F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
F-35 Opinions Recap
I thought we'd been through all this months ago, remember? Just before we discussed how to interpret Turn Rate/Radius/SEP graph?
Here's the thing. There are, generally, three groups here:
Much better for your credibility if, once in a while, you accept that all is not perfect and actualy engage in a debate about them and their potential solutions and/or impacts on eventual capability instead of stonewall denial of any blemish on your object of wonder.
Just a passing thought.
Here's the thing. There are, generally, three groups here:
1. Those that are (with some good reason) highly suspicious that LockMart can really deliver all they promised. We already know that the standards have been lowered (we discussed this and please let's not go through all that again), the delivery date delayed (the original one has already passed) and the price has gone up by a factor of [insert your own figure here]. They know that a lot of claims have been made based on optimistic and best case modelling under selected circumstances.
2. Those that recognize the numerous issues and challenges that are, frankly, plaguing the project and that have seen enough of these problems before to understand how this is likely to end. Group 1 also see this. These people understand that so much is invested in this that it had better bloody well work or we are in serious trouble. We get that really good people are working very hard to make it work and we know, money and politics permitting, they will deliver the best they can. But we know that it is highly likely that there will also be disappointments. We acknowledge the good news and the bad.
3. A couple of folks that, for some reason refuse to see any bad in the project, will only choose to post the most glittering and positive reports, claiming that their sources are reliable and everyone elses' are biased, poisoned or ignorant. But still quote amazing news at every turn.
As JSFfan has chosen to bring up the 6:1 claim again, I shall refresh the flaws in this claim once more. JSFfan, you admitted to no knowledge of the technicalities involved in these evaluations, but stated that you are happy to accept the views of (I paraphrase) those that know. You claimed that you are smart enough to know which sources are reliable and which are not. However, as soon as I challenged you (repeatedly, if you recall) to explain why the simulation used was able to produce the 6:1 figure, you eventually had to agree that that you could not even state what scenarios, modification states, weapons or adversaries had been used in the simulation. How, therefore, could you make a personal, informed judgement about the trial and it's conclusions? I suspect it's more likely that you chose to cling onto and repeatedly quote that figure because it suits your optimistic view of the project and your blinkered and entrenched stance of its successes AND FAILURES.2. Those that recognize the numerous issues and challenges that are, frankly, plaguing the project and that have seen enough of these problems before to understand how this is likely to end. Group 1 also see this. These people understand that so much is invested in this that it had better bloody well work or we are in serious trouble. We get that really good people are working very hard to make it work and we know, money and politics permitting, they will deliver the best they can. But we know that it is highly likely that there will also be disappointments. We acknowledge the good news and the bad.
3. A couple of folks that, for some reason refuse to see any bad in the project, will only choose to post the most glittering and positive reports, claiming that their sources are reliable and everyone elses' are biased, poisoned or ignorant. But still quote amazing news at every turn.
Much better for your credibility if, once in a while, you accept that all is not perfect and actualy engage in a debate about them and their potential solutions and/or impacts on eventual capability instead of stonewall denial of any blemish on your object of wonder.
Just a passing thought.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
This may come in useful 'JSFfan'.
This reminds me of the "force multiplier" arguments of the US/NATO air forces of the 80's vis a vis F-16 and F-15 versus the hordes of Migs expected to darken the skies over the Fulda Gap and points north and south.
If the planning assumption on force levels is 4:1, but you don't quite get that, and when the 8 show up and you lose one of yours and three of theirs in opening rounds, the 5v1 begins to take on the macabre reality of air to air combat ... in the missile age.
I don't really care what the advertised exchange ratio is. The point is, as Manfred von Richtoffen once pointed out, to see and shoot your enemy before he shoots you. Nowadays, it takes more than a hot fighter to do this. It takes a mix of assets, to include EW, jamming, and robust BVR weapons and Target ID methods to achieve such an advantage, since you don't want to waste your misiles on drones of decoys.
"We're invisible, so we'll get the first shot."
Interesting planning assumption. If you aren't actually invisible, then what?
Better have some team mates who have your back in the EW and jamming department, eh?
If the planning assumption on force levels is 4:1, but you don't quite get that, and when the 8 show up and you lose one of yours and three of theirs in opening rounds, the 5v1 begins to take on the macabre reality of air to air combat ... in the missile age.
