More delays for the F-35
LF has a point. The program was, in fact, pretty much left to its own devices until early 2010, and a right budders' muggle ensued before the adults stepped in and (at least for the moment) saved us from building triple-digit quantities of LRIPs that would at best require extensive rework, and that at worst would be equivalents of the F-111A and D.
Nobody's denying that the B is an engineering achievement. But then so was Concorde - no aircraft today flies farther, unrefueled at supersonic speed, and Concorde did it day in, day out with 100 seats and a commercial ticket. I suggest that the B is in rather the same fix, with a small useful load compared with its weight. The result is (1) a vulnerability to small shortfalls in performance or efficiency and (2) potential difficulty in upgrading later.
Another reason that a lot of outside attention should be focused on JSF is this: 25-30 years ago, the Pentagon decided that whole fleets of aircraft should go stealth, with internal weapons, chined and canted body shapes, lots of RAM, LPI-everything and so on. The result: A-12 binned, B-2 cut back to 21 aircraft, 160-some combat-ready F-22s (and the latter cuts based on high costs as much as knock-kneed bureaucrats).
The Pentagon bet the boat, the truck and the college fund on those projects. With JSF, it's the house.
NaB - "Overoptimism" is a very kind word for LM's projections. However, the most accurate description is probably not for publication...
Nobody's denying that the B is an engineering achievement. But then so was Concorde - no aircraft today flies farther, unrefueled at supersonic speed, and Concorde did it day in, day out with 100 seats and a commercial ticket. I suggest that the B is in rather the same fix, with a small useful load compared with its weight. The result is (1) a vulnerability to small shortfalls in performance or efficiency and (2) potential difficulty in upgrading later.
Another reason that a lot of outside attention should be focused on JSF is this: 25-30 years ago, the Pentagon decided that whole fleets of aircraft should go stealth, with internal weapons, chined and canted body shapes, lots of RAM, LPI-everything and so on. The result: A-12 binned, B-2 cut back to 21 aircraft, 160-some combat-ready F-22s (and the latter cuts based on high costs as much as knock-kneed bureaucrats).
The Pentagon bet the boat, the truck and the college fund on those projects. With JSF, it's the house.
NaB - "Overoptimism" is a very kind word for LM's projections. However, the most accurate description is probably not for publication...
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 53
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F35 is quickly achieving more goals
With the stroke of a pen the F35 achieved some of its goals without needing
such laborious and silly thing as a redesign or retest.
Login
such laborious and silly thing as a redesign or retest.
Login
Pentagon Slackens Difficult-To-Achieve JSF Performance Requirements
The Pentagon last month relaxed the performance requirements for the Joint Strike Fighter, allowing the Air Force F-35A variant to exceed its previous combat radius -- a benchmark it previously missed -- and granting the Marine Corps F-35B nearly 10 percent additional runway length for short take-offs, according to Defense Department sources.
The Pentagon last month relaxed the performance requirements for the Joint Strike Fighter, allowing the Air Force F-35A variant to exceed its previous combat radius -- a benchmark it previously missed -- and granting the Marine Corps F-35B nearly 10 percent additional runway length for short take-offs, according to Defense Department sources.
Not suggesting a blank cheque in any way shape or form, merely pointing out that this particular stage where real fixes can be made to real aircraft to correct real problems ought to be treated as such, rather than as the end of the world. You don't can a programme if it hits a problem. You find out whether it can be fixed, for how much and then make a value judgement.
LO - I agree, whether it all had to be LO or nothing is debatable, particularly if treating A or B as Hog or Harrier "replacements". However, we are where we are and as far as the US goes, there ain't a plan B. If you look whta is happening with US Naval shipbuilding, the F35 / FA18 analogy is right there with DDG1000 and the DDG51 Flights III & IV. Funny old thing, the "cheap" 51 restart ain't actually all that cheap anymore.
Moral of the story is probably to buy fewer numbers of new designs more frequently. That way people haven't forgotten how things are done. Economies of scale are not absolute......
LO - I agree, whether it all had to be LO or nothing is debatable, particularly if treating A or B as Hog or Harrier "replacements". However, we are where we are and as far as the US goes, there ain't a plan B. If you look whta is happening with US Naval shipbuilding, the F35 / FA18 analogy is right there with DDG1000 and the DDG51 Flights III & IV. Funny old thing, the "cheap" 51 restart ain't actually all that cheap anymore.
