Northrop Being Screwed by the US Government

[FLYBOYJ]

A 3 year old clip Greg, Perrer Spey is in there, he was part of the old fighter mafia, a bit jealous IMO that he's retired an on the sidelines.

I'm not trying to convince you - you're entitled to your own opinions but as you keep posting dated stuff about the F-35, the program just keeps going and meeting its objectives. 100 of them have been buit so far.

 

[razor1uk]

So what's new and likely to be unseen (by those who are sceptically non-committal), any Pro/For, Con/Against or Undecided Clips/Mini-Docu's you can recommend then FBJ?

...not the old ones that've been rehashed, or with early facts and cuttings from 'Battle of the X Planes' which is good, specially watching the mil guys 'squirming on the hook' trying to sound up-beat to the camera about the problems they're facing early on; to be fair, some of those are fixed or replaced now -the problems, not the guys (perhaps).

 

[FLYBOYJ]

So what's new and likely to be unseen (by those who are sceptically non-committal), any Pro/For, Con/Against or Undecided Clips/Mini-Docu's you can recommend then FBJ?

Watch the news and compare it to the official F-35 site. Additionally there's that blog site I posted. Compare what's being said about each program as the media still lumps the whole program into one bucket.

...not the old ones that've been rehashed, or with early facts and cuttings from 'Battle of the X Planes' which is good, specially watching the mil guys 'squirming on the hook' trying to sound up-beat to the camera about the problems they're facing early on; to be fair, some of those are fixed or replaced now -the problems, not the guys (perhaps).

LOL! yep - and you know some of the better aviation publications written by people who KNOW aviation, not sensationalizing as most of the mainstream media does. I become very suspcious when you have "un-nammed" experts and pilots slamming this program, some of them haven't even got within 100 miles of an F-35 so I would say their credability is shaky at best.

 

[GregP]

I wouldn't call Col. Everest Riccioni's credibility "shaky" in the slightest. And he's right about several things. Kloos wants to compare a loaded F-35 with a fully loaded F-16 ... but the guys who will be chasing the F-35 if they find it inbound will not be configured for an attack mission ... they'll be configured for an air-to-air intercept mission. Not if, but WHEN they find the fully loaded F-35's, I don't think the F-35's chances are better than average unless he maybe releases his load and engages in air-to-air.

So, again, we'll see. I will NOT jump on board the F-35 bandwagon until it proves itself in a multiservice acceptance test ... and it would never be allowed to fail right up until combat proves whether or not it can be a good one. We have too much money in it as of now.

So you might as well save your time with me at least. I wish the F-35 well out of a lack of options otherwise, but will never be a fan unless time proves it a very good one. That won't be for another 5 - 8 years at LEAST, and there are a lot of great planes to talk about in the meanwhile.

Does anyone have any mission-ready numbers that are current? Is it still in the 50% range? For a plane with a reasonable cost it might be OK, but for a plane that costs what the F-35 does, the cost of 10 unserviceable aircraft could run some countries for more than a year. As a taxpayer, I am unwilling to fund that if given a choice. That's why I don't get a choice; I am forced to live with this program despite it not being very fiscally sound.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I wouldn't call Col. Everest Riccioni's credibility "shaky" in the slightest.

I wouldn't - but then again he and Spey made those comments about the f-35 how many years ago???

And he's right about several things. Kloos wants to compare a loaded F-35 with a fully loaded F-16 ... but the guys who will be chasing the F-35 if they find it inbound will not be configured for an attack mission ... they'll be configured for an air-to-air intercept mission. Not if, but WHEN they find the fully loaded F-35's, I don't think the F-35's chances are better than average unless he maybe releases his load and engages in air-to-air.

That's one comparison
, Kloos even talks about comparing "apples to oranges" in his two year old comments...

So, again, we'll see. I will NOT jump on board the F-35 bandwagon until it proves itself in a multiservice acceptance test ... and it would never be allowed to fail right up until combat proves whether or not it can be a good one. We have too much money in it as of now.

And again, you have your opinions, I have mine, so far many of the issues pointed out in those early clips have been addressed and progress made....