I don't really care what the advertised exchange ratio is. The point is, as Manfred von Richtoffen once pointed out, to see and shoot your enemy before he shoots you. Nowadays, it takes more than a hot fighter to do this. It takes a mix of assets, to include EW, jamming, and robust BVR weapons and Target ID methods to achieve such an advantage, since you don't want to waste your misiles on drones of decoys.
"We're invisible, so we'll get the first shot."
Interesting planning assumption. If you aren't actually invisible, then what?
Better have some team mates who have your back in the EW and jamming department, eh?
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 17th Sep 2013 at 19:04.
Originally Posted by kbrockman
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpazSinbad
Dutch to purchase 37 F-35 fighter planes
When you reach numbers like this, one has to wonder, why even bother?
Originally Posted by SpazSinbad
Dutch to purchase 37 F-35 fighter planes
When you reach numbers like this, one has to wonder, why even bother?
So, how long will it take the RNLAF to get to a fleet of 0 x F-35......and what happens once the F-35 lines are shut down and your attrition rate of your small numbers of 'wonderjet' are such that it's an unsustainable fleet....?
Madness......
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,577
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
More F-35s in future - if the price is right - for RNLAF
Netherlands cuts F-35 fleet plan to 37 fighters 17 Sep 2013 Craig Hoyle
Netherlands cuts F-35 fleet plan to 37 fighters
"...Citing the need for “careful consideration and astute choices” during a time of budget pressure, the government notes: “Opting for a modest number of the best aircraft attests to a sense of reality.” The F-35 was selected on “operational, financial and economic grounds”, and “is also the most future-proof option”,...
...However, the statement notes: “If, within the given financial parameters, room is created in the coming years to purchase more aircraft, the defence organisation will do so. This may be the case if the [10%] contingency reserve is not used in full and if the price per unit of the F-35 turns out to be lower than is currently expected.”...
...The positive decision should also clear the way for two test aircraft already delivered to support initial operational test and evaluation activities to be returned to flight status. The pair were grounded earlier this year, pending the outcome of the formal selection decision...."
...However, the statement notes: “If, within the given financial parameters, room is created in the coming years to purchase more aircraft, the defence organisation will do so. This may be the case if the [10%] contingency reserve is not used in full and if the price per unit of the F-35 turns out to be lower than is currently expected.”...
...The positive decision should also clear the way for two test aircraft already delivered to support initial operational test and evaluation activities to be returned to flight status. The pair were grounded earlier this year, pending the outcome of the formal selection decision...."
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's time for you guys to change your song
F-35?s Ambitious, New Fleet Management System
F-35?s Ambitious, New Fleet Management System
After years of technical problems, overruns and delays, Pentagon officials are saying the F-35 aircraft is largely a known quantity. They are now focused on delivering on promises and helping the U.S. Marine Corps to declare initial operational capability in 2015 with the U.S. Air Force only a year behind.
But a lesser known factor in the success or failure of fielding these first squadrons is implementation of a new fleet-wide information support system..the Autonomic Information Logistics System (ALIS)
But a lesser known factor in the success or failure of fielding these first squadrons is implementation of a new fleet-wide information support system..the Autonomic Information Logistics System (ALIS)
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,577
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
Belgium Considers Buying 35-55 F-35s Apparently - Perhaps in late 2014?
Exclusive: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s - source 17 Sep 2013 Andrea Shalal-Esa
Exclusive: Belgium considers Lockheed F-35 to replace F-16s - source | Reuters
"(Reuters) - U.S. government officials have briefed the Belgian government about the capabilities of the Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N) F-35 fighter jet, as Brussels prepares to replace its aging fleet of 60 F-16s, a source familiar with the matter told Reuters on Tuesday.
The source, who was not authorised to speak publicly, said Belgium was considering buying 35 to 55 of the new radar-evading F-35 jets. No decisions are expected until late 2014 at the earliest after next year's elections in Belgium....
...Lockheed's F-35 programme manager, Lorraine Martin, declined comment, saying that foreign military sales are handled by the U.S. government.
U.S. defence officials had no immediate comment...."
The source, who was not authorised to speak publicly, said Belgium was considering buying 35 to 55 of the new radar-evading F-35 jets. No decisions are expected until late 2014 at the earliest after next year's elections in Belgium....
...Lockheed's F-35 programme manager, Lorraine Martin, declined comment, saying that foreign military sales are handled by the U.S. government.
U.S. defence officials had no immediate comment...."
