JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 25 Sep 2014 02:26

South Korea to sign deal this month to buy 40 F-35 jets for $7 billion: sources

South Korea will sign a deal this month to buy 40 Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N) F-35 fighter jets for about 7.34 trillion won ($7.06 billion) for delivery in 2018-2021, two people with knowledge of the transaction told Reuters on Wednesday.

South Korea confirmed its March decision, when it became the 10th country to choose F-35 fighter jets to replace aging warplanes and strengthen its defense against restive neighbor North Korea.

"We have agreed to acquire 40 jets within the total budget and reflect all the terms negotiated during the 2013 competition," South Korea's Defense Acquisition Program Administration said in a statement on Wednesday, after months of tests and negotiations.

The additional orders will lower the estimated unit cost of each of the 3,000-plus F-35 fighter aircraft to be bought by the United States and other governments in coming years.

Lockheed, engine maker Pratt & Whitney, a unit of United Technologies Corp (UTX.N), and other suppliers are investing heavily to drive down the program's projected $400 billion cost.

U.S. Air Force Lieutenant General Chris Bogdan, the Pentagon's F-35 program manager, reassured Seoul that a June engine failure would not affect the quality, price, delivery date and safety of its jets, which South Korea is viewing as a sort of guarantee, one person said.

Bogdan, in Norway for a meeting with the eight partner countries involved in the program, welcomed Seoul's decision.

"This is a good day for the F-35 program and we look forward to working with the Republic of Korea government in executing its F-35 program," he said in a statement.

Lockheed said initial deliveries of the South Korea jets would begin in 2018, when the first South Korean pilots will also arrive for training at Luke Air Force Base in Arizona.

The company said the agreement includes a substantial "offset" package, including a military communications satellite that will be launched into orbit and then operated by South Korea, as well as significant technical support for South Korea's K-X program to develop its own domestic fighter jet.

One of the sources said South Korea would sign a follow-up contract with the United States to allow basic maintenance of the jets within South Korea. The sources were not authorized to speak the media.

South Korea initially planned to spend 8.3 trillion won to buy 60 jets, but reduced the order to 40 jets last year after dropping an option to buy Boeing Co's (BA.N) F-15s in favor of jets with stealth capabilities.

The South Korean agency did not have an official comment on the timing of the deal but has previously indicated the third quarter. Lockheed Martin did not have an immediate comment.

(Additional reporting by Andrea Shalal in Washington; Editing by Christopher Cushing and Ken Wills)

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 25 Sep 2014 02:34

NRao wrote:
Yes, he is ignorant and you are wise. You sure showed him.
Credit for my wisdom goes to Philip, without who and this thread I would not have cared.

WRT "showed him" - not yet. Do not see a need to either.

Agreed. Clearly we owe Philip a note of gratitude for his tireless efforts. I now know more bout the F-35 than I ever thought possible.
Including tactics and weapons suite there of. This thread should be immortalized like the movie the Magnificent Seven or something.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 25 Sep 2014 02:40

Lockheed eyes 2-4 percent cost reduction in next F-35 contract

Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N) is close to signing a roughly $4 billion deal with the U.S. Defense Department for 43 more F-35 fighter jets that will lower the cost of the jet's airframe by 2 to 4 percent, sources familiar with the program said.

The reduction is part of a drive by the company and other key F-35 suppliers to slash the projected $400 billion cost of developing and building 2,457 U.S. jets in coming years - and the $1 trillion in additional costs to operate and maintain them over 50 years.

Lockheed's F-35 program manager Lorraine Martin and Air Force Lieutenant General Chis Bogdan this week both said the two sides were "close" to agreement for an eighth batch of F-35s. Neither disclosed details.

Sources familiar with the process said they expected the cost of the F-35 A-model airframe to drop to $94 million to $96 million under the Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) contract, down from $98 million in the seventh production contract.

The government buys the jets' engines separately from Pratt & Whitney, a unit of United Technologies Corp (UTX.N). Pratt this week said it is near agreement with the Pentagon on contracts for the seventh and eighth batches of its F135 engines that will lower the engine cost by a combined 7.5 percent to 8 percent.

Industry and government officials are considering other initiatives to lower plane costs in coming years, including changes in manufacturing, and possible "block buys" by some of the foreign countries with pending orders: Britain, Australia, Norway, Italy, Turkey, the Netherlands, Israel and Japan.

