Check out the UKIP manifesto Defence Policy, they want to buy another 50 on top of the original order!:ok:

FB

Interesting that some would see that as a "good" thing....:ugh:

Right, but in the unlikely event that UKIP form the next government, I suspect that their numbers - based, apparently on the "true cost of £120bn" of our EU membership (see Downloadable resources - UK Independence Party, Foreword) . Err, right.

And UKIP claim (deeply implausibly) that they can get us out of the EU without losing our trading rights with the rest of the EU. Like who? And before someone says "look at the EEA - Norway and Switzerland", the truth about the EEA is that they have the same or similar legislation to the EU imposed without their voice being heard in the framing of it.

So those 200+ JSFs are actually quite sensible in comparison to the rest of their positions....

S41

We have a trade deficit with the EU. They sell more to us than we sell to them Who's going to start a trade war on their side? :hmm:

Docs Say F-35B Too Hot, Noisy

When the Marine Corps commandant says equipment he is buying for his people works and is safe, we listen. So when Gen. James Conway told us the vertical takeoff version of the Joint Strike Fighter was not too hot to damage carriers or amphibious ships and was not too loud to harm crews or communities, we listened. So did some folks on Capitol Hill and they questioned whether the Marine leadership was singing too sweet a song.

Testing documents obtained by DoD Buzz, said by congressional sources to be the most recent available, raise serious questions about the effects of heat and noise from the F-35B on pilots and ships’ crews, on ship decks and on critical flight equipment.

For example, an operational assessment of the JSF says that heat from the STOVL version may result in “severe F-35 operating restrictions and or costly facility upgrades, repairs or both.” The OT-IID report says “thermal management” will “increase the number of sorties required to prepare an operational unit for deployment during summer months” at most American bases. Overall, it rates basing as red: “unlikely to meet criteria — significant shortfall.”

Another document, a briefing chart rating the plane’s systems, rates as “red” flight operations noise “below deck and island structure” and “on the flight.” Direct exhaust “deck personnel burns” are rated red, as is “personnel blow down” and “off-gassing.” On top of that, the non-skid coating is rated red, as is the impact of the plane’s power systems on “spotting” and the plane’s outwash “on spotting of adjacent aircraft.”

A congressional aide was biting in his reaction to Conway’s assurances that the plane was marginally hotter than the AV-8B Harrier and about as loud as existing planes.

“AV-8B and F-35B temperatures might be the same, but so far they haven’t shown anyone their data; plus, you have to look at it from the perspective of total kinetic energy of the engine thrust. AV-8B has a thrust rating of 23,000lbs, whereas an F-35B thrust rating is 41,000lbs. He’s comparing a cigar torch lighter to a blow torch. Additionally, he’s got other thermal issues he needs to worry about as well, like overheating avionics and cockpit temperatures,” the aide said.

The testing report says that “continued cycling” of the engine for carrier takeoff raises “serious issues” because a pilot’s backup oxygen supply is depleted when the integrated power package (IPP) is disengaged to give the plane more thrust. Cutting off the IPP also means there is “potential that overheating of the radar and avionics may result.” On top of all that, temperatures inside the cockpit on the ground and in low altitude, high-speed fly “will be high,” more than 90 degrees even during a day when the mercury hits 59 degrees outside. That could “hamper pilot performance” during such missions.

The congressional aide then went on to noise. “As for the noise issue, the concern is not in the aircraft flying pattern, the noise concern is for those onboard ship, both above and below deck that are going to have issues. If none of this is a concern, why is the risk matrix still red after developmental testing mitigations are removed?” the aide asked.

We showed the documents to Winslow Wheeler, a top defense analyst at Washington’s Center for Defense Information. “The documentation makes extremely clear that the Navy and Marine Corps know they have a problem on their hands. But they don’t know the dimension of the problem and they don’t know how to address it. But the problem is very clear,” he said.

The congressional staff who spoke said they were concerned that the Marines are unwilling to address what could be fundamental problems for the fifth-generation STOVL plane and, one said, “are purposely disingenuous in their misrepresentation of facts.”

"Purposely disingenuous in their misrepresentation of facts.”

This, O Best Beloved, is how Bi-Coloured Python Rock-Snakes always talk. "The Marines are telling porkies" is a good translation.


About That Austere-Base Thing...

A400M
 

Any Loadmasters working on the A400M, please PM me as require info please.

