More delays for the F-35
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I made a point on ignoring the "mail" some time ago but does the article give a final price for each airframe, including ecu and "expected" running costs??
NO by any chance????
FARCE !
NO by any chance????
FARCE !
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, but then nobody really knows the answer to your questions as it all depends on how many get built and when: economies of scale and all that.
Running costs depends on price of fuel for most people, again difficult to call with any certainty but the trend direction is obvious.
Like I said, at least he spoke to the Servicemen who work there before writing his article, which IMHO gives it more credence than some reports on this thread.
Running costs depends on price of fuel for most people, again difficult to call with any certainty but the trend direction is obvious.
Like I said, at least he spoke to the Servicemen who work there before writing his article, which IMHO gives it more credence than some reports on this thread.
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
Troll, a definition of,
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[4] The noun troll may refer to the provocative message itself
It is as unfounded as the other side who accuse staunch F35 supporters of being kool-aid drinkers.
kool-aid drinker;
"Drinking the Kool-Aid" refers to the 1978 Jonestown Massacre; the phrase suggests that one has mindlessly adopted the dogma of a group or leader without fully understanding the ramifications or implications
Super jet fiasco: F-35 could soon be Britain's most awe-inspiring fighter plane... | Mail Online
The F-35 could soon be Britain's most awe-inspiring fighter plane...if the budget, design flaws and delays get sorted out
Read more: Super jet fiasco: F-35 could soon be Britain's most awe-inspiring fighter plane... | Mail Online
Read more: Super jet fiasco: F-35 could soon be Britain's most awe-inspiring fighter plane... | Mail Online
Most people critical of the F35 are not against the new weapon per se, they only have severe reservations about how things turn out and what philosophies are used to come to an acceptable new fighter for the next couple of decades.
By any stretch of the imagination this thing still is a fiasco, both technological and financial and there is no clear sign, for now, that it will change anytime soon.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
kbrockman: the comment was not specifically aimed at anyone on this thread, just some lazy journalistic practice I have seen, and many have commented on, in the past. Apologies if the term upset you.
IMHO there is no doubt that the F-35 programme has issues which need solving urgently, but many defence procument programmes, which have not been buying off the shelf technology, have had similar. Particularly from a UK perspective, and looking historically:
TSR2, Nimrod AEW and MRA4, Tornado, Typhoon, A400M, Merlin etc... Some of these aircraft have been consigned to history whilst others have been, ultimately, succesful after alot of hard work and expense. Feel free to discuss of course!
I don't feel that the headline is ironic at all, just stating the case that it could be great for the UK if we're prepared to work at it and spend the money. I would say that there are a lot of very clever people looking at the technical issues and in my experience will continue to look at the technical issues throughout the F-35's service life. They will be solved, it's just a matter of time and money. Luckily it's not my decision to make the call as to when to either cough up or pull the plug.
(ps: I didn't write the article)
IMHO there is no doubt that the F-35 programme has issues which need solving urgently, but many defence procument programmes, which have not been buying off the shelf technology, have had similar. Particularly from a UK perspective, and looking historically:
TSR2, Nimrod AEW and MRA4, Tornado, Typhoon, A400M, Merlin etc... Some of these aircraft have been consigned to history whilst others have been, ultimately, succesful after alot of hard work and expense. Feel free to discuss of course!
I don't feel that the headline is ironic at all, just stating the case that it could be great for the UK if we're prepared to work at it and spend the money. I would say that there are a lot of very clever people looking at the technical issues and in my experience will continue to look at the technical issues throughout the F-35's service life. They will be solved, it's just a matter of time and money. Luckily it's not my decision to make the call as to when to either cough up or pull the plug.
(ps: I didn't write the article)
Last edited by WhiteOvies; 13th Feb 2012 at 18:59. Reason: grammar!
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
WhiteOvies,
Maybe you're right and we have to somehow take a leap of faith and put
our trust into the people working the problem(s).
And also granted, budgets, timeframes, and keeping up initially promised performance parameters seems to be ever more unachievable goals in the defense industry.
However all this is still not an excuse of what is currently happening with the JSF (or for any other platform), it boils down to a systemic fault that exist in the client-supplier relationship that exists between the industry and the client/nations involved.
With the F35 however whe're once more entering new unchartered territories whereby we are now left with 1 supplier who completely monopolized the market combined with ,what is perceived by most ill informed but decision making, politicians that believe that the F35 is the only option if you want to buy a next generation fighter that can do the job for the next 3 decades.
It used to be so that there where always at least 2 or more options if you wanted to buy something as expensive as a fighter platform (F16/F18/M2000/.....) and before the F4 or MIII, the F104, SAAB's Draken, F102/106, etc... .