South Korea is due to finalize its order for 40 jets later this month.

Lockheed and two suppliers, Britain's BAE Systems (BAES.L) and Northrop Grumman Corp (NOC.N), in July announced plans to invest $170 million in cost-cutting measures expected to generate combined savings of $1.8 billion.

Lockheed's Martin said 66 projects were already under way as part of the so-called "Blueprint for Affordability," with nearly 550 more under consideration.

The companies say they can lower the plane costs to under $80 million, including the engine, per jet by 2019.

"That's an audacious target, but it can be realized," Martin told reporters at the annual Air Force Association conference.

Pratt & Whitney, and Britain's Rolls-Royce Holdings Plc, which makes the lift fan for the plane's Marine Corps version, are finalizing a separate deal to invest their funds in similar cost-cutting measures, officials said.

The companies are also looking at grouping aircraft orders from Australia and other countries into block buys, Martin told Reuters in an interview.

"We're working with General Bogdan and his team to see if there's something we can do to leverage (those orders) that could have price savings not only for them, but for everyone else too," Martin said.

The initiative is likely to be discussed at next week's meeting of the F-35 Joint Executive Steering Board in Oslo.

(Reporting by Andrea Shalal; editing by Andrew Hay)

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 25 Sep 2014 09:09

S. Korea To Build Jet With F-35, Tech Transfer Deal

That has got to be a first!!!!

South Korea announced official terms for its Lockheed Martin (NYSE:LMT) F-35 stealth fighter deal, which includes technology to build its own fighter as tensions rise with North Korea.

Seoul will pay $7 billion for 40 F-35A jets, which it had agreed to buy in March, marking the country's largest military order and making it the third nation to order the conventional-takeoff variant, along with Israel and Japan.

The deal also includes terms for technology transfers to help South Korea build its own fighter, similar to Lockheed's F-16 Fighting Falcon. Delivery of the F-35s is expected to start in 2018.

Lockheed shares were up 0.9% on the stock market today.

Seoul's original plans to replace the aging F-4 and F-5 fighters in its fleet called for a 60-plane deal, and only Boeing's (NYSE:BA) F-15 bid fell under budget guidelines. But under pressure from the military, the government rejected the bid to look at stealth planes.

Lockheed's radar-evading F-35 is the most expensive weapons system ever built, running at $400 billion, and well over budget. Mechanical issues, along with costs, have dampened sales forecasts for the jet.

In late June, a United Technologies' (NYSE:UTX) Pratt & Whitney engine caught fire during a takeoff at a Florida air base and the fleet was grounded July 3. Lockheed has resumed flights and said a fix is near.

The company is reportedly close to a 43-plane, $4 billion deal with the U.S. Defense Department that should bring the cost of the eighth batch of planes down 2%-4%.

Also, Pratt & Whitney said that the next two rounds of engines for the jet, the seventh and eighth batches, are expected to be 7%-8% cheaper than the prior one, on top of a 50% savings from earlier batches

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 25 Sep 2014 09:40

NRao wrote:S. Korea To Build Jet With F-35, Tech Transfer Deal

That has got to be a first!!!!

South Korea announced official terms for its Lockheed Martin (NYSE:LMT) F-35 stealth fighter deal, which includes technology to build its own fighter as tensions rise with North Korea.

Seoul will pay $7 billion for 40 F-35A jets, which it had agreed to buy in March, marking the country's largest military order and making it the third nation to order the conventional-takeoff variant, along with Israel and Japan.

The deal also includes terms for technology transfers to help South Korea build its own fighter, similar to Lockheed's F-16 Fighting Falcon. Delivery of the F-35s is expected to start in 2018.

Lockheed shares were up 0.9% on the stock market today.

Seoul's original plans to replace the aging F-4 and F-5 fighters in its fleet called for a 60-plane deal, and only Boeing's (NYSE:BA) F-15 bid fell under budget guidelines. But under pressure from the military, the government rejected the bid to look at stealth planes.

Lockheed's radar-evading F-35 is the most expensive weapons system ever built, running at $400 billion, and well over budget. Mechanical issues, along with costs, have dampened sales forecasts for the jet.