Moral of the story is probably to buy fewer numbers of new designs more frequently. That way people haven't forgotten how things are done. Economies of scale are not absolute......
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Lowe Flieger
I defer to your engineering expertise which dwarfs my understanding of such complexities, but if I were a decision maker on this project (you will be relieved to hear I am not) I don't think I would be saying "Right-oh, just let me know when you're finished and send me the bill" - and I don't think you think that either. People do have the right to ask such questions and get answers - except we are not.
I am sure I speak on behalf of the majority when I say that 'Engines' is an extremely knowledgeable person who knows his subject and if we disagree with him then that is our right, but it does not make him wrong
Having said that I understand what you are saying and agree with your very valid points.
I still cannot help wondering if those that are pushing the 'B' have got used to working alongside the harrier and are now looking at its replacement as opposed to a more suitable replacement? I ask US Marines 'Why have a fifth generation stealth aircraft and then use it for close air support in daylight and loaded down with external weapons?' I just cannot understand the logic. Surely the welfare of those on the ground is best preserved by 'more bangs for the buck' as opposed to billions of dollars of wasted fifth generation technology?
It's Sunday and I need cheering up.
A woman in a hot air balloon realized she was lost. She reduced altitude and
spotted a man below.
She descended a bit more and shouted: "Excuse me, can you help me? I
promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago but I don't know where I am."
The man below replied, "You're in a hot air balloon hovering approximately
30 feet above the ground. You're between 40 and 41 degrees north latitude
and between 59 and 60 degrees west longitude."
''You must be an Engineer", said the balloonist.
"I am", replied the man, "how did you know?"
''Well", answered the balloonist, "everything you have told me is probably
technically correct, but I've no idea what to make of your information and
the fact is, I'm still lost. Frankly, you've not been much help at all. If
anything, you've delayed my trip by your talk".
The man below responded, "You must be in Management".
''I am", replied the balloonist, "but how did you know?"
''Well", said the man, "you don't know where you are or where you're going.
You have risen to where you are, due to a large quantity of hot air. You
made a promise, which you've no idea how to keep, and you expect people
beneath you to solve your problems. The fact is you are in exactly the same
position you were in before we met, but now, somehow, it's my fault."
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Age: 74
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Moral of the story is probably to buy fewer numbers of new designs more frequently.
A bit more realism at the outset concerning costs and time-scales might help - but I guess that would risk not getting started at all. Whatever, if at the end of 25 to 30 years you end up with a system that is still relevant, that is as likely to be due to luck as much as judgement. That is not an ideal way to commit hundreds of billions of dosh.
Glojo,
Your point about the B-model is well made. The Harrier served us well in the past, but just because it did well in the Cold War, doesn't necessarily make it future of Naval Air Power. If we can go 'high tech' perhaps go for the best capability available. The limitations of the B may not represent that. High value (sorry, very high cost)air assets in the CAS role? Yep, you're right.
Love the joke!
I have to say, this is one of the best-informed and well-mannered threads I've seen here in a long time. Thank you all.
Your point about the B-model is well made. The Harrier served us well in the past, but just because it did well in the Cold War, doesn't necessarily make it future of Naval Air Power. If we can go 'high tech' perhaps go for the best capability available. The limitations of the B may not represent that. High value (sorry, very high cost)air assets in the CAS role? Yep, you're right.
Love the joke!
I have to say, this is one of the best-informed and well-mannered threads I've seen here in a long time. Thank you all.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Age: 74
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am sure I speak on behalf of the majority when I say that 'Engines' is an extremely knowledgeable person who knows his subject and if we disagree with him then that is our right, but it does not make him wrong 
Include me in the majority that has genuine respect for the technical expertise of people such as 'Engines'. If my earlier post was read as implying any disrespect for such skills, then let me correct that straight away.
My background, if not gender, makes me more the pilot of the balloon in your story, so I wouldn't dream of trying to dispute any technical points.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Age: 74
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why have a fifth generation stealth aircraft and then use it for close air support in daylight and loaded down with external weapons?' I just cannot understand the logic. Surely the welfare of those on the ground is best preserved by 'more bangs for the buck' as opposed to billions of dollars of wasted fifth generation technology?
