JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
Post Reply
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Post by brar_w »

Auditing is not science. Also not mathematics. Like Medicine, Yoga and much else it is a Practice. Two different auditors and accountants can and often do have different views. But no, both cannot and often in large unprecedented areas, are not right. Invariably only one hits the spot right. In any case cooked up audits are done after the real audit has already been done and found unpalatable. Hence the template style of audit practices as it came in from the west, with US being the foremost proponent of it. But even for these template-wala Amerikhan auditors, there is every likelihood that they have enough backing of certifications from the managers to have said what they said whenever they did.
Sirji, the concern was not about auditing. No one has accused anyone of doing a wrong audit on the finances of the program. The auditors also have other duties that go beyond simple account audits. Here they must understand the operating procedures of the air force, marine core and navy and predict and develop a model to chart out lifetime O&S costs. They do not audit anything with these costs, since no costs to audit are provided to them. They calculate these costs independently and try to gauge the operational usage on the jets and what that costs. Here they miscalculated because their assumptions were ignorant of some basic fundamental SOP's within the 3 services. As soon as these assessments were handed over to the 3 services they objected and a dialogue was started to make the appropriate corrections. I'll try to synopsize what happened with certain costs -

* The F-35 has three propulsion units the F-135200, 400 and 600 (iirc)..Different wing and different set up with STOVL means there is a fuel burn variation with the variants. The STOVL fuel burn is understandably much higher than a CTOL engine burning fuel, similarly different modes of operation burn fuel differently as is with all aircraft. What the Cape'ers did was use the STOVL setting for an overwhelming majority of F-35B flying sorties assuming that the Marines would want STOVL since thats what they are paying a premium for. This is completely opposite to how the Marines operate the Harrier and intend on operating the F-35B. A Marine pilot is required to maintain a basic competency on STOVL capability as per the shecule and checks that are part of the doctrine. At any given time 90+% of the USMC fleet would be operating from its Marine air stations on fixed runways using CTOL modes. STOVL would be used during basic STOVL flight checks and when the marines forward deploy on ships. The overwhelming fuel consumption over 55 years for the USMC would be in the CTOL mode. The CAPE did not assume this to be the case. The marines shoved a few decades worth of Harrier data at them and it appears adjustments have been made.

* The same thing happened with the Afterburner and throttle settings. In all three services the pilots during routine training are not allowed to do whatever they wish with the throttle. The US services measure engine life (as most do iirc) in engine cycles and not hours and there is a limit to the engine throttle cycles that can be put per sortie depending upon what the purpose of that sortie is. A BFM sortie may have no restrictions whereas a routine weapons sortie may. This is standard practice for most air-forces who's task is to prolong a particular capability for X number of years and watch over the wear and tear on the fleet. The CAPE did not apparently assume these restrictions and were liberal in their fuel burn calculations basing much of their math on afterburner fuel burn.

Colin clark eluded to this in the article i posted earlier. In sum, the problem is not with auditing, the science or art behind it..It has absolutely nothing to do with accounting or any sort of accounting procedure, process or practice. It is a matter wrong predictions that were wrong because they relied on inaccurate understanding operational doctrine and peacetime standard operating procedures.
Last edited by brar_w on 07 Aug 2014 17:46, edited 2 times in total.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19236
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Post by NRao »

Had I been a good Amerikhan, chances are I would have supported JSF too. But luckily I am an Indian and I do not have to.
Only saying ..............................

2005 :: Targeting F-35 JSF –– Indian Navy’s Masterstroke
In a significant move the Indian Navy categorically stated its preference for Lockheed Martin’s F-35 JSF (Joint Strike Fighter) over Boeing’s F/A-18E/F ‘Super Hornet’ offered by the United States. Chief of Naval Staff Admiral Arun Prakash, himself a distinguished naval fighter pilot, expressed as much while speaking to reporters after commissioning INS Beas, a Brahmaputra Class Guided Missile armed Helicopter carrying Frigate (FFGH) at the Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers Ltd, Kolkata on July 11, 2005.
The Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) version of the F-35B being developed for United States Marine Corps (USMC) can utilise the ski-jump for take-off and would be more suitable for the Indian Navy
There are Indians and then there are Indians.

People do not read nor study. Kya karee? Musibat hi musibat.


Moving along ........................................
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Post by brar_w »

The hard facts are that the programme is experiencing major problems that simply can't be wished way,washed away or spun-dry away. There have been enough posts from authoritative sources confirming them.As Gen B. has admitted in an interview ,new problems keep cropping up with regularity and fixing them would take a long,long time.
Who is covering up the teething problems? The problem comes from the fact that much of those teething problems have been fixed and regurgitating old DOT&E or GAO reports without even a basic understanding of the purpose of these reports is stale and leaves the user no better informed on the state of the program. The attitude has been that of confusion especially when plucks a DOT&E report from the internet, highlight the relevant content without doing some basic, web based research on whether those problems have been fixed or not and if so how. The Aim-120 amraam issue was such that i recall from the top of my head. An article was posted citing a DOT&E report that some issues were encountered with the aim-120 targeting. Big bold highlights were made. Even a cursory check was not done that would have shown that those issues have been solved in a matter of weeks and that the aim-120 has been launched from the fighter multiple times including a couple of times towards a drone where the sensors and the data links resulted in a mission kill on the simulated target. Same applies for a host of other things which the DOT&E reports highlight yet the situation on the ground at the time these issues have been posted on this forum - is that those issues have largely been verified , checked off from the "things to do" list of testing and the program moved on. The entire purpose of DOT&E and GAO assessments is that they are a look at the previous 6 months or a year. These reports are a tool for the political and bureaucratic class to arm themselves with and pose these questions to the industry teams and the service leadership in charge of managing the program. These overseers do not start attacking the series based on these reports but pose intelligent questions which are replied to by the services either through a written communication or through hearings. That matter is closed and the program continues. I have heard people say " Read the GAO report" How can this program still continue? This is not the purpose of the GAO report. Its a look back at the previous year to show what challenges still remain. Thats it. Its not a fixed report card which one can dig up two years from its publishing and attack the program with as the transient matters are dealt with rather quickly and if not, an explanation would be given as to when they would be dealt with. People keep bringing up the tail hook issue over and over again citing the same old recycled GAO and DOT&E reports. They do not however spend a few minutes watch the video where a detailed explanation is provided as to what the issue is, how it was discovered, why it occurred (why it also occurred on the X-47B but was quickly remedied) and what was the solution to fix it. From the discovery of the flaw, to installing a fix on CF3 the time was 13 months. Yet we will continue to hear this issue citing the same reports for years.

New problems keep propping up on all development products. There is a reason why SDD phases extend a decade or more for almost all cutting edge programs.
hat such a sophisticated programme has a "teething period" isn't under Q,the Q still unanswered which no one can give as of now,is a definite date as to when dev. ends and series production of aircraft that can perform as advertised to full parameter specs happen and at what acquisition and operational cost.
They absolutely CAN tell you. The restructure happened in 2010, the schedule post-the restructure is open and available for all to see. So far all the testing years following the restructure have seen test points exceeded and the IOC chart for all three services has been laid out in black and white for all to see. The development phase never ends, they simply move onto the next software block. It would be block 3F once 2b (and 3a as it has no new code) that is testing and then they'll move on to 4A and then 4F and so on and so forth. Just before RIAT 2014 the developer partners met at the JPO office in the US to finalize and chart out the final 20-25% capability for block 4 which had been deliberately kept vacant (slots) to focus on immediate emerging threats for that time-frame. By 2016-2018 or so they'll work writing preliminary capability requirements for block 5. Even the F-22's software development is ongoing at this very moment for its future increment blocks and the F-16 program also continued its development all the way with the F-16I and F-16 block 60 that were developed around the same time the F-22 was being developed. The LRIP plans have been transparently laid out till the final LRIP block i.e. the 10th LRIP block. The Full rate of production follows LRIP 10 and it is then that the program would be cleared (As per US law) to negotiate bulk purchase contracts on behalf of the US buyers (Foreign bulk contracts may come earlier, as some of these nations are not required to wait like the US services).

This is the plan -

LRIP 8 ( Ordered in 2014, deliveries to begin in 2016) - 35-38 aircraft <----- This block is currently being negotiated
LRIP 9 ( Ordered in 2015, deliveries to begin in 2017) - 57-64 aircraft <----- Early contract work has begun, final contract amount will be decided around this time next year. Cost should decrease here more sharply than it would from LRIP 7 to 8 but the actual "true" to schedule production bump will be LRIP 10
LRIP 10 (Ordered in 2016, deliveries to begin in 2018) - Around 70-90 aircraft <----- This is the one to watch for cost-followers as this is the next production bump from the now stable rate of around 35 aircraft. Preliminary negotiations would begin next year and this is when a major cost reduction is expected over the last production contract (LRIP8) for the lower rate of production

Full scale of production ( Ordered in 2017,18 - deliveries to begin in 2019) <----- Exact rate of production to be determined in 2015 or 2016 based on forward looking budgeting documents that are being prepared currently.


The F-35 is being built on the F-16 concurrency model that means the serial production runs concurrently to developmental testing and systems development. No special serial production will occur once the testing for each block is complete. Block 2b testing is 80% complete as per the briefing of the program at Farnborough 2014 and it is expected to be delivered to the USMC by the end of the year. The USMC then verifies the submission and hands over a certificate to the vendors and test teams. Block 3I has seen hardware installed (upgraded ICP's) on the first few F-35A's for the air force and the program successfully ported over block 2b software to the new hardware a few months ago. Block 3I is not significantly different from block 2b but some of the tests need to be done still to verify that the software works seamlessly with the new improved hardware. Those tests are being done at the moment.

LRIP 6 is being delivered at the moment and the first RAAF deliveries are included in this (Pics in previous page). LRIP6 also has the italian F-35's that would be delivered later this year or early next year. LRIP7 jets have the first F-35A for Norway (with the drag chute modifications) and LRIP 8 will have the first FMS F-35's meant for the IDF. Not sure where the Japanese jets would go into production but will check and let you know. At the moment more than 200 jets are delivered or on order

If you had bothered downloading and going over the 150+ page pdf I had posted on the F-35 you would have found answers to most of the questions in there.
The NYT says 2019
2019 or rather 2018 (with a buffer that was required to be put in place by all partners including the US three services) but that is just for the current software bloc and a budgetary phase shift in the program . For the folks developing the aircraft the development never ends since the capability addition roadmap is always charting capability growth and writing code, testing modes and developing sub-system capability.
We'll wait for official news updates and see what the GAO/Pentagon have to say next year to estimate whether the aircraft is meeting its schedules or not and whether costs are firming up.


Updates are made throughout the year not just on an annual basis. The last update was made at Farnborough 2014. I have laid out in the previous pages what those updates exactly were. The next update on pricing would come when the fixed price contract is negotiated for LRIP8 by the JPO. This should happen in the next month or perhaps 2. Don't expect a significant fall from LRIP7 as the production bump isn't happening in LRIP8 but in LRIP9 but expect costs to be lower than the 112 million UFC of LRIP7.
What we are witnessing right now is ultra-optimism drum-beating by L&M and co.,with a supporting cast of politicos to keep the programme alive ,who want the $trillion+ to be spent on the programme,keeping their industries happy and their seats safe,vs those who are highlighting the problems and are worrying about,delays,costs,etc,wondering what will be the ultimate result and at what cost,not taken in by all the hoopla and razzmatazz.
or constant cost meme's without any context, cut and paste jobs of transitional DOT&E and GAO reports which by their entire nature are dated and absolutely no emphasis being paid on actually learning the problems and how they are being fixed, have been fixed and what the process is in implementing these fixes. If there is no new bad news, its perfectly ok to dig up old bad news form a year or two ago.
If the US is going to acquire 2000+ JSFs regardless of any negativity whatsoever,taking a "JSF or bust" attitude,it needn't worry too much even if the % of aircraft operational is below average.
Yeah because only you can be the judge of the capability. What the heck do the pilots flying it, strategists developing know about the jet. Why would the % of aircraft operational be below average? What is average any how?
ow availability of the JSF may not be a major problem.
How do you take availability rates of an in development jet without any concurrency changes incorporated into it and assume that to be the rate of the jet post operational status and concurrency depot runs?
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Post by brar_w »

From the Su-30 thread -
when did Yak-38 started flying(1st flight 1971) and when did Yak-141 started flying (1st flight 1987) and now see when did F-35 start flying (1st flight dec 2006)
The 3BSD was something the creator had patented with US Government money years earlier to the first flight of the YAK or even before it was revealed. The Convair 200 was designed for this very purpose and multiple vendors within the US DOD industrial base were given contracts for a three bearing swivel nozzle.
Yak-38 Forger had two smaller lift/ cruise engines and the lift fans. The data and design inputs for Lift fans came from here
The Convair design of the early 70's ( developed in the late 60's) had two 10000 pound lift engines behind the cockpit and a single JTF22A-30A developed by Pratt and Whitney equipped with a Pratt and whitney patented 3BSN that turned down 90 degrees. The propulsion architecture was studies on a test bed and testing data gathered and evaluated in the 60's.