In late June, a United Technologies' (NYSE:UTX) Pratt & Whitney engine caught fire during a takeoff at a Florida air base and the fleet was grounded July 3. Lockheed has resumed flights and said a fix is near.

The company is reportedly close to a 43-plane, $4 billion deal with the U.S. Defense Department that should bring the cost of the eighth batch of planes down 2%-4%.

Also, Pratt & Whitney said that the next two rounds of engines for the jet, the seventh and eighth batches, are expected to be 7%-8% cheaper than the prior one, on top of a 50% savings from earlier batches

.......this is hard for me to believe............

member_20292 · Post by **member_20292** » 25 Sep 2014 11:09

brar_w wrote: and .....we should try to aquire the f 35 and not miss out on it . agreed.

but who will conduct the mmrca trials again...or will they choose the f 35 without one?

And where in the paragraph quoted did you find an endorsement for the F-35 for the IAF?

I myself am endorsing the F 35 for the MMRCA program. I'd like to see the F 35 in the IAF, and would like to see the Chinese reaction to that, much more so than the Rafale.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 26 Sep 2014 01:39

The entire reason for the existence of the MRCA would come into question if one were to include the F-35 into the mix. The F-35 is the absolute last thing the MRCA needs (a program that has gone from a M2K replacement to a prolonged acquisition program that still has uncertain timelines).

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 26 Sep 2014 01:44

TSJones wrote:
That has got to be a first!!!!

.......this is hard for me to believe............

The Transfer of information and assistance was a part of the contract all along. Lockheed has a boat load of data on various configurations for fifth generation designs which it agreed to transfer to the ROKAF. Lockheed also agreed to consider a cost partnership if required by the ROKAF. This was reported extensively during the time of the competition. The same was the case with Japan where Lockheed transferred its testing data on fifth gen designs and agreed to consider a F-2 like partnership if requested by the Japanese.

Sumeet · Post by **Sumeet** » 26 Sep 2014 01:52

NRao wrote:S. Korea To Build Jet With F-35, Tech Transfer Deal

That has got to be a first!!!!

The deal also includes terms for technology transfers to help South Korea build its own fighter, similar to Lockheed's F-16 Fighting Falcon. Delivery of the F-35s is expected to start in 2018.

From the wording it seems like its not transfer of *true* 5th generation technology. But something like 4.5th Gen to help Korea build something of its own and be happy about feeling of independence

even while it primarily remains dependent on US for cutting edge fighter stealth and engine and avionics technology.

KF-X is supposed to be > F-16 but < F-35. Though it was reported they wanted something stealthier than Rafale and Typhoon.

TSJ nothing to worry about. On the other hand Korea has been a loyal dependent on you guys so show some generosity towards them. And don't worry Lockheed won't be allowed by USG to let Korea develop anything indigenous thats even comparable to F-35. And Korea seems to have agreed with that. Their primary fighter will be F-35 only.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 26 Sep 2014 02:19

From the wording it seems like its not transfer of *true* 5th generation technology. But something like 4.5th Gen to help Korea build something of its own and be happy about feeling of independence

The program (FX) had this baked into it. All three companies were given a set of things the program wanted through offset. All three agreed to provide it (which would obviously be subject to negotiations as is the norm).

See here - http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ts-404136/

What capability the KFX ultimately acquires is dependent on South Korea and to a lesser extent Indonesia's risk appetite and the requirement of the stakeholders (industry and ROKAF).

KF-X is supposed to be > F-16 but < F-35. Though it was reported they wanted something stealthier than Rafale and Typhoon.

You can read that in many different ways. The F-35 has many components that are very expensive to do from scratch for an aerospace industry that exists within Korea (without very significant investment and risk). They can go in for a stealthy design and have a signature that is much better than the Rafale or the Typhoon. Similarly they can water down the multi-role capability (and the burden associated with the tradeoffs) and have an aircraft that is specific for a few missions and as a result much simpler to design and develop and field without significant risk. It may just be a stealthy twin engined fighter that takes over the Air defense mission of the F-16 leaving the F-35 to be the swing role fighter for the ROKAF with the K_Beagle being the heavy hauler.

Sumeet · Post by **Sumeet** » 26 Sep 2014 02:38

Agreed Brar. Its a win win situation for both LM and Korea.

