Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

No cats and flaps ...... back to F35B?

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

No cats and flaps ...... back to F35B?

Old 2nd Apr 2012, 13:07
  #361 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 70
Posts: 1,938
From an earlier page on this thread:
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...k-f35b-13.html

Download a 0.4Mb PDF here: Scorecard: A Case study of the Joint Strike Fighter Program by Geoffrey P. Bowman, LCDR, USN 2008 April
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_download-id-14791.html

The KPPs have been given more detail: "
"...The [US] Navy has added approach speed as a service specific key performance parameter. The threshold for approach speed is 145 knots with 15 knots of wind over the deck. This must be possible at Required Carrier Landing Weight (RCLW). The RCLW is the sum of the aircraft operating weight, the minimum required bringback, and enough fuel for two instrument approaches & a 100nm BINGO profile to arrive at a divert airfield with 1000 pounds of fuel. The minimum required bringback is two 2000 pound air-to-ground weapons & two AIM-120s. The Navy further requires that the CV JSF be capable of carrier recovery with internal & external stores; the external stations must have 1000 pound capability on the outboard stations & maximum station carriage weight on the inboard.

All KPPs I have seen have given 'below 145 Knots' as the Maximum Carrier Approach speed (under above conditions I gather).

A 2007 US Navy League Brief Graphic KPP at 145 Knots



+ latest LM Fast Facts 13 March 2012 from:
http://f-35.ca/wp-content/uploads/20...ch-13-2012.pdf


Last edited by SpazSinbad; 2nd Apr 2012 at 15:11.
SpazSinbad is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2012, 18:54
  #362 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 757
SS,

Thank you for the Navair report on approach speed vs. WOD - yes, it is counter-intuitive, I'll go away and have a closer look to get my head around it. But I'm not arguing with it - these guys really know their stuff...

Best Regards

Engines
Engines is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2012, 00:57
  #363 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,897
F-35 program to get overhaul following AG report - Politics - CBC News

The Canadians are going to strip the program from the Defence Department. What effect this will have on the likelihood of procurement is anyone's guess.
Fox3WheresMyBanana is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2012, 09:52
  #364 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Brighton
Age: 64
Posts: 9,524
JDW: Cameron orders independent review into F-35 decision

Prime Minister David Cameron has asked the UK Treasury to conduct an independent assessment of the costs associated with converting one of the two new Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers to operate the F-35C: the carrier variant (CV) of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF).

Cameron's intervention follows a meeting with Defence Secretary Philip Hammond on 19 March, during which Hammond is believed to have recommended backtracking on the CV acquisition plan because of the costs of carrier conversion. He is thought to have instead advocated the purchase of the F-35B, the short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) variant of JSF.

The prime minister's decision to seek an independent review is thought to reflect two principal concerns. First, the political embarrassment resulting from a U-turn on one of the central components of the coalition government's October 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR); second, the possible adverse reaction from the US government and the US Navy (USN), both of which have been working with UK counterparts on a long-term carrier co-operation formalised under a Statement of Intent signed in January.

The F-35B was originally selected to meet the UK's Joint Combat Aircraft (JCA) requirement in 2002. However, as part of the SDSR, the coalition government announced its intention to switch to the F-35C variant on the grounds of interoperability with allies, improved performance and reduced through-life costs.

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) and the Aircraft Carrier Alliance responsible for the design and build of the two ships have been working on plans to adapt the second-of-class Prince of Wales for CV operations from build. While Conversion Development Phase studies are due to run to late 2012, the decision was taken in early 2011 to maximise aviation equipment commonality with the USN's CVN-78 Gerald R Ford carrier programme. This includes adopting the same Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) and Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG) systems.

However, concerns as to the 'in-years' affordability of the CV conversion - with some estimates now topping GBP1.6 billion (USD2.5 billion) - have prompted the MoD to reconsider the STOVL option as it attempts to finalise its 2012-13 budget and balance the equipment programme.

The Treasury's Major Project Review Group is due to complete its report by mid-April, with its findings to be put forward to the National Security Council shortly afterwards.

Meanwhile, a letter sent by US Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Research, Development & Acquisition, Sean J Stackley, to the UK's Defence Equipment, Support and Technology Minister, Peter Luff, in mid-March has provided insight into the projected cost of the US-supplied aircraft launch and recovery equipment (ALRE) earmarked for Prince of Wales .

