for a fighter.-

-Bill Sweetman, Watch Your Six Maverick, Interavia Business & Technology, February 1, 2000-

-The Navy's operational evaluation (Opeval) of the Super Hornet ended in November, and the report is expected late in February. It will probably find the Super Hornet to be operationally effective and suitable, because the impact of any other recommendation would be devastating, but the Navy will have to do some deft manoeuvring to avoid charges that the report is a whitewash.-

-Bill Sweetman, Super Hornet gathers speed, but critics keep pressure on, Interavia Business & Technology, March 1, 1999-

-The Pentagon has conceded that the MiG-29 and Su-27 can out-accelerate and out-turn all variants of the F/A-18 in most operating regimes, and that the E/F in turn cannot stay up with the older C/D through much of the envelope.

Navy data from early 1996 (published in a General Accounting Office report) showed that the new aircraft was expected to have a lower thrust-to-weight ratio than the late-production (Lot XIX) F/A-18C/D with the General Electric F404-GE-402 engine. Its maximum speed in a typical air-to-air configuration would be Mach 1.6, versus Mach 1.8 for the smaller aircraft. In the heart of the air-combat envelope, between 15,000 and 20,000 feet and at transonic speed, the Lot XIX aircraft would hold a specific excess power (Ps) of 300 ft/sec out to Mach 1.2, while its larger descendant could not hold the same Ps above Mach 1.0.-

and now advocates:

Rhino's Revenge (Super Hornet upgrades)

and the navy loves.

[JSFfan]

"-The Pentagon has conceded that the MiG-29 and Su-27 can out-accelerate and out-turn all variants of the F/A-18 in most operating regimes, and that the E/F in turn cannot stay up with the older C/D through much of the envelope
,,,Its maximum speed in a typical air-to-air configuration would be Mach 1.6, versus Mach 1.8 for the smaller aircraft. In the heart of the air-combat envelope, between 15,000 and 20,000 feet and at transonic speed, the Lot XIX aircraft would hold a specific excess power (Ps) of 300 ft/sec out to Mach 1.2, while its larger descendant could not hold the same Ps above Mach 1.0.-

."
seems like it doesn't go fast enough either, no wonder the kids didn't like it

kbrockman
"So Hanlon wasn't testifying yesterday?"
he was and it sounds like US is like Aus, any fool can write a submission and ask to appear,,,but the page you linked had old story links from years ago that he used to support his stuff
\let me see if I can help you a bit...instead of posting rubbish links, in the link spaz put up, pick up on the buffet/ transonic roll off and how there is no software fix and they haven't said they are going to redesign to fix it, it's been around for a few years and still not a good outcome...at least that is real

[glad rag]

@ JSFf

"So Hanlon wasn't testifying yesterday?"
->>>he was<<<_

you really need to sort yourself out young man.

[Killface]

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,

Or that the customer asked the impossible by demanding a 3 service aircraft that could hover and land on a super aircraft carrier. Pretty sure the JSF was not a Lockheed Idea, it was a "customer" (read the US DoD, Us government) dream. boeing and lockheed could easily accuse the customer of not so much failing "to control deviations of reality from the promise," but of failing to control the extremely difficult requirements in the first place. and not making the painful admission that they asked too much of one aircraft. Either way suits your argument, its just a matter of perspective

[JSFfan]

glad rag what are you on about?
Hanlon is a journalist who made a submission with oral,I did actually read it because I quoted his opinion.
my second post pointed out his submission is based on 2011/2012 quotes, one of which is another journalist, as per the citations he submitted in his submission, which were numbered 1-9 and tabled
kbrockman, who didn't look at the submission properly, though that the 2011/12 reference meant that I didn't think he gave it..this is far from the case.

it was a rubbish submission, cut it anyway you want to and wasn't worth posting and I initially just let it go without comment, I came in to tell kbrockman, what I thought John meant

[SpazSinbad]

OV-10G+ Bronco News

Back on page 62 of this thread 'Bushranger 71' expressed interest in the OV-10 Bronco: http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...ml#post7731503

Here is some news 13 Jun 2013:

Combat Dragon II Demonstrates OV-10G+ Bronco Capabilities | Defense Media Network

[kbrockman]

JSFfan,

A sincere question/remark, a lot of the time I find it hard to understand what you exactly mean.
Please bear with me,I am not a native English-speaker therefore I probably don't get some of the expressions you use sometimes.