By the late 1960s, Pratt & Whitney was designing and testing a three-bearing swivel nozzle for use on the Convair Model 200 Sea Control fighter. Design drawings dated 1967 show detail design layouts. The first nozzle was built and tested on a Pratt & Whitney JT8D in the mid 1960s. The tests included operating the nozzle in full afterburner with the nozzle deflected ninety degrees. The test rig was positioned to exhaust upward to avoid heating the ground under the test stand, though subsequent tests positioned the nozzle downward at the ground to assess the effects of ground proximity back pressure on nozzle performance.

Pratt and Whitney secured patents for the 3BSN that they designed for the above mentioned project. I am yet to see a russian design patent on the 3BSN that predates this design.

Now coming to the lift fan which you say lockheed took from YAK -

The XJ99 was a product developed by the Allison company for the Convair 200. It was developed, extensively tested and given an evaluation. Two of these lift engines were to be positioned right behind the cockpit of the Convair 200 in the 70's. The engine was reported on the various aviation publications all through the 70's. Here is one such report -

Image

http://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFAr ... 201422.PDF

What followed in the early days of the F-35 competition was a rebalancing of the US defense industry in ancicipation of the upcoming contract award and the standard rejig as national defense outlook changed. Lockheed began absorbing General dynamics and its Texas business which it inherited. Boeing bought McDonnell douglass that had purchased convair and general dynamics california based business and design IP. From the shake up, boeing had more data on them than Lockheed (this was convair's IP passed through to General dynamics and then spread out towards lockheed and boeing). Interestingly a company that was closely behind Lockheed and BAE systems (Lockheed partner eventually) - ROLLS ROYCE quietly acquired ALLISON which in the 60's had developed the XJ-99 and had extensive testing data on it along with other lift fan concepts This combination of companies lead to a successful porting of the JSF STOVL (Lockheed's version) over to the 3BSN and a lift fan design which had been studied quite extensively (Including hardware testing, lab testing and filing patents after extensive research) by Pratt and Whitney, Lockheed (through convair), Rolls Royce (Through Allison). The 3BSN design along with a lift fan architecture were frozen way before lockheed went to russia to use YAK as a consultant to peer review their designs.
Yak-38 Forger had two smaller lift/ cruise engines and the lift fans. The data and design inputs for Lift fans came from here
Not quite true. The Lift fan coupled with a 3BSD design had been studied by the USN year prior to the F-35 in the 1960's and early 70's. Lockheed Martin narrowed down on the 3BSD design when they got money for the ASTOVL. Now read this carefully - After selecting the 3BSD design they chose to add Yak as a consultant to de-risk it since Boeing was not going to help much (They were competing with lockheed for the largest contract for fighters in the world). That was the scope of YAK's involvement. YAK didn't help then narrow down on a 3BSD, something that had already been verified on a engine tested through extensive testing by Pratt decades earlier and even years earlier to the Yak-38 first flight.
Risk reduction done around 95 and LM took 11 years to mitigate risk. Had it been risk reduction then 11 to reduce risk is Awesome!!!
It did not take 11 years to mitigate risk. Try to develop some basic understanding. They met with YAK in the 90's and then submitted their design along with the X-35 proposal. The design for the 3BSN remain unchanged from the time before they went to YAK and when they concluded their business with YAK. The X-35 plans were presented to the soon thereafter and the demo program for the 3 versions of the X-35 started 5 years later. The contract to locked was awarded in 2001 or 2002 and then the SDD (Systems development) phase of the program started. The time it takes to get a production representative aircraft from X35 to F-35 is there, not because lockheed was busy learning lessons from YAK but because the US development programs begin the critical design review processes only after the downselect has been made. Basically, lockheed designs its own aircraft for the prototype to the best of its ability. Once the SDD phase begins the 3 services join hands, develop a Joint program office and there is active involvement at every step between the USN, USAF, and USMC as the systems of the jet develops. The systems for the F-35 were very extensive. They involved a weapons bay (which did not exist on the prototype), the entire systems architecture, aerodynamic changes and solving the weight creep that comes with all this. The 11 years between the events has absolutely nothing to do with YAK but with the critical design review process and solving the weight creep issues that had come up due to the added burden of the system, sub systems, avionics, newer materials and a weapons bay. Try to read on some basic stuff of what goes on at what stage.
Had it been risk reduction then 11 to reduce risk is Awesome!!!
What is done during the SDD phase is not risk reduction. Lockheed COULD NOT go back on their plans submitted based on which they have been evaluated. RISK REDUCTION is done only for the submission. Once the program is downselected as the winner it is assumed that the level of risk is acceptable. No one reduces the risk in systems development - those efforts are made before the time of submitting the bid.

What lockheed did in the SDD phase was turn the X-35 into the F-35 i.e a production representative multi role fighter, with a full avionics architecture, all the systems, all the sub systems , full production standard engines in place of converted F-119's on the X-35, a weapons bay with the required weapons capacity and bring aboard the new RAM materials it had proposed for the program but not used on the X-35 prototype for obvious reasons. All that takes time as it did with the YF-22 to F-22 transition which was much simpler due to 1/2 the integration code, one model, limited initial multi-role capability scope and the fact that the YF-22 was a more complete prototype than the F-35 (Had weapons bays, flew with sensor prototypes etc). The STOVL architecture of the F-35 was frozen at the time lockheed submitted the design bid for the JSF many years earlier based on 100% their own research that involved their own investment and using money invested by the US DOD on technical research conducted in the 60's and 70's through United technologies and others (Allison, general dynamics etc). There was a delay on the B version of the jet because the critical design review process was delayed because the weight creep on the aircraft exceeded the models that were acceptable for the USMC (SDD phase has equal service and vendor involvement). A two pronged approach was created to lower the weight and increase the thrust and this took some time and extra cost.
Reference Book - "Lockheed Martin"
- By Relly Victoria Petrescu, Florian Ion Petrescu
Page 86-Last-Para
"The STVOL version of both power plants use the Rolls-Royce LiftSystem, designed by Lockheed-Martin and developed to production by Rolls-Royce. This system is more like Yak-141 and German VJ 101D/E than the preceding generation of STOVL design
And what this fails to mention is that the preceding generation of STOVL was the harrier but only because it was operational. Any article or research paper that is ever written (comprehensive) on the F-35B will mention the AVS program, the 3BSN patented by United technologies and the various programs that lead to the current propulsion architecture (AVS, ASTOVL, CALF, SSF and JAST) . Designs had been studied, extensively worked out through study contracts both towards the aircraft makers and propulsion providers for other STOVL efforts which used a 3BSN for applications such as the Convair 200. Read up on the Advanced Vertical Strike program that was lead by the USN in th 1960's and that developed concepts, verified submissions and allowed the OEM to conduct extensive research and safeguard that through their patents. Why would companies bother patented 3BSD if all the "previous designs" had were harrier like STOVL? The patents were in place because there was R&D money coming through the USN pipeline for a different sort of STOVL capability. Multiple companies filled multiple patents in the 1960's and early 1970s, designs were submitted and testing work done. Its just that these designs were not operationalized. R&D without operationalizing happens all the time within the US DOD Industrial base and pretty much any MIC where money is spent to develop capability. Boeing revealed prototypes of RCS reducing airframes and newer materials. Lockheed has revealed the MUTT that is meant to develop a better understanding of flutter and develop a better flutter suppression system. The MUTT will never be operationalized but the systems developed and the patents obtained from its development will be in the possession of the designers to be used on future systems (Next generation bomber most likely). A week or so ago the boss of lockeed's Skunk works devision claimed that 80% of what they work on is classified and for technology development and not operational hardware. Testing, research, development and design refinement has immense value even if these things don't directly find their way into a production ready aircraft. Patents for a 3BSN were developed for the Convair 200 much before any of the Russian STOVL aircraft were revealed to the western world. Pratt owned these patents and therefore did not need to license anything from any russian company. With the need they did not need to go over the YAK and BUY ANTHING, no patent of Yak or any other Russian OEM was ever licensed, in fact the propulsion architecture developed by lockheed through working with their partners was unchanged after YAK's involvement ended. The patents filed and designs submitted during the fly off stage of the program (design submissions) were also unchanged in the final F-35B that flew years later. The X-35B and F-35B had the same propulsion architecture based on the work done over a period that extended through the 90's and incorporated in the patent filled by lockheed before the SDD phase began.

The LiftFan approach was presented by Lockheed in its SSF submissions years before they began working with the Yak designers on the JAST/JSF which was also post the ASTOVL program where lockheed got significant money to develop the architecture that they eventually patented. The maturity of the Liftfan design concept was left to Allison which later got spun off by General Motors to Rolls Royce most likely because rolls royce had such experience as well and they wanted to remain integral player in the US-UK STOVL development efforts. When the design was approved as " Solid" and sound enough to further pursue further funding was made to demonstrate its capability. At the same time Lockheed was working with YAK full system demonstrations were being planned and executed for the lift fan architecture which lockheed had come up on its own.

Image

Remember this?

Image

The design pictured above was not born out of a few back of the envelope calculations but years of hard testing, data calculations, product development, going over patents filled decades earlier and working on bringing those thoughts and concepts to modern standards. If one neglects the patents of the 60's and 70's for a moment (which were the basis of the Pratt 3BSN and the Allison Lift fan development) the programs that directly lead to the current architecture/configuration were the SSF, CALF and most importantly the ASTOVL. All these programs pre-date the JAST/JSF program and happened years before lockheed used Yak's consultancy. The STOVL - TEAM that lockheed had gathered included so much volume of test data that it overwhelmed both boeing and General electric. GE rushed in the late 90's to bring its own nozzle designs into the JSF program based obviously on their own research conducted for the AVS programs in the 60's and 70's. From the top of my head i can recall them filing a few patents just before the first prototypes headed for assembly but the Joint strike program had decided by then that if the X-35 and Lockheed's JSF proposal was to win the 3BSN that would be incorporated in the final design would be that designed & produced by Pratt and Whitney irrespective of whether Pratt wins the engine competition. This was the main reason why the extra thrust of GE's engine did not mean much for the competition because the overall thrust increase in the B version of the F-35 was limited not by engine potential but by nozzle performance.
Lockheed pumped in nearly $400 million(in 90s) for three new prototypes and an additional static test aircraft to test improvements in design and avionics
Who contests this? Why would they not spend the money US government provides them to develop their plans into a prototype along with other testing in the lab so that these designs could be evaluated against competition in a formal fly-off ? What does this have to do with YAK? The ASTOVL program lead lockheed towards a path of the current architecture, once they finalized this they went to YAK, they came out of those discussions assured that their plans were solid. They didn't need to change anything from the original pre-YAK architecture. 400 million for essentially maintiang a large industrial design team that involved multi-national aerospace experts, designing and building a prototype for 3 different capabilities is nothing in the larger western context.

The DARPA managed ASTOVL program began in 1983 (No lockheed YAK partnership existed back then) and it was through this effort that lockheed narrowed down on a lift fan + 3BSN approach to a future STOVL fighter - an approach which came back from the studies other's (including lockheed through its acquired companies) had also narrowed down in the 1960s during the AVS program where a similar design was narrowed down upon but that required 2 10K lift-fans and a single rear mounted engine with a 3 bearing swivel nozzle. The AVS propulsion-design-architecture had filled patents that were owned by Pratt and Whitney for the 90 degree nozzle (Lockheed's team member), Allison for the lift engines (Acquire by Rolls Royce - Lockheed's team member) and Convair for the integrated concept (Whose partial design work lockheed acquired through general dynamics, but who's major IP was still owned by Boeing).
people are not ready to believe that US bought technology from RU when its their in public domain)
What technology was BOUGHT?
Last edited by brar_w on 09 Aug 2014 03:04, edited 2 times in total.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Post by brar_w »

you know BASMATI rice is patented by US company, are you aware?
What does Basmati rice have to do with aerospace? The Design of the Nozzle on the F-35B's engine is based on research which Pratt conducted and patented in the 1960's. The 3BSN was designed under the USN lead AVS program that eventually lead to a propulsion solution being designed and tested for the Convair 200. The testing began in 1965 a full 3 decades before lockheed went to Russia. This is a PROVEN and easily verifiable fact. Are you now claiming that Russians had designed a 3bSN before pratt, and somehow pratt stole this idea from them in the 60's and quickly patented it? If so provide evidence of this because without it, the claim would be as empty as me saying that YAK stole the idea from Convair 200 way back in the 60's..
Awesome.....