Mole Man:ok:

AW&ST (Ares):

JSF - Talking Real Money

F-35: Change at the Top

AWST (Ares): Super-Er Hornets?

Boeing and its teammates are getting bolder in talking about improvements to the Super Hornet and Growler - a development which coincides with debate over the cost and schedule of the Joint Strike Fighter.

At this week's Navy League show in Washington DC, Boeing unveiled an early concept mock-up of a big-screen cockpit for the Super Hornet, aimed at export customers. It looks rather like the JSF cockpit, except that Boeing plans to use one-piece screens rather than two fused panels. Also, rather than eliminating the head-up display completely, Boeing would fit the front cockpit with a new, smaller HUD, with an optical system that would not interfere with the big screen.
http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver...04e1.Large.jpg

General Electric, announcing the delivery of the 1000th F414 engine for the Super Hornet/Growler program, reaffirmed this week that it's working on two improved versions of the engine: the enhanced durability engine (EDE), with a new core and lower fuel consumption, and the enhanced performance engine (EPE), which adds a new fan for a 20 per cent thrust boost and "is targeted for potential international customers."

Boeing is also teamed with ITT Defense on the Navy's Next Generation Jammer program. In an interview at Navy League, representatives of the Boeing/ITT team made it clear that thy are focused on delivering improvements to the Growler - and that approaches which push NGJ towards early integration with the F-35 are, in their view, a much higher risk.

Another issue concerns the Hornet's armament. Although Boeing showed a very generic mockup of the future Joint Dual Role Air Dominance Missile (JDRADM) at Navy League, it may not represent the next step beyond the new Raytheon AIM-120D AMRAAM for the fighter. Boeing has made some quiet approaches to MBDA concerning integration of the ramjet-powered Meteor AAM on the F/A-18E/F - again, with international customers in mind. Meteor is expected to offer better kinematic performance than even the AIM-120D (which is believed to use the same motor as the current C7) and the D is a long way from being exportable.

Well somebody was obviously upset enough to pull a few strings. If LM thinks this helps their case, it doesn't. :ouch:

Flight Global: Aviation Week suspends Bill Sweetman from F-35 story

[Update: Bill Sweetman's Facebook post, which I quoted below, is the reason he's temporarily barred from the F-35 beat, Aviation Week tells Danger Room. The plot thickens. It makes you wonder if one of his 91 Facebook friends tattled on him.]

Bill Sweetman notified me this morning that he has been temporarily ordered off the F-35 story by Aviation Week management.

Aviation Week editor Tony Velocci initially told me "no comment", but added: "It was supposed to be an internal personnel matter but I'm really sorry to hear that he's spreading it around."

Sweetman is the editor of Defense Technology International, a monthly magazine published by the Aviation Week Group.

It's not clear what immediately precipitated the decision. But Sweetman is well-known as arguably one of the most outspoken -- and, it should be said, well-spoken -- critics of the F-35 program.

Lockheed Martin denies having any role in Sweetman's removal from the F-35 beat. "I can tell you Lockheed was not behind this," a spokesman says.

Sweetman recently visited Lockheed's F-35 factory in Fort Worth, Texas, along with Velocci and Aviation Week staff writer Amy Butler. On the eve of his visit, Sweetman on 26 April posted a typically droll comment on his private Facebook page:

"Gentlemen, your target for tonight is Fort Worth. Flacks are predicted to be numerous and persistent on the run-in and over the target, and bull**** is expected to be dense throughout the mission. Synchronize watches and good luck."

Full disclosure: Sweetman is a personal friend and former co-worker at Jane's. As a military technology journalist, I have great respect for his vast and detailed knowledge of weapon systems of all kinds.

But Sweetman himself would tell you he approaches F-35 coverage unlike other journalists. I see my role as simply to report the facts offered by both critics and supporters, allowing my readers to draw their own conclusions. Sweetman approaches F-35 coverage from the standpoint of an analyst who has empirically concluded the program is a flop. That position is always going to create a tension with his traditional role as journalist.

Update: Lockheed Martin has released a full statement:

"Lockheed Martin has not asked Aviation Week to take disciplinary action against Bill Sweetman nor have we asked that he be removed from reporting on the F-35 program or any other Lockheed Martin program. In fact on April 27 Bill and other members of the Aviation Week staff visited Lockheed Martin facilities in Fort Worth for briefings on the F-35 program. We have a longstanding professional relationship with the entire Aviation Week editorial staff, including Bill Sweetman, and we continue to work openly with them on all programs, including F-35."

