F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: South Skerry
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One does wonder why the Times chose to move now. There seems to be not much that's new (although apparently they state that the four test aircraft are overweight for VL). That will give the flacks, shills and fans their usual "nothing new, known issues, solutions in the works" response...
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,803
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
The article certainly didn't make pleasant reading. How much is ill-informed, or hyperbole, I cannot say ... but it sounds seriously dismal even if only part of it is accurate.
At present neither has the same strike capabilities as tornado. Yes typhoon is scheduled to carry Brims tone and Storm Shadow but not until 2018.
The sensible option would be to manintain tornado capabilities until both typhoon and F35 are at least as operationally capable.
Will that happen - Not a chance as political decisions have been made...
ORAC, George K Lee, MPN11 et al…
There’s a good response to the Times article, from Howard Wheeldon FRAeS, in one of his occasional commentaries. It’s not a blog, and it’s only available to his 6,000-odd email subscribers, but here are a couple of relevant paragraphs:
There is much more in Wheeldon’s commentary, and, whilst you might consider it to be somewhat establishment-friendly, it does set out arguments that need to be placed against the Times' tendentious article.
There’s a good response to the Times article, from Howard Wheeldon FRAeS, in one of his occasional commentaries. It’s not a blog, and it’s only available to his 6,000-odd email subscribers, but here are a couple of relevant paragraphs:
The Times report highlighted a number of issues that had been known for several years [and have been] long ago resolved. I see this ‘report’ for what it is meant to be, politically damaging. Negative, spurious and speculative and for the most part, unsubstantiated, the report appears … to be directed at political and other decision makers in the UK. It should thus be seen for what it is - an intent to do harm to both UK and US defence strategy … those that direct it, and all those many thousands of skilled workers in the UK and elsewhere who are engaged in the F-35 build programme.
All that said, I am not for one moment going to suggest that there are not certain truths to be found in the Times article in respect of technical and software related issues that have needed to be resolved over time or that even now, everything is perfect on the F-35 programme.
……
[But] Times journalists engaged on this particular defence witch-hunt have dragged out a number of so-called specialists to add seeming value to this speculative, unnecessary and damaging article. One example of this comes from the now well-known critic of how the UK does defence in the form of Commander Nigel ‘Sharkey’ MacCartan-Ward, a former Royal Navy pilot some 35 and more years ago who this time has the effrontery to suggest that “Britain might have lost the Falklands war in 1982 had it relied on the F-35 jet” because, he adds, “of the length of time it takes to download and interpret critical battlefield data hoovered up by the aircraft”, something he suggests “can be done only back on the carrier”.
What absolute nonsense this is and, as far as I am concerned, those that were used to flying jets of a bygone age can have little comprehension of the level of situational awareness that a pilot of an F-35 has.
All that said, I am not for one moment going to suggest that there are not certain truths to be found in the Times article in respect of technical and software related issues that have needed to be resolved over time or that even now, everything is perfect on the F-35 programme.
……
[But] Times journalists engaged on this particular defence witch-hunt have dragged out a number of so-called specialists to add seeming value to this speculative, unnecessary and damaging article. One example of this comes from the now well-known critic of how the UK does defence in the form of Commander Nigel ‘Sharkey’ MacCartan-Ward, a former Royal Navy pilot some 35 and more years ago who this time has the effrontery to suggest that “Britain might have lost the Falklands war in 1982 had it relied on the F-35 jet” because, he adds, “of the length of time it takes to download and interpret critical battlefield data hoovered up by the aircraft”, something he suggests “can be done only back on the carrier”.
What absolute nonsense this is and, as far as I am concerned, those that were used to flying jets of a bygone age can have little comprehension of the level of situational awareness that a pilot of an F-35 has.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Where the leaks come from is obvious in one of the articles - and the drift of the others in the problems with the F-35s linking with the carriers; the dire state of the carriers networking; and the vulnerability of all and ALIS to cyber attack....
The newest part of the military, in charge of networks and cyber-matters, must save up to £400 million this year to help bail out the rest of defence. Pressure on the budget for Joint Forces Command (JFC) is symptomatic of a failure by defence chiefs to prioritise information-sharing over the procurement of equipment such as fast jets and warships, former commanders and defence industry sources said. “Hardware has triumphed and networking and connectivity has failed,” a senior defence source said.
All parts of the armed forces have to find additional savings over the year because of a hole in the defence budget of between £1 billion and £2 billion.
