No cats and flaps ...... back to F35B?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 28°52'02"N
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember being told at a DARPA Prognostics and Health Management conferences at Warton in the 90s, that the JSF was going to be brought in on time, on budget, and to the design weight, because of the radical new concurrent engineering and cutting-edge program management techniques that were to be applied. I also remember thinking "yeah, right!".
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 52
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This ongoing issue that now exists in Canada, also exists in the Netherlands,
The national accounting office (a non partizan official advising office) responsible for calculating and estimating all things financial from the government has ,today ,issued a rather condemning rapport concerning the oversight on estimated costs ,both in the past and present ,by the DoD and partners involved in the JSF project.
Also the originally planned purchase of 86 F35's has already been put into question as the DoD is already backscaling its pilots training program and supposedly have already taken into plans to get rid of at least 19 out of 86 JSF's for now, putting more and more credibility into the claims of exterior investigating efforts that in the end there is just enough money for maybe 55 planes (and that was with prices predicted in 2009-2010).
If the US are counting on foreign salesnumbers to achieve their goals on the level of pricing for the JSF once full rate production starts, than they are certainly sabotaging their own plans by allowing for this level of financial mismanagementright up until today and as it looks, also for the foreseeable future.
in Dutch (phlegm-alert)
'Kamer mist inzicht in kosten JSF en F-16' - Binnenland | Het laatste nieuws uit Nederland leest u op Telegraaf.nl [binnenland]
The national accounting office (a non partizan official advising office) responsible for calculating and estimating all things financial from the government has ,today ,issued a rather condemning rapport concerning the oversight on estimated costs ,both in the past and present ,by the DoD and partners involved in the JSF project.
Also the originally planned purchase of 86 F35's has already been put into question as the DoD is already backscaling its pilots training program and supposedly have already taken into plans to get rid of at least 19 out of 86 JSF's for now, putting more and more credibility into the claims of exterior investigating efforts that in the end there is just enough money for maybe 55 planes (and that was with prices predicted in 2009-2010).
If the US are counting on foreign salesnumbers to achieve their goals on the level of pricing for the JSF once full rate production starts, than they are certainly sabotaging their own plans by allowing for this level of financial mismanagementright up until today and as it looks, also for the foreseeable future.
in Dutch (phlegm-alert)
'Kamer mist inzicht in kosten JSF en F-16' - Binnenland | Het laatste nieuws uit Nederland leest u op Telegraaf.nl [binnenland]
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
Solely Gripens, I highly doubt that but a return to the old style of dedicated
fighters for dedicated tasks migh well be in the future.
Many countries (Like the Swiss are stil doing up until today) had at least 2 types of fighters, each for their specific tasks.
the Dutch/Norwegians operated the F104 side by side with the F5 as did the Canadians, in Belgium it was the Mirage 5BA and the 104, the Danish had the
F100, Drakens and F104.
The F16 was a succesful but ,limited in its roles, new fighter in the beginning of its career, with the very succesful MLU it became fully mature and eventually could fulfill all roles previously been done by 2 types all by itself.
Keep in mind though that it took a big effort and took quite some time to get at that point.
This is where the F35 strayed from a wel prooven path.
Once again, someone got the idea that it would be a good idea to program one fighter that fits all needs to all services from the getgo, and once again we now see that this has prooven to be too much of a burden.
Like I said ,I don't think the Dutch (or any other JSF partner) will ultimately go for a single alternative like the Gripen, this wouldn't make any sense.
But a more conservative approach would have been so much better, why not get an initial batch of 24-36 F35's and fully develop its capabilities in a couple of roles like Air Support, Strike, Reconn and get another cheaper and prooven alternative for all other tasks for the next 20 years (like F16V, SH, Gripen ,EF, Rafale or even F15's).
If by then the F35 turns into the new and versatile fighter, like today's F16's have become, than expand upon the force and make it a 1 type force for all tasks again.
If this adagio would have been followed I think that the risks would've been lower as would be the price, but I'm also sure that we would see how limited the F35 basic design (frame-aerodynamics, engine) really is.
I doubt it would've turned in to the new F16, it would probably look more like what the F104 ultimately turned out to be, a fundamentally flawed design limited in its use.
fighters for dedicated tasks migh well be in the future.
Many countries (Like the Swiss are stil doing up until today) had at least 2 types of fighters, each for their specific tasks.
the Dutch/Norwegians operated the F104 side by side with the F5 as did the Canadians, in Belgium it was the Mirage 5BA and the 104, the Danish had the
F100, Drakens and F104.
