F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
N-a-B - I don't think I remember anyone who had flown a new aircraft complaining about it at this stage. The earliest I can recall this happening was VX-5 blowing up about Classic Hornet Opeval.
The counter to "like it or not, it's what we're stuck with" is "when you're in a hole, stop digging". Most of the ultimate bill is not yet committed, because most of the money is in O&S and most of the jets that will run up those bills have yet to be ordered. Against that, a projected, small reduction in unit costs (versus SAR predictions) is money down the back of the sofa.
In hindsight, it might have been better to concentrate on common system / equipment items (eg engines, radar, displays, helmets, actuators etc) to get your logistics savings, but let the designers optimise the airframe and its structure for the mission.
Exactly. LO systems and materials could also have been shared across platforms. I made the point at the time (late 1990s), with the analogy of the Airbus family, which (pre-A380) covered a very wide range with one cockpit, one barrel section, one flight control system and two wing designs.
Would have made STOVL extremely difficult to fund.
Which was why no other approach was considered, because of the oversize influence of the Marines and the need to keep the UK on board - because the latter was the foundation for the JSF global strategy.
The counter to "like it or not, it's what we're stuck with" is "when you're in a hole, stop digging". Most of the ultimate bill is not yet committed, because most of the money is in O&S and most of the jets that will run up those bills have yet to be ordered. Against that, a projected, small reduction in unit costs (versus SAR predictions) is money down the back of the sofa.
In hindsight, it might have been better to concentrate on common system / equipment items (eg engines, radar, displays, helmets, actuators etc) to get your logistics savings, but let the designers optimise the airframe and its structure for the mission.
Exactly. LO systems and materials could also have been shared across platforms. I made the point at the time (late 1990s), with the analogy of the Airbus family, which (pre-A380) covered a very wide range with one cockpit, one barrel section, one flight control system and two wing designs.
Would have made STOVL extremely difficult to fund.
Which was why no other approach was considered, because of the oversize influence of the Marines and the need to keep the UK on board - because the latter was the foundation for the JSF global strategy.
If it's the dog the anti's would have us believe, then surely some of those (must be low hundreds by now) who have flown it and have no service or company obligation would be dripping - particularly given the profile of the programme. The absence of that deluge suggests it may not be a dog.
Canning it now - as your "in a hole" analogy suggests - isn't really possible, given the absence of a viable plan B. Yes, the 15/16/18 are (just) still in production, but mostly not in US variants and do not meet the JORD (or at least some aspects of it). Yes, we know, neither do some variants of the F35, but in most cases they have a hope of doing so, whereas the legacy jets never will. For a look at what happens when you change course late in programme, check out the shenanigans the USN is having getting the Arleigh Burke Flight III into production, having curtailed DDG1000 at 3 units on cost grounds.
More importantly, if you can it now, what is the replacement? F/A XX? Some X47 derivative? What? How many years does the US spend re-analysing a requirement, running design competitions and then procurement competitions? What happens to the average age of the fleet while this soul-searching - and it would be of epic proportions - is conducted? All watched over by the lawyers who would make the A12 fallout look like a minor gardening dispute.
Like it or lump it, we're stuck with it, IMO.
As for the UK being the foundation for the global strategy, I'd have thought that basing a strategy on replacing less than 100 cabs (GR7 + SHAR), plus the odds and sods that IT/SP add to the STOVL total, is a fairly poor option against the legion of F16/F18 operators..........
Canning it now - as your "in a hole" analogy suggests - isn't really possible, given the absence of a viable plan B. Yes, the 15/16/18 are (just) still in production, but mostly not in US variants and do not meet the JORD (or at least some aspects of it). Yes, we know, neither do some variants of the F35, but in most cases they have a hope of doing so, whereas the legacy jets never will. For a look at what happens when you change course late in programme, check out the shenanigans the USN is having getting the Arleigh Burke Flight III into production, having curtailed DDG1000 at 3 units on cost grounds.