The JFC, led by General Sir Chris Deverell, was created in 2011 to take charge of areas that span the navy, army and air force, including information systems. It was hoped this would ensure a greater appreciation of IT at the heart of fighting. Six years later, officials at the Ministry of Defence are aware that networking and connectivity for their two new aircraft carriers and the fighter jets that will fly off them is vital but there is insufficient funding left to buy and install the desired systems.....
All parts of the armed forces have to find additional savings over the year because of a hole in the defence budget of between £1 billion and £2 billion.
The JFC, led by General Sir Chris Deverell, was created in 2011 to take charge of areas that span the navy, army and air force, including information systems. It was hoped this would ensure a greater appreciation of IT at the heart of fighting. Six years later, officials at the Ministry of Defence are aware that networking and connectivity for their two new aircraft carriers and the fighter jets that will fly off them is vital but there is insufficient funding left to buy and install the desired systems.....
Buster 15,
First off it's three squadrons and not two; 9, 12 and 31, secondly it may be a "perfectly capable first line strike Tornado GR4 fleet," but it's been in service for over 36 years and it has been worked very hard operationally for 26 of those years almost continuously.
Typhon and Lightning will have all of the capabilities of Tornado less the large Reconnaissance pod, and the GR4 doesn't go until 2019, when these capabilities will be worked up on Typhoon and on the way on Lightning.
Let the old beast go...
First off it's three squadrons and not two; 9, 12 and 31, secondly it may be a "perfectly capable first line strike Tornado GR4 fleet," but it's been in service for over 36 years and it has been worked very hard operationally for 26 of those years almost continuously.
Typhon and Lightning will have all of the capabilities of Tornado less the large Reconnaissance pod, and the GR4 doesn't go until 2019, when these capabilities will be worked up on Typhoon and on the way on Lightning.
Let the old beast go...
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
See that "I" in IOC"? That stands for "Initial". A lot of testing is required to change that "I" into an "F". Even after that "I" becomes an "F" constant testing will continue. Tornado, Typhoon, Super Hornet, Eagle have been fully operational for a long time, yet testing continues. C-17 production line recently closed, yet testing continues. B-52 has been flying for well over 6 decades and testing continues. Nearly 8000 737s have been built, yet testing continues. It's the nature of aviation.
Last edited by KenV; 18th Jul 2017 at 15:28.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,575
Likes: 0
Received 51 Likes
on
45 Posts
SAR Selected Acquisition Report Dec 2016 as at 26 Jun 2017 as of FY2018 President's Budget
Estimated Combat Radius NM for F-35A = 669
Estimated Combat Radius NM for F-35B = 505
Estimated Combat Radius NM for F-35C = 640
http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=25039 (PDF 0.7Mb)
Estimated Combat Radius NM for F-35B = 505
Estimated Combat Radius NM for F-35C = 640
http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=25039 (PDF 0.7Mb)
F-35 Unit Cost Dec 2016 SAR
The DoD average F-35 Aircraft Unit Recurring Flyaway (URF) Cost consists of the Hardware (Airframe, Vehicle Systems, Mission Systems, and Engineering Change Order) costs over the life of the program. The URF assumes the quantity benefits of 132 FMS aircraft and 609 International Partner aircraft.
The current estimate for F-35 total procurement quantity increased from 2443 to 2456. This is the result of an increase of 13 F-35B aircraft to be procured by the United States Marine Corps (USMC). The increase is reflected in both the aircraft and engine subprogram and results in a change from 680 to 693 in the Department of Navy Aircraft Procurement accounts. The USMC validated this requirement through the Marine Corps Requirements Oversight Council (MROC). The additional aircraft are fully funded and the funding is reflected in the FY 2018 President's Budget submission. The additional aircraft were added after the completion of the congressionally directed Department-wide fighter mix study. The strategic review will assess future tactical fighter force inventory requirements across the Department.
F-35A (Conventional Take Off and Landing) URF - $67.7M (BY 2012)
F-35B (Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing) URF - $77.1M (BY 2012)
F-35C (Carrier Variant) URF - $78.1M (BY 2012)
The DoD average F-35 Aircraft Unit Recurring Flyaway (URF) Cost consists of the Hardware (Airframe, Vehicle Systems, Mission Systems, and Engineering Change Order) costs over the life of the program. The URF assumes the quantity benefits of 132 FMS aircraft and 609 International Partner aircraft.