Like you, I cannot see the logic of using very complex and expensive weaponry against low value targets. In Afghanistan, the idea of using a less complex COIN type - Super-Tucano or the like, has gained some support but is currently mired in politics, protectionism and the courts.
I understand and agree with getting better value for money. Military spending in the UK is disproportionately high for the number of assets we get for it. But the right balance between multi-role and the appropriate tool for the job seems to be illusive.
Mr Boffin,
While there is no formal Plan B, everyone is being forced to make their own Plan B by the fact that what was originally a 2010s aircraft is now a 2020s capability.
The RAAF has bought SH and may buy more, the USN has bought SH (although unlike the DDG-51 restart, the SH cost is predictable) and the USAF is into major SLEPs.
Operationally, mixed stealth and conventional fleets will be the reality throughout the 2020s. For most of the world, this means evolved-Teens and '35s vs. Su-35/T-50 and J-10B/J-20. Oh my...
And even the above applies only if LiLo or Charlie is really, truly serious about rehab this time, and for once in its lifetime the JSF program stays on its planned schedule and cost for more than 12 months, and if the hook issue is soluble within weight and LO constraints, and if the operating costs can be held to a point where the customers don't start to choke....
It's time to start thinking about what decisions should be made in one or two years' time if the prognosis gets worse. That does not necessarily mean changing JSF plans, immediately, beyond what has been done.
GloJo: The reason that the Marines went for supersonic is that (from day 1 of the definition of a Harrier follow-on, and in parallel with the UK) they wanted a competitive air-to-air fighter with sustained 9g (whoops) and that if you design one of those, M=1.5 pretty much falls out. The reason they went for stealth was that they were promised that it would not cost them anything, either in performance, money, schedule or risk.
While there is no formal Plan B, everyone is being forced to make their own Plan B by the fact that what was originally a 2010s aircraft is now a 2020s capability.
The RAAF has bought SH and may buy more, the USN has bought SH (although unlike the DDG-51 restart, the SH cost is predictable) and the USAF is into major SLEPs.
Operationally, mixed stealth and conventional fleets will be the reality throughout the 2020s. For most of the world, this means evolved-Teens and '35s vs. Su-35/T-50 and J-10B/J-20. Oh my...
And even the above applies only if LiLo or Charlie is really, truly serious about rehab this time, and for once in its lifetime the JSF program stays on its planned schedule and cost for more than 12 months, and if the hook issue is soluble within weight and LO constraints, and if the operating costs can be held to a point where the customers don't start to choke....
It's time to start thinking about what decisions should be made in one or two years' time if the prognosis gets worse. That does not necessarily mean changing JSF plans, immediately, beyond what has been done.
GloJo: The reason that the Marines went for supersonic is that (from day 1 of the definition of a Harrier follow-on, and in parallel with the UK) they wanted a competitive air-to-air fighter with sustained 9g (whoops) and that if you design one of those, M=1.5 pretty much falls out. The reason they went for stealth was that they were promised that it would not cost them anything, either in performance, money, schedule or risk.
LO
By plan B I meant a long-term substitute for F35 in the event it gets canned, which the SuperBug most definitely isn't and neither is Typhoon. We all know just how long the whole requirementeering, budget definition phases of a new project currently take (though whether they should do is perhaps a more pertinent question), so starting again should be very much a last resort.
However, if in say 12-15 months time, there is still no C hook solution or the other variants hit trouble, then I think a total rethink of the F35 programme will then be necessary, including perhaps a look at the JORD to see whether the parts really do equal one aircraft with variants. At that point, it may be possible to try and define new programmes, but I am not hopeful that the will (let alone budget) exists to make it work.
I think we are furiously agreeing that the programme should be allowed to solve the most obvious problems in the near future. My wider point is to those hysterically calling for immediate cancellation - we're not at that point yet and may actually be damaging the chance of eventual success.
By plan B I meant a long-term substitute for F35 in the event it gets canned, which the SuperBug most definitely isn't and neither is Typhoon. We all know just how long the whole requirementeering, budget definition phases of a new project currently take (though whether they should do is perhaps a more pertinent question), so starting again should be very much a last resort.
