F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

[Shrek1985]

Please explain why purchasing only 65 aircraft is incompetent?

Also where did the US government tell LM that the "well is dry?" If youre talking about Bogdan's statements, then he said there is no more money coming above what they have been promised. That's a lot different than what you're claiming.

look up the term "quantitative incompetance".

also; Tigers vs Shermans/T-34s argument.

doesn't matter how good it is, since it's too few to do the job. But hey! you can always just change the job and what it means until it does fit right? That totally works.

It's pretty clear to me that they wanted the F-35 and massaged the contract till they got it, I just don;t want this to cost us a decent (65% solution) government and be a lodestone around the neck of the forces for the next 30 years.

 

[aesop081]

since it's too few to do the job.

What is your background and/or experience to determine what the "job" actualy is, let alone that it is not enough ?

 

[OldSolduer]

What is your background and/or experience to determine what the "job" actualy is, let alone that it is not enough ?

That is why I am observing from the sidelines and asking what I hope are pertinent questions, rather than offering opinions.

I would expect the Air Force would not offer opinions on the Army choice of APCs or tanks.

 

[HB_Pencil]

The only reason is cost. 65 is what we could afford for the money the GoC wanted to spend. Any other stated reasons are nothing more than justification after the fact, no matter how good it sounds.

No, that is not accurate at all. Yes the AF did not get the exact number they wanted, but they found that 65 would be sufficient for their needs in part because they would have significantly more availability than other fighters (among other things).

Those are issues that the F-35 will not escape. Block production (just like the "tranche" system for Typhoon) was designed to mitigate obsolescence and parts supply issues.

Tranche production with the eurofighter was a major failure compared to the F-35's spiral approach (which is used on the F/A-18E). The recent NAO report makes that pretty apparent.

Planning for future upgrades is also being revised with nations’ requirements being
developed in smaller increments and to a standard format making it easier for
industry to understand the requirement and generate solutions more quickly as
part of a rolling upgrade programme.

They have had serious issues obtaining spares as well because of the collaborative arrangements... to the extent that flight hours were lost and costs increase. What's really telling is that the Eurofighter's support contracts seem to be moving towards the JSF's MOU model of one major contract rather than 10 they currently have. The F-35 was designed from the start to possess highly modular components that will be slowly replaced over time; its processing cores will see upgrades over I believe 8 years with software upgrades ever 2~4.

I've been around long enough to have seen many "latest and greatest" systems to know to temper my enthusiasm for what the glossy brochures say. Supply systems never function as advertised under the pressures of real-world operation.

The F-35's maintenance system has already been "proven" to some degree. It builds on how the civilian aircraft industry handles maintenance in some newer models of aircraft (Conditions based maintenance approach) with FDAMS and ACMS. However the F-35 will be even more advanced because more of its functions will be monitored. So that create more opportunities and drive different behavior changes (along with the more modular aircraft design). The F135 engine for example will have no scheduled or reoccurring maintenance when installed, because its internal sensors will detect everything. It will detect erosion or FOD damage as it occurs, real time oil sampling. If a part can't be easily repaired, its removed and sent back to the depot.

Will this all work to plan? probably not. Early on there will likely be higher usage of spares and more unscheduled maintenance. But there is good evidence from civil aviation and the US military that offers some hope for the future.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

Yes the AF did not get the exact number they wanted, but they found that 65 would be sufficient for their needs in part because they would have significantly more availability than other fighters (among other things).

We heard that with the Upholder submarines too. As it happens their availability has been somewhat less than predicted.

 

[HB_Pencil]

We heard that with the Upholder submarines too. As it happens their availability has been somewhat less than predicted.

There is a slight difference between a mothballed diesel electric submarine declared surplus, and a in development fighter that is intended to serve the US Military as its core aviation asset for the next 40 years. Availability is a key performance parameter that must be met or it might not be accepted into service.

 

[Michael OLeary]

There is a slight difference between a mothballed diesel electric submarine declared surplus, and a in development fighter that is intended to serve the US Military as its core aviation asset for the next 40 years. Availability is a key performance parameter that must be met or it might not be accepted into service.

So, what's Plan "B" for the CF?

 

[HB_Pencil]

So, what's Plan "B" for the CF?

There isn't one, at least without paying more or going with a lot less capability. We'd have to run a new competition.. maybe around 2015 or so.  F/A-18E production will end in the next two years, so basically we're looking at Rafale, Eurofighter, F-15E or Gripen. However Gripen NG won't come online until 2022 (According to reports surrounding the Swiss order) so really its three capabilities that are a lot more expensive than the F-35. My personal (and totally not based on any methodical analysis) is the Rafale, partly because I think the Eurofighter is far too expensive and the F-15E requires two crews. However the Dassault plane will have the poorest industrial outcomes and interoperability. And its still more expensive than the F-35. That's the thing, because of its production scale and design, the F-35 beats every aircraft on a price point except the Gripen.