According to Stackley, the current estimate is in the range of USD733 million to USD840 million. This accounts for USD156 million in non-recurring engineering, plus the costs associated with the procurement of ALRE, including a two-track EMALS system and three-wire AAG configuration.
ORAC is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2012, 16:21
  #365 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,442
It's not the program's best day:

JSF - SAR Discloses Another Three-Year Slip

The above includes a link to the SAR.

And...

F-35 program slammed by auditor general - Politics - CBC News

Full report here...

Chapter 2?Replacing Canada?s Fighter Jets
LowObservable is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2012, 17:23
  #366 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,897
Perhaps to save Ppruners some time.
From the full Canadian AG report
Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC)
2.34 (Industry Benefits) .. Moreover, in the majority of cases, only the most optimistic scenario was put forward, rather than a range of potential benefits that reflected the inherent uncertainties in the projections.

2.57 ...To support the use of this (competition) exception, National Defence was required to identify its operational requirements and to provide a full justification to PWGSC. Neither was provided to PWGSC in a timely manner, despite several requests from PWGSC. PWGSC was not given a copy of the statement of operational requirement until August 2010, well after the government had announced its decision to purchase the F-35 in July 2010.

2. 60 ....Practically speaking, by 2010, Canada was too involved in the JSF Program and the F-35 to run a fair competition.

2.62 ... As noted in the introduction to this chapter, the JSF Program has experienced cost increases, schedule delays, and technological difficulties, and has been subject to several major reviews. Officials from National Defence who participated in the senior decision-making committees of the JSF Program were regularly informed of these problems. Yet in briefing materials from 2006 through 2010 that we have reviewed, neither the Minister nor decision makers in National Defence and central agencies were kept informed of these problems and the associated risks of relying on the F-35 to replace the CF-18.

and the headline info

2.68 National Defence internal estimate for 20 year costs (Jun 2010) $25 bn
National Defence estimate provided to Parliament (Mar 2011) $15 bn

My Conclusion.
It will be very hard for there not to be a competition in Canada now.

LowObservable - Thanks for the slip info. This now puts the max rate production (when the Canadians say they will buy) beyond the latest In-Service date for the CF-18. More costs whatever the consequences.
Fox3WheresMyBanana is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2012, 18:25
  #367 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Home alone
Posts: 295
So the report say that testing isn't going to be completed until 2019? Correct me if I'm wrong, but would it not be wise for us to hold back on any firm orders until the bulk of that testing is complete? i.e. is it not time to start looking at an interim replacement...or is that simply too sensible for the MoD to get their head around?
Bastardeux is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2012, 18:48
  #368 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Age: 69
Posts: 133
So what are the alternatives....
JTO,

As I see it there are two fundamental choices:

1. If the UK continues with a carrier programme, the only near-term alternatives are Rafale and F18 (absent a left-field purchase from Russia). The F18 successor may just become available between 2025 to 2030 IF it goes ahead and IF it doesn't encounter the same problems as the 35.

2. If the UK drops the carrier programme, then it's Typhoon and Tornado until about 2025, when we will need to replace Tornado. Upgrade of Typhoon should take place.

For either scenario, around 2020 we could reconsider our situation, including F35 (A, B or C) in the light of what we know about it at that time.

I accept that these two courses offer different capabilities.

Last edited by Lowe Flieger; 3rd Apr 2012 at 18:49. Reason: typo
Lowe Flieger is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2012, 18:50
  #369 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 642
Can't help wondering if it would have been a good idea to let the US finish JSF and then buy some - was there a good reason why we couldn't use transfer a much reduced short/mid term JSF money (2012-2018), make savings and keep some GR9s going on the new carriers until 2020ish, then bin them and get mature JSF Bs?

Not ideal, but a capability better than the nothing we seem to be staring at for many years and coping with creeping delays and cost growth whilst the gap gets bigger?

I'm not trying to start another bring back harrier moan as I understand why it went and tornado didn't - but I do now wonder whether a massive 10+ years JSF postponement (and its savings) was really looked at?
JFZ90 is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2012, 19:59
  #370 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Home alone
Posts: 295
I do now wonder whether a massive 10+ years JSF postponement (and its savings) was really looked at?
Particularly as this is rapidly becoming the new programme timeline, or as near as makes very little difference!
Bastardeux is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2012, 20:19
  #371 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,442
Naysayer!