The F16 was a succesful but ,limited in its roles, new fighter in the beginning of its career, with the very succesful MLU it became fully mature and eventually could fulfill all roles previously been done by 2 types all by itself.
Keep in mind though that it took a big effort and took quite some time to get at that point.
This is where the F35 strayed from a wel prooven path.
Once again, someone got the idea that it would be a good idea to program one fighter that fits all needs to all services from the getgo, and once again we now see that this has prooven to be too much of a burden.
Like I said ,I don't think the Dutch (or any other JSF partner) will ultimately go for a single alternative like the Gripen, this wouldn't make any sense.
But a more conservative approach would have been so much better, why not get an initial batch of 24-36 F35's and fully develop its capabilities in a couple of roles like Air Support, Strike, Reconn and get another cheaper and prooven alternative for all other tasks for the next 20 years (like F16V, SH, Gripen ,EF, Rafale or even F15's).
If by then the F35 turns into the new and versatile fighter, like today's F16's have become, than expand upon the force and make it a 1 type force for all tasks again.
If this adagio would have been followed I think that the risks would've been lower as would be the price, but I'm also sure that we would see how limited the F35 basic design (frame-aerodynamics, engine) really is.
I doubt it would've turned in to the new F16, it would probably look more like what the F104 ultimately turned out to be, a fundamentally flawed design limited in its use.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Milo Minderbinder
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.
And called the competing technology demonstrator made by Boeing the... X-32?
And they could have used that technology demonstrator program to see how well each manufacturer handled the advanced composites, and how close their predictions of aircraft performance came to actual performance, and awarded the contract on that basis?
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think we need some positive thinking here..
What about if Lockheed actually does slow the program down and then see\spy on those 'other countries' and note how they are overcoming the software\hardware problems of their X-35A\B\C projects?
The only good thing to come out of all this stealing is the fact that those countries are now facing the same problems. Little or perhaps no comfort but let's make sure that the stable door is FIRMLY bolted and NO UNAUTHORISED person will EVER get access to that type of material again.
What about if Lockheed actually does slow the program down and then see\spy on those 'other countries' and note how they are overcoming the software\hardware problems of their X-35A\B\C projects?
The only good thing to come out of all this stealing is the fact that those countries are now facing the same problems. Little or perhaps no comfort but let's make sure that the stable door is FIRMLY bolted and NO UNAUTHORISED person will EVER get access to that type of material again.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Age: 74
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Under the radar
I think we need some positive thinking here..
Well, here's another F35 alternative. Folding wings so carrier friendly, and while not really a stealth design, it's capable of going really low and so under the radar. Refuelling courtesy any roadside service station and the 'BAR' bit of CATOBAR could probably be performed by half a dozen matelots with a sort of modified bouncy castle on ropes. Very effective in the SEAD role against SA-21 as it can be driven right up to the launcher while it's radar and crew are still looking skywards, and pour sugar in the launcher truck's fuel tank.
Possibly a tad short on a couple of KPP's, but then so is F35. IOC scheduled for 2013, but 2019 after some UK specified modifications (converting to right hand drive). Priced at under $300,000 at today's prices or $15,000,000 each when acquired through a PFI, including RHD mod. So we can afford lots of them.
There is just a slight worry about training costs in the UK because it could be susceptible to fixed penalty speeding tickets if caught by GATSO cameras or average speed limits on motorways, but this can be amortised over the through life costs which are otherwise reckoned to be very reasonable consisting as they do of an annual service, road fund licence, and MOT every 3rd year.
Can't see any downsides myself. Expect to see this, with possibly an optionally manned version, as a corner stone of Future Force 2020, while F35 has disappeared without trace.
Pity the BBC didn't cover this story on 1 April really.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see they've stuck two bits of the first carrier together.......
BBC News - Giant hull sections of Queen Elizabeth carrier joined at Clyde yard
BBC News - Giant hull sections of Queen Elizabeth carrier joined at Clyde yard
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: troon
Age: 61
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys
I thought I would post this as it may give an Idea of how much work is involved on getting a CTOL Aircraft launched and recovered. It has quite a bit of engineering gen on the old steam cat and arrestor gear but all in all pretty informative. The film was made for the RN in 1960 but perhaps some of the contributors from across the pond could tell what - if anything - has changed - Its 30 mins but a very good watch if you have nothing better to do
I thought I would post this as it may give an Idea of how much work is involved on getting a CTOL Aircraft launched and recovered. It has quite a bit of engineering gen on the old steam cat and arrestor gear but all in all pretty informative. The film was made for the RN in 1960 but perhaps some of the contributors from across the pond could tell what - if anything - has changed - Its 30 mins but a very good watch if you have nothing better to do
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The modern catapult (both steam and USN), when combined with a modern aircraft, is much simpler to hook up and launch.