Two U.S. House Armed Services Subcommittees Vote to Preserve JSF Engine Competition

WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The U.S. House Armed Services Seapower and Air-Land Forces subcommittees today each marked up the National Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 5136). Recognizing that the competition created by dual-sourced engines for the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) drives cost savings and reduces operational risk, both subcommittees voted to authorize $485 million in continued funding of the GE/Rolls-Royce F136 engine for the JSF.

“The committee has believed that competition in the F-35 engine program helps ensure against the operational risk of up to 95 percent of the entire U.S. tactical fighter fleet being grounded due to an engine problem,” said Air-Land Subcommittee Chairman Adam Smith (D-WA) at today’s markup.

This latest milestone follows a long tradition of bi-partisan Congressional support for the GE/RR F136 engine. Congress has funded the engine for 14 years in order to preserve competition on the largest weapons procurement program in history. Competing engines have been an integral component of the JSF program from its inception, and competitive behavior is proven to control costs: Government Accountability Office estimates have predicted that competition between the two F-35 engine makers could lead to long-term savings of up to 20 percent for the $100 billion engine program.

“Competition has been demonstrated to help limit cost growth in acquisition programs, including as the first alternate engine program did for the F-15, F-16 and F-14. And competition has also been demonstrated to motivate contractor responsiveness, technical innovation, and improve engine maintainability, reliability, and durability,” said Smith.

The F136 development program is more than 70 percent complete and scheduled for flight testing next year.

“Today, the competitive environment created by having dual-sourced engines for the Joint Strike Fighter is estimated to save $1 billion during the next five years, and $20 billion over the life of the program," said David Joyce, president and CEO of GE Aviation. “We are gratified that members of the subcommittees strongly recognize that competition is the best cost control mechanism for the largest defense program in U.S. history.”

AWST (Ares): Update on A400M Test Flights

The first two A400Ms – MSN1 and MSN2 - have now flown 44 times for a total of 165 hours, reported chief test pilot Ed Strongman during a trade media briefing in Seville, southern Spain, yesterday.

Looking like an enthusiastic school-boy, Strongman remarked that “it's easier to fly this airplane than any of our other airplanes.” The flight test program is now moving ahead fast after being delayed a bit over the winter because of the extraordinarily bad weather in both Seville and Toulouse (in southern France). This affected in particular the propeller stress survey as the strain gauges on the propellers are not waterproof “so can't be done in cloud or rain,” he explained.

Strongman said there was “excellent news” from the stalling tests which had been undertaken with a rocket attached to the underbelly of the aircraft just in case they needed to boost the aircraft to regain lift to get out of a stall. They did not need it.

He said the aircraft banked beautifully to 120° although contractually the aircraft does not need to bank at more than 90°. “The aircraft performance and handling are very close to predictions and simulations,” he said noting that it has “outstanding handling characteristics throughout the flight envelope.”

Strongman is not the only pilot at the helm of this aircraft. “Every pilot who flies this has a smile on his face,” he remarked.

The GE-RR team is appealing for grassroot support for the F136. :bored:

Ares: Dutch Vote to Cancel Order for F-35 JSF

The Dutch parliament voted last night by 79 votes against 71 to cancel the order for the first F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and to end Dutch participation in the program's Initial Operational Test and Evaluation phase.

The vote on a motion proposed by the Labor Party was based on the fact that price estimates made by Lockheed Martin in response to the Netherlands' original Request for Information and the Supplemental Request for Information of 2008 are not reliable. However, Minister of Defense Eimert van Middelkoop said the vote was Labor Party “election rhetoric” prior to the June 9 general election and was quoted by Dutch News as saying that dropping out of the trials would still cost Dutch taxpayers €20 million, after having spent €800 million (some say more than €1 billion) to date.

The Netherlands has been run by a caretaker Labor/Christian Democrat government since the previous government lost a vote of confidence in February over the army's deployment in Afghanistan. Van Middelkoop said in a statement issued on May 20 that he was neither willing nor able to act on Parliament's vote as he believed the government's temporary status means it cannot take such irreversible decisions before the election.