Now this option has all but gone simply because 20 years ago LM redefined the categorization of fighter platforms whereby surprise, surprise they always had the only highest category available.
Don't mind that the parameters have changed considerably just to jeep their own products in that special league of extraordinary products.
This whole 5th generation folly has to end somewhere, it used to be about
affordability, maintainability, supercruise, netwerklinked, sensorfusion, stealth and superior flight characteristics, no LM product has achieved this and now they just redefine at will.
Our willingness to just follow the Americans no matter what it turns out to be is just borderline retarded.
We are squandering our own fighter building abilities, we are killing healthy competition even within the US market and we are ultimately left with a subpar product that is too costly, has to compromise too much to tailor to all clients needs and will be too dependant on LM's unique knowledge for future upgrades or implementations of non-standard weapons.
If things go over budget and past a preset timeframe wouldn't it be better to spend the money here and at least keep the resulting knowledge?
Just look how you guys stopped developping the Typhoon with 85% of the work done, now you have no AESA, still A2G weapons issues, no TVC on any of the production jets, and apparently still unresolved sensor fusion issues (acc to the Swiss), also the very promising EJ200 has been stopped in its further development tracks, where is the 230 and 270KN version in the latest
production tranches?
ISO biting the bullet and finishing the Typhoon job properly, you now are involved in an even bigger possible quagmire with the F35.
This is not an anti-America rant, I love the US and admire the stuff they can build and don't mind one iota if we buy from them.
However even the communist Soviets understood many years ago that competition leads to better results, with the F35 we've pretty much abandonned this proven road leaving us only the hope that "things will turn out ok eventually"
We're gonna have to put our trust into Lockheed and believe them just for the sake of their beautiful blue eyes (Dutch expression).
[** Another rant succesfully ended **]
Maybe you're right and we have to somehow take a leap of faith and put
our trust into the people working the problem(s).
And also granted, budgets, timeframes, and keeping up initially promised performance parameters seems to be ever more unachievable goals in the defense industry.
However all this is still not an excuse of what is currently happening with the JSF (or for any other platform), it boils down to a systemic fault that exist in the client-supplier relationship that exists between the industry and the client/nations involved.
With the F35 however whe're once more entering new unchartered territories whereby we are now left with 1 supplier who completely monopolized the market combined with ,what is perceived by most ill informed but decision making, politicians that believe that the F35 is the only option if you want to buy a next generation fighter that can do the job for the next 3 decades.
It used to be so that there where always at least 2 or more options if you wanted to buy something as expensive as a fighter platform (F16/F18/M2000/.....) and before the F4 or MIII, the F104, SAAB's Draken, F102/106, etc... .
Now this option has all but gone simply because 20 years ago LM redefined the categorization of fighter platforms whereby surprise, surprise they always had the only highest category available.
Don't mind that the parameters have changed considerably just to jeep their own products in that special league of extraordinary products.
This whole 5th generation folly has to end somewhere, it used to be about
affordability, maintainability, supercruise, netwerklinked, sensorfusion, stealth and superior flight characteristics, no LM product has achieved this and now they just redefine at will.
Our willingness to just follow the Americans no matter what it turns out to be is just borderline retarded.
We are squandering our own fighter building abilities, we are killing healthy competition even within the US market and we are ultimately left with a subpar product that is too costly, has to compromise too much to tailor to all clients needs and will be too dependant on LM's unique knowledge for future upgrades or implementations of non-standard weapons.
If things go over budget and past a preset timeframe wouldn't it be better to spend the money here and at least keep the resulting knowledge?
Just look how you guys stopped developping the Typhoon with 85% of the work done, now you have no AESA, still A2G weapons issues, no TVC on any of the production jets, and apparently still unresolved sensor fusion issues (acc to the Swiss), also the very promising EJ200 has been stopped in its further development tracks, where is the 230 and 270KN version in the latest
production tranches?
ISO biting the bullet and finishing the Typhoon job properly, you now are involved in an even bigger possible quagmire with the F35.
This is not an anti-America rant, I love the US and admire the stuff they can build and don't mind one iota if we buy from them.
However even the communist Soviets understood many years ago that competition leads to better results, with the F35 we've pretty much abandonned this proven road leaving us only the hope that "things will turn out ok eventually"
We're gonna have to put our trust into Lockheed and believe them just for the sake of their beautiful blue eyes (Dutch expression).
[** Another rant succesfully ended **]
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is so easy to criticise rather that be constructive and I feel some of the criticism is somewhat unfair.(not all of it)
Are we the big spenders regarding the F-35 or are we just a customer that wants a specific aircraft for a specialist role?