The said and believed Yak-141 funding and advance research funded by LM (US) after USSR breakup is well documented and published and i have given published book references and published mag references, but they can't be believed why? (infant these reference material is not printed in cold war era)

most of your references are cold war era articles and we all know what game was play on then, dont we?
You cannot read and comprehend the timelines. The STOVL configuration and propulsion architecture of the F-35B was finalized before lockheed even began working with YAK. Lockheed had selected the Lift fan combined with a 3BSN as the configuration of choice under the ASTOVL program. Propulsion concepts were being validated and NASA and other organizations were given blueprints of the test bed. The Test bed was in development when lockheed was working with YAK and it was being tested by the time the business with yak concluded. As mentioned earlier no design changes to the architecture were made because of YAK's involvement. Where YAK gets credit is in providing an independent assessment of lockheed's design architecture and in providing them with test data which shortened their own testing timeframe and made their proposal for the X-35 a much less risky affair. Had lockheed done all of this themselves their architecture would still be in testing with NASA at the time the X-35 would have had to fly off against he X-32. That would mean that it as a system would still be considered higher risk.

By the time Lockheed martin went to Russia they had assembled a team for various DARPA or USN/MC lead programs, formed industrial partnerships, signed MOU's with companies that were in advanced stages of developing and delivering testbeds for the capability that lockheed designed. Allison was scooped up by RR and had already delivered the required hardware to lockheed to integrate onto the test bed, and Pratt was finishing up the 3BSN that also got delivered around the same time lockheed was working with YAK.
well if US is so advanced and holly, why do US go to peer review, when the peer was your blood thirsty enemy 2-4yrs ago? for charity, right?
They had YAK go over the designs because it made sense as only a handful of designers in the world had hard experience integrating and designing a particular setup. The other company was Boeing that had IP and experience on the set capability solution chosen by lockheed through its own patents for the AVS and through the acquisition of McD. It made little sense to go to boeing and ask them to de-risk a design that they themselves were gearing to defeat in open competition. Yak partnership put lockheed in a favorable position given that the JAST and JSF was a program meant to carry on with massive risk reduction before the SDD phase of the program. Simply put, the JSF bid would have been riskier had lockheed not gone to Boeing or YAK for a peer review of their design for validation. Lockheed came back with their propulsion system architecture validated by an independent third party and could claim at the time of the competition that their solution was less risky and therefore deserved to be selected. De-risking efforts continue years before the RFP's are issued. At the moment de-risking work is being done by 2 companies (Pratt and GE) on Variable cycle engines. The de-risking effort has no engine in mind. There are no thrust requirements for any future engine. They are de-risking propulsion technologies and verifying designs that have been developed by individual design houses for future propulsion needs. Similarly Stealth materials and shaping de-risking was done in the 90's by Boeing in particular through the Bird of Prey and other smaller programs. Lockheed is de-risking flutter and developing future flutter suppression systems with the MUTT even though there is no requirement for such a vehicle at the moment. De-risking is an important industrial process where capability is developed continuously even before requirements are finalized. In case of STOVL the de-risking efforts continued through the 80's and into the 90's through the following programs - ASTOVL, SSF, CALF and JAST. YAK came into the picture only when the JAST was turning over to the JSF i.e at the same time lockheed was delivering a LIFT FAN + 3BSN test bed to NASA for testing.
some insider information we all are not preview to?
No, all of what I have mentioned is available in the media. Technical journals, clarification issued by Lockheed, NASA studies and program background information on the AVS and the 60's and 70's efforts of the USN to develop a STOVL aircraft for smaller carriers. The research lasted a decade or so before the USN shifted its doctrine to larger carriers for the future.

You'd need some free time but if you are so enclined read up (or watch videos) on -

- AVS program lead by the USN
- Convair 200 and propulsion capability demonstrated for the Unique USN requirement formulated in the 60's
- Various design choices for the ASTOVL program
- DARPA CALF, SSF
- Paul Bevilaqua's lecture presentation at Johns Hopkins university

wowwwwww some basic commonsense about why some one pay money to its cold war era enemy just 3-4 years after, cold war ended and that too for developing 3-4 prototypes of a technology demonstrator plane? where LM already had every thing to make the plane?

Lockheed demanded testing data that would make their own testing redundant on many aspects. Yak did precisely that and as a result the validation of lockheed's own design happened rather swiftly and before the all important program deadline for the proposal submissions.
back to patents. (BASMATI)

When did i say patent of Yak or any other Russian OEM was ever licensed?
And how is TECHNOLOGY SOLD if it is not licensed? YAK's involvement was to vouch for lockheed's design and to provide it with YAK's own test data so that lockheed could shave off a few years from its design submission allowing it to field a more mature design in time for the competition. The LIFT FAN used by Lockheed's design was produced by Allison and RR based on their own work that extended years before lockheed went to yak and even before the cold war ended. The Nozzle designed by Pratt and whitney was also independently developed without any involvement of YAK. Are you now going to claim that the F-135 which itself was an evolution of the F-119 engine designed by Pratt independently was designed using YAK's technology? Exactly what technology of the F-135's unique STOVL components were bought from YAK?

who all were LM partners? One was Yak.... who were paid 400 mil $ in early 90s.
Lockheed worked with the following companies throughout the SSF, ASTOVL, CALF and JAST competition -

- P&W - Design work on 3 bearing swivel nozzle completed in the 60's and IP protected through a patent filed in 1965
- Allison- Allison was big western player in the lift fan design thanks to its work in the USN and DARPA funded AVS program of the 60's ad 70's.
- Rolls Royce - RR was a natural partner not only because of the international nature of the program but also because of the fact that they worked alongside Allison on the US-UK joint development efforts throughout the last 3 decades under various programs. They eventually ended up buying Allison from General motors and became a power house without which the F-35 would not have materialized. They owned all of Allison's design patents on various lift-fan configurations and had all the hard testing data over the three decades since Allison delivered a working lift fan engine for testing to the USN.

In addition to the above mentioned companies, there was YAK which came at the very last stage of the STOVL research that started in the late 70's and matured in the 80's with ASTOVL (Research where lockheed was directly involved - therefore i am ignoring the AVS for the moment). YAK came in around 1992 and the contracts were signed with lockheed then. It took a couple of years for YAK to deliver the testing data that lockheed demanded from it. In addition to all of these, Lockheed itself had acquired several big and small companies with General Dynamics's (Makers of the F-16) aviation wing at forth Worth being one of them. It wouldn't be a stretch to assume here that a lot of lockheed folks that worked on the ASTOVL program and the JAST were GD employees who prior to GD were Convair employees (Convair itself was bought by GD). Convair was not totally sold to lockheed, the combined forth worth facilities of the parent company went to lockheed while the California aspect including much of the airframe design teams went over to McDonnell Douglas which later was acquired by boeing.
atlest some one agrees that 400 mil $ was paid by LM (US) to RU (Yak...) for three new prototypes and an additional static test aircraft to test improvements in design and avionics of Yak-141 (the new prototypes were displayed after that in a airshow also as static display and-LM-rep-were-present)
Lockheed paid money for constancy and YAK were required to not only vouch for Lockheed's design but also to provide it test data that lockheed sought. How YAK went about getting that test data was of no concern to lockheed. No technology was ever bought and absolutely no design aspect of the YAK has gone into any propulsion architecture of the STOVL F-35B. Not in the swivel nozzle which pratt and whitney had a long legacy of designing and researching, not on the lift fan which RR (through their own work and through allison) had been working on for various projects over 30 years and definitely not on the engine which were designed for the F-22 raptor and who's evolution lead to the F-135 used on the F-35.
Last edited by brar_w on 09 Aug 2014 04:05, edited 2 times in total.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Post by brar_w »

fter USSR breakup is well documented and published and i have given published book references and published mag references, but they can't be believed why? (infant these reference material is not printed in cold war era)

most of your references are cold war era articles and we all know what game was play on then, dont we?
What? So because the USN had a R&D pipeline for a STOVL aircraft that was required from small carriers and actually went about conducting R&D and spending hard cash spread over multiple OEM's, the proof of which are articles from the 70's, registered patents (US patent office) beginning the 60's and a full list of corporate spending and program management some of which was not classified and widely reported at the time in notable aviation publications - all this is not relevant because it was done during the cold war and we all know what the cold war was and the games? What exactly does this mean? Did United technologies not demonstrate their 3DSN and did allison not demo their fans for DARPA and USN programs? What was that all a smokescreen? What are you implying exactly? What about the Soviet STOVL designs of the cold war. They must have been smokescreens and fake as well since they were cold war designs as well. The USAF and CIA must not have been flying mach 3.5 enabled, ramjet UAV's over china in the 70's either, since it was all cold war stuff.

Get real. The Programs were very much real, REAL research was done and I am sure YAK did real research as well. There is no doubt on whether the AVS program actually took place, whether pratt and whitney filled the first known patent for a 3 breading swivel nozzle as they demo'd such a thing for the Convair 200 type platform based on the AVS program. Contact any veteran reporter that still writes now and he'll vouch for that. Or try to dig up any publication or aerospace magazine that is archived and all this is public knowledge. Allison had demo'd a lift fan, Pratt had a swivel nozzle tested by the USN that was paid for by it.

Your published book references t speak nothing of any YAK technology going into the F-35. All they say is what lockheed and other have been saying since the 90's. Yak's work with Lockheed on the F-35 provided SERVICES and not technologies. YAK reviews lockheed's architecture and conducted studies to provide lockheed with test data for which lockheed paid them. Lockheed combined that data with their own LSPM trials and submitted the propulsion as a low (er) risk design. The entire exercise on part of lockheed was to gather an industry team that had very high volume of experience with this sort of propulsion concept. From the start they formed an association with pratt and whitney, rolls royce and Allison along with other smaller firms which were acquired by them and others. From the start Lockheed saw that a large problem for this program would be to deal with stealth, incorporate a joint design and add a multi role weapons capability along with supersonic flight and STOVL requirement. It was an industrial management victory for lockheed. Not only was their transition towards this current set up which took place in the 80s following the ASTOVL efforts - the absolutely correct move, but the way they formed partnerships within industry partners and managed to lower the risk of all the integration work for this propulsion concept was also what ultimately trumped boeing. Yak had an important but small role to play and the importance of that was that it provided lockheed with a SERVICE (and not technology) whereby lockheed could have its designs verified by a competent independent authority that could also charge an amount and run tests for lockheed which lockheed could share with the program office along with its own tests on the LSPM over at NASA. Both the tests were complete by the time lockheed submitted its designs and not relying on YAK would have meant lockheed would be testing their propulsion architecture while there final design bid was submitted while boeing that went in for a more conventional and lower cost STOVL concept would have completed its portion of the LSPM and shown to the program that its design was at a more mature point in development.

Lockheed took a more complicated STOVL complex, ended up spending 5 million more on it compared to boeing, yet managed to de-risk the more complicated design at the same level as boeing did its simpler design. This was only possible with the industrial management on part of lockheed leading eminent boeing managers to comment -

Lockheed won by proposing a very innovative lift fan

Going into the various STOVL programs starting in the early 80's, Boeing had an R&D edge on lockheed . Lockheed took a propulsion STOVL concept that it had less experience on compared to its competitor, stuck with it, pursued it through creating a very competent team that pretty much included all US Lift fan and Nozzle research outside of Boeing and managed to field a design that not only reached a maturity level at par to what Boeing was proposing but managed to outperform the simpler Boeing design. Lockheed managed 27 flights with its prototype in 30 days, including the only aircraft out of the 2 to fly supersonically, hover and land vertically on the same sortie . What should have been boeing's to loose (STOVL) was swept away by lockheed through proper R&D expenditure at the right time and by choosing the right design and bringing the right partners in. Only technology that lockheed used outside of its own design works was the 3BSN that was a Pratt and Whitney patent and the Allison turbo fan (Now the RR turbo fan). No technology from Boeing, McDonnell Douglas, or YAK was ever used. Yak provided services not its technologies.

There is not even any conspiracy theorist that claims that YAK sold technology to lockheed for the F-35 as the nature of the deal and its purpose are common knowledge especially if one has been following the various programs from the late 80's till now. Lockheed in its own white paper have given a thorough chain of events learning up to the current architecture. They have also clarified the points about their relationship with YAK. The cheif designer of the F-35 STOVL has given technical presentations and if you take some time to look for them, you'll find references to those presentations on the exact involvement of YAK. There is absolutely no denying that yak worked with lockheed on F-35 STOVL - but it also cannot be denied that Lockheed had a propulsion architecture in place before they approached YAK thanks to the ASTOVL program, and came out of YAK's collaboration retaining the exact same propulsion architecture which they submitted. Again, YAK played an important role - that of helping lockheed pick a more complicated design compared to its competitor and get it to the level of risk of the simpler design. That was the extent of its involvement in the F-35B design.

