F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
So, making three different models with a high level of shared parts has lead to cost overruns? Wasn't the whole idea of having multiple models of the same airplane with a high level of commonality supposed to DECREASE costs, not INCREASE costs?
It appears that what we've ended up with is three versions of the same airplane - none particularly good at their primary mission due to the compromises necessary to allow commonality with the other two versions - which is costing more and taking longer to develop than would have been the case for three unique, mission specific aircraft that shared common technologies.
It appears that what we've ended up with is three versions of the same airplane - none particularly good at their primary mission due to the compromises necessary to allow commonality with the other two versions - which is costing more and taking longer to develop than would have been the case for three unique, mission specific aircraft that shared common technologies.
I wouldn't necessarily disagree with your second statement however. It's at least worth a look in hindsight, although the up-front NRE of running three broadly concurrent programmes would likely be beyond anybody's budget, even assuming the people to actually execute the task could be found.....
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
So, making three different models with a high level of shared parts has lead to cost overruns? Wasn't the whole idea of having multiple models of the same airplane with a high level of commonality supposed to DECREASE costs, not INCREASE costs?
They'd learn't the lesson from the TFX/F-111 programme, till the snake-oil salesmen came around and told them laws of nature had changed. The first column here before the conclusions here should give pause for thought......
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,586
Likes: 0
Received 53 Likes
on
46 Posts
Over page 'LO' said:
I do not recall anyone complaining about the 'three years' taken to fully test the SHornet hook either. Already pointed out on this forum AFAIK. As far a press releases go I wish there were more, especially in olden tymes for the F-111 for Oz. OMG that took a lifetime to arrive in these dog internet years nowadays. AND what a dog it turned out to be. Who knew. 
"...PS - On the roll-in tests: "Good news" for the F-35 is now "catastrophe avoided". I don't recall such a release being issued for the Super Hornet, or any previous Navy program."
HH - Too true. The official schedule in late 08 called for full Block 3 IOT&E (the official end of SDD) to be finished in early '14, just under six years.
Today, the "threshold" date - the likely one - for that is August 2019 - just over five years. If DOT&E is right, and he has not been proven overly pessimistic yet, this will slip another year.
So yes, the program has made no progress at all (in terms of being nearer to getting finished) in the past six years.
Spaz - Ref the F-111: we are now 12+ years into the JSF development contract. The last F-111 was delivered 14 years after the development contract was signed. And while it wasn't a complete dog, it didn't live up to expectations since the Navy F-111B was canned, and neither the 158 As nor the 96 Ds (out of 563 aircraft) were much use for anything.
Today, the "threshold" date - the likely one - for that is August 2019 - just over five years. If DOT&E is right, and he has not been proven overly pessimistic yet, this will slip another year.
So yes, the program has made no progress at all (in terms of being nearer to getting finished) in the past six years.
Spaz - Ref the F-111: we are now 12+ years into the JSF development contract. The last F-111 was delivered 14 years after the development contract was signed. And while it wasn't a complete dog, it didn't live up to expectations since the Navy F-111B was canned, and neither the 158 As nor the 96 Ds (out of 563 aircraft) were much use for anything.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PhillipG,
Way back down the comments you asked how the F-35 was going to 'get past' the MOD, or more specifically the MAA.
The answer is with continuing a lot of hard work by people at Abbey Wood, Crystal City, Pax River, Eglin, Edwards and Beaufort (I'll add Warton and Samlesbury too!).
What helps is that the UK has had design and programme input from the very early days of F-35B, have had RN and RAF engineers working hands-on with F-35 for over 5 years, have had the MAA involved early and the fact that the F-35 is built in the era of safety cases and risk matrices (unlike Airseeker).
A lot of work continues to go on but we have 3 aircraft already flying on UK Military Flight Test Permits, on the UK register. Despite the comments F-35 is the only current UK aircraft with a modern AESA radar so a lot of work is done keeping the MAA up to date with the technology involved. UK personnel embedded with Flight Test, including Sea Trials and Handler trials have fed back info that should make QEC integration easier.
There is still have a way to go but the UK has a lot of very good people slogging hard to make this jet a success for the UK.
Way back down the comments you asked how the F-35 was going to 'get past' the MOD, or more specifically the MAA.
The answer is with continuing a lot of hard work by people at Abbey Wood, Crystal City, Pax River, Eglin, Edwards and Beaufort (I'll add Warton and Samlesbury too!).