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,577
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
Generale Bogdan - Me No Worry - Channels Alfred E. Neumann
Pentagon [Bogdan] says not worried about 'death spiral' of F-35 costs/orders 17 Sep 2013 Andrea Shalal-Esa
Pentagon says not worried about 'death spiral' of F-35 costs/orders | Reuters
"(Reuters) - The Air Force general who runs the Pentagon's F-35 fighter program on Tuesday said communications with top contractors Lockheed Martin Corp and United Technologies Corp had improved greatly in the last year.
Air Force Lieutenant General Chris Bogdan told the annual Air Force Association conference that the F-35 program was making slow but steady progress, and that he saw strong support from the U.S. military services and foreign partners.
Given that support, he said he no longer worried that the F-35 program would be afflicted by a so-called "death spiral" in which cuts in rising costs lead to lower orders which in turn further boost prices.
Bogdan said he saw no indication that the U.S. Air Force, Navy or Marine Corps planned to significantly reduce their total orders for the F-35 program, despite mounting budget pressures...."
Air Force Lieutenant General Chris Bogdan told the annual Air Force Association conference that the F-35 program was making slow but steady progress, and that he saw strong support from the U.S. military services and foreign partners.
Given that support, he said he no longer worried that the F-35 program would be afflicted by a so-called "death spiral" in which cuts in rising costs lead to lower orders which in turn further boost prices.
Bogdan said he saw no indication that the U.S. Air Force, Navy or Marine Corps planned to significantly reduce their total orders for the F-35 program, despite mounting budget pressures...."
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
Nonsense article, 2014 is a big election year, not 1 single party will burn their fingers committing to such a big-Euro(€) defence project before the elections are over and the new government is formed, something which can take quite some time, just remember what happened last time.
Also the biggest and most powerful fraction are (going to be again) the Walloon PS (Parti Socialiste) who are very French oriented when it comes to military purchases, if they decide on replacing the F16 , the JSF is certainly a possibility but far from a certainty like it is with the current JSF partners.
Offset industrial packages, mainly for SABCA, are very important, I doubt sincerely that the JSF consortium has at much to give as the others (SAAB-BOEING-DASSAULT).
to be continued.................
Also, the ALIS in the F35 runs on Windows 7 it seems with a centralized hub, makes you wonder how secure it will be once it is deployed all over the world in all kind of different hands?
just saying...
Also the biggest and most powerful fraction are (going to be again) the Walloon PS (Parti Socialiste) who are very French oriented when it comes to military purchases, if they decide on replacing the F16 , the JSF is certainly a possibility but far from a certainty like it is with the current JSF partners.
Offset industrial packages, mainly for SABCA, are very important, I doubt sincerely that the JSF consortium has at much to give as the others (SAAB-BOEING-DASSAULT).
to be continued.................
Also, the ALIS in the F35 runs on Windows 7 it seems with a centralized hub, makes you wonder how secure it will be once it is deployed all over the world in all kind of different hands?
just saying...
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
This thing is now already taking so long that important parts of it are already obsolete, years before it is coming on line.
SEAPOWER Magazine Online
SEAPOWER Magazine Online
Lockheed Martin, prime contractor for the F-35 Lightning II joint strike fighter, has been awarded a $149 million Naval Air Systems Command contract for the “the redesign and qualification of replacement F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter Electronic Warfare system components due to current diminishing manufacturing sources,” according to a Defense Department contract announcement.
This change is a technology refresh beginning with aircraft in Low-Rate Initial Production Lot 7 that is necessitated by diminishing manufacturing sources, otherwise known as parts obsolescence. Hardware modules within the EW System are being updated with new components to address these obsolescence issues.
This change is a technology refresh beginning with aircraft in Low-Rate Initial Production Lot 7 that is necessitated by diminishing manufacturing sources, otherwise known as parts obsolescence. Hardware modules within the EW System are being updated with new components to address these obsolescence issues.
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
Let's forget about STEALTH
Let's forget about STEALTH, and do the next better thing.
STEALTH won't safe the day, Speed however could be the better answer;
Think Fast | Defense News | defensenews.com
STEALTH won't safe the day, Speed however could be the better answer;
Think Fast | Defense News | defensenews.com
WASHINGTON — For much of the past decade, the buzzword A2/AD — anti-access/area-denial — has been closely linked with stealth technology. But with many nations slowly developing their own stealth capabilities, the US Air Force is looking for new advantages it can create to counter a foe’s A2/AD threats.
...
“So what comes after stealth? I’d argue part of the answer is speed.”
