International Aerospace Discussion

[Rakesh]

Hundreds of deficiencies push F-35 tests to 2019

Boss...as much as possible, please do not post entire articles from links. Title and link is sufficient. Copyright laws are fairly stringent now. If you want to make a point, quote a portion of the article. But nothing more.

[brar_w]

Question for you saar: Can a Growler do almost everything a Rhino does?

Hypothetically YES, although I'm not sure they've cleared all the weapons on it alongside its EW loads. The Growler carries mission weight both internal and external pods.

@Kartik, the Operational tester is speaking of developmental testing activity (which he does not perform) on a block configuration that is not expected to be operational for another year and a half. As I had said earlier, the actual developmental testers will give a point by point rebuttal of his last pot shot (he leaves next week) just as they have done over the last many years. One can dig up his past reports on each sub-block and compare his predictions with what has actually occurred.

The Office of Secretary of Defense through the AT&L has dismissed his final conclusions in its letter to the SASC chairman dated December, 19th, 2016 (Politico Pro, Inside Defense and Defense Daily have copies of it) and there is no other agency that agrees with them. Here's hoping Trump appoints a DOT&E that has some testing background with advanced aerospace systems. It was quite amusing to see Gilmore's last report leak out through the same source, minutes after it was submitted just as it happens every year around this time. Media goes crazy until February when the folks that actually test, operate and mange the program come to testify and provide a point by point rebuttal.

Then it's business as usual with some reporting that there is an actual plan to get to resolution and that immature sub-blocks tend to have lots of software, and some hardware discoveries that need to be rectified before that block is fully developed. It would be amazing if someone found a way to develop a product without a single thing requiring a fix. But until then, we will continue to have developmental testing..The Charlie for example has yet another stint on the boat before IOC is declared and the B went on an L class ship 3 times...You take this approach because you wan't to go through the test points, find faults, develop fixes, and re-test and verify. Software complicates this because every sub-block makes you go back to your maturity curve.

[Rakesh]

Hypothetically YES, although I'm not sure they've cleared all the weapons on it alongside its EW loads. The Growler carries mission weight both internal and external pods.

Ok thanks. You know where I am going with this, so next question;

- Can you put a flight of let us say...4 to 6 Growlers in a squadron of 10 - 12 Rhinos? I know they can work alongside each other in the air, but on the ground in terms of maintenance commonality, will they be a maintenance nightmare?

[brar_w]

Hypothetically YES, although I'm not sure they've cleared all the weapons on it alongside its EW loads. The Growler carries mission weight both internal and external pods.

Ok thanks. You know where I am going with this, so next question;

- Can you put a flight of let us say...4 to 6 Growlers in a squadron of 10 - 12 Rhinos? I know they can work alongside each other in the air, but on the ground in terms of maintenance commonality, will they be a maintenance nightmare?

The only reason the US- navy went for the EA-18G is for commonality on a carrier so that they can share parts and maintainers. 4-6 Growlers per 10-12 Super Hornet's is an overkill. It is a stand off platform so you don't need that many. The USN currently puts 5-6 per CVN for example and want's to get to 7-9.

[Kartik]

Ok thanks. You know where I am going with this, so next question;

- Can you put a flight of let us say...4 to 6 Growlers in a squadron of 10 - 12 Rhinos? I know they can work alongside each other in the air, but on the ground in terms of maintenance commonality, will they be a maintenance nightmare?

At least Australia didn't go down that route. The RAAF transferred all Super Hornets operated by No.6 squadron to No.1 squadron that also operated Super Hornets and then replaced them with the EA-18G Growlers.

[Rakesh]

brar: so what is that ratio like? how many rhinos (that is the only fighter left on US carriers, no?) on a carrier?

[brar_w]

RAAF also paid extra to have their Super Hornet's wired for Growler conversion which is not possible without a significant effort on the USN aircraft. They now have USN supplied range infrastructure, and will be the only export customer for the NG Jammer Increment 1. I expect their air-force to try to convert the entire Rhino fleet to Growlers as they get their F-35A's and build up strength for that prgoram.

brar: so what is that ratio like? how many rhinos (that is the only fighter left on US carriers, no?) on a carrier?

Post cold war the USN has downsized the carrier air wing but it can easily increase it to match the threat (CVN Nimitz and Ford provide that flexibility). Currently they routinely deploy with 5 Growlers although they have committed to 8 iirc over the short term, around 2 dozen Classic Hornet's and an equal number of Super Hornet's. The fast jets currently on board the Nimitz at the moment number roughly 45-50 odd aircraft with reinforcements being a possibility if they need to surge. The future air-wing will likely consist of (fast jets) around 16-20 F-35C's, 24 F-18E/F's, 8 EA-18G's, and 5 RAQ-25's. The current carrier-air-wing is running at roughly 2/3 the levels the cold-war air-wing deployed with.

I predict that they'll have a higher F-35 and RAQ-25 component to their Pacific deployments and a higher Rhino number on their deployments elsewhere. The FA-XX is going to replace the F-18E starting the 2030's but that much like the F-35 (vis-a-vis the F-18) will take a long time to fully replace the enterprise

[NRao]

Lockheed Martin CEO meets Trump, says deal to lower F-35 costs is close

Jan 13, 2017.

Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N) is close to a deal to significantly lower the cost of its F-35 aircraft, Chief Executive Officer Marillyn Hewson said on Friday after meeting with U.S. President-elect Donald Trump.

Hewson also said Lockheed plans to increase jobs at its Fort Worth, Texas, facility by 1,800, which she said would add "thousands and thousands of jobs" across the supply chain in 45 U.S. states. Lockheed shares were up 1 percent after her comments on Friday.

[brar_w]

LRIP - 10 preliminary agreement has already been reached. I posted it earlier but here it is again . The aircraft for LRIP-10 had to have their long-lead parts/components ordered in 2015 so they began a UCP then and updated it again a few weeks ago so that Lockheed could continue to perform work on the block while the final contract details and price is finalized. Most were expecting it to be finalized by the Summer, 2017 but it could happen sooner or later depending upon when they come to an agreement (or not).

DOD awards Lockheed $7.1B UCA for F-35 Lot 10 as negotiations continue

The Defense Department has awarded Lockheed Martin a nearly $7.2 billion undefinitized contract to deliver 90 F-35 aircraft as part of the 10th low-rate initial production lot.

