F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

[Squirrel 41]

JSFfan wrote:

There are some very knowledgeably guys here. However it isn't the ones quoting Wheeler, Sweetman or some out of the loop General or Politician.

Ah, so anyone who is a critic - or indeed a critical friend - of JSF is wrong. Good, helpful analysis.

It isn't the ones harbouring a delusional wish propagating the possibilityof the F-35b being cancelled or that a catobar carrier fitted the UK CONOPS.

And the CONOPS that makes Dave-B uncancellable are.....?

As has been said, the US fiscal realities are such that there will be significant defense (sic) cuts, and the size of the JSF program (sic) is such that it is virtually impossible to ignore. See the posts elsewhere in this thread on the impact of the red teaming over the last 12 months.

S41

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

Originally Posted by Bastardeux

It's plain to anyone who can add up that there is another restructuring coming for this thing.

Care to validate that comment with some facts?

Last I heard development and production was on or ahead of the current schedule set in 2011 and costs were coming down, albeit not as quickly as some would like.

Is there an actual need for another restructure, beyond the hopes of the vexatious querelents that is?

Originally Posted by Bastardeux

...your bias towards the F35 doesn't validate your opinion either.

Agreed - JSFfan's comments are unhelpful to those who ARE in the know and who's belief in the program is based on fact.

[JSFfan]

Ah, so anyone who is a critic - or indeed a critical friend - of JSF is wrong. Good, helpful analysis.

No, there is nothing wrong with being critical, but it does need to be reality based. The risks and problems are mostly public through reports to governments, with the block 3 software cited as the biggest issue for any further delays

Wheeler and co going, the F-22 and F-35 are just mumbug. The F-16 and A10 are all that's needed. If this makes sense to you..keep reading his ramblings of an old man.

[Bastardeux]

Care to validate that comment with some facts?

With the continuation of the bush era tax cuts to the vast majority of tax payers and capital gains tax going up by only 5%, rather than the 25% originally envisioned; the republicans are now completely closed to any further tax rises. The US will get away with not reaching the 195% of GDP debt ratio by 2035, but it will still pile well into the 100%-130% range if the current spending trends continue. At $1.5 trillion over a lifetime, do you think the F35 will make it through unscathed? I highly, highly doubt it!

The US navy may even be happy to sacrifice it, if some rumours are true!

And the appointment of Chuck Hagel, the DoD budget's equivalent of the texas chainsaw massacre, as Secretary of Defense makes the whole situation more depressing for them.

[LowObservable]

Foxtrot Alpha - There's good news, and bad news, and no news about progress since 2011.

The good news is that some recent flight-test milestones (those that were announced months in advance) have been passed on time, and production is making progress to being on schedule (whether that would be the case if they had attempted to stay on the pre-2011 ramp, I doubt). But that just means that the program is not getting further behind the original schedule.

The bad news is that some of the problems identified in the Quick Look Review report in late 2011, such as on-the-vizor night vision and the tailhook, are proving fix-resistant. Not that it can't be done but the first and easiest fixes don't seem to be working as hoped.

The no-news is that nobody dares predict an IOC date in public.

Bastardeux - Briefly: The attempt to exclude defense from budget cuts went down the tubes November 6. I can't cut defense without hitting procurement because there are limits to what I can cut in personnel, and I can't cut procurement without touching JSF.

N-a-B - If you can't afford what the JIRD/JORD resulted in, you have to try something else. The USAF is moving towards a stealthy/non-stealthy mix because that's what they can afford through 2030. Lots of the carrier navy would be happy with new Super Hs into the early 20s. Both the USAF and CV communities would happily tell the Marines to go pound sand, because the normal load of six jets per LHA/LHD is not strategically decisive.

[Bastardeux]

Briefly: The attempt to exclude defense from budget cuts went down the tubes November 6. I can't cut defense without hitting procurement because there are limits to what I can cut in personnel, and I can't cut procurement without touching JSF.

My point exactly, and I should think that politicians' ignorance to the capabilities of the aircraft will make it look like the behemoth in the room.