What nation has the most aircraft carrier fixed wing fast jets? I would also suggest that the answer would be the same if I were to ask what nation has more carrier borne fixed wing fast jets than the rest of the civilised world's stock all added together?
That nation must surely have far more expertise, plus up to date operational experience to develop a modern platform far far quicker than anyone else?
Are things going smoothly, are things going to schedule? Unfortunately we all know the answer to those questions but before we get on our high horse about developing our own aircraft I would suggest we take a deep breath and look no further than:
To suggest the F-35 program should not have problems during this stage of manufacture is just plain wrong and grossly unfair.
I want the F-35 program to succeed and I look forward to the day it becomes operational and if that means I am in the minority, then so be it.
Apologies for the rant but it's been a bad day
Are we the big spenders regarding the F-35 or are we just a customer that wants a specific aircraft for a specialist role?
What nation has the most aircraft carrier fixed wing fast jets? I would also suggest that the answer would be the same if I were to ask what nation has more carrier borne fixed wing fast jets than the rest of the civilised world's stock all added together?
That nation must surely have far more expertise, plus up to date operational experience to develop a modern platform far far quicker than anyone else?
Are things going smoothly, are things going to schedule? Unfortunately we all know the answer to those questions but before we get on our high horse about developing our own aircraft I would suggest we take a deep breath and look no further than:
To suggest the F-35 program should not have problems during this stage of manufacture is just plain wrong and grossly unfair.
I want the F-35 program to succeed and I look forward to the day it becomes operational and if that means I am in the minority, then so be it.
Apologies for the rant but it's been a bad day
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: .
Posts: 2,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To a large extent the problems with the F-35, and with most other current military procurement programs are due to the reversal of the experiment / development / production process.
In times of yore, a new product would be designed and built using the best possible available technology using information gleaned from development of earlier models and from pure research test beds. A new aircraft would be assembled using the best of the known off-the-shelf technologies, or those that were realistically well enough known to be a low risk. OK design optimisation would be required to get the best from a design, but in the main the lessons required to put a new model into service were learrnt by development on the previous model, or on pure research test beds. Result? new product development took relatively few (5-10) years and by the time the machine entered service there was a good chance that most of it was still "in date" technologically.
What do we have now? A situation where a company proposes a pipe-dream as being an attainable target, even though the technology does not exist. It gets a contract with a view to final production before the technology has even been proved. So what do you get? 20-year cycles before the aircraft (or ship or sub or tank or whatever) gets into volume service, by which time all the ancillary components are out of date.
Look at Harrier - when appraised of the basic Pegasus design, Camm had the basic design drafted out within weeks, using available airframe construction methods.
Compare that with F-35. Thats been built around an engine that didn't exist at he time and still has problems, with resulting issues which will need major airframe mods. Volume production is still ten years or more away, which means things such as the avionics fit, composite build materials, skin coatings will all be 15+ years out of date before there are enough aircraft around to get used. And thats before you assume a 25-20 year active life for these aircraft.
Someone needs to take a chainsaw to the whole military procurement process and separate the process flows of research and production into the two discrete streams they should be, rather than -as at present - carrying out basic research as a rectification process on an existing production design
In times of yore, a new product would be designed and built using the best possible available technology using information gleaned from development of earlier models and from pure research test beds. A new aircraft would be assembled using the best of the known off-the-shelf technologies, or those that were realistically well enough known to be a low risk. OK design optimisation would be required to get the best from a design, but in the main the lessons required to put a new model into service were learrnt by development on the previous model, or on pure research test beds. Result? new product development took relatively few (5-10) years and by the time the machine entered service there was a good chance that most of it was still "in date" technologically.
What do we have now? A situation where a company proposes a pipe-dream as being an attainable target, even though the technology does not exist. It gets a contract with a view to final production before the technology has even been proved. So what do you get? 20-year cycles before the aircraft (or ship or sub or tank or whatever) gets into volume service, by which time all the ancillary components are out of date.
Look at Harrier - when appraised of the basic Pegasus design, Camm had the basic design drafted out within weeks, using available airframe construction methods.
Compare that with F-35. Thats been built around an engine that didn't exist at he time and still has problems, with resulting issues which will need major airframe mods. Volume production is still ten years or more away, which means things such as the avionics fit, composite build materials, skin coatings will all be 15+ years out of date before there are enough aircraft around to get used. And thats before you assume a 25-20 year active life for these aircraft.