The award is a modification to an LRIP advanced acquisition contract issued in June 2015, according to a Nov. 23 joint program office statement. JPO spokesman Joe DellaVedova said the department and Lockheed would continue to negotiate LRIP 10 details in order to definitize the contract.

"With a complex production line and a dynamic supply chain, it was important to obligate funds via a UCA so that no major delays would be seen in production," he said. "We are confident the finer terms of the LRIP 10 contract will be settled over the next few months."

He added that he expects there will be a handshake agreement for LRIP 10 in the next few months and a definitized LRIP contract "in 2017."

The award comes nearly a month after the department issued a $6.1 billion unilateral contract action for 57 LRIP 9 jets -- a move that "disappointed" Lockheed and was not agreed upon by both negotiating parties. The rarely used mechanism requires Lockheed to operate under standard terms and conditions rather than negotiated terms. Both LRIP lots have been under prolonged negotiation for contracts that were scheduled for earlier this year.

The final amount that they are negotiation comes to approximately $4-5 Million per aircraft and pertains to fees.

It is expected to result in a URF of between $95-100 Million (A Variant) and this is where the negotiations can take a long time because it is a ramp up so each side has their own set of calculations on the cost and risk to do so.

[NRao]

As someone said, Trump is helping someone make a ton of money in the stock market. The tax payer will gain very little. Twitter will be overflow and people of Iowa will be thrilled.

[brar_w]

As I had posted on the previous page, Ray Mabus (the outgoing Secretary of the Navy) put it best -

“This may be the easiest promise that anybody has ever made. It was going to happen anyway,”

This applies both ways. Economies of scale on the program have been bringing cost savings every other block when production rate increases. They are going from 57 aircraft to 90 aircraft. It would have happened anyway.

But it gives good PR to an incoming WH and Pentagon team and it's not like Obama hasn't been taking credit for stuff he's had nothing to do with.

[Neshant]

The Silent Eagle has already been "pitched". They have been marketing it for over 2 years now, and probably more. They've had ZERO takers for it globally. The've managed to sell Advanced Strike Eagles in that time-frame but no one has picked up the SE configuration or capabilities.

Why do I feel like I'm speaking to a marketing agent of LM in these messages?

The only reason there have been zero takers for the Silent Eagle is because US has not purchased it. The only reason US has not purchased it is because its being strung along by LM with the F-35. The R&D dollars that should have gone into the Silent Eagle or Super Hornet would have produced a far greater bang for the buck than what's gone down the F-35 rat hole. Keep in mind we are comparing the Super Hornet/Silent Eagle with minimal taxpayer funding against a massive F-35 taxpayer funded boon doggle. That a comparison between these two sides can even be contemplated after all that money has been poured into the F-35's development is itself astonishing.

LM cannot even predict how much more govt money it will need to dredge up to get the F-35 bug fixed & fully operational. This is evidenced by the fact they just milked another half a billion dollars from taxpayers due to "unexpected" cost overruns. Yet you keep saying the cost per unit will be coming down even as the price keeps going up.

By the way, if Silent Eagle's sales record has been zero, the F-35's sales record (taken from a baseline of initial proposed orders) has been less than zero. Countries that signed up for the F-35 have either reduced or are trying to cancel their purchase despite threats of economic punishment from you-know-who for jumping ship on the program.

Unless they've made the "pitch" to you personally (which I doubt), you are grossly mistaken. Again, we can either listen to you, or listen to those that have actual expereince flying it.

Those flying it happen to be connected to those marketing it. So invariably, the story is always a rosy one. If there's one thing that has saved the F-35 from cancellation, its the marketing job LM has done. I'm beginning to wonder if they pay guys to troll message boards attacking anyone suggesting the F-35 is a lemon, or recommending proven combat-worthy aircraft at far better bang-for-the-buck.

The other marketing job going on is deploying aircraft to Israel and Japan. Its all fake PR because everyone knows that no air force can legally induct a crippled plane and send it to a potential warzone thereby endangering the lives of pilots. But the lobbying power of LM being such, just about any crap can be offloaded on anyone.

The Growler is a completely different aircraft that happens to share the F-18 as it's platform.

The whole point of funding the Silent Eagle/Super Hornet would have been to integrate Boeing's proven product line into the fighter for a fraction of what the F-35 costs. The development risk is of course much lower when starting from a baseline of something that's already proven and building on it.

And now back to your daily scheduled LM's F-35 commercial in 3...2...1...

[brar_w]

The only reason there have been zero takers for the Silent Eagle is because US has not purchased it.

No one is buying it including the USAF which has absolutely no requirements for another 4th generation type in its Air-Force. The silent eagle fits no capability requirement in the CAF. For fourth generation capability they have 400+ F-15C's and E's that they are upgrading. For 5th generation they have F-22A, and F-35A. The Silent Eagle as things stand could not meet either the ATF program requirements, or those of the JSF.

The only reason US has not purchased it is because its being strung along by LM with the F-35.

Another one of your absurd and totally unsubstantiated claims. As usual.

The R&D dollars that should have gone into the Silent Eagle or Super Hornet would have produced a far greater bang for the buck than what's gone down the F-35 rat hole.

Yes, and we should all trust you on this.

Keep in mind we are comparing the Super Hornet/Silent Eagle with minimal taxpayer funding against a massive F-35 taxpayer funded boon doggle.

The F-35 APUC is highly competitive and the $390 Billion gets you nearly 2500 aircraft. When Nation's around the world are spending well over $100 Million dollars in acquiring advanced 4th generation aircraft, the F-35A's APUC looks highly attractive given the capability it gets you. One doesn't need to read a forum to see that, folks here are perfectly smart to go to the F-35 SAR and look at the APUC and PAUC numbers, and compare them to other aircraft.

I woud suggest you have a look at how much the French paid for their sub 200 Rafale fleet, how much the British paid for their Typhoons and how much the IAF is paying for 36 Rafales.

That a comparison between these two sides can even be contemplated after all that money has been poured into the F-35's development is itself astonishing.

That a comparison is useless . The USAF created a set of requirements and the Super Hornet cannot meet those. Using your argument , it's astonishing that the US Navy has spent so much money on the F-18 that we can't even contemplate a comparison with the A-4. Boeing must have put a spell on them.

LM cannot even predict how much more govt money it will need to dredge up to get the F-35 bug fixed & fully operational.

It's not for LM to predict. Cost estimates are provided by the JPO. They gave the Congress a range of cost (an objective and threshold) at the time of re-baselining and intend on completing that program within that range. It's more than the objective but less than the threshold.

This is evidenced by the fact they just milked another half a billion dollars from taxpayers due to "unexpected" cost overruns. Yet you keep saying the cost per unit will be coming down even as the price keeps going up.

I'm not saying this the US Government is saying this. The Unit Cost of the aircraft is going down, official government contracts prove this. I've provided the official chart (USG) that shows the URF trend line broken down by variant.

In addition to the official chart I have shared multiple times here, here is another article giving you the exact break up of the cost of the 3 variants in LRIP-9. LRIP-10 is up next (What LMA and Trump are talking about) and it will reduce the price further and as is the case, once the agreement is signed a breakup of the variant cost would be provided -

42 F-35As (26 US, 16 foreign), the vanilla variant used by the Air Force and most foreign partners, at $102.1 million apiece — 5.5 percent less than the previous lot, LRIP 8, and 60 percent below the first fighters bought under LRIP 1.
13 F-35Bs (6 US, 7 foreign), the “jump jet” variant used by the Marine Corps and the Royal Navy, the most technologically challenging model, at $131.6 million apiece — 1.8 percent below LRIP 8.
2 F-35Cs (both US), the US Navy variant reinforced for tooth-rattling aircraft carrier takeoffs and landings, at $132.2 million apiece — a 2.5 increase over LRIP 8, but that’s because the Navy slashed its buy in half (from 4 planes to 2), losing economies of scale.

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/12/33483/

It's at $102 Million per aircraft now (URF - A variant). The higher cost you point to is the SDD program cost i.e. the cost of development. Remember development is not as large as procurement which is not as large as sustainment. As I had mentioned, upon re-baseline they gave a range between $13 and $15 Billion it would take to finish SDD and re-baseline the program.

They are now pegging the cost at $13.5 Billion or approximately $500 Million more than the lowest figure. This includes the $200 Million they took out of the program before baseline (that comes back), the cost to finish testing, and the extra cost to provide the OT&E with 24 fully kitted block 3F aircraft.

This has nothing to do with the cost the jets are coming out of the production line which is indeed going down. When you are building at a rate of 90 aircraft a year, a cost saving of 5 Million per unit saves you $450 Million compared to a year earlier. That's where the "cost is coming down" comes in. It doesn't take a Finance guru to understand that the overwhelming cost over the next 10 years on the program is procurement and not development. The SDD phase has all but PB18 budget cycle to go. After that it's FOD and procurement.

Those flying it happen to be connected to those marketing it.

I'm not talking about LM test pilots, or company pilots. I'm talking about airmen and maintainers that fly these things operationally, those whose profession it is to take this out and assess it, take it out to large force exercises and utilize it over the range infrastructure that exercises like Red Flag, Northern Edge etc provide. The USAF has not yet outsources either requirements, or judgement on it's capability or that of its hardware to aviation forums and those that cite popular mechanics as a definitive source.

That's what the US has always used as a benchmark to judge its aircraft. That is the exact way the Super Hornet's performance has been measured against a high end threat, by the Navy pilots flying it.

Again, these folks are subject matter experts or professionals or both. Why should everyone here believe you, who has gotten even the most basic stuff wrong? The last few pages are full of unsubstantiated claims including some that are quite easy to disprove. When others have pointed this out to you, you've simply ignored that or gone one to other stuff. If someone points out this out, they automatically become LM marketing/commercial agents and paid trolls. Folks here can judge for themselves.

I'm beginning to wonder if they pay guys to troll message boards attacking anyone suggesting the F-35 is a lemon, or recommending proven combat-worthy aircraft at far better bang-for-the-buck.

I'll let other's judge whether I'm a paid troll and I guess you must provide evidence to back up your slander.

Is it my fault that your argument is at times so flawed that it's pretty simple to debunk even if one had nothing else but google?

I'm all for proven bang for the buck aircraft. The P-51 is one such aircraft. Much more proven than the F-18 or F-16...I wonder why they ever bothered developing the F-18 or F-16 honestly. They had so many proven aircraft and they should have never considered it.

he whole point of funding the Silent Eagle/Super Hornet would have been to integrate Boeing's proven product line into the fighter for a fraction of what the F-35 costs. The development risk is of course much lower when starting from a baseline of something that's already proven and building on it.

I wonder why Boeing did not pitch an advanced eagle for the ATF. Oh yeah, McD tried multiple iterations of the F-15, it got rejected and they went into a clean sheet design.

I also wonder why Boeing went to the Air Force and the navy and said screw you and your requirements.We have this great F-18..we will enter this on the JSF. I'm sure Boeing is lining up an F-18 and F-15 variant for the USAF and USN's F-X and FA-XX requirement. After all, why the heck would they not since it's proven and that's all that counts. Physical requirements be damned.

At least we can safely set aside the Hypersonic cruising Watson. It's completely useless boondoggle in waiting when proven F-16 and F-15 are available for indefinite production.
_____


Look,

Most here are informed enough to realize the difference between the F-22 , F-35, and the F-18, F-15 and F-16 or a Su-30 vs a PAKFA or LCA vs AMCA etc etc.

You don't need to compete an F-35A with an F-16 or F-18 to tell what difference in capability it provides. The entire reason why the JSF exists in the first place is because the operators (professionals who's job it is to assess the threat and chart capability requirements for future systems) have determined that their legacy fleet is insufficient in combating the threats and have therefore crafted a set of requirements that reflect what they desire in a legacy fleet replacement.

Heck, the F-16 or F-18 (any variant) can't even meet some of the most basic performance requirements (range/payload, survivability for starters) specified in the KPP for the JSF so the entire argument is absurd.

Come back when the F-16 or F-18 can give me a 600+ nautical mile combat radius with signature preserved carrying a 5000 pound payload, and an internal self-protection and targeting suite. Once Boeing or Lockheed (F-16) deliver that, we can talk about competing these aircraft.

Oh yeah, as a bonus have both go supersonic in that profile because one of the aircraft (F-35A) does.

If you wan't to get serious, quit reading popular mechanics and actually spend time reading the requirements, the SAR, and see what the USAF and USN (forget the USMC for now) demanded in a future fighter that replaced the F-16C and F/A-18 C/D, why they demanded what they demanded and what forced them to a different force structure from the one the legacy force operated in..

I deliberately keep the USMC out because if I factor them in it's lights out for both of the legacy fighters.

[NRao]

CV-22 night flight.

[brar_w]

The other marketing job going on is deploying aircraft to Israel and Japan. Its all fake PR because everyone knows that no air force can legally induct a crippled plane and send it to a potential warzone thereby endangering the lives of pilots. But the lobbying power of LM being such, just about any crap can be offloaded on anyone.

The Israelis didn't even bother spending a few months at Luke (flying). The got deliveries of their 2 F-35I's and, put their instructor pilots right in there after having only flown the simulator through an accelerated course at Luke. That's the level of confidence they have that their first 2 sorties were the very next day,. Less than 12 hours after these aircraft landed at Nevatim air base, they were up in the air, flown by IDF pilots alongside their F-16 SUFA's.

You also completely forgot the Italian Air Force, that flew their first Luke trained pilots (now returned) their first operational F-35A produced locally in Cameri Italy. They actually beat the IDF by a few hours in being the first JSF operator with front line squadron aircraft outside of CONUS.

Italy has become the first country to operate the F-35 outside of the U.S.

But then, it's not like Israeli or the Italian air-force is comprising of professional airmen. They must be rank amateurs without internet connection hence deprived of all this wisdom from you.

Same with the USMC Aviation. They've taken the aircraft to every major large-force exercise in 2016 where the Corps participates (having declared IOC in 2015) including Red Flag. They've taken most of their first squadron out to the boat and have followed a structured path to competency development before flying out to replace the Harrier squadron with the 3 MAW. They've set a clear example of a crawl--walk---run approach leading up to their deployment (which is permanent btw) to Iwakuni.

The Navy seems to be taking a similar appraoch. Their first squadron that will be declaring IOC late next year has barely been formed but they've come out with a list of things and events that this squadron will participate in before deploying to the large deck carrier.

If I were to guess, I'd guess that these are professional airmen and women, who's job it is to operationalize a weapons system, learn it, develop tactics, get comfortable and put it to use. My guess is that they simply don't have the time to visit popular mechanics or read internet chat forums to get a real idea of where things stand as opposed to being in the program, and part of the operationalization of these aircraft.

They clearly need to step back, take a break from flying or training to fly these birds and hit the internet HARD.

But then again, what the heck do they know about combat aircraft? It's not like they come up with some pie in the sky requirements for hypersonic-cruise and lasers.

On to the USAF, they've also now participated (first squadron) in one operational assessment, and at least one large force exercise. They are going to the their first Red Flag in the next few days, and then will be ready to deploy to EUCOM as a security package. Again, a craw-walk-run approach that has seen them become comfortable with the transition to a new type, learn it, take it out in large force exercises and then, once the competency is developed put it to use as part of a deployment.

You'll see the same pattern with the 2nd USMC squadron, that will participate in Northern Edge before going to the Middle East, and becoming the first F35B USMC squadron to deploy to a COCOM from an L-Class vessel. This will also happen in 2017 BTW.

I'm sure the IDF, USAF and the USMC would benefit greatly from a mind that wants to cancel the JSF on account of cost, and then go fund a hypersonic cruising, laser firing Watson!!

With Chameleon skin no less.

In all seriousness, I would recommend you read up on how the first squadrons of F-16's and F-15's transitioned into operational use. It requires some digging up of stuff from decades ago, but It will help you put things in context.

This isn't a PR stunt where they declare IOC (After each service boss (ACC head for USAF, Marine commander for USMC, signing off on the assessment) and then deploy to a bunch of places in a hurry.

The Marine have done this nearly 18 months after declaring IOC and only after spending a lot of time on their aircraft training alongside the entire range of US aircraft at some pretty high quality training ranges. The've qualified each and every pilot in the squadron for the boat, and deployed alongside the ITT to get a hang of this before actually doing it so before doing it in an operational setting. There are a lot of very smart people who make sure that a competency is built up before you move over and replace an operational unit with yours.

They have not yet outsourced this process to the internet chair-force especially to those folks that want a hypersonic cruising, laser firing, self-healing watson with chameleon skin, and considers anything else as 4th generation.

Lt. Col. Bardo described the path to get to where the squadron was right now as it prepared for its Japanese deployment.

The period since declaring IOC has been a busy and challenging one as the squadron pushed out the boundaries of the operational capabilities of the aircraft and worked with MAGTF to integrate the airplane into the CAS role as well as working with the USAF on the air to air missions as well.

It has been a busy period for Bardo and his squadron but certainly historic as well.

Throughout the squadron has found the core capabilities of the aircraft to be a solid foundation for shaping the way ahead.

As Lt. Col Bardo described the F-35:

“For the pilot, the ability to shift among missions without having to think sequentially about doing so is really a key strength of the aircraft.

The airplane can think CAS and air-to-air at the same time and the pilot can then mix and match as the mission demands rather than having to think through the sequence of going from one mission set to the next.”

In broad terms, Lt. Col. Bardo described the progress of the squadron going from its time at 29 Palms working CAS, to working closely with MAWTS-1 on shaping the tactics for the use of the aircraft in support of the MAGTF, to its participation in Red Flag this summer as the F-35 component of the air operations being exercised at Red Flag.

In total, these experiences have been crucial in preparing the squadron for its deployment to Japan.

With regard to 29 Palms, the support to the ground combat element was the focus of attention in Steel Knight 2016, which included operating from Red Beach, an austere combat training facility where the presence of FOD or ground debris is a challenge.....

Then this summer, the squadron sent planes to Red Flag and flew in a US-only exercise with the full panoply of USN and USAF aircraft, excluding the F-15s.

There the USMC flew its jets and were part of reshaping of air to air operations associated with the F-35.

Lt. Col. Bardo noted that there were many F-16 National Guard pilots who were there, some of which had flown with the F-22 but had not flown with the F-35.

Read More - THE GREEN KNIGHTS ON THE WAY TO JAPAN: A DISCUSSION WITH LT. COL. BARDO, CO, VMFA-121

___

[NRao]

Looks like we are on a YouTube Bing.




And an interesting topic of radars.

[brar_w]

Rao saab the second video of yours is very important. It basically shows why an all aspect LO design with heavy emphasis of deigning it from the inside out is necessary. You need a significant RCS reduction to achieve a meaningful reduction in radar detection range simply given the physics behind it. Just geting rid of fuel tanks, porting a CFT and carrying a heavy centerline pod for small weapons does not equate you to an all aspect stealth design like the RFP's in the ATF and JSF specified.

Small RCS improving measures or new RAM cpating on an F-16, F-18 or F-15 though do help do not give you the tactical advantage you are seeking from clean sheet 5th generation designs. There is a reason that these projects required a bay, required an all aspect stealth design with specified RCS and internal payloads. They did not want A Boeing, Northrop, Grumman, Lockheed or General Dynamics to show up with fourth generation designs with modified weapon pods. They tried that route in the AOA even back in the ATF program..it did not cut it.

In fact the most amusing thing about Boeing's implementation of the centerline weapons pod on the Advanced Hornet is its size and capacity no doubt constraint by performance and RCS. If one went back and read about the back and forth (Stephen Trimble of Flight Global wrote about it while he was Jane's IHS and on Flight Global) between the Navy and the USAF on the JSF bay size, one would find that the Navy was adamant that it must be able to carry a pair of 2000 pound bombs or they would not join the program. The Advanced Hornet cannot accommodate 2 of those weapons internally and max's out at just ONE BLU-109 or - 1000 lb JDAM. In fact the largest bomb it can carry alongside internal AMRAAM is the 500 lb SDB and it is also the largest it can carry multiple of.

Serious payload flexibility?



Meanwhile the USN and USAFs F-35C and F-35A, can carry 2 x 2000 lb bomb PLUS 2 AMRAAM's, or 8 x SDB's PLUS 2 AMRAAMs, or 2 x AARGM-ER's PLUS 2 x AMRAAM's, or 4 AMRAAM's (block 3) or 6 AMRAAM's (Block 4/5) - ALL Internally.

The range/payload chart on the Advanced Hornet Brochure is quite revealing. You need a centerline-tank and external stores if you wan't anything to between 600-700 nautical miles even with a 1000 lb or sub 1000lb bomb capacity.

Here's the F-35 A and C chart -

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-bQ6mjoe4hyU/U ... a+2012.bmp

Good luck to those dreaming about a modified internal pod carrying Hornet to come anywhere close to that.

The only thing worth investing in that's come out of the Advanced Hornet Boeing study has been this configuration -



Expect the USN to adopt it. The rest makes no sense minus simply adding CFT's.

[TSJones]

ok, I like the radar video, very informative.

just one teensy point.

you turn on the radar is like turning on a neon sign, so to speak.

"eat at joe's" blinka blinka blink........

my point?

discretion can be the better part of valor at times........

[NRao]

ok, I like the radar video, very informative.

just one teensy point.

you turn on the radar is like turning on a neon sign, so to speak.

"eat at joe's" blinka blinka blink........

my point?

discretion can be the better part of valor at times........

For that you need to see the first video.


@brar:

Stealth ->LO-> spectral suppression. SS is really what it is.

Just that in a clean sheet they start of by identifying which part of the spectrum they will suppress (via the design) and then add-on other things (RAM, etc) as they deem fit, to suppress the remaining (as far as possible).

In trying to provide a 4th Gen as a solution, the design itself is incapable of providing any solutions for suppression and add-ons cannot provide the complete solutions that the designed-for 5th gen one does. However, if the aim is to plain-and-simple reduce RCS - for the 4th Gen - then yes, paint it, etc and reduce the RCS. But it is no replacement for a clean sheet 5th gen. Just cannot. No comparison.

I read - some years ago - that modifications to a 5th Gen meant recalculating the planeform and then making it fly and then accommodating the rest - plumbing, etc, etc, etc. Seems about right. A "stealth" plane is a mathematical formulation that is made to fly - much like FBW is a brick made to fly.




Besides that - something I said a few years ago and the CAS says in the first vid - "situational awareness" and the ability to "quarterback" - in *addition* to "stealth" is what makes the F-35 so lethal.

I just see no point in providing "stealth" and have no awareness and even worse inability to communicate that to others.

[JayS]

I read - some years ago - that modifications to a 5th Gen meant recalculating the planeform and then making it fly and then accommodating the rest - plumbing, etc, etc, etc. Seems about right. A "stealth" plane is a mathematical formulation that is made to fly - much like FBW is a brick made to fly.
.

Precisely. One needs to solve Aerodynamics and EM field equations in coupled manner to come up with a geometry which is good in both aero and RCS reduction. In 50's when the concept of stealth was proven with maths by the Russian mathematician, Russian Aero guys laughed at him. Because there was no way they could have made the shape fly in those days. US did it in 80s because they had OKish computers to handle the coupled mathematics of Aero + RCS, but only with a limited number of flat surfaces and that too only with FBW they could fly it. But for F22 in 90s or F35 in 2000s they could generate organic 3D surfaces due to much better computational power at hand. It may not look like its tailored for reduced RCS, but it is and its not just the angles of wing/tail surfaces but the entire surface as a whole.

[Rakesh]

of all the CFTs I have seen on fighters, only the Rhino/Growler ones look seamless....like they have always been there. So beautiful.

brar, how is the NGJ compared to the F-35? Does the latter have a dedicated Growler version?

[brar_w]

There is no stand off or escort AEA requirement from the F-35. The Growler and the EC130 cover that mission set for the joint US forces.

The USN will replace the Growler in the late 2030s with the FA-XX fighter Just like the SH.

[Rakesh]

brar, can the F-35 do what the Growler does?

[brar_w]

brar, can the F-35 do what the Growler does?

SEAD/DEAD Yes. That's a mission. Not the other stuff and not as good from stand off as the Growler. The F-35 is a penetrating platform while the Growler is a stand off jamming aircraft. Different missions.

While the USN will integrate the AARGM ER on the F35 the network they have built up will likely see them use the F35 as penetrating EW aircraft that feeds targeting to the Growlers standing off. That's a more efficient way of going about it.

[Prem]

Thai Gripen jet crashes during airshow in Thailand
https://theaviationist.com/?p=40989

[Viv S]

brar, how is the NGJ compared to the F-35? Does the latter have a dedicated Growler version?

Just to add to what Brar said, the USAF operates one squadron of Growlers but otherwise will depend on the Navy for standoff jamming. The USMC had a plan to integrate the NGJ to their F-35s (they haven't invested in any Growlers to replace their retiring Prowlers), but the concept appears to have been shelved. For now at least.

The interesting factor here is Israeli Air Force which is integrating a jamming pod to the F-35I.

Israeli cabinet approves additional F-35 purchase

The Israeli cabinet approved the purchase of 17 additional Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II jets during a meeting on Sunday evening.

The decision to purchase the additional jets will increase the number of ordered F-35s to a total of 50.

Israel is due to receive a specially modified F-35A designated as the F-35I. The jet will feature unique Israeli characteristics such as electronic warfare systems, sensors and countermeasures and a main computer that will have a plug-and-play feature to allow add-on Israeli electronics to be used.

The F-35I will also feature an external jamming pod, and new Israeli air-to-air missiles and guided bombs in the internal weapon bays.

Since, the F-35 can already carry out self-protection jamming via the APG-81, this is most likely a reference to a stand-off/escort jammer pod giving it Growler-type capability.

[Neshant]

That pod ends up being carried externally on the F-35 - which then defeats the whole purpose of spending tons of money to build an all-stealth aircraft.

And that's on an aircraft that already has poor maneuverability.

If you look at what is the most successful contemporary combat aircraft in the world today, it is undoubtedly the Russian Su-30MKI (and derivatives).

The Russians got the mix right.

The Su-3X provides the right mix of cost, agility, range, size, weapon load, weapon variety (not restricted by internal weapon bay size), upgrade-ability and is multi-role. Its a plane that can be built in large numbers without breaking the bank.

Somewhere along the line, the need to deliver such planes went out the window in the US and expensive marketing agents, lobbyists and shills got involved. At this point even LM realizes its gaming the taxpayer and is desperate to deliver these planes as fast as possible (working or not) and send in the bill. That's the real reason behind the rush to get these planes out the factory door.

If LM had got Hillary in power, we would not be seeing any attempt to check this price gouging. Being largely ignorant of price gouging, she'd do as LM lobbyists & marketing shills advise and keep signing those checks.

Lockheed Martin to Reduce Price of F-35 Fighter Jet in New Contract

Estimates of the ninth order for the F-35s indicated that the F-35A ran $102 million apiece, while the F-35B and F-35C planes cost taxpayers about $132 million per plane. A Government Accountability Office report from March 2016, however, calculated the cost for the Pentagon’s jets to come out around $160 million per unit. (...and rising. it will easily cross 200 mil if and when the hundreds of waivers on its many problems have to get fixed.)

Trump said during a press conference at the Trump Tower on Wednesday that Lockheed’s F-35 is "way, way behind schedule and many, many billions of dollars over budget. I don’t like that." While the ninth order resulted in a $6.1 billion bill for 57 planes, the tenth installment is valued at near $7.19 billion, Bloomberg reported. The Pentagon made a $1.28 billion advance payment in November 2016 to maintain production. F-35 manufacturing facilities in Fort Worth, Texas, are a central component that city’s economy, the Texas Tribune notes. The US Marine Corps recently activated the first operational international platoon of 10 F-35Bs, to be stationed in Iwakuni, Japan. After years of development and research, along with billions poured into the fifth-generation Joint Strike Fighter program, the jet continues to suffer from fires before takeoff and sometimes mid-flight.

[ldev]

And while Mr. Bezos plays Presidential politics via his Washington Post, Mr. Musk with single minded concentration does it again!!

[NRao]

That pod ends up being carried externally on the F-35 - which then defeats the whole purpose of spending tons of money to build an all-stealth aircraft.

THAT is the Israeli AF. I think they are the only ones that has leeway to do as they please with the F-35? They paid an extra $500 million for the custom design of something (cannot recall what).

Their challenges have been and are very diff. This is the same AF that placed Uganda on the map, made rubble out of a nuclear plant in Iraq and then repeated it in Syria (please check out what were the defensive instruments that the Syrians had then). Guess what has been moved into the 'hood. The F-35 makes a great pair for the S-400 - a perfect pair.

None of us are better than the AFs that deploy these pups.

Not even Sputnik.

So, what do we have here from them?

Estimates of the ninth order for the F-35s indicated that the F-35A ran $102 million apiece, while the F-35B and F-35C planes cost taxpayers about $132 million per plane. A Government Accountability Office report from March 2016, however, calculated the cost for the Pentagon’s jets to come out around $160 million per unit. (...and rising. it will easily cross 200 mil if and when the hundreds of waivers on its many problems have to get fixed.)

Here is the GAO, March, 2016. Send it to Sputnik and let them figure out "$160 million" . F-35 is on page 163.

The Su-3X provides the right mix of cost, agility, range, size, weapon load, weapon variety (not restricted by internal weapon bay size), upgrade-ability and is multi-role. Its a plane that can be built in large numbers without breaking the bank.

Hmmmm........

Reason why China, after they got 4 Su-35s, said that that would be the last imports {THAT from Sputnik BTW}!!!!!!!! Eh? A plane that Russia declined to export for a full 2 years and then decided to make some money when they could.

And, then turn around and ask India to send $4 billion for ............. a 5th Gen stealth plane? Boondoggle? Is that the word?

[Viv S]

If you look at what is the most successful contemporary combat aircraft in the world today, it is undoubtedly the Russian Su-30MKI (and derivatives).

The Russians got the mix right.

The Su-3X provides the right mix of cost, agility, range, size, weapon load, weapon variety (not restricted by internal weapon bay size), upgrade-ability and is multi-role. Its a plane that can be built in large numbers without breaking the bank.

The Su-30MK is simply another modification of the Su-27, a not-very-high-performing Russian imitation of our F-15 that had its prototype flight in 1977. The new version is significantly heavier and has poorer dogfight acceleration and turn than the original, mainly because of all the weighty and draggy gadgetry added to allow these spectacular maneuvers.

The more of these turkeys the Russkies sell, the longer the now-ancient F-16 (designed in 1972) will reign supreme as the world’s best fighter.
- Pierre Sprey

[Viv S]

Lockheed Martin to Reduce Price of F-35 Fighter Jet in New Contract

Source/link is missing in violation of BRF rules. Usually means its a Sputnik piece being passed off as news.

[Rakesh]

Neshant: as much as possible, please do not post entire articles from links. Title and link is sufficient. Copyright laws are fairly stringent now. If you want to make a point, quote a portion of the article. But nothing more.

[NRao]

https://sputniknews.com/us/201701131049 ... uce-price/

[NRao]

US Marine F-35s to be 'cornerstone' in Japan, Pacific defense

The Marines are touting the F-35B's versatility, calling it "a true force multiplier."

"The unique combination of stealth, cutting-edge radar and sensor technology, and electronic warfare systems bring all of the access and lethality capabilities of a fifth-generation fighter, a modern bomber, and an adverse-weather, all-threat environment air support platform," a Marine statement said.

[brar_w]

One has to ask why anyone would ever wan't a high power pod on an F-35A, B or C. These pods aren't there for self protection they are there to provide protection to an escort. NGJ is pretty much the only high power stand off jammer pod for a tactical fighter that has the sort of wideband coverage and power to be a stand off effector against a digital threat. Even the ALQ-99's and a couple of other RAM powered pods struggle to get that because they aren't designed around the flexibility of Increment-1, and 2 NGJ.


I've previously mentioned the ALQ-99 bands..They cover practically the entire spectrum including he low frequency emitters both radar and communication/data links.

The Israelis do not have the number of platforms the US forces have so they surely will make use of an escort or stand off attack version of the F-35. The US uses the Growler which is a Navy platform but that has USAF and USMC pilots rotate through the community.

The tactical fast jet AEA mission for the entire US forces is the mandate of the VAQ community so there is no question of USAF buying into Growlers or creating an F-35 version of the Growler. If more AEA is required the Navy will be funded to expand its Growler squadrons since they are the AEA provides to the COCOMS much like the USN won't be asked to maintain the attack RPA fleet if more footprint is required, that is where the USAF will be asked to increase there enterprise.

The USMC looked at the NGJ but deferred it because the Increment-2 covers the frequency they are interested in for comms jamming .for the F-35 but I doubt this will happen because A) they do not perform the entire spectrum of the AEA mission and B ) there are working RPA based AEA solutions that provide the sort of coverage they need.

The VAQ have brand new Growlers, and they are still looking to buy more. The USAF will re-host the EC-130 equipment and jammers on the G550 and will have higher availability and capability since the platform can fly longer, higher and faster (plus more access to power).

You would not need to replace the Growler until the mid to late 2030's and it's quite likely that the replacement would be a version of the FA-XX that replaces the Super Hornet.

___

Regarding perfect size for a fighter. There isn't one. You design a fighter, and size it as per your threat, range/payload requirement, around an operational construct and your budget.

Lockheed Martin to Reduce Price of F-35 Fighter Jet in New Contract

Source/link is missing in violation of BRF rules. Usually means its a Sputnik piece being passed off as news.

Yes it's always sputnik. He tries to sneak one in every now and then. I don't understand what the fuss is all about. There are official numbers released by the JPO and the USG for LRIP-9 and we have them for LRIP-8 and will get them for LRIP-10 as well shortly. As long as you are looking at URF the cost is $102.1 Million for LRIP-9, F-35A. One error that some amateur analysts make is to divide the total contract amount with the # which throws off the calculations because there are three variants with 2 of the three being around 25% more expensive than the F-35A.

[NRao]

Lockheed Martin delivers 200th F-35 fighter

Jan 12, 2017:

Under the official programme-of-record,
Australia has a requirement for 100 F-35As;
Canada for 65 F-35As (subject to a relaunched procurement process);
Denmark for 30 F-35As;
Israel for 33 F-35As;
Italy for 60 F-35As and 30 F-35Bs;
Japan for 42 F-35As;
the Netherlands for 37 F-35As;
Norway for 52 F-35As;
the Republic of Korea for 40 FMS F-35As;
Turkey for 100 F-35As;
the United Kingdom for 138 F-35Bs;
the US Air Force (USAF) for 1,763 F-35As;
the US Marine Corps for 353 F-35Bs and 67 F-35Cs; and
the US Navy for 260 F-35Cs.

[brar_w]

Rao saab this was posted earlier on the last page.

[Neshant]

Here is the GAO, March, 2016. Send it to Sputnik and let them figure out "$160 million" . F-35 is on page 163.

Did you read the report or just blindly post it.

Just about everything on the F-35 has an increase to it vis-a-vis earlier budgetary projections.

Research and development cost - up 50.4%
Procurement cost - up 47.1%
Total program cost - up 48.3%
Program unit cost - up a staggering 73% !!!!

Even the report is projecting the program unit cost at 138.4 million as of 2014.

Now back in 2011, the independent assessment put it at between 139 to 160 million - and that was before an avalanche of problems on the F-35 became known. In the past few months alone, another 500 million addition boon doggling and engine fire fiasco occurred never mind the increases from 2014 to 2016. So how could the unit price possibly be going DOWN since then? It could only have gone up. More over with foreign customers cutting their orders and some looking to jump ship, it almost certainly will be higher.

Once all the hundreds of NCRs are waivers for this plane are fixed (if they even can be fixed), this plane is going to cost north of 200 mil.
Then it will go to 300 mil once it becomes apparent that the US will only buy less than half of that 2500 number prior to ending this program.

[brar_w]

The APUC and PAUC were provided to you many pages back. Is it really this hard?? Here is the data again comparing APUC and PAUC of the F-22, F-35 and F-18E/F programs. There is a difference in the base year $$ but if anything that would work against the F-35 so I did not bother going through the DOD's inflation indices to bring them all to 2016 dollars.

This was provided a few pages back in my post HERE. The sources for all three is the SAR which is a congressionally mandated document and the GOLD standard when it comes to unit cost information on all ACAT-1 programs. This is the document the POTUS submits for each program during the time of the budget submission based on which money is appropriated. The FY17 SAR will be part of Trump's budget request for FY18 and I'll post it here around March-April when it inadvertently gets leaked out via Politico-Pro, Bloomberg, or Inside Defense.



This for the F-35A, source the FY16 SAR and cost in $FY12$

PAUC covers absolutely everything i.e. the cost to develop, test, certify, and procure the aircraft divided by the number of aircraft on record. APUC is the cost of acquisition of the aircraft and its systems over it's life. Essentially procurement cost as a stand alone (from the PAUC). The relationship between APUC and PAUC was shown here by me using a formula. If still confused use google.

URF is the fly-away cost of the aircraft for a particular production lot i.e. how much does it cost to get an aircraft delivered to you in a given year looking at it's cost of production. As per acquisition rules APUC and PAUC are always for the entire program while URF are for a given lot. As has been pointed out via multiple sources citing USG, the URF for LRIP-9 (aircraft being delivered starting new month) F-35 A is $102.1 Million and for the F-35B and C it's $132 Million.

Now go look at how much it costs Dassault to deliver a full up Rafale from it's production line..or the Typhoon for that matter.



There are three costs here as has been described to you earlier - URF, APUC and PAUC. All three record different cost and have different use in determining overall cost. As I have asked you to look into, go see the URF or APUC of the Rafale, Typhoon or the Gripen-E and look at what developers and customers around the world are paying for those.

Once all the hundreds of NCRs are waivers for this plane are fixed (if they even can be fixed), this plane is going to cost north of 200 mil.

If you ever decide to use the search feature here you'll find the total concurrency cost and the arrangement the program has with LMA and P&W since LRIP-5 in terms of who covers what cost for discoveries.

Now back in 2011, the independent assessment put it at between 139 to 160 million - and that was before an avalanche of problems on the F-35 became known. In the past few months alone, another 500 million addition boon doggling and engine fire fiasco occurred never mind the increases from 2014 to 2016. So how could the unit price possibly be going DOWN since then? I

Again the difference is the PAUC, APUC and URF. PAUC is a function of development cost, procurement cost - APUC. APUC is an estimate i.e. the independent cost estimation done looks at 10 years down the road for example and estimates what an F-35 would cost then. It then gives you the average cost of buying all the aircraft. So it takes the acquisition cost and divides it by total numbers built. It uses the current year URF and historical URF cost to come to that conclusion. Essentially, the more you produce the better your estimates get (Common sense). Trying to figure out the cost of the 500th aircraft when only 5 have been produced is bound to trip you up..but trying to figure out the cost of the 500th when 150 have been delivered is much easier.

So the PAUC has a lot of assumptions even though it get's more and more accurate as the production matures. APUC is the same since it is a subset of the PAUC. What is CERTAIN is the URF for any given year. Since you make payments for a lot you know with 100% certainty what you just spent on a particular batch once it's delivered. The URF of the program has been comping down as has been shown here a few times already.

The first F-35A rolled out at > $200 Million a piece, with the fixed priced contract negotiated in LRIP-9 (unilateral contract) will mean that LMA and P&W will get $102.1 for each F-35A that rolls out in 2017. Similarly for each F-35B that number is $132 Million. This is 5.5% lower than the URF for the 8th lot which is the lot being delivered at the moment. The URF price drop is important because that is the payment you make. >90% of the development cost has been spent already..you aren't getting it back..you've developed that and are now working on the sub-block in the block 3F.

For the last time, I'm posting the URF trend for each variant, and an article that explains what the LRIP-9 gets and how it differs from LRIP-8 cost.



This was compiled by Aviation Week based on contract supplied data by the organization that negotiated on behalf of the US Government.

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/12/33483/

The $500 Million increase (it's actually still within a range since they did not predict a $ amount but gave a range of development funds required post re-baseline) in RDT&E expenditure impacts the PAUC in that you will take that $500 Million and divide it by 3000 aircraft (even the ones that you've bought already) since the PAUC calculations include international and FMS calculations as well. So yeah, the increase of $500 Million made each aircraft's PAUC higher by 100-150K or a tad more.

I'm not going to explain how concurrency is done, and what arrangement on it they have had since LRIP-5 (including all contracts post LRIP-5 being fixed price). I've spent a lot of time documenting that and explaining it in terms of what %age of the total PAUC and APUC is concurrency (Hint - Fairly insignificant) to do it all over again. We have a JSF thread and a pretty simple search feature - Use it!.

Then it will go to 300 mil once it becomes apparent that the US will only buy less than half of that 2500 number prior to ending this program.

If I'm buying an aircraft in LRIP-9 I'm writing a check of $102.1 Million for the A variant. What happens to total production does not magically make more money leave my pocked. It surely impacts PAUC but it does not make me spend more. Get it? It makes the denominator smaller and therefore increases the contribution of RDT&E to the overall PAUC but if I'm an acquisition officer I'll still get the same aircraft at the same price if I contract out with the vendor. What impacts URF is the production rate. LRIP-10 cost is likely to be around $95 Million or thereabouts..If you ramp up to full rate production the URF for the A is likely to be $85 Million. If you cut the production in 2030, instead of 2038 as is the current plan it won't affect your URF..This should not be very hard to understand. Cutting production impacts PAUC hence the huge GAP between the APUC and PAUC chart on the F-22. Higher volumes result in a smaller APUC and PAUC gap because your denominator is large enough to compensate for the additinoal develompent funds that go into PAUC over and above the PAUC.

Simply put

PAUC - [Development + Procurement ] / Total quantity -- OVER THE PROGRAM
APUC - Procurement (including non end item procurement) / Total Quantity --- OVER the PROGRAM
URF - Fly away cost of an aircraft for any given production lot.

PAUC is not paid at once. Lockheed will never see PAUC for a given aircraft paid to it when the physical aircraft is ordered. You spend development upfront i.e. pay the developers to develop the capability, pay your own testers to test and certify the capability and then acquire the capability and any support equipment. All these costs make up the PAUC. The part in blue is the APUC numerator.

PAUC is sensitive to overall quantity purchased. APUC is less sensitive to it but it still gets affected because you end up purchasing a lot of services to dispose of materials related to a program. URF is least affected by overall quantity..URF is extremely sensitive to production rates. If you produce at 30 it will be high, if you produce at 100 it will be low.

You do not start buying more aircraft only to keep PAUC low. That will be an extremely stupid way to look at this. If someone want's to take 500 F-35's out of the total POR and give it to say a UCAV they won't be deterred by an increase in PAUC. Most of what accounts for that increase would have already been spent years earlier. They would be sensitive to their budget and alternative capability.

Hence, the Pentagon, the services, and the Congress has been concentrating on URF and getting production rates up to make sure that the aircrafts are purchased at the lowest possible cost. This is the money you pay and allocate each year in your budget to buy aircraft. This is what is reflected in the chart provided now for the third time.

When the JPO and the AT&L boss negotiate they negotiate the production aircraft for a given lot and how much money they are going to be paying Lockheed and P&W for them.

[NRao]

Did you read the report or just blindly post it.
.

So the Sputnik article is wrong. That is all that needed to be verified. The rest has been in the public domain for nearly a year, nothing of surprise.

I am glad at least Sputnik did not bold and increase font size.

Thanks.