Stealth technology is based on a simple concept: If the enemy doesn’t know you are there, he can’t stop you. Speed, Lewis argues, takes that calculus and turns it on its side. A platform or weapon coming in at extremely high speeds will likely light up a radar system, but it’s also coming so fast that an enemy will not be able to react in time.
...
“I don’t know if in 20-30 years stealth or speed will be the best way to penetrate defenses,” he said during a Sept. 3 speech. “But I do think it is a critical issue that needs to be taken [into] account.”
“At a time when there was a lot more money available, it was OK to say all forms of solving the problem should be investigated,” he added. “At a time of fiscal austerity, I think it’s important to prioritize the option that carries the least risk of failing to fulfill military goals. The question is comparing risk.”
...
“So what comes after stealth? I’d argue part of the answer is speed.”
Stealth technology is based on a simple concept: If the enemy doesn’t know you are there, he can’t stop you. Speed, Lewis argues, takes that calculus and turns it on its side. A platform or weapon coming in at extremely high speeds will likely light up a radar system, but it’s also coming so fast that an enemy will not be able to react in time.
...
“I don’t know if in 20-30 years stealth or speed will be the best way to penetrate defenses,” he said during a Sept. 3 speech. “But I do think it is a critical issue that needs to be taken [into] account.”
“At a time when there was a lot more money available, it was OK to say all forms of solving the problem should be investigated,” he added. “At a time of fiscal austerity, I think it’s important to prioritize the option that carries the least risk of failing to fulfill military goals. The question is comparing risk.”
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by SpazSinbad
“If, within the given financial parameters, room is created in the coming years to purchase more aircraft, the defence organisation will do so. This may be the case if the [10%] contingency reserve is not used in full and if the price per unit of the F-35 turns out to be lower than is currently expected.”...
-RP
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,577
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
'(hypersonic) "speed" as in-addition-to stealth
From the same 'kbrockman' "Lets forget about stealth" article Think Fast which to me is all about hypersonic missiles and missiles today we have this quote (not reported above):
"...While high-speed weapons may be the future, they are unlikely to replace stealth technology.
“I don’t think of it as versus stealth; I think of it as in-addition-to stealth,” Lewis said. “You want to have a mix of capabilities. That’s the direction I think the Air Force will ultimately be moving towards.”..."
“I don’t think of it as versus stealth; I think of it as in-addition-to stealth,” Lewis said. “You want to have a mix of capabilities. That’s the direction I think the Air Force will ultimately be moving towards.”..."
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,577
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
Bogdan & the 'cost war room'
A Year After Blasting Contractors, F-35 Program Head Sees Progress | Bogdan says 'sequestration will not break this program' 17 Sep 2013 Aaron Mehta
A Year After Blasting Contractors, F-35 Program Head Sees Progress | Navy Times | navytimes.com
"...As an example of that cultural change, Bogdan highlighted the creation of a “cost war-room” set up between Lockheed, Pratt and the JPO. The companies are picking up the tab of the entire operation, with Lockheed providing half a floor at their D.C.-area office for free.
That office will feature cost analysts and experts taking a look at potential cost-savings in maintenance, reliability & maintainability (R&M), and the supply chain. Bogdan cited CEO-level buy-in on the project from the companies as proof of a new culture and said he was “cautiously optimistic” it will find good results.
Getting costs out of the program remains a priority, because, as Bogdan said, “If nobody can afford it, [a 5th-generation fighter] does you no good.”..."
That office will feature cost analysts and experts taking a look at potential cost-savings in maintenance, reliability & maintainability (R&M), and the supply chain. Bogdan cited CEO-level buy-in on the project from the companies as proof of a new culture and said he was “cautiously optimistic” it will find good results.
Getting costs out of the program remains a priority, because, as Bogdan said, “If nobody can afford it, [a 5th-generation fighter] does you no good.”..."
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Courtney Mil
Here's the thing. There are, generally, three groups here:
A couple of folks that, for some reason refuse to see any good in the project, will only choose to post the most negative reports regardless of their source, while claiming that their sources are reliable and everyone else's are biased, poisoned or ignorant.
Last edited by FoxtrotAlpha18; 19th Sep 2013 at 01:07.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,577
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
'Revolting' F-35 STOVL Incepts Development :-) RAS
"...This autumn will see a futher two Flight Test Group organised lectures, the first of which taking place on September 19th, ‘Revolutionising STOVL Flight Control for the Joint Strike Fighter‘, will describe the flight tests conducted on the Harrier, how and why the evaluation was set up as it was, and the results achieved...."