However, if in say 12-15 months time, there is still no C hook solution or the other variants hit trouble, then I think a total rethink of the F35 programme will then be necessary, including perhaps a look at the JORD to see whether the parts really do equal one aircraft with variants. At that point, it may be possible to try and define new programmes, but I am not hopeful that the will (let alone budget) exists to make it work.
I think we are furiously agreeing that the programme should be allowed to solve the most obvious problems in the near future. My wider point is to those hysterically calling for immediate cancellation - we're not at that point yet and may actually be damaging the chance of eventual success.
Grandpa Aerotart
From WW1 to the end of the Cold War (has it actually ended?) the West was in an arms race with culturally similar countries therefore the need to go higher faster father etc.
Since before the end of the Cold War we have been essentially fighting uneducated savages with AKs and RPGs. The marines, or whomever, would be better served with a modern version of a A1 Skyraider than F35 but given that would take 20 years to be built they should just put the original back into production - I am only half joking - what would you rather do COIN in, a Skyraider or a Tucano?
F22/F15/F18/F16 takes care of everything needing high speed - build a few more.
Seriously - we aren't going to fight Russia or China for the same reason we don't fight with N Korea or Pakistan. Nuclear armed countries don't go to war with one another directly we fight proxy wars. The west has sufficient nuclear subs patrolling to keep the nuclear armed nutters at bay.
The west is still designing expensive hi tech kit while our enemy hasn't moved forward technologically in 50 years - and without oil and drug money would still be throwing sharpened sticks at the wildlife.
We are now, and for the foreseeable future, fighting an enemy (*) without the cultural heritage needed to design and produce a Flintlock yet spending billions on high tech we can no longer, for the time being, afford. Its loony tunes.
(*) Exactly why has me beat - we should just let them go at one another. That would weaken them to such an extent we could cease worrying much about them. If the west put as much effort into becoming self sufficient in oil/natural gas the price of oil would be $30/bbl and that would kill off Irans Nuclear ambitions for a very long time. They'd be to broke to afford nuclear weapons. They'd be so broke their own people might even take care of the mad mullahs for us. It would also beggar the Russians who are, along with the Chinese, currently committing cultural/demographic suicide - much like western Europe.
Since before the end of the Cold War we have been essentially fighting uneducated savages with AKs and RPGs. The marines, or whomever, would be better served with a modern version of a A1 Skyraider than F35 but given that would take 20 years to be built they should just put the original back into production - I am only half joking - what would you rather do COIN in, a Skyraider or a Tucano?
F22/F15/F18/F16 takes care of everything needing high speed - build a few more.
Seriously - we aren't going to fight Russia or China for the same reason we don't fight with N Korea or Pakistan. Nuclear armed countries don't go to war with one another directly we fight proxy wars. The west has sufficient nuclear subs patrolling to keep the nuclear armed nutters at bay.
The west is still designing expensive hi tech kit while our enemy hasn't moved forward technologically in 50 years - and without oil and drug money would still be throwing sharpened sticks at the wildlife.
We are now, and for the foreseeable future, fighting an enemy (*) without the cultural heritage needed to design and produce a Flintlock yet spending billions on high tech we can no longer, for the time being, afford. Its loony tunes.
(*) Exactly why has me beat - we should just let them go at one another. That would weaken them to such an extent we could cease worrying much about them. If the west put as much effort into becoming self sufficient in oil/natural gas the price of oil would be $30/bbl and that would kill off Irans Nuclear ambitions for a very long time. They'd be to broke to afford nuclear weapons. They'd be so broke their own people might even take care of the mad mullahs for us. It would also beggar the Russians who are, along with the Chinese, currently committing cultural/demographic suicide - much like western Europe.
Last edited by Chimbu chuckles; 4th Mar 2012 at 15:20.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Age: 74
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The west is still designing expensive hi tech kit while our enemy hasn't moved forward technologically in 50 years - and without oil and drug money would still be throwing sharpened sticks at the wildlife.
I came across the linked article in Aviation Week that outlines a slightly different tack - trawling social networks and using software to analyse and predict trends and events from gauging the network traffic. All rather Big Brother I'm afraid and I have no personal knowledge of whether it is an effective science or just mumbo jumbo. Whatever, we are in danger of overwhelming our own military industrial complex by mismatched use of complex weapons against stone age targets, so we have to do something different. If things don't change they will stay as they are. Mining Social Media For Intelligence | AVIATION WEEK
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK and where I'm sent!