To stretch that lockheed owes its F-35 engine to YAK is such a laughable statement. F-35's engines comes from the F-22 program. Are you suggesting that F-22's engine that was designed during the cold war was a product of a collaboration between US and Russian companies? The Lift fan comes from Lockheed martin with collaboration with Allison/Rolls Royce - again developed independently without any sort of input from yak or any other company even within the western world. The nozzle came from Pratt and whitney which also produced it themselves based on their previous research dating back to the 60's and more recent research funded by DARPA. Next you'll be claiming that DARPA funded pratt and YAK to work together ;)

ASTOVL Chief engineer at lockheed writeup -

great deal of misinformation has appeared on the Internet regarding the relationship of the Soviet Yak-41 (later Yak-141), NATO reporting name Freestyle, to the X-35 and the rest of the JSF program. The Pratt & Whitney 3BSD nozzle design predates the Russian work. In fact the 3BSD was tested with a real engine almost twenty years before the first flight of the Yak.

Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, the Soviet Navy wanted a supersonic STOVL fighter to operate from its ski jump equipped carriers. At what point the Yakovlev Design Bureau became aware of the multi-swivel nozzle design is not known, but the Soyuz engine company created its own variant of it. The Yak-41 version of the nozzle, from published pictures, appears to be a three-bearing swivel duct with a significant offset “kink.” The Yak-141 also used two RKBM RD-41 lift engines – an almost identical arrangement to the Convair Model 200 design. The aircraft was also re-labeled as a Yak-141 to imply a production version, but no order for follow-on series came from the Russian Navy.

The Yak-141 was flown at the Paris Airshow in 1991. The flight displays of the Yak were suspended when the heat from the lift engines started to dislodge asphalt from the tarmac. At the 1992 Farnborough show, the Yak was limited to conventional takeoffs and landings with hovers performed 500 feet above the runway to avoid a repeat performance of asphalt damage. But the Yak-141 does deserve credit for being the first jet fighter to fly with a three-bearing swivel nozzle – twenty-five years after it was first designed in the United States.

During the early days of the JAST effort, Lockheed (accompanied by US government officials from the JAST program office) visited the Yakovlev Design Bureau along with several other suppliers of aviation equipment (notably also the Zvezda K-36 ejection seat) to examine the Yakovlev technologies and designs.

Yakovlev was looking for money to keep its VTOL program alive, not having received any orders for a production version of the Yak-141. Lockheed provided a small amount of funding in return for obtaining performance data and limited design data on the Yak-141. US government personnel were allowed to examine the aircraft. However, the 3BSN design was already in place on the X-35 before these visits.

The 3BSD was invented in America in the 1960s, proposed by Convair to the US Navy in the 1970s, first flown by the Russians in the late 1980s, re-engineered from the 1960 Pratt & Whitney design for the X-35 in the 1990s, and put into production for the F-35 in the 2000s. Sometimes a good idea has to wait for the right application and set of circumstances to come along. One moral of this story is not to throw out good work done in the past. It just might be needed later on.


http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=137
Last edited by brar_w on 09 Aug 2014 08:34, edited 2 times in total.
TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Post by TSJones »

Well, if RUToday says it, it must be true that LockMart could not have done this w/o Russian tech. They said the same thing about stealth technology because developers in the US used a Russian document as reference never mind Jack Northrup's work on the flying wing in the 1930's, etc. :)

They are still at it. The Sierra Nevada Dream Chaser is said to derive from a Russian gliding body test. Ignore the fact that NASA has done gliding body tests since 1960. :-o

Actually, does it really matter? The fact is the US and UK put the upfront cash for a fly off between Boeing and LockMart. And that, in the end run is what ultimately matters. All else is BS w/o the cash. Of course you have to make it happen once the cash hits the table top. So that is very important too. I think LockMart will do it. It just takes a lot of kicking, squealing and head scratching. The Russians don't like to do that in public. The US does. We have an unfettered press. They don't.
Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Post by Manish_Sharma »

d_berwal wrote:
brar_w wrote:
By the late 1960s, Pratt & Whitney was designing and testing a three-bearing swivel nozzle for use on the Convair Model 200 Sea Control fighter. Design drawings dated 1967 show detail design layouts. The first nozzle was built and tested on a Pratt & Whitney JT8D in the mid 1960s. The tests included operating the nozzle in full afterburner with the nozzle deflected ninety degrees. The test rig was positioned to exhaust upward to avoid heating the ground under the test stand, though subsequent tests positioned the nozzle downward at the ground to assess the effects of ground proximity back pressure on nozzle performance.

Pratt and Whitney secured patents for the 3BSN that they designed for the above mentioned project. I am yet to see a russian design patent on the 3BSN that predates this design.
you know BASMATI rice is patented by US company, are you aware?
Bloody ugly american thieves have also patented turmeric. :x
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Post by brar_w »

Well the logic is absurd even for some of the conspiracy theorists. The Pratt 3BSN was patented in 1965 and was tested around that time-frame. It so happened that the USN migrated towards larger carriers and therefore there was no need to go ahead and green light the Convair 200. I do not know how one takes a design that was patented in 1965 followed by propulsion testing and being the hardware of choice for the -200 proposed by convair, and call it a copy or "bought from" a company whose first 3BSD design did not surface till the mid-late 1980's with the YAK-141. YAK 38 used a completely different STOVL concept so is nothing to compare the 3BSD technically. The Russians were the first to fly the 3BSD, but based on what is known publicly the Pratt 3BSD is still the first such design unless YAK comes out and tells us otherwise (with supporting evidence) which they haven't till now. The YAK birds were great feats of engineering and showed the excellent skills enjoyed by the Soviets..That is why they were feared by so many in the west.

There is however absolutely no technology that was transferred from YAK to Lockheed martin, nor did Lockheed buy any technology that magically found its way into a design that lockheed incidentally finalized even before approaching Yak. Like I mentioned earlier, YAK played a small but important role for lockheed on the F-35. They provided a technical evaluation and delivered test data which allowed lockheed to accelerate their own testing on the LSPM that they were contracted to deliver to NASA so that the testing could be fully finished in time for the design submission. This allowed lockheed to make a leap i.e choose a more complex design but still manage to de-risk it and provide evaluation data to the program office in the same time and with a slight increase in cost (5 million) so that they would have an edge in the competition. Boeing was left bewildered, they were supposed to have an advantage in STOVL based on what they had done independent research on the STOVL since the 1960's and because they owned a lot of the Convair IP. They paid heavily for their poor foresight.
Bloody ugly american thieves have also patented turmeric.
Now, what exactly does this have to do with aerospace components? Absurd patents are littered around the world. Many are simply too rediculous to even fight and others are just plain wrong. Most of the latter ones are contested by interested parties and either have their scope reduced or are thrown out completely. Patent trolls are another thing altogether, just as the big developing countries are having to fend off against these efforts, big corporate houses also do have to fend off from patent trolls. Hopefully the broken patent system gets fixed, but this is another discussion for another thread. Basmati rice and Turmeric being patented have absolutely nothing to do with the JSF or YAK.

The only common thing between the YAK 148 and the F-35 B is the three bearing swivel nozzle which first showed on the 148 produced by YAK but which had been designed, produced, evaluated with a proper engine run including at afterburner setting sway back in the 1960's by United technologies. Lockheed martin as a company, its chief designer for the ASTOVL program and the man credited as the father of the F-35 LFS is on record of saying that they owe the three bearing swivel nozzle to pratt and whitney that had patented it in 1965 and who dusted off its designs and upgraded it for the requirements on the X-35 STOVL concept. No other commonality exists between the F-35B and Yak 141. Yak 141 used two smaller engines behind the cockpit, similar to the Convair 200 proposal of 1972, the f-35B or the X-35B or the Lockheed X-32 (Not to be confused with Boeing X-32) use a lift fan driven by surplus power form the main engine in the rear. If one reads the history of the JAST program, the aircraft that had a similar concept to the YAK 141 and Convair 200 was the McDonnell Douglas design proposal that used hot air to power the lift fan and had an independent propulsion component for lifting the aircraft vertical..Lockheed had no such thing..If one looks at the IR images of the F-35, you'll see that the lift fan is there to suck up air from the vents and transfer it downwards..The lit fan is not an engine and the big difference is that the lift fan throws out cool air (Normal air temperature) different from hot air which would have driven the designers with the same set of problems that have plagued so many STOVL aircraft including the YAK 141 which could only hover for 2 and a half minutes due to excessive heat build up. The lift fan on the STOVL F-35 or the lockheed patent is the first of its kind application and its purpose is to create a counter of cool air which prevents the hot air from coming anywhere close to the intakes and being ingested into the engine.

Show me the design that Russians had for a 3BSD system before 1965 when Pratt patented their 3bSD. These aren't naturally existing things such as turmeric where someone looking to make a fast buck patents something completely obvious and naturally existing for financial gains. I can also make wild accusations that are baseless and unsubstantiated such as - Convair designs were unveiled prior to YAK-141 and the concept was largely similar - so YAK141 must have been a copy of the Convair 200 propulsion designs..But that would be absurd and a baseless argument and tantamount to trolling by most standards. Similarly, the counter argument ( to a verifiable claim on Pratt and Whitney'/United technologies patents on 3BSD in 1965) that since some fast-buck making person or company filed for a patent on Basmati (which was later restricted in scope) or for haldi (Which was removed following a counter protest) Pratt and whitney must have developed a time machine, gone into the future and copied YAK's work that didn't surface till the 80's is equally absurd.

BTW, as per wiki which is fast becoming a supposed valid source for superior technical know how :D the turmeric patent was removed.

One of the original stovl setups studied by skunk works

Image

Here is a satellite picture of the Lockheed X-32 (Not to be confused with the Boeing X-32) -

Image

and another

Image

If one studies the original F-35 historic evolution one would find that lockheed came out of the ATOVL research firmly committed to the Lift fan setup which Paul Bevilaqua had perfected (and later patented) along with his team at skunk works and through active collaboration with industry partners in the US and UK as mentioned in my previous post. The original designs submitted which got them funds for the CALF was in fact very similar to a F-117 but with STOVL using a lift fan. The aircraft pictured above was the Lockheed X-32 CALF and is little known. This was the time the USAF was developing its F-22 fighter.The down-select had just happened on the ATF. The USMC wanted a 5th generation fighter that could do STOVL. Lockheed was one of the companies selected to do a demo that would be evaluated by NASA. The test bed used the F-16's engine and another engine for the lift fan component for the demo. The aircraft was not to fly but to be used as a demo to test hot air ingestion, a problem that has plagued practically every STOVL aircraft. The USMC however was given a choice by Dick Cheney to maintain just one new project and they opted for the V-22 Osprey so this aircraft and its development efforts went no where. A few years later the Marines and the air-force were brought together by the pentagon to study whether they could collaborate on a fighter. Neither service had enough money to develop a clean sheet on their own as the Air force was deep in F-22 development and USMC in the development of the V-22 (USMC is a much smaller service with lesser funds)..The Navy was brought in much later..Lockheed's new design for the three services retained the same STOVL architecture that they had been working on since the mid to late 80's in the ASTOVL program and had proposed to the USMC through the X-32.

Incidentally, Boeing was never really in contention to compete in any of these programs. They came in through the backdoor and hence were given the same DARPA designation as lockheed's X-32...with the Boeing X-32 dubbed Monica by pilots and staff during the fly off..Northrop Grumman, McD and BaE systems were teamed up for the third test team but design blunders with the propulsion and a basic misunderstanding of the importance of STOVL performance in the project meant that they were not down-selected for further contracts. As a result MCD was left by itself, picked up by Boeing (acquired), Northrop grumman and BAE systems quickly jumped ship and partnered with Lockheed..Northrop grumman became the largest contractor on the F-35 outside of the prime..
Rien
BRFite
Posts: 267
Joined: 24 Oct 2004 07:17
Location: Brisbane, Oz

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Post by Rien »

brar_w wrote:I am not advocating the F-35 for the IAF. I don't see it or want it. I am 100% in favor of a limited procurement rafale and PAKFA and the speration of the TOT from procurement
Grr. I would have gone with different arguments. Sorry about that. So is this thread recording the JSF's progress or lack of to date? My understanding of this thread is that the argument is that the JSF is worth every dollar of the 1.5 trillion and well worth it because of simplified logistics, as one of the advantages the JSF brings to the table.

Well, I'll concede that one right off the bat. Simplified logistics is something I wish the IAF would take to heart, since the menagerie of types threatens the viability of the IAF. I'm still not convinced of LM's projections that the JSF can sell 4 000 planes through. That's not a credible estimate given the austerity conditions in Europe and the cuts in defence spending worldwide. So a Titanic amount of reservations on the cost estimates given by the Pentagon and LM.