What helps is that the UK has had design and programme input from the very early days of F-35B, have had RN and RAF engineers working hands-on with F-35 for over 5 years, have had the MAA involved early and the fact that the F-35 is built in the era of safety cases and risk matrices (unlike Airseeker).
A lot of work continues to go on but we have 3 aircraft already flying on UK Military Flight Test Permits, on the UK register. Despite the comments F-35 is the only current UK aircraft with a modern AESA radar so a lot of work is done keeping the MAA up to date with the technology involved. UK personnel embedded with Flight Test, including Sea Trials and Handler trials have fed back info that should make QEC integration easier.
There is still have a way to go but the UK has a lot of very good people slogging hard to make this jet a success for the UK.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Despite the comments F-35 is the only current UK aircraft with a modern AESA radar
It cannot be denied, nor I'm sure would anyone seek to, that software these days is a considerable development (i.e. cost) fraction of any new aircraft. If only it were the only problem.
There is still have a way to go but the UK has a lot of very good people slogging hard to make this jet a success for the UK.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,586
Likes: 0
Received 53 Likes
on
46 Posts
SHornet Ground Loads Testing Took Three Years
Unnatural Acts of Landing The Kneeboard | Spring 2012 Page 4
http://api.ning.com/files/8OBnZkm85r...Spring2012.pdf (1Mb)
"...Ground Loads Testing... Its sink rate (how fast it descends) is high (as much as 26 feet per second!)...
...During Super Hornet development, Ground Loads Testing required 125 test flights, 370 catapult launches, 471 traps, and three years to complete. Incidents included blown tires and various airplane parts (other than the wheels and tailhook) hitting the deck."
...During Super Hornet development, Ground Loads Testing required 125 test flights, 370 catapult launches, 471 traps, and three years to complete. Incidents included blown tires and various airplane parts (other than the wheels and tailhook) hitting the deck."
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 6th Feb 2014 at 20:48. Reason: GrafikAd
GreenKnight, I appreciate what you are saying, but those Blackhawks were actually delivered and actually did something for the operational forces. The Army has been riding its helicopters pretty hard for the past 12 years.
351 billion is not the sum for last years defense budget, the numbers are closer to 600 billion. Last time were were around 350 billion was early GW Bush administration.
There are, in the budget, significant "sunk costs" and "day to day running costs" that leave discretionary spending as a fraction of the whole budget.
Thus, the discretionary spending on a particular warfare area, strike/fighter aircraft (SASless seems to make this argument about V-22 whenever he can) is an opportunity cost that eats and hurts a great many other important areas of capability and readiness.
As to the MilIndustrial complex, Ike was speaking to CONGRESS, FFS! The problem that gets labeled Military Industrial Congress comes when Congressmen and Senators add the third leg to the stool. That is why Ike was warning them, becase THEY are the key to the problem: did you spend it in my district? Yes? OK, it's not really a problem. His point goes hand in glove with JFK's premise in the book "Profiles in Courage" about what makes a good, or bad, Senator.
Without Congressoinal complicity, the MIC cannot exist. Congress is who authorizes the money. If ever there was a classic illustration of this, it was in BRAC 1 and BRAC 2. The military in good faith tried to get efficient the first time around, and got blasted for their troubles. Blasted by Congress and "what about my district" crying.
As for acquisition ... never mind ... all I can say is
351 billion is not the sum for last years defense budget, the numbers are closer to 600 billion. Last time were were around 350 billion was early GW Bush administration.
There are, in the budget, significant "sunk costs" and "day to day running costs" that leave discretionary spending as a fraction of the whole budget.
Thus, the discretionary spending on a particular warfare area, strike/fighter aircraft (SASless seems to make this argument about V-22 whenever he can) is an opportunity cost that eats and hurts a great many other important areas of capability and readiness.
As to the MilIndustrial complex, Ike was speaking to CONGRESS, FFS! The problem that gets labeled Military Industrial Congress comes when Congressmen and Senators add the third leg to the stool. That is why Ike was warning them, becase THEY are the key to the problem: did you spend it in my district? Yes? OK, it's not really a problem. His point goes hand in glove with JFK's premise in the book "Profiles in Courage" about what makes a good, or bad, Senator.