Hanlon is a journalist who made a submission with oral,I did actually read it because I quoted his opinion.

What does this bold part exactly mean??

also...

my second post pointed out his submission is based on 2011/2012 quotes, one of which is another journalist, as per the citations he submitted in his submission, which would have been tabled

The first bolded part is a bit of a mistery.
In the second bold part I wonder what it means when you say "tabled".

kbrockman, who didn't look at the submission properly, though that the 2011/12 reference meant that I didn't think he gave it..this is far from the case.

Actually I saw the senate subcommittee on a live-feed, all 2 hours of it.
Also ,again, I don't know what you try to say here, sorry.

I came in to tell kbrockman, what I thought John meant

that's very helpful, thank you, however I don't think Mr Farley needs anyone to speak for him, if he wants to comment on what I said he is free to do so.
I was only trying to point out to him that there was no specific negative remark about the F35B in the article, on the contrary, they where very positive about the B-version's usefulness.

Again, probably down to my inadequate knowledge of the English language, I didn't understand the context of his "nuff said" remark.

I hope I cleared things up a bit, sometimes it is difficult to fully understand the finer points of what native English speakers try to say on this board.

[Killface]

Back on page 62 of this thread 'Bushranger 71' expressed interest in the OV-10 Bronco: http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...ml#post7731503

Here is some news 13 Jun 2013:

Combat Dragon II Demonstrates OV-10G+ Bronco Capabilities | Defense Media Network

They(they being the jarheads) have been talking about bringing the Bronco back since they retired it. pre 9/11 it was with the idea that it could escort Ospreys that would outrun the Cobras and Hueys, post 9/11 it was COIN.

[kbrockman]

Originally Posted by SpazSinbad

OV-10G+ Bronco News
Back on page 62 of this thread 'Bushranger 71' expressed interest in the OV-10 Bronco: F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

Here is some news 13 Jun 2013:

Combat Dragon II Demonstrates OV-10G+ Bronco Capabilities | Defense Media Network

Interesting , thx for posting that.
I know that the Luftwaffe was looking to revive/update the BRONCO for a COIN/FAC role a couple of years ago, I don't know what became of this plan, probably got canned due to the ever shrinking budgetary means.

Come to think of it, something like this updated OV10 could have been very useful in a non contested airspace like the French operated in over MALI.

[JSFfan]

when someone of the general public wants to 'comment' on the subject of the committee..[or in this case a journalist with a book to flog]

they first write a submission which is sent to the committee and can request to appear before the committee.

the committee always agree and they go to a committee meeting at an appointed time, this is usually for an hour, but can be less

when they attend the meeting they go through their prior written submission orally 'called testimony' and table it meaning they give a copy again to the committee and then take any questions from the committee

this is how they work here, the US would have similar if you want to look it up
House of Representatives Committees ? Parliament of Australia

from your link, these are his 9 citations he used to support his submission
Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee
Testimony | June 19, 2013
F-35 Rollout: Halving the Procurement Could Save $5B Annually

By: Michael E. O'Hanlon


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.

Additional Resources

• Book
  Healing the Wounded Giant
  2013

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the important and impressive Lightning II aircraft. The bottom line of my testimony is that I favor purchasing roughly half the number of jets now scheduled to be acquired by the Department of Defense over the next two decades.[1]
In 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.[2]
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.
It should also be remembered that a fair amount of risk is inherent in this alternative plan, since entirely canceling the F-35C Navy version of the plane will leave the Navy with less stealthy aircraft over the next decade. This is probably a tolerable risk but is not a trivial one.[9] In an era of fiscal austerity and defense budget cuts, we need to take calculated risks in defense planning as a nation—not reckless risks, but calculated and reasonable ones. I believe that halving the size of the planned overall F-35 buy follows that philosophy properly and prudently.

[1] This testimony is drawn largely from my recent Brookings book, Healing the Wounded Giant: Maintaining Military Preeminence While Cutting the Defense Budget.


[2]Statement of Christine H. Fox, director of cost assessment and program evaluation, Department of Defense, before the Senate Armed Services Committee, May 19, 2011 (www.armed-services.senate.gov/e_witnesslist.cfm?id=5213); and Andrea Shalal-Ela, “Exclusive: U.S. Sees Lifetime Cost of F-35 Fighter at $1.45 Trillion,” Reuters, March 29, 2012 (Exclusive: U.S. sees lifetime cost of F-35 fighter at $1.45 trillion | Reuters).