My post was more aimed at TSJ that there is nothing alarming and he can/should be generous to Korea.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 26 Sep 2014 04:09

F-35 'on track' for carrier tests in November

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 26 Sep 2014 04:09

A number of my relatives including my youngest son have spent time in Korea and on the DMZ. We know them well. It's high time the Koreans take care of themselves. We've spent billions there along with our blood. With their predatory export practices plus taxing the hell out of imports I am done with giving them anything. We need to pull our remaining troops out and let them root hog or die. this is OT and no more from me.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 03 Oct 2014 22:04

The first Australian turkey.

Joint Strike Fighters: Australia's first F-35 jet takes inaugural flight in United States

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 03 Oct 2014 22:06

Turkey to replace the F-18:

Lemoore Navy base to be home for new F35-C jet fighters

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 03 Oct 2014 22:09

Not entirely turkey related, but an important data point:

Work: Sixty Percent of U.S. Navy and Air Force Will Be Based in Pacific by 2020

“The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is going to go first to the Pacific. By 2018, the very stealthy and highly capable Zumwalt destroyer [DDG-1000] will be based in the Pacific, we hope,” Work said.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 03 Oct 2014 22:12

Japan’s Largest Warship Since World War II Takes To Sea

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 03 Oct 2014 22:14

Kongsberg receives new F-35 JSF components supply contracts

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 03 Oct 2014 22:14

Talking of thrid party integration with the F-35/JSF.

Kongsberg plans to flight test JSM next year

Kongsberg is reportedly set to start flight testing of its new joint strike missile (JSM) aboard a Lockheed Martin-built F-16 Fighting Falcon aircraft in 2015.

Capable of attacking land and sea-based targets, the long-range missile is being developed to arm the Royal Norwegian Air Force's (RoNAF) fleet of 52 F-35A conventional take-off and landing aircraft, as reported by Flightglobal.

Kongsberg has already performed fit checks on the external hard points of all three F-35 joint strike fighter variants, and in the internal weapons bay on the A- and C-models.

Kongsberg Defence Systems president Harald Ånnestad was quoted by the publication as saying the missile had been developed in parallel with the design of the weapons bay on the stealth aircraft.

"Further 'integration and risk-reduction work' is ongoing in collaboration with Lockheed, and the missile will achieve initial operational capability in 2021, in line with the release of the Block 4 software load on F-35," Ånnestad said.

According to Ånnestad, several other countries, both F-35 customers and those operating other aircraft, have expressed interest in the purchase of JSM.
"The missile had been developed in parallel with the design of the weapons bay on the stealth aircraft."

Despite completing fit checks on the F-15 and F-18 fighters, Kongsberg indicated earlier that integration work will not be carried out without a confirmed customer.

The company received a NKr1.1bn ($177m) Phase III contract from the Norwegian Defence Logistics Organisation in July to complete the development and integration of the JSM onto the F-35 fighter.

Developed in collaboration with the Norwegian Ministry of Defence, the JSM is a long-range anti-surface missile primarily designed to be integrated within the F-35's internal weapons bay, enabling engagement of both land and naval objects protected by advanced defence systems.

The production of the missile, which features an advanced engagement planning, a navigation system and an automated target recognition with imaging target seeker for discrimination between red, white and blue ships, is expected to be completed by 2017

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 04 Oct 2014 06:49

SOM will also eventually be a cleared weapon (Post Block4 UAI patch) and it is also a third party weapon

(along with the ASRAAM, Meteor, and eventual Israeli weapon clearances, that would logically follow once they begin receiving their weapons)

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 10 Oct 2014 12:02

F-35 Demonstration (MCAS Miramar 2014)

member_20292 · Post by **member_20292** » 11 Oct 2014 00:18

^ we've got to have this plane!

How? Another fly off with the top two mmrca contenders?

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 11 Oct 2014 05:50

The object should be to reduce the types and not add to them. As it is the MRCA has gone from a M2K purchase to a rafale purchase that is taking long and going to cost a bit. Anything that adds to the cost and the timeline (years delayed = cost) will further hurt the IAF.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 14 Oct 2014 11:48

AWST Sept. 8th.JSF engine problems:
The engine "flexed" to an unexpected degree during a 2 second manouevre.The engine is the heaviest fighter engine developed thus far.5 engines have shown signs of premature wear.Hard rubbing of abradable material on stator blades and metal of knife edge seals fitted to the engine rotors.
JSF program off. declind to give any further info.
Gen."Bogged-Down" said that P&W's "A-team" are on the job but must realise that "from a business standpoint it is a problem that they need to resolve.
P & W also declined to give any reason why the "diagnostic and prognostic systems didn't function".This is the reason ,plus point,that they gave for the termination of the GE alt. engine.

