F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Snafu 351 is correct of course
The only good thing is to think of all the money the Chinese & Russians have wasted rushing countermeasures into production based on published delivery targets and the F-35 not turning up
It must have cost them zillions and they keep having to update them
Who said aerospace didn't create jobs???
The only good thing is to think of all the money the Chinese & Russians have wasted rushing countermeasures into production based on published delivery targets and the F-35 not turning up
It must have cost them zillions and they keep having to update them
Who said aerospace didn't create jobs???
The only good thing is to think of all the money the Chinese & Russians have wasted rushing countermeasures into production based on published delivery targets and the F-35 not turning up
Perhaps this was the plan all along? Worked for the Star Wars programme back in the day.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JTO,
That's a fair scenario to consider however the big difference between China and the 'West' is that one has cash and the other doesn't. So, they may have wasted a large quantity of funds on developing CMs for aircraft that have yet to materialise but there's plenty more where that came from.
I know they have money. Many neighbours in my English village are Chinese second home owners!
That's a fair scenario to consider however the big difference between China and the 'West' is that one has cash and the other doesn't. So, they may have wasted a large quantity of funds on developing CMs for aircraft that have yet to materialise but there's plenty more where that came from.
I know they have money. Many neighbours in my English village are Chinese second home owners!
Last edited by MSOCS; 1st Aug 2013 at 16:42.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PhilipG,
I agree with your post and the shift to the right with concurrency/software concerns.
personally I don't mind if these numbers are altered, my concern is with the software
I agree with your post and the shift to the right with concurrency/software concerns.
personally I don't mind if these numbers are altered, my concern is with the software
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Home alone
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hagel Sees Modernization Lull Versus Smaller U.S. Forces - Bloomberg
Looks like the pentagon is finally seeing the writing on the wall. Like I pointed out a while back, ultimately, I see the F35 taking a significant hit.
P.s. 8 carriers instead of 11?? WTF, that's mental!
Looks like the pentagon is finally seeing the writing on the wall. Like I pointed out a while back, ultimately, I see the F35 taking a significant hit.
P.s. 8 carriers instead of 11?? WTF, that's mental!
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,575
Likes: 0
Received 51 Likes
on
45 Posts
CVF RAMPS UP!
RAMP INSTALLATION CVF
http://www.aircraftcarrieralliance.c...mms/190713.pdf (0.4Mb)
"Last week the first of five ramp sections was lifted onto HMS Queen Elizabeth; this was three months ahead of schedule."
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 1st Aug 2013 at 21:35.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,575
Likes: 0
Received 51 Likes
on
45 Posts
Lockheed F-35 Faces ‘Significant Challenges,’ Senators Say
Lockheed F-35 Faces ‘Significant Challenges,’ Senators Say (1) 01 Aug 2013 Tony Capaccio
Lockheed F-35 Faces ?Significant Challenges,? Senators Say (1) - Businessweek
"The Senate committee that approves defense spending said in a report today that “significant challenges remain” for Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT:US)’s F-35 fighter even as progress is made.
The program “continues to experience considerable challenges with software development, system reliability and maintenance system development,” the Senate defense appropriations panel said in its report on the Pentagon’s $516 billion budget request for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1.
The full Senate Appropriations Committee adopted the bill and the panel’s report.
The panel cut $80 million and six aircraft [to 36] from the Pentagon’s initial $562 million request to start buying hardware for 42 aircraft that would be purchased in fiscal 2015. The Pentagon is planning an increase from the 29 planes that were requested, and approved by the committee, for fiscal 2014.
Given the “significant challenges,” a “large increase in the production of aircraft” to 42 from 29 “is not yet warranted” the defense panel said in its report....
...Now “there are still many, many unanswered questions as to whether this Joint Strike Fighter will become a reality that can protect us,” Durbin said.
Separately, the committee directed the Pentagon to review whether the Air Force’s goal of buying 1,763 F-35s remains feasible.
