good point - can't see Dave winning the election and I'm sure Millband is already preparing a really nice set of offers for the Liberals - cut the F35 & Trident - buy some more destroyers, helicopters to operate off the carriers and Typhoons ("British jobs!!") and still cash left over

HH - An interesting scenario, particularly since BAE/RR would retain their workshare (US- and UK-domiciled) in JSF.

FA-18 - The trouble with "no one can honestly predict" is that if you run an AF you have to try, in order to engage in rational planning. It is not impossible but the answers will vary from nation to nation, and it does require integrity and non-fantasy predictions. For instance, if the annnual R&D bill for F-35 upgrades is even half that of the F-22, and if we get quickly to a 1000-jet fleet, then each jet still carries a $500K/year assessment - $2-$2.5K per flight hour right there before you pay for individual mods. And those are mature and optimistic numbers.

And with this many a/c on order, this many hours flown and 12 years into the program, to say that we can't predict operating cost is damning.

FA18, I love the bathtub graph.

Worrying thoughts about future governments, though.

Looks like the Joint ****e Fighter has avoided having its head put on the financial chopping block, for now... Obama's budget plan appears to spare F-35 and V-22 programs | Business | Dallas Business...

-RP

They've built over a 120 of the things so far and large amounts of American industry jobs depend on it. The Americans are not us they attempt to protect their indigenous technology industries. It is way beyond unlikely that they would ever cancel it, they will just slow procurement or buy less during the development phase which still has another two odd years to go and buy in the production phase.



Plus ok I'll bite, why is it the JSF actually '****e' can you actually define it in a way that doesn't make you look like you've thrown the toys out of the pram because we haven't bought something else please? It's like reading JSFfan's missives only in reverse.

I love it, Moomin. :D:D:D It seems we have both ends of the spectrum, then.

As Courtney intimated, just providing a little balance, I know its not really ****e, well not completely... And, if and when it lives up to whatever promises LM are saying it will this week, i'll gladly refer to it as the Joint Splendid Fighter! ;)

-RP

P.S. (off topic, sorry) how do you get the name of the original poster to appear in the top left corner of quote boxes?

Canadian CF-35A Brief 15 April 2013 PDF (2.3Mb)
 

CF-35 Lightning II Brief 15 April 2013: http://t.co/c8cKsXKJst (PDF 2.3Mb)

http://f-35.ca/wp-content/uploads/20...ghtning-II.pdf (same link)

"...Greater than 700 nm mission radius in both air-to-air and air-to-surface low observable combat configurations..."
__________________

Possible reason for range change....

PARLIAMENTARY JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE 20 MARCH 2012
Department of Defence annual report 2010-11 (Public)

House of Representatives Committees ? Parliament of Australia

“...Senator FAWCETT: I have one last question, if I can. Speaking of the key performance indicators, obviously for the overall program they are cost, schedule and performance. In cost and schedule we have seen a number of changes and rebaselining to allow for things that have happened. In terms of the KPIs against your original ops requirement document — you do not have to disclose which ones have not been met — but at this point in time have all of the original essential requirements from the ORD been met?

Mr Burbage: We have 16 key performance parameters on this airplane. Half are logistics and sustainment-related, half are aeroperformance-related and one or two are in classified areas. We have an oversight body called the Joint Requirements Oversight Council, the JROC, that looks at those requirements every year and makes decisions on them — 'Are we going to meet them, are we not going to meet them? If we are not going to meet them, what is the impact of that?' We have one this year which was the range of the Air Force airplane which had a specific set of ground rules associated with how that range is calculated which is not similar to either of the other two airplanes. The airplane flies a large part of its mission at a non-optimised altitude in the original calculation. The JROC agreed to change the ground rules to fly that airplane as the other two were flown and, when that happened, the airplane had excess margin to the range requirement. For any performance-related requirements, we artificially penalise the engine by five per cent fuel flow and two per cent thrust. Those margins are given back as we mature the design and get more and more solid on exactly what it is going to do. They are there for conservative estimation up front. We have not taken back any of those margins yet so, when those margins are taken back, the airplane will continue to be well in excess of its basic requirement. The airplane is meeting all of the other requirements today.

Senator FAWCETT: So have those requirements like schedule & cost been rebaselined, or are they are still the original ORD?

Mr Burbage: Schedule and cost are not KPPs. I thought you were talking about performance.

Senator FAWCETT: No, I recognise that. You have rebaselined schedule and cost as you have gone along. What I am asking is have the KPIs been rebaselined & does the statement you just made apply to today's KPIs or does it also apply to the original ones?

Mr Burbage: To the original set. Today, all the KPPs are green because that ground rule was changed to be common across all three airplanes on the range. But we have not taken back the margins that are being withheld to make sure those performance predictions are conservative. We are not going to have degraded engines. We basically measure our performance characteristics with a highly-degraded engine capability. Our actual flight test information coming back from the engine is better than nominal. These calculations are not done using actual airplane test data. They are done using an artificial penalty that gets paid back as the design matures....”