More importantly, if you can it now, what is the replacement? F/A XX? Some X47 derivative? What? How many years does the US spend re-analysing a requirement, running design competitions and then procurement competitions? What happens to the average age of the fleet while this soul-searching - and it would be of epic proportions - is conducted? All watched over by the lawyers who would make the A12 fallout look like a minor gardening dispute.
Like it or lump it, we're stuck with it, IMO.
As for the UK being the foundation for the global strategy, I'd have thought that basing a strategy on replacing less than 100 cabs (GR7 + SHAR), plus the odds and sods that IT/SP add to the STOVL total, is a fairly poor option against the legion of F16/F18 operators..........
The absence of that deluge suggests it may not be a dog.
Did you learn your writing skills at the New Yorker?
I am still trying to disentangle the negatives there.
"Can it now" is not possible. The RN is probably well and truly stuck. However, much of the world could benefit by planning for reality, which is that the F-35 will not be the all-conquering (8 x advantage in air-to-ground, 6 x advantage in air-to-air) wonderbeast it was sold as.
Also, I don't see how the USAF can afford 1763 of them, a new bomber, a new trainer, a new cruise missile, a new ICBM &c. and cover the payroll. (The USN can't afford Ohio Replacement.) Let alone all the long-range/unmanned capabilities required by Third Offset.
So the answer is either less fighter-heavy forces or (for many air forces) some less costly combat aircraft. Maybe FAXX is unmanned with more A than F; maybe it's a command center for an unmanned swarm; it's certainly not a seagoing F-22-substitute (by the way we'll need to replace F-22 sooner than most people think.)
This might provide some food for thought:
http://csbaonline.org/publications/2...r-superiority/
And I thoroughly agree that the current procurement system is incapable of delivering results.
Did you learn your writing skills at the New Yorker?
I am still trying to disentangle the negatives there. "Can it now" is not possible. The RN is probably well and truly stuck. However, much of the world could benefit by planning for reality, which is that the F-35 will not be the all-conquering (8 x advantage in air-to-ground, 6 x advantage in air-to-air) wonderbeast it was sold as.
Also, I don't see how the USAF can afford 1763 of them, a new bomber, a new trainer, a new cruise missile, a new ICBM &c. and cover the payroll. (The USN can't afford Ohio Replacement.) Let alone all the long-range/unmanned capabilities required by Third Offset.
So the answer is either less fighter-heavy forces or (for many air forces) some less costly combat aircraft. Maybe FAXX is unmanned with more A than F; maybe it's a command center for an unmanned swarm; it's certainly not a seagoing F-22-substitute (by the way we'll need to replace F-22 sooner than most people think.)
This might provide some food for thought:
http://csbaonline.org/publications/2...r-superiority/
And I thoroughly agree that the current procurement system is incapable of delivering results.
Last edited by LowObservable; 11th May 2015 at 21:25.
Aesa upgrade of the F-16s has already been binned,
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
It's somewhat puzzling to hear and read proponents of the F35 stating that critique about all the cost/time overruns, failing to meet pre-set performances and doubt about the general concept of the platform (stealth, the onorthodox purchase -maintenance and upgrade contracts, all sensors and systems integrated from the get-go on all fighters for all customers,...) are all to be expected on a complicated program like the F35, a statement that is certainly valid in itself but they somehow at the same time seem to be blind for the latest trend and certainly new trend that is worrying to say the least.
More specific the need to prematurely retire entire programs that are still very needed and relevant today (the A10, and now maybe also the F16, let alone what will happen with the Harrier) just to assure funding for the F35.
All this resulting in no real lead in time, the F35 will have to perform all its missions at full strength basically from day 1 , not really a confidence builder I would think.
I'm certain that it will perform after a while, I have more than enough confidence in the abilities of (western) engineering, I don't think it's going to be a dog but I also think that for us (the smaller nations) there are simply better alternatives.
Last but not least , the idea that active military personnel is going to be publicly critical about new weapon systems ,like the F35, is simply laughable, it is not within the military culture, short of imminent treath (example the OBOGS issue with the F22) soldiers usually shut up and try to deal as best as possible with the program, loyalty is still a big thing within military circles.