Without Congressoinal complicity, the MIC cannot exist. Congress is who authorizes the money. If ever there was a classic illustration of this, it was in BRAC 1 and BRAC 2. The military in good faith tried to get efficient the first time around, and got blasted for their troubles. Blasted by Congress and "what about my district" crying.
As for acquisition ... never mind ... all I can say is
Spaz - That rather takes the cake for sheer irrelevance, does it not? Will the initial F-35C carrier landings - four years behind the end-2007 schedule - not be followed by tests of off-nominal landings? I should think so. Should those off-nominal tests in the story you link be counted as delays to the SH program? Why?
We now return to regularly scheduled reality.
Bob Work Expected To Be Named Deputy SecDef - Defense One
Loves UCAVs. As DepSecNav, directed staff to look at ways in which the Navy could be less dependent on F-35...
Information Dissemination: Navy Reviews Options for JSF
We now return to regularly scheduled reality.
Bob Work Expected To Be Named Deputy SecDef - Defense One
Loves UCAVs. As DepSecNav, directed staff to look at ways in which the Navy could be less dependent on F-35...
Information Dissemination: Navy Reviews Options for JSF
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Willard,
You've missed off the end of my sentence in your quote, which is what makes it relevant. For the MAA to sign off on something they like to understand it. When the technology is new (and admittedly the theory behind AESA radars is not) that has to be explained to them. Radar safety is a big issue that is just one of several addressed.
With Bob Work in the mix it will be interesting to see how X-47 and UCLASS develop.
You've missed off the end of my sentence in your quote, which is what makes it relevant. For the MAA to sign off on something they like to understand it. When the technology is new (and admittedly the theory behind AESA radars is not) that has to be explained to them. Radar safety is a big issue that is just one of several addressed.
With Bob Work in the mix it will be interesting to see how X-47 and UCLASS develop.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,586
Likes: 0
Received 53 Likes
on
46 Posts
'LO' you have a habit of attributing stuff to me that is not there. Take a powder. I do not claim to know what will occur in future F-35C hook (AHS) testing however the Super Hornet testing is indicative of the thoroughness of said testing, Shirley. I'll guess the F-35C AHS will be tested to the satisfaction of all concerned before it is allowed anywhere near a CVN. Go figure.
Likely the testing of both hook systems for both the Super Hornet and F-35C will have taken and will take a similar amount of long time. Just to be thorough. Who said anything about delay? Where is the suggestion that the SHornet hook testing delayed it? Have a good lie down.
Likely the testing of both hook systems for both the Super Hornet and F-35C will have taken and will take a similar amount of long time. Just to be thorough. Who said anything about delay? Where is the suggestion that the SHornet hook testing delayed it? Have a good lie down.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by SpazSinbad
'LO' you have a habit of attributing stuff to me that is not there.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Willard,
You've missed off the end of my sentence in your quote, which is what makes it relevant. For the MAA to sign off on something they like to understand it. When the technology is new (and admittedly the theory behind AESA radars is not) that has to be explained to them. Radar safety is a big issue that is just one of several addressed.
You've missed off the end of my sentence in your quote, which is what makes it relevant. For the MAA to sign off on something they like to understand it. When the technology is new (and admittedly the theory behind AESA radars is not) that has to be explained to them. Radar safety is a big issue that is just one of several addressed.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Willard,
I was referring to the "self-inflicted problem" as you you put it, when I questioned how the MoD could sign off on the F35 considering some recent issues. I cannot see one rule, that relies on the US certification, for the F35 and another for the Rivet Joints.
I was referring to the "self-inflicted problem" as you you put it, when I questioned how the MoD could sign off on the F35 considering some recent issues. I cannot see one rule, that relies on the US certification, for the F35 and another for the Rivet Joints.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by LO
I don't recall such a release being issued for the Super Hornet, or any previous Navy program.
Similarly, I don't recall such an amount of oversight and vitriol for the Super Hornet, or any previous Navy program...
...but this isn't just a USN programme (assuming they want to stay in it). We've all seen programmes having problems, but none as expensive nor questionable as this. As one who would love to see it work, even I have to say that the oversight is somewhat welcome and concerning.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The MAA is mainly only affecting the UK intro to Service, which was what I was referring to in answering PhillipG's question. However, the UK requirements (and getting the aircraft fully accepted into Service is obviously a big one) have always been an important Programme level milestone as we are the lead partner nation. That is why we have key UK RN and RAF personnel embedded within the JPO and NavAir, why the PT desks are working hard to ensure UK requirements are met and why actually the MAA can affect the entire programme (although to a lesser extent than if it was a UK only jet).