Flight tests are being resumed but with much reduced parameters like Gs (3),AoA (18deg),3 hr inspections,M-0.9 raised to M-1.6.RN JSFs will now reach the carrier only by 2018 but the carrier is being readied with all the necessary infrastructure to operate the bird..

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 14 Oct 2014 15:47

Love the piece about carriers that is totally out of context. JSF's clearance on a carrier has absolutely nothing to do with engine or anything mechanical (tail hook). It is entirely a result of software 3F maturity and USN's timeline where they want to have the dollar amount transition from the SH and Growler programs towards acquisition programs on the Charlie. You cannot put a fighter on a carrier permanently until you have enough to run the thing and the USN has too few at the moment. They will build up but them being the last to declare IOC has always been the design, delay or no delay.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 15 Oct 2014 19:01

More under powered engines for the badly designed, un-fly-able, cannot-turn, turkey:

Pratt & Whitney signs $592 million deal with Pentagon for next F-35 engines

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 15 Oct 2014 19:09

Lockheed Says The Most Expensive Weapon Ever Will Be Combat-Ready Next Year

Lockheed Martin expects the cost of the F-35 fighter jet to drop to its target level by 2019 and still sees the first version of the aircraft combat-ready by mid-2015, despite an engine fire that still needs a fix, the firm said on Thursday.

"We anticipate that there's a market out there for 4,000 airplanes ... and the biggest risk to cost is if we don't get the orders we showed. That will significantly erode our ability to take advantage of economic order quantities and reduce cost."

Too many turkeys...............................

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 15 Oct 2014 19:10

NRao wrote:More under powered engines for the badly designed, un-fly-able, cannot-turn, turkey:

Pratt & Whitney signs $592 million deal with Pentagon for next F-35 engines

Yup, the engine that will be in AB mode most of the time " just because" has also had a fix designed for it (excessive rubbing) and ordered by the JPO as was reported by them last night, paid for by P&W/UT.

ALIS is a novel concept that is a pain in the A$$ according to those that have asked about it..But there isn't really a better way to manage a 2000+ fighter fleet or a 3000+ fighter global fleet..They'll eventually fix it but this underscores a major issue in defense companies globally..That of software development. With software companies struggling with large software rollouts (*cough* *cough* Apple, Google*cough*) one can imagine how underprepared defense contractors are to take everything and put it on software. I expect a dedicates defense software industry emerging within the next decade with a lot of A&M's happening with the likes of boeing, lockheed, airbus/EADS buying some of the small-medium sized software companies.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 16 Oct 2014 05:23

Down Under started deploying ALIS some time back - in small modules and they claim they have are very satisfied with it. They of course get code that is in a far more pristine state. Yeah, they do not have their JSF yet. But ALIS is deployed.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 16 Oct 2014 07:13

There isn't a problem deploying it, their are however limitations on the scope of its deployment. No one to the best of my knowledge has deployed it fleet wide. The numbers they are currently running are 5-8 birds at a time. I would give it another 2-3 years and it should be done by the time most of the International customers declare IOC. There is a paradigm shift happening in how complex aerospace programs are run and managed, the father of the F-35 STOVL gave a very passionate speech at the Johns Hopkins University recently (as he did when he explained the STOVL system on the F-35 a few years ago) on how there is cost-model differentiation between programs now. Software is going to be amain driver of cost and all those that are citing half baked, agenda driven articles on how 3 programs could have been cheaper based on historical cost need to factor this in. What are the costs of running 3 5 and 5.5 generation software programs simultaneously vs running one program.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 16 Oct 2014 17:25

Here's a post-mortem on the recently released GAO finding.

http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/201 ... eport.html

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 16 Oct 2014 17:54

ALIS, in the US, has had problemS.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 16 Oct 2014 18:35