As an example there is the debacle with the Canadian submarines, very little complaining by the boys and girls of the Canadian NAVY apart from the occasional incident or the critique of already retired personnel, and lord knows there was/is enough to complain about.
More specific the need to prematurely retire entire programs that are still very needed and relevant today (the A10, and now maybe also the F16, let alone what will happen with the Harrier) just to assure funding for the F35.
All this resulting in no real lead in time, the F35 will have to perform all its missions at full strength basically from day 1 , not really a confidence builder I would think.
I'm certain that it will perform after a while, I have more than enough confidence in the abilities of (western) engineering, I don't think it's going to be a dog but I also think that for us (the smaller nations) there are simply better alternatives.
Last but not least , the idea that active military personnel is going to be publicly critical about new weapon systems ,like the F35, is simply laughable, it is not within the military culture, short of imminent treath (example the OBOGS issue with the F22) soldiers usually shut up and try to deal as best as possible with the program, loyalty is still a big thing within military circles.
As an example there is the debacle with the Canadian submarines, very little complaining by the boys and girls of the Canadian NAVY apart from the occasional incident or the critique of already retired personnel, and lord knows there was/is enough to complain about.
LO - make your mind up mate. Your second para of 16:35 implies cancellation.
KB - was there a part of "have no service or company obligation" that you didn't understand? Of course serving aircrew and LM employees are going to toe the party line. As stated earlier though, there must be some who've flown it and left. If it's such a dud, what's keeping them quiet?
KB - was there a part of "have no service or company obligation" that you didn't understand? Of course serving aircrew and LM employees are going to toe the party line. As stated earlier though, there must be some who've flown it and left. If it's such a dud, what's keeping them quiet?
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
Originally Posted by Not_a_boffin
KB - was there a part of "have no service or company obligation" that you didn't understand? Of course serving aircrew and LM employees are going to toe the party line. As stated earlier though, there must be some who've flown it and left. If it's such a dud, what's keeping them quiet?
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
Other people that at least should have some clue abou the F35 and its effects on the UK armed forces;
New US fighter jet on course to becoming ?one of history?s biggest white elephants? - Home News - UK - The Independent
Dreaming about (pipedreams)capabilities, forgetting about affordability resulting in catastrophy.
Let's see what the US DoD will do with the planned F35 purchase numbers once the ,now officially launched, sixth generation fighter study program has started, 2400+ F35's for the Us will never happen, they'll be lucky to hit 1500.
New US fighter jet on course to becoming ?one of history?s biggest white elephants? - Home News - UK - The Independent
Air Chief Marshal Sir Michael Graydon CBE, who was Chief of the Air Staff when the F-35 was first discussed in the 1990s, branded the small number ordered by Britain as “a joke” and accused MoD officials of being “in denial” over the ability of Britain to run a “serious air force”.
A Royal Air Force Tornado GR4 fighter jet prepares to take off on September 27, 2014, at the Akrotiri British RAF airbase near the Cypriot port city of Limassol A Royal Air Force Tornado GR4 fighter jet prepares to take off on September 27, 2014, at the Akrotiri British RAF airbase near the Cypriot port city of Limassol Britain’s ageing Tornados will be out of service in three years, leaving the UK with a maximum “offensive capability” of 60 aircraft, he said. “The Saudis [were] using up to 100 aircraft in their campaign in Yemen. We couldn’t put 100 aircraft into the air to save our lives.”
On cost, he added, the jets were now close to “unaffordable” and “it will be token numbers we will be able to afford unless there is a radical change in thinking by the Government”.
John Marshall, of the Defence Synergia think-tank, said: “This aircraft is massively expensive, technically and operationally flawed and unlikely to enter full and proper operational service for several more years.”
Britain’s F-35s and its new aircraft carriers “are scheduled to declare an integrated Carrier Strike Initial Operating Capability by 2020”, according to the MoD. But current plans mean a carrier designed to have 36 F-35s on board will have just 12. This means “aircraft numbers will be unable to carry out operations effectively whilst ... protecting the carrier herself”, said Captain Marshall.
