# F-35 grounded - again



## ivanotter (Feb 23, 2013)

BBC: 

The US has grounded its entire fleet of 51 F-35 fighter jets after the discovery of a cracked engine blade.

The fault was detected during a routine inspection of an air force version of the jet (F-35A) at Edwards Air Force Base in California, said the Pentagon.

Different versions are flown by the navy and the marine corps. All have been grounded.

The F-35 is the Pentagon's most expensive weapons programme. with a cost of nearly $400bn (£260bn).

The Pentagon said flight operations would remain suspended until the root cause is established.

Friday's order was the second time in two months planes from the F-35 range have been grounded


-->> Again!

Ivan


----------



## Matt308 (Feb 23, 2013)

Yeah... no more tri-service procurements in the future when the individual service requirements are so disparate.


----------



## mikewint (Feb 23, 2013)

Such things become inevitable as you make something more and more complicated. Fortunately the problem was found before pilots were killed


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 23, 2013)

Cracked turbine blade - happens all the time. This is a propulsion system issue and may be an isolated case. It also was found on a test bird that is probably seeing some pretty extreme flying. The aircraft still and will continue to have teething pains - just more hype for the media. Beaupower32 works at EDW, if he could talk about it I'm sure we will hear first hand how serious this is.


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 23, 2013)

Flyboy is correct in pointing out this is an engine problem that will be quickly resolved.

But the main issue is with the reported less than desired performance, and the out of control costs; should this be outright cancelled?

What we want and what we can afford is mutually exclusive. And I for one, say to cancel this and regroup.


----------



## Matt308 (Feb 23, 2013)

Are you fooking serious? Cancel a program over these many years and this progress costing almost half a trillion dollars. That would be foolish!

Certainly this program is a poster child for procurement eff-ups, but we should not throw away the baby with the bath water. That would be just plain stoopid.

Rather, the gov't should learn a lesson that requirement creep is a truly punishable offense. And Lockheed should pay for their lack of meeting milestones. Both parties are at fault.

And if you ask me, the marine corps cannot justify a STOVL platform. They should have eaten the USAF or USN version and been done with the rivalry. Plain silly in concept.

I will say that the tir-service end result will be phenomenal. But at what cost?


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 23, 2013)

I am serious. 500 billion spent so far to build an aircraft that is a sub performer and grossly over priced.

We cant afford it. All of it wasted money.


----------



## Matt308 (Feb 23, 2013)

So your recommendation is to kill the program. Really.

Say no more.


----------



## ivanotter (Feb 24, 2013)

Well, yes no well fine -

Hurl more money at something just because you have already spent a fortune on it might not be a good idea. Something like hurling good money after bad money.

Even if it is an engine problem more than a structural problem of the air frame (phew, no more cracked spars, please), it does set the whole project back.

It might be the time to start seriously looking at it again. Is it affordable? time over-runs? The buyers might start to look at having carriers with no aircraft and so on. Is it so late in time and so expensive that it is now impossible?

On that note: alternatives?

1) Dust of the Harriers? it seems going too far back in time
2) Upgrade Super Hornets? end of life for the hornets?
3) Buy Rafale? wow, that would be a new
4) Chuck the A version and go for Eurofighter? Inclusive of USAF?

There are few alternatives, as I see it. It is as though we have painted ourselves into a corner. This project now HAS TO succeed, despite anything. And that is never a good strategy.

Just a thought.

Ivan.


----------



## Vic Balshaw (Feb 24, 2013)

It's not just the US guys, this program is providing a fifth generation aircraft to no less than 11 other countries, who have all poured money into the program and many of the countries are hanging out for the Lightning and have had to upgrade current fleets to accommodate this shortfall.

The WORLD NEEDS the F-35………….


----------



## ivanotter (Feb 24, 2013)

Well, maybe. But can the world afford the F-35?

Just because money has been spent does not entail that more money has to be used IF the project is a dead-end.

Are there any alternatives at this late stage? should alternatives have been found years back?

Ivan


----------



## evangilder (Feb 24, 2013)

If you look back at other military aircraft programs over the years, this same theme has been repeated many times...Too expensive, too many problems, we don't need it, etc. Too many people suffer from short term memory loss. The F-16 had very similar questions about it, yet they continued to "throw money" at the program and the results speak for themselves. 

F-15s had engine troubles during development that continued into the first aircraft introduced.:


> The introduction of the F-15 into USAF service was not without its problems. The pilots at Luke AFB with the Tactical Training Wing found that they could not mount the planned number of sorties. There were difficulties with parts and maintenance, but the most serious problem was with the engines. The Air Force had underestimated the number of powercycles per sortie and had not realized how much the Eagle's maneuvering capabilities would result in frequent abrupt changes in throttle setting. This caused unexpectedly high wear on key engine components, resulting in frequent failures of key engine components such as first-stage turbine blades. These problems could be corrected by more careful maintenance and closer attention to quality control during manufacturing of engine components. However, the most serious problem was stagnation stalling.


It should be noted that there were frequent groundings of the F-15 during development and early in its deployment because of engine troubles.

Here is an interesting GAO report from 1977 on the progress of the F-16 program:
U.S. GAO - National Defense: Status of the F-16 Aircraft Program


F-16 vs F-35 development article
Why the F-35?: Comparing the F-16's development with the F-35

So again, we are looking at some similarities with current, great aircraft. A problem like this with the powerplant can likely be resolved the same way the F100 engine troubles in the F-15 were.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 24, 2013)

ivanotter said:


> Well, maybe. But can the world afford the F-35?
> 
> Just because money has been spent does not entail that more money has to be used IF the project is a dead-end.
> 
> ...



The bolded part is what it's all about. For the customers involved, both in the USA and abroad, there is no alternative to the F-35. So the F-35 will be produced, even if that means fielding them in penny packets, and solving the issues not when those needed to be addressed, but when the plane is in service. 

As for he blog entry Eric is pointing at:


> First, he points out the 5 objectives of both the F-16 and F-35 programs:
> -Incorporate new and decisive technologies to keep America well ahead of potential adversaries.
> -Keep total program cost low by overlapping development, test and production.
> -Reduce support costs compared to the airplanes being replaced.
> ...



Having objectives is one thing, meeting them is all another ball game. The F-35 was suposed to use the off-the-shelf 'nuts bolts', in order to develope it produce fast - how come the 'incorporation of new and decisive technologies' is one of the objective? The F-16A was using the engine that was being developed for F-15, was it not, along the simple radar - so, old, not new technology? The F-16 succeeded in the 'implementation of the the rapid production ramp-up', we have yet to see that to happen for the F-35.


----------



## evangilder (Feb 24, 2013)

The point is that these kinds of concerns have propped up on most military aircraft projects. Keep in mind that the grounding for the cracked blade is precautionary. It's better to stand down to understand and correct an issue. It may be no big deal, it may be. The question is, are you willing to risk an airframe and a pilot on conjecture? The is a powerplant problem, not an F-35 problem. 

Has the F-35 had development problems? Yes, but so have a lot of other aircraft that are now in use by multiple countries around the world. Can all the countries that are interested in the F-35 replace it with something else? Yes and no. They could probably find something else to do the job, but with less capability and with an older airframe. 

Saying that prospective buyers might start to look at having carriers with no aircraft is not really going to happen. There would be no point deploying a ship that large, whose mission is to project power and provide a base of operations for aircraft to just go float around.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 24, 2013)

syscom3 said:


> Flyboy is correct in pointing out this is an engine problem that will be quickly resolved.
> 
> But the main issue is with the reported *less than desired performance*, and the out of control costs; should this be outright cancelled?



The problem child is the F-35B, the "A" and "C" models are doing quite well considering they are the most advanced combat aircraft flying today.


----------



## ivanotter (Feb 24, 2013)

Yes, I would also ground it before we are losing pilots.

The B model is problematic. That I think all agree upon. It should be chucked before more money is hurled in the bin for this.

The view I have is that it might be the very best but who can afford it? I would love to drive a Maseratti, but alas, can't afford it. But it is surely the best.

If time and budget over-runs will continue, the cost per copy might be more than what the different countries can carry. THAT I think is the bottom line now.

I don't think anybody has got any problems with the ambition level, but if the ambition level becomes non-affordable, that is where the problem comes in.

Whether Martin has managed the project properly is something else again. Forcing them to pay a few billions back might just bank-rupt them instead and then what?

I think the problem is that some of the countries may bail and then US might be sitting with impossible numbers to fill for the project to be profitable. and that might not be possible?

Will there be an even worse problem soon: If the thing is not getting out of development and into squadron service, will there be a contender? after all, time is running and the competition is not just sitting and twidling their thumbs, are they?

Ivan


----------



## davebender (Feb 24, 2013)

15 years too late to make this decision but why didn't late 1990s DoD opt for a ground attack variant of F-22?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 24, 2013)

Understand a few things here. This aircraft has been under development for over 15 years, to totally kill it now is foolish. Its one of the most advanced weapons system ever built. Problems on this program have been magnified thanks to the media who tends to demonize and large military defense program during peacetime. LMCO is not blameless with regards to some of the problems encountered, but that's to be expected during the development of any advanced weapons system. A larger piece of the pie that is missing is interference from "the customer." I've been in the aviation business full time 33 years. Most of that time was spent working on government contracts. I worked on the P-3, F-117A, B-2 and a few drone and several aircraft maintenance contracts and I could tell you that many of these programs suffered delays and cost over runs based on continual changes and interference by the customer, and most of the time this is never reported.

As Eric pointed out, the last large fighter procurement in the US also had its share of issues and cost concerns. I'd like someone to tell me that the F-15 turned out to be a lemon! But if this was 1977, you'd hear the same whine from the news media about the F-15 and F-16 as being said about the F-35 today - as a matter of fact, being old enough to remember when the F-15 and F-16 went into service, it almost like déjà vu.

The F-35B has issues but they can be overcome. Personally my only issue with the program is the cost, especially during these hard economic times. Be advised folks that the contractor is demonized because of the cost of these programs, but many if not all the time; the cost is driven by customer intervention and even agreed upon during negotiations.

For many years we hear stories about the "Military Industrial Complex" as if there's some Howard Hughes or Tony Stark (Iron Man) type character driving the US defense industry. In my experience, it's the exact opposite. It's the internal structure of the US DoD and the legions of civil servants who are continually attempting to justify their jobs who are creating a great part of the problem. Defense contracts are just there to give these folks what they are asking for!!!

A final note - remember the $600 toilet seat? I was actually involved in that debacle many years ago. In reality the US government was actually overcharged about $40 at the end of the day, but you never hear about that one. And you also never heard that the toilet seat AND cover were MIL-Spec manufactured and was constructed from a fire resistant type plastic that was similar in size and construction to a large plastic fender used on a sport’s car. Go on Google and price what a front fender cost for say a corvette, then multiply by 2 that pays for the paperwork and contract people overseeing the whole thing! In the end I think the cost was justified.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 24, 2013)

davebender said:


> 15 years too late to make this decision but why didn't late 1990s DoD opt for a ground attack variant of F-22?


It was designed as an air to air combat aircraft from the start and the "JSF" (which eventually was won by LMCO) was part of a two-aircraft equation, air-to-air and air-to-ground made by the DoD in the early 90s. It's weapons bay was not initially designed to deploy air to ground ordnance.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 24, 2013)

ivanotter said:


> Yes, I would also ground it before we are losing pilots.


There's been nothing publicly encountered on the F-35 program that has jeopardized any pilot and this grounding shows the DoD is taken steps to mitigate any risks to those who are flying this aircraft.


----------



## ivanotter (Feb 24, 2013)

Good to see yu around again, Flyboy. Always worth listening to.

What is the biggest risk to the project now? As you also pointed out, it is probably not in the technical sphere anymore. 

If the price is going up much more, can the smaller countries afford it? I think that is the problem.

I am not up-to-date on orders for F-35 anymore, but I think that the number of aircraft is dwindling? if that is so, what is the critical number?

Have you got experience with this as well? Was the Raptor not also on a downward spiral in terms of orders?

Ivan


----------



## Matt308 (Feb 24, 2013)

The biggest risk is satisfying a very aggressive flight test schedule and completion of technical milestones. I don't recall the exact block release they are working towards, but upon a successful flight test/milestone completion this validated block release will officially give the airplane initial capability for air-to-air combat operations. Future milestones and subsequent block releases will introduce air-to-ground combat capabilities and weapon integration for foreign customer weapon systems.

I bet GE-Rolls Royce are salivating about now.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 24, 2013)

ivanotter said:


> Good to see yu around again, Flyboy. Always worth listening to.



Many Thanks!


ivanotter said:


> What is the biggest risk to the project now? As you also pointed out, it is probably not in the technical sphere anymore.


Money, the media/ politicians and peace.


ivanotter said:


> If the price is going up much more, can the smaller countries afford it? I think that is the problem.


This depends - much of the bad press around the cost centers around the US program. Once the line is started and production units are rolling at full stride, costs will drop. You also have issues with avionics which are a subject matter in it self. It's also going to depend what electronic goodies smaller countries will purchase.


ivanotter said:


> I am not up-to-date on orders for F-35 anymore, but I think that the number of aircraft is dwindling? if that is so, what is the critical number?



I don't knwo where it sits on firm orders, but the DoD wants about 2,500 units and right now the Obama administration seems to still support the program.


ivanotter said:


> Have you got experience with this as well? Was the Raptor not also on a downward spiral in terms of orders?
> 
> Ivan


The Raptor's price was based on total production units. About 200 were initially ordered, I think about 165 got delivered.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 24, 2013)

This in today...

Grounding, budget woes cloud F-35 warplane sales push in Australia - Yahoo! Finance


----------



## davebender (Feb 24, 2013)

So was F-15. That didn't prevent the excellent F-15E evolving from the initial air superiority fighter.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 24, 2013)

I am particulary fond to wait and see if the geared fan system in the F-35 VTOL variant will be as realible and durable as the Harrier vectoring system.