Software.That's what the various reports,official and unofficial have been saying all along,that the bird is too software dependent.Anyway,the US has the moolah to fix it with oil prices plunging.More to spend on defence and sort out JSF issues.This I suspect is an attempt to dethrone Putin s Russia is heavily dependent upon oil revenue for its economy and military modernisation.The same tactic was used by Reagan to KO the Soviet Union.That time it worked.However this time there is another factor.China.Another huge agreement was just signed between Russia and China.The US is driving both nations together by its asinine attitude over UKR.NATO and Europe should instead have Russia in its tent "p*ssing out",rather than in the Chinese encampment "p*ssing in".

srai · Post by **srai** » 16 Oct 2014 20:55

JSF High Angle of Attack Testing

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 16 Oct 2014 21:10

Unfortunately, "software" does mean "bug"s.

Fortunately, it can be de"bug"ged and processes improved to arrest "bug"gyness in new software.

ALIS - as far as I know (have not tracked it recently) - has recovered. The part that was of a major concern was the security of the communication link.

On Putin and oil prices, said this long, long back, he is too dependent on oil. Russia does have $420 billion in reserve, so I very much doubt that this dip will hurt him too much. But, the price dip has always been predicted (this is no Western scheme to bring Russia down) and Putin should have been prepared for it by now. He had enough warning. The deal with China will mature some time in the future ....... it should not impact the current situation either way. BTW, India may sign with Russia too, think India will be offered or already has one on the table.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 16 Oct 2014 21:20

Philip wrote:Software.That's what the various reports,official and unofficial have been saying all along,that the bird is too software dependent.

No report is saying 'the bird is too software dependent'. Most current and future aircraft will require highly complex software systems to be survivable on the modern 'information age' battlefield. That's a widely accepted fact.

To present that as a downside of the aircraft, is basically making an excuse for competing aircraft that don't feature comparable levels of sophistication.

Anyway,the US has the moolah to fix it with oil prices plunging.More to spend on defence and sort out JSF issues.This I suspect is an attempt to dethrone Putin s Russia is heavily dependent upon oil revenue for its economy and military modernisation.

An utterly absurd idea. To say falling oil prices is the result of some elaborate conspiracy against Russia, is a really 'imaginative' thought.

If you're interested in a more down-to-earth explanation, I'd suggest you take a look at the ongoing Shale revolution in the US and Canada. Over the last 10 years, domestic production in North America is up by over 50% and imports down by 60%. At the same time OPEC output has remained high. And finally, growth in China (and to a lesser extent India) has slowed, leading to stagnating demand.

And if the Russian govt depends on oil for 50% of its revenues with oil prices under $90 threatening to send it back into recession, that's more a reflection of a disbalanced domestic economy than some Western ploy to bring it down.

The same tactic was used by Reagan to KO the Soviet Union.That time it worked.However this time there is another factor.China.Another huge agreement was just signed between Russia and China.

Gas deals are not the same thing as oil deals. The latter is a globally traded commodity and Russia-China deals aren't going to influence the cost of crude oil. BTW I suggest you take a look at the terms of the recent deal between Russia and China; the Russians have gotten gouged.

The Russians are indeed running towards China to offset their equation with the West but the Chinese will ensure all 'cooperation' takes place on their terms.

The US is driving both nations together by its asinine attitude over UKR.NATO and Europe should instead have Russia in its tent "p*ssing out",rather than in the Chinese encampment "p*ssing in".

The whole Ukrainian crisis started with Russia trying to torpedo Ukraine's effort to sign an 'Association Agreement' with the European Union. All to retain Ukraine as a Russian satrapy under the Eurasian Customs Union.

NATO and the US didn't enter the picture until much later. If anything, Russian military actions in over the last few months have reinvigorated the NATO, and invited the ire of (pro-Russian) EU members like France.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 16 Oct 2014 22:34

Software.That's what the various reports,official and unofficial have been saying all along,that the bird is too software dependent

Thats a fact of life. There is no such thing as TOO DEPENDENT. 4th generation jets required FBW. They could not fly without it. Were they too dependent on FBW? No..Things move on, and technologies advance. One cannot restrict logistical maintaince, fleet operations and multi-dimensional force integration just because doing so by leveraging advances in technology would make it too dependent on it. This is the most ridiculous argument around. Lets go back to making aircraft designs by hand with a pencil and paper, why be TOO DEPENDENT on Modeling and software? Lets also build and learn, so as to avoid being TOO DEPENDENT on Wind Tunnels.