The program schedule is stable! Full-rate deliveries were 11 years in the future when we started in 2001, and are 11 years in the future today. How much more consistency do you want?
LowObservable is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2012, 20:30
  #372 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Can't help wondering if it would have been a good idea to let the US finish JSF and then buy some - was there a good reason why we couldn't use transfer a much reduced short/mid term JSF money (2012-2018), make savings and keep some GR9s going on the new carriers until 2020ish, then bin them and get mature JSF Bs?
Isn't that what the UK is nearly doing?
I read they are making an order decision in 2015 and if they order the long lead items 2015/16, it will be first delivery about 2019
JSFfan is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2012, 20:45
  #373 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Age: 69
Posts: 133
Can't help wondering if it would have been a good idea to let the US finish JSF and then buy some...
.

JFZ90,

Yes it would. This is the conundrum that F35's other foreign buyers are getting very nervous about (Australia, Canada and Japan at least). Whatever euphemisms the Pentagon uses to explain deferral of purchase of the F35 for their own forces, the fact remains they could use the space to dump one, two or all three versions of it should testing not shake out or a new show-stopper bring it to a standstill.

While the US will, for now, buy small numbers of airframes (small for them that is), it is not really going to commit to significant buys until 2020+. This potentially puts the foreign carts before the launch customer's horse, which would be very unusual for a project of this magnitude, and would leave them in a desperate situation should the horse bolt.

The UK is in an even bigger bind because two programmes are mutually dependent - carriers and fighter. Contingency planning against this risk must be being considered, in the same way we have seen the USAF, USN, US Marines and the Australians all take at least some steps to mitigate the risk. Publicly, we seem to be focussed on F35 B or C with the associated carrier implications, but it would be be dereliction of duty not to be planning for other eventualities, even if such plans are not reaching the public domain.
Lowe Flieger is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2012, 20:46
  #374 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,897
Judging from the Sweetman piece, the yanks are assuming big foreign orders in FY18+, but the delayed testing will delay decisions, which will likely delay production still further. Since elections are due in many partner Nations in 2015/6, it will be hard to keep to any kind of schedule. Then economics will likely force a couple of nations out, and a couple more will need replacements earlier than F-35 will be available.
Fox3WheresMyBanana is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2012, 21:11
  #375 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Age: 69
Posts: 133
Well, there's always Japan's own 5th generation Shinshin to fall back on. They intend to have a flying demonstrator by 2017. And haven't the UK and Japan just signed an understanding for joint development of defence projects? All that needs doing is to add a naval version and a STOVL one too and have it all operationally available by about 2020, cheaper than F35, and the Japanese-UK axis will have cornered the market.

Leave you to think that one over, as my wife is just asking if I should be drinking all this wine on top of my medication....

Last edited by Lowe Flieger; 3rd Apr 2012 at 21:29. Reason: Hastily correcting a gaff before any more people see it
Lowe Flieger is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2012, 21:18
  #376 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: .
Posts: 2,179
"Sino-UK axis"

whats China got to do with it? Other than stealing the plans.....
Milo Minderbinder is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2012, 21:24
  #377 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Age: 69
Posts: 133
MM,

Seems my wife has a valid point.
Lowe Flieger is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2012, 21:35
  #378 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: .
Posts: 2,179
LF
I dunno, you might have a point.... get the Middle Kingdom involved at the start and you wouldn't have to worry about the costs of securing the project against them.
They're going to get the details anyway one way or another
Milo Minderbinder is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2012, 21:37
  #379 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,897
Canada is also trying to get some bilateral trade going with Japan. Shinshin will be in service at the right time and has 2 engines (Arctic).

Hmmmm.................
Fox3WheresMyBanana is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2012, 21:45
  #380 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: .
Posts: 2,179
And another point about the Shinshin is that the Japanese have got the development / production sequence the right way round.

To quote wikidpaedia "The ATD-X will be used as a technology demonstrator and research prototype to determine whether domestic advanced technologies for a fifth generation fighter aircraft are viable, and is a 1/3 size model of a possible full-production aircraft"

So they're doing the research to see if it works first, before any design is fixed for production. If that had been true of the F-35, so much would be different.
Milo Minderbinder is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.