[WhiteOvies]

When Panetta took the B variant off probation he was given a full brief on the capabilities, a walk around the aircraft and some hands on in the sim at Pax River. It's only an hour and a bit from DC so you'd like to think Hagel would make the effort to get himself up to speed with a visit before dropping the axe....

Maybe I'm being optimistic about the politicians

[Not_a_boffin]

N-a-B - If you can't afford what the JIRD/JORD resulted in, you have to try something else. The USAF is moving towards a stealthy/non-stealthy mix because that's what they can afford through 2030. Lots of the carrier navy would be happy with new Super Hs into the early 20s. Both the USAF and CV communities would happily tell the Marines to go pound sand, because the normal load of six jets per LHA/LHD is not strategically decisive.

LO - I don't necessarily disagree wrt JIRD/JORD. However - this side of the pond and I assume over there too - you can't just pitch up at the Treasury waving a note saying that you'd like half a dozen F16 and a bakers dozen of FA18 please. In order to get it through, you have to have a requirement for the kit and which the kit can definitively meet - not just "nearest" to.

What that will mean is a revisit of the JIRD/JORD, which may well prove fatal for B, but is likely to get a bit tricky for A and C - particularly given that F117 has gone to those lovely hangars in Tonopah. This is the bit that no-one is quite hauling aboard - if you want Day1 strike against double-digit SAM, 3-4Gen fighters and an IADS, you are now left with 18(?) B2 to cover everything. USAF has much reduced EW support, which is only going to get worse as the joint Prowlers retire, so the Strike Eagles even if some go "Silent" probably won't be enough, let alone the proposed F16s. USN is slightly better with Growler, but not by much. In any case, if they want to stay relevant against anyone armed more heavily than the equivalent of the peaceloving tribes of M'Boto Gorge, they really need something more than SuperBug. TLAM can pick up some of the slack, but not against all target sets.

That was my point - "savings" (if any) are going to be much harder to find than people suppose. Any requirement rewrite is unlikely to (credibly) come up with something that looks like more F16 and more F18. Silent Eagle might be something else, but that doesn't appear to be what is on the table.

[LowObservable]

Mr Boffin

Very true. There really is not a good way out but the Option A - damn the torpedoes and proceed with the program of record - is beginning to look like an economic impossibility, even if everything else is sacrificed to it.

The basic tenets of the AF/Navy requirement were probably close to achievable, but combining stealth with classic fighter performance is challenging. Unfortunately, adding STOVL + fighter performance (which in itself wasn't easy) to the mix made it next to impossible.

Then they threw in cost "estimates" that were not really estimates at all, but were derived from budget projections and force structure targets and the desire to close down everyone else's fighter programs, and the project was doomed before the JIRD/JORD thing started.

What now? Clearly there is no appetite for starting a new program based on JORD with less silly costs and no STOVL.

One starting point may be to say - We do need stealth in larger numbers than NGB (and on carriers) so how do we do it? Do we go for a subsonic tactical aircraft with better stealth (to knock the defenses down and keep them down) and extend the useful life of current and evolved designs?

[ORAC]

Not_a_boffin,

I believe that there is at least one stealthy, long endurance, UACV ECM capable platform deployable in the same time frame as the F-35..

[Not_a_boffin]

ORAC - I think we might need more than one!

LO - I assume NGB means the AF successor to Buff & Bone. If past performance (B1/B2 programs) is anything to go by, F35 will look like a model of acquisition in comparison.....

Unfortunately a subsonic attack frame will not do what everyone (certainly the USN and UK) will want from it. Does anyone seriously believe that a start again now approach will deliver anything usable (and by that I mean a few ET&OD frames) before 2030?

I knew folk should have stuck with F14 ASF.........

[WhiteOvies]

ORAC - are you thinking X-47? They're still working on the flight sciences aircraft but NGC have planned to get the cats and traps basics sorted first before adding the mission capabilities.