But at this point I don't know if we need an official plan B. The risks with the F-35 are a lot less than in 2010 when we first signed on to the project, with this year probably being one of the most risky (because of the current high AoA testing).  Further testing might discover some unexpected issues, but most of the areas where big, costly to fix problems might have emerged have or are being covered. We're certainly past the bigger development humps in the program... but that's not to say that challenges are not still there.

The remaining development are largely programming related, which is more of a time issue to get it properly working. So far they have been about three months behind on where they want to be with programming for the past two years... so they seem to have stabilized their problems there.

 

[PanaEng]

So far they have been about three months behind on where they want to be with programming for the past two years... so they seem to have stabilized their problems there.

from a SW and systems project management standpoint that is pretty impressive.

 

[HB_Pencil]

from a SW and systems project management standpoint that is pretty impressive.

Well lets also remember that they were like 36+ months late when they got to the 2010 replan... so it wasn't like they were starting from scratch. Then again sometimes rewriting programming is tougher than starting anew.

 

[dapaterson]

Certain sources suggest the Pentagon is less satisfied with the F-35:  http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/138513/pentagon-slams-lockheed-on-f_35-performance.html

Air Force Secretary Michael Donley told reporters the Pentagon had no more money to pour into the program after three costly restructurings in recent years. That meant any additional cost overruns would eat into the number of planes to be ordered, schedule delays or reduced capabilities, he said.

"The department is done with major restructures that involve transferring billions of dollars into the F-35 program from somewhere else in the defense budget. There's no further flexibility or tolerance for that approach," Donley said.

 

[HB_Pencil]

Donley's statement wasn't "unprompted." It came as a response a journalist questions on Bogdan's comments in Norfolk last week, where the project manager said that there was no more money above what had been currently budgeted for RDT&E. I'm pretty sure he was backing up his PM's more than "trying to send a message" to LM. I don't think anyone at the contractor is under any illusions about where the project stands at this point.

I think a lot of the "journalism" around the F-35 is subject to sensationalism. In Canada we're really getting the shaft, which is best evident with how seriously some took the entire Avro Arrow idea.

 

[Haletown]

One positive point is the ongoing devaluation of the US dollar.  With QE3 being open ended - it should be called QE4ever, the Canadian dollar could be at a strong premium to the US currency value which would lower our cost to acquire them.

Every penny counts . . .

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Donley's statement wasn't "unprompted." It came as a response a journalist questions on Bogdan's comments in Norfolk last week, where the project manager said that there was no more money above what had been currently budgeted for RDT&E. I'm pretty sure he was backing up his PM's more than "trying to send a message" to LM. I don't think anyone at the contractor is under any illusions about where the project stands at this point.

I think a lot of the "journalism" around the F-35 is subject to sensationalism. In Canada we're really getting the shaft, which is best evident with how seriously some took the entire Avro Arrow idea.

HB Pencil,

I'm trying to get my head around all this techy stuff and see things in a wide spectrum, so help me along here please.

You seem to have, in my outlook anyway, a great deal of either inside information or an uncanny ability to WAG (wild ass guess) and sound convincing.

So, I guess what I'm asking is, what part of the program do you work for or which contactor are you involved with? What is your connection to the F-35? Lobbyist, technician, sales, etc?

Or is all the previous just wishful thinking and guessing on your part.

It would go a long way to strengthening my opinion of the information if I knew the source.

Tanks!

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

There is a slight difference between a mothballed diesel electric submarine declared surplus, and a in development fighter that is intended to serve the US Military as its core aviation asset for the next 40 years. Availability is a key performance parameter that must be met or it might not be accepted into service.

The Upholders were designed and built with just that idea on availability. It hasn't lived up to the hype yet.

 

[Loachman]

Hmmmm....

British design, or American design.

British design, or American design.

British design, or American design.

Hmmmm....

I'm English by birth, yet not sufficiently biased thereby to reject American technology in favour of British, generally speaking.

Quite the contrary.

And those submarines are an older design, too. F35 designers may have learned a thing or three in the intervening years.

 

[Kirkhill]

I'm on the same page as Loachman wrt British design (and British birth  )

I'm also on the same page as Jim Seggie wrt asking not telling.  In that spirit I offer this:

The members of the Next-Generation 737 family -- the 737-600/-700/-800/-900ER models -- continue the 737's popularity and reliability in commercial jetliner transport. The Next-Generation family has won orders for more than 6,200 airplanes, while the combined 737 family has surpassed 9,300 orders. Boeing has delivered more than 7,000 737s, and more than 3,800 Next-Generation 737s through December 31, 2011. In 2011 the program delivered 372 airplanes, continuing its streak of record yearly deliveries

It is from the Boeing site.