But I'll concede a lot of your arguments since that way we can get to the short list of real disagreements.Low RCS and AESA radar are strong points of the JSF. Likewise with the LPI. Having radar and communications that is hard to detect is a big edge. Those *ARE* good things to have. The question is, at what cost? And how well does reduced RCS perform against modern radar?
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Post by Viv S »

Rien wrote:So is this thread recording the JSF's progress or lack of to date?
The thread started out for Philip to poke fun at the aircraft. Instead it ended up chronicling a huge turnaround in the program, now shaping up to deliver a worthy successor to the venerable F-16.
My understanding of this thread is that the argument is that the JSF is worth every dollar of the 1.5 trillion and well worth it because of simplified logistics, as one of the advantages the JSF brings to the table.
That's $857 billion not $1.5 trillion. An operating cost of $350M over 40 years. Less than $300M for the F-35A.
I'm still not convinced of LM's projections that the JSF can sell 4 000 planes through. That's not a credible estimate given the austerity conditions in Europe and the cuts in defence spending worldwide.

About 3,200 is what's already on the cards. An eventual order log of 4,000, over the next two decades is very doable given that it'll enjoy a practical monopoly between 2020 and 2030 over non-Russian/Chinese markets.

Also worth noting - the original order for the LWF/ACF was just 650 fighters with options for another 750. Instead GD/LM ended up selling over 4,500 F-16s.
But I'll concede a lot of your arguments since that way we can get to the short list of real disagreements.Low RCS and AESA radar are strong points of the JSF. Likewise with the LPI. Having radar and communications that is hard to detect is a big edge. Those *ARE* good things to have. The question is, at what cost?
$70 mil flyaway in 2014 dollars. $80 mil at 2019 prices.
And how well does reduced RCS perform against modern radar?
Better than the PAK FA, J-20, J-31. A fair number of the most modern radars in the world are in service with F-35 customers (SPY-1D, MESA, S-1850M etc). I'd imagine it has a fairly good idea of what VLO capability is worth. That there are seven other stealth fighter programs in development in other countries, only underscores that fact.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Post by brar_w »

Grr. I would have gone with different arguments.
I'm not you
My understanding of this thread is that the argument is that the JSF is worth every dollar of the 1.5 trillion and well worth it because of simplified logistics, as one of the advantages the JSF brings to the table.
Again the 1.5 Trillion MEME. To which I will ask the same question.

What is the cost of 2500 PAKFA both the CTOL version and the 300-400 of the CV of the jet. For now we'll assume that there is a hypothetical STOVL version of the PKAFA and somehow magically, the it costs the same as the CTOL version despite of having STOVL propulsion etc. Include upfront procurement cost and fleet operation cost spread over 55 years that amounts to 20000000 (7 zeros) hours of flying. Compensate the numbers if more frames are required for that much flying. At least bring a valid comparison before throwing in a useless cost meme without any context whatsoever. Also adjust all costs for inflation over 55 years and for the projected fuel costs over this period.
I'm still not convinced of LM's projections that the JSF can sell 4 000 planes through
Who cares what they project? Projections are nothing but internal targets. The current projections that are somewhat doable are probably in the 3000's but a lot can change (up or down) as national security demands change over the next 4 decades.
So a Titanic amount of reservations on the cost estimates given by the Pentagon and LM.
Cost estimates have to do with economies of scale required to ramp up production machinery at every level of production (Down to the smallest contractor)..Once those changes are incorporated, hard investments made by the customer developing it and the vendors building it (down to the smalls company making a small number of parts) the overall production volume does not drive much of the cost. Simply put the price once a full rate of production does not change if the full rate of production lasts 10 years or just 8. Its just that with the smaller production run at full tempo the costs to wind down production would come early and would be spread over fewer airframes.
And how well does reduced RCS perform against modern radar?
Its not like the most modern stealth designers don't have access to the most sophisticated X band, L band, S Band radars in operation and huge radars at the test ranges and what not. The US has fielded S-300 sensor elements at the Groom lake radar sites. I have provided a read up on that. When stealth was in its infancy and only the US was investing heavily the arguments revolved around " because US is only doing it, others must not be convinced..and modern radars totally negate stealth", this then died down to a large extent when others primarily the Russians, Chinese and to a lesser extent the Europeans began developing stealth to some degree or the other. Now even the emerging aerospace nations are investing in it for future products. The arguments still surface every now and then mostly by folks who have read little on the matter.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Post by brar_w »

Not a turkey but still..

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Post by brar_w »

Just to clarify on the Induction and Operational difference as noted in the Pakfa thread. Here is a video showing the First F-35C meant for VFA 101 squadron of the USN arriving to its home base at Eglin. Every F-35C, B or A coming out of the production line is meant to be inducted in a front-line squadron (around 35 this year and a similar number next year). The ITT obligations (The testing F-35s) have been met and given that no ITT bird has crashed or developed a Class A incident there is no need for any replenishment. These aircraft (All non ITT birds) are collectively referred to as the "operational" F-35's as they are in possession of front-line squadrons who are training for active combat operations with them at their respective home bases or at the joint training base. The second video shows the same happening with the USMC at Yuma with the induction of the first F-35B meant for that base which happened to be the 100th F-35 produced (current tally stands at 107 produced and delivered).





These aircraft are already training with the legacy jets according to squadron's requirement -

In the Fall of 2013, 121 participated in three WTI events and in the last course during the Spring of 2014, 121 participated in six events. To date the F-35Bs in the WTI events have performed SCAR (strike coordination and reconnaissance), escort and area defense missions.

The current planes are operating with Block 2A software and the Block 2B software arrives later this year for the preparation for the IOC in 2015. What this means is that the plane operating today with MAWTS is more limited than what will come later in the year. While Block 2B is largely a software upgrade, there are some planned hardware mods as well.

The F-35 is operating with other Marine Corps air as the blue team against red aggressors in various exercises.

This means that already the Marines are working the question of 5th generation aircraft working with 4th generation to shape tactics and training for more effective air operations.

This has meant as well that the combat systems on the F-35 have already demonstrated an ability to enhance the impact of F-18s and Harriers on air combat operations.

As one of the MAWTS instructors put it:

We are able to employ the F-35 as a kind of information manger using its combat systems to be able to employ the air ordinance carried by the other airplanes which allows us to conserve our ordinance on the F-35 until we actually need to use it.

This has already led to interesting results when doing things like the defense of Yuma exercise where the F-18s were enabled to do things they can not normally do against incoming USAF aircraft as the Red Force.

In this WTI event – Anti-Air Warfare 2 – the F-35 participated with 4th generation fighters from MAWTS against a Red Force, which included F-15s and F-16s. Because of the F-35’s combat systems, the participating 4th generation fighters were significantly more effective. Right now, the F-35 can be used to generate sensor data, which enhances the capability of the 4th generation fleet, limited by the current need to pass that data via voice means; and the F-35s ability to operate more freely in the battlespace than can 4th generation aircraft.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Post by brar_w »

Viv S wrote:
Philip wrote:SPEAR is defined as a "Light Naval Strike Missile".It is subsonic and cannot be classified as in the same class as existing Western subsonic anti-ship missile such as Exocet,Harpoon ,etc. Neither is it going to be anywhere in the same league as BMos or BMos-M.
SPEAR is neither of those things. It is just a program -

SPEAR Capability 1: Paveway IV
SPEAR Capability 2: Brimstone 2

SPEAR Capability 3: Under development missile.

And the weapon in question is primarily a high speed analogue to the SDB-2. Like the Brimstone it can be used against FACs. The comparison to the Harpoon, Exocet or BrahMos however is absurd. It was never intended to substitute them.

And the F-35 has a naval weapon in the Kongsberg NSM and will also be able to employ the JSOW in an anti-ship role.

Nowhere near the BMos's 250-300KM+ range and heavy warhead,not to mention its killer kinetic factor.
All well and good but the BrahMos-M cannot be carried internally by any fighter, never-mind the regular BrahMos.
Raytheon is making a pitch for the SDB II for the SPEAR program. MBDA's version is basically an SDB with the JSOW-ER and MADL (both raytheon) motor thrown in the back (A Pratt and Whitney supplied, hamilton designed Tj-150). Having a powered version of the SDB that replaces the rear end with the in service, affordable missile should be fairly easy although the real advantage of a SDB II class of weapon is the cost which allows for saturation attacks on an enemy. Increase the cost and that aspect of the weapon becomes less and less effective/cost-productive. Both the SDB II and the MBDA proposed weapon are UAI compatible from the very start (The SDB II has already been integrated onto the F-15E using the UAI interface and its integration on the F-35 would also be through the interface)
TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Post by TSJones »

Always nice to see Yuma in the news. I am surprised that the Corps chose Yuma and not Cherry Point or San Diego for the initial deployment of the F-35. Yuma is such an isolated hell hole. In that manner the Corps is sort of like the French Foreign Legion.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Post by brar_w »

Its been known for some years now that VMFA 121 will be the first to get the F-35B up and running. They received the first operational Beach variant and the first to formalize a syllabus and begin training. Cherry point will see its fair share of F-35's due to the R&M facilities but won't get an actually F-35 for itself till early 2020's.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5RYt6Xo3bg
TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Post by TSJones »

found another squadron of f-35b's stationed at MCAS Beaufort, South Carolina. VMFAT-501

MCAS Beaufort is not as well known as Cherry Point N.C. and Miramar San Diego. But there are 6 F-18 squadrons based out of there. :eek:

Beaufort was considered a small out of the way base when I served at El Toro, CA. Now El Toro is gone and Beaufort has grown!
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Post by brar_w »

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Post by brar_w »

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19236
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Post by NRao »

Lockheed F-35 training work gets big boost
Lockheed Martin Corp. has received a nearly $233 million boost to its Orlando work on flight-training and maintenance simulators for the advanced but often troubled F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program.

The contract increase – one of the largest for Lockheed Martin's F-35 simulation work – calls for production of 19 training simulators and nearly 70 technical support systems, the U.S. military announced late Friday.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Post by brar_w »

Some information that came out of the latest program update (Aug 13 2014)

DD flight test activity totals for 2014 as of August 6, are provided below:
* F-35A Flight Science aircraft have flown 117 times
* F-35B Flight Science aircraft have completed 203 flights
* F-35C Flight Science aircraft have flown 158 times
* The Mission Systems Test Aircraft have flown 305 times

Since December 2006, F-35s have flown more than 18,000 cumulative flight hours.

107 F-35s have been delivered to the Department of Defense as of July 22:

*87 Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) Aircraft
*There are 49 LRIP F-35s based at Eglin AFB, Fla. (28 F-35A (two international aircraft), 14 F-35B (including three international aircraft) and 7 F-35C).
*There are 2 LRIP F-35As, 2 LRIP F-35Bs, and 1 F-35C based at Edwards AFB, Calif. on loan for SDD.
*There is 1 LRIP F-35B at MCAS Beaufort, South Carolina.
*There are 6 LRIP F-35As based at Edwards AFB, Calif., for Operational Testing.
*There is 1 LRIP F-35B on loan for SDD at NAS Patuxent River.
*There are 16 LRIP F-35Bs based at MCAS Yuma, Ariz.
*There are 4 LRIP F-35As based at Nellis AFB, Nev.
*There is 5 LRIP F-35As at Luke AFB, Ariz.

20 System Development and Demonstration (SDD) aircraft complete the test and development fleet:
There are four F-35As assigned to Edwards AFB, Calif., and five F-35Bs along with four F-35Cs
stationed at PAX River NAS, Md. This count includes six static aircraft and AA-1.


Highlights of the Last Two Months

First pipeline class of F-35 crew chiefs graduated from Eglin AFB training center (Aug. 7)
*The F-35B completed required wet runway and crosswind testing at Edwards Air Force Base, California (July)
* A ceremony was held commemorating the official roll out of the first two F-35s for the Royal Australian Air
Force (July 24)
* The first F-35B assigned to VMFAT-501 arrived at Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort (July 17)
* The F-35 fleet was granted limited flight clearance (July 16)
* The Rockwell Collins ESA Vision Systems, LLC, Gen III Helmet Mounted Display System (HMDS), was
delivered to Lockheed Martin for software integration into the F-35 (July 15)
* U.S. DOD announced an agreement aimed at reducing the price of an F-35 to the equivalent of today's 4th
generation fighters by the end of the decade known as Blueprint for Affordability (July 10)
* Fokker Elmo signs agreement for F-35 wiring systems (June 22)
* AF-2, the second production F-35 for the USAF, became the first F-35 to reach 1,000 flight hours (June 11)
* Northrop Grumman delivered 150th F-35 center fuselage to Lockheed Martin (June 2)


* Long-lead funding LRIP lot 9 (57 aircraft)
* Long-Lead funding LRIP lot 8 (43 aircraft)

The U.S. DOD announced an agreement aimed at reducing the price of an F-35 to the equivalent of today's 4th generation fighters by the end of the decade known as Blueprint for Affordability on July 10.
* The U.S. government has stated the projected cost of an F-35 purchased in 2018 will be $85 million. That’s the equivalent of $75 million today.
* More than $500 million reduction in concurrency costs over the first five production lot contracts.
* Unit costs have dropped more than 55 percent since the procurement of the first production aircraft.
* The average aircraft unit cost for an LRIP 6 aircraft is approximately 2.5 percent lower than LRIP 5
aircraft. An LRIP 7 aircraft has an average unit cost approximately six percent lower than LRIP 5 aircraft.
* LRIP 6 Aircraft Costs (not including engine):
23 F-35As CTOL - $103 million/jet o 6 F-35B STOVL - $109 million/jet o 7 F-35C CV - $120 million/jet
* LRIP 7 Aircraft Costs (not including engine): 24 F-35As CTOL - $98 million/jet 7 F-35B STOVL - $104 million/jet o 4 F-35C CV - $116 million/jet
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Post by brar_w »

[youtube]hTT35_AoFhM&list=UUlEkLjcolIdN8KzfrTxZBtQ[/youtube]
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Post by Philip »

Read the fine print in the costs,"price without the engine"!
That is the crux of the matter right now,the engine problems, and P&W have been most cagy about engine costs.An earliet estimate was a fig. of not less than $10M per engine,still not confirmed by P&W,herefore,all estimates given above are inaccurate.
Last edited by Philip on 23 Aug 2014 04:51, edited 1 time in total.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19236
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Post by NRao »

More than anything it is the trend that is of importance.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Post by brar_w »

Philip wrote:Read the fine print in the costs,"price without the engine"!
That is the crux of the matter right now,the engine problems, and P&W have been most cagy about engine costs.