Someone needs to take a chainsaw to the whole military procurement process and separate the process flows of research and production into the two discrete streams they should be, rather than -as at present - carrying out basic research as a rectification process on an existing production design
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The Green
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However all this is still not an excuse of what is currently happening with the JSF (or for any other platform), it boils down to a systemic fault that exist in the client-supplier relationship that exists between the industry and the client/nations involved.
With the F35 however whe're once more entering new unchartered territories whereby we are now left with 1 supplier who completely monopolized the market combined with ,what is perceived by most ill informed but decision making, politicians that believe that the F35 is the only option if you want to buy a next generation fighter that can do the job for the next 3 decades.
With the F35 however whe're once more entering new unchartered territories whereby we are now left with 1 supplier who completely monopolized the market combined with ,what is perceived by most ill informed but decision making, politicians that believe that the F35 is the only option if you want to buy a next generation fighter that can do the job for the next 3 decades.
- no competition leading to a status of monopoly;
- politicians are less ill informed than defending industry lobbyists.;
- funny how in the land of free market, the US allow one company to monopolize the market of military jets and another one the market of civvy jets...
Hence I don't see IMHO a good ending to this F35 thing... Hope I am wrong otherwise there is going to be a lot of people with massive capabilities issues starting with my "rosbiff" friends.
I agree with Milo, here. I’m sure that a lot of the problems stem from organizational issues within modern corporations, nowhere more so than in the aerospace industry. When building the F-4 and, later, the F-15, McDonnell Douglas orientated itself so that the programmes were focussed on the testing process and on doing that as early as possible in the programme so that problems could be identified and fixed and designs could be optimized. However, companies are now dominated by planners, managers, financiers and legal folk, to the detriment of design optimization and programme success.
On the other side of the fence, military procurement is continually hampered by political and financial uncertainty and departments are often run by people with insufficient specialist knowledge of programme management or the processes involved. Moreover, programme managers are temporary, as I have mentioned before, resulting in a lack of continuity and continual bleeding of corporate knowledge. Btw, I do understand the career implications here.
All of these issues are bad enough in companies that have produced a rapid succession of aircraft and associated systems and a procurement system that is stable and well-resourced (and not continually reorganized). In an era where the complexities of programmes mean very long programmes and the production of fewer types using complex, cutting edge technology (or beyond) with a somewhat shambolic, highly politicised procurement system, the problems are compounded enormously. Add to that uncertainties about requirements, capabilities and outcomes, wavering customer confidence and the continual threat of further defence cuts in virtually all nations’ forces and the programme’s future looks even less certain. This further decreases customer confidence and we have an endless (positive feedback) loop.
So that’s my view of the organisational issues that are hurting this programme (and others). I personally believe it was also a mistake to try to build three significantly different models in essentially the same airframe. This unnecessarily imposed space and weight limitations, which were always bound to lead to less than optimal design – the position of the main gear and hook issue may be an example of this.
So, I am not at all surprised at the current difficulties with F-35. I echo Glojo’s sentiments and hope dearly that it succeeds. There are people in the programme that can make this happen, but they need the support to do their jobs without the politics, processes and organizational madness standing in their way.
I wonder if I fully thought all of that through?
On the other side of the fence, military procurement is continually hampered by political and financial uncertainty and departments are often run by people with insufficient specialist knowledge of programme management or the processes involved. Moreover, programme managers are temporary, as I have mentioned before, resulting in a lack of continuity and continual bleeding of corporate knowledge. Btw, I do understand the career implications here.
All of these issues are bad enough in companies that have produced a rapid succession of aircraft and associated systems and a procurement system that is stable and well-resourced (and not continually reorganized). In an era where the complexities of programmes mean very long programmes and the production of fewer types using complex, cutting edge technology (or beyond) with a somewhat shambolic, highly politicised procurement system, the problems are compounded enormously. Add to that uncertainties about requirements, capabilities and outcomes, wavering customer confidence and the continual threat of further defence cuts in virtually all nations’ forces and the programme’s future looks even less certain. This further decreases customer confidence and we have an endless (positive feedback) loop.
So that’s my view of the organisational issues that are hurting this programme (and others). I personally believe it was also a mistake to try to build three significantly different models in essentially the same airframe. This unnecessarily imposed space and weight limitations, which were always bound to lead to less than optimal design – the position of the main gear and hook issue may be an example of this.
So, I am not at all surprised at the current difficulties with F-35. I echo Glojo’s sentiments and hope dearly that it succeeds. There are people in the programme that can make this happen, but they need the support to do their jobs without the politics, processes and organizational madness standing in their way.