[3]See Statement of General James F. Amos before the House Armed Services Committee on the 2011 Posture of the United States Marine Corps, March 1, 2011, p. 13 (http://armedservices.house.gov/index...d-44b3147640fe).


[4]See Captain Henry J. Hendicks and Lt. Col. J. Noel Williams, “Twilight of the $UPERfluous Carrier,” Proceedings (U.S. Naval Institute, May 2011) (Twilight of the $UPERfluous Carrier | U.S. Naval Institute).


[5]Northrop Grumman,”X-47B UCAS,” (Washington: 2013) (www.as.northropgrumman.com/products/nucasx47b/index.html). An additional virtue of unmanned systems is the ability to conduct training for pilots less expensively.


[6]See U.S. Air Force, Fact Sheet on MQ-9 Reaper, January 2012 (Factsheets : MQ-9 Reaper and Congressional Budget Office, Policy Options for Unmanned Aircraft Systems (Washington: June 2011), pp. ix–x (www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12163/06-08-uas.pdf).


[7]These are ongoing; see Bill Carey, “F-35 Delay Forces $3 Billion Upgrade Request for U.S. Air Force F-16s” AINOnline, November 4, 2011 (F-35 Delay Forces $3 Billion Upgrade Request for U.S. Air Force F-16s | Aviation International News).


[8]Leithen Francis, “Mission Impossible,” Aviation Week and Space Technology, August 15, 2011, p. 27.


[9]The chief of naval operations, while not abandoning support for the F-35C, has nonetheless voiced some doubts about the central role of stealth in future force planning. See Admiral Jonathan W. Greenert, “Payloads over Platforms: Charting a New Course,” Proceedings, vol. 138, no. 7 (U.S. Naval Institute, July 2012) (Payloads over Platforms: Charting a New Course | U.S. Naval Institute).

[Stuffy]

The Sukhoi display at Paris 2013

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

[SpazSinbad]

Same Same Video

Same Video posted earlier on Page 143 of this thread: http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...ml#post7898217

[SpazSinbad]

Buddy Spare Me an $85 Million in 2020 (or $75 Mil Today)

F-35 – ‘cautiously optimistic’ at the tipping point for programme 20 Jun 2013

"F-35 – turned a corner? (Lockheed Martin)
“We’re not declaring victory just yet” said Lockheed Martin’s VP Steve O’Bryan of the new “cautiously optimistic” (as described by Pentagon procurement chief) outlook that infuses the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter project. However it was clear in a presentation to the aviation media at Le Bourget that things were now starting to go in the troubled fighters direction – the good news said O’Bryan meant the programme was at ‘a tipping point’. With 65 F-35s now flying, flight testing is ramping up quickly, with 50% of all flight tests done in the past 12 months.

In addition, both the US Government and the GAO had confirmed that concurrency was starting to pay off – and the flyaway cost (including engines) was dropping. In 2020 the US Government estimates that a F-35 will cost some $85m each or less than half of the 2009 initial examples cost. Adjusted to today’s dollars the 2020 price would be $75m each.

However, O’Bryan was frank in admitting that challenges still persist – especially in the software. The F-35 computer software has around 8.6 million lines of code (in comparison an F-22 has around 2 million). While 88% of the code is now flying, the remaining 12% is the most difficult part, explained O’Bryan as it integrates existing simpler functions and capabilities together into a whole."

Paris Air Show 2013 - Day 2 | News | The Royal Aeronautical Society

[SpazSinbad]

In case youse wondered about the video at top of this page or elsewhere - here is the news...

Sukhoi Test Pilot Explains ‘Supermaneuverability’ 24 Jun 2013 Bill Sweetman

Sukhoi Test Pilot Explains ?Supermaneuverability?

[SpazSinbad]

DayTime Hook Sparks Super Horneto

Back on page 113 of this thread there was a 'hook sparkly' discussion which sparked over to page 114. http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...ml#post7833081 I'm hooked to find this nice daylight Super Hornet Sparkling HookUp from 'The HOOK' Magazine: http://www.tailhook.net/PDF/Hook_Mag...7.Fall2012.pdf (22Mb)

Click for Bigga Pic: Port Tyre looks like it is under stress also...