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 24, 2013)

In the 1970' when the F15 and F16 went through their teething problems, the US economy was in far greater shape to handle cost issues. We don't have that luxury anymore. So many needs by the pentagon and we cannot support them all. We're all adults here and know very well that our family budgets have to be prioritized between what we want and what we can afford. This where we are with every d*** program with the military. Costs for everything is now prohibitive and cruel choices must now be made.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 24, 2013)

davebender said:


> So was F-15. That didn't prevent the excellent F-15E evolving from the initial air superiority fighter.


It didn't, but the F-15 didn't have a RA coating that prevented it from carying external stores.


----------



## gumbyk (Feb 24, 2013)

Anyone got any idea what it would cost to cancel this program? (Cancellation fees, compensation, job losses, etc)


----------



## Matt308 (Feb 24, 2013)

The DoD spends about 6+% of our yearly Federal budget. More than half of the federal budget is social handouts with over 47% of individual Americans receiving some sort of social benefit. The US constitution specifically states that the Fed Gov't is responsible for security of the state. Nowhere is it mentioned that the Fed Gov't is to clothe, feed, educate and shelter citizens.

{Great. Now I have to ban myself.}


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 24, 2013)

I would gladly cut the DOD budget to fully fund any NASA and JPL programs.

Matt, we are in an end game here. What everyone wants and what we can afford is not sustainable. I don't care were you assign blame, but the fact is; we cant afford it.


----------



## davebender (Feb 24, 2013)

I disagree. 

As long as U.S. troops are in combat they deserve the best support money can buy.


----------



## Matt308 (Feb 24, 2013)

You and I are in violent agreement. But wisdom says the money manager must prioritize. And with US constitution backing, I would vociferously argue that the DoD 6% budget is not the tree you bark up. To do so is ignorant and folly. Don't get me wrong, there is certainly waste. But to gut the DoD and ignore the other 94% is criminal, unconstitutional and frankly treasonous.


----------



## mikewint (Feb 24, 2013)

I woud totally agree that this is a pressing need for the Armed Forces. I have one question and perhaps FBJ will address it. Are We, the USA, following the German WWII weapons developoment path, i.e. making more and more complicated and expensive weapons systems that are difficult to impossible to maintain in a war scenario? What is the survivability of these complicated systems in wartime. Shootup a Spitfire and with some baling wire and tape its back flying next day. How many 20mm cannon rounds can a B-2 take and fly home and if it does who fixes it?
A Tiger tank in today's money would cost a million plus. An Abrams runs over 4 million.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 24, 2013)

"Everyone wants to go to heaven, but no one wants to die to get there."


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 24, 2013)

mikewint said:


> I woud totally agree that this is a pressing need for the Armed Forces. I have one question and perhaps FBJ will address it. Are We, the USA, following the German WWII weapons developoment path, i.e. making more and more complicated and expensive weapons systems that are difficult to impossible to maintain in a war scenario? What is the survivability of these complicated systems in wartime. Shootup a Spitfire and with some baling wire and tape its back flying next day. How many 20mm cannon rounds can a B-2 take and fly home and if it does who fixes it?
> A Tiger tank in today's money would cost a million plus. An Abrams runs over 4 million.



In some respects I agree with you, but then again after the Vietnam War, when the DoD placed an emphasis on technology and survivability, how many aircraft and aircrews were lost in combat when compared to Vietnam and earlier? Smaller number of aircraft today are doing twice or three times the job compared to hardware 40 of 50 years ago with a fraction of the losses but five times the price. Is it worth it? Ask the family of today's combat pilot.


----------



## Matt308 (Feb 24, 2013)

And now we have no compelling draft. Our men and women are serving duties that are unheard of in our history. Shame on us citizens for either not voluteering or forcing our elected members to impress a change in our foreign policy. Shame on us all. From bottom to top.


----------



## wuzak (Feb 25, 2013)

A question. Do you think that without the requirement for a STOVL variant that the F-35 may have ended up a twin engined aircraft instead, using two smaller engines, such as those in the F-18 (upgraded, of course)?

Another, apart from landing on helicopter platforms, do the Marines need hovering/vertical lift capability in their fighetr/attack jets?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 25, 2013)

wuzak said:


> A question. Do you think that without the requirement for a STOVL variant that the F-35 may have ended up a twin engined aircraft instead, using two smaller engines, such as those in the F-18 (upgraded, of course)?


No - the concept was to make the aircraft as light at possible and that's why LMCO designers went with the lift fan. The concept works and was well demonstrated during the X-35/ X-32 fly off.


wuzak said:


> Another, apart from landing on helicopter platforms, do the Marines need hovering/vertical lift capability in their fighetr/attack jets?


That's an argument firmly in place right now.


----------



## wuzak (Feb 25, 2013)

FLYBOYJ said:


> No - the concept was to make the aircraft as light at possible and that's why LMCO designers went with the lift fan. The concept works and was well demonstrated during the X-35/ X-32 fly off.



Sorry, I was asking if there was no STOVL variant if it would have a big single engine or two smaller ones. I understand that the single engine with lift fan works well for STOVL, and that the single engine negates the possibility of assymetric lift thrust if one engine goes down.

In essence I am asking how much of the F-35A and F-35C designs have been driven by the F-35B?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 25, 2013)

wuzak said:


> Sorry, I was asking if there was no STOVL variant if it would have a big single engine or two smaller ones. I understand that the single engine with lift fan works well for STOVL, and that the single engine negates the possibility of assymetric lift thrust if one engine goes down.
> 
> In essence I am asking how much of the F-35A and F-35C designs have been driven by the F-35B?



I have friends who were on the X-35 design team. I think from the get-go a single engine platform was considered to save weight, especially since LMCO had lift fan technology available to them. It seems from the start, there was a "one shoe fits all" concept in the design. I think the airframe shape was dictated by the F-22 (The X-35 was referred as "minnie-me" when compared to the F-22 by some LMCO folks). The designers were faced with a challenge to come up with a STOVL that had size and weight restrictions, therefore that went with a lift fan rather than a second engine. In the end I don't think it was so much of the F-35B influencing the A and C models, but rather the other way around. The "B" has gotten most of the press because it was the basis of the whole JSF program, it's the most advanced, the most impressive, the most expensive and giving the most problems.

Here's a very good piece on the F-35, showing pro and con arguements...

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/The-F-35s-Air-to-Air-Capability-Controversy-05089/


----------



## ivanotter (Feb 25, 2013)

The idea was to have one design to fit all, inclusive of exports to all and sundry.

Not sure if that was the best idea. But for not ending up in totally different designs, a better compromise might have been sought.

Right now, the ambition level looks as though it was really "reaching for the moon".

Maybe an alternative could be something from Sukhoi?

(OK, that was in jest!)

Ivan


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 25, 2013)

I think the "one shoe fits all" and ambition level was and still is very do-able. I think the root problem is the highly aggressive flight test program that is so transparent any negative that's encountered, no matter how small or how routine in the flight test environment is displayed as a major failure. Additionally you have 3 very distinctive variants of the same aircraft being painted with the same brush. Combine this with some of the other issues mentioned earlier, mainly $$$ and this whole program is battling a huge up-hill fight. If things aren't bad enough, you have an old member of the "fighter mafia" Pierre Sprey who sometimes winds up on an interview chastising BOTH the F-22 and F-35 (I think he must have an ex-wife who works at LMCO).


----------



## wuzak (Feb 25, 2013)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I have friends who were on the X-35 design team. I think from the get-go a single engine platform was considered to save weight, especially since LMCO had lift fan technology available to them. It seems from the start, there was a "one shoe fits all" concept in the design. I think the airframe shape was dictated by the F-22 (The X-35 was referred as "minnie-me" when compared to the F-22 by some LMCO folks). The designers were faced with a challenge to come up with a STOVL that had size and weight restrictions, therefore that went with a lift fan rather than a second engine. In the end I don't think it was so much of the F-35B influencing the A and C models, but rather the other way around. The "B" has gotten most of the press because it was the basis of the whole JSF program, it's the most advanced, the most impressive, the most expensive and giving the most problems.
> 
> Here's a very good piece on the F-35, showing pro and con arguements...
> 
> The F-35′s Air-to-Air Capability Controversy



Thanks for the link Flyboy.

That seems to confirm my concerns about the F-35's air to air ability, which would be a key capability requirement for the RAAF.


----------



## Matt308 (Feb 25, 2013)

But the RAAF has a requirement to replace both an air superiority capable airplane AND a strike fighter. So what did you just confirm? The F-35 is inferior in one or both?

And contrasted with what airframe?


----------



## michaelmaltby (Feb 25, 2013)

This is the understandable but destructive price democracies pay for "inter-operability". The F-35 program needs to reach fruition. If it doesn't .... it's every client for themselves. Buy Sukoi's if you want a Plan B ...

MM


----------



## Matt308 (Feb 25, 2013)

No doubt about it. If US screws this up, repercussions will last for decades. Not thinking that will happen though. Certainly procurement lessons will be historic however. I personally put most blame on DoD for such a contracted acquisition/implementation due to requirements creep. The US has got to get a reign on this for EVERY acquisition or our future defense technology is doomed in the future.


----------



## wuzak (Feb 25, 2013)

Matt308 said:


> But the RAAF has a requirement to replace both an air superiority capable airplane AND a strike fighter. So what did you just confirm? The F-35 is inferior in one or both?
> 
> And contrasted with what airframe?



I am only talking about the air superiority role. And comparing the likely adversaries - current and next generation Russian and Chinese fighters.


----------



## Matt308 (Feb 25, 2013)

Then you have lots to be concerned about. Lots. The F-35 is NOT a world contender as an air superiority fighter. Never has been marketed as same, nor will ever be.


----------



## wuzak (Feb 25, 2013)

Matt308 said:


> Then you have lots to be concerned about. Lots. The F-35 is NOT a world contender as an air superiority fighter. Never has been marketed as same, nor will ever be.



That would be, to my mind, the main priority for the RAAF.

But, then again, we will be replacing F/A-18As and F-18Fs with the F-35, so it's not as if we have a world contender for air superiority anyway.


----------



## Matt308 (Feb 26, 2013)

That was my thoughts too.


----------



## mikewint (Feb 26, 2013)

I guess I have a one-string banjo here but the best fighting machine in the world is only good if you can keep it capable of fighting. All is wonderful in the states with herds of mechanics and loads of spares readily available. What happens in the desert, jungle, winter, etc. when your machine is shot-up, mechanics overworked or dead, spares not available, etc. Ultra-tech is wonderful until.... FBJ mentioned pilot survivability and that is extremely important but the best pilots still need something to fly.


----------



## Matt308 (Feb 26, 2013)

Pilot attrition is a real issue for a fighting force operating on quality vs quantity. Successful CSAR becomes are hugely meaningful asset.


----------



## mikewint (Feb 26, 2013)

Matt you bet. Air force and Navy ran their own SAR for the first 24hrs then we were tasked with finding the pilot. Can't tell you how many times we found a perfectly intact aircraft and no pilot. Again the German parallels as their aircraft went down. a loss yes but who replaces that experienced combat pilot but he still needs something to fly


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 27, 2013)

Some more bad F-35 press...

Pentagon F-35 program chief lashes Lockheed, Pratt - Yahoo! Finance
_
"The Pentagon program chief for the F-35 warplane slammed its commercial partners Lockheed Martin (LMT) and Pratt Whitney on Wednesday, accusing them of trying to "squeeze every nickel" out of the U.S. government and failing to see the long-term benefits of the project.

U.S. Lieutenant-General Christopher Bogdan made the comments during a visit to Australia, where he has sought to convince lawmakers and generals to stick to a plan to buy 100 of the jets, an exercise complicated by the second grounding of the plane this year and looming U.S. defense cuts."_

Bogdan should be fired for this statement. You're dammed right LMCO and P&W is going to "squeeze" every penny they can - they are in business to make money and they are trying to do it while their customer creates a huge spider's web bureaucracy that continues to add things to this program by people who are nothing more than parasites, trying to justify their existence by adding continual requirements and then blaming the contractor for the costs.


----------



## Matt308 (Feb 27, 2013)

If I recall correctly, Bogdan is new. I can't recall the acquisition he had prior oversight of however.


----------



## Matt308 (Feb 27, 2013)

When in doubt... Google.

June 2009 - July 2012, KC-46 Program Executive Officer and Program Director, KC-46 Tanker Modernization Directorate, Aeronautical Systems Center, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio


----------



## Catch22 (Feb 28, 2013)

People up here are seriously saying we should be buying Super Hornets.  I can see an argument for the Eurofighter or Rafale but if Canada buys the Super Hornet they would be making the biggest mistake they possibly could.

Actually, here would be a good place to ask this. On another site I post on I'm one of the few people with knowledge of military aviation (but of course a lot of other people like to make their "correct" thoughts known), but I'm always stumped when asked about the US weapons compatibility issues with the Rafale. Can anyone tell me or point me in the right direction for information on what the hurdles would be to making it work with our current weaponry?


----------



## Matt308 (Feb 28, 2013)

In addition to below, Rafale is qualified for the Hammer precision glide bomb.

http://gripen4canada.blogspot.com/p/the-dassault-rafale.html

"Possibly the biggest stumbling block of the Rafale for Canada is, for lack of a better word, its "Frenchness". Not in any derogatory sense, but in the sheer amount of France sourced hardware built into the aircraft. The radar and SPECTRA ECM system are made by Thales, the engines are produced by Snecma. Almost all major components are built in France. This, of course, includes its weapons systems. This is where it gets complicated.

Although Dassault's website promises the ability to mount "Customer-selected weapons", the Rafale is currently outfitted to handle predominantly French made missiles. It will be compatible with the upcoming MBDA Meteor, but will only share a one-way datalink with the missile, rather than the two-way datalink the Meteor will have with the Gripen and Typhoon. 

The Rafale's weapon compatibility isn't such a big deal for India, it currently flies the Dassault Mirage and is already equipped with a stockpile of French munitions. Canada, however, would have to make the decision to either replace our current stockpile of American AMRAAMs, Sidewinders, Mavericks, and Harpoons for French Micas, Hammers, and Exocets; or wait (and pay) for the Rafale to be tested and cleared for Canada's current weapon stockpile. Any price advantage the the Rafale has over the Typhoon could easily be eliminated by extra costs inherited with its weapon systems."