A Royal Air Force Tornado GR4 fighter jet prepares to take off on September 27, 2014, at the Akrotiri British RAF airbase near the Cypriot port city of Limassol A Royal Air Force Tornado GR4 fighter jet prepares to take off on September 27, 2014, at the Akrotiri British RAF airbase near the Cypriot port city of Limassol Britain’s ageing Tornados will be out of service in three years, leaving the UK with a maximum “offensive capability” of 60 aircraft, he said. “The Saudis [were] using up to 100 aircraft in their campaign in Yemen. We couldn’t put 100 aircraft into the air to save our lives.”
On cost, he added, the jets were now close to “unaffordable” and “it will be token numbers we will be able to afford unless there is a radical change in thinking by the Government”.
John Marshall, of the Defence Synergia think-tank, said: “This aircraft is massively expensive, technically and operationally flawed and unlikely to enter full and proper operational service for several more years.”
Britain’s F-35s and its new aircraft carriers “are scheduled to declare an integrated Carrier Strike Initial Operating Capability by 2020”, according to the MoD. But current plans mean a carrier designed to have 36 F-35s on board will have just 12. This means “aircraft numbers will be unable to carry out operations effectively whilst ... protecting the carrier herself”, said Captain Marshall.
Let's see what the US DoD will do with the planned F35 purchase numbers once the ,now officially launched, sixth generation fighter study program has started, 2400+ F35's for the Us will never happen, they'll be lucky to hit 1500.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John Farley said it best when he wrote:
John has a few years more experience than I do, but I can tell you some things from experience long before some of your time in the aviation business:
1. Had the all proposed F-111 program gone forward on the basis it was too big to fail, there would have been no Phantom Friday thread. In fact, looking at the F-14, F-15 and F-16 programs, one wouldn't have made it due to lack of funding. The F-111 was a budget drain from the get go, and the aircraft was a loser for what it was originally design for, both Navy and Air Force application. Luckily, some bright DoD leaders recognized the shortcomings and financial pitfall and cut if off after 100 aircraft. Design of separate aircraft commenced for separate missions.
2. The thought of designing one aircraft to accomplish three but distinct missions involving three services to save money was and is a pipe dream, plain and simple. A, B and C will never, ever, be the best they could have been if three separate aircraft had been designed.
3. The thought that the cost of the aircraft will go down by increased production is one of the biggest mistakes in industry, unless you have a winning product design. The F-35 is not a winning product design, it is a compromise, time and again and it is not over yet. The budget wizards will make procurement costs look like they are going down, but will never let you know that operational, maintenance and general support costs will be rising faster and by far, longer in time going forward.
4. This is the first political designed fighter aircraft where placing components by States as demanded by Congressional nit-wits, as separate from participating Countries, outweighed both logic and in some cases, ability to make components reliably. US politics rule the day.
Some US military General or Generals who are propelling the F-35 program forward at all cost, as was the USAF General who threatened his underlings with treason if they disagreed over elimination of the A-10 Warthogs. There are more like him.
Perhaps the only advantage of getting old is that one has more experience to draw on.
1. Had the all proposed F-111 program gone forward on the basis it was too big to fail, there would have been no Phantom Friday thread. In fact, looking at the F-14, F-15 and F-16 programs, one wouldn't have made it due to lack of funding. The F-111 was a budget drain from the get go, and the aircraft was a loser for what it was originally design for, both Navy and Air Force application. Luckily, some bright DoD leaders recognized the shortcomings and financial pitfall and cut if off after 100 aircraft. Design of separate aircraft commenced for separate missions.
2. The thought of designing one aircraft to accomplish three but distinct missions involving three services to save money was and is a pipe dream, plain and simple. A, B and C will never, ever, be the best they could have been if three separate aircraft had been designed.
3. The thought that the cost of the aircraft will go down by increased production is one of the biggest mistakes in industry, unless you have a winning product design. The F-35 is not a winning product design, it is a compromise, time and again and it is not over yet. The budget wizards will make procurement costs look like they are going down, but will never let you know that operational, maintenance and general support costs will be rising faster and by far, longer in time going forward.