UHHHH It wasn't a fine print. Historically the Pentagon has included the two most expensive components of a figther as separate contracts. Lockheed Martin will only give out the contract information that the JPO has signed with it. Pratt and Whitney signs a separate contract with the JPO for the engines and that has no involvement from lockheed martin therefore does not get a mention in the brief. What folks seem to conveniently forget is that the price disclosure on the engine cost is only for the de-classified budgetary documents and not for the JPO, Pentagon or either of the services (and the GAO - or other auditors). These institutions are kept in the loop during every negotiation that goes between the JPO and the Engine OEM.

Its also not something out of the world. Can you provide me a total price breakdown (an audited de-classified official document) on the T-50 or its engine and other components?

If any one is interested in the engine contracts here is one such contract from last year :

http://www.pw.utc.com/News/Story/201310 ... Categories

The practice to negotiate and announce separate air vehicle (fully kitted with the sensors) and propulsion contracts has been place for a few decades and is nothing specific to the USAF or to the F-35 program. The F-22, F-18, F-16 and F-15 contracts were similar as were contracts for C-130's, C-17's, P-8's, 767Tankers etc. The Prime contractor is responsible for negotiating the air vehicle and brings together all the subcontractors for the same. The propulsion is a stand alone contract.

The SAR report that is not produced by the OEM but by the auditors refers to the collective contracts for the air vehicle and propulsion. Those numbers have been released by all including the SAR, the JPO and other agencies. If you just scroll back a few pages you will find that I have provided a graph issued by the JPO that lays down the cost of the F-35 (recurring fly away cost of the aircraft including the engine) and the trends associated with the same. In the graph the prices up to LRIP 7 are KNOWN while the costs beyond LRIP 7 are estimated based on modeling done by the JPO.

The LRIP 7 F-35A cost including the engine is $112 million with $98 million going to Lockheed and its partners and the rest to United Technologies.
and P&W have been most cagy about engine costs.
The JPO, USAF, Pentagon and the GAO are in the loop of every cost negotiation for the F-135 engine. What pratt is contesting is the de-classified reports on engine component costs which it thinks the competitors competing against the F-135 in foreign sales (with older engines for older aircraft) can bypass through using the commercial sale route where the OEM is allowed to bid below the historic DOD profit margins to preserve production for the future.

I think where this is coming form is that some in the "blogging" world or rather the tabloid blogging world want to smack the JPO/Pentagon in the face because GE was not given the 4 odd billion dollars to develop their 5th generation engine after LOOSING fair and square (without protest) not once but twice. The company made a strategic blunder by going for "capability at all cost" with the YF-120 which was always a superior engine to the YF-119 (The YF-120 was a Variable Cycle engine that demonstrated amazing performance in the 90's on both the YF22 and the YF23 - and would be decades old by the time the next working Variable cycle engine is introduced into a flying prototype anywhere) but associated with huge amount of development risk (and historically as the GEW has shown there is no reason to bear excess risk with propulsion as many programs have been crippled by it). They tried to spin their YF-120 loss during the JSF competition claiming that the YF-136 is based on a clean sheet engine while the YF-135 was based on the F-119. Pratt simply showed the DOD hundreds of hours of reliable F-119 operations and since affordability was a major objective won the JSF engine war (for the second time with the 5th generation engine) fair and square. GE then being the company that it is (the Boeing of propulsion) lobbied hard to get a "back-door" entry into the project and succeeded. After development, the program still chose to go with the F-135 for the F-35 and to save the 4 odd billion in SDD towards other more pressing issues.

As it has turned out 4 billion will most likely go (and has gone) into the ADVENT , AETD and now the follow on to the AETD which kicks off next year and that will produce a working variable cycle NG engine in the 45K thrust class (* surprise surprise *), and will most likely cause John Mccain to burst an artery.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Post by Philip »

The thread wasn't started to "poke fun" at the bird,but because there were divergent opinions within the US/Western aviation community about the aircraft .Some saw it as a "talisman" (my word),others as a "turkey" (described by others).The thread was meant to find out the truth.It seldom is in black and white,mostly shades of grey,as we're seeing today.There are the doubting Sweetman's and Axe's on one side,and the dogged "bogged down" generals on the other,manfully trying to meet deadlines,FOCs,et al.Even military opinions differ within the US. The Diplomat had an interesting recent piece about the JSF and LW radar vulnerability fears,F-117 incident,cooperative EW from a variety of assets,etc.,etc.,coming to the conclusion that it was teamwork that would ultimately prevail in the end and not to look at the aircraft as a "singleton" (my word).The sum of the parts...

Coming back to the costs/price,the simple Q being asked is what is the expected/estimated price WITH an engine? $10M was supposed to be the min. fig,therefore final figs should reflect this as well,for each variant.From available reports,P&W have been rather cagey about this and with the recent engine problem,
leave doubts about any cost increases if redesign is needed.

The aircraft's original costs were in the region of around $75M,but have gone up by 25%.The US having virtually "burnt its boats",has no alternative but to press on regardless,spending whatever it takes and as much time as well, in perfecting the bird and getting it into service.Allies and potential clients on the other hand have no options when it comes to acquiring a stealth bird,but other cheaper 4.5 gen options.Their active pursuance of stealthy UCAVs may see ,as is the case with the UK and France,cooperation and a greater reliance on such assets ,reducing the need for a manned 5th-gen bird.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Post by brar_w »

but because there were divergent opinions within the US/Western aviation community about the aircraft .Some saw it as a "talisman" (my word),others as a "turkey" (described by others).The thread was meant to find out the truth.It seldom is in black and
There hasn't been any major western (especially american) defense program that has not had divergent opinions. These opinions arise from a free press and a wide base of military reporting and discussion among interested parties and those seeking fiscal responsibility in additions to plain and simple advocates for special interest. It has been like that for the last few decades. Even the cold war had heated discussions about the programs being pursued. The aircraft the F-35 is replacing in bulk i.e. the F-16 had an even more controversial path to its operationalization, a path that begun with a broad disagreement over the entire concept of its existence (LWF) and extended to its technical challenges and very poor safety record during development (Lawn dart?). The problem with the F-35 as was with the F-16 is that development is concurrent to production. Some people cannot get their head around this, so if a in-development aircraft has fan blades rub against the body and that results in a grounding, people start to shout loud claiming that its an unreliable engine..This comes from the fact that the fleet as is today is 100+ and somehow folks forget that this is still the testing phase of the program. Its hard for folks to put things into perspective since there is nothing to compare against. I bet folks don't even know how many fleet hours the PAKFA/T-50 has gathered till date (do you?), while everyone knows that the F-35 has 18,000+ hours with just one Type A incident.

Then there is the question of software. This has historically not happened. People saw the F-22 program (those that did anyway) and saw how the huge leap in software was going to be problematic and ultimately led to a delay. Then they see the F-35 which is 2x the amount of software and workload and a program that demands a very high capability @ Block 3 or even at IOC whereas it was much simpler for the F-22 (Just air to air). People see and say that 4th and 4.5th generation fighters claim Sensor fusion so whats the big deal, they do not see that the first 5th generation fighter with sensor fusion has 1/2 the software code of the second (F-35) and therefore it is entirely possible to have variable degree of sensor fusion etc.. These are little things that are often overlooked when the sole purpose is to go and find negative articles and regurgitate them over and over..All that there is to know on the technical nature of the F-35 is in the one 150+ page PDF i had provided a while back, yet i see the points being raised here and in other threads that would have not been raised had folks just read the darn thing.

Over that you add the cost which people cannot get their heads around because no one is going out and buying 2500 fifth generation fighters. Its called the 1 trillion dollar fighter as if 1 f-35 costs a trillion.
The aircraft's original costs were in the region of around $75M
The current expected cost at full rate of production is going to be 75 Million in NOW dollars and 80-85 million in then year dollars.

The problem here is that people expect the ultimate cost of production to be at par with what was expected with the LRIP block 1. This will never happen (for any program). If one were to study the subject or large scale production (even automated production) one would find that the rate of production largely determines the form of production. Want 20 fighters a year and your production designs would be different to when you want 100 fighters per year. Scale up the 20 fighter per annum line to 100 and it would operate much inefficiently compared to the baseline 100 line (and same vice versa). When a production rate is planned @ 150-200 per year, the line operates at its most efficient closest to that rate (and its just not the assembly line but production line for every tiny product that goes into the jet). Secondly, all complex aerospace products have a learning curve. One simply just doesn't assume the best way to make a thing at the first go. An evidence of this has been provided to you in the previous pages where I have shown how many hours it took to make the first F-35 compared to how many hours it takes to make the current one.

Then comes in the concept of introducing efficiencies into the production after learning some lessons. The F-35 Canopy is a perfect example of this where they have gone in and tweaked the production process to make it cheaper. Expecting the pricing target for a bleeding edge aircraft to be met in the first hand made LRIP aircraft is unreasonable. Even at Full rate status more than 80% of the F-35's will be produced at that rate and at that price (estimated).
The Diplomat had an interesting recent piece about the JSF and LW radar vulnerability fears,F-117 incident,cooperative EW from a variety of assets,etc.,etc.
Any website that compares the F-35 using situation of the F-117 isn't worth the bandwidth. Its like comparing the low mission availability of first generation jet engines and trying to blame the modern jet fighter for the same deficiencies. The world moves on!
P&W have been rather cagey about this and with the recent engine problem,
leave doubts about any cost increases if redesign is needed.
P&W are absolutely required to be cagey about the engine problems. The current investigation is undergoing and Pratt is nothing but one of the parties that is looking into the matter. What do you expect them to circumvent the entire thing and release information while the investigation is still on? Time and Time again the top bosses at the program, USAF and pentagon have said that this does not seem to be systemic thing but something isolated - all those things have been provided to you. If you still believe otherwise i don't think anyone will direct any resources to convince those that cannot be convinced.
Allies and potential clients on the other hand have no options when it comes to acquiring a stealth bird,but other cheaper 4.5 gen options.
So the Dassaults and Bae's of the world should have stepped up and developed 5th generation designs. Its not the fault of Lockheed that their customers have no where else to go because other OEM's and their chief patrons saw 5th gen as too risky and costly.
Their active pursuance of stealthy UCAVs may see ,as is the case with the UK and France,cooperation and a greater reliance on such assets ,reducing the need for a manned 5th-gen bird.
We'll see how this current partnership progresses, given how earlier aircraft partnerships have been cancelled after being matured. But to claim that a stealth UCAV will end the need for stealth Fighters is outrageous and has nothing backing it.

Where do you think the bulk of the stealthy UCAV funding has come from in the last 10-15 years? Study the entire J-UCAS, N-UCAS programs, most of what these programs are trying to achieve has been achieved years earlier by these programs. The X-45 was dropping GPS bombs on simulated targets some 10 years ago..And why stop at that, two birds were autonomously coordinating while dealing with pop-up threats on the ground that required to be neutralized. The entire problem with Unmanned strike comes from the fact that these things are very tough to keep stealthy when the concern is with sending long range, multi directional data links into highly contested environments. When i refer to highly contested environments I am not referring to Libya as some europeans may claim but China - hence those that are actually making these things for tough missions are concentrating on areas where the UCAV does very well while keeping the manned and optionally manned route open for very highly contested air spaces (USAF LRS Bomber).
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19236
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Post by NRao »

The thread was meant to find out the truth.
:rotfl:

One sided truth. :) :) :)
It seldom is in black and white,mostly shades of grey,as we're seeing today.
Ask the ones paying the bills.