But Labor MP Angelien Eijsink says it is irresponsible to continue with the JSF program. She cites delays, the Nunn-McCurdy cost breach, the 2-year delay of the IOT&E and poor progress in flight testing. She also mentioned that Parliament was still awaiting vital data on noise levels and said the industrial business case for JSF participation was no longer valid given the much lower than anticipated number of orders for the aircraft. Labor says it wants to continue Dutch participation in the System Development and Demonstration (SDD) phase but other parties want to end it.

The Royal Dutch Air Force currently operates 90 F-16s, 18 of which are scheduled to be sold to Chile towards the end of this year. Originally the Netherlands was planning to buy 85 F-35s.

If the decision is implemented it won't exactly be a surprise. Dutch politicians have been rumbling for months that the JSF is far too expensive and the Netherlands' participation in the program is now in the hands of the electorate. But given the general economic doom and gloom in Europe right now, chances are high that the Dutch will vote for a party that is not going to be spending for something that many do not see the need for.

If the Dutch do withdraw could this be the encouragement other wavering European participants need to pull the plug too?

Ares: F-35's Tough Summer Heats Up

The Dutch parliament's vote to cancel the Netherlands' order for the first of two test F-35s, and not buy the second - which so far is just a vote, as a general election is due on June 9 - ends a tough week for the JSF program. As expected, the program's poor performance has brought down upon it the full scrutiny of Congress, the House Armed Services Committee voting to tie release of FY2011 funding to meeting test and production milestones - and funding the second engine.

The HASC's vote to limit procurement to 30 of the 43 requested aircraft until its conditions are met raises the spectre of the "death spiral" that ultimately drove F-22 production down to just 187 aircraft. According to defense secretary Robert Gates "the detailed proposals they have imposed on the overall JSF program would make it essentially unexecutable and impose unacceptable schedule and budget costs."

Those conditions are:

1 - limit obligation of FY11 funds for development and test to 75% until the DoD certifies all funds provided for development of the second engine have been obligated (the HASC added $485 million to fund the second engine in FY11)

2 - limit procurement funds to 30 aircraft unless:

• - the second engine is fully funded (see above);
• - all 12 flight-test aircraft have been delivered to their test locations (planned by the third quarter 2010);
• - initial service release has been granted for the STOVL F135 engine (planned for the fourth quarter 2010;
• - industrial facility and tooling capacity can support production of at least 42 aircraft in FY11;
• - Block 1 mission-system software is released and in flight test (planned to fly first in the CATBird, at the end of May);
• - the first two low-rate initial production F-35As have been accepted for delivery (planned by year-end);
• - advanced procurement funds provided in FY09 and FY10 for the F136 second engine have been obligated;
• - Lockheed Martin's earned-value management system has been certified as compliant;
• - the first F-35C carrier variant has flown (planned for June) and the CTOL low-observable signature flight-test has been conducted and met or exceeded threshold requirements;
• - the 394 test flights scheduled for 2010 have been completed, and 95% of the 3,772 test points accomplished;
• - six F136s are available for testing and not less than 1,000 test hours have been completed.

That's a lot of conditions, but they seem fair, if tough. Some of them are tied to Lockheed delivering on its promises to deliver flyable aircraft, others on the Pentagon spending money it hasn't asked for and doesn't want to spend. Gates, unsurprisingly, has vowed to ask President Obama to veto any FY11 budget that includes the second engine or "directs changes that seriously disrupt the JSF program".

And meanwhile, in a move that is sure to stoke debate over the F-35's capabilities, a US intelligence official told Congress on Thursday that China is expected to have a fifth-generation fighter by 2018, earlier than previous forecasts. Three more congressional committees still have to mark up the budget - then the differences have to be reconciled. The F-35's summer promises to be heated indeed.

Inside Defense: Pentagon Analysis: AF, Navy, Marine JSF Variants Only 25 Percent Common

May 21, 2010 -- A fundamental objective of the Pentagon's largest acquisition program -- to develop three “highly common” Joint Strike Fighter aircraft for the Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps -- may be slipping away, according to the Defense Department, which now estimates the three aircraft being developed by the F-35 program have as little as 25 percent in common.

Christine Fox, director of the Pentagon's office of cost assessment and program evaluation (CAPE), advised Congress of this assessment this month, relaying previously undisclosed findings of the Joint Estimating Team II that last year examined the totality of the JSF program, including the matter of commonality.

“Through this assessment, the JET II assesses airframe commonality of approximately 25 percent whereas the [F-35] Joint Program Office and [prime] contractor [Lockheed Martin] assessments are greater than 80 percent,” Fox told the House Armed Services Committee in written answers to questions for the record posed at a March 24 hearing. “This generates a significant cost difference between the two aircraft production cost estimates.”