The first 737 apparently flew for Lufthansa in 1968 and, in addition to the fact that the model is still flying many generations (and 9300 orders) later, it is the base aircraft for the P-8 Poseidon Maritime Patrol Aircraft.

Does that record have a bearing on this discussion?  Is it a viable model for the F-35 programme?

 

[HB_Pencil]

HB Pencil,

I'm trying to get my head around all this techy stuff and see things in a wide spectrum, so help me along here please.

You seem to have, in my outlook anyway, a great deal of either inside information or an uncanny ability to WAG (wild *** guess) and sound convincing.

So, I guess what I'm asking is, what part of the program do you work for or which contactor are you involved with? What is your connection to the F-35? Lobbyist, technician, sales, etc?

Or is all the previous just wishful thinking and guessing on your part.

It would go a long way to strengthening my opinion of the information if I knew the source.

Tanks!

Isn't the mystery half the fun?

I'm not a lobbyist, technician or industry employee... so my work is not influenced in that way. I was not directly involved in the project either, though I know several people who are at different levels and governments who are. I've also got a background in this field. Its not a wild ass guess, but risk is just a fancy word for a guess.

 

[HB_Pencil]

I'm on the same page as Loachman wrt British design (and British birth  )

I'm also on the same page as Jim Seggie wrt asking not telling.  In that spirit I offer this:

It is from the Boeing site.

The first 737 apparently flew for Lufthansa in 1968 and, in addition to the fact that the model is still flying many generations (and 9300 orders) later, it is the base aircraft for the P-8 Poseidon Maritime Patrol Aircraft.

Does that record have a bearing on this discussion?  Is it a viable model for the F-35 programme?

To some degree, yes.

Evolutionary upgrades weren't possible with previous generations of jets to get to very low observability. The planform rules are unique and can't be incorporated easily. The Russian T-50/PAK-FA to the SU-27 family, is about as close as someone has tried; and its a very weak similarity. The F/A-18E was an upgrade of the F/A-18A/C, but it really reached the limits of the design.

One of the key successes of the F/A-18E superhornet was the spiral development approach, where they slowly upgraded various systems to keep the aircraft current. For the most part they focused on avionics; major engine and performance upgrades were never really funded. So the Super Hornet has alot of the avionics and sensor capabilities that the F-35 possesses (But not several key ones).

The F-35 will have a similar approach, particularly for its core computer suite and sensors; its something like 2~4 years for a software upgrade and double that for a hardware swap. This will be done through the JSF partnership program, where different states might join together to build their own adaptations and share them to other partners. New ECM, sensors, weapon systems will all be integrated over time, somewhat like the 737's evolutionary approach.

Does that answer your questions?

 

[FoverF]

A key difference, however, is that the 737's evolutionary changes came only with each new iteration of airframe. If you bought the -200 model, you were stuck with -200s. If you wanted to udgrade to -600s, you had to go out and buy some -600s.

Which I've always found slightly curious, given that there have only been ... we'll politely say 'modest'... improvements made to the airframe itself, the vast majority of which could have easily been done in 1967. Any improvements in performance or efficiency have come from more reliable systems, better avionics, and better engines. But you still had to buy new copies of basically the same old airframe if you wanted to get the new goodies.

But you'll find precious few examples of an aircraft series 'evolving' significantly over a long period of time without needing to buy new airframes. They do exist (CH-53 to Yasur-2000, or A-4B to TA-4SU for example), but it's certainly not 'the done thing'.

As Mr Pencil has mentioned, the Super Hornet is an attempt to do that, but with a significantly different agenda. The Super Hornet was not designed to be the premiere combat aircraft of the 21st century. It was designed to be cheap. Cheap enough to develop so that it didn't get cancelled outright (unlike the A-12), and cheap enough to buy that the USN could replace their airframes and still keep all of their big deck carriers (unlike the F-22). One way to do that was to deliver them with no bells or whistles, and off-the-shelf systems from the legacy Hornets. The 'spiral upgrade' program was to bring the aircraft up to the required standard once they actually got the airframes past the bureaucrats and politicians.

The F-35 front-loaded most of that development effort and cost. And so it seems to me to be almost a direct result, that two of the biggest failings of the F-35 are systems development difficulties (time and cost), and sticker shock. Following the Super Hornet method, and delivering aircraft earlier on, with an interim equipment fit, could possibly have taken the edge off of both of those problems.

Of course, the risk with that strategy is what we saw happen to the Tornado ADV. Flew around with lead ballast instead of a radar (literally) for years, and remained behind the technology curve (for various reasons) for most of the next 3 decades. Although, on second thought, I'll just join in the dogpile against the English and blame it on their bizzare love/hate relationship with all things electrical.