I think it's also that Canada are currently using a satphone connection which is narrow band and the f-35 SATCOM will be a wideband capability.

CM - One high-latitude coverage trick is a satellite in "Molniya" orbit - highly elliptical with apogee over the poles. Invented by the Sovs.

SRVL Jump jet simulator smoothes out landings
 

VIDEO: Jump jet simulator smoothes out landings
18 April 2013 | England UK By Tim Cooper

Jump jet simulator smoothes out landings | British Forces News

Download VIDEO: (11.7Mb)
http://www.bfbs.com/news/sites/ssvc....test_pilot.mp4

"A unique computer simulator is helping to integrate the latest generation of aircraft carrier with its aircraft, the F35 Lightning II. Engineers are using high tech software to see what it will be like to land the fighter jet on the ship. The work is helping to iron out problems before they arise and save millions of pounds.
Interviewees:
Peter Wilson, BAE Systems
Dr Steve Hodge, BAE Systems Modelling and simulation
Lt Commander Chris Gotke, Air Ship Integration specialist"
_______________

Clip from above video showing an SRVL Touchdown and Approach View ONLY: SRVL Touchdown CVF Simulation

SRVL Touchdown CVF Simulation - YouTube

Spaz,

Very informative post- thank you. Good to see FAA pilots leading the effort to get the most out of the aircraft from the ship, and get two complex systems working properly together. That's the essence of the naval aviation challenge.

Best Regards as ever to those actually doing the hard stuff on the F-35, and doing it well

Engines

I'm not sure if that pod is confirmed and I thought that was for EW use. I think it's Terma that makes the 'stealthish' gun pod and that I believe that they are modifying it to be multi mission capable. All that said if the Israeli additional EW kit is shared with other variants depending on a) what it is and b) what it does then maybe that desire lessens.

I thought the F16 is $22K per hourish from what I saw on F16.net and the F18 in the ball park of $23K to $24K so the JSF being in around that including all the additional kit seems decent to me. I'm pretty sure the LM figures that Gen Bogdan has refered to previously as being a 'problem' for him and not the USAF calculation were $21K to $22K ish.

Does it look like they found a use for the old twin dome combat sim there? Part of the infrastructure and projection looked somewhat familiar. It certainly looks a lot more pilot friendly to land than anything we've seen before.

A question for those in the know. How do gusty conditions affect the aircraft doing a RSVL? It looks like there's stopping room to spare, so is adding a few knots to the forward speed in those conditions a viable option? Looks to me like it should be.

Some familiar faces there. Good work, chaps.

As an aside, did they really need the sim to work out that parking the jets at an angle leaves more deck space? Probably the journo picking up on something he was told. BFBS has come a long way though.

We are talking about different things but the USMC hoped-for EO targeting pod is not funded yet but I have not heard of any intent to use the centreline station for it as it would preclude the gun.

Back in the day the IR-only EOTS looked good enough but the community has got very used to the latest generation of high definition colour TV pictures and features such as Rover capability. For the USMC the F-35 will be a CAS asset for the other 364 days so the lack of 'day color' remains a concern for them.

Courtney,

Perhaps I can help - I was working at LM when the first SRVL studies were done. They've been doing CVF work in the dome for around 8 years now, I think.

The F-35 is a very stable beast in powered lift. That is due to a number of factors, including quite high inertia (lots of mass), good amounts of control power, but most importantly a very advanced stability and control system.

What that adds up to is an aircraft that's resistant to gusts and, as the guys in the clip point out, very easy to fly compared to the Harrier. This is a point that most discussion of SRVLs overlooks - vastly better handling qualities and simple logic for approach and landing.

Brits have played a central role in the F-35 (especially BAE), taking on (and beating) some of the toughest challenges on the STOVL aircraft. This is another example of their achievements. They don't get enough credit for them, in my view.

Best Regards as ever to the future STOVL team

Engines

CM
Probably not but it's an actual model that can be seen and manipulated. A picture being worth a thousand words and all that then add in all the statistical stuff I suspect that they could pull out of the backend to back up the conclusion and it's a lot easier to get people to buy into an idea with some half decent evidence.

Both good answers, thank you.

Have a look at this, everytime I see Bogdan interviewed he comes off very well and normally corrects a few inaccuracies. All that said I bet that 85mill does not include the engine. He was quite careful about stating that there would be two 'not to exceed' price contracts per aircraft for the future unsigned production lots and those are I imagine the FRP costs not the existing LRIP aircraft contracts.

Leider JSF-project bezoekt Nederland - Video - Nieuwsuur.nl

EM - from what I saw on F16.net

And there's your problem right there, squire.

Also: JTO has a point - when you start trying to make things "fair" by deleting the cost of permanent pieces of the jet you introduce another set of distortions. In addition to JTO's points about EOTS having a bigger impact than the pod, you don't fly the Sniper every time you fly the jet.

And Bogdan has been loudly on record about operating costs having to be fixed, so for him to say that the delta is only 10 per cent is odd.

CPFH comparisons, sadly, are hard to do and easy to fiddle. Parts are relatively easy. Manhours not, because they depend on labour rates (which in the USG, for example, are high when fully costed) but also on training, But then there are practices like USAF depots that like to put brand-new parts on 30-year-old T56s... And then do you count fuel (Saab would like you to)?

LO I don't operate an F16 I've never even sat in one. Unless the comparisons include the same items it's meanless. Can you do an A) to B) comparison for me then?