Find a way to develop a system that integrates a ton of sensors from Electro optical (7 total sensors) to a multi functional/multi role radar with fully integrated Electronic warfare capability and an EW suite without using software to run the Fusion processor and you can become a very rich man. You simply cannot run all these systems by using a previous generation federated setup. Suggesting something like that is absurd.

The key shift in 4th gen to 5th gen is through the entire fusion and integration process. This process has itself evolved from early 5th gen (f-22) to the current state of the art (something which even the F-22 will do well to absorb with time). There is little utility in having a gazillion sensors operating in a gazilllion different ways until you have something to put all that together and make sense of it. The other problem comes from having the ability to make sense of all that stuff in real time to obtain a "significant" tactical advantage from the "information" collected and assessed. Here the ability to constantly keep hardware up-to-date and increase the computing power of the Central nervous system (Fusion engine) is paramount and something that is very much stressed in the F-35 program. One of the first pilots to fly both the F-22 and F-35 is not kidding when he says that "information is key, and more is good" (video has been provided to you in the past). This is the direction in which modern weapons systems are going, be it fighter jets, tactical bombers, spy aircraft, Air defenses (heard of IADs? Any idea how the I is added to the AD in that setup?) or combined cyber and electronic warfare functions.

http://intercepts.defensenews.com/2014/ ... th-gen-ew/

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 17 Oct 2014 02:56

brar_w wrote:
If it can accelerate to 1.1-1.2 M using only MIL power, then why does it slow down after 10 minutes or 150 miles? The plane only gets lighter, so it should actually have the capability to go faster as it reaches bingo fuel (as all planes do)! Actually, it is simple physics. The plane decelerates till the drag equals available engine power. Now, LM (or fanboys) decided on a definition of a supercruise. According to them, what is the minimum speed that the plane should be at (for a given config) so that it stays supersonic for 10 minutes on MIL power. That speed happens to be 1.2M and so they said F-35 "supercruises" at 1.2M. Simple procedure, use the AB to punch through to 1.2M, turn the AB off, keep the engine at full dry power, you will be supersonic for 10 minutes. For me this is twisting of facts, because this is operationally useless. Why would I not cruise at 0.95M for 10 minutes, light AB, reach maximum weapon launching speed, and launch my weapon? This will save me a lot of fuel and give me the longest possible range for the weapon!
You are getting into trouble here because you are treating "super cruise" as if it is something embedded in the dictionary or a technically acceptable term that is clearly defined and agreed upon. The modern origin of the word probably came during the 90's when the ATF program material was released. Here they specified mach 1.5 with at a desired altitude with a desired weapons load. The range (or radius) was defined with a minimum super cruise radius combined with a subsonic radius. That was it. Soon others began taking the term and applying it to older aircraft claiming they could also super cruise. Supercruise post the ATF became a sort of gospel as if one definition (as defined by the ATF for that program) was set in stone. Then came the European marketing materials and trade show delegations which started claiming that they could also super cruise. A lot of these OEM's specified a speed but were less specific on the exact load, exact altitude and what impact a particular super cruise radius would have on the overall combat radius of the aircraft (something which the ATF program baked into the specification and KPP's). So the Gripen people said we can do mach 1.1 or 1.2 (don't remember exactly), Dassault said we can do 1.3-1.4 or something and Typhoon folks said we can do a full 1.5 or something like that. The ATF program wanted mach 1.5 with an internal load and the F-22 (final version) managed to better that to mach 1.72 (As per the fighters official website - Flight test Data).

The F-35 cannot super cruise as per the F-22 or rather the ATF definition. What it most likely can do is sustain supersonic speeds for 150-200 nm or so which prolongs its supersonic radius with minimal use of afterburners. This was most likely by design as none of the aircraft the F-35 is replacing can go "supersonic" for tactically significant ranges with the sort of load and fuel they carry (on a strike mission). From my understanding of the issue the F-35 requires Burners to overcome the transonic drag and after that initial bump it can sustain with military thrust. Horses for Courses I guess, but the point is that SUPERCRUISE as a term is something that is a descriptive term for a capability specified by one particular service (and that happened to catch on and find its way into marketing materials around the world).

http://www.f22-raptor.com/technology/data.html

Just answer a simple question: What happens after 10 mins/150-200 miles? I can't believe it runs out of useful fuel by flying for 10 mins in full MIL power.