“Given these times of fiscal austerity,” the Pentagon “should review the Air Force tactical fighter force mix,” according to the report.
The committee also deleted for now a Pentagon request for $10 million to evaluate how to integrate the B61 nuclear bomb on later F-35 versions because the requirement hasn’t been thoroughly vetted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff’s requirements group, it said."
The program “continues to experience considerable challenges with software development, system reliability and maintenance system development,” the Senate defense appropriations panel said in its report on the Pentagon’s $516 billion budget request for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1.
The full Senate Appropriations Committee adopted the bill and the panel’s report.
The panel cut $80 million and six aircraft [to 36] from the Pentagon’s initial $562 million request to start buying hardware for 42 aircraft that would be purchased in fiscal 2015. The Pentagon is planning an increase from the 29 planes that were requested, and approved by the committee, for fiscal 2014.
Given the “significant challenges,” a “large increase in the production of aircraft” to 42 from 29 “is not yet warranted” the defense panel said in its report....
...Now “there are still many, many unanswered questions as to whether this Joint Strike Fighter will become a reality that can protect us,” Durbin said.
Separately, the committee directed the Pentagon to review whether the Air Force’s goal of buying 1,763 F-35s remains feasible.
“Given these times of fiscal austerity,” the Pentagon “should review the Air Force tactical fighter force mix,” according to the report.
The committee also deleted for now a Pentagon request for $10 million to evaluate how to integrate the B61 nuclear bomb on later F-35 versions because the requirement hasn’t been thoroughly vetted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff’s requirements group, it said."
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,575
Likes: 0
Received 51 Likes
on
45 Posts
Pentagon downplays prospects of cancelling F-35, bomber
Pentagon downplays prospects of cancelling F-35, bomber 02 Aug 2013 Andrea Shalal-Esa (Additional reporting by David Alexander; Editing by Ken Wills)
Pentagon downplays prospects of cancelling F-35, bomber | Reuters
"(Reuters) - The U.S. military on Thursday downplayed concerns it could cancel the F-35 fighter and a new stealth bomber, after leaked documents from a budget review suggested the programs might be eliminated as one way to deal with deep budget cuts.
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said on Wednesday that finding $500 billion (330 billion pounds) in budget cuts required by law over the next decade, on top of $487 billion in cuts already being implemented, required tough trade-offs between the size of the military and high-end weapons programs.
Pentagon briefing slides shown to various groups mapped out those tradeoffs in stark terms, indicating that a decision to maintain a larger military could result in the cancellation of the $392 billion Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 program and a new stealthy, long-range bomber, according to several people who saw the slides.
Defense officials later stressed there were no plans to kill either program, noting that dismantling the F-35 program in particular would have far-reaching consequences for the U.S. military services and 10 foreign countries involved in the program, which is already in production.
"We have gone to great lengths to stress that this review identified, through a rigorous process of strategic modelling, possible decisions we might face, under scenarios we may or may not face in the future," Pentagon Spokesman George Little told Reuters in an email when asked about the slides.
"Any suggestion that we're now moving away from key modernization programs as a result of yesterday's discussion of the outcomes of the review would be incorrect," he said.
Analysts said Hagel and other Pentagon officials appeared to be leaning toward the option that would emphasize high-end weapons programs over force size....
...Jim Thomas, vice president at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, said the two options of a smaller military or sharp cutback in weapons programs represented a false dichotomy.
"This is almost one reasonably attractive option and a straw man that looks pretty unattractive," he said. "I don't think we're going to end up at either of these corners on the map. I think that you're going to get a hybrid solution.""
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said on Wednesday that finding $500 billion (330 billion pounds) in budget cuts required by law over the next decade, on top of $487 billion in cuts already being implemented, required tough trade-offs between the size of the military and high-end weapons programs.