----------



## Catch22 (Feb 28, 2013)

Thanks a lot Matt. There's no way we'd replace the weapon stockpile. Depending on the costs to have everything tested, we'd have to go that route. There has also been talk of Dassault allowing us to build most of our order here, but I don't know if we really have the facilities for it.


----------



## Jack_Hill (Feb 28, 2013)

Just for fun Catch22 :
Insist !
Just a bit, and I bet french gvt will offer Canada free Rafales, buy your stockpiles of ammo's'and offer you the facilities and plans for the bird.
Nice chance for them saying "VICTORY" once back to France.


----------



## Catch22 (Feb 28, 2013)

Haha well that'd be nice but I can't see it happening. It would be nice to see some form of deal though.


----------



## Jack_Hill (Feb 28, 2013)

As far as i'm concerned, you Canadians are much welcome in dealing with such a fair state of mind.


----------



## Marcel (Feb 28, 2013)

Here in the NL we have been debating the purchase of the F35 for years. Problem is manly the increase in price which we did not anticipate at the start.I'm wondering if we shouldn't have bought the eurofighter instead. We'd already have them, and our money would have stayed mainly in 'our own' Europe ( no offence meant to the Americans). I know the F35 is the newer generation fighter, but I actually wonder if that would do us any good. After all the missions usually consists of things like Yougoslavia and Afganisthan. Hardly places where you would need stealth technology.


----------



## wuzak (Feb 28, 2013)

Interesting.

The Rafale has, from my count, 13 hardpoints.

The F-35 has 10 hard points, but only 4 in internal bays. Load up some of the external hardpoints and the stealth advantage is gone or reduced.


----------



## wuzak (Feb 28, 2013)

Catch22 said:


> People up here are seriously saying we should be buying Super Hornets.  I can see an argument for the Eurofighter or Rafale but if Canada buys the Super Hornet they would be making the biggest mistake they possibly could.
> 
> Actually, here would be a good place to ask this. On another site I post on I'm one of the few people with knowledge of military aviation (but of course a lot of other people like to make their "correct" thoughts known), but I'm always stumped when asked about the US weapons compatibility issues with the Rafale. Can anyone tell me or point me in the right direction for information on what the hurdles would be to making it work with our current weaponry?



Australia already has 24 Super Hornets. They replaced F-111s (!). Some have been configured such that they can be converted to EF-18G Growlers at a later date.

With the delays and costs of the F-35 rising, Australia has enquired about purchasing 24 more F-18Fs. As a stop gap to replace the F/A-18As that we got in the '80s. I suppose the theory was to have soem airframe compatibility, but my understanding is that there is minimal common parts.

My concern is that the air to air performance of the F/A-18As wasn't world's best when new, that the F-18Fs are better but still not the best of its contemporaries. 

I guess the Typhoon is better as an air to air platform, but the Rafale better as an all-round platform (better strike ability than the Typhoon)?


----------



## Matt308 (Feb 28, 2013)

The load out chart of the Rafale looks wonderous. But in reality is nothing more than a marketing brochure. Like the traditional loadout pics that all manufacturers disseminate. You don't realistically see loadouts anywhere near this.


----------



## ivanotter (Mar 1, 2013)

BBC again:


""The Pentagon has said it will resume flights on its F-35 fighter jets, after the whole fleet was grounded last week.

A cracked turbine blade found on a plane prompted the suspension. But tests showed that this was a "unique" problem and not a design flaw, engine maker Pratt and Whitney said."""

""Extensive tests on the plane's engine revealed the crack was a result of the "unique operating environment" of the test flight, and was not a widespread issue, he added.

The engine had been running at high temperatures for four times longer than a normal F-35 flight, causing a separation of the "grain boundary" on one blade, Mr Bates explained."""

""The construction of the plane has been plagued by problems - it is seven years behind schedule and has required numerous re-designs because of delays in software delivery and bulkhead cracks."""

Well, yes.

It does raise a few questions: What is 4 times as long as a "normal" flight? Can it cross the Atlantic after a few refuelings? or is that too long?

It is not really clear to me at least if this is serious or just very "unique"? I really would not have something "unique" happening to my car for example.

seven yers behind schedule? is it going to be overtaken by competition out there?

Ivan


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 1, 2013)

Who knows. The B model was grounded on Feb 12 and is now subsequently flying. Cause was an improperly crimped hydraulic line to swing nozzle assembly. That was supposedly "unique" too. You have to understand the safety measures that the three services impose (most strict being US Navy... those guys don't mess around with anything until thoroughly investigated).


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 1, 2013)

And discovering these issues "DURING" flight test are where they should be discovered. Keep in mind that that those aircraft at EDW are being "used and abused" to the point of breaking, all part of the process but the stupid press doesn't see it that way.

BTW....

Australian lawmakers confident in F-35's future - Chicago Tribune


----------



## mikewint (Mar 1, 2013)

FBJ, Excuse my one-string-banjo again, but "used and abused", is that not exacty what a WARplane would be faced with in a war? Don't think the enemy allows timeouts for maintainence and repair. Perhaps I am wrong but "takes a licking and keeps on ticking" has to be #! criteria for anything military, tied only with crew survivability.
Don't know if any of you remember the old M113s where the commander had to stand up and out of the vehicle in order to fire the 50cal. Brilliant design, wana guess how many vehicle commanders survived their first use in battle?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 1, 2013)

mikewint said:


> FBJ, Excuse my one-string-banjo again, but "used and abused", is that not exacty what a WARplane would be faced with in a war? Don't think the enemy allows timeouts for maintainence and repair. Perhaps I am wrong but "takes a licking and keeps on ticking" has to be #! criteria for anything military, tied only with crew survivability.
> Don't know if any of you remember the old M113s where the commander had to stand up and out of the vehicle in order to fire the 50cal. Brilliant design, wana guess how many vehicle commanders survived their first use in battle?


 What is being attempted in flight test is ensuring that the aircraft can "take a licking and keep on ticking" and in some instances pushed outside an enviornment it would never see in normal operation. As stated, this is the time to identify any flaws or potential flaws as the aircraft is pushed to its limit.


----------



## mikewint (Mar 1, 2013)

One line concerns me "it would neer see in normal operations" the is nothing normal in a war. Rememer the orginal Bradley Fighting Vehicle? The M2 Bradley Infantry Fighting vehicle is a three million dollar version of the World War II Sherman tank, with room in the back for six guys. It weighs 30 tons, so its too heavy to be picked up by any helicopter and too large to be carried by a C-130, and is not truly amphibious. It's expensive to operate, expensive to maintain, and worst of all, its a huge vehicle with aluminum (a flamable metal like magnesium) armor and packed with explosive TOW missiles and internal fuel tanks. The only country willing to take the Bradley was Saudi Arabia and we had to GIVE them 400.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 1, 2013)

mikewint said:


> One line concerns me "it would neer see in normal operations" the is nothing normal in a war. Rememer the orginal Bradley Fighting Vehicle? The M2 Bradley Infantry Fighting vehicle is a three million dollar version of the World War II Sherman tank, with room in the back for six guys. It weighs 30 tons, so its too heavy to be picked up by any helicopter and too large to be carried by a C-130, and is not truly amphibious. It's expensive to operate, expensive to maintain, and worst of all, its a huge vehicle with aluminum (a flamable metal like magnesium) armor and packed with explosive TOW missiles and internal fuel tanks. The only country willing to take the Bradley was Saudi Arabia and we had to GIVE them 400.



Don't know what to say expect an F-35 obviously isn't a Bradley. When an aircraft it test flown, it's pushed to its limits. Engine and airframe damage CAN and WILL occur, that's why you have a test flight program. The XP-80 had it's air intake cave in before the first flight, FOD'ed the engine and delayed the flight test program - Lockheed had to go back and strengthen the air intake.

The point here is politicans and the media are taking these occurences and dooming the aircraft based on this situation. Again point is, you WANT this to occur now, not during a major conflict in 120 degree heat or over the North Pole.


----------



## wuzak (Mar 1, 2013)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And discovering these issues "DURING" flight test are where they should be discovered. Keep in mind that that those aircraft at EDW are being "used and abused" to the point of breaking, all part of the process but the stupid press doesn't see it that way.
> 
> BTW....
> 
> Australian lawmakers confident in F-35's future - Chicago Tribune



Those guys are the guys that bought into the JSF program sight unseen without an evaluative process. 

I still don't think the F-35 is right for Australia.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 1, 2013)

wuzak said:


> Those guys are the guys that bought into the JSF program sight unseen without an evaluative process.
> 
> I still don't think the F-35 is right for Australia.



Well it depends what you think Australia needs. The F-35 is not designed to be a world class air to air fighter. Even in it's strike role i think you're going to find this aircraft will carry smaller bombs that can be delivered very accurately. As far as the price tag - it's going to depend on the model. It's funny though, the same thing is being said about Canada's participation in the F-35 program (Those guys are the guys that bought into the JSF program sight unseen without an evaluative process. )


----------



## mikewint (Mar 1, 2013)

FBJ, Exactly. My point is that now that it is known that this can happen what if anything will be done? The Bradley at $8.9 million is a specific case. When the vulnerability of the Bradley was pointed out the Pentagon's reply was that surviving an RPG was "not in the Bradley's mission profile" it only had to be able to survive small arms fire. The first M-16s we received, we were told: "These new rifles are so finely made they never need to be cleaned"; the initial Phantom jets w/o cannon because "Jets will never dogfight again"; Hueys with no defensive armament cause who'd shoot at a defenseless helo picking up troops
I have no problem spending billions to give our soldiers the best of the best and KISS never aplied more than when you are talking war machines, air, water, land so yea, beat the cr+p out of them but then fix it


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 1, 2013)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Don't know what to say expect an F-35 obviously isn't a Bradley. When an aircraft it test flown, it's pushed to its limits. Engine and airframe damage CAN and WILL occur, that's why you have a test flight program. The XP-80 had it's air intake cave in before the first flight, FOD'ed the engine and delayed the flight test program - Lockheed had to go back and strengthen the air intake.



For those not familiar with modern design assurance methodologies for airframes, complex hardware, system analyses and software... then you might not understand that the world has embraced a top-down and bottom-up requirements methodology which emphasizes:

* configuration management
* quality assurance
* high to low level requirements validation and verification
* structural coverage
* process assurance
* design data
* test procedures
* etc

Complex hardware and software acquisitions have a whole engineering complexity all to their own. One might argue that such engineering discipline is overkill, but then again creation of airframes with capabilities even approaching the A320, Mirage 2000 or F-16 would be unachievable.


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 1, 2013)

Stick to the facts.

1) This aircraft for whatever reason is hugely expensive.
2) Its not a great AC in any category.
3) The Marines have totally screwed this up by demanding AC that we can no longer afford.
4) UAV's for a fraction of the cost are a knockin' at the door.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 1, 2013)

syscom3 said:


> Stick to the facts.
> 
> 1) This aircraft for whatever reason is hugely expensive.
> .



Oh, do tell...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 2, 2013)

mikewint said:


> One line concerns me "it would neer see in normal operations" the is nothing normal in a war.



That is not really true. There are still operating limits and those have to be followed in combat as well. Of course in certain situations you have to possibly break those limits, but as FBJ pointed out that is one of the things that is being tested. How far can you go.


----------



## wuzak (Mar 2, 2013)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Well it depends what you think Australia needs.



I am curious as to what you think Australia needs.

Consider that the plan was to buy 100 and that's be the only fighter/attack aircraft we have.

For my part the roles I think are required are:

Priority A) Air to air - for air defence of Australia
Priority B) Maritime attack - to defend the coast lines of Australis
Priority C) Combat Air Support - support our troops in battle




FLYBOYJ said:


> The F-35 is not designed to be a world class air to air fighter



Therin lies the problem. It is not designed to world class at anything. It is designed to do a bit of this, a bit of that....




FLYBOYJ said:


> Even in it's strike role i think you're going to find this aircraft will carry smaller bombs that can be delivered very accurately



I would think that the accuracy of the bombs would largely depend on the bloke on the ground pointing a laser at the target.





FLYBOYJ said:


> As far as the price tag - it's going to depend on the model.



We woul dbe getting the A model, with a few less of the trick bits that the USA and UK will be getting.




FLYBOYJ said:


> It's funny though, the same thing is being said about Canada's participation in the F-35 program (Those guys are the guys that bought into the JSF program sight unseen without an evaluative process. )



Well I guess the process on selecting it was teh same there as it was here - a lot of political arse kissing.


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 2, 2013)

wuzak said:


> Therin lies the problem. It is not designed to world class at anything. It is designed to do a bit of this, a bit of that....



Yup. Its not good at anything it does. And you're paying a lot of money for a 2nd rate AC.

This is another McNamara nightmare. Only this time, our economy cant handle it.


----------



## ivanotter (Mar 2, 2013)

Well, here is another piece from BBC:

"US President Barack Obama has signed into effect a wave of steep spending cuts which he has warned could damage the US economy.

The cuts - known as the sequester and drawn up two years ago - will take $85bn (£56bn) from the US federal budget this year""


AND

""""""
About half the cuts will come from the defence budget. Incoming defence secretary Chuck Hagel has warned of "significant impacts" on the military.

He said the cuts "will cause pain, particularly among our civilian workforce and their families".

"Let me make it clear that this uncertainty puts at risk our ability to effectively fulfil all of our missions," Mr Hagel said.

"Later this month, we intend to issue preliminary notifications to thousands of civilian employees who will be furloughed [put on unpaid leave]."

Defence officials say 800,000 civilian employees will have their working week reduced. They say they will also have to scale back flight hours for warplanes and postpone some equipment maintenance.

The deployment of a second aircraft carrier to the Gulf has also been cancelled"""""""""""""""""""
"""""""""

Now, what does this now mean? anybody?