Or are you saying that Bogdan a USAF general in charge of running an undelivered procurement program is in LM's back pocket now? He's been fairly vocal about where he see's issues and areas where he is happy that things are under control. As of right now if he is willing to state to the Dutch parliament in a public forum while they are debating their future defence planning assumptions that the operating cost of an F35A is $23,900 per hour and thats 10% above the cost of operating an F16 from his perspective as the 'customer' programme director then thats the figure that is being used in all the planning assumptions.

The lower LM price that JSF fan keeps quoting is the one thats missing the additional kit. Bogdan's figure includes the maintenance of that additional kit hence as of right now that price seems reasonable given that each new generation of jet the running costs go up.

I agree the $24k doesn't sound right, Aussies costed it at $21k @ 200 hrs per year for 30 years.
USA has a higher SDD cost, is that included in cost per flight hour which may explain why the usaf is more, as costed by USAF and CAPE

NOTE.. it isn't a LM or JPO price

he did clarify that the $85ish mil was a then price and $75m in todays dollars and yes it includes an engine

Bogdan confirmed figures from Lockheed Martin that a device that Netherlands is possible to buy in 2020 will cost. Approximately $ 85 million. That's about 75 million dollars if you convert to this day, he added. "That is the maximum that I would pay for it. Aircraft" He expects the cost of the unit will go even further down.
(Google translate)

here is the interview
Leider JSF-project bezoekt Nederland - Video - Nieuwsuur.nl

I don't think I can remember a time when anyone came up with a true estimate of a future aircraft's operating costs. No point in getting too excited about it yet; there is a long way to go and way too many unforseen issues yet to come. With the best will in the world, today's estimates are always based on the current state of the project and/or what the forecastesters hope will convince the people with the purse strings to remain on side.

Costs are only remotely comparable within the same service, in the same country and at a specific point in time.

A relative difference eg +10% is about as specific as you can expect. Absolute dollar figures are not going to be comparable using the information given to the public domain.

Yes! At last some intelligent commentary on this issue!

Just like every jet that has come before it and every jet that will come after it, the F-35 operating cost will be comparatively high at first as initial support contracts are let and corporate knowledge builds up. But as the second round of support contracts are tendered and as the fleet grows, it will come down the bathtub curve until the fleet size and level of experience is such that it will flatten out to an optimal level (with occasional bumps as new software loads or tech refreshes are added). It will then start coming up the other side of the bathtub as the jet ages and major components needs additional maintenance or refurbishment. No one can honestly predict with any certainty what numbers to assign besides these points on the curve...

This is probably as much the USG's and LM's fault as the general commentariat, but we're all so keen to compare the F-35 with the F-16 or F/A-18 (both of which, in Block 40/50 or late C/D & early E/F forms respectively are currently hitting their 'cheapest they'll ever be' points in their operating cost curves), that we're missing the point. 'Out of the box' the F-35 will be more capable than the F-16/FA-18/Harrier/insert 4th gen type here it is designed to replace, and inevitably, there will be an initial cost imposition associated with such a capability leap.

If you want cheap to maintain fighters (and thus to just maintain parity with other current types) then by all means buy more or refurb F-16s/FA-18s/F-15s/Gripens etc....and then in 15 years time you'll be going through this same process again and thinking, "If only we hadn't spent all that money on an interim type/refurb, and instead bought new F-35s!"

There is an unfouded perception that legacy jets are 'cheap'

F-35A CPFH 10% more than F-16|F-35|Forum :: F-16.net
Cost per flying hour as general Bogdan mentioned in the Netherlands, house of parliament, is actually lower than $24,000 per flying hour, $23,900 per flying hour.
The general either compared cost per flying either with US F16 C/D’s (200-240 flying hours?).
As well he mentioned a expected price of a F35A in 2020.

Flying cost per hour of a Dutch and Belgium F16MLU is €20,000 = $ 26,230 per flying hour (180 flying hours)
Till 2015, cost per flying hour of a Dutch F16MLU will stay the same.
After 2015, every year a raise of €10 million per year, till 2020. After 2020 a steep raise till 2027.

Compared: in case a possible cost per flying hour of a F35A
F35: $23,900

o F16 C/D: $21,500
o F16 MLU: €20,000 = $26,230 / 180 flying hours (till 2015)
o Gripen E: CHF24,242 = $26,111.52 / 180 flying hours

Foreign comparisons, more expensive per flying hour (percentage)
- F16 MLU: $2,330 > + 9.74% (till 2015)
- Gripen E: $2,211,52 > + 9.25%

Note figures:
- F35A: US circumstances and calculation
- F16C/D: US circumstances and calculation
- F16 MLU: Dutch & Belgium circumstances and calculations
- Gripen E: Swiss circumstances and calculation by the Swiss

* Based on rates: april 20, 2013



@ EM
EM - from what I saw on F16.net
LO-And there's your problem right there, squire.

don't worry LO says the same about the SLD interviews with the pilots and planners, infact anyone who knows what's going on..there are a few die hards on the forums and press..though it seems avweek have decided to change paths and have dropped the Sweetman style rubbish they were posting

I personally think that the future Defence plans of the United Kingdom are increasingly unclear. Putting the distant possibility of Scottish independence aside, there is still the question of the far more likely event of a Labour Victory at the polls in 2015. I this happens I don't care how middle of the road people think red ed will be, regardless of the coffers, he will undo the military from behind as usual. Defence capability will be seen as surplus if not actively engaged on some sort of mission like counter-insurgency or in support of a rebel faction somewhere or other.

It is from that moment that the future of the F35 programme, at whatever stage it will be, will come under a realistic threat of cancellation. Only I don't think we'll get a Healey alternative this time.

FB