I wonder if I fully thought all of that through?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Reuters: Italy to cut F-35 fighter orders by 30 percent
Feb 15 (Reuters) - Italy will cut its orders for Lockheed Martin Corp's radar-evading F-35 fighter plane by more than 30 percent as part of a plan to reduce overall military spending, Defence Minister Giampaolo Di Paola said on Wednesday.
Italy plans to buy 90 warplanes, instead of the 131 it agreed to purchase in 2002, Di Paola said in testimony to the joint Senate and Chamber of Deputies defence committees. "It's a significant reduction that is coherent with our need to reduce spending," he said.
Italy's planned spending cuts follow those confirmed by the United States on Monday. The Pentagon postponed orders for 179 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters over the next five years to save $15.1 billion.
It is the third restructuring by the United States in recent years of the F-35 project, which is its biggest current weapons programme................
Feb 15 (Reuters) - Italy will cut its orders for Lockheed Martin Corp's radar-evading F-35 fighter plane by more than 30 percent as part of a plan to reduce overall military spending, Defence Minister Giampaolo Di Paola said on Wednesday.
Italy plans to buy 90 warplanes, instead of the 131 it agreed to purchase in 2002, Di Paola said in testimony to the joint Senate and Chamber of Deputies defence committees. "It's a significant reduction that is coherent with our need to reduce spending," he said.
Italy's planned spending cuts follow those confirmed by the United States on Monday. The Pentagon postponed orders for 179 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters over the next five years to save $15.1 billion.
It is the third restructuring by the United States in recent years of the F-35 project, which is its biggest current weapons programme................
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which Italian jets are getting cut? I think I am right that the Italian buy is A models for their air force and B for an AV-8B replacement.
Does anyone know what the proportions will be now?
As I understand it, it's B or bust for the Italian navy who have never had an option to build a replacement for Garibaldi and Cavour.
Does anyone know what the proportions will be now?
As I understand it, it's B or bust for the Italian navy who have never had an option to build a replacement for Garibaldi and Cavour.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Age: 74
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I understand it, it's B or bust for the Italian navy
I haven't seen any details of the new requirement but their original quota was 69 F-35As and 62 F-35Bs. The navy was down for 22 of these B's and the airforce 40, plus the A's of course. I don't know how interchangeable the B's were intended to be between the navy and the airforce, but presumably there would be flexibility.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There have been news reports for over a year now that the Italian Air Force has been having second thoughts about the 40 F-35Bs.
Since the current report has a drop in total buy of 41 aircraft, this matches up pretty well.
Since the current report has a drop in total buy of 41 aircraft, this matches up pretty well.
The failure of the JSF program to deliver on time and on cost will probably help the Italians. Cavour is half the size of the UK carriers, which will be a big problem in the care and feeding of an air wing of incredibly complex, F-4-sized aircraft.
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
no longer piloted fixed-wing AC for small carriers?
Who knows what the future really brings ?
All these budget-issues that are currently severely wheighing in on all the defense budget for nations that have small but expensive carriers, like Italy with their Cavour, combined with the very uncertain F35b and C future when it comes to both affordability and performance and maintainability, might well all lead to a new style of carrier tactics.
If the F35 is far too expensive/unavailable/unuseable for smaller carriers that still want to have a fixed airwing , it might as well lead to an (almost) complete setup of UAV-UCAV's iso of traditionally piloted fighters.
Boeing's X45N, Northrop's X47B, or other platforms made by other suppliers might well form the backbone of the future small-carrier fleet sooner rather than later.
All these budget-issues that are currently severely wheighing in on all the defense budget for nations that have small but expensive carriers, like Italy with their Cavour, combined with the very uncertain F35b and C future when it comes to both affordability and performance and maintainability, might well all lead to a new style of carrier tactics.
If the F35 is far too expensive/unavailable/unuseable for smaller carriers that still want to have a fixed airwing , it might as well lead to an (almost) complete setup of UAV-UCAV's iso of traditionally piloted fighters.
Boeing's X45N, Northrop's X47B, or other platforms made by other suppliers might well form the backbone of the future small-carrier fleet sooner rather than later.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: England
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understand that the 'awfully nice boy' leader of the MOD is about to announce a change from 35A to 35B after being spanked by the sea lords.
Why are the sailors so keen on the lift engine?
Why are the sailors so keen on the lift engine?
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: in the bath
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the Navy gets the lift jet, the RAF won't want to have them so the FAA stays in existence.
If the -C gets purchased then the RAF will nick the lot and bye-bye FAA...
If the -C gets purchased then the RAF will nick the lot and bye-bye FAA...
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
I understand that the 'awfully nice boy' leader of the MOD is about to announce a change from 35A to 35B after being spanked by the sea lords.