With the cost over-runs and the delays, me-think that F-35 could be very close to the edge.

There is another aspect to it: The parallel is SA's defence forces.

We bought a lot of rather sophisticated stuff. 

The problem is that the missions right now demand more of:
- trucks to transport troops
- un-sophisticated and simple rifle
- more ammo for the basic stuff
- APC's (like Caspir's will do just fine)
- better uniforms

Those simple and rather pedestrian things.

Now, look at what US is really involved in: Police actions? feet on the ground? 

Is this the same scenario? We go for the wow-factor and the dazzle, where we really need something so stupid as a truck to get to the action.

Is it a fair comparison? Have got ourselves into a technology "black hole" where we simply hurl money and technology at an imaginary problem and overlooking the basic needs of the defence forces?

On a different note, which I have high-lighted before:

I do believe that the development times for a new aircraft is simply too long. we are addressing a need 15 years back in time. In essense, 15 years ago, we predicted how our world would be now. And that is what we cling to due to the specs being "frozen".

Imagine a world where we have a development time of 3-4 years? What if soembody comes up with a plan where there is less "development" but higher usage of existing technology applied in more innovative ways? It is called paradigm shift, I believe.

Of course there are tons of arguments why it is not possible at all. BUT as someoen said, if we can imagine it, it can happen - something like that.

Parallel for this: 
SpaceX. Privatise and get industry involved in a new way. Mars is economically viable
Virgin Galaxy

Just a thought on this.

ivan


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 2, 2013)

Lets just make sure this stays relevant to the F-35...


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 2, 2013)

syscom3 said:


> Yup. Its not good at anything it does. And you're paying a lot of money for a 2nd rate AC.
> 
> This is another McNamara nightmare. Only this time, our economy cant handle it.



Really? It may not be "best in the world" at anything it does but that's a long way from being "not good at anything it does". I think you're overstating the problem here. I believe the F-35, despite its many problems, will prove to be a highly capable fighter and ground attack platform, and its sensor suite will provide additional ISR capability to air forces that employ it.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 2, 2013)

I agree buffnut, to state that "its not good at anything it does" is not supported by reality. The capabilities of the F-35 will be world class. Block 5 brings 6 AIM-120, SDBII and full FOV DIRCM. And if I recall correctly, Block 6 brings initial capability for UAS command/control and Block 7 combines FLIR and IRST into the full 3-dimensional electro-optical tracking system. These capabilities on one airframe are not mirrored on any other platform anytime in the near to mid future.


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 2, 2013)

IMHO, I'd like to see the F-35B thrown in the trash - it overcomplicates the programme for no real operational benefit (other than the Harrier mafias of both the RAF and USMC want to retain their "special" skills in the STOVL arena. Unfortunately, with the decision to make the QEII class carriers ramp launch only, I don't see the UK giving up on the F-35B.


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 2, 2013)

ivanotter said:


> Imagine a world where we have a development time of 3-4 years? What if soembody comes up with a plan where there is less "development" but higher usage of existing technology applied in more innovative ways? It is called paradigm shift, I believe.
> 
> Of course there are tons of arguments why it is not possible at all. BUT as someoen said, if we can imagine it, it can happen - something like that.
> 
> ...



Unfortunately, the spectrum of military operations is broad and constantly changing. In the 1980s, military forces in the Western world and the Warsaw Pact were structured for large-scale, force-on-force combat. The Gulf War in 1991 provided such a start example of the superiority of US conventional forces that few countries today would seek to risk a conflict on those terms. So now we have asymmetric warfare involving non-state actors. That change has major consequences for military procurement - reducing need for main battle tanks and traditional ISR and more need for flexible, mobile infantry and special forces, as well as persistent surveillance to identify hostiles (which is, itself, hard). All of these changes hit following the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, in other words well within the past 15 years. One could argue that most of the changes to combat conditions happened as soon as the initial objective of removing the Taliban from power was achieved - the nature of the combat changed within a matter of weeks not years.

Your comparison with commercial space exploration attempts is, unfortunately, not valid. The conditions of space exploration are well-known and they don't change. It's simply a question of money and commercial interest to determine what type(s) of space vehicles will be commercially viable. The requirements don't change much over time - if you want the average Joe (or Josephine) to get into space then you need a vehicle with a carrying capacity that can make money. Technology impacts your ability to do that but designs aren't subject to wildly swinging requirements changes.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 2, 2013)

...nor the Marines unfortunately. Quite a performance hit for that engine/lift fan combination.


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 2, 2013)

Yep, and it's deadweight in conventional flight. There really is no operational need for a STOVL capability and there hasn't been one since the end of the Cold War (unless you count the RN's carriers being so small that they couldn't support CTOL aircraft). We're not going to be operating F-35s from hides next to straight roads (as per Harrier in the Cold War) nor from forest/jungle clearings. Operation from ships is the closest we'll get to needing a STOVL capability and the USMC operated successfully alongside USN aircraft on the main carriers before Harrier joined the inventory so why not do that again?


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 2, 2013)

Marines say the need it at a smaller expeditionary unit force level. Given how many smaller hotspots we are increasingly involved with, sending a USN carrier is untenable. This is where I do agree with Syscom that this might be a better function for a reaper class UCAV for ground support. But then I see two issues with that, no flexible air-to-air support anywhere in the future and inability of see-and-avoid capability for operations in civil airspace. Both are quite limiting.


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 2, 2013)

Yeah, UCAVs are still some way from being operationally viable as automous killing machines. You still have to get the UCAV to the right point on the earth's surface and, AFAIK, there aren't too many plans for a UCAV solution in the Global Hawk class of UAV (indeed, the requirement for ubiquitous presence militates against a true combat capability, at least in terms of manoeuverability).

Is the US really getting involved in lots of small hotspots? The US has assiduously avoided engaging combat forces in Libya, Syria and Mali. One could argue that it's less likely that US combat forces will be employed at small scale globally given budget constraints for the next decade and the current desire to avoid becoming entrapped in another Iraq or Afghanistan drag-out insertion of democracy.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 2, 2013)

Global Hawk is on the outs at the Pentagon (with perhaps the exception of BAMS for the Navy). Block 40 is likely to be cancelled. And there is no discussion whatsoever to arm that platform. Ever. Just like U-2. So any next generation platform with UCAV capability will have to be something completely new. And nobody is publicly talking about an offensive air-to-air UAS that is steeped in realism. Nobody. So manned platforms are here to stay for the foreseable future.

Perhaps the "hotspots" term is not proper. I'm thinking of the need for addressing Islamo-Nazi asymmetric threats. Areas like Somalia and other coastal African insurgencies. When I wrote the sentence, my immediate thought was 'perhaps the US should just ignore such low-level threats'... and while that isolationist attitude is an alternative, it has not served us and the remainder of the world well over the last 115yrs.

Perhaps the Chi-Coms could take over the evil role of the US colonists. I'm sure the world would be a better place.


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 2, 2013)

Just to be clear, I wasn't talking about Global Hawk specifically but something in that class of UAV. Anything that's not in that class/size will either need to operate from forward-deployed airfields or from carriers and so offers few advantages over the F-35 (did you see how I got us back on topic there? Sometimes I'm just a genius!).


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 2, 2013)

Global Hawk is the size (wingspan) of a 737 with 8700nm endurance, 3000lb payload and exceptionally high ceiling. Other than 48hr persistance, what do we want from such a UCAV platform. Especially when you get almost the same max payload with a slighly lower dash speed with a commendable persistance duration. The Marines are looking at worst case adversary operations, wherein the airspace is contested. While the likelihood of that occurring without US Navy air support is low, one does have to consider nation defense for worstcase scenario. There are significant tradeoffs in going the cheap route when your constitutional obligation of the federal gov't is to defend our nation is it's virtually only mandate.


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 2, 2013)

Ok here's my train of thought...F-35 STOVL needed 'cos of small carriers and small conflicts. If F-35 is replaced by an UCAV capability, then the only options are carrier-based, forward-deployed conventional airfield or global strike capability. For the latter, you're going to need a large UAV...perhaps something of the size/scale/range of Global Hawk. You need the persistence because, if the UCAV isn't operating from a carrier or nearby airfield, it will take too long to respond to ongoing crises so it needs to loiter and then attack when called upon.


----------



## wuzak (Mar 2, 2013)

buffnut453 said:


> Unfortunately, the spectrum of military operations is broad and constantly changing. In the 1980s, military forces in the Western world and the Warsaw Pact were structured for large-scale, force-on-force combat. The Gulf War in 1991 provided such a start example of the superiority of US conventional forces that few countries today would seek to risk a conflict on those terms. So now we have asymmetric warfare involving non-state actors. That change has major consequences for military procurement - reducing need for main battle tanks and traditional ISR and more need for flexible, mobile infantry and special forces, as well as persistent surveillance to identify hostiles (which is, itself, hard). All of these changes hit following the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, in other words well within the past 15 years. One could argue that most of the changes to combat conditions happened as soon as the initial objective of removing the Taliban from power was achieved - the nature of the combat changed within a matter of weeks not years.
> 
> Your comparison with commercial space exploration attempts is, unfortunately, not valid. The conditions of space exploration are well-known and they don't change. It's simply a question of money and commercial interest to determine what type(s) of space vehicles will be commercially viable. The requirements don't change much over time - if you want the average Joe (or Josephine) to get into space then you need a vehicle with a carrying capacity that can make money. Technology impacts your ability to do that but designs aren't subject to wildly swinging requirements changes.



In "asymmetric warfare involving non-state actors" are the likes of F-35s really required? Aren't F-18Fs more than adequate?

Actually, shouldn't we buying A-10s instead?


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 2, 2013)

Well from a US Marine standpoint, F-18s are large carrier airplanes and thus not compatible with MEU landing ships. For RAAF, F-18Fs have fairly long range strike capability, especially with cruise missles and stand off weapons. But F-18 is no better than F-35 in physical knife fight (and likely MUCH worse with block 5, 6 and 7; and does not have penetration and sensor fusion capability of F-35). Those are the tradeoffs. And they can be rather significant in the increasingly networked battlefield. I think this is why RAAF is looking towards using F-18E/F/G as their electronic fighting platform supporting a future F-35/UAS offensive fleet. Smart money if you ask me as a force multiplier against a nation state with quantity as their primary game 'advantage'.


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 2, 2013)

wuzak said:


> In "asymmetric warfare involving non-state actors" are the likes of F-35s really required? Aren't F-18Fs more than adequate?
> 
> Actually, shouldn't we buying A-10s instead?



Maybe but, as always, the problem is wider than that. Who's to say the pendulum of combat operations won't swing back the other way and we'll need something more advanced for the next war, or the one after that, or the one in 20 years from now? The designs for the A-10 and F/A-18 are already more than 30 years old, and there is a limit to the cost-effective life of such platforms. The key risk is that we won't have the capability that's needed in the future when that future, with the best will in the world, cannot be clearly foreseen. Finally, there's the whole military-industrial complex argument - that if we don't keep producing new aircraft, we lose the raison d'etre for comprehensive combat aircraft design, development and production lines. This latter may not be a valid concern in reality but it's certainly present at the political level when there's a public outcry because a Government decision to cut a major programme results in major job losses in a high-tech industry, which is precisely where the western world needs to be investing. Just look at the UK brain-drain after key programmes like TSR-2 and space launch/rocket development were cancelled.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 2, 2013)

wuzak said:


> I am curious as to what you think Australia needs.




Right now? F-16s


wuzak said:


> Consider that the plan was to buy 100 and that's be the only fighter/attack aircraft we have.
> 
> For my part the roles I think are required are:
> 
> ...



And the F-16 could do all that at half the cost but technology is slowly catching up to it, but it's still an ideal aircraft for a country that wants all the above with a limited defense budget.




wuzak said:


> Therin lies the problem. It is not designed to world class at anything. It is designed to do a bit of this, a bit of that....


That's always been the issue with multi-role aircraft.


wuzak said:


> I would think that the accuracy of the bombs would largely depend on the bloke on the ground pointing a laser at the target.


And if you're not able to put a "bloke on the ground"? 



wuzak said:


> Well I guess the process on selecting it was teh same there as it was here - a lot of political arse kissing.



You're going to get that regardless


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 2, 2013)

syscom3 said:


> Yup. Its not good at anything it does. And you're paying a lot of money for a 2nd rate AC.
> 
> This is another McNamara nightmare. Only this time, our economy cant handle it.



And your proof of that? Where is it REALLY failing?!?!?!?

Understand something here folks - this F-35 is a firm fixed price contract. The press and some imbeciles at the pentagon and in congress rant about the costs of the F-35. These so-called cost over runs HAVE to be approved by the government. Has anyone ever thought that some of the spiraling costs are actually INDUCED by the government?!?!?!?

Here's a pretty decent piece that shows some of the deficiencies found and some of the "add ons." I don't think you could find anything in there that shows this aircraft is "not good at anything it does." What's not being mentioned is this aircraft is probably also the most extensively tested aircraft in the history of aviation.

http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/f-35-jsf-dote-fy12-annual-report.pdf


----------



## wuzak (Mar 3, 2013)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Right now? F-16s



We had the opportunity to get F-16s 30 years ago, but chose F/A-18s instead. So not going to happen now.




FLYBOYJ said:


> And the F-16 could do all that at half the cost but technology is slowly catching up to it, but it's still an ideal aircraft for a country that wants all the above with a limited defense budget.



Indonesia has some F-16s (10 in service), and some more on order (24 - according to wiki). They also have Northrop F-5s (15), 5 Su 27s and 5 Su 30s. And they apparently have 50 KFXs on order.

KAI KF-X - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Lucky13 (Mar 3, 2013)

II have a question gentlemen...

How many other (perhaps badly) needed upgrades etc., are suffering from the costs going up on the F-35? I mean, the more it goes up, your DoD(?) must cut somewhere, right?