Not Axe and Sweetman. They just talk. Or do they pay the bills?

The very person that was often quoted is no longer quoted!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The aircraft's original costs were in the region of around $75M,but have gone up by 25%
Nope. It was much, much much, much less. Use google to go year by year to get a picture.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Post by brar_w »

Nope. It was much, much much, much less. Use google to go year by year to get a picture
Those costs were in then year dollars. Something that costs 75 million today is going to cost 80-85 million in 2018-2020 timeframe and would have cost 50-60 million in 2000's. There is a standard US DOD inflation procedure that is followed and updated every 5 years or so bearing in mind the trends in the US aerospace industry, the wages, aerospace centers (california or florida big big difference ) and state issued subsidy.
Rien
BRFite
Posts: 267
Joined: 24 Oct 2004 07:17
Location: Brisbane, Oz

Death Spiral for the JSF

Post by Rien »

In regards to that ever moving baseline, Time Magazine had an excellent article that addressed that issue.

http://nation.time.com/2012/07/09/f-35- ... -baseline/
Set in 2001, the total acquisition cost of the F-35 was to be $233.0 billion. Compare that to the current estimate of $395.7 billion: cost growth has been $162.7 billion, or 70%: a lot more than what GAO stated in its summary.

However, the original $233 billion was supposed to buy 2,866 aircraft, not the 2,457 currently planned: making it $162 billion, or 70%, more for 409, or 14%, fewer aircraft. Adjusting for the shrinkage in the fleet, I calculate the cost growth for a fleet of 2,457 aircraft to be $190.8 billion, or 93%.

The cost of the program has almost doubled over the original baseline; it is not an increase of 42%.

Now, you know why DOD loves the rubber baseline. Reset the baseline, and you can pretend a catastrophe is half its actual size.
One of the things we can notice from a historical look back. Every year the price has escalated, even further beyond control. Orders have been cut, resulting in less aircraft to amortize the 1.5 trillion dollar production cost over. That pushes the cost per aircraft to ever higher nos, resulting in more cutbacks. The death spiral, as predicted by many observers, and by me, has been in progress. The JSF is dead.

I am predicting the US will only be afford to afford 750 fighters. That will translate to a flyaway price of 200 million dollars for the aircraft alone, without even allowing 1 cent for LM's profit margin. Clearly too low an estimate, so I'm predicting a 300 million dollar fighter by 2020. The sticker shock has killed the JSF. There is no "truth in between" to find. The news is just spectacularly bad. Like the F-22 before it, the JSF has fallen into a death spiral which no force on Earth can stop.

Even Japan, Singapore and Australia are going to have to cancel their orders, because of budgetary considerations.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Post by brar_w »

One of the things we can notice from a historical look back. Every year the price has escalated, even further beyond control.
Can you stop this trolling? No matter what cost metric you look at cost per aircraft every year has DECREASED. Just take 30 minutes off and go over this thread. LRIP 1 to LRIP 7 costs are FACTUAL costs of the jet and cannot be denied. The O&S cost was 1.5 trillion just 3 years ago and are now at 1.04 trillion or near about.
I am predicting the US will only be afford to afford 750 fighters. That will translate to a flyaway price of 200 million dollars for the aircraft alone, without even allowing 1 cent for LM's profit margin.
You do realize that the cost has the profit baked in don't you? And that profit margin is fixed by the pentagon? So you are essentially predicting that the USAF from the 2030's will be a 900 odd fighter force?
Even Japan, Singapore and Australia are going to have to cancel their orders, because of budgetary considerations
Yes, they are waiting to read this forum post of yours and as soon as they are done reading it they will pick up the phone and communicate their decisions. Japan will cancel its plans and ask for a refund, RAAF will put its 2 F-35A's on ebay and call it a day.

Such brilliant technical analysis as usual.

BTW - Your in-depth technical analysis ignored the fact that Singapore hasn't yet ordered the F-35. They are partners in the development but they have said quite categorically that they will first conclude the F-15SG acquisition program, then conclude the F-16 modernization program and only then start another acquisition program. But don't let facts get in the way.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Post by brar_w »

Neshant wrote:JSF has run into a mess.

Either its design is flawed or the project management has been bungled.

An unbelievable amount of money has been poured into the project. It is now the most expensive military project in history having topped a trillion dollars.. and rising! They have no choice but to roll the production lines with that kind of money having gone into it. It may turn out to be their "Arjun" project.

It looks like it will be less capable than a late generation F-16 overall. The only thing it has going for it is stealth.

Singapore has decided to more than double its F-15 fleet to 40 planes. Is it because they feel the JSF won't live up to expectations or be delivered on time?

Somewhere in there is a lesson for India to learn.
Wrong on quite a few fronts. Could you please tell me what the lifetime operational cost would be spread over 55 years for a fleet of PAKFA's that can land on a runway, on a carrier and land vertically. Run a number of around 2500 fighters, and count fuel costs including inflation and the cost of fuel adjusted for the rise over the 55 years. Basically the cost of running 2/3 of the US tactical fighter fleet over half a century and assuming that they operate a 5th gen fighter (F-35 F-22, PAKFA etc)

The F-35 does not cost a trillion, the program that looks at O&S costs does. Thats for 2500+ fighters spread over 3 services and over 55 years.

Singapore even before joining into the JSF as security partners said that they were going in for a 4th gen adv bird, upgrade their very young F-16's and only then look at a new acquisition program. This is completely in line with their previously disclosed strategy. I have provided background on it in your previous post on the matter. If indeed they end up choosing the Beach varient of the F-35, they will most likely not wait for the F-16's to be retired as their air-force is air-base limited.

Exactly where does the F-35 fall below the F-16 in performance? Want to discuss details?
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Post by Philip »

I don't see the Rafale or any of the other contenders for the MMRCA offering the aircraft with a price with or without an engine! This reminds me of the old Mad Mag pieces about used cars "$50" ,but the price for the engine extra! P&W simply haven't given the cost of an engine,or if they have can you please show me? That would establish what the price is for the various versions,or id the Pentagon going to underwrite the cost!

So you do admit that there are differences of opinion within the US.In fact many have been posted on the td.
In fact here is one gent,the head of the programme calling for the override of the much touted "ALIS"
Let Humans Override F-35 ‘ALIS’ Computer: Bogdan

by Brendan McGarry on February 25, 2014

F-35_computer

The head of the U.S. Defense Department’s F-35 fighter jet program said he will probably allow pilots and maintainers to manually override the aircraft’s automatic logistics system in some situations.

The Autonomic Logistics Information System, or ALIS (pronounced “Alice”), determines whether the plane is safe to fly. The system has notoriously recommended grounding functioning aircraft — against the recommendations of pilots and maintainers — due in part to faulty parts numbers listed in its database, officials said in a recent segment on the CBS News program, “60 Minutes.”

The rigidity of the technology invited comparisons not to the friendly robot R2-D2 of the “Star Wars” movies, but to the more menacing machine HAL 9000 of the sci-fi flick, “2001: A Space Odyssey.” It was something deliberately built into the system under the assumption that ALIS was always going to function properly.

“When we first put the airplanes out there, we told operators and maintainers, ‘You can never override ALIS. Ever,’” Air Force Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, who manages the F-35 program, said during a conference on the defense budget Tuesday at the Newseum in Washington, D.C. The event was hosted by Credit Suisse and McAleese & Associates, a Sterling, Va.-based consulting group.

“Well guess what?” he added. “ALIS doesn’t always work right and it is not the font of all knowledge about the airplane because I got maintainers out there who fix the airplane, I’ve got pilots who go out and pre-fly the airplane, and everyone in the enterprise thinks the airplane is ready to go except ALIS.”


Bogdan asked, “Do we need to start doing that? Yeah.” He added, “We can’t do that wholesale, but we need to do that in a measured way.”

His comments echoed those made by Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Robert Schmidle. “We need to have the ability to override the algorithms that are built into that system to determine whether an aircraft is safe to fly or not,” he said during the television segment. “I didn’t design ALIS. I didn’t develop ALIS. I’m trying to do everything I can to make ALIS work for us.”

The system within the past two weeks received a software update that should help to fix some of the previous problems, Bogdan said. He was confident of the upgrade and encouraged attendees to check in with maintainers directly to see how it’s performing. “This time we actually took a step forward and didn’t take a step back,” he said of the computer fix.

Even so, Bogdan acknowledged the system is “way behind” where it needs to be at this stage of the program.

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program is the Pentagon’s most expensive acquisition effort, estimated last year to cost $391 billion to develop and build a total of 2,457 F-35 Lightning IIs. The fifth-generation, single-engine jet is made by Lockheed Martin Corp. and designed to replace such aircraft as the F-16, A-10, F/A-18 and AV-8B.

The helmet-mounted display, which receives data from the plane’s radar, cameras and antennae, “is doing OK” — good enough to warrant canceling the development of an alternative helmet, Bogdan said.

The testing of fusing sensor data into the F-35 computer from other platforms — F-22, ground radar, satellites — will begin in 2015, Bogdan said. Such so-called multi-function fusion “is a hard thing to do” and is an area of risk, he said.

While he said he remains concerned over recent cracking to the bulkhead of the F-35B model — the subject of a recent test report — Bogdan said it likely stemmed from a previous decision to change the material to aluminum from titanium to reduce the weight of the aircraft.

That version of the plane is for the Marine Corps and needs to be light enough to land like a helicopter aboard amphibious ships and other naval vessels.

Read more: http://defensetech.org/2014/02/25/let-h ... z3BUebTNsh
Defense.org
And this was before the engine that simply caught fire.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Post by Philip »

Here's the piece from the Diplomat mentioned earlier,that emphasises the importance of teamwork as against individual capability.How many of the US's allies will be able to bring to the battle the enormous complementing assets that the US has is debatable. Even this artile which basically compliments the capability of the JSF,it acknowledge that other members of the "supporting cast",legacy aircraft and EW specialists are needed for it to survive.

http://thediplomat.com/2014/08/the-f-35 ... hf-threat/
The F-35 vs. The VHF Threat
Amid the debate over the F-35’s effectiveness, Yugoslavia offers some interesting insights into the VHF threat.
By Guy Plopsky & Fabrizio Bozzato
August 21, 2014
The heated and ongoing international debate regarding the combat effectiveness of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) in a highly contested environment has led many observers to question the fighter’s survivability in the face of advanced Surface-to-Air Missile (SAM) systems and very high frequency (VHF) radars.

(So there is a "heated" international debate going on,interesting)

Yet, few have examined the issue closely using lessons drawn from the only incident in which a stealth aircraft was lost in combat; when USAF Lt. Col. Dale Zelko’s F-117 – call sign “Vega 31” – was shot down by a Serbian S-125 (SA-3) SAM system over the then Federal Republic of Yugoslavia during Operation Allied Force on the night of March 27, 1999.

Electromagnetic radiation is known to scatter from bodies smaller than its wavelength. This phenomenon, known as Rayleigh scattering, is often used by F-35 critics to point out that the aircraft could be detected by enemy radar operating in the VHF range, given that some of the aircraft’s geometrical features such as the wing and elevator edges are smaller than the 1-3 meter wavelength within which such radars typically operate. Reportedly, this is also how Colonel Zoltan Dani, then commander of the 3rd Battery of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’s 250th Air Missile Defense Brigade, managed to detect, and later down, Lt. Col. Zelko’s plane. According to The Aviationist, a series of in-field modifications carried out by the Yugoslavs further reduced the frequency of the 1960s vintage P-18 VHF acquisition radar under Dani’s command, which enabled his men to detect Zelko’s F-117 at a distance of 30 to 37 miles (50-60 km).

Because of their relatively long wavelength, VHF radars generally lack sufficient accuracy to guide a missile to a target on their own and are therefore used to cue higher frequency, shorter wavelength engagement radars to the approximate location of the target. Narrowband stealth aircraft such as the F-117, F-22 and F-35 were designed to be very low observable (VLO) in these higher frequencies in order to significantly limit the range at which they can be successfully detected by engagement radars. Consequently, despite inputs from the VHF acquisition radar, the S-band engagement radar of Dani’s SA-3 battery was able to track the F-117 only at a distance of 8 miles (13 km), obtaining a lock and launching two missiles towards it only on the third attempt (the colonel would order his men to switch the engagement radar on for no more than 20 seconds for each attempt in order to avoid being targeted by NATO electronic warfare aircraft).

The advent of powerful, digital active electronically scanned array (AESA) VHF acquisition radars – for example, the Russian ground-based 3D Nebo SVU and Chinese ship-borne Type 517M – enables the detection of narrowband stealth aircraft such as the F-35 at greater ranges. These radars also offer faster and more accurate cueing of engagement radars, enhanced resistance to jamming and – in the case of ground-based systems – significantly improved mobility over their predecessors. Such systems therefore potentially pose a major challenge to the quick establishment of air superiority; however, a smart combination of the F-35’s capabilities along with supporting platforms and systems could allow the JSF to maintain the upper hand.