Flight Test Group Lecture
REVOLUTIONISING STOVL FLIGHT CONTROL FOR THE JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER
JUSTIN PAINES, CHIEF FLYING INSTRUCTOR - FIXED WING, EMPIRE TEST PILOTS’ SCHOOL
LONDON / 19 SEPTEMBER 2013
"The Harrier was one of the most iconic aircraft in RAF and RN service, but it’s unique capabilities came at a price in the complexity of the piloting task. As a result, a number of research programmes in the US and UK sought to simplify STOVL flight control for the next generation of STOVL aircraft.
The debate was complicated by the US research effort taking a strong different line to the UK effort, which was pioneered at RAE Bedford, and the resulting transatlantic impasse threatened to leave the Joint Strike Fighter programme with no clear direction on how to improve the Harrier’s complex piloting task. As a result, the UK research effort took a step back, implementing a variety of concepts for international evaluation by a mixed team of Harrier and non-Harrier experienced pilots, using the UK’s Vectored-thrust Aircraft Advanced Control (VAAC) Harrier.
The challenges in conducting the flight test were matched only by the challenges of what continued to be a heated and emotional debate between the research teams. Pilot opinion was deeply divided and based strongly on prior experience and apriori opinion. A seemingly endlessly controversial topic that could only be solved by hard data, led ultimately to a decision to adopt the preferred UK strategy.
This lecture will describe the flight test conducted, how and why the evaluation was set up as it was, and the results achieved. But it will also chronicle one of the most controversial and revolutionary decisions in flight control history. With the benefit of hindsight, the F-35 well into flight test and many pilots now operating in STOVL mode, the lecture will also look at the question “Were we right”?
Justin Paines entered the RAF in January 1988, joining the Harrier force in 1990. After a long tour on No 1 (Fighter) Squadron, including operational duties over northern Iraq, he completed Test Pilot School at Edwards Air Force Base, flying all the main US fighter types and several historic aircraft over that year. He joined Boscombe Down as a Test Pilot on the experimental (VAAC) Harrier programme and also flew test programmes in Harrier GR7 and T-10, Hawk and Tucano aircraft. He returned to the US to join the Joint Strike Fighter programme and flew the X35 A, B and C experimental aircraft.
After a tour as an Instructor on ETPS, he left the RAF and joined QinetiQ, once again flying the VAAC Harrier programme, developing advanced control concepts for the F-35B STOLV aircraft, and innovative landing technologies for Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers.
Justin rejoined ETPS in 2009, where he now serves as Chief Flying Instructor (Fixed Wing)."
The debate was complicated by the US research effort taking a strong different line to the UK effort, which was pioneered at RAE Bedford, and the resulting transatlantic impasse threatened to leave the Joint Strike Fighter programme with no clear direction on how to improve the Harrier’s complex piloting task. As a result, the UK research effort took a step back, implementing a variety of concepts for international evaluation by a mixed team of Harrier and non-Harrier experienced pilots, using the UK’s Vectored-thrust Aircraft Advanced Control (VAAC) Harrier.
The challenges in conducting the flight test were matched only by the challenges of what continued to be a heated and emotional debate between the research teams. Pilot opinion was deeply divided and based strongly on prior experience and apriori opinion. A seemingly endlessly controversial topic that could only be solved by hard data, led ultimately to a decision to adopt the preferred UK strategy.
This lecture will describe the flight test conducted, how and why the evaluation was set up as it was, and the results achieved. But it will also chronicle one of the most controversial and revolutionary decisions in flight control history. With the benefit of hindsight, the F-35 well into flight test and many pilots now operating in STOVL mode, the lecture will also look at the question “Were we right”?
Justin Paines entered the RAF in January 1988, joining the Harrier force in 1990. After a long tour on No 1 (Fighter) Squadron, including operational duties over northern Iraq, he completed Test Pilot School at Edwards Air Force Base, flying all the main US fighter types and several historic aircraft over that year. He joined Boscombe Down as a Test Pilot on the experimental (VAAC) Harrier programme and also flew test programmes in Harrier GR7 and T-10, Hawk and Tucano aircraft. He returned to the US to join the Joint Strike Fighter programme and flew the X35 A, B and C experimental aircraft.
After a tour as an Instructor on ETPS, he left the RAF and joined QinetiQ, once again flying the VAAC Harrier programme, developing advanced control concepts for the F-35B STOLV aircraft, and innovative landing technologies for Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers.
Justin rejoined ETPS in 2009, where he now serves as Chief Flying Instructor (Fixed Wing)."