Edit: Also, the longer this take, seeing that this, whatever it is  have that radar thingy coating etc., the longer this takes, it gives the development of new weapons a chance to catch up, weapons that's less affected by this, right? So, I'm sure that this will happen, where do you stand then? A very expensive paperweight?  (Tongue in cheek here, don't bute me head off! )


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 3, 2013)

In my experience, procurement of new equipment is funded entirely separately from maintenance of existing equipment. Now roll it up high enough and, yes, it all comes out of the same pot but I don't know if anyone on this forum has the fidelity and access to say what got cut to keep F-35 alive - it gets very complex because, for example, the cut could have been the closure of a base rather than an equipment-based programme. 

As for others catching up, well defence budgets are stretched pretty much everywhere right now and the only countries with the capacity to challenge the F-35 from the technical perspective are China, Russia (perhaps) and India (possibly)...unless the US is going to war against NATO. High-tech programmes always have difficulties - that's across the board. If it was easy, anyone could do it. But it's not easy, it's very, VERY hard and with that difficulty comes technical complexity and problems. Therefore the concept of "catch-up" is rather flawed methinks.


----------



## ivanotter (Mar 4, 2013)

Somehow, the notion of other countries catching up could be very real, I should think.

These long development times (as I know from software development times way back in time) could easily create "the best aircraft for the 2000's, in 2015".

If we look at the weapons to be carried, there are really two issues: control software in the F-35 must be able to interface with the weapons software. That is both programming and certification.

Here I am guessing as I really don't know: If thew weapons to be carried offer more functionality (and therefore require more bandwidth) than what the F-35 can interface to (because nobody thought about it 15 years ago), then what?

Can we find ourselves in a situation where the weapons are more sophisticated than what the platform can utilise? Is the development cycle of missiles significantly shorter than the aircraft platform? and if that is so, it is the software development of the platform which is critical.

In essence, if you have something which can fly reasonable well but can integrate to everything, is this the winner above an aircraft which is great in any aviatic way, but lack access to modern weapons? Maybe too simple a question, but do we find some reality in it?

Now please, don't hurl sticks at me as I really don't know the parameters on this.

Ivan


----------



## Lucky13 (Mar 4, 2013)

Maybe this has already been mentioned, I don't know....but, if I tossed money into this project (as a outside country), wanting to buy 100 F-35 but in the ends only get 85 _and_ it's not even the _best_ that those money can buy, what stops me from bailing out and go somewhere else?
If I was the Big Cheese of my country's defense money, I sure as h*ll (I know, sorry!) want the best that those money can buy and preferably while I'm still in office!  
Will this be, or is it already one of them famous Jack of all trades, King of none? Something that shows that most expensive is far from always the best? Another thing, with those internal weapon stores, what good are that low radar emissions (or whatyacallit), stealth if they jam open? 

Btw, how much has each airframe gone up in price?


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 4, 2013)

Lucky,

As already pointed out, you don't need to be the best in everything...you just need to be good enough to beat the foreseen opposition. Few air forces can afford to have the best of everything because that requires role-specific airframes which are unaffordable. 

The nations in the F-35 programme are all free to jump ship at any time. The key question is where will they go? Back in time 30 years to the airframes the F-35 is designed to replace? That's hardly going for "the best" is it? Buy airframes from Russia and then load in your own avionics? That's hugely risky and there's no collaborative programme even in place for such a thing - it'll take 10 years just to get the thing flying, if it ever does successfully. 

What "best" airframes/weapon systems do you suggest we purchase instead of F-35?


----------



## Lucky13 (Mar 4, 2013)

I have no idea, have about as much knowledge about modern aircraft as I have about how womens mind work! 

I think that it's too many cooks or chefs in this soup, which usually, not always, means a c*ckup in the end...or as CID Grim put it: 'cause you know what'll happen Raymond, don't you - it'll be your c*ck up - my *rse! Just remember Raymond, it's my *rse and if you stuff it, I'm going to be very red in the face.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 4, 2013)




----------



## gumbyk (Mar 4, 2013)

If I was the guy writing the checks from one of the countries who had tooled up to produce components for this, and then the major country decided to cancel the program, you had better believe I'd be asking for that (taxpayer) money back.

Remember, its not just an American manufactured platform...


----------



## wuzak (Mar 4, 2013)

buffnut453 said:


> Lucky,
> 
> As already pointed out, you don't need to be the best in everything...you just need to be good enough to beat the foreseen opposition. Few air forces can afford to have the best of everything because that requires role-specific airframes which are unaffordable.
> 
> ...



India already do that with Sukhoi, with the Su-30MKI. I believe one of the prime contractors in that was Thales.

Australia has also done upgrades to their F/A-18As. So there is some capability in Oz to do such things.

We could buy Su-35s for a similar price to the F-18Fs we are getting, if not cheaper. Definitely cheaper than we will get the F-35s. And it will be a more capable aircraft than either.

Then the problem is integrating the weapons, I guess. Just wonder if the Indians have already done it.


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 4, 2013)

More capable how? In terms of onboard sensors? Ability to penetrate enemy air defences? Oh, and it still won't meet the requirements for the F-35B. Integrating weapons is not trivial, nor is re-engining an existing airframe - just look at the problems the UK had fitting Rolls Royce engines into the F-4 and that's 40 years ago. Modern aircraft with highly integrated avionics are far more complex where software controls aren't necessarily discrete. I know of one airframe where a customer replaced the engine with a home-grown alternative and it entirely screwed up the fire control system. 

Personally, I'd put the F-35 against any of the Flanker variants any day of the week and twice on Sunday.


----------



## wuzak (Mar 4, 2013)

More capable in air to air role - which should be Australia's primary concern.

More capable as in can carry more ordinance longer distances.

I don't see the F-35's stealth being that great an advantage.


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 4, 2013)

Not sure I agree with your first point - I think the F-35 as a total package still beats the Flanker series in the air-to-air role. Agree on the range issue and ordnance factors, though. However, the Su-35 is still a 30-year-old airframe and installing new avionics is, as pointed out previously, a risky proposition. The other factor is maintainability. There have been plenty of jabs at the F-35 for potential (not yet demonstrated) problems of sustained operations and yet the reliability of Russian combat aircraft isn't the greatest in the world. No point having a long-legged weaponed-up Su-35 if it can't get off the ground 'cos its serviceability rate is so low.


----------



## gumbyk (Mar 4, 2013)

buffnut453 said:


> The other factor is maintainability. There have been plenty of jabs at the F-35 for potential (not yet demonstrated) problems of sustained operations and yet the reliability of Russian combat aircraft isn't the greatest in the world. No point having a long-legged weaponed-up Su-35 if it can't get off the ground 'cos its serviceability rate is so low.



From what I've seen of Russian aircraft, its not the build quality that causes the low serviceability, but poor maintenance practices.


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 5, 2013)

Gumbyk,
You may be right. So we should all throw in our lot with that nice trustworthy man, Mr Putin. I'm sure there won't be any strings attached to the deal!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 5, 2013)

More rambling - sounds like General Numbnuts is backpeddling.....

Pentagon F-35 chief sees progress, but affordability still focus - Yahoo! News


----------



## gumbyk (Mar 5, 2013)

> You may be right. So we should all throw in our lot with that nice trustworthy man, Mr Putin. I'm sure there won't be any strings attached to the deal!



I wasn't commenting on any 'strings attached' merely noting that it is noto nly build quality that affects serviceability.

BTW, American aircraft come with plenty of strings attached. We had to get US permission prior to disposing of the A4's - Outdated technology!!


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 5, 2013)

I know...just pulling your leg. At least American strings tend to be at least somewhat in tune with our own.


----------



## gumbyk (Mar 5, 2013)

You've got me wondering now, what the strings would be when buying Russian/Chinese aircraft.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 5, 2013)

"... From what I've seen of Russian aircraft, its not the build quality that causes the low serviceability, but poor maintenance practices."

Spot on. Turn the Israelis and the Indians loose on Soviet platforms and you really have something.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 5, 2013)

Sure do... American technology on post-Soviet platforms. While I don't dismiss IAI capabilities, I do question their technology transfer.

Indians? Not so much. The Tejas is a 30yo POS. And they are so desparate for technology transfer that they are holding weapon platform acquisition hostage for indigenous production capability. Not unlike any other nation, but Indian technology is not world class... yet.


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 5, 2013)

gumbyk said:


> You've got me wondering now, what the strings would be when buying Russian/Chinese aircraft.



Ok, I realise the following is deliberately provocative and entirely beyond the realms of fantasy but...let's say that the US decides it's cheaper and less risky to buy Su-35s (or similar variants) and kit them out with P&W engines and US avionics. The other partners in the F-35 programme are, by default, forced to follow suit as there's no other real alternative out there. So the US, UK, Australia, half of NATO etc all are beholden to the Russian aircraft industry. The aircraft are delivered on-time and on-budget and everybody cheers. Then we come up against the next "local" conflagration...let's say it's in 5 years time and Libya has reverted back to a more totalitarian regime but the people have, again, rebelled and the Government uses force to suppress the people. The whole of the UN pushes for military action against the Libyan Government but China abstains and Russia votes "no" because, taking the moral high ground, "it's wrong to get involved in another country's internal affairs." The political crisis deepens and NATO threatens to deploy Su-35s to provide both air defence and ground attack aircraft to Italy for operations over Libya. Russian doesn't like this and so immediately imposes sanctions on the West and cuts off the supply of any spares associated with Western-operated Su-35s, effectively holding our combat capability hostage. Now, could we overcome such actions? Yes, absolutely. Iran managed to keep their F-14 fleet operating for years without US spares. However, it would create a very awkward situation and give Russia a political lever at the UN that would be highly embarrassing to the Western world. 

Like I said...provocative and impossibly unlikely but Russia's track record of voting against the flow in the UN would, IMHO, make any purchase of Russian military equipment by NATO or other Western nations a very loaded political issue.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 5, 2013)

"... Russia's track record of voting against the flow in the UN would, IMHO, make any purchase of Russian military equipment by NATO or other Western nations a very loaded political issue."

I agree .... but the Finn in me says .... work with what you got ... and I might rather have 30 Sukhoi's with Canadian pilots and ground crew than 5 F-35's with Canadian pilots and ground crew. Notice I said "might". I'm not sure.

As for India - they've selected the French Raffele - but only the first couple of dozen will be built in France, the balance in India, by Hindustan. _ Their_ strategy clearly is to get_ more_ than just ex-Soviet technology transferred


----------



## ivanotter (Mar 6, 2013)

This topic has surely gained a life of its own now.

I just intended to draw the forum's attention to the fact that the F-35 had been grounded, for those not having seen it at that time.

Very intersting this. It seems we re-evaluate the F-35 programme every six months or so. Not a bad thing in itself.

To me, there is still something that tells me that a project costing $400 bn and some seven years late might not come off at all. Project management experience tells me it might be a duck already. But let's see.

The other aspect - to me - are the long development times. I am still not convinced (even by FLB) that a 15 year development cycle is natural and has come down from high altar or something. I am still rather convinced that the one who can shorten it dramatically will be a winner.

With 15 years of development I do see that we are building a platform for what was, not what will be coming or even what is.

Yes, what a wonderful world if US and NATO will standardise on Soviet equipment! that should create a different world.

I found an interesting article on BBC: Are wars winnable (in this new world where wars among governments are not so likely anymore).

I don't know if this works, but it is here:


BBC News - Spent force: Are wars still winnable?

Where will F-35 fit into this?

Maybe we should re-evaluate the "sailor-inhalor" , the Boeing contender to the F-35 - the glorious X-32.

Ivan


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 6, 2013)

"... Are wars winnable"

Who knows ... depends on the war, eh,  ... but sometimes weapons _prevent_ wars from happening ..... think A-bomb. An F-35 streaking across Tehran at 200 meters off the deck might give some in the regime there cause to reconsider and possibly change their underwear ....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 6, 2013)

ivanotter said:


> Maybe we should re-evaluate the "sailor-inhalor" , the Boeing contender to the F-35 - the glorious X-32.
> 
> Ivan



This aircraft was a total POS. During the hovering tests Boeing took the landing gear doors off so it was able to meet some of the test requirements. In concept the F-35 is very "do-able" and the X-35 proved this hands down and basically "smoked" the X-32 during competion.

_"The contract for System Development and Demonstration (SDD) was awarded on 26 October 2001 to Lockheed Martin, whose X-35 beat the Boeing X-32. One of the main reasons for this choice appears to have been the method of achieving STOVL flight, with the Department of Defense judging that the higher performance lift fan system was worth the extra risk. When near to the ground, the Boeing X-32 suffered from the problem of hot air from the exhaust circulating back to the main engine, which caused the thrust to weaken and the engine to overheat"_

Joint Strike Fighter program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## ivanotter (Mar 6, 2013)

I do agree, the X32 is not an option.

I am convinced that Boeing designed it so ugly so they would lose the competition. Who in their right mind could come up with that monstrosity. Joking a little bit on that, though.

That said, was the avionics worse or the same with the X32? if you hurl $400 bn at the X32, would it be better?

$400 bn can afer all buy a few things.

Ivan


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 6, 2013)

This was written before the contract was awarded - mind you it only deals with the testbeds.

http://www.dept.aoe.vt.edu/~mason/Mason_f/JSFOBrien.pdf


----------



## johnbr (Mar 6, 2013)

F-35 design problems make night flying impossible, increase risk of being shot down, U.S. pilots warn | Canada | News | National Post 

In the national post a Canadian new paper.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 6, 2013)

Phil Condit was the Boeing CEO during the X-32 development.

Coincidence? Me thinks not.


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 6, 2013)

johnbr said:


> F-35 design problems make night flying impossible, increase risk of being shot down, U.S. pilots warn | Canada | News | National Post
> 
> In the national post a Canadian new paper.



What a total horlicks of a headline. Talk about misleading people. It's not "design problems" that make night flying impossible, simply that flight testing has not reached the stage where the aircraft is fully cleared for night/all weather operations. Also, it's hardly unusual to get very experienced pilots involved in flying a brand new aircraft at this stage of development. I also like the interpretation of "impedes" rear visibility as being "difficult if not impossible to see behind" due to the headrest. Just once I wish a newspaper would actually stop scare-mongering and actually take the time to report based on an understanding of how things happen in the real world of aircraft development.