4. This is the first political designed fighter aircraft where placing components by States as demanded by Congressional nit-wits, as separate from participating Countries, outweighed both logic and in some cases, ability to make components reliably. US politics rule the day.
Original quote by: Not_a_boffin:
As stated earlier though, there must be some who've flown it and left. If it's such a dud, what's keeping them quiet?
As stated earlier though, there must be some who've flown it and left. If it's such a dud, what's keeping them quiet?
TD - A pretty good analogy. A US air arm with 1,726 F-111s would have been good at burning fuel and (eventually) capable of low-level night attack, but that would have been about it.
N-a-B - I'm talking about the need to plan for "after the JSF" so that we are not (for example) stuck with JSF as a Typhoon/Super H &c replacement in the late 20s, and so that we retain some flexibility to deal with changing missions and threat technology.
N-a-B - I'm talking about the need to plan for "after the JSF" so that we are not (for example) stuck with JSF as a Typhoon/Super H &c replacement in the late 20s, and so that we retain some flexibility to deal with changing missions and threat technology.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LO, I'm certain that with ongoing tech advances the capability to deal with or neutralise "emerging missions and threat technology" will easily fit in a pod.
Oh hang on......
Oh hang on......
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glad Rag - Many of the assertions made in the Independent's article were incorrect or based on out of date information. It also skipped over a lot of the positive facts about the programme. It is not what I would call a balanced view of the current situation and smacks of pre-SDSR maneuvering. The answer to Graydon's issue is to buy more F-35; however given that our strategic and regional situation is somewhat different to the Saudi's (not to mention their political processes!) his comparison is barely relevant.
The problem with pods is that they have a significant impact on the RCS of the aircraft, as Boeing know. The sales pitch for F-15SE or the Advanced F-18 is basically we can give you something that almost has some of the capability of an F-35 at a fraction of the cost. For some nations this would be attractive but not for the UK.
The current design of stealth drones come with their own limitations too, but you will not neccessarily see them discussed publicly by the guys working on X-47B, NEURoN, Taranis or the Chinese one.
The problem with pods is that they have a significant impact on the RCS of the aircraft, as Boeing know. The sales pitch for F-15SE or the Advanced F-18 is basically we can give you something that almost has some of the capability of an F-35 at a fraction of the cost. For some nations this would be attractive but not for the UK.
The current design of stealth drones come with their own limitations too, but you will not neccessarily see them discussed publicly by the guys working on X-47B, NEURoN, Taranis or the Chinese one.
Last edited by WhiteOvies; 13th May 2015 at 21:02.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Lancashire
Age: 48
Posts: 550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
110 years ago aircraft were fairly basic, much like your average tory voter. 55 years ago ish the SR-71/A-12 was being tested.
I wonder what's hidden away in 2015???
Is the leap in advances likely to be linear or not. The F-35 suggests it flat lined a while back....
I wonder what's hidden away in 2015???
Is the leap in advances likely to be linear or not. The F-35 suggests it flat lined a while back....
Originally Posted by WhiteOvies
You challenged N-A-B to prove him wrong, he couldn't, I could. However I am not going to do it here or in any public forum. If I get a chance on a one-to-one basis to discuss it with the man in person I will, as I have done previously with other senior ranking politicians. Whether they listened is another matter....
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Kettering
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, there was an aeroplane called the TSR2 which was utterly brilliant, too far gone to cancel, irreplaceable, and so on.
We cancelled it. Because actually it was not up to the job, inflexible, and it was too expensive. It was a disaster of unheard-of proportions, with the RAF collapsing into disarray and the British aviation industry dying on its arse. Oh hang on, the aviation industry went on to sell lots and lots of jets to rich Saudis and the RAF muddled on through with a much more varied, more affordable and more flexible front line than they could ever have dreamed of in 1960 or even 1965.
F-35 needs to be killed just as much as TSR2 needed to be killed. Because relying on F-35 will turn the UK's air arms into the irrelevancy that so many think they already are.
Nothing is too big to die.