You type in square open bracket, i.e. "[", then "quote=Rhino Power", without the quote marks of course, then close square bracket "]".

The name must be correctly spelled and capped otherwise it wont take.

I see that the Australians are going for some more F-18's, just awaiting for US approval's....

we have approval, just waiting till we decide/announce how many..the 12 growlers is a given and more than likely another 12 18f's to make 36 18f's which also include the original 12 18f's wired for growler.

what/how many we keep of them is decided post 2025

Don't put money on the extra Super Hornets...an LOR was submitted ONLY so we could move quickly if it becomes necessary to buy more rather than have to THEN go through the convoluted approval process. :cool:

It's a long way from a done deal... :suspect:

I strongly suspect it is a deal that has already been done and will be announced before the planned Federal election on September 14.
"Look at us....we are serious about defence. And here's an extra Air Warfare Destroyer as well, that'll keep the shipyards busy. And here's an order for a couple of hundred Australian designed and built Hawkei light armoured vehicles, to be built in a marginal government seat"
:rolleyes:

To see how the Govt views the likelihood of delivery check the budget papers for the civil upgrade works associated with getting Williamtown and Tindal (and the FOBs like Scherger) up to spec for the JSF.

No money allocated this financial year, project apparently on hold. Will be interesting to see what comes out in the new Budget.

Spaz - "The airplane flies a large part of its mission at a non-optimised altitude"

Now, why would such a restriction have been imposed in the first place? My bet is operational considerations - sensor range, standoff, detectability, whatever - which have now been traded away to avert a KPP fail. Any other credible suggestions?

The Canada presentation should earn its author - Joe Isuzu, I suspect - a proper wigging from the SEC about the lack of a "forward-looking statements" disclaimer. 235 aircraft on order? Er, no, they are counting Lot 8, and Lots 6 and 7 have not been definitized yet.

Lockheed hopes to firm up F-35 Lot 6 & 7 contracts before mid-year

The effectiveness claims on P4? 8:1 in surveillance? Under what assumptions? Versus an Eagle with a bigger radar, similar ESM and a LOROP pod? Without that sort of detail they are meaningless at best.

The production chart on page 7 - they could accommodate another 60 deliveries in 2016? Really? They expect to deliver how many aircraft before Block 3F IOC?

And as for industrial participation, when you're reduced to putting "External Lighting Printed Circuit Board" on your big-impact picture of Canada's contribution to the jet, you are digging pretty deep.

LO, well said. I was about to make the same point. We don't always fly our aircraft to the manufacturers' desired parameters, but rather to satisfy tactical and operational requirements. The one that sprang to my mind was radar look angle, but the others are equally likely. Why do you suppose they would be persuaded to change that?

That did not happen by accident - it was done for a good reason, quite likely CONOPS. Perhaps the Canadians are happy with different figures.

Just started reading the transcript from the Australian Parliament. Bloody Hell! Those guys aren't pulling their punches, are they?

Quote:

---

The Joint Strike Fighter is now more expensive than the larger and over three times more capable F22A Raptor. The unresolved and unresolvable engineering problems in the program will see further cost growth for as long as this broken program continues.

---

I look forward to reading the rest of that one, thanks for posting, Spaz. Very interesting.

"Those guys" in question being the unquestionably impartial Dr Kopp and his mates, who do not appear to have an axe to grind in any way shape or form...the ultimate antithesis to "JSFFan" if you like.

I noticed, NaB. Quite remarkable.

spaz. cm and lo, the altitude change is not in the 150nm ingress/egress

dear old apa clown club
House of Representatives Committees ? Parliament of Australia
Airpower Australia and RepSim claim that the F35 will not be competitive in 2020. Airpower Australia's criticisms mainly centre around F35's aerodynamic performance and stealth capabilities. These are inconsistent with years of detailed analysis that has been undertaken by Defence, the JSF program office, Lockheed Martin, the US services and the eight other partner nations. While aircraft developments such as the Russian PAK-FA or the Chinese J20, as argued by Airpower Australia, show that threats we could potentially face are becoming increasingly sophisticated, there is nothing new regarding development of these aircraft to change Defence's assessment. I think that the Airpower Australia and RepSim analysis is basically flawed through incorrect assumptions and a lack of knowledge of the classified F-35 performance information.

The JSF program accomplishments to date, towards entering operational service, include that the F35 continues to be assessed to be able to penetrate a modern, integrated air defence system. When the classified capabilities are taken into account, we have had Australian pilots flying high-fidelity simulators and they have been very impressed with the combat capabilities of the aircraft. These pilots include fighter combat instructors from RAAF Base Williamtown and ex-commanding officers of fighter squadrons within Australia

LO,

I'm interested in your link: Lockheed hopes to firm up F-35 Lot 6 & 7 contracts before mid-year. They keep saying "We had an opportunity to spend time with our customer" and "Those efficiencies could translate into savings for the US government".

Is that because of the context they were talking in or should I be worried about LM's regard for their partners in this?