At least with F-35C the work done on A and B variants can be directly read across. Eglin should see its first F-35Cs relatively soon, and IOC should certainly well be before X-47 IOC.

Of course the hook issue needs fully resolving as LM did the testing the other way round to NGC...

[ORAC]

ORAC - are you thinking X-47?

No. A black Northrop program. See here.

[Pittsextra]

Did anyone go to this last night??

Royal Aeronautical Society | Event | The Joint Strike Fighter: Programme Progress

[LowObservable]

N-a-B...

One thing that we do have to do is stop running programs that take 25 years from first-serious-money to IOC. It was unknown before 1980 (it would be like the F-16 starting development in 1955) and it is unsustainable.

There's no reason that we could not replicate LWF (YF-16/17) today - a 4-year build and test program using off-the-shelf propulsion and systems. And if we look at the history books, LWF/NACF happened because the civilian leadership realized that replacing every F-4 in the inventory with an F-15 or F-14 was an economic nonstarter.

As for subsonic... It will be interesting to see how much supersonic time the F-35B (fuel fraction = clean F-16) and F-35C (heavy, big wing = transonic drag) actually see on any given sortie. I have heard the latter called "a stealth YA-7F".

[Not_a_boffin]

One thing that we do have to do is stop running programs that take 25 years from first-serious-money to IOC. It was unknown before 1980 (it would be like the F-16 starting development in 1955) and it is unsustainable.

Agree 110%. However, the political, threat and industrial landscapes have changed significantly since then. Once upon a time there were pollies who understood the need for military equipment, there was an (arguably) existential threat with real kit to counter, there was a civilian DoD or MoD establishment that knew how much and when detailed analysis was called for and there was an industry staffed with people who had learned hard lessons on numerous previous programmes. Oh and software performance was very definitely secondary in terms of cost and risk to airframe propulsion etc.

Now, there are relatively few pollies who understand that military equipment is a necessity; it is very difficult to identify a military existential threat; the DoD/MoD is staffed with people who believe that literally every element of performance and support must be analysed against detailed scenarios (but keep changing the scenarios and requiring different analyses) and have invented numerous processes that must be followed in every detail; most in industry have not undertaken the early-stage design of things (which is where you get the basics right) and have no scars. Oh and you can't even buy a simple switch that hasn't got some element of software in it.

That's where the time goes. As I'm sure you know.

LWF/NACF happened because the civilian leadership realized that replacing every F-4 in the inventory with an F-15 or F-14 was an economic nonstarter.

Bet they wish they had now!

It will be interesting to see how much supersonic time the F-35B (fuel fraction = clean F-16) and F-35C (heavy, big wing = transonic drag) actually see on any given sortie. I have heard the latter called "a stealth YA-7F".

It's the ability to do it in short bursts that will be important - at least for RN. I think X32 was probably closer to a SLUF-NG, if only in looks.....

[John Farley]

Pittsextra.

In a word yes.

[kbrockman]

Turkey starting to show signs of doubt about the F35

Turkey Postpones Order for Its First Two F-35 Fighters | Defense News | defensenews.com

“Due to the current state of the JSF (Joint Strike Fighter) ... and the rising cost ... it was decided to postpone the order placed on Jan 5, 2012, for the two aircraft,” the Undersecretariat for Defence Industry (SSM) said in a statement.

The SSM, the public body responsible for Turkey’s arms purchases, said the decision was taken because the technical capabilities of the aircraft were ”not at the desired level yet.

After the initial purchase of the two jets, Turkey plans to order 100 units of the stealth fighter to replace its current fleet consisting mainly of F-4 Phantoms and F-16 Falcons, according to the statement.

No orders before 2014, the first examples cancelled, that sounds suspiciously much like a bad case of cold feet.

[Squirrel 41]

LO:

F-35C (heavy, big wing = transonic drag) actually see on any given sortie. I have heard the latter called "a stealth YA-7F".

If only... would be very useful!

JF - sorry I missed it. Your thoughts eagerly awaited.

S41

[ANCPER]

I think you people have an astroturfer in your midst.