The current estimate for F-35 total procurement quantity increased from 2443 to 2456. This is the result of an increase of 13 F-35B aircraft to be procured by the United States Marine Corps (USMC). The increase is reflected in both the aircraft and engine subprogram and results in a change from 680 to 693 in the Department of Navy Aircraft Procurement accounts. The USMC validated this requirement through the Marine Corps Requirements Oversight Council (MROC). The additional aircraft are fully funded and the funding is reflected in the FY 2018 President's Budget submission. The additional aircraft were added after the completion of the congressionally directed Department-wide fighter mix study. The strategic review will assess future tactical fighter force inventory requirements across the Department.
F-35A (Conventional Take Off and Landing) URF - $67.7M (BY 2012)
F-35B (Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing) URF - $77.1M (BY 2012)
F-35C (Carrier Variant) URF - $78.1M (BY 2012)
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 18th Jul 2017 at 03:54. Reason: add grfx/txt
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,575
Likes: 0
Received 51 Likes
on
45 Posts
Some extra cute/pastie because some of youse will not see the entire artickle....
F-35B begins new ski-ramp testing campaign 17 Jul 2017 Richard Scott
F-35B begins new ski-ramp testing campaign 17 Jul 2017 Richard Scott
"The F-35 Lightning II Pax River Integrated Test Force has begun a second round of land-based F-35B ski-ramp testing at Naval Air Station (NAS) Patuxent River...
...The Phase 2 test programme began in June and is designed to expand the ski-jump envelope. This includes launches with external stores, increased crosswind conditions, and take offs at a range of different speeds....
...Three of the five F-35B system design and development aircraft have been used for Phase 2 testing, which has to date been shared by six pilots. “At least one additional pilot will be introduced shortly, in preparation for the First of Class Flight Trials on [HMS Queen Elizabeth ] next year,” Wilson added. “We will complete by the end of the year; most likely by the end of October...." F-35B begins new ski-ramp testing campaign | Jane's 360
...The Phase 2 test programme began in June and is designed to expand the ski-jump envelope. This includes launches with external stores, increased crosswind conditions, and take offs at a range of different speeds....
...Three of the five F-35B system design and development aircraft have been used for Phase 2 testing, which has to date been shared by six pilots. “At least one additional pilot will be introduced shortly, in preparation for the First of Class Flight Trials on [HMS Queen Elizabeth ] next year,” Wilson added. “We will complete by the end of the year; most likely by the end of October...." F-35B begins new ski-ramp testing campaign | Jane's 360
Photo: "F-35B test aircraft BF-1 seen during Phase 2 ski ramp testing. The aircraft is pictured here configured with external pylons and AIM-9X missiles. Source: Dane Wiedmann/Lockheed Martin" http://www.janes.com/images/assets/3...387_-_main.jpg
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 18th Jul 2017 at 13:05. Reason: + JPGtxt
Buster 15,
First off it's three squadrons and not two; 9, 12 and 31, secondly it may be a "perfectly capable first line strike Tornado GR4 fleet," but it's been in service for over 36 years and it has been worked very hard operationally for 26 of those years almost continuously.
Typhon and Lightning will have all of the capabilities of Tornado less the large Reconnaissance pod, and the GR4 doesn't go until 2019, when these capabilities will be worked up on Typhoon and on the way on Lightning.
Let the old beast go...
First off it's three squadrons and not two; 9, 12 and 31, secondly it may be a "perfectly capable first line strike Tornado GR4 fleet," but it's been in service for over 36 years and it has been worked very hard operationally for 26 of those years almost continuously.
Typhon and Lightning will have all of the capabilities of Tornado less the large Reconnaissance pod, and the GR4 doesn't go until 2019, when these capabilities will be worked up on Typhoon and on the way on Lightning.
Let the old beast go...
It is interesting that the RAF are flying mixed typhoon/tornado sorties over Iraq to get the best of both aircraft usage.
As to Let the old beast go, my simple question is WHY. The B52 is significantly older yet the USA continue to upgrade it. Reason, it can do things that other jets cannot.
I have no concerns about tornado being retired. My concern is that it is being done for the wrong reasons.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Estimated Combat Radius NM for F-35A = 669
Estimated Combat Radius NM for F-35B = 505
Estimated Combat Radius NM for F-35C = 640
Estimated Combat Radius NM for F-35B = 505
Estimated Combat Radius NM for F-35C = 640
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has something happened to reduce the range of the C, or are apples and pears being compared?