----------



## johnbr (Mar 6, 2013)

I think they are trying to Kill the F-35.


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 6, 2013)

This is a sorry excuse of an aircraft. It's shaping up to be worse than the F111 fiasco. At least out of that, we got the Tomcat and Eagle.

In this, we get nothing, but a soured attitude by the taxpayer and congress. The damage that's being inflicted by this program is starting to add up.


----------



## wuzak (Mar 6, 2013)

buffnut453 said:


> What a total horlicks of a headline. Talk about misleading people. It's not "design problems" that make night flying impossible, simply that flight testing has not reached the stage where the aircraft is fully cleared for night/all weather operations.



To be fair, in the article itself they do say that the required testing has yet to be completed, not that there is a design fault.


----------



## wuzak (Mar 6, 2013)

buffnut453 said:


> Ok, I realise the following is deliberately provocative and entirely beyond the realms of fantasy but...let's say that the US decides it's cheaper and less risky to buy Su-35s (or similar variants) and kit them out with P&W engines and US avionics. The other partners in the F-35 programme are, by default, forced to follow suit as there's no other real alternative out there. So the US, UK, Australia, half of NATO etc all are beholden to the Russian aircraft industry. The aircraft are delivered on-time and on-budget and everybody cheers. Then we come up against the next "local" conflagration...let's say it's in 5 years time and Libya has reverted back to a more totalitarian regime but the people have, again, rebelled and the Government uses force to suppress the people. The whole of the UN pushes for military action against the Libyan Government but China abstains and Russia votes "no" because, taking the moral high ground, "it's wrong to get involved in another country's internal affairs." The political crisis deepens and NATO threatens to deploy Su-35s to provide both air defence and ground attack aircraft to Italy for operations over Libya. Russian doesn't like this and so immediately imposes sanctions on the West and cuts off the supply of any spares associated with Western-operated Su-35s, effectively holding our combat capability hostage. Now, could we overcome such actions? Yes, absolutely. Iran managed to keep their F-14 fleet operating for years without US spares. However, it would create a very awkward situation and give Russia a political lever at the UN that would be highly embarrassing to the Western world.
> 
> Like I said...provocative and impossibly unlikely but Russia's track record of voting against the flow in the UN would, IMHO, make any purchase of Russian military equipment by NATO or other Western nations a very loaded political issue.



I wouldn't advocate the US buying Russian equipment. 

It is a different matter for smaller countries, like Australia, who are trying to fulfil all fighter and/or bomber roles with the F-35. The US still has F-22s, and can put them back into production if need be.


----------



## wuzak (Mar 7, 2013)

buffnut453 said:


> More capable how? In terms of onboard sensors? Ability to penetrate enemy air defences? Oh, and it still won't meet the requirements for the F-35B. Integrating weapons is not trivial, nor is re-engining an existing airframe - just look at the problems the UK had fitting Rolls Royce engines into the F-4 and that's 40 years ago. Modern aircraft with highly integrated avionics are far more complex where software controls aren't necessarily discrete. I know of one airframe where a customer replaced the engine with a home-grown alternative and it entirely screwed up the fire control system.
> 
> Personally, I'd put the F-35 against any of the Flanker variants any day of the week and twice on Sunday.


 


buffnut453 said:


> Not sure I agree with your first point - I think the F-35 as a total package still beats the Flanker series in the air-to-air role. Agree on the range issue and ordnance factors, though. However, the Su-35 is still a 30-year-old airframe and installing new avionics is, as pointed out previously, a risky proposition. The other factor is maintainability. There have been plenty of jabs at the F-35 for potential (not yet demonstrated) problems of sustained operations and yet the reliability of Russian combat aircraft isn't the greatest in the world. No point having a long-legged weaponed-up Su-35 if it can't get off the ground 'cos its serviceability rate is so low.



I am interested to see where you think the F-35 "total package still beats the Flanker series in the air-to-air role". It certainly won't outfly it in the traditional sense.

Missile wise in the air to air role the F-35 will likely carry 2 AMRAAMs and 2 sidewinders in the internal bays. Carrying extra externally ruins the stealth profile. F-35 is less likely to be able to defeat a missile by manoeuvring than the Su-35. That may be impossible anyway, I don't know.

Sidewinders are 50 years old(!). There is a replacement used by some NATO countries, but not, apparently, the US or Australia. 

The F-35A has a gun (-B and -C I understand don't). If it comes down to using this to try to shoot down a Flanker I would think the F-35 is well and truly stuffed.

Other issues:
Other costs associated with the F-35 (for Australia) is that we will likely need to double our tanker fleet.

Air to surface missiles cannot be carried internally. So an anti-shipping strike would leave the F-35 without its stealth cloak.


----------



## fubar57 (Mar 7, 2013)

The latest from CBC
F-35 fighter panned by U.S. test pilots - Canada - CBC News

Geo


----------



## Catch22 (Mar 7, 2013)

Well at least the NDP critic isn't foolish and thinks we should extend the CF-18s.


----------



## fubar57 (Mar 7, 2013)

I'm not as tech savvy as most of the guys discussing this thread but a lot of the RCAF flying is up north and with two engines you have a chance to get home. Also, how stealthy does the RCAF have to be to get close to a rusty old freighter full of illegal immigrants from Asia.

Geo


----------



## ivanotter (Mar 7, 2013)

Good article, but it does not really say anything.

The headrest: Is it difficult to change? easy? implications.

"panning" the F-35? not really.

However, I think it is time for the different players (ok, they do it all the time) to look at the requirements now and through the next 15 years. Maybe that will un-lock the financial burdens which will still come.

Hurling good money after bad has never been a winning strategy. If it is not working, cut the loss, grin hysterically for a little while, and then get onto something else.

Is the combination of Eurofighter and Super Hornet an option for Australia? Canada? 
Rafale in the mix?

Tell the USMC that the hover capability is great but not at the price asked for it.

RN: there is a problem there, but is it worth burning another hundred of billions on? mnaybe a small amount of that can go into a re-design (or re-build even).

It is not saying that the F-35 is the only option. Some options might not be working well, others might. But we won't know if we just close our eyes to any other option and "full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes."

Ivan


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 7, 2013)




----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 7, 2013)

syscom3 said:


> This is a sorry excuse of an aircraft. It's shaping up to be worse than the F111 fiasco. At least out of that, we got the Tomcat and Eagle.
> 
> In this, we get nothing, but a soured attitude by the taxpayer and congress. The damage that's being inflicted by this program is starting to add up.



Again, your baseless opinion. Deficiencies are showing up in flight testing, EXACTLY WHERE THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE EXPOSED! You show me ANY aircraft, including a drone that had a perfect flight test program?!?!?!


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApX5hWorQCc_


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8XakLMAm_U_


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JkcrtvN60s_


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6yVU_yYtEc_

_"By October 29, 1973, 11 of the 12 Category I Eagles had flown, and a maximum speed of Mach 2.3 and an altitude of 60,000 feet had been reached. Remarkably, very few problems were encountered during flight testing. However, early in the test program, problems were encountered with buffeting and wing loading problems at certain altitudes. The solution to the problem was found to be the removal of four square feet in wing area diagonally from the wing tip, giving the Eagle its characteristic raked wingtips. A flutter problem discovered during wind tunnel testing required that a dogtooth be cut into the leading edge of the horizontal tail. The dorsal airbrake was found to cause excessive buffeting when it was in the fully-open position, and it was found necessary to increase its area from 20 to 31 square feet so that the required drag could be achieved with lower extension angles." _

_"The introduction of the F-15 into USAF service was not without its problems. The pilots at Luke AFB with the Tactical Training Wing found that they could not mount the planned number of sorties. There were difficulties with parts and maintenance, but the most serious problem was with the engines. The Air Force had underestimated the number of powercycles per sortie and had not realized how much the Eagle's maneuvering capabilities would result in frequent abrupt changes in throttle setting. This caused unexpectedly high wear on key engine components, resulting in frequent failures of key engine components such as first-stage turbine blades. These problems could be corrected by more careful maintenance and closer attention to quality control during manufacturing of engine components. However, the most serious problem was stagnation stalling. 

There were frequent groundings and delays in engine deliveries while an attempt was made to fix these problem. Strikes at two major subcontractors delayed the delivery of engines. By the end of 1979, the USAF was forced to accept engineless F-15 airframes and place them in storage until sufficient numbers of engines could be delivered. A massive effort by Pratt Whitney helped to alleviate this problem, but the F-15 suffered from an engine shortage for a long time."_

http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/f15_6.html


----------



## ivanotter (Mar 7, 2013)

I do believe that deficiences and all things ought to be found in a test programme. It would be rather boring to discover things in a combat situation ("blue screen" on the computer monitor springs to mind, but that is just a horror thing).

We should not have a situation where lives are lost due to a less than thorough test plan.

Are the things discovered "more" or are they "less" than other projects of similar type? Or did we have not have the same abilities to test things (computer simulations, etc) as we have now; hence we tested less and found less?

The other point is probably that if a country only have X amount of money and the F-35 keeps increasing in price, will they end up with simply too few aircraft to do the job? If you budget for X number of airframes and end up with significantly less, you would simply run out of airframes. Numbers are after all also essential. 

What will the budget cuts in the US do the project? that I think is the most significant risk to the entire project. Is Obama OK with $400 bn and more to come?

Yours,


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 7, 2013)

Just read the final report on the LPT crack. Looks like it was a manufacturing defect and will NOT impact the flight test schedule like the engine issue for the B model in the past.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 7, 2013)

ivanotter said:


> I do believe that deficiences and all things ought to be found in a test programme. It would be rather boring to discover things in a combat situation ("blue screen" on the computer monitor springs to mind, but that is just a horror thing).


Exactly


ivanotter said:


> We should not have a situation where lives are lost due to a less than thorough test plan.


That's why god created "test pilots." As mentioned earlier, I think this is going to be the most extensively tested aircraft in aviation history.


ivanotter said:


> Are the things discovered "more" or are they "less" than other projects of similar type? Or did we have not have the same abilities to test things (computer simulations, etc) as we have now; hence we tested less and found less?


Not all the time. There are certain systems that have to be flown operationaly to be verified


ivanotter said:


> The other point is probably that if a country only have X amount of money and the F-35 keeps increasing in price, will they end up with simply too few aircraft to do the job? If you budget for X number of airframes and end up with significantly less, you would simply run out of airframes. Numbers are after all also essential.
> 
> What will the budget cuts in the US do the project? that I think is the most significant risk to the entire project. Is Obama OK with $400 bn and more to come?
> 
> Yours,



A whole other ball game to consider - again, no one is really saying how and were cost increases will affect forigen aircraft sales. I think the fairest assesment anyone can make about F-35 costs is to see the price tag being charged to the specific customer and also consider their part in production and how much offset is being given back to them. At that point one could really determine how much this thing costs.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 7, 2013)

The current kerfuffle is revolving around the recurring costs associated with maintenance and data fusion. LM's claims are apparently significantly different than DoD's, but both sides are not releasing information until later this month. This is the same issue that is killing Global Hawk. Fantastic airframe and sensor suite, but the recurring costs for data integration is though the roof and USAF is itching to kill it. I hope the same situation doesnt arise with F-35. Given the bandwidth difference between the two, not likely to happen. But don't know enough about the maintenance side of things. Will be interesting to see what is released.


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 7, 2013)

wuzak said:


> To be fair, in the article itself they do say that the required testing has yet to be completed, not that there is a design fault.



But will the average person understand the subtlety of what that means? Bottom line is the newspaper is deliberately misleading with its headline to drum up more negativity about the programme.


----------



## Catch22 (Mar 7, 2013)

buffnut453 said:


> But will the average person understand the subtlety of what that means? Bottom line is the newspaper is deliberately misleading with its headline to drum up more negativity about the programme.



That's certainly what's been happening on other sites I frequent. A lot of people see these articles and take them as gospel, while really they're being mislead.


----------



## gumbyk (Mar 7, 2013)

Matt308 said:


> Just read the final report on the LPT crack. Looks like it was a manufacturing defect and will NOT impact the flight test schedule like the engine issue for the B model in the past.



Yeah, and with a test airframe, which was pushed waay beyond the normal flight envelope.


----------



## Catch22 (Mar 7, 2013)

A couple family members mentioned they saw on the news that the F-35 is now out of contention for Canada due to cost, but I have been unable to find anything online to confirm it, as I missed it myself. Has anyone heard similarly?


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 7, 2013)

wuzak said:


> I am interested to see where you think the F-35 "total package still beats the Flanker series in the air-to-air role". It certainly won't outfly it in the traditional sense.



But an aircraft as a system-of-systems is more than just the airframe (assuming your assertion is correct that the F-35 can't outmanouevre the Su-35 which I'm not sure you can say with certainty). Modern air combat isn't so much about close-in knife fights - it's about killing the other guy at maximum range. The sensor package in the F-35, coupled with its low-observability, should mean it can schwack (that's a technical term) most opposition before it's even seen/detected. 



wuzak said:


> Missile wise in the air to air role the F-35 will likely carry 2 AMRAAMs and 2 sidewinders in the internal bays. Carrying extra externally ruins the stealth profile. F-35 is less likely to be able to defeat a missile by manoeuvring than the Su-35. That may be impossible anyway, I don't know.



Aircraft can't outmanoeuvre modern air-to-air missiles. Not even your much-vaunted Su-35. 



wuzak said:


> Sidewinders are 50 years old(!). There is a replacement used by some NATO countries, but not, apparently, the US or Australia.



So what? Sidewinder is a bolt-on missile requiring less integration with an aircraft's systems than pretty much any other AAM out there. They put sidewinders on Nimrods during the Falklands Conflict for goodness' sake! I agree the Sidewinder isn't the greatest short-range AAM but it's not like we're still flying with the original variants, indeed I'm pretty certain there isn't a single common component between the original Sidewinder and those currently in the front-line. If Australia uses Sidewinders today, I imagine they would still use Sidewinders on Su-35s unless you're suggesting that Australia also replaces all its current missile inventory with Russian alternatives?



wuzak said:


> The F-35A has a gun (-B and -C I understand don't). If it comes down to using this to try to shoot down a Flanker I would think the F-35 is well and truly stuffed.