Pentagon briefing slides shown to various groups mapped out those tradeoffs in stark terms, indicating that a decision to maintain a larger military could result in the cancellation of the $392 billion Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 program and a new stealthy, long-range bomber, according to several people who saw the slides.
Defense officials later stressed there were no plans to kill either program, noting that dismantling the F-35 program in particular would have far-reaching consequences for the U.S. military services and 10 foreign countries involved in the program, which is already in production.
"We have gone to great lengths to stress that this review identified, through a rigorous process of strategic modelling, possible decisions we might face, under scenarios we may or may not face in the future," Pentagon Spokesman George Little told Reuters in an email when asked about the slides.
"Any suggestion that we're now moving away from key modernization programs as a result of yesterday's discussion of the outcomes of the review would be incorrect," he said.
Analysts said Hagel and other Pentagon officials appeared to be leaning toward the option that would emphasize high-end weapons programs over force size....
...Jim Thomas, vice president at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, said the two options of a smaller military or sharp cutback in weapons programs represented a false dichotomy.
"This is almost one reasonably attractive option and a straw man that looks pretty unattractive," he said. "I don't think we're going to end up at either of these corners on the map. I think that you're going to get a hybrid solution.""
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Home alone
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The last line sums it up pretty well, IMHO. The question is how the resultant increase in price (death spiral) will effect other buyers, who are pretty much on the limits of useful force numbers as well as affordability.
Bastardeux is right. The source of the cancellation talk is in the slides linked here:
Analysis of the DoD SCMR Options | CSBA
Basically, if you don't touch force structure, readiness or the civilian workforce (slide 4 far right) and try to meet the sequester budget, all new programs cease until such time as more money is available, which it won't be because compensation for active and retired will continue to eat more of the budget.
On the other hand, without big cuts to structure, readiness &c and to other new programs, you can't produce JSF at the planned level. Indeed, you needed future budget increases to do that, even before sequester.
Analysis of the DoD SCMR Options | CSBA
Basically, if you don't touch force structure, readiness or the civilian workforce (slide 4 far right) and try to meet the sequester budget, all new programs cease until such time as more money is available, which it won't be because compensation for active and retired will continue to eat more of the budget.
On the other hand, without big cuts to structure, readiness &c and to other new programs, you can't produce JSF at the planned level. Indeed, you needed future budget increases to do that, even before sequester.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,575
Likes: 0
Received 51 Likes
on
45 Posts
F-35B performed its 400th vertical landing 14 May 2013
F-35 Lightning II Program Status and Fast Facts July 10, 2013
https://www.f35.com/assets/uploads/d...tsjuly2013.pdf (0.2Mb)
"Last month, the F-35B performed its 400th vertical landing and first vertical take-off. (May 10 –VTO and May 14 400th)"
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 2nd Aug 2013 at 12:00.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Home alone
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LO, I know this is a thread about the F35, but if I was a B1 pilot, I would be pretty nervous for my career right now! We joked with our last exchange officer a couple of years ago that "well they're closing squadrons now, but next they'll close a whole fleet"...it's looking quite correct now!
Very true, B, and it calls this very ancient joke to mind...
http://secmefikralar.********.com/20...y-rooster.html
http://secmefikralar.********.com/20...y-rooster.html
Last edited by LowObservable; 2nd Aug 2013 at 15:09.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having seen them at Red Flag earlier on in the year I would be very nervous if I flew the B1 and didn't get cancelled. The heavies managed a 100% success rate of losing someone on every VUL. 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I recall they were starting to be parked at the grave yard and wasn't only the sand pit that gave them a second lease?
In contested air they aren't looking good for the future
Last edited by JSFfan; 2nd Aug 2013 at 18:04.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
they aren't going without a fighter escort, so does it matter what range they have
?
it's like our F111, they couldn't go by themselves and only go as far as our fighters in the end
?
it's like our F111, they couldn't go by themselves and only go as far as our fighters in the end