The USN never used that "pull the tail down so the nose gear is off the deck" launch method, and the last bridle-launch aircraft left USN carrier decks in the 1980s.
All current USN aircraft (F-35C included) use a nose-wheel catapult attachment, which is far simpler and quicker to use than the archaic 1950s method shown in the video.
Here is a video of the incredibly complex method used in today's USN catapult & Super Hornet.
Note the complex equipment to attach the aircraft to the catapult shuttle:
1 hold-back bar, attached on the catapult;
1 nose-tow bar, lowered by the pilot.
The hold-back bar can be installed by one person... I suspect they were doing training here.
The USN never used that "pull the tail down so the nose gear is off the deck" launch method, and the last bridle-launch aircraft left USN carrier decks in the 1980s.
All current USN aircraft (F-35C included) use a nose-wheel catapult attachment, which is far simpler and quicker to use than the archaic 1950s method shown in the video.
Here is a video of the incredibly complex method used in today's USN catapult & Super Hornet.
Note the complex equipment to attach the aircraft to the catapult shuttle:
1 hold-back bar, attached on the catapult;
1 nose-tow bar, lowered by the pilot.
The hold-back bar can be installed by one person... I suspect they were doing training here.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That video ends with the hold back in place but the launch bar raised. The other (not exactly earth shattering) half of the process would be the launch bar being lowered and driven over the shuttle, the shuttle being brought home on the launch bar, the whole system being put into tension, aircraft coming to full power and the launch bar being pre-emptively retracted (but staying 'home' in the shuttle detent).
One salute and you're off to the races.
One salute and you're off to the races.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It certainly takes me back although the Scimitar had just retired and we only had Vixens and Gannets, which I believe did not require that same angle for launching? (question)
That RN video was filmed right at the beginning of the 1960's and what we saw was at the time, state of the art technology, we could easily launch aircraft quicker than our US allies (we exercised with both Enterprise and Sarratoga). The only difference was that once we had launched our half dozen or so aircraft, we could then sit back and watch those HUGE American carriers put further aircraft, after aircraft up into the air. The Enterprise certainly paved the way for the American super carriers of today (much respect) Happy days.
Incidentally when at flying stations I could NEVER recall that wind coming across the deck at an angle, it always blew directly across the bow.
Looking at the uniforms made me smile.... my shorts were made in the 1940's and I wonder if the style has changed? We were taught that the beret which we all hated was to be no higher on the forehead than two fingers(horizontal)
I guess those officers were using the same two fingers that they used to measure their gin? 
Looked like the Hermes a Centaur class carrier of some 22000+ tons
That RN video was filmed right at the beginning of the 1960's and what we saw was at the time, state of the art technology, we could easily launch aircraft quicker than our US allies (we exercised with both Enterprise and Sarratoga). The only difference was that once we had launched our half dozen or so aircraft, we could then sit back and watch those HUGE American carriers put further aircraft, after aircraft up into the air. The Enterprise certainly paved the way for the American super carriers of today (much respect) Happy days.
Incidentally when at flying stations I could NEVER recall that wind coming across the deck at an angle, it always blew directly across the bow.
Looking at the uniforms made me smile.... my shorts were made in the 1940's and I wonder if the style has changed? We were taught that the beret which we all hated was to be no higher on the forehead than two fingers(horizontal)
I guess those officers were using the same two fingers that they used to measure their gin? Looked like the Hermes a Centaur class carrier of some 22000+ tons
Yes, it was indeed the 'Appy 'Erms.
As a one-time OOW on a carrier, I can assure you that we always tried to get the relative wind down the angle. Of course, with little or no wind, that wasn't always possible, but flying with the wind down the axial wasn't much of a problem except for the funnel smoke obscuring the deck as one came over the round-down.
As a one-time OOW on a carrier, I can assure you that we always tried to get the relative wind down the angle. Of course, with little or no wind, that wasn't always possible, but flying with the wind down the axial wasn't much of a problem except for the funnel smoke obscuring the deck as one came over the round-down.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Totally agree about relative wind but did you say 'smoke' 
Just been thinking ... The angle of the flight deck always goes off to port, so any smoke coming from the funnel would obviously drift out away from the deck.