As mentioned before, modern air combat isn't about the close-in knife fight. That said, since Australia is getting the F-35A you have nothing to worry about, correct?



wuzak said:


> Other issues:
> Other costs associated with the F-35 (for Australia) is that we will likely need to double our tanker fleet.



Compared to what? According to that most utterly reliable of sources, Wikipedia, the F-35 has a longer combat radius than the F/A-18 it's replacing. Not sure I understand your logic here.



wuzak said:


> Air to surface missiles cannot be carried internally. So an anti-shipping strike would leave the F-35 without its stealth cloak.



No, it would reduce the effectiveness of it. The F-35 would still have a smaller radar cross section than a non-stealth design because the major radar returns (like from the engine front) are mitigated.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 7, 2013)

Okay gents.

F-35B and C models have an external gun. Remember this is supposed to be a penetrator platform firstmost. Once relative airspace superiority is achieved, then external weapon storage is the norm. Block 5 allows 6 AIM-120s stored internally. Followed by JSOW, JDAM, Brimstone and SDBII with glide bomb capability. To say that this is a handicap is ludicrous. AIM-9X with EOTS give an over the shoulder shot lock-on and kill capability.

Again, if the F-35 is used as a front line air superiority fighter solely for a phonebooth knife fight (gun only) there is an issue, but that is not her role. The F-35 is supposed to be used as a penetration platform that exploits not only stealth, but weapon and sensor fusion to exact the maximum impact from all available assets.


----------



## beaupower32 (Mar 7, 2013)

The aircraft was AF-02. It is a flight science aircraft, which test all flight performance envelopes. From turns, to climbs and dives. Everything. Also includes speed flights. Lots of speed, lots of time in After Burner. The engine has been used and abused. Pratt found it on a routine inspection they always do here. It was a caution to ground the aircraft to make sure none of the other jets were affected. 

The Lift fan actually has a clutch connecting it to the drive shaft. Think of a clutch on your car connection the PTO shaft. Same idea. 

On some good news, we just Got our frist STOVL model here at Edwards. I am lucky enough to be assigned to it. BF-17 is the tail number. We all are very excited...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 7, 2013)

beaupower32 said:


> The aircraft was AF-02. It is a flight science aircraft, which test all flight performance envelopes. From turns, to climbs and dives. Everything. Also includes speed flights. Lots of speed, lots of time in After Burner. The engine has been used and abused. Pratt found it on a routine inspection they always do here. It was a caution to ground the aircraft to make sure none of the other jets were affected.
> 
> The Lift fan actually has a clutch connecting it to the drive shaft. Think of a clutch on your car connection the PTO shaft. Same idea.
> 
> On some good news, we just Got our frist STOVL model here at Edwards. I am lucky enough to be assigned to it. BF-17 is the tail number. We all are very excited...



Gents - take heed in what this man tells us - he's right there on the front line!!!!!!


----------



## wuzak (Mar 7, 2013)

buffnut453 said:


> But an aircraft as a system-of-systems is more than just the airframe



That is very true. 

But surely better airframes make for better aircraft?




buffnut453 said:


> (assuming your assertion is correct that the F-35 can't outmanouevre the Su-35 which I'm not sure you can say with certainty)



Do you actually think the F-35 is anywhere near as agile as the Su-35?

Wing loading 408kg/m² loaded for the Su-35 vs 526kg/m² for the F-35. 296kg/m² vs 311kg/m² empty. Su-35 has 2d thrust vectoring nozzles, the F-35 doesn't.




buffnut453 said:


> Modern air combat isn't so much about close-in knife fights - it's about killing the other guy at maximum range. The sensor package in the F-35, coupled with its low-observability, should mean it can schwack (that's a technical term) most opposition before it's even seen/detected.



That is the dream. But is it the reality?

It all comes down to the stealth profile. Do you think that stealth won't be defeated in the life of the F-35? Or even by the time it enters service for Australia (around 2018-202)? Or even now?

With 2 medium range missiles on board the F-35 will soon be in a knife fight if there are more than 2 enemy aircraft and/or the missiles aren't 100% accurate.




buffnut453 said:


> Aircraft can't outmanoeuvre modern air-to-air missiles. Not even your much-vaunted Su-35.



Fair enough. I wasn't sure.




buffnut453 said:


> So what? Sidewinder is a bolt-on missile requiring less integration with an aircraft's systems than pretty much any other AAM out there. They put sidewinders on Nimrods during the Falklands Conflict for goodness' sake! I agree the Sidewinder isn't the greatest short-range AAM but it's not like we're still flying with the original variants, indeed I'm pretty certain there isn't a single common component between the original Sidewinder and those currently in the front-line. If Australia uses Sidewinders today, I imagine they would still use Sidewinders on Su-35s unless you're suggesting that Australia also replaces all its current missile inventory with Russian alternatives?



I was kinda thinking about the outmanoeuvring part. Does that still apply to the Sidewinder?





buffnut453 said:


> As mentioned before, modern air combat isn't about the close-in knife fight. That said, since Australia is getting the F-35A you have nothing to worry about, correct?



If it isn't needed, why does it have one?




buffnut453 said:


> Compared to what? According to that most utterly reliable of sources, Wikipedia, the F-35 has a longer combat radius than the F/A-18 it's replacing. Not sure I understand your logic here.



Compared to the F-111s that the F-35s are also replacing (albeit indirectly. As an interim replacement we got F-18Fs, which also require more tankers than previously).




buffnut453 said:


> No, it would reduce the effectiveness of it. The F-35 would still have a smaller radar cross section than a non-stealth design because the major radar returns (like from the engine front) are mitigated.



Still, less effective than internal carriage for the F-35, meaning more likely being detected and shot down.


----------



## fubar57 (Mar 7, 2013)

Catch22 said:


> A couple family members mentioned they saw on the news that the F-35 is now out of contention for Canada due to cost, but I have been unable to find anything online to confirm it, as I missed it myself. Has anyone heard similarly?



Found this from the Ottawa Citizen:
Federal government cancels F-35 fighter purchase

Geo


----------



## beaupower32 (Mar 7, 2013)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Gents - take heed in what this man tells us - he's right there on the front line!!!!!!



Will be carefull of what I do post. We are all worried about cost along with everyone else. We are right now in the business of flight testing. All planes have done it. And I am sure all have been over budget at one point. We here at Edwards take our jobs very seriously. I have talked to all the pilots while strapping them into and getting them out of the seats. They all love the F-35. All of them have combat time in theater, and all have said they would love to have the F-35 over there. Also, Our operational and Test guys here at edwards and at nellis just got their jets. Now the operational testing will commence. Prices of the planes are going down. May not be noticeable, but they are. Better be ready guys. F-35 is going to be around a while. One little note, our contract here at edwards is paid for quite a few years to follow. That means lots of flying, lots of testing.....


The F-35 is not ment to be a dog fighter. Never has. It is to work side by side with the F-22. F-22 does all the air to air. F-35 is ment to get in, drop pay load, and get out. Air to air missles are for self-defence if things get hairy. But if it needs to, the F-35 can dog fight....


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSMNOaZVFaA_ Best video that I know to kinda describe the mission of the F-35.....


----------



## beaupower32 (Mar 7, 2013)

Matt308 said:


> Okay gents.
> 
> The F-35 is supposed to be used as a penetration platform that exploits not only stealth, but weapon and sensor fusion to exact the maximum impact from all available assets.


Exactly!!!!


----------



## Catch22 (Mar 7, 2013)

fubar57 said:


> Found this from the Ottawa Citizen:
> Federal government cancels F-35 fighter purchase
> 
> Geo


Thanks Geo, but it's quite old. I wonder what they saw then.


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 7, 2013)

wuzak said:


> But surely better airframes make for better aircraft?



Sometimes. But sometimes technology and good tactics overcome better airframes. I remember an exercise I was on once where Tornado F3s, probably one of the worst dogfighting airframes, completely waxed a squadron of F-15s because they made intelligent use of data derived from a variety of sensors. 



wuzak said:


> Su-35 has 2d thrust vectoring nozzles, the F-35 doesn't.



And everything I've seen about the thrust vectoring nozzles is that they're great for airshows or a one-off snapshot but in combat, where energy is a key asset, they are of limited, if any, utility.



wuzak said:


> It all comes down to the stealth profile. Do you think that stealth won't be defeated in the life of the F-35? Or even by the time it enters service for Australia (around 2018-202)? Or even now?



I dunno but I do know that "defeat" is a very loaded phrase. Stealth isn't an invisibility cloak but it does help you avoid being detected. If that gives you even just a couple of seconds advantage, that's all you need to kill the other guy first.



wuzak said:


> With 2 medium range missiles on board the F-35 will soon be in a knife fight if there are more than 2 enemy aircraft and/or the missiles aren't 100% accurate.



Firstly, it's hard to imagine a scenario where a single F-35 would engage in one-on-one combat - CAPS always have at least 2 airframes to ensure you always have one aircraft pointing "up threat". Secondly, stealth isn't that important for air defence operations so you can hang more missiles off the pylons. I still reckon the sensors onboard the F-35 give it an advantage over most other combat aircraft out there today.



wuzak said:


> I was kinda thinking about the outmanoeuvring part. Does that still apply to the Sidewinder?



See Matt's earlier post about the AIM-9X over-the-shoulder capability. You can't outmanoeuvre AAMs with an aircraft.



wuzak said:


> If it isn't needed, why does it have one?



Because guns are used for more things than just air combat. They can also strafe targets on the ground. Multi-role, remember?



wuzak said:


> Compared to the F-111s that the F-35s are also replacing (albeit indirectly. As an interim replacement we got F-18Fs, which also require more tankers than previously).



But the F-111 is out of service. The F-35 has a longer combat radius than the F/A-18 so it's less dependent on tankers than the RAAF's _*current*_ inventory. 



wuzak said:


> Still, less effective than internal carriage for the F-35, meaning more likely being detected and shot down.



It's more complex than that. If the enemy can only detect the F-35 at shorter range than the F-35 can detect the enemy then the F-35 still has a crucial time/distance advantage. Yes, carrying external stores will increase the radar cross section of the F-35 but it's still likely to be much smaller than a conventionally-designed aircraft, so detection ranges for the adversary will be much shorter which means the F-35 can get its kill in first.


----------



## wuzak (Mar 7, 2013)

beaupower32 said:


> The F-35 is not ment to be a dog fighter. Never has. It is to work side by side with the F-22. F-22 does all the air to air. F-35 is ment to get in, drop pay load, and get out. Air to air missles are for self-defence if things get hairy. But if it needs to, the F-35 can dog fight....
> 
> 
> _View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSMNOaZVFaA_ Best video that I know to kinda describe the mission of the F-35.....




What if you don't have F-22s? Like, say, Australia?


----------



## beaupower32 (Mar 7, 2013)

wuzak said:


> What if you don't have F-22s? Like, say, Australia?



Then you use what you got. F-35's will have to play the air superiority roll. 


I have a feeling that the F-35's will probably play a roll much like the F-117 did. Stealth strikes on high value targets. Plus the added bonus of being able to dog fight if able.....


----------



## wuzak (Mar 7, 2013)

buffnut453 said:


> Firstly, it's hard to imagine a scenario where a single F-35 would engage in one-on-one combat - CAPS always have at least 2 airframes to ensure you always have one aircraft pointing "up threat". Secondly, stealth isn't that important for air defence operations so you can hang more missiles off the pylons. I still reckon the sensors onboard the F-35 give it an advantage over most other combat aircraft out there today.



So if there are 2 F-35 and 4 enemy aircraft then the odds are still the same.

Or if Australia put up all 100 of its proposed purchase, and the enemy has more than 200 aircraft in opposition.


----------



## wuzak (Mar 7, 2013)

buffnut453 said:


> And everything I've seen about the thrust vectoring nozzles is that they're great for airshows or a one-off snapshot but in combat, where energy is a key asset, they are of limited, if any, utility.



Then why does the F-22 have them?

The PAK-FA will probably have 3d vectoring nozzles in production.





buffnut453 said:


> I dunno but I do know that "defeat" is a very loaded phrase. Stealth isn't an invisibility cloak but it does help you avoid being detected. If that gives you even just a couple of seconds advantage, that's all you need to kill the other guy first.



Well lets say the enemy can detect you at longer ranges than your missiles can reach, and their missiles can reach that far? Would that count as defeat?




buffnut453 said:


> Because guns are used for more things than just air combat. They can also strafe targets on the ground. Multi-role, remember?



Yes, I remember. It's an attack plane that can do some self defence.




buffnut453 said:


> But the F-111 is out of service. The F-35 has a longer combat radius than the F/A-18 so it's less dependent on tankers than the RAAF's _*current*_ inventory.



Yes, all that is true.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 8, 2013)

beaupower32 said:


> Will be carefull of what I do post.....



Totally understand! I may be out there at the end of April/ beginning of May. maybe we could finally meet for a beer!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 8, 2013)

wuzak said:


> What if you don't have F-22s? Like, say, Australia?


That's something your military procurement planners need to answer. Personally I don't think Australia will have issues with the aircraft in either role providing she can afford them, that where my original comment was made about the F-16. I know the 16 was considered years ago but with hindsight being 20/20, I think it was the better aircraft especially if costs are a major factor.


----------



## beaupower32 (Mar 8, 2013)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Totally understand! I may be out there at the end of April/ beginning of May. maybe we could finally meet for a beer!




Sounds good. Just let me know!


----------



## wuzak (Mar 8, 2013)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Personally I don't think Australia will have issues with the aircraft in either role



I suppose that is correct considering that in all likelihood it won't really be tested and the roles that it will do will be like those that the F/A-18As we have did in Iraq.