Greater commonality across airframes is intended to save money by decreasing development times and facilitating economic order quantities. Higher commonality is assumed to translate into lower costs “through the application of learning curves,” Fox wrote lawmakers. The answers -- prepared in response to written questions by Rep. Gene Taylor (D-MS) about the commonality of JSF models -- were sent to Congress within the last week.

CAPE, which led the JET II assessment, is again examining the JSF program as part of the effort to recertify the program in the wake of a Nunn-McCurdy breach. The assessment will include “the review of actual contractor production cost data for the early [low-rate initial production] aircraft.” This will be the third time CAPE examines this issue; in 2008 the first Joint Estimating Team pegged JSF commonality at 25 percent, a finding that was not reported to Congress (DefenseAlert, July 27, 2009).

Fox cautions that data about aircraft commonality “is based on a limited number of aircraft delivered to date,” adding that the Defense Department does not expect to have a “better foundation of actuals for carrier-variant aircraft” for two to three years.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates in December ordered a restructuring of the JSF program in line with many of the recommendations of the JET II, calling for an additional 13 months and $2.8 billion for development as well as the paring of procurement plans by 122 aircraft through fiscal year 2015.

In April, the Pentagon provided Congress a Selected Acquisition Report for the F-35 program that revised total program cost from $298 billion to $328 billion, while cautioning that the total price could swell to as much as $388 billion this summer as part of the program restructuring.

A central explanation for the cost hike offered in the selected acquisition report is “less airframe commonality than originally envisioned.”

The report also noted the Air Force estimates that total program costs have increased by $8.3 billion and the Navy by $646 million to account for “wing manufacturing performance, change in subcontractor manufacturing plan, cost of purchased parts, and commonality update.”

From the Joint Strike Fighter program's 1996 inception, the goal of the program has restated annually in acquisition reports to Congress as -- to “develop and field an affordable, highly common family of next-generation strike aircraft for the United States Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and allies.”

In 2008, a Government Accountability Office report on the JSF program found that while “a degree of commonality has been achieved, expectations are now lower than they were at program start.” In addition, while mission systems across all three variants were expected to be similar, “commonality among airframes and vehicle systems has declined overall since the start of system development.”

The three JSF variants are the F-35A conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) version, designed to replace the F-16 and A-10; the F-35B short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft, set to replace the AV-8B and F/A-18A/C/D for the Marine Corps and the Sea Harrier and GR-7 for the United Kingdom Royal Navy and Royal Air Force; and the F-35C aircraft carrier suitable variant (CV), slated to complement the F/A-18E/F.

House Lawmakers: DOD Wants To Kill JSF Engine Competition, Sole Source $100B In Contracts

May 24, 2010 -- The Defense Department wants to eliminate competition from the Pentagon's largest acquisition program and "earmark" $100 billion for a single defense contractor by canceling the F136 alternative engine program for the Joint Strike Fighter, which lawmakers are seeking to fund for a fourth consecutive year despite executive branch objections.

That is the thrust of a new “dear colleague” letter that four key lawmakers from the House Armed Services Committee are circulating to both counter what they term a “myth-fact” issue paper distributed by the Defense Department last week as well as to shore up support for $485 million in funding for the F136 engine in fiscal year 2011 the committee last week included in its bill............

Get It While It's Hot: Joint Strike Fighter Nunn-McCurdy Certification

For all those defense wonks out there, here's a copy of the Joint Strike Fighter's (JSF) Nunn-McCurdy Certification.

A new independent analysis from the Pentagon has found that the total cost of the troubled JSF program has ballooned to $382 billion. That estimate marks an increase of 65 percent over the projected cost when the program began in 2002, triggering a requirement—the Nunn-McCurdy Provision in the 1982 Defense Authorization Act—that the Pentagon certify to Congress that the program is vital to national security.

The certification is signed by the Pentagon's Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, Ashton Carter, and was sent to Congress yesterday to accompany the new analysis.