We cancelled it. Because actually it was not up to the job, inflexible, and it was too expensive. It was a disaster of unheard-of proportions, with the RAF collapsing into disarray and the British aviation industry dying on its arse. Oh hang on, the aviation industry went on to sell lots and lots of jets to rich Saudis and the RAF muddled on through with a much more varied, more affordable and more flexible front line than they could ever have dreamed of in 1960 or even 1965.
F-35 needs to be killed just as much as TSR2 needed to be killed. Because relying on F-35 will turn the UK's air arms into the irrelevancy that so many think they already are.
Nothing is too big to die.
LN, I love your post. But I truly think this thing has become too big. The U.S. has sunk trillions into it already and no Senator is going to allow the cancellation of a project that loses jobs in his state. And then there's the question of WTF do we do now?
All the wrong military reasons for keeping any project alive, but there you have it.
All the wrong military reasons for keeping any project alive, but there you have it.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Courtney,
We both know that some things should stay behind closed doors in a briefing room and a public forum is not the place for such discussions. The statement was born of frustration, I will remove it.
Best Regards,
WO
We both know that some things should stay behind closed doors in a briefing room and a public forum is not the place for such discussions. The statement was born of frustration, I will remove it.
Best Regards,
WO
Last edited by WhiteOvies; 13th May 2015 at 21:11.
I understand what you are driving at, but no major power would be bothered by that, in its own way excellent, combination.
There is only one way to discover that you don't have a credible deterrent, and that way usually involves several million dead.
There is only one way to discover that you don't have a credible deterrent, and that way usually involves several million dead.
Courtney,
We both know that some things should stay behind closed doors in a briefing room and a public forum is not the place for such discussions. The statement was born of frustration, I will remove it.
We both know that some things should stay behind closed doors in a briefing room and a public forum is not the place for such discussions. The statement was born of frustration, I will remove it.
Didn't mean any offence
With respect msbbarratt, those arguments aren't necessarily linked.
You can only be sure that deterrent forces have failed when they fail. You can't be sure whether we have had no major powers wars because deterrent forces were sufficient, or because the potential enemy wasn't going to attack anyway. It's the same with Flight Safety, and most of science.
I'm not an expert on US defense plans. The forces used recently by UK, France and Canada, about which I still know something, seem correct. Doubtless the manufacturers' marketing teams will be yelling 'combat-proven!', but I can't find grounds to accuse them of deliberately influencing defence deployments for that reason.
Each nation needs to make its own decision on F-35. I think F-35 is wrong for Canada. It's got one engine, is too expensive vs numbers acquirable, and isn't multi-role enough. I have it from the horse's mouth that most of the Canadian political parties agree with me, and for those reasons. At the moment, we have the other lot in power, but there's an election soon.
p.s. I think a manufacturing capability is v.important, so I would like to see Canada acquire Rafale, as they are offering a licencing deal which would allow Canada to rejuvenate its military aircraft manufacturing base for future drone aircraft (looking 15+ years down the track here).
You can only be sure that deterrent forces have failed when they fail. You can't be sure whether we have had no major powers wars because deterrent forces were sufficient, or because the potential enemy wasn't going to attack anyway. It's the same with Flight Safety, and most of science.
I'm not an expert on US defense plans. The forces used recently by UK, France and Canada, about which I still know something, seem correct. Doubtless the manufacturers' marketing teams will be yelling 'combat-proven!', but I can't find grounds to accuse them of deliberately influencing defence deployments for that reason.
Each nation needs to make its own decision on F-35. I think F-35 is wrong for Canada. It's got one engine, is too expensive vs numbers acquirable, and isn't multi-role enough. I have it from the horse's mouth that most of the Canadian political parties agree with me, and for those reasons. At the moment, we have the other lot in power, but there's an election soon.
p.s. I think a manufacturing capability is v.important, so I would like to see Canada acquire Rafale, as they are offering a licencing deal which would allow Canada to rejuvenate its military aircraft manufacturing base for future drone aircraft (looking 15+ years down the track here).
Last edited by Fox3WheresMyBanana; 13th May 2015 at 23:01.