----------



## Lucky13 (Mar 8, 2013)

I remember that JAS 39 Gripen crash!   To go back to the Gripen, with the A/B, C/D and now later our E/F's, which are in full swing, development, flights etc., our DoD has alreay agreed to buy them, I was wondering with these E/F, which reminds me of the F-18's development into the Superhornet, our Gripen will have larger wings I think, fuselage, more hardpoints, super cruise etc., etc. (and don't forget that we also work on the a 'SeaGripen'), a carrier born version, like the F-18 E/F, it's almost a completely new aircraft, anyhoo, what kinda possibilities does the F-35 have, seeing that they're as expensive as they already are, I can imagine that the upgrades won't be cheap either and also that they (US) will keep the best and most advanced upgrades to themself and not let other customers get them...


----------



## beaupower32 (Mar 8, 2013)

Of course the US will have the greatest stuff for themselves. Just the way it is. The good thing about all three varients is all the common hardware they have. There are so many parts that are interchangable, its crazy. Sure there are some differences. The F-35 has its own butilt in targeting system, which is very cool to look at. IT also has DAS, which you can look up on youtube. A note about DAS. We had a pilot do a low level flight with DAS on. Which dispays a picture on the visor, and basically he can look through the plane at the world around him. Anyways, he said the picture was so clear, that he would rather fly with DAS, than without. WHat we also have to think is that the further the program goes along, the prices will start to drop on things as they get better and to where they will be in the real world. Just like a car. development cost are high at first, but as production goes along, prices drop and settle down. I think by the time the full rate production planes come along, the planes will be below 100 million, where they are advertised to be.....


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 8, 2013)

Remember too, that often times the latest technology is driven by foreign customers. To imply that the US will keep all the best technology to themselves does not account for the temporal development spirals over the course of the airframes lifecycle. Good past examples of that include the US fielding Block 40 F-16s, but selling Block 50/60 to foreign customers. Or perhaps the latest example that did not get traction, Silent Eagle. Just ask the Isreali's what they intend to do with the F-35. I bet they won't tell you, but they do want the source code for a reason.


----------



## ivanotter (Mar 8, 2013)

How will the defence budget cuts impact F-35 now? Is Obama in favour of this project?

It looks bad for nearly anything.

Ivan


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 8, 2013)

I don't see any severe cuts to the F-35. DoD training is a huge budget drain and is likely to take the most meaningful blow in my opinion. This is why the sequester was such a stupid idea to begin with.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 8, 2013)

ivanotter said:


> How will the defence budget cuts impact F-35 now? Is Obama in favour of this project?
> 
> It looks bad for nearly anything.
> 
> Ivan



Right now it seems Obama is in favor of this program and will continue to fund it if his Sec of Defense is happy with the progress and the fixing of the issues found during testing. I do know the USAF wants the F-35 badly and will sell it's soul to get it IMO.


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 8, 2013)

wuzak said:


> Well lets say the enemy can detect you at longer ranges than your missiles can reach, and their missiles can reach that far? Would that count as defeat?



That's the nub of the problem, although it's not just detection range and missile range but also missile acceleration and speed - all of this is highly dependent on the engagement parameters as well as the specific performance characteristics of the airframe, systems and weapons. Unfortunately, it's a question we're unlikely to resolve on this forum because the specific RCS for the F-35 under different loads are, I suspect, highly classified.

As for thrust vectoring nozzles, I suspect we could see a 2D nozzle applied to the F-35 at some point after it enters service. Bear in mind that, apart from F-22, thrust vectoring nozzles have all been retro-fits to existing airframes. As such I don't see it as an insurmountable problem but adding it now will simply induce further cost and delay.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 8, 2013)

and weight that the F-35 can ill afford at this stage of development.


----------



## wuzak (Mar 8, 2013)

beaupower32 said:


> I think by the time the full rate production planes come along, the planes will be below 100 million, where they are advertised to be.....



Unless, of course, orders are cut again.


----------



## wuzak (Mar 8, 2013)

buffnut453 said:


> That's the nub of the problem, although it's not just detection range and missile range but also missile acceleration and speed - all of this is highly dependent on the engagement parameters as well as the specific performance characteristics of the airframe, systems and weapons. Unfortunately, it's a question we're unlikely to resolve on this forum because the specific RCS for the F-35 under different loads are, I suspect, highly classified.



That is true.

We also don't know the detection capabilities of Russian systems. Or what they will be able to do in 5 years.


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 8, 2013)

Well I suppose you could just wait on your laurels until the penultimate strike fighter comes along and then you could buy it and never have to upgrade it ever again. I work in the procurement/acquisition business, wherein we struggle with performance standards on a daily basis. If you succomb to the faction that we should wait for solution to world hunger, you will never deliver anything. And meanwhile the world starves.


----------



## mikewint (Mar 8, 2013)

Not to mention the ever changing needs/requirements/sophistication factors. Think cold war, the big push toward heavy bombers B-47, B-52. The dawning realization that height could not protect from G-A missles. Followed by the "Let's outrun them" smaller faster B-58 hustler at Mach 2 as well as the original B-1 Lancer also at Mach 2 Continuing missle tech eliminates height and speed which moves us into the stealth era and the B-2


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 8, 2013)

Yep... and in the next 10-20yrs likely yet another operational concept of superiority. And I think this is Syscom's point. But in my opinion just a score of years premature.

{enter Syscom}


----------



## wuzak (Mar 8, 2013)

Matt308 said:


> Well I suppose you could just wait on your laurels until the penultimate strike fighter comes along and then you could buy it and never have to upgrade it ever again. I work in the procurement/acquisition business, wherein we struggle with performance standards on a daily basis. If you succomb to the faction that we should wait for solution to world hunger, you will never deliver anything. And meanwhile the world starves.



No, I think there should be a more honest appraisal of the F-35 made. And then it can be more fairly assessed against alternatives.

To tell the truth, I would like Australia to actually bother to look at alternatives. Which isn't something that has been done.

btw, the Australian Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO) cam out during the week and said they lack the ability to nogotiate large contracts.

Defence Calls Private Sector To Help


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 8, 2013)

Again... the alternatives? Name the airframe platform and weapon system(s) that you are a proponent of?

Lets do a comparison. I'm curious. I personally think you will have to conclude the FlyBoyJ is right, that the F-16 is your bird.


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 8, 2013)

Actually, the F-16 doesn't have the legs. F/A-18 is probably best...but Wuzak does like his Su-35s! 

The biggest problem for all participants in the F-35 contract is simply that extricating oneself will probably cost more than seeing the programme through to the end.


----------



## wuzak (Mar 8, 2013)

buffnut453 said:


> Actually, the F-16 doesn't have the legs. F/A-18 is probably best...but Wuzak does like his Su-35s!
> 
> The biggest problem for all participants in the F-35 contract is simply that extricating oneself will probably cost more than seeing the programme through to the end.



The F-16 is definitely a cost effective choice. If it were 5 or 10 years ago, maybe, but since the ADF chose the F/A-18 over the F-16 25+ years ago it is unlikely to change its mind now.

Other alternaties:

Eurofighter Typhoon - probably too single purpoose for Australia
Dassault Rafale - More of a multirole aircraft than the Typhoon. But I don't know too much about its abilities.
Saab Grippen - I suppose similar to the F-16 in size and abilities, though a newer airframe. 
Boeing F-18E/F - this is the route we have taken for temporary fill-ins between the F-111 and the F-35, and looks like the only option we will look at if the F-35s are further delayed/orders cancelled.
Boeing F-15SE - a legacy airframe updated with more stealth charcteristics. Not sure how that will stack up for the future.
Sukhois Su-35 - or an Australia specific version of such.
Sukhoi Pak-FA - not likely to be ready before the F-35 in any case

As far as contracts are concerned Australia is either committed to purchasing 2 or 13 F-35, not sure which. We are due to get our first two delivered in 2014, but they will remain in the US. That will, surely, make it difficut for the ADF to make a comprehensive assessment?


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 8, 2013)

I don't think the Typhoon is too single-purpose, although we've yet to see its full potential in the ground attack or anti-shipping roles (despite its limited use in the former role over Libya). Rafale or Gripen are both good options but the latter may not be big enough for Australia's needs.


----------



## ivanotter (Mar 9, 2013)

I also do believe that a part of any MoD's job is to evaluate progress and evaluate alternatives and have a drawer full of "what if's...".

That said, If any country (Aus or any other) should pull out now, I think it is over the cliff. Too many other's might follow that path. I can't quite see Denmark and Norway having the money even today, but there I might be totally wrong.

It is probably also correct that the amount of alternatives is rather limited now. Too much is at stake on the success of the F-35. 

Eurofighter? Rafale? Those are really the only two I see.

Super Hornet? I think its sell-by date is up
Gripen: Too limited. and trying to put it into a naval fighter? I think we all agree that it is not really simple.
Russian equipment: too many strings attached to that.

"Navalise" Eurofighter is not simple either.

Which leaves Rafale.

Now, If RN goes for Rafale (oh yes?) it will be a different world. The ramifications will be rather huge.

Australia? oh dear!

Ivan


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 9, 2013)

I think the RN would go for the F-35C and cancel the F-35B before they'd go for Rafale (bearing in mind the RN would have to modify the QEII class carriers for either the F-35C or the Rafale). Personally, I'd like to see the F-35B canned but it likely will persevere.


----------



## wuzak (Mar 9, 2013)

buffnut453 said:


> I think the RN would go for the F-35C and cancel the F-35B before they'd go for Rafale (bearing in mind the RN would have to modify the QEII class carriers for either the F-35C or the Rafale). Personally, I'd like to see the F-35B canned but it likely will persevere.



Haven't they already changed their mind at wanted F-35Cs, and then changed it back to F-35Bs?

How much would be involved in making the change? They would, obviously, need arrestor gear. But can they still use the ski ramp? Or will they need an angled deck with catapults?


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 9, 2013)

They'd need angled deck and catapults. It was intended that the QEII design was to allow for both ramp or catapult launch but it seems the cost, once we embarked on the F-35B path, was more expensive than expected (hence the flip-flop F-35B to F-35C and back again). That said, if the RN wants combat aircraft afloat, the options are F-35B or modifying the QEII class. Personally, I think the latter approach, while undoubtedly expensive in the short term, is more cost effective and operationally beneficial in the long run.


----------



## Lucky13 (Mar 10, 2013)

wuzak said:


> The F-16 is definitely a cost effective choice. If it were 5 or 10 years ago, maybe, but since the ADF chose the F/A-18 over the F-16 25+ years ago it is unlikely to change its mind now.
> 
> Other alternaties:
> 
> ...



Would that be the C/D version, or the E/F, which is quite different?


----------



## wuzak (Mar 10, 2013)

Lucky13 said:


> Would that be the C/D version, or the E/F, which is quite different?



Definitely E/Fs. We have some (24) of those now.

I think they are mainly Fs (2 seat version) with half of them wired so they can be converted to EF-18G Growler spec.


----------



## ivanotter (Mar 10, 2013)

What could the cost be to re-design the RN carriers with catapult and so on. We are talking very heavy modifications I should think. Can it even be done? Might it upset the ship capabilities too much?

We are talking some few tons added to it and that in the very front? It is like syaing melt thme down and try again.

However, comparing this to the cost of F-35*B* version might be more economical, but then the cost of the entire project has surely run totally out of hand.

Typically, we all have a plan B in the drawer (I used to as an IT project manager). Was there really no plan B in this? did nobody ask the question "what if..."

It sounds very strange. FLB: Would you know about any (realistic) plan B in this project and in other similar projects?

Ivan


----------



## wuzak (Mar 10, 2013)

buffnut453 said:


> They'd need angled deck and catapults. It was intended that the QEII design was to allow for both ramp or catapult launch but it seems the cost, once we embarked on the F-35B path, was more expensive than expected (hence the flip-flop F-35B to F-35C and back again). That said, if the RN wants combat aircraft afloat, the options are F-35B or modifying the QEII class. Personally, I think the latter approach, while undoubtedly expensive in the short term, is more cost effective and operationally beneficial in the long run.



Understood.

Just asking because the Russian navy's carrier has a launch ramp, arrestor wires and an angled deck. It doesn't seem to have catapults.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHi2-0_zYWo_
Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/Ussr_cv.svg


----------



## Lucky13 (Mar 11, 2013)

wuzak said:


> Saab Grippen - I suppose similar to the F-16 in size and abilities, though a newer airframe....


I was referring to the Gripen, sorry pal...
They're the same as the F-18C/D and E/F, the Gripen E/F is larger than their older C/D versions, more powerful engine, more fuel, which gives her longer range, more hardpoints, supercruise etc., etc...


----------



## wuzak (Mar 12, 2013)

Lucky13 said:


> I was referring to the Gripen, sorry pal...
> They're the same as the F-18C/D and E/F, the Gripen E/F is larger than their older C/D versions, more powerful engine, more fuel, which gives her longer range, more hardpoints, supercruise etc., etc...



Sorry, misinterpreted your question.

So, how does the Gripen E/F compare with the F-18E/F?


----------



## Lucky13 (Mar 12, 2013)

No, no, no....the F-16..


----------



## ivanotter (Mar 16, 2013)

Is this how they will find more money for the F-35?


BBC:

"US Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel has scrapped the final phase of its European missile defence shield, citing development problems and funding cuts".

Ivan


----------



## razor1uk (Mar 16, 2013)

I think since it is a 'family' design, that you answered your own question to a point, the 'conventional' stol version might end being the most useful - more room for fuel, electronics or newer longer engine/developmental space... personally, I recon a supersonic twin engined harrier concept could've been just as effective and as problematic so far...

Has anyone read 'The New Maginot Line'...?


----------



## Matt308 (Mar 16, 2013)

Nope. Enlighten us.


----------



## razor1uk (Apr 9, 2013)

It's a book from the late 80's methinks, about the pitfalls that governments an militaries relying on advanced technology and their tendancy to ignore or refute older passed-buy techs, either by supplier suggestion or the percieved fad for the 'newest, biggest, fastest, most expensive' etc, generally it is connected to the US perspective and its military industrial set up with regards to 'Star Wars' and USAAF/SAC IBM ICBM projects.


----------