By the way, I don't think JSF is a bad plane. But, what you are saying makes no aerodynamic sense.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 17 Oct 2014 03:42

indranilroy wrote:Just answer a simple question: What happens after 10 mins/150-200 miles? I can't believe it runs out of useful fuel by flying for 10 mins in full MIL power.

By the way, I don't think JSF is a bad plane. But, what you are saying makes no aerodynamic sense.

Its a good point. Supercruising only for a certain distance doesn't make sense, given that the aircraft should be able to sustain full military thrust for extended periods.

Its more likely that the aircraft accelerates on wet thrust to a certain speed (Mach 1.2 or so) and then coasts on dry thrust for 350km by the end of which it slides to (say) Mach 1.1 or below. Making the 'supercruising' tag mostly a matter of semantics/marketing.

No applications in combat but could help reduce fuel consumption in scenarios requiring fast transit in or out of combat zones. It could, for example, be useful if the aircraft is being pursued in a low fuel state.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 17 Oct 2014 04:02

Just answer a simple question: What happens after 10 mins/150-200 miles? I can't believe it runs out of useful fuel by flying for 10 mins in full MIL power.

Given that we have no hard facts to work on (other then something a pilot said about the jet's performance) as this was not baked into the KPP, it is likely the case that the jet can sustain mach 1.2 for some period before loosing it due to drag and other factors. In other words it requires a bump to get it past the transonic range and after that it can sustain that (once it gets there) for 150-200 nm or so. What advantage does this bring? Well its a tactical advantage in the sense that the exposure to IAD's is reduced compared to a mach .8 or so optimum cruise speed (usually what a multi-role loaded F-16 or F-18 does) and this gets even more important given the Baracuda+-81's combined ability to very precisely geolocate threat(s) and chart optimum flight profiles to present the best possible cross-section and footprint to the IAD. Thats about it. If super cruise was baked into the KPP's, the requirement would have closely mimicked that of the F-22's i.e. high speed (ATF defined it mach 1.5 as a minimum) with a set range, totally dry to get to that speed with a defined payload at a defined altitude with a defined overall (super+sub) radius. From what the reports have said on the matter, the F-35 can sustain that speed for 150 or so nautical miles which while was not a part of the original KPP's will definitely be used by the pilots if required. Like I said earlier, an F-18 will most likely not give you any supersonic range with a modest fuel and mixed load, and nor will the F-16 with the EFT's, CFT's (or both) and a mixed load. The pilots here are more concerned with supersonic range rather then what a particular journalist or forum poster interprets their comments and/or a random US DOD program definition that just happened to catch on within marketing materials worldwide (same as integration, sensor fusion etc etc)

This makes NO SENSE if you consider this as super cruise as per the generally accepted (but by no means a standardized) definition as laid out by folks at Wright Patterson. However, what the F-35's pilot refers to is merely supersonic range compared to his legacy and it must be looked outside of the the "super cruise" terminology. Remember a few F-16 pilots claiming that a clean F-16 under some circumstances could break the supersonic barrier with some modifications (modeling) yet that is not super cruise by any definition. Similarly, from what I hear on the F-35, its really not super cruise so there is no question of the speed going down because it should go up due to a decrease in weight with time/flight, its just that the constant battle between transonic, supersonic drag is something that translates to a much shorter supersonic range without re-egniting the burners. An F-15 that uses burners to go over the mach 1 speed will not keep on accelerating indefinitely if it turns the burners off, it still requires burners to go past 1.5 and over to its maximum designed speed.

No applications in combat but could help reduce fuel consumption in scenarios requiring fast transit in or out of combat zones.

Apparently the SR burned less fuel "in terms of pounds of fuel burned per nautical mile traveled" under certain circumsthanses while traveling at Mach 3.2 compared to lower speeds

That Aside, Supercruise by itself is something that is designed to get more supersonic range without trying to achieve lower fuel burn @ supersonic compared to subsonic. It came into light because you had these brilliant Mach 2+ fighters (most 4th gen) that had abysmal supersonic combat radius especially with a meaningful load compared to their KPP for overall combat radius.