The difference between Rivet Joint and F-35 is the age of the platform and hence the level of documentation available to be reviewed to ensure the UK is satisfied with the safe operation of each aircraft and the risks involved. Whilst X number of years of safe operation is good, there is a difference in what the US authorities will accept and what the UK will accept when it comes to Airworthiness. When Rivet Joint was designed and built there was not the same emphasis on risks, hazards etc. which the UK now puts the spotlight on post Haddon-Cave.
There is also a difference between how the USAF and USN do Airworthiness, as they work to different standards/guidelines in some areas. In the UK we are small enough not to have this issue any more!
The difference between Rivet Joint and F-35 is the age of the platform and hence the level of documentation available to be reviewed to ensure the UK is satisfied with the safe operation of each aircraft and the risks involved. Whilst X number of years of safe operation is good, there is a difference in what the US authorities will accept and what the UK will accept when it comes to Airworthiness. When Rivet Joint was designed and built there was not the same emphasis on risks, hazards etc. which the UK now puts the spotlight on post Haddon-Cave.
There is also a difference between how the USAF and USN do Airworthiness, as they work to different standards/guidelines in some areas. In the UK we are small enough not to have this issue any more!
Suspicion breeds confidence
It doesn't look like cancellation is likely. Main gate 5 for the bulk buy is going to be 2017 according to Jane's. Good news if true. Two dark and light blue Sqns?
UK to approve bulk F-35B buy in 2017 - IHS Jane's 360
UK to approve bulk F-35B buy in 2017 - IHS Jane's 360
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: God's country
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apologies for the copy and paste, but the following is very interesting:
(Source: Air Force Times; published Feb. 2, 2014)
PARIS --- Below are selected excerpts from a candid interview given to Air Force Times by Gen. Michael Hostage, head of the US Air Force’s Air Combat Command. The interview took place on Jan. 27, and was published Feb. 2.
“The F-22, when it was produced, was flying with computers that were already so out of date you would not find them in a kid’s game console..… But I was forced to use that because that was the spec that was written by the acquisition process when I was going to buy the F-22. …/…That is why the current upgrade programs to the F-22 I put easily as critical as my F-35 fleet.
“If I do not keep that F-22 fleet viable, the F-35 fleet frankly will be irrelevant. The F-35 is not built as an air superiority platform. It needs the F-22.”
F-35 irrelevant without F-22s.... dam! And this from the head of the command that will operate the greatest number of F-35s worldwide. He could simply be justifying the F-22 fleet, but then nobody is talking about getting rid of any F-22s, so should this comment be taken at face value?!
(Source: Air Force Times; published Feb. 2, 2014)
PARIS --- Below are selected excerpts from a candid interview given to Air Force Times by Gen. Michael Hostage, head of the US Air Force’s Air Combat Command. The interview took place on Jan. 27, and was published Feb. 2. “The F-22, when it was produced, was flying with computers that were already so out of date you would not find them in a kid’s game console..… But I was forced to use that because that was the spec that was written by the acquisition process when I was going to buy the F-22. …/…That is why the current upgrade programs to the F-22 I put easily as critical as my F-35 fleet.
“If I do not keep that F-22 fleet viable, the F-35 fleet frankly will be irrelevant. The F-35 is not built as an air superiority platform. It needs the F-22.”
F-35 irrelevant without F-22s.... dam! And this from the head of the command that will operate the greatest number of F-35s worldwide. He could simply be justifying the F-22 fleet, but then nobody is talking about getting rid of any F-22s, so should this comment be taken at face value?!
F-35 irrelevant without F-22s.... dam! And this from the head of the command
that will operate the greatest number of F-35s worldwide. He could simply be
justifying the F-22 fleet, but then nobody is talking about getting rid of any
F-22s, so should this comment be taken at face value?!
The Italians stood up and said that the F-35 is not an air-to-air platform, and that its role will primarily be ground attack (nothing too controversial there).
However, the RAF then chimed in that the F-35 will be the UK's principal air defence platform, with the Typhoons playing a supporting role. Make of that what you will, but it seems to fly in the face of accepted orthodoxy re the F-35's capabilities.
Last edited by melmothtw; 9th Feb 2014 at 11:25.