For any smoke or perish the thought steam coming from the funnel to go across the deck... that would need a very stiff breeze coming from t'other side? Or am I to dosed up with medication?
.
Just been thinking ... The angle of the flight deck always goes off to port, so any smoke coming from the funnel would obviously drift out away from the deck.
For any smoke or perish the thought steam coming from the funnel to go across the deck... that would need a very stiff breeze coming from t'other side? Or am I to dosed up with medication?
.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Age: 74
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some news items and articles just out:
Flightglobal article that gives a flavour of some of the skills and co-ordination necessary for the efficient operation of a cat & trap carrier, the USS Stennis in this case. IN FOCUS: Why the UK's carriers will not be 'airfields at sea'
Another Flight item, this time reporting news of the Netherlands trimming their F16 fleet and capping expenditure on F35, the decisions on which will be deferred until 2015 elections (sound familiar?). Netherlands makes final trim to F-16 fleet size
Lastly an update, courtesy of Defense News, of the Canadian government's response to the criticism it received from the recent auditor's report on the F35 acquisition programme. F35 funding has been capped, the programme's control removed from the Department of National Defence, and further 'due diligence' is to be applied to the F18 replacement programme. Canada Caps F-35 Funding After Audit | Defense News | defensenews.com
With a number of customers now capping funding for F35, it occurs to me that some of them could arrive at a crunch point if they stick to these funding caps. Should unit prices continue to rise faster than currently projected (which must be a high risk), the number of aircraft that can be bought for the money allocated could drop to such a level as to become unworkable. It's unlikely LM will charge less than the budgeted amount, so what happens if this only gets you, say, half the numbers you originally wanted?
I sense that the delay that is F35's nemesis may be the politician's friend - someone else may have to make the call, or the economic and political climate might be such that the cost problem might be less of a stumbling block than it is right now. And F35 might be getting some good reports by then too - if it's known to work and work well, stumping up the huge chunk of cash might not seem such a bad thing by then.
One thing is depressingly consistent though. Most governments are woefully inadequate at applying proper processes and controls to complex military procurement programmes. There's clearly a different attitude when it comes to spending someone else's money.
Flightglobal article that gives a flavour of some of the skills and co-ordination necessary for the efficient operation of a cat & trap carrier, the USS Stennis in this case. IN FOCUS: Why the UK's carriers will not be 'airfields at sea'
Another Flight item, this time reporting news of the Netherlands trimming their F16 fleet and capping expenditure on F35, the decisions on which will be deferred until 2015 elections (sound familiar?). Netherlands makes final trim to F-16 fleet size
Lastly an update, courtesy of Defense News, of the Canadian government's response to the criticism it received from the recent auditor's report on the F35 acquisition programme. F35 funding has been capped, the programme's control removed from the Department of National Defence, and further 'due diligence' is to be applied to the F18 replacement programme. Canada Caps F-35 Funding After Audit | Defense News | defensenews.com
With a number of customers now capping funding for F35, it occurs to me that some of them could arrive at a crunch point if they stick to these funding caps. Should unit prices continue to rise faster than currently projected (which must be a high risk), the number of aircraft that can be bought for the money allocated could drop to such a level as to become unworkable. It's unlikely LM will charge less than the budgeted amount, so what happens if this only gets you, say, half the numbers you originally wanted?
I sense that the delay that is F35's nemesis may be the politician's friend - someone else may have to make the call, or the economic and political climate might be such that the cost problem might be less of a stumbling block than it is right now. And F35 might be getting some good reports by then too - if it's known to work and work well, stumping up the huge chunk of cash might not seem such a bad thing by then.
One thing is depressingly consistent though. Most governments are woefully inadequate at applying proper processes and controls to complex military procurement programmes. There's clearly a different attitude when it comes to spending someone else's money.
A key difference between the US funding systems and most others is that the apportionment of money in the US is not fixed year to year, let alone longer than that. In many nations, it's "OK, air force, you have X billion blats in 20xx-20yy to replace the fighters. Navy's next in line with new SSKs, then the Army needs helos and IFVs".
So if my X billion blats buys 30 LockMart FifthGenTM WondaJets, that's my lot. And lo the powers on high may say "Dude, is that enough to deploy airplanes with a coalition, maintain anti-loony homeland defense/air policing and continue to train and modernize?" and I say "Well, Minister, not exactly" then a stand-up, no-tea-and-biscuits meeting may ensue while I try to defend the idea of a fighter force.