F135 vs F136

AWST (Ares): The Great Engine Misinformation War

An interesting article on the trials and tribulations of the A400M

Special Report - The incredible saga of Europe's A400M

Special Report - The incredible saga of Europe's A400M - Yahoo! News UK

@ Green Granite
 

The report on the A400 isn't just "interesting" - it's fascinating ... It will make the Eurosceptics howl with joy and regurgitate all their mantras yet again.
Nevertheless, seeing shots of the aircraft's manoeuvrability demonstrated at ILA Berlin will also impress spectatiors immensely, as well as those in UK who will see it later in the year at "the Tattoo" and Farnborough.
As a product, it seems to be a pilot's dream, and the RAF's transport and will crews will find something that they could hardly have dreamed of. The test equipment aboard represents about half its max. load and seeing it roll rapidly to angles unexpected of a staid airlifter shows that its tactical manoeuvrability will also be outstanding ...
As a product, it seems to promise well - as for the "management" set-up originally so misconceived, the less said the better - the Reuters report could have gone into more detail, but it summarises what some of us feared right from the start. Under Mr Enders' care, the programme has probably started going right, and seeing the A400M may well make people
feel it's going to be well worth the (very avoidable !) wait.

Why can't the pols keep their effin' 'ands orf ???

PS. On a cautionary note, I very much hope that the manoeuvrability being demonstrated in Berlin will NOT encourage less skilful pilots in the respective Air Forces to emulate Mr. Hasseline's behaviour with the A320 - Mr. Strongman has already said that the A400 is much more manoeuvrable than the A320.
Flight Safety officers - be very afraid !!!

AW&ST (Ares): VIDEO: F-35C Carrier Variant First Flight

After a last-minute hitch with a wiring issue, the first F-35C carrier variant, aircraft CF-1, made its first flight from Fort Worth on June 6. At the controls for the 57min flight was Lockheed Martin test pilot Jeff Knowles.

http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver...37a6.Large.jpg

Two more F-35C test aircraft are to fly this year, with a fourth to fly in 2012. The first three aircraft are scheduled to be delivered to the US Navy's NAS Patuxent River, Md., test center by year-end. The fourth F-35C was added as part of the JSF development program restructuring earlier this year.

The F-35C has a different, bulkier look compared to the two other versions. And it is the heaviest of the three variants, with a bigger wing, horizontal stabiliser and rudders to reduce approach speed for carrier landings. The wing folds, and gear is much beefier.

Grizz does the biz!
 

Meanwhile, over on the other side of the pond, the A400M is putting on a very impressive display at ILA Berlin:

YouTube Player

More information at ILA: VIDEO & PICTURES- A400M to showcase performance range, as flight testing passes 250h mark

(Did you spot the Me-262 replica?).

The C-17 is just as manoeuvrable and far more impressive. Airbus are guilty of total plagiarism!:ok:

Can a truckie explain to me the necessity for such manoeuvrability in A400M? Does it actually need it to come up to specification/ KUR and is there a cheaper or more readily available alternative?

Genuine question. I am assuming that the manoeuvrability is to be used in tesseral type manoeuvres, but surely other platfroms can manage those? Or could you just buy a better DAS?

RTFM!

:rolleyes:

To generate excitement, so as to increase public support and generate sales.

Airbus Protection
 

Why, don't the fly-by-wire protections work in the A400M like they do in other Airbus aircraft?

I have to admit that I don't care about the manoeuvrability of the aircraft - both C130 and C17 are capable of being manoeuvred outside the sensible limits of operation for an AT aircraft. What I really really wanted was the aircraft to be delivered ON TIME, NOT 4 YEARS LATE.:{

A controversial design change to the Joint Strike Fighter made by the F-35 Joint Program Office, intended to reduce weight and save money, will render the $382 billion centerpiece of the U.S. military's tactical aviation fleet vulnerable to a "leading cause of combat aircraft loss" -- catastrophic engine damage caused by light anti-aircraft artillery, according to the Pentagon's top weapons tester.

New details about decisions to trim 11 pounds and $1.4 million from each aircraft by removing shutoff valves for engine coolant and hydraulic lines and five of six dry bay fire-suppression systems are spelled out in a set of previously unreported communications to Congress from a senior Marine Corps general and the Defense Department's chief weapons tester.

Lt. Gen. George Trautman, deputy commandant for aviation, and Michael Gilmore, director of operational test and evaluation (DOT&E), last month provided answers to written questions about the JSF design change posed by Rep. Gene Taylor (D-MS), chairman of the House Armed Services seapower and expeditionary forces subcommittee, following a March 24 hearing. “JSF live-fire ballistic testing has demonstrated that the JSF is vulnerable to threat-induced fires,” wrote Gilmore, who first raised concerns about these design changes in DOT&E's fiscal year 2009 annual report to Congress, delivered in January.