Taking a closer look at the F-117 shoot-down incident, it becomes evident that Dani’s successful attempt had a lot more to do with excellent command skills on his part and the appalling use of tactics on NATO’s behalf than it did with the equipment at his battery’s disposal. Apart from the strict emission control mentioned above, the Serbian colonel also frequently used decoys and changed the location of his battery, making it difficult for NATO aircraft tasked with suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD) to locate and target it. On their part, NATO war planners and pilots made several critical mistakes that proved fatal. These included assigning F-117s the same flight paths on each mission and often using unencrypted frequencies to communicate. Taking advantage of these errors, the colonel would order his troops to monitor NATO communication channels, which, in turn, allowed the Yugoslavs to place the battery close enough to the approximate flight path of the stealth jet, detect it and obtain a lock. Despite being an obvious mistake, unsecure communications are still frequently used by pilots to this day.

Almost equally critical was the absence of effective standoff jamming support from electronic warfare (EW) aircraft during the mission. “The EA-6Bs were too far from the F-117, they may not have been properly aligned with the [enemy] radars…” noted a 2001 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report titled ‘Electronic Warfare: EA-6B Aircraft Modernization and Related Issues for Congress’ that cited David A. Fulgham from Aviation Week. This may come as a surprise to some as by 1999 joint cooperation between stealth platforms and EW assets was not a new concept: Although frequently being portrayed in the media as acting completely on their own, F-117s occasionally received very effective standoff jamming support from EF-111s when attacking targets in the heavily defended Baghdad area during the 1991 Operation Desert Storm. However, the integration of stealth platforms with EW assets into a standard operating procedure did not take place until after Operation Allied Force.

According to the above mentioned CRS report, this was because “the standard operating procedure [was] to withhold F-117s from Air Force exercises and experiments such as “Red Flag.” Thus, important details regarding how EW assets should best be integrated with stealth platforms [were] not universally understood. For example, what frequencies should they work on? Where should the jamming aircraft be positioned relative to the stealth aircraft? Where in the formation should the [Heavy Anti-Radiation Missile] HARM-shooting aircraft fly?” Thus, the “…desire to classify and protect as much information about stealth technology as possible was most likely a factor in the F-117 loss and backfired on the services.”

Nowadays, standoff jamming support for stealth platforms has become standard practice whether the aircraft requires it or not.
The importance and benefits brought forth by combining stealth and EW capabilities are well understood and new operational concepts are being developed. Spearheading the development of such a cooperative engagement capability (CEC) is the U.S. Navy with their Naval Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air (NIFC-CA) concept. At the forefront of NIFC-CA is the sensor-rich F-35C acting as an Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition, and Reconnaissance (ISTAR) platform, channeling data back and providing terminal guidance to standoff missiles launched by other aircraft and warships. Supporting the JSF from a distance will be USN EA-18Gs and F/A-18E/Fs equipped with powerful standoff jammers and long-range missiles, respectively. These two non-stealthy platforms will use data received from the F-35 to jam and engage enemy targets while remaining beyond the reach of enemy SAMs. In the future, the strike package will also include the navy’s low observable Unmanned Carrier Launched Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) platform which will provide the fighters with aerial-refueling as well as additional surveillance and strike capability.

Managing the strike package will be the task of one or more E-2D airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) aircraft relaying data back to the command and control center on the carrier, to Aegis equipped warships, and to submarines. All platforms are to be networked using secure data-links – these include advanced high-bandwidth, jam-resistant links currently under development –which will grant all members of the carrier strike group a clear and common view of the battlefield, enabling the joint detection and engagement of targets over hundreds of miles. Being able to effectively relay targeting data to standoff weapons through such a CEC would also allow the F-35 to partially compensate for its inability to carry most air-to-surface missiles internally due to the small size of its bomb bays (carrying the weapons externally would compromise the aircraft’s stealth).

The U.S. Air Force is also working on its own CEC; however, the process is complicated since the USAF lacks a dedicated survivable standoff jamming platform of its own, as the slow and cumbersome EC-130Hs it currently operates are unsuited to highly contested environments. The idea that persisted through the 1990s of separating stealth and EW meant that the USAF did not pursue the development of a new dedicated jamming platform following the retirement of its last EF-111s in 1998. This compelled the Air Force to continue relying on the Navy – which did pursue a dedicated EW program as it lacked stealth aircraft of its own – for EW support. In addition to cooperating with the USN, the USAF could also employ its other stealth platforms such as the B-2 and, in the future, the LRS-B and VLO unmanned combat aerial vehicles (UCAVs), to target strategic SAM systems as these platforms offer superior wideband stealth given their combination of geometrical features such as a large size and a tailless configuration, which enables them to maintain their VLO status when confronted by VHF radars.

CECs are not without disadvantages. Concepts such as NIFC-CA are potentially vulnerable to cyber attack and EW. Data-links could be jammed or hacked, Electronic Support Measures (ESMs) such as passive detection systems could attempt to locate aircraft based on their electronic emissions, and long-range anti-radiation missiles, which could be fielded in the 2020s, may be used to target critical assets such as the E-2D in NIFC-CA that channels data back and forth between the aircraft and warships in the carrier strike group. Nevertheless, the flexibility of “network-centric” cooperative engagement concepts allows additional systems and platform to be plugged or unplugged from them as required, offering increased survivability and a lot of growth potential. This means that as new methods of countering the above mentioned threats are developed, they could be easily integrated into new or existing concepts.

It is important to remember that the F-35 is no F-117. Designed with network-centric warfare and joint operations in mind, the JSF offers its pilot unprecedented situational awareness thanks to its ability to communicate and process data obtained from a multitude of both onboard sensors and those located on other platforms. Unlike the F-117, which had no radar, the F-35’s powerful AN/APG-81 AESA is also capable of acting as a narrowband jammer that can be employed if necessary against engagement radars once the jet is deep inside enemy territory. These features make the JSF a key “team player”; its capabilities and potential must therefore be viewed in the context of a CEC or collective system rather than as a single platform. Dynamic, network-centric CECs such as NIFC-CA will become all the more vital over the next two decades as radars and SAMs become increasingly sophisticated. Cooperative engagement will also grow in importance as the U.S. Air Force and Navy improve their interoperability and U.S. allies begin fielding more F-35s and Aegis equipped warships. In a highly contested environment, teamwork and tactics are just as important as stealth.

Guy Plopsky is a Fellow at the Center for Advanced Technology, Tamkang University (Taiwan). Fabrizio Bozzato is a PhD Candidate at the Graduate Institute of International Affairs and Strategic Studies, Tamkang University (Taiwan).
Here's the debate about the alternative engine issue.Read the entire piece for a better understanding of the issue,Xcpts. posted.

The Great Engine War II: Choice or Monopoly for Global F-35 Fleets?
Jul 21, 2014 http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the ... 070/[quote]
Updates and Key Events
FY 2012 – 2014

GE & Rolls Royce give up; Subsequent F135 problems push Senate SAC to recommend a reassessment of the sole-source engine approach.
F-136 STOVL
F136 w. Lift System
(click to view full)

July 17/14: Politics. The Senate Appropriations Committee approves a $489.6 billion base FY 2015 budget, plus $59.7 billion in supplemental funding. It includes a section covering the F135 engine, and it’s clear that the members aren’t happy:

“F135 Engine. When the Department of Defense made the decision to terminate the alternate engine for the F–35 Joint Strike Fighter [JSF] in May of 2011, it reassured the Committee that a second engine was no longer necessary as a hedge against the failure of the main JSF engine program. The Department also stated that the financial benefits, such as savings from competition, were small if they existed at all. Since that time, the F135 engine has experienced numerous problems, including the failure of an oil flow management valve and a pre-take-off fire in the past few weeks, both of which grounded the entire fleet of over 100 aircraft. Further, the F135 engine unit cost has not declined as projected. However, the Committee believes that had the alternate engine program continued, competition would have incentivized the F135 engine manufacturer to find creative methods to drive down prices and ensure timely delivery of a high quality product, which is consistent with current Department preference for competition in acquisitions. Therefore, the Committee recommends the Secretary of Defense reassess the value of an alternate engine program creating competition to improve price, quality, and operational availability.”

American budgets still have to be reconciled in conference with the House of Representatives, then signed by the President, so there’s no guarantee that this remains in the FY 2015 defense budget as passed.

American budgets still have to be reconciled in conference with the House of Representatives, then signed by the President, so there’s no guarantee that this remains in the FY 2015 defense budget as passed.

The USAF is saying that the recent F135 engine fire is probably a one-off event, based on examination of the other 98 planes. Still, the point about fleet availability has been made. The meltdown also appears to have destroyed a $120 million jet, and killed the F-35′s much-hyped attendance at the world’s top military air expo in Farnborough. Nevertheless, Pentagon acquisition Chief Frank Kendall is saying that “We’re not interested in this point in going back several years and opening up to another competitor.” That has worked before with the F110, but it’s also worth asking if GE and Rolls Royce are still interested after their own cancellation (q.v. Dec 2/11). Sources: DID: FY15 US Defense Budget | Defense News, “Senate Panel to Pentagon: ‘Reassess’ Value of Alternate F-35 Engine” | Fox
Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Post by Manish_Sharma »

Desperate last ditch sales effort of a flying hippo the failed product.

Reminds me 7 years ago when nokia N-73 was selling like hot cake and nokia salesmen would try to hardsell N-80 no matter what you're looking for.

"Sir atleast have a look, this is best phone....."

".......then why the eff are you hardselling it?...." retorted an irritated sardar ji. "Hardselling...." I learned a new word that day.

F-22 was a good product in its time, so japanese offered even pressed to buy it. While its all hardselling for jsf
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Post by brar_w »

Hard selling. Whats the customer count even before IOC? Hard-selling would be failed campaign after another and a long protracted negotiations for the few sales one does have ;)
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Post by Viv S »

Philip wrote:I don't see the Rafale or any of the other contenders for the MMRCA offering the aircraft with a price with or without an engine! This reminds me of the old Mad Mag pieces about used cars "$50" ,but the price for the engine extra!
Who's offering the aircraft without the engine? These aren't costs that are being advertised to an export customer, they refer to agreements signed by the US DoD and its contractors, contract values of which are known to the public.
P&W simply haven't given the cost of an engine,or if they have can you please show me? That would establish what the price is for the various versions,or id the Pentagon going to underwrite the cost!
Lets not make this complicated:

1. The cost of the F135 engine was $14 million for the CTOL variant and $38 million for the STOVL variant as of LRIP 3 (2009-10). [See page 4, second item]

2. The target cost is $10 million for the conventional engine.

3. Therefore, the current cost of the engine is $11-13 million.

I really can't tell what your point is. Please elaborate?
So you do admit that there are differences of opinion within the US.In fact many have been posted on the td.
Can you tell me of any fighter jet program which has been immune to 'differences of opinion'?

F-16? Rafale? Eurofighter? Super Hornet? F-22? Gripen? Tejas?
In fact here is one gent,the head of the programme calling for the override of the much touted "ALIS"
Its well known that ALIS is immature. For the time being. The system is still under development.
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Post by Viv S »

Dhananjay wrote:Desperate last ditch sales effort of a flying hippo the failed product.
After 14 years of service, zero export orders. Domestic orders cut by 25% to 33%.
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Post by Viv S »

eklavya wrote:
Viv S wrote:
Flyaway cost in 2014 dollars, yes that's what every export customer including India will pay. That's how the FMS system works.
The flyaway cost is a meaningless number though, right.
The flyaway cost is the only standard metric available for comparing the costs of two aircraft. All other figures have discrepancies in package costs depending on the customers specific requirements.
The initial acquisition cost (without weapons) for the 65 Canadian F-35As is $9bn i.e. $138.5m per a/c.
C$9 billion. 1 CAD = 0.91 USD.

So that's slightly under $8.2 billion for 65 F-35As, i.e. $126.15m per aircraft.

________________

For reference, the cost of the Rafale to the French MoD is over $120 mil as well (€101.1M in 2010 incl. VAT). More, if you include the cost of F3R kit, AESA, LDP, HMDS.

Then, we have this news from Japan, which will spend $1.2bn on just 6 F-35A ($200m per a/c):
1. These aircraft will be from the production batch ordered in 2015. Costs at FRP will be significantly lower ($120M v $150M, procurement cost) as the production rate rises from 40/yr to well over 120/yr by 2019.

2. $1.2bn includes non-recurring investments in infrastructure that will be shared with the remaining 36 aircraft.
Looks like the true cost of the F-35 is VLO (Very Low Observable) and VFA (Very Few Affordable) :)
The Rafale's cost is comparable to the F-35. No VLO capability.
Post Reply