Seriously, if the Cloggies go back to 68 F-16s, will they ever reconstitute to 85 F-16s? Maybe, about the same time that LO dates Felicity Kendal and wins the lottery on the same day.
So if my X billion blats buys 30 LockMart FifthGenTM WondaJets, that's my lot. And lo the powers on high may say "Dude, is that enough to deploy airplanes with a coalition, maintain anti-loony homeland defense/air policing and continue to train and modernize?" and I say "Well, Minister, not exactly" then a stand-up, no-tea-and-biscuits meeting may ensue while I try to defend the idea of a fighter force.
Seriously, if the Cloggies go back to 68 F-16s, will they ever reconstitute to 85 F-16s? Maybe, about the same time that LO dates Felicity Kendal and wins the lottery on the same day.
Last edited by LowObservable; 11th Apr 2012 at 00:39.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Age: 74
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LO, Good luck with the Lottery. If you crack that, the odds of completing the second bit of your double would probably shorten.
Yes, there appears to be a collective and conscious decision by all parties to ignore the basic logic that dictates that less money means fewer planes. The UK's official F35 requirement still stands at 138, which everyone knows is now a fantasy.
I think it's to do with the fact that LM's pricing is driven by production numbers which they calculate from official order numbers. So, if e.g. the UK cuts its official order to 50, the unit price goes up again. As it might for other customers too, or for us if they also officially cut their order. So everybody plays the game that they stand by their requirements. Interesting to see what happens if someone breaks ranks and makes a significant official cut or cancellation, as that will throw everyone else's numbers into another spin.
Quite how you can plan for a cost that is rising due to technical issues and delays, but is further complicated by changes in the timing or number of orders from other customers over whom you have little or no control, I have no idea. Which is neither here nor there of course, except no one else knows either. The biggest factor in this charade was the US decision to delay it's purchases. Their numbers are the really significant ones, so their deferral has the most potential impact on final price.
Tricky.
Yes, there appears to be a collective and conscious decision by all parties to ignore the basic logic that dictates that less money means fewer planes. The UK's official F35 requirement still stands at 138, which everyone knows is now a fantasy.
I think it's to do with the fact that LM's pricing is driven by production numbers which they calculate from official order numbers. So, if e.g. the UK cuts its official order to 50, the unit price goes up again. As it might for other customers too, or for us if they also officially cut their order. So everybody plays the game that they stand by their requirements. Interesting to see what happens if someone breaks ranks and makes a significant official cut or cancellation, as that will throw everyone else's numbers into another spin.
Quite how you can plan for a cost that is rising due to technical issues and delays, but is further complicated by changes in the timing or number of orders from other customers over whom you have little or no control, I have no idea. Which is neither here nor there of course, except no one else knows either. The biggest factor in this charade was the US decision to delay it's purchases. Their numbers are the really significant ones, so their deferral has the most potential impact on final price.
Tricky.
Glojo
Indeed, if the relative wind is down the angle, the smoke will be parallel out to starboard of the approach path and hence not a problem. However, in low or nil wind conditions, when it isn't possible to have the relative wind down the angle, the smoke (and there tends to be a lot more of it in low wind conditions since the ship is going b*lls out to give sufficient wind over the deck) will stream directly aft. Since you're approaching along the angle, you have to fly through the smoke; this gives a bit of turbulence, and it's occasionally possible to lose sight of the deck and mirror altogether for a brief period.
Not a problem with the new electric carriers, though.
Indeed, if the relative wind is down the angle, the smoke will be parallel out to starboard of the approach path and hence not a problem. However, in low or nil wind conditions, when it isn't possible to have the relative wind down the angle, the smoke (and there tends to be a lot more of it in low wind conditions since the ship is going b*lls out to give sufficient wind over the deck) will stream directly aft. Since you're approaching along the angle, you have to fly through the smoke; this gives a bit of turbulence, and it's occasionally possible to lose sight of the deck and mirror altogether for a brief period.
Not a problem with the new electric carriers, though.
The numbers game is probably the best argument for those not wanting the purchase of F-35.
With a now-fixed budget and using US figures, it will be difficult to claim that Canada can be defended with 35 aircraft, no matter what they are fitted with.
There's no need to worry about the single engine over the Arctic, as the Canadian Defence Minister has promised it will never fail.
With a now-fixed budget and using US figures, it will be difficult to claim that Canada can be defended with 35 aircraft, no matter what they are fitted with.
There's no need to worry about the single engine over the Arctic, as the Canadian Defence Minister has promised it will never fail.