As well as airsound's link above to Howard Wheeldon's response to The Times stories, here's a thoughtful discussion along similar lines from "Sir Humphrey" of the Thin Pinstriped Line blog - he is normally very considered in what he writes and it would seem he is well plugged into UK Defence Procurement at a fairly senior level so what he says is usually well worth reading, even if you don't necessarily agree with him.
"Which version of the Truth to believe?"
Edit. Oh, why does PPRuNe do that? The link is here, but you need to replace the asterisks with "b l o g s p o t" (without the spaces):
https://thinpinstripedline.********....o-believe.html
"Which version of the Truth to believe?"
Edit. Oh, why does PPRuNe do that? The link is here, but you need to replace the asterisks with "b l o g s p o t" (without the spaces):
https://thinpinstripedline.********....o-believe.html
Last edited by BossEyed; 18th Jul 2017 at 15:39. Reason: Link crippled by PPRuNe
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's what I thought too. Not sure but I believe the A combat radius is for a USAF combat loadout and the C for a USN combat loadout, which are different. In addition, the empty weight of the C is considerably higher than the A to accommodate carrier operations. Perhaps the two together are driving the seeming disparity.
Thanks muchly, BossEyed - I hadn't come across Sir H in this guise before. He's good, isn't he - although you might feel that it's easy for me to say that, but you couldn't possibly comment
I couldn't get your linky thing to work though. Here's another attempt.
https://thinpinstripedline.********.co.uk/
Ok PPRuNe, you win. But if you google thinpinstripedline you'll find it. As of today, it's still the top blog.
I couldn't get your linky thing to work though. Here's another attempt.
https://thinpinstripedline.********.co.uk/
Ok PPRuNe, you win. But if you google thinpinstripedline you'll find it. As of today, it's still the top blog.
Last edited by airsound; 18th Jul 2017 at 17:03. Reason: Linky still rendered useless
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"
Typhon and Lightning will have all of the capabilities of Tornado less the large Reconnaissance pod, and the GR4 doesn't go until 2019, when these capabilities will be worked up on Typhoon and on the way on Lightning."
Which is a complete fantasy...
Typhon and Lightning will have all of the capabilities of Tornado less the large Reconnaissance pod, and the GR4 doesn't go until 2019, when these capabilities will be worked up on Typhoon and on the way on Lightning."
Which is a complete fantasy...
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmmm. Is this actual ignorance or willful ignorance?
See that "I" in IOC"? That stands for "Initial". A lot of testing is required to change that "I" into an "F". Even after that "I" becomes an "F" constant testing will continue. Tornado, Typhoon, Super Hornet, Eagle have been fully operational for a long time, yet testing continues. C-17 production line recently closed, yet testing continues. B-52 has been flying for well over 6 decades and testing continues. Nearly 8000 737s have been built, yet testing continues. It's the nature of aviation.
See that "I" in IOC"? That stands for "Initial". A lot of testing is required to change that "I" into an "F". Even after that "I" becomes an "F" constant testing will continue. Tornado, Typhoon, Super Hornet, Eagle have been fully operational for a long time, yet testing continues. C-17 production line recently closed, yet testing continues. B-52 has been flying for well over 6 decades and testing continues. Nearly 8000 737s have been built, yet testing continues. It's the nature of aviation.
You have repeatedly taken others to task re the capabilities of F35 deployed to forward locations. Are you now saying that those aircraft are actually less than capable and in fact have not been subjected to the more stringent testing required to operate in such a region?
I don't think it's fair to belittle you further as you are obviously an enthusiastic follower of the "program" which is fine.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,575
Likes: 0
Received 51 Likes
on
45 Posts
[SAR Dec 2016] "Change Explanations
(Ch-1) Operational Requirements Document (ORD) Change 3 dated August 19, 2008 as modified by JROC Memorandum 040-12 dated March 16, 2012. For Demonstrated Performance, extensive flight test data was used to calibrate the aero-performance model. The values listed herein as “Demonstrated Performance” are based on the final aero-performance model (up-and-away) for the F-35A and F-35B."
(Ch-1) Operational Requirements Document (ORD) Change 3 dated August 19, 2008 as modified by JROC Memorandum 040-12 dated March 16, 2012. For Demonstrated Performance, extensive flight test data was used to calibrate the aero-performance model. The values listed herein as “Demonstrated Performance” are based on the final aero-performance model (up-and-away) for the F-35A and F-35B."