“DOT&E continues to recommend that these features be reinstated and does not view their removal as prudent,” the Defense Department's chief weapons tester wrote last month. “Historical combat data indicate that threat-induced fire is a leading cause (25 percent) of combat aircraft loss.”

@hello1
 

1) The A400's protections are similar to those on civil Airbuses, which are said to have ensured that the A320 so carelessly "demonstrated" at Habsheim at least crashed into the trees in a manner which saved most of the occupants' lives. But they couldn't prevent the accident itself. which was caused by an overconfident pilot making several basic airmanship errors (to say the least).
2) I'm sure that all of Airbus would have preferred not to have the delay in delivery of the A400M (see Yahoo report above), but after the trials and tribulations, the aircraft itself seems in good fettle.
3) Manoeuvres demonstrated at ILA Berlin (and coming soon to the RIAS Tattoo and Farnborought) are surely the sort of thing that the A400, in a tactical role, will be expected to perform ...
4) How long do you expect the RAF will have to wait beyond the JSF's "due date" ?

If accurate, this will be an interesting test of the new Military Aviation Authority's resolve, as they will surely red card the design as non-compliant with our regs - especially as (lack of) said systems featured heavily in both C130 and Nimrod cases.

The "C130 case" had nothing to do with either coolant & hydraulic shut off valves or dry bay fire suppression. :hmm:

What are the exterior noise levels like? I have head second-hand that it is very noisy.

It may not have been a design priority for current military use, but could it become an issue over the 20-30 year expected lifecycle of the aircraft?

F-35 or Grizz, Trim Stab?

As far as I'm aware, the A400M isn't particularly noisy. Rumours about the F-35B's noise levels have been proven to be.....utter bolleaux.

StopStart

Agreed, but fire suppression, wherever and by whatever means, is in the same section of the regs. MoD ignored it.

Tuc:
Er...wouldn't it be non-compliant with the US Regs also? Anyway, given that the RAF has issued RTS's to such non compliant aircraft previously I see no reason why the F-35 should be any different in that respect, I mean what's changed? Oh, the MAA! Ah, of course, independent of and yet part of the MOD! That'll be all right then won't it...won't it?

I was asking about the A400M primarily, since I had heard (from about 1000 miles away from Seville!) that it is a noisy beast. That is not necessarily an issue when population is generally behind the military as currently, but that might change over the next 30 years or so. Even in the US, there are local opposition groups around some noisy airbases. Just curious if A400 is noisy enough for it to potentially become a long-term issue, especially as civilian aircraft are obliged to become increasingly quieter.

A400M noise
 

TS, Equivocator:

That's right, the 400M is markedly quieter than e.g. the Transall. A bit more noisy maybe than the A380. The sound itself is kind funny, all chaotic and out-of-tune when idle on ground, but in flight it's just a loud buzz. A very big, dark bumble bee! ;)

(Or should that be the Airbus Tumbledore entry for the "name the A400M" thread?)

Show-boating or ???
 

Agreed, Equivocator, that 120° AOB + 40° nose-up is a bit OTT, though highly "cool", but Mr. Strongman did say it was a "demo terrain avoidance manoeuvre" (and also that his display would be "a bit different" from a standard Airbus flypast).
It's also notably quieter (subjectively) than the C-130s I see from time to time wending their way towards the Med at fairly low level.
After 15 great years with Airbus (nearly as much as my RAF time and as long as I've been retired), I'm very glad indeed to see that the "old spirit" is still around !
Look out for it at RIAT and Farnborough and judge for yourselves eh ? :cool::cool:

Note - plural ...
 

Neat shot by Yannick Delamarre of two A400Ms over Toulouse on www.flightglobal.com today (blogs) - after ILA "grandstanding" (what's wrong with standing grand ?), perhaps there'll be a synchro pair at RIAT/Farnborough ???
:ok::ok::ok:

On a more serious note, in these days of possible cuts, even after customers' agreements NOT to drop more than 10 from the agreed total, exposure to public admiration (as in Berlin) can only help to secure this badly-needed aircraft's future.
(Yes I do know the "Back Story", but the A400M is at last a "go-er", and showing (some) of its potential in the best possible way).
Note also that Lockheed is reported to have said recently that a combined A400M/C-130J fleet could make sense.