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LF, I think your points are valid and I agree with you. My only reservation is that this system isn't being procured (sorry, developed) to counter that sort of threat. The whole LO thing (possible THE or ONE OF THE most expensive and limiting design features) isn't there to go against people in grass skirts armed to the teeth with sharpened guava halves. It's to go against the people in grass skirts armed with the latest air defence technology during the first days of conflict. Now, that has already been argued here. After that, what you are describing may well be one future scenario. Maybe back to Strikemasters with Frantan (napalm in another continent, IIRC)?
It comes back to the earlier point of using the high cost asset for day CAS.
Plenty more to come on this one.
It comes back to the earlier point of using the high cost asset for day CAS.
Plenty more to come on this one.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
I'm sure the USAF will get a reasonable number of F-35As into service. As for the rest, this reminds me more of the F-111 programme the longer it goes on.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as off-the-shelf I meant that the design work had already been done and at least one had already been built. Apologies for any confusion!
I'd heard that a few aerials had to be moved on the Wasp but several of the modifications were purely for testing purposes and hence will not be required across all Wasp class LHDs operating production spec Dave Bs.
Clearly the potential opposition to the F-35 think there must be something in this stealth idea, otherwise why develop PAK-FA and J-20?
An anology, feel free to knock it around: when you buy a computer you usually try to buy as much capability as you can afford. This means you shouldn't have to buy a new computer every year, perhaps just every 5 years or so. With F-35 we are looking to buy a system that will last for the next 40+ years so surely the upfront investment will prevent us having to replace it too soon.
Originally touted as a Harrier replacement, it is now seen as a Tornado replacement (that can also go to sea).
Typhoon was touted as a Jaguar replacement but I understand will now effectively become a GR4 replacement until F-35 comes in.
With legacy aircraft types in 50s, 60s, 70s, although the design cycle was considerably less, they tended not to last so long in service. Harrier managed 40 years in it's several forms, Tornado must be over 30 (I think) and Typhoon will be around that by OSD as well.
Having an aircraft with as much longevity and relevance in the future threat environment as possible is surely a good thing?
I'd heard that a few aerials had to be moved on the Wasp but several of the modifications were purely for testing purposes and hence will not be required across all Wasp class LHDs operating production spec Dave Bs.
Clearly the potential opposition to the F-35 think there must be something in this stealth idea, otherwise why develop PAK-FA and J-20?
An anology, feel free to knock it around: when you buy a computer you usually try to buy as much capability as you can afford. This means you shouldn't have to buy a new computer every year, perhaps just every 5 years or so. With F-35 we are looking to buy a system that will last for the next 40+ years so surely the upfront investment will prevent us having to replace it too soon.
Originally touted as a Harrier replacement, it is now seen as a Tornado replacement (that can also go to sea).
Typhoon was touted as a Jaguar replacement but I understand will now effectively become a GR4 replacement until F-35 comes in.
With legacy aircraft types in 50s, 60s, 70s, although the design cycle was considerably less, they tended not to last so long in service. Harrier managed 40 years in it's several forms, Tornado must be over 30 (I think) and Typhoon will be around that by OSD as well.
Having an aircraft with as much longevity and relevance in the future threat environment as possible is surely a good thing?
Actually, I'm not sure your examples don't show older a/c lasting longer and the trend in service length reducing.
Phantom 52 years so far.
Harrier 44 years so far.
Tornado 33 years so far.
Typhoon 30 something (unless there are more savings)
Phantom 52 years so far.
Harrier 44 years so far.
Tornado 33 years so far.
Typhoon 30 something (unless there are more savings)
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Courtney,
I was mainly thinking in UK service but you're right, several countries still using Phantoms. I think I read somewhere that Greece might be interested in F-35 as a replacement for its Phantoms, mostly to counter the Turkish involvement with the project. There's an interesting scenario....
Not sure they would be able to foot the bill however
I was mainly thinking in UK service but you're right, several countries still using Phantoms. I think I read somewhere that Greece might be interested in F-35 as a replacement for its Phantoms, mostly to counter the Turkish involvement with the project. There's an interesting scenario....
Not sure they would be able to foot the bill however