So you might as well save your time with me at least. I wish the F-35 well out of a lack of options otherwise, but will never be a fan unless time proves it a very good one. That won't be for another 5 - 8 years at LEAST, and there are a lot of great planes to talk about in the meanwhile.

There are....

Does anyone have any mission-ready numbers that are current?

Mission ready? Do you mean "mission capable" MC or "fully mission capable" FMC? Until the aircraft is in squadron service you can't really have MC rates, at least in the USAF (REF AFI 00-20-1)

Is it still in the 50% range?

A 50% MC isn't too bad for an aircraft that still being flight tested!!!!Look at the first 100 F-15 and F-16 rates. Even now, the F-15 fleet may carry a 60% MC rate due to a TCTO or other maihntenance action.

For a plane with a reasonable cost it might be OK, but for a plane that costs what the F-35 does, the cost of 10 unserviceable aircraft could run some countries for more than a year. As a taxpayer, I am unwilling to fund that if given a choice. That's why I don't get a choice; I am forced to live with this program despite it not being very fiscally sound.

Again Greg, a lot of negative "what ifs." Your opinions. BTW the first USAF maintenance crews are being trained at Luke. Here's some recent news about the B model which I thinks paints a fair picture of the program.

http://breakingdefense.com/2014/01/f-35-operational-test-and-evaluation-report/

 

[GregP]

C'mon Joe, the question is very simple.

If they have 10 F-35's in flight test, how many are ready to fly each day? Mission ready. Able to fly the mission, whatever it is. I don't have an issue with some down aircraft, but if the down planes are nearly 50% or even close to that, then we're buying unreliability at the start of the program. What will it be like in 20 years after they get a chance to develop long-term faults?

Will we see mission rates like the old MiG-209's some 10 years back? I have a good friend who went TDY to Finland with an F-16 squadron back in the early 2000's. They were going to fight the Germans in a war game and they sent 16 F-16's. They were supposed to sortie 8 turn 8 turn 4. That is, 8 F-16's, attack, return, rearm, 8 F-16's, attack return, rearm, 4 F-16's. They made that every day for 12 days.

The Germans were going to use the MiG-29's they inherited from the East Germans when they reunified. They had 30 MiG-29's at the German base. They made 8 turn 8 turn 4 the first day and never made it again. Real story.

I don't want to buy into that type reliability and I was wondering if anyone knows the current F-35 in-service rate without trying to evade the question ... a straight answer. If not, then it is either classified or nobody wants to let the cat out of the bag. I would not be surprised if nobody in here knows just because they are not on the program, but you can't tell. Someone MAY know and it would be nice to learn a real in-service rate for the LRIP and initial service models. I'm assuming the F-35A will have some in-service rate as will the F-35C. Don't know if there are enough F-35B's around with enough flight time to generate a representative in-service rate yet, but we certainly ought to have a good, representative in-service rate for the F-3A.

I am not even implying a bad in-service rate; I am asking. Please no estimates. You either know or you don't know.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

C'mon Joe, the question is very simple.

If they have 10 F-35's in flight test, how many are ready to fly each day? Mission ready.

It depends what the test squadron is asking for and what the current mission phase is asking for - now you're trying to talk about aircraft scheduling, something I deal with daily and unless you're familiar with the TO I listed earlier, you don't understand how the game is played. If the mission requires one aircraft, then one aircraft is all that has to be presented to the operator. You will be "allowed" to have aircraft non-mission capable for routine maintenance and flight test modifications (which are constant), and an acceptable MC rate will be established by those running the operation, and it will vary. Because people who don't know or understand how the AF "plans and schedules" aircraft (even in a flight test environment) "assume" things, (and you know the old saying about "assume") they think the most negative when they see several aircraft on the ground. Again, in a flight test world a lot of these rules are out the window because its flight test and not at an active squadron level.

Able to fly the mission, whatever it is. I don't have an issue with some down aircraft, but if the down planes are nearly 50% or even close to that, then we're buying unreliability at the start of the program. What will it be like in 20 years after they get a chance to develop long-term faults?

Well you better start writing your congressmen Greg because some aircraft such as the T-6, T-38, C-21 have had MC rates under 50% for short periods of time, the B-2 had a 2004 FMC rate under 44% and has an acceptable FMC rate of 50% and these are mature operational airframes that have had a lot of money pumped into them over the years.

Will we see mission rates like the old MiG-209's some 10 years back? I have a good friend who went TDY to Finland with an F-16 squadron back in the early 2000's. They were going to fight the Germans in a war game and they sent 16 F-16's. They were supposed to sortie 8 turn 8 turn 4. That is, 8 F-16's, attack, return, rearm, 8 F-16's, attack return, rearm, 4 F-16's. They made that every day for 12 days.

The Germans were going to use the MiG-29's they inherited from the East Germans when they reunified. They had 30 MiG-29's at the German base. They made 8 turn 8 turn 4 the first day and never made it again. Real story.

Ok - did your friend tell you specifically what broke on the Migs?

I don't want to buy into that type reliability and I was wondering if anyone knows the current F-35 in-service rate without trying to evade the question ... a straight answer. If not, then it is either classified or nobody wants to let the cat out of the bag. I would not be surprised if nobody in here knows just because they are not on the program, but you can't tell. Someone MAY know and it would be nice to learn a real in-service rate for the LRIP and initial service models. I'm assuming the F-35A will have some in-service rate as will the F-35C. Don't know if there are enough F-35B's around with enough flight time to generate a representative in-service rate yet, but we certainly ought to have a good, representative in-service rate for the F-3A.

I am not even implying a bad in-service rate; I am asking. Please no estimates. You either know or you don't know.

Greg, you don't have real world MC rates on aircraft undergoing flight testing, it's that simple. real world MC rates for the F-35 will be published when they become operational. Right now I understand there are at least 7 F-35s with all 3 models being tested at EDW by 2 squadrons. All the "contractor" has to do is to meet the flight test schedule.

I found this document, it is dated and I'm sure there's been mods to it. Nothing classified but this might give you an idea of how mission capable performance based matrixes are made.

https://acc.dau.mil/adl/en-US/46566/file/13859/JSFSDD-#83167-v11-LRIP_1_PBA_Final_V3-4.pdf

Here's some more info about this - you will finds that it's common to have aircraft like f-15s at an FMC rate at 75%

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...vok9c4bA6IjYet3TXYQrVrw&bvm=bv.62788935,d.aWc

If you're not yet board download AFTO 00-20-1



So to answer your question Greg, you're going to have to wait until F-35s make operational squadron service to really determine their FMC rates. you're better off asking what percentage of the flight test schedule has been met and is it on schedule.

 

[vikingBerserker]

If the main purpose of the F-35 is to drop bombs, would it not be cheaper and more efficient to use cruise missiles?

I do not know a lot about the F-35, but I did see a special where the B-1 could launch air to air missiles which the F-35 then take over and control them.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

If the main purpose of the F-35 is to drop bombs, would it not be cheaper and more efficient to use cruise missiles?

I do not know a lot about the F-35, but I did see a special where the B-1 could launch air to air missiles which the F-35 then take over and control them.

point valid and I saw the same special where a B-1 could be used as an air-to-air missile carrier

 

[GregP]

I was pretty sure, Joe, that the F-35A was in the initial stages of operational squadron training. That is, I thought they were doing some lead-in F-35A training at Luke and a few other bases ... not regular flight ops, but lead-in to regular flight ops. Therefore I was looking for the in-service rate for the F-5A's at someplace like Luke ... not for MC rates for flight test at Eglin. We (the museum) are participating in an F-35 airshow at Luke either last Sunday or maybe this weekend.

Luke historically was an F-16 / F-15 training base and Arizona ANG base, not a base to work up the operational capabilities of the airframes ... usually that was Eglin. I figured if they were at Luke, they were working up to regular flying status and an MC rate might be available.

I don't have to read an Air Force TO to ask the reliability of an aircraft and I didn't have to do it when I was in the Air Force to ask and get a good answer from the crew chiefs. The numbers were pretty widely known and disseminated. I was mostly at Ellsworth AFB (Rapid City, SD) and we knew the reliability of our B-52's, KC-135's,and Minuteman ICBM's with posted monthly numbers. My questions are pretty simple. Reliability, cost of acquisition, cost to operate, MTBF, etc. I don't care about MC/FMC, or all the modern terms. I wanted to know a ready-to-fly rate if we know one. Apparently we don't yet and that is entirely acceptable. When I was in the USAF in the mid 1970's we pretty much all knew what the reliability was.

Rates vary, but they invariably bounce around some mean in-service rate. It usually has a mean and a standard deviation that really doesn't move around all that much once you have a good set of 30+ samples ... unless the real reliability gets better or worse. You'll see that first in the standard deviation of the samples as they will change value much more quickly than the mean will. With 44 F-35A's flying, they SHOULD have some good in-service number after only a few day's flying ... much less a few years or more.

So ... you're saying everything is still in test. OK, I can buy that. 100 test planes with an acquisition cost as high as it is seems a bit extravagant, doesn't it? We didn't have to buy 100 of anything else to know if we wanted it. Total production of B-2's was .. what? 21 service airframes? With one being an air test vehicle converted to service configuration?

On Dec 13, 2013 they delivered the 100th F-35 at Fort Worth. So far, that means 44 F-35A's (CTOL), 42 F-35B's (STOVL), and only 14 F-35C's (Naval variant). I'd think with 42 of the B's in operation, they would be a better known quantity than the F-35C by long shot. But I might be just assuming that. If so, let's ground the things until 42 planes are better known than 14. I see the first F-35A for Luke AFB was scheduled for early 2014 and since we (the museum's P-38 ) are flying over to be with it, I guess it was delivered. Being Luke's first, I suppose there is virtually NO data yet on MC rate, so I'll wait to hear it. So I just answered my own question above about Luke ... they don't HAVE a lot of F-35's yet.

When I was in the USAF, the T-38 was the most reliable supersonic jet in the world, bar none. I think the last time the rate was around 50% was in the late 1950's to early 1960's, but it WAS there for a very short time. As I recall, the T-38 had honeycomb wings and the F-5 had ribs and aluminum skin more like a traditional jet and late-model piston fighter together with leading edge extensions that led directly to the YF-17. It was more or less an improved T-38 design with much larger wings. Unless I misremember (possible), the chief designer was Edgar Schmued, formerly of P-51 and F-86 fame with North American. He might have been a Northrop executive by then, but he wasn't far from the design, being first and foremost a designer. Ed Heinemann was involved in design right until the end at Douglas.

Hey Joe, question ... how can I stop my "8's" from turning into smiley faces? That's very annoying ... I know, not much of a problem, but annoying anyway.

Cheers!

 

[GregP]

I guess we can see in here that people can disagree and not get nasty with one another or too sarcastic. He's been a good foil and I have enjoyed it. Thanks for the great argument, Joe!

Naturally, your opinion is winning out here since we are buying F-35's, but if they fail ... we'll all pay. If they don't, I suppose it was an OK decision.

As I said, I'm pulling for it.

 

[wuzak]

Could the long term effect be worse than any failings of the F-35? ie that fighter programs for a large portion of the west is vested in only one company?

 

[Lucky13]

Just to stir things up, can't help but think about our '39 Gripen and upgrades that they've managed to do for the E/F variant, slightly larger wings with 2 or more hardpoints, super cruise, they saved weight,.for which they used for, what was it 35-50% more fuel etc., etc....not too shabby for a rather small airframe...which is also somewhat cheaper than F-22/35....
Anyway, can't help to make comparisons with the car industry SAAB and GM, don't know how many times GM told SAAB (have heard some funny stories, which I won't mention here), 'right...this is what we want you to do'.....SAAB goes, 'aye sure....', end up doing completely opposite, same.thing again....'no, really, we want you to do this, here's the frame and chassis, you can do this.....SAAB, 'sure, no problem....not gonna happen, two fingers in their face and we'll do like this....
What, I'm trying to say is, whoever's gonna bup these two birds F-22/35 will want to make and will make changes, how much room does these two have for that, space and money?
As for the BVR, I don't really care much for that up to a point, they still add cannons to aircraft for a reason (remember Mr. Old comment in Dogfights about this?), missiles will malfunction, you will run out of missiles, some f*cker will not play by the rules that the politicians have drawn up (that Mr. Olds Dogfights comment again), so you will have to dogfight, so you will need good G's!

As I said, just to stir things up!

Now, off to have a wee looksie in my new Milwaukee Road book, that I've just got delivered!

 

[wuzak]

About BVR missiles - Wiki claims 8 successes for the AMRAAM, not including a friendly fire incident, to 2008. Any idea how many were failures?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I was pretty sure, Joe, that the F-35A was in the initial stages of operational squadron training. That is, I thought they were doing some lead-in F-35A training at Luke and a few other bases ... not regular flight ops, but lead-in to regular flight ops. Therefore I was looking for the in-service rate for the F-5A's at someplace like Luke ... not for MC rates for flight test at Eglin.

AFAIK even the birds at Luke have not been following a formal FMC tracking per 00-20-1 because the aircraft is still being flight tested and is not officially operational.

I don't have to read an Air Force TO to ask the reliability of an aircraft and I didn't have to do it when I was in the Air Force to ask and get a good answer from the crew chiefs. The numbers were pretty widely known and disseminated. I was mostly at Ellsworth AFB (Rapid City, SD) and we knew the reliability of our B-52's, KC-135's,and Minuteman ICBM's with posted monthly numbers.

Well to fully undersatnd how the AF NOW comes up with FMC rates you'll have to read and understand it, it's a different AF from the 1970s needless to say. Here's a RECENT article on the aging AF fleets and MC rates, you'll be very surprised what you'll see here...

Readiness declines in aging, overworked fleet | Military Times | militarytimes.com

My questions are pretty simple. Reliability, cost of acquisition, cost to operate, MTBF, etc. I don't care about MC/FMC, or all the modern terms. I wanted to know a ready-to-fly rate if we know one. Apparently we don't yet and that is entirely acceptable. When I was in the USAF in the mid 1970's we pretty much all knew what the reliability was.

Again, same response as above, they are now all blended. One of the big selling points of the F-35 is it's "supposed to" offer better FMC rates then the current front line fighters (F-15/ F-16). If you even looked at what I posted you'll find that both aircraft are carry about a 75% FMC rate and that was acceptable to the AF during that time period. I don't know what the FMC rates are today but I could easily find out.

Rates vary, but they invariably bounce around some mean in-service rate. It usually has a mean and a standard deviation that really doesn't move around all that much once you have a good set of 30+ samples ... unless the real reliability gets better or worse. You'll see that first in the standard deviation of the samples as they will change value much more quickly than the mean will. With 44 F-35A's flying, they SHOULD have some good in-service number after only a few day's flying ... much less a few years or more.

Agree

So ... you're saying everything is still in test. OK, I can buy that. 100 test planes with an acquisition cost as high as it is seems a bit extravagant, doesn't it?

I will agree it does, and will also admit this aircraft is expensive, I could hang my hat on the old comment "you get what you pay for," but on the other end I have no problem holding LMCO's feet to the fire ensuring the US taxpayer gets what they paid for - the most advanced combat aircraft ever built, and making them pay if the aircraft doesn't work.

We didn't have to buy 100 of anything else to know if we wanted it. Total production of B-2's was .. what? 21 service airframes? With one being an air test vehicle converted to service configuration?

I believe 22 airframes were built, one was used for stress analysis, one crashed, that leaves 20 being operated at a 50% and lowerFMC rate and costing 2.1 billion a copy!!! The Osprey has a higher FMC rate!!! Maybe you need to express your frustrations towards that program as well!

On Dec 13, 2013 they delivered the 100th F-35 at Fort Worth. So far, that means 44 F-35A's (CTOL), 42 F-35B's (STOVL), and only 14 F-35C's (Naval variant). I'd think with 42 of the B's in operation, they would be a better known quantity than the F-35C by long shot. But I might be just assuming that. If so, let's ground the things until 42 planes are better known than 14. I see the first F-35A for Luke AFB was scheduled for early 2014 and since we (the museum's P-38) are flying over to be with it, I guess it was delivered. Being Luke's first, I suppose there is virtually NO data yet on MC rate, so I'll wait to hear it. So I just answered my own question above about Luke ... they don't HAVE a lot of F-35's yet.

Yep

When I was in the USAF, the T-38 was the most reliable supersonic jet in the world, bar none. I think the last time the rate was around 50% was in the late 1950's to early 1960's, but it WAS there for a very short time. As I recall, the T-38 had honeycomb wings and the F-5 had ribs and aluminum skin more like a traditional jet and late-model piston fighter together with leading edge extensions that led directly to the YF-17. It was more or less an improved T-38 design with much larger wings. Unless I misremember (possible), the chief designer was Edgar Schmued, formerly of P-51 and F-86 fame with North American. He might have been a Northrop executive by then, but he wasn't far from the design, being first and foremost a designer. Ed Heinemann was involved in design right until the end at Douglas.

Over the years the T-38 have had some minor issues, some of them relating to specific bases that forced their MC rates down. see my link

Hey Joe, question ... how can I stop my "8's" from turning into smiley faces? That's very annoying ... I know, not much of a problem, but annoying anyway.

Cheers!

You need to space the number "8" from ")" Example 8) vs 8 )

Bottom line - the Jury is still out. IMO the F-35 has gotten an unjustified beating in the press. Sure, a lot of faults and problems have been identifed, but the aircraft is in flight test - ISN'T THAT WHERE THESE ISSUES ARE SUPPOSED TO BE DISCOVERED?!?!? I challange anyone to come up with a flight test program on a combat aircraft were there were no flaws, no problems discovered and when every flight went exactly according to plan!!!!

On the other end, if this aircraft lives up to 75% of its hype, it WILL be the most effective weapons system ever built!

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Could the long term effect be worse than any failings of the F-35? ie that fighter programs for a large portion of the west is vested in only one company?

BAE also had a major hand in this and was part of the design team, in the US I believe they are the 3rd largest defense contractor Behind Lockheed and Boeing - someone correct me if I'm wrong on this.

 

[Lucky13]

Is there any aircraft company that hasn't merged? Can't think of any, that's still doing its thing (MiG? Sukhoi?) nowadays, like in the good old days....

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Is there any aircraft company that hasn't merged? Can't think of any, that's still doing its thing (MiG? Sukhoi?) nowadays, like in the good old days....

In terms of advanced combat aircraft it seems that partnerships are going to be the norm - cost, cost, cost....

 

[Lucky13]

Talking about cost, what is the difference moneywise today compared to 50's and 60's, do you get the same bang for the buck as to speak....?

 

[oldcrowcv63]

Talking about cost, what is the difference moneywise today compared to 50's and 60's, do you get the same bang for the buck as to speak....?

Using the following inflation calculator and production costs from wikipedia for each aircraft (and assuming I've come close to getting the math estimates correct)

CPI Inflation Calculator

1950 Sabre F-86 Very roughly ~$350,000 or about 10'xs that amount in modern dollars, ~10,000 built
1965 F4 Phantom II Very roughly ~$2,500,000 per unit flyaway or about 7'xs the cost of an F-86 with inflation, ~5,200
1998 F-15 Eagle Very roughly ~$30,000,000 per unit flyaway or about 10xs the cost of an F-86 with inflation, ~1,200 built
2009 F-22 Raptor Very roughly ~$150,000,000 per unit flyaway or about 40xs the cost of an F-86 with inflation, ~200 built

These are ball park comparison values: attempting to adjust for the actual cost and inflation, but this is definitely not a careful calculation. I hope someone seems fit to make an estimate with a lot more care than I put into this.

based on this comparison, it seems the cost per unit of an F-35 is ridiculous even though I love the concept of a STVOL multirole fighter for the USMC and even USN. But not so in love with a CTOL variant for the USN and make the assumption that the USAF can justify its need for what it wants.

Keeping an industrial and technological base at the cutting edge is a worth while objective by itself but at what cost? It's important to stretch for the inherent planned and inevitable unforeseen benefits that will accrue but cost should be a factor